►
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
B
B
The
city
will
be
recording
and
posting
this
meeting
to
the
city's
website
and
youtube
channel
as
a
means
of
increasing
public
access
and
transparency.
This
meeting
is
public
and
subject
to
the
minnesota
open
meeting
law.
For
the
record,
my
name
is
jan
sandberg,
and
I
am
one
of
the
co-chairs
of
the
charter
commission's
rent
stabilization
work
group.
I
will
now
call
this
meeting
to
order
and
ask
the
clerk
to
please
call
the
role
so
that
we
may
verify
the
presence
of
a
quarrel.
C
D
B
A
D
C
B
B
E
B
A
D
B
F
F
F
Our
first
concern
is
with
the
first
ordinance,
which
is
the
initiative
ordinance
and
whether
that
is
something
that,
as
a
charter
commission,
whose
role
is
to
look
at
the
government
structure,
how
government
operates
whether
initiative
is
something
that
we
want
to
put
into
our
charter.
Even
in
this
small
detailed
area
alone,
with
the
materials
that
we've
gathered.
F
I
think
there's
some
significant
problems
with
with
initiative,
and
I
think
in
particular
in
this
area,
where
you're
trying
to
legislate
in
a
very
complex
area,
and
so
I
guess
my
feeling
is
that
putting
aside
some
of
the
legal
errors
that
have
been
addressed
by
ms
bushoon
in
the
first
ordinance,
the
initiative
ordinance
is
whether
this
charter
commission
feels
that
initiative
is
a
proper
method
to
put
in
this
charter
and
so
I'll.
Wait
on
that
aspect
until
we
get
the
next
part
of
my
discussion
until
we
get
to
the
referendum
portion
of
that.
B
E
I
I
was
just
gonna
say
on
the
initiative
component,
I'm
very
concerned
about
having
something
that
is
as
complicated
as
rent
control
or
rent
stabilization,
be
the
subject
of
the
ability
of
people
to
put
forth
an
ordinance
without
it
going
through
a
legislative
process,
and
all
that
goes
with
that
legislative
process
of
analysis
and
compromise
and
and
those
sorts
of
things.
So
I
I
feel
very
strongly
that
we
should
not
be
adding
to
our
the
structure
of
our
government
the
ability
to
have
initiative.
E
B
G
G
D
B
C
B
Thank
you
very
much.
I
just
wanted
to
add
that
I
I've
mentioned
this
before,
but
I
did
go
through
and
listen
to
the
city
council
meetings
that
discuss
the
submit
these
amendments,
as
well
as
the
public
hearings,
and
I
was
bothered
by
the
fact
that
there
is
no
discussion
about
the
initiative
component
at
the
city
level.
Perhaps
among
individual
council
members,
there
was,
but
it's
not
in
the
public
venue.
As
far
as
I
can
tell
yes,
I
understand
that
it
was
part
of
the
in
the
law.
They
do
mention
the
initiative.
Part.
B
B
E
D
B
We
can
certainly
mention
it
at
the
upcoming
meeting,
although
I
think
our
full
report
won't
be
submitted
until
july
item.
Six
on
the
agenda
is
a
considering
a
proposal
to
amend
the
charter,
article
four,
to
explicitly
add
the
city's
authority
to
exercise
conf
power
to
control
rents
on
private
residential
property
in
the
city,
and
we
do
have
some
amended
language
that
came
in
from
attorney
bashun
and
we've
also
had
discussion
at
our
last
meeting
about
some
of
commissioner
ginder's
thoughts,
given
that
he
actually
proposed
some
draft
language.
F
And
when
you
look
at
the
current
structure
of
what
was
sent
over
to
us,
their
first
part
of
the
first
may
clause
in
article
four
is
really
an
enabling
clause.
It's
not
a
control
clause
and
the
control
isn't
after
they
pass
an
amendment
if
they
do
so.
That
is
the
amendment
that
would
control
it.
This
amendment.
That
would
be
the
orders
that
would
control
it.
