►
Description
View Marked Agenda
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/MarkedAgenda/Charter-RS/2469
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.
Please
call
the
role,
so
we
we
may
verify
the
presence
of
a.
B
E
B
B
B
E
C
B
That
motion
passes
the
minutes
are
accepted.
Thank
you
item
four
on
the
agenda
is
the
chairs
report
and
I
don't
have
a
whole
lot
other
than
what
we're
going
to
be
discussing
in
a
few
minutes
other
than
to
remind
people
that
if
you
are
interested
in
the
city
council's
approach
to
these
two
amendments
and
they're
thinking
about
them,
you
might
want
to
listen
in
to
the
february
10th
pogo
meeting
the
discussions
near
the
end
of
the
meeting.
It's
on
youtube.
B
B
There
was
a
city
council
meeting
in
february
26th
to
put
the
amendments
on
sending
them
to
the
charter.
Commission.
They
did
a
separate
vote
on
them,
but
there
was
no
discussion.
That
was
substantive
and
I
find
that
very
interesting,
because
I've
been
searching
high
and
low
to
try
and
find
some
discussion
of
the
initiative
portion,
particularly
amendment,
and
if
somebody
else
can
find
it.
Please
send
me
a
note,
because
I
would
love
to
read
about
it
other
than
that
we
will
move
forward
to
the
next
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
item
5..
B
This
is
considering
a
proposal
to
amend
article
4
in
the
city
charter
to
explicitly
add
the
city's
authority
to
exercise
power
to
control
rents
on
private
residential
property
in
the
city,
and
I
should
mention
I
asked
maddie
to
put
a
variety
of
documents
into
the
packet
so
that
you
would
have
background
easily
available
to
you.
The
first
document,
I
believe,
was
the
state
statute
governing
rent
control.
B
It
has
in
its
subdivision
to
both
sections
of
the
you
know.
The
two
amendments,
the
initiative
part
and
then
also
the
city
council's
part,
but
part
of
what
we
want
to
do
at
this
meeting
today
is
make
sure
that
we
have
adequately
heard
from
attorney
bashun,
who
has
kindly
written
several
memos
and
provided
some
revised
language
for
these
two
amendments.
I
know
that
she
briefly
addressed
the
initiative
part.
I
think
the
meeting
before
last.
B
G
G
So
yes,
if
you
stop
there
under
number
one,
I
I
mentioned
some
just
general
errors
that
are
in
the
sections,
one
they
it
and
it's
in
both
sections,
1.4
and
4.1,
and
they
relate
to
the
statute.
The
rent
control
statute
says
that,
in
order
to
allow
a
city
to
do
run
control,
it
has
to
be
voted
at
at
a
general
election.
G
G
That
is
that,
typically,
with
from
what
I've
seen
with
the
typical
initiative,
voters
can
can
provide
an
ordinance
to
the
city
and
the
city
can
say:
yes,
I'd
like
to
enact
that
ordinance
as
is,
and
then
that
ordinance
becomes
the
ordinance
of
the
city.
However,
with
rent
control,
it's
not
that
easy
under
the
statute
for
rent
control,
that
it
states
that
that
ordinance
still
has
to
go
to
the
voters,
and
that
has
to
be
voted
at
at
a
general
election,
so
when
the
ordinance
was
written
it
allowed
for
some
options.
G
If
the
petition
meets
all
the
technical
or
the
initiative
petition
meets
all
the
technical
requirements,
the
city
council
would
be
able
to
either
send
it
to
the
voters,
put
it
on
the
ballot
or
the
city
council
would
be
able
to
rely
on
a
legal
opinion
and
decide
not
to
put
it
on
the
ballot.
That
legal
opinion
is
based
on
law
and
basically,
the
city
does
not
is
not
required
to
put
on
the
ballot
anything
that
is
against
the
constitution
or
state
law
or
state
policy.
G
B
G
Yes,
a
general
election
is
set
up
by
statute.
It's
a
it's
a
it's
an
election,
that's
always
occurring
on
a
certain
date,
like
you
might
think
of
you
know
your
typical
november.
