►
Description
View Marked Agenda
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/MarkedAgenda/Charter-RS/2340
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
A
A
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
peter
ginder
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
call
a
role
so
that
we
may
verify
the
presence
of
a
quorum.
D
E
A
A
A
D
E
A
That
motion
passes
and
the
agenda
is
adopted.
The
first
matter
on
the
agenda
is
item
two
and
I'm
going
to
exercise
some
prerogative
and
just
kind
of
give
some
more
or
less
random
thoughts
as
I've
gone
through
this.
As
as
we
move
into
this
discussion
of
this
proposed
amendment,
unlike
the
amendments
that
we've
received
from
the
city
council
in
the
last
couple
of
years,
this
amendment
comes
with
a
substantial
research
background.
A
It's
very
well
done.
It's
very
thorough
and
it
raises
does
a
good
job
of
raising
the
pros
and
cons
both
commissioner
sandberg
and
I
have
added
some
additional
materials
to
the
file
that
supplement
the
cure
report
and,
as
I
said,
is
a
random
thought.
I
don't
know
that
there
will
be
a
lot
of
additional
research
that
will
be
that
we'll
need
on
this
in
light
of
what
has
been
done
by
kira.
A
So
that's
kind
of
one
of
my
initial
thoughts
that,
as
we
go
through
the
discussion
that
I
just
want
to
get
in
background.
Another
thought
that
I
wanted
to
just
throw
out,
as
we
thought
to
start
the
discussion.
That
is
we're
aware
that
there's
a
state
statute
that
governs
rent
control
for
home
rule
charter
cities-
and
I
would
just
note
that,
in
the
absence
of
that
statute,
this
kind
of
legislative
action
would
be
typically
within
the
purview
of
a
home
rule
charter
city.
A
Much
like
the
city
council
passed
the
minimum
wage
or
a
paid
sick
leave
ordinances.
That's
where
this
action
would
lie
in
the
absence
of
the
statute.
Back
of
the
matter
is,
is
we
have
a
statute
now
that
changes?
How
the
city
council
inside
of
the
legislative
function
can
move
forward
and
that's
the
requirements
of
a
referendum.
A
So
with
that
kind
of
my
initial
background,
I'm
going
to
open
this
up
for
discussion
on
kind
of
what
people
think
is
the
whatever
comments
they
have
early.
There
are
also
some
legal
questions
that
are
going
to
be
covered,
hopefully
to
some
degree
in.
I
think
it's
item
two
two
three
at
time.
We
have
that
down
for
the
timeline,
but
I
think
that's
that
will
be
one
of
the
areas
where
we'll
have
some
significant
questions
on
how
this
moves
forward
and
what
our
role
is.
F
I
have
my
hand
up
sandberg,
I
have
my
hand
up.
Oh
there,
it
is
okay.
Okay,
thank
you.
I
agree.
Absolutely
rent
stabilization
is
a
topic
that
in
economics,
has
been
researched
for
decades,
there's
a
ton
of
it.
If
that's
all,
you're
interested
in
there's
a
ton
of
information
about
that,
but
I
think
what
commissioner
ginder
is
referring
to
is
that
this
indeed,
would
be
in
the
council's
purview
if
but
for
that
state
statute,
so
I
certainly
hope
we're
not
thinking
about
doing
anything
of
further
research
into
the
economics
of
this
of
that
topic.
E
I
think
that
the
provision
authorizing
the
council
to
adopt
rent
stabilization
ordinances
are
are
clearly
contemplated
by
statute.
In
fact,
the
statute
says
you
can't
do
it
and
unless
you
have
such
a
charter
change,
but
the
initiative
and
referendum
provision
is
much
murkier
to
me.
It
is
unclear
to
me
whether
we
can
have
single
purpose
initiative
in
referendum,
whether
it
exists
anywhere
else
in
the
state
or
even
in
the
country,
and
whether
an
acting
single
purpose,
initiative
and
referendum
will
accidentally
get
us
into
anything,
goes
initiative
and
referendum.
