►
Description
View Marked Agenda
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/MarkedAgenda/Charter-RS/2416
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
peter
ginder
and
I
am
one
of
the
co-chairs
of
the
charter
commission's
rent
stabilization
working.
I
will
now
call
this
meeting
to
order
and
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
role
so
that
we
may
verify
the
presence
of
a
quorum.
D
E
B
B
B
A
B
That
motion
passes
and
the
agenda
is
adopted.
Commissioners,
there
are
minutes
from
our
regular
meeting
on
march
3rd
2021
that
need
to
be
accepted.
May
I
have
a
motion
to
accept
the
minutes
motion
sandberg
second
cleg
motions
before
us.
Is
there
any
discussion.
F
B
B
One
is
a
reminder
that
we
need
to
finish
all
of
our
work
in
order
to
present
our
recommendation
to
the
july
charter
commission
meeting
or
otherwise
we
will
be
calling
a
special
meeting
for
the
charter
commission.
So
I
would
like
to
see
if
we
can
do
that
before
that
july
meeting,
and
so
I
I
know
we
waited
three
weeks
almost
to
have
this
meeting
in
order
for
to
give
people
time
to
review
a
legislative
file
as
well
as
for
the
city
attorney
to
do
her.
B
Work
on
questions
were
submitted
to
her,
so
I
hope
we've
had
an
opportunity
to
want
to
do
some
review
on
the
legislative
file.
That's
been
accumulated
and
I
know
that
we're
prepared
to
at
least
have
some
of
the
city
attorney's
opinions
being
discussed
tonight.
B
Unfortunately,
he
teaches
the
class
at
this
same
time
and
he
won't
conclude
that
class
until
after
may
18th,
and
so
I
don't
want
to
call
a
meeting
outside
these
times,
because
I
know
it's
a
time-
that's
acceptable
to
all
the
members
as
well
as
I
don't
need
to
put
any
additional
burden
on
the
clerk's
office
with
finding
new
times
so
I'll
hold
that
to
see
where
we
are
after
the
next
meeting
or
so.
But
I
will
say
that
he
did
provide
us
a
law
review
article
that
addresses
the
initiative,
initiative
and
referendum
question.
B
That's
in
the
legislative
file
that
I'm
assuming
would
cover
much
of
what
he
would
discuss
and
and
finally
before
we
get
into
this,
which
will
also
segue
into
our
next
stuff
into
our
next
agenda
item
is
remember
that
there
are
two
different
items
before
us.
One
is
the
initiative
portion
of
the
amendments
and
the
other
is
the
referendum
portion
of
the
amendments,
and
so
there
are
two
things
to
kind
of
consider
as
we
move
forward
on
this
matter.
B
And
seeing
no
discussion
on
the
sheriff's
report
item
5.1
is
considering
amendments
to
the
charter
proposed
by
the
city
council,
adding
the
initial
referendum
for
the
sole
purpose
of
exercising
the
city's
authority
to
control
rents
and
private
residential
property
in
the
city
and
explicitly
adding
the
city's
authority
to
exercise
power
to
control
around
some
private
residential
property
in
the
city.
E
Mr
chair,
mr
shortcut,
as
I
read
this
the
last
and
the
second
page,
which
is
what
number
number
five
I
guess
it
is
number
five
g
and
one
g2
it's
admission
to
voters.
It
says
the
council
may
submit
a
rent
control
or
run
stabilization
question.
E
As
I
read
the
law
which
permits
to
happen,
it
says
that
they
must
or
that
the
voters
are
going
to
vote
on
it.
So
if
they
don't
send
it
to
the
voters,
then
the
voters
can't
vote
on
it.
Therefore,
nothing
can
happen.
So
should
the
word
be
may
or
should
the
word
be,
must.
B
Well,
that's,
commissioner,
is
a
question
that
kind
of
was
submitted
to
city
attorney
bashun,
and
she
can
certainly
address
that.
But
I
think,
as
I
understand
the
answer,
it's
not
fully
clear
because
arguably
under
the
special
law
or
to
the
under
the
law
that
provides
for
rent
control
in
the
city
for
a
city
to
do
it,
it
has
to
be
approved
at
a
at
a
referendum.