Second
date,
it's
always
occurring.
It's
always
set
up.
A
special
election
is
what
you
call
when
you
need
to
do
something
in
between
those
normal
dates.
G
A
special
election
could
be
say,
for
example,
if
somebody,
if
somebody
resigns
from
the
city
council
and
to
resign
in
the
middle
of
a
term,
so
we
may
hold
a
special
election
to
get
somebody
elected
into
that
position,
because
we
don't
need
it.
We
don't
want
it
to
be
vacant
for
two
years,
so
that
would
be
when
we
call
a
special
election.
G
There
may
be
other
times
in
the
statutes
where
you
can
have
a
special
election.
If
you
have
a
an
initiative
by
by
voters,
and
but
the
state
law
for
rent
control
doesn't
allow
you
to
do
those
special
elections,
so
basically
we'd
have
to
do
it
on
a
regular
general
election
day.
Presumably-
and
I
I
can't
speculate,
but
the
legislature
may
have
thought
that
there
are
more
voters
on
general
general
election
days
than
special
election
days.
B
G
Yeah
under
the
this
language
they
would
be,
they
would
have
to
use
the
language
that
was
provided
by
the
voters.
Okay.
So
if
the
petition
initiative
petition
did
have
specific
language,
they
could
not
change
it
and
they
would
have
to
send
it
either,
send
it
to
the
voters
or
not
send
it
because
of
a
legal
issue.
Okay,.
B
A
G
Mean
that
sounds
very
speculative,
but
I
I
would
think
that
really,
wouldn't
you
could
argue
that
that's
that's
not
a
true
rent
control
ordinance
which
actually
does
the
actual
control
of
the
rents.
So
you
could
argue
that
that
is
not
valid.
It's
just
giving
the
city
council
authority
kind
of
like
a
charter
amendment
would
so
I
think
one
could
argue
that
that
would
not
fit
within
the
statute.
G
A
B
G
G
Yeah,
my
my
language
relates
to
majority.
The
51
relates
to
charter
amendments,
and
since
this
is
a
an
initiative
it
that
statute
doesn't
necessarily
apply
from
the
case
law
that
I've
seen.
Typically,
initiatives
are
by
a
majority
vote,
and
so
that's
why
I
use
that's
why
that
language
is
in
there
technically
I
mean,
I
think,
technically
you
could.
G
B
G
Know
the
charter
amendment
changes
are
done
by
50
51
and
that's
specific
to
charter
amendments.
So
we
have
to
follow
that
and
maybe
this
maybe
the
courts
have
have.
I
don't
think
the
courts
have
looked
at
that
issue
very
much,
but
there
is
a
big
difference
like
I.
I
did
calculations
based
on
what
the
mayor's
election,
the
the
last
mayor's
election
and
how
many
people
voted
for
the
mayor,
and
I
calculated
that
if
that
many
people
voted
for
a
ballot
question
at
the
same
amount
that
voted
for
the
mayor.
G
If
we're
looking
at
the
majority
versus
51
percent,
there's
about
a
thousand
dollar
a
thousand
a
thousand
dollars
a
thousand
people
difference,
so
there
is
a
difference
between
them,
but
I
think
for
the
initiative.
It's
not
required,
like,
like
a
charter
amendment
to
51
percent.
So
technically
you
could
do
the
majority
vote.
Okay,.
H
Thank
you,
I
may
be
jumping
ahead,
but
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
where
we
are
and,
as
I
understand
what
ms
bushoon
has
presented
to
us
in
this
first
memo,
it's
really
assuming
we
decide
to
accept
the
city
council
proposed
amendment.
Then
we'd
still
have
to
make
these
technical
changes,
and
I
guess
my
question
is:
we
still
have
to
decide
whether
we
want
to
make.
H
I
want
to
accept
the
amendment
or
not,
and
particularly
do
we
have
the
option
and
again
maybe
this
is
jumping
ahead
to
say,
select
giving
the
city
council
the
authority
to
enact
an
ordinance
which
would
then
go
to
the
voters
and
not
accept
the
authority
under
the
charter
for
initiative,
which
could
end
up
with
a
very
messy
ordinance
eventually
just
anyways.