G
G
It
will
open
up
the
dialogue
that
many
people
have
wanted
for
various
charter
amendments
and,
as
you
said,
it's
based
in
in
solid
research
this
time,
although
of
course
the
opinions
go
both
ways,
and
I
think
it
also
is
consistent
with
our.
What
we're
trying
to
do
with
government
structure,
which
is
this
is
something
that
is
totally
appropriate
for
the
city
council.
It's
it's
a
policy,
it's
a
it's
an
important
public
policy
to
be
considered,
and
this
seems
to
be
the
right
way
to
go
about
it.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner
rubenstein.
I
I
agree
that
the
referendum
portion
of
this
is
pretty
clear.
There
is,
I
think,
in
several
people's
mind,
a
little
question
about
the
way
it's
worded,
because
it
does
not
appear
to
be
clear
that
if
the
council
enacted
enacts
an
ordinance
that
it
then
has
to
be
put
out
for
a
vote
in
a
referendum,
that
language
is,
at
least
in
my
mind,
is
a
little
bit
unclear.
I
agree
that
there's
value
to
breaking
up
the
discussion
on
both
of
these
items.
A
Yeah
I'm
going
to
also
throw
out
to
the
floor,
is
I
measure
it
at
this
stage.
People
feel
comfortable
discussing
those
in
detail
or,
if
they'd,
rather
wait
until
after
we've,
for
example,
had
some
discussion
about
items
2.2
and
2.3
item
2.2
is
the
whether
the
amendments
adhere
to
our
adopted
standards
and
2.3
is
the
whether
the
agenda,
the
timeline
for
legal
review
will
also
inform
that
discussion
on
both
of
those
items.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
want
to
go
back,
I'm
sorry,
you
brought
up
another
point
which
I'm
not
going
to
address,
but
I
want
to
go
back
to
getting
clarification
from
you
that
I
want
to
understand
that
you
and
the
rest
of
the
committee
are
saying
that
the
cure
report,
which
I'm
assuming
you're
referring
to
the
ad
gats
report,
is
that.
D
D
Transcript
and
it
seems
that
they
are
coming
to
some
different
conclusions
than
mr
goetz
does.
Professor
goetz
does,
in
his
initial
analysis
at
the
beginning
of
his
report,
so
I
I'm
not
convinced
yet
that
everything
is
clear
cut
on
that
front.
I'm
not
I'm
wondering
if
that
is
what
you're
saying
or
I'm
misunderstanding.
What
you're
saying.
A
No,
I
I'm
not
saying
that
everything
is
clear.
I'm
saying
there's
been
a
lot
of
research
done
and
I
agree
with
commissioner
rubinstein
that
people
will
choose
which
side
of
the
policy
issues
that
they
fall
on,
but
as
far
as
finding
research
we're
not
likely
to
find
a
lot
of
additional
research
and
the
free
economics
report,
one
I
believe,
you're
referring
to
is
one
that
I
added
to
the
library
that's
based
on
a
study
that
was
done
in
san
francisco.
A
That
study
is
cited
and
discussed
in
the
cure
report,
so
reports
there
are
reports
on
both
sides
that
are
compiled
in
the
cure
report
and
they
list
the
pros
and
cons,
and
some
people
will
weigh
the
pros
more
heavily
than
the
cons
and
some
people
will
do
the
reverse.
There's
not
a
decision
made
on
where
we're
going
on
that.
It's
just
saying
that
there
is
a
lot
of
research
that
we
may
not
need
to
duplicate
on
this.
D
D
F
E
Thank
you.
I
think
we
should
also
be
careful
about
lining
up
interviews
or
we're
going
to
have
every
advocate
on
both
sides
that
wants
to
talk
to
us.
I
I
think
people
should
be
encouraged
to
submit
opinions
and
and
policy
statements
and
facts
in
writing,
and
we
could
then
make
them
part
of
our
record.
A
A
A
A
A
Seeing
none
I'm
going
to
move
to
item
2.2,
which
is
considering
whether
the
amendments
adhere
to
the
charter
commission's
adopted
amendment
proposal
standards
and
commissioner
sandberg
doesn't
know
this,
but
I'm
going
to
turn
this
over
to
her
because
I
can
now
again
cannot
find
the
standards.