F
G
Yeah,
I
I
just
had
a
question
the
language,
the
well
the
proposed
language
for
article,
the
amendment
to
article
one
which
granted
we've
rejected
talks
only
about
rent
stabilization
and
the
proposed
language
for
article
4,
talks
about
rent
control
or
rent
stabilization
and
again,
having
been
fortunate
to
have
the
benefit
of
all
the
reading.
I
realized
that
there's
a
big
difference
and
I
wondered-
and
perhaps
you
know,
chair,
stan
sandberg
if
there
was
discussion
in
the
public
hearings
about
those
two
and
why
there's
both
rent
control
and
rent
stabilization
in
the
proposed
language.
B
I
do
not
recall
any
discussion
at
either
council
or
the
public
hearings,
differentiating
talking
about
stabilization
as
such
the
focus
in
most
of
the
discussions
and
they've
used
the
words
in
the
okay
go
back
in
the
in
the
public
meetings
of
the
city
council.
I
think
they
use
control
and
stabilization
somewhat
interchangeably,
yeah.
G
G
B
B
Okay,
okay,
good
point,
so
right
now
the
language
I
think
I'm
looking
at
commissioner
ginder's
proposal
that
it
should
be
in
your
packet
and
it's
very
similar.
I
mean
he
just
he
worked
off
of
city
attorney,
bushoon's
language
and
just
made
some
changes,
but
right
now
it
does
have
both
control
and
stabilization.
B
F
That
is
the
mayor's
veto.
I
mean
okay,
I
think
it's
important
it's
it's
implied,
but
it
may
be
an
unnecessary
clarification,
because
the
charter
requires
all
actions
to
be
approved
by
the
mayor,
but
in
this
case
you
might
want
to
just
have
the
additional
clarification
that
that's
also
required
here
in.
B
B
B
G
E
E
I
think
this
is
a
fairly
s
when
you're
voting
on
rent
stabilization
and-
and
I
think
I
I
would
also
so
when
you're
voting
on
rent
stabilization,
I
think
that's
going
to
be
affecting
a
good
amount
of
people.
It's
a
complex
issue
and
I
think
everybody
in
the
city
who
is
voting
should
be
weighing
in
on
that
issue.
So
those
are
the
reasons
why
I
think
we
should
have
it
be.
E
B
B
He
added
he
added
the
51.
The
original
language
was
more
than
half
the
votes
cast
on
the
ballot
yeah,
so
more
than
half
is
one
51
and
then
what
you're
suggesting
is
isn't
that
with
constitutional
amendments,
there's
enough
lawyers
here,
you
guys
will
be
able
to
answer
it.
I
think
that
commissioner
ginder
may
have
a
response
to
that,
and
also
commissioner
clay.
Okay.
Commissioner,
oh
I'm
sorry,
commissioner
perry.
Please.
E
E
I
have
grave
concerns
about
rent
control
and
I
know
I'm
supposed
to
substitute
the
or
separate
out
the
policy
from
the
the
charter
amendment.
But
I
think
there
are
real
issues
with
rent
control
and
I
don't
want
to
codify
that,
but
I
think
they're
again
from
the
reading
material
that
we
had
there's
a
significant
difference
between
rent
stabilization
and
rent
control
and
I
think
the
substitute
should
say,
rent
stabilization
alone.
B
F
F
I
chose
it
because,
although
most
of
the
referenda
or
initiative
requirements
that
you
see
in
city
charters
are
a
majority
of
those
voting
on
the
question,
I
thought
it
was
appropriate
that
for
our
forays
into
referenda,
that
we
have
a
higher
standard,
I
did
not
go
to
the
highest,
which
is
the
majority
of
all
those
voting,
because
I
think
it
it
ends
up
almost
becoming
too
high.
So
I'm
trying
to
do
as
we
so
often
call
it.
F
Splitting
the
baby
between
a
really
really
difficult
one,
and
the
more
generally
accepted
easier
standard
to
do
this,
because,
once
or
not
once,
but
if
rent
control
or
rinse
stabilization
were
to
come
in
it
need,
it
needs
to
be
difficult
to
change
on
a
routine
basis.
It
needs
something
that
has
to
be
thoroughly
vetted
and
thought
out
and
passed
by
a
real
majority
of
people
voting
on
the
question.