Is
this
a
later
discussion.
B
F
Thank
you
chair.
First
of
all,
I
wanted
to
say
that,
with
regard
to
the
corrections
proposed
by
city
attorney
bashoon,
I
believe
that
those
corrections
were
necessary
and
make
that
section
1.4
legal
and
that
kind
of
ties
then
into
commissioner
rubenstein's
question
is
yes,
there
still
has
to
be
a
decision.
F
If
we
want
to
do
a
substitute
motion
which
could
include
sending
well,
we
could
send
it
back
as
is
and
say,
yeah
we
approve
it
put
it
on
the
ballot,
even
though
we
know
that
there
are
errors
in
it,
we
could
send
it
back,
saying
yeah.
We
think
it
should
go
on
the
ballot,
but
here's
our
substitute,
which
is
corrected,
so
it
conforms
as
the
law
as
proposed
by
mr
shoon,
or
we
could
kind
of
say.
No.
F
We
don't
want
to
do
either
one
of
those
we
reject
the
whole
idea
of
initiative
and
then
that
still
leaves
a
discussion
on
the
referendum
portion
of
it.
In
my
mind,
where
you
could
say
again,
there
are
corrections
made
in
the
referendum
which
we'll
talk
about
coming
up
and
we
could
propose
sending
that
back
as
is
as
corrected
or
not
at
all
or
with
our
own
corrections,
and
I
just
threw
together
a
sample.
F
That
would
be
something
that
I
think
is
legally
correct
and
I
did
put
in
something
different
for
the
number
of
votes
for
discussion
purposes.
But
that's
the
later
discussion,
but
that's
kind
of
the
overview
is
how
I
see
it.
So
what
we
could
send
back
could
include
both
initial
referendum.
Only
one
of
them
or
we
say,
reject
the
whole
thing.
H
F
B
Right,
no,
I
don't
think
that
our
discussion
today
is
by
any
means
saying
yeah.
We
think
everything's
a
great
idea
with
a
few
technical
changes.
I
that
is
not
the
position
of
this
work
group.
As
far
as
I'm
aware
we
want,
but
we
would
do
want
to
get
as
much
information
about
the
technical
issues
as
we
can
before
we
move
to
that
final
final
decision.
I
think
anyway,
okay,
commissioner
perry.
E
E
B
G
Yeah,
yes,
these
are
two
separate
ordinances,
so
you
can
keep
you
can
treat
them
separately.
They
would
be
two
separate
ballot
questions
if
they
would
both
get
on
the
ballot.
So
that's
why
they've
been
written
as
two
separate
ordinances.
So,
yes,
you
should
be
able
to
treat
each
one
separately
and
decide
whether
you
want
to
accept,
reject
or
put
propose
a
substitute,
so
you
can
do
that
for
both
both
of
them
individually.
A
B
G
They
they
can,
they
can
decide
to
put
forward
their
original
language
or
substitute
language.
If
the
commission
proposes
substitute
language
or
they
can
decide
not
to
put
it
on
the
ballot
at
all,
they
cannot
make
changes,
so
they
have
two
choices
original
or
substitute,
or
if
they're
going
to
put
it
on
the
ballot.
Okay,.
E
So
if
we
don't
put
forth
a
substitute
motion
that
is
accepted-
and
there
are
these
legal
inconsistencies
with
the
amendments-
the
proposed
amendments,
as
we
have
been
discussing,
what
is
the?
How
does
that
get
resolved?
And
I
think
this
is
for
attorney
bashun.
How
does
that
get
resolved
because
they
basically
have
something?
That's
not
in
in
line
with
state
statute.
G
So
that
would
be
a
possibility
and
if
it
in
fact
did
get
on
the
ballot
and
was
passed,
then
a
13-0
vote
by
city
council
could
be
done
to
just
fix
those
errors.
Of
course
you
know
other
people,
it
could
be
challenged
too.
That's
a
possibility.
Anything
any
kind
of
ballot.