So
if
are
there
comments
on
that,
because
I
have
again
lost
the
standards.
F
A
F
F
F
G
Sorry,
my
only
comment
is:
I
believe
that
it
is
fully
consistent
with
our
standards.
I
know
we
still.
We
want
to
look
at
state
law
a
little
more
and
I
would
defer
that
one,
but
it's
exactly
the
sort
of
thing
that
needs
to
go
into
the
charter
under
the
circumstances,
and
it
certainly
does
not
take
away
any
rights
of
the
voters.
A
I
think,
as
we
move
forward
on
this,
I
think
this
will
be
a
relatively
straightforward
application
of
the
standards
to
this,
because
I
agree
with
much
of
what
commissioner
rubenstein
has
indicated.
The
standards
appear
to
address
this
issue
pretty
well
and
then
we're
just
left
with
a
policy
decision.
Commissioner
rubenstein
is
your
hand
up
again.
A
I
know
that
assistant
city
attorney
carol,
bashoon
is
with
us
today
for
members.
I
will
let
you
know
that
I
sent
on
behalf
of
co-chair
and
in
chair
clegg
some
questions
to
ms
bashun
along
the
line.
Several
of
the
questions
go
to
the
question
of
excuse
me.
One
of
the
questions
is
the
proposed
amendment
allows
for
these
amendments
to
be
adopted
at
the
general
general
election
or
a
special
election.
A
A
A
Three
is
direct
not
to
submit
a
ballot
question.
It
seems
to
me
only
the
latter
two
earth
should
be
applied
because
there's
there
has
not
been
a
referendum
yet
and
there's
a
similar
question
with
regard
to
the
referendum
portion
of
this,
I
did
not
ask
these
questions,
but
as
I've
done
further
research,
since
then,
I've
noted
that
the
number
of
voters
that
are
required
to
sign
the
the
number
will
find
the
position
substantially
lower
than
they're
required
by
most
of
the
home
rule
charter
cities
in
the
state.
H
D
H
A
H
A
H
H
Okay-
and
I-
and
I
just
wanted
to
note-
I
was
just
looking
saint
paul-
they
do
talk
about
the
percentage
they
do.
Eight
percentage
of
the
voters
that
voted
for
the
mayor,
this
particular
one
talks
about
five.
It's
I
think
it's
similar
to
the
petition
for
to
change
a
charter,
five
percent
of
a
general
election,
which
would
be
something
like
11
000.
H
H
A
Duluth
is
there
to
be
10
of
the
signatures
for
a
general
election
and
20.
If
there's
a
special
election-
and
it
runs
through
similar
things
for
bloomington
brooklyn
park,
plymouth
and
saint
cloud,
they
generally
differentiate
between
general
and
special
elections,
and
generally
the
standard
is
much
higher.
H
H
I
know
that
statute
is
very
confusing
and
I
can
look
at
that
in
more
detail,
but
I
can
tell
you
that
the
re,
one
of
the
reasons
why
you
have
two
different
ordinances
is
because
the
statute
is
so
confusing
as
to
whether
or
not
you
have
to
change
change
the
charter
first
and
then
send
it.
You
know
over
and
get
it
approved,
and
so
that's
why
there's
some
options
to
go
to
the
voters
to
have
these
things
approved.
H
A
A
F
Just
one
thing
to
keep
in
mind
is:
are
the
deadlines
that
we
are
working
with?
I
think
I'm
not
positive.
Casey
will
know
better
or
maddie,
but
I
think
we've
got
until
may
2nd
for
the
first
deadline
and
then,
if
we
need
to
extend
the
final
deadline
would
be
july
31st
something
around
there
give
or
take
a
few
days
casey.
You
may
know
better
you're,
correct,
okay,.
A
F
Well,
as
I
said
a
little
earlier,
I
spent
the
afternoon
listening
to
the
public
hearing
that
the
pogo
held
all
140
some
odd
testifiers.
It
was
over
three
hours.