B
And
the
argument
on
the
one
side
is
that
by
voting
on
the
proposed
amendment,
that
is
the
requirement
that
is
required
by
the
statute.
The
amendment
giving
the
city
council
the
authority
to
create
rent
control-
and
if
I
understand
this
correctly,
that
the
second
part
of
that,
where
they
may
submit
it
to
a
vote,
is
have
the
clarification
in
the
event
that
the
law
is
the
other
way.
If
there
was
a
challenge
that
they
would
then
move
forward.
B
I
don't
know
if
that
does
justice
to
ms
bashun's
analysis,
but
that
is
what
I
kind
of
understand
with
some
other
discussions
with
her.
E
D
Right
sorry,
it
appears
that
some
of
my
questions
are
the
same
as
commissioner
schwarzkopf,
so
I
will
hold
off
and
wait
for
the
city
attorney
to
speak,
but
I
did
have
one
other
question
and
that
is
I,
in
reading
all
the
materials
that
you
or
others
kindly
submitted
to
us,
there
was
somewhere
a
reference
to
the
fact
that
the
legislature
is
considering
legislation
that
would
prevent
us
from
doing
what
we're
doing,
and
I
wondered
what
the
status
is
of
that
legislation.
If
you
know.
B
Commissioner
rubinstein,
I
do
not
know
the
status
of
that
proposed
legislation.
I
don't
know
if
anyone
else
does,
but
I
do
not.
Okay.
D
D
B
G
Thank
you
co-chair
gender.
Yes,
I
I
think
I'll
start
by
addressing
some
of
the
questions
that
have
been
brought
up
with
respect
and
I'm
going
to
first
talk
about
section
4.1
under
section
4.1
for
the
rent
stabilization.
G
There
are
two
provisions
under
there
g1
and
g2
vice
chair
ginder.
As
you
were,
stating
you
know
there.
It's
really
set
up
to
be
two
options.
The
first
is
that
the
city
council
would
adopt
the
ability,
a
charter
amendment
that
would
allow
the
city
council
to
have
a
rent
stabilization
ordinance.
G
G
So
the
second
provision,
the
submission
to
the
voters,
is
just
just
in
there
in
case
in
case
there
were
in
case
a
court
would
come
back
and
say
that
we
do
need
to
submit
something
to
the
voters.
G
So
that's
why
that's
there
and
that's
why
it
says
the
council
may
submit
a
rent,
control
or
rent
stabilization
ballot
question
to
the
voters,
because
initially
it's
believed
that
just
having
the
ability
in
the
charter
for
the
city
council
to
create
an
ordinance
is
enough.
So
the
submission
to
the
voters
would
do
something.
In
addition
to
that,
you
and
the
city
council
could
also
say:
well,
we
want
to
submit
it
to
the
voters
anyway,
even
though
it's
in
our
charter,
we
just
want
the
voters
to
be
on
board,
so
that
is.
G
That
is
what
that
is.
Why
that
the
amendments
to
4.1
is
written.
That
way,
I
also
want
to
discuss
some
errors
that
was
brought
to
my
some
ears
that
were
brought
to
my
attention
by
vice
chair
ginder.
G
G
That
is
when
the
charter
would
be
amended
to
to
allow
the
city
council
to
adopt
a
rent,
stabilization
ordinance
or
to
submit
it
to
the
voters
at
some
later
point.
If
they
wanted
to,
there
is
language
on
the
submission
to
voters
that
it
it
does
talk
about
submitting
the
vote
to
the
general
or
to
a
general
or
special
election,
and
the
statute
is
statute
only
allows
one
option,
which
is
to
submit
it
at
a
general
election.
G
Typically,
we're
allowed
to
submit
vote
questions
to
voters
at
general
or
special
election,
but
this
statute
471.9996
only
allows
the
option
of
a
general
election,
so
I
will
be
provided
some
providing
some
language
that
states
that
the
the
vote,
submission
to
the
voters
would
be
at
a
general
election,
so
I
would
be
taking
out
language,
the
or
special
and
also
the
language
on
a
date
allowed
under
minnesota
election
law.