Question
can
be
challenged
before
it
gets
on
the
ballot
or
as
it's
being
placed
on
the
ballot.
G
E
G
E
G
H
F
F
I
do
disagree
a
little
bit.
The
13-0
vote,
I
think,
would
only
happen
after,
for
example,
this
ballot
went
on.
This
amendment
went
on
the
ballot
and
it
were
passed
and
then
later
on.
If
they
wanted
to
try
and
change
it
to
correct
this,
those
so-called
inconsistencies,
because
they
can't
correct
it
now
as
we
send
it
back
to
them,
they
have
the
option
of
taking
what
they
sent
to
us
and
putting
it
on
the
ballot
or
not
putting
anything
on
the
ballot.
F
G
Yeah,
yes,
commissioner,
maybe
I
wasn't
clear,
that's
what
I
meant
when
I
said
the
13-0
vote,
if
in
fact
it
if,
in
fact
it
got
up,
got
on
the
ballot
and
if,
in
fact
it
was
passed
by
the
voters,
then
the
I
think
the
city
council
could
consider
making
a
change
to
the
charter.
0
vote
to
just
remove
the
inconsistency
with
the
law.
G
B
Okay,
if
we're
ready
to
move
on
a
bit,
I
would
just
point
out
that
attorney
bashoon's
language
for
article
4
is
a
very
simple
change
to
what
was
proposed
by
the
city
council,
striking,
as
she
said,
striking
the
or
special
wars
before
election
and
on
a
date
allowed
under
minnesota
election
law
striking
those
two
sections.
So
it
has
to
be
at
a
general
election.
B
So
with
that,
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
to
take
a
look
at
the
proposed
language
that
came
in
from
I
believe,
commissioner
ginder
and
it's
in
the
section
of
your
packet.
That's
headed
with
a
title
proposed
work
group
revisions,
understanding
that
the
entire
work
group
has
not
voted
on
anything
yet,
but
it
was
a
title
and
going
down
to
the
very
end
of
the
section
4
language,
and
I
would
believe
commissioner
ginder
is
probably
the
best
person
to
explain
what
he's
doing.
B
A
F
F
Any
rent,
stabilization
or
rent
control
ordinance.
If
the
council
passes
it
must
go
to
the
voters
to
be
voted
on
at
a
general
election,
and
the
reason
for
that
is-
and
this
is
something
I've
been
trying
to
figure
out
over
the
last
month-
is
I've
been
looking
at
the
statute
and
it
kind
of
came
to
me
in
the
last
week
is
when
you
look
at
the
statute
itself.
F
But
I
think
when
you
look
at
the
common
meaning
of
control,
it
will
be
the
ordinance
that
is
passed
that
controls
it's
not
section
one
which
gives
them
the
ability
to
adopt
one.
It's
the
passage
of
the
actual
words,
then,
must
be
approved
by
the
voters,
because
that's
what
controls-
and
I
think
that
makes
it
consistent
with
section
1.4
is-
was
talked
about
by
ms
bashoon,
and
so
that's
my
suggestion.
F
That
is
that
we
would
have
to
change
this
so
that
if
the
council
passed
it,
it
must
go
to
the
voters
and
then
just
as
for
discussion
purposes,
I
changed
the
number
or
the
amount
of
votes
that
would
be
necessary
to
pass
it.
Whenever
there's
an
election
on
an
amendment.
There
are
typically
three
standards
that
can
be
used.
One
is
the
majority
of
those
voting
on
the
proposed
amendment,
which
is
what
is
in
the
in
ms
bashun
in
the
city
council's
proposal.
F
That
means
it
started
out
with
500
no
votes
right
out
of
the
gate,
because
there
were
a
thousand
votes
originally,
so
those
are
three
kind
of
common
ones
that
you
see.
So
I
just
threw
that
in
for
discussion,
because
it
came
to
us
with
the
idea
that
it
was
automatically
going
to
be
that
if
we
do
move
forward
on
it
on
any
kind
of
substitute,
we
may
go
back
to
the
50
percent.
We
may
want
51.