I
think
the
only
problem
it
was
clear
that
people
were
told
that
this
was
about
actual
content
of
run
stabilization
and
not
something
just
to
put
it
on
the
ballot
put
the
ability
to
do
so
on
the
bat
on
the
charter,
so
that
was
a
little
confusing
because
they
wanted
to
talk
about
substance
more
I'm.
F
Assuming,
though,
that
since
they
wanted
to
talk
about
substance,
they
would
want
to
have
the
city
council
have
this
ability,
so
I
don't
know
how
they
advertised
it
or
so
forth.
There
were
a
lot
of
individuals
as
well
as
representatives
of
other
organizations,
but
I
don't
know
what
we
could
add
with
public
hearing
just
off
of
that.
E
E
E
G
A
F
I
should
add
that,
after
listening
to
that,
almost
95
of
the
discussion
focused
on
what
the
council
could
do,
what
they
could
pass
the
substance
very,
very
almost
no
addressing
of
a
citizen
kind
of
initiative
option.
In
fact
there
was
there
were
two
speakers.
I
think
that
had
comments
about
that.
I
think
one
was
the
downtown
council,
but
that
just
said
it
was
a
bad
idea,
but
but
I
don't
think
the
average
respondent
really
was
separating
the
two
in
their
minds
and
I'm
not
sure
how
that
fits
in.
So
just
a
thought.
A
I
don't
see
any
other
discussion
on
item
2.4
so
by
understanding
at
this
stage
we're
not
going
to
set
a
public
hearing,
but
it's
we
reserve
the
ability
to
do
so.
If
we
move
forward
with
one
and
then
item
three
is
probably
the
meatiest
thing
we
have
on
this,
which
is
proving
a
work
group
plan
in
the
timeline
and
I'm
going
to
do
some
self-flagellation.
A
I
don't
have
a
timeline
thrown
up
on
this,
and
so
that
is
my
fault,
and
this
is
running
this
this
committee
and
so
I'm
open
to
ideas
on
what
people
would
like.
We've
we've
discussed
the
idea
of
splitting
up
the
plan
into
two
figures:
the
discussion
in
two
parts,
the
initiative
and
the
referendum
part
we
don't
have
timelines
or
exactly
what
we're
going
to
look
at.
I
know
we're
going
to
have
a
legal
part
of
this.
A
E
I
I
was
going
to
suggest
that,
with
respect
to
the
first
question
that
is
authorizing
rent
control
or
rent
stabilization
in
the
charter
for
the
council
to
establish
policy,
I
don't
think
there's
any
legal
research.
We
need
to
do
there
and
I
think
we
have
most
of
the
information
we
need,
although
we
could
certainly
leave
a
period
of
time
open
for
others
to
submit
information
to
our
work
file.
A
E
A
And
I
don't
know
if
that's
something
that
the
members
feel
we
can
do
in
two
weeks
or
if
that's
something,
that
we
set
a
month-long
date
out
and
I'm
so
leave
that
in
your
head.
I'm
also
thinking
that
we're
going
to
need
a
month,
probably
for
ms
michonne
to
come
up
with
her
work
and
then
for
us
to
review
that
and
come
up
with
our
own
thoughts
on
how
we
move
forward
on
that.
A
E
E
We
should
have
a
meeting
and
you'll
probably
know
that
you
know
carol
will
get
back
to
you
and
say
this
is
going
to
take
me
a
week,
or
this
is
going
to
take
me
a
month
and
we'll
we'll
know
more.
So
I
would
leave
it
to
the
co-chairs
to
call
a
meeting
at
the
appropriate
time
and
just
suggest
that
tuesdays
at
4
30
are
an
established
time
that
most
people
are
used
to
so.
A
I
think
that's
a
that's
an
appropriate
idea,
so
my
motion
will
be
that
the
next
meeting
will
be
called
at
the
will
be
at
the
call
of
the
co-chairs
and
again
we
will
aim
this
for
these
tuesday
4
30
times
and
in
between
that
you
know,
committee
members
can
have
discussions
or,
if
there's
a
thoughts
that
they
want
to
pass
on
about
the
initiative
aspect
or
any
other
legal
research.
We
can
collate
that
as
we're
waiting
for
this
next
meeting.