F
So
that
was
the
reason
behind
it
and
then
just
to
briefly
address
why
I
have
kept
both
rent
control
and
rent
stabilization
in
this
is
because
the
statute
doesn't
talk
about
rent
stabilization
at
all.
It
talks
about
rent
control,
and
I
think
that
is
because
most
people
most
people
would
view
rent
stabilization
as
a
subset
of
rent
control
in
some
fashion,
even
though
they're
different,
and
so
I
think,
it's
appropriate.
B
D
I
think
changing
the
standard
to
a
majority
of
those
who
are
voting
in
the
election.
A
lot
state
constitutional
amendments
is
a
poison
pill.
I
think
it
will
make
it
very
difficult
for
anything
to
get
adopted
and
whether
or
not
you
agree
with
the
proposal,
you
know
if
a
majority
of
those
voting
on
the
question
were
51,
which
I
support.
D
C
What
would
happen
if
it
comes
to
51
voting
on
the
question
is
that
a
lot
of
people
who
are
really
very
interested
will
vote
on
the
question,
but
the
other
voters
won't
pay
any
attention
to.
It
will
not
vote
on
the
question
because
they
don't
have
a
personal
interest
either
for
it
or
against
it,
and
so
I
would
think
that
the
majority
of
those
people
voting
is
giving
really
all
the
people,
the
opportunities
and
encouraging
people
to
vote
on
it
and
to
think
about
it.
B
B
Everybody's
got
their
hands
up,
okay,
all
right,
so
we
have
a
little.
It
sounds
like
we
have
no
issue
with
the
mayor
veto
language,
so
that's
that
stays
obviously
in
may
versus
must
no
debate.
Everybody
seems
to
be
in
favor
of
that,
at
least
that's
what
I've
heard
so
far,
control
versus
stabilization
a
little
bit
of
discussion
going
on
and
then
the
big
one
is
the
percentage.
B
I
think
we
have
two
ways
of
doing
this
one.
We
could
actually
take
a
straw
vote
or
probably
an
actual
vote
on
the
control
versus
stabilization
language
and
separately.
The
percentage
of
vote
language
or
someone
can
propose
an
amendment
and
just
say
we'll
vote
on
the
ginder
amendment
and
take
it
at
that.
How
does
the
group
wish
to
proceed?
Do
you
have
strong
feelings,
mr
kinder.
B
Okay,
that
sounds
like
a
good
idea,
and
I
assume
we're
talking
about
the
original
language
that
came
from
commissioner
ginder
a
couple
of
meetings
ago,
meeting
or
so
ago.
So
it
includes
control
and
stabilization
language.
It
includes
the
mayor,
vito
language,
it
has
must
versus
may
and
it
has
the
51
percent.
Would
that
is
that
correct?
Commissioner,
kinder.
B
B
E
B
C
B
Second,
yes,
there
is
a
second
to
the
perry
amendment,
so
I
believe
now
we
are
voting
on
whether
we
are
going
to
change
51
percent
to
a
majority
of
those
voting.
If
that
sounds
correct,
I
believe
we
need
to
have
the
clerk
call
the
roll
on
the
perry
amendment.
Commissioner
kinder,
did
you
have
your
hand
up
again.
A
D
D
B
B
C
B
B
B
F
I
would
like
to
have
someone
else
that
would
be
available
to
review
or
to
work
with
me
on
that.
I
don't
envision
a
particularly
lengthy
document,
nothing
like
the
the
document
that
we
did
for
the
the
government
structure,
work
group,
but
a
document
that
would
talk
about
a
reasoning
behind
the
initiative
and
referendum
decisions
and
a
little
bit
about
rent
control
and
why
we
are
not
weighing
in
heavily
on
rent
control
because
of
the
legislative
aspect
of
that.
B
B
B
Yes,
I
think
our
meetings,
probably
work
group
meetings
are
over
at
this
point
because
we'll
be
taking
something
to
the
june
charter
commission
and
we'll
bring
something
to
the
we
might
want
to
have
one
just
before
the
july
meeting
to
review
the
report
before
we
take
it
to
the
charter
commission.
What
do
you
think.