F
H
Did
have
my
hand
up
sorry,
okay,
no,
I
I
don't
have
strong
feelings
about
majority
versus
51
percent,
but
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
having
the
majority
of
the
votes
cast,
because
it
could
be
just
a
handful
of
votes
for
an
important
public
policy
issue.
But,
as
I
understand
this
is
just
a
starting
point
for
discussion,
so
we
can
wait
and
talk
about
it
later.
E
B
All
right,
then,
perhaps
we
should
move
to
article
the
discussion
on
article
one,
because
we
I'm
sure
we'll
have
more
discussion
about
this
in
weeks
to
come.
The
art
we
did
have
the
memo
from
attorney
bashoon
some
time
ago,
and
she
described
this.
I
think,
before
about
the
legality
of
initiative,
she
might
want
to
run
through
that
just
for
a
few
minutes
that,
because
we
had,
I
believe
it
was
commissioner
ginder
had
asked
her
about.
G
G
G
I
would
say
you
know
a
lot
a
lot
of
cities
like
st
paul.
They
have
a
rent
initiative
for
any
topic,
but
I
think
the
our
charter
allows
us
to
be
able
to
determine
what
kind
of
city
we
want
to
run
and
how
our
city
is
set
up
and
what
the
structure
of
our
city
is,
and
because
of
that.
I
think
it
makes
sense
that
we
can
decide
that
we
want
to
only
allow
the
voters
to
bring
petitions
forward
for
through
initiative
for
certain
issues.
G
So
it
makes
sense
that
the
city
could
consider
one
particular
issue
which
is
rent
control,
which
could
be
a
major
issue
in
in
a
city
and
decide
that
it
wants
to
have
the
initiative.
Just
for
that
one
particular
topic,
and
so
I
saw
no
law
that
prohibits
it.
I
see
laws
that
allow
us
to
have
that,
give
us
leeway
and
being
able
to
do
so
and
that's
why
I
believe
that
legally,
we
can
pro
put
forward
an
initiative
only
for
one
topic.
B
Okay,
are
there
any
questions
for
attorney
bashoon
about
this
specific
memo
about
the
legality,
her
interpretation
of
the
legality
before
we
get
into
the
actual
text
of
the
ordinance,
all
right,
let's
go
to
the
text
of
the
ordinance.
She's
been
very
clear.
She
described
before
that,
and
this
is
not
a
discussion
of
do.
We
want
to
support
this
at
all
or
not
right.
Now
we're
just
looking
at
what
are
the
tech?
B
No
then
I
think
that
is
that
concludes.
That
section
was
at
number
six
or
so
forth,
and
I
guess
my
question
for
the
work
group
is
moving
forward
on
this
language
and,
oh,
I
should
back
up
and
say
I
think
commissioner
ginder
was
talking
to
david
schultz
about
possibly
doing
a
presentation
on
initiative.
B
F
F
One
of
the
issues
that
I
see
is
unless
we're
going
to
do
a
special
meeting
of
the
entire
charter
commission.
We
need
to
have
our
recommendation
on
this
matter
in
time
for
the
june
meeting,
which
is
you
know
a
few
weeks
away,
and
so
I
think
much
of
what
professor
schultz
would
say
is
is
kind
of
replicated
in
one
of
the
documents
he
did
submit
to
me.
That's
part
of
our
information
library
on
this
topic,
as
well
as
some
of
the
other
materials
that
we
gathered.
F
I
mean
in
brief,
he's
not
a
fan
of
initiative,
and
so
I
think
that
you
know
it's
a
presentation
that
we
might
find
interesting.
I
don't
know
that
it's
absolutely
necessary
because
I
think
many
of
us
have
our
feelings
about
initiative
already,
and
I
know
that
we
have
to
really
start
thinking
seriously
about
the
substance
of
rent
control
initiative
and
referendum
and
where
we
are
on
the
entire
thing.
So
that's
a
long
answer
to
it
was
really
a
short
question.
B
Okay,
so
it
sounds
like
I
will
agree.
I
am
not
getting
an
overwhelming
support
for
the
initiative
ordinance.
I
I
just
unless
somebody's
not
saying
something
and
they're
being
quietly
unenthusiastic.
I
don't
know,
especially
since
I
have
no
idea
other
than
the
fact
it
was
mentioned
in
the
statute,
why
the
council
pushed
it.
I
mean
there's
no
discussion
about
the
desirability
or
why
this
is
needed
and
that
I
find
that
disturbing.
I
guess
so
peter.
B
F
And
so
if
we
tell
the
council
that
hey,
we
don't
agree
with
initiative
and
we
don't
necessarily
agree
with
rent
control.
But
it's
that's
really
a
legislative
decision
that
should
be
made
by
a
legislative
body
and
so
we'll
give
you
the
power
to
do
it.
But
you
still
have
to
take
it
back
to
the
voters
is
required
by
the
new
state
law
for
referendum.
F
So
that's
that's
kind
of
how
I
see
this.
You
know
that's
why
the
idea
of
breaking
these
out
into
two
separate
ordinances
is
is
important,
because
you
could
send
back
one
that
says
council
we'll
give
you
the
power
to
do
this
as
long
as
it's
approved
in
an
election,
or
you
can
just
say
we're,
you
know
we're
so
vehemently
opposed
to
the
idea
of
initiative,
referendum
and
rent
control
in
general,
that
you
know
we
reject
everything
which
then
lets
them
decide.
Whether
they
want
to
put
it
on
is
a
flawed
matter
or
not.
F
If,
if
the
members
of
the
group
think
we
can
handle
this
in
one
meeting,
I
am
fine
with
that,
but
the
net,
if
we
don't
do
february
18th,
then
we
have
february
excuse
me,
may
18th
then
we're
stuck
on
may
25th,
which
would
be
the
last
one
before
that.
So
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
try
and
do
two
meetings
or
one,
but
maybe
that's
we
should
talk,
have
a.
What
does
the
body
feel
about
that
in
general,
yep.
B
Okay,
I'm
looking
for
thoughts
from
members
of
the
work
group,
number
of
meetings,
dates
and
substance
of
those
meetings.
Does
anyone
have
a
comment
question
whatever
everybody's
fine
with
having
maddie
schedule
two
meetings,
or
would
you
prefer
to
consolidate
it
into
one?
If
you
think
we
can
get
our
work
done?
E
So
I
I
don't
know
if
we'll
need
two
meetings,
but
I
would
schedule
them
so
that
we
have
them
available
to
be
on
the
safe
side.
I
think
there
is
you
know
if
we
end
up
going
into
a
discussion
about
whether
we
we
get
into
saying
we're
not
going
to
do
anything
on
initiative,
but
we're
going
to
do
something
different,
a
substitute
motion
on
referendum.
E
Then
I
think-
and
we
get
into
the
discussion
of
whether
we
want
to
do
anything
on
that
at
all.
I
think
it
may
end
up
being
a
longer
discussion
and
we
may
end
up
needing
two
meetings,
but
I
just
for
for
administrative
purposes.
I
would
schedule
both
and
use
the
one
and
you
know
hope
for
the
best
and
it
turns
out
to
be
one
meeting.
B
B
Okay,
so
I
think
it
sounds
like,
unless
I
hear
from
anyone
else,
that
we
should
ask
maddie
to
schedule
two
meetings
for
us.
If
that's
okay
with
you
maddie
the
18th
and
the
25th
on
the
18th,
then
our
agenda
would
be.
I
would
suggest
that
we
start
with
the
initiative
ordinance
and
discuss
that
and
see
how
quickly
we
can
decide
how
we
want
to
go
and
then
attack
the
article
4
question,
because
that
will
have
considerably
more
discussion.
B
I
would
also
ask
the
work
group
before
those
meetings.
If
you
would,
please
gather
your
thoughts
if
you
have
other
amendments,
things
to
consider
parts
of
the
language
proposed
by
commissioner
kinder,
because
that
certainly
be
part
of
our
discussions
that
you
want
to
question.
You
want
to
have
more
background
on.
Please
bring
that
information
with
you
so
that
we
can
have
a
full
discussion
at
the
meeting.