G
So
if,
in
fact,
and
the
the
reason
I
would
take
out
on
a
date
allowed
under
minnesota
law
or
recommend
that
it's
because
the
basically
special
laws
are
a
special
elections,
are
now
allowed
only
on
specific
dates
of
the
year
and
that's
a
fairly
new
statutory
requirement.
So
basically
that
second
sentence
under
submission
to
voters.
I
would
recommend
that
it
read.
It
must
be
submitted
at
a
general
election
period
and
I
can
provide
that
recommended
language.
I
know
this
charter.
G
G
If
there
is
a
petition,
if
if
this
is
allowed,
if
there
is
a
petition,
an
initiative
petition
and
it
meets
all
the
technical
requirements,
then
the
city,
then
the
city
council
would
have
to
take
action
on
it.
What
I,
the
the
language,
provides
that
there
could
be
three
actions.
However,
there
should
only
be
two
actions
that
the
city
council
can
take.
G
One
of
the
actions
that
the
city
council
can
take
under
the
language
is
to
enact
the
ordinance
without
change.
Some
initiatives
allow
the
an
ordinance
that's
submitted
by
the
voters
to
be
approved
without
change.
However,
the
statutes
related
to
rent
control
471.9996
only
allows
an
ordinance
such
as
this
like,
through
a
petition,
an
initiative
petition
to
be
approved
if
it's
sent
to
the
voters.
G
So
I
would
recommend
that
under
five
a
I
that
that
be
eliminated
as
an
option,
so
those
those
would
be
my
changes
if,
in
fact,
the
charter
commission
wants
to
propose
substitute
amendments-
and
I
can
provide
you,
I
will
provide
the
co-chairs
and
chair
chair
craig
with
that
proposed
language.
In
case
the
charter
commission
wants
to
submit
a
substitute
amendments.
G
And
unless
you
have
any
fur
questions
on
that,
I
just
want
to
go
to
the
another
question
that
was
proposed
by
vice
chair
ginder,
which
is:
can
we
have
a
an
initiative,
authorization
where
there's
only
one
type
of
initiative
that
can
be
had,
and
that
would
be
only
for
rent
control?
G
Why
don't
I
go
through
that?
I
did
research
on
what
whether
or
not
the
city
can
propose
that
the
charter
be
amended
to
allow
only
one
type
of
initiative
that
would
be
one
for
rent
control
or
rent
stabilization.
G
G
It
doesn't
specifically
state
that
it
has.
The
initiative
has
to
be
for
all
topics,
and
it
doesn't
specifically
state
that
the
initiative
can
be
for
one
topic
or
more
than
one
topic.
It
just
is
couched
in
the
terms
of
may
410.20
is
in
chapter
410
of
the
minnesota
statutes
lays
out
the
ability
of
the
city
to
be
a
charter
city.
It
lays
out
the
ability
of
a
charter
city
to
really
run
its
government
in
the
manner
in
which
it
wants
to
run.
G
G
So
that's
very
permissive.
It
allows
a
lot
of
leeway
for
the
city
to
set
up
a
charter
and
to
run
its
own
government
that
chapter
that
language
and
chapter
410
isn't
is
in
sync
with
410.20,
which
is
again
permissive
that
it
allows
the
city
to
set
up
an
initiative.
G
G
However,
I'm
looking
at
more
so
statutory
contr
construction
under
under
statutory
construction,
the
language
is
very,
is
very
permissive
using
the
word.
May
it
doesn't
specifically
limit
limit
to
the
ability
of
the
city
to
say
that
they
only
want
initiative
on
one
particular
topic.
G
Therefore,
I
think
it
is
permissive
for
the
city
charter
to
allow
an
initiative
only
for
one
particular
topic
that
that
would
allow
the
city
council
to
be
able
to
allow
initiatives
and
or
basically
the
voters,
to
submit
ordinances
for
voter
for
voter
rent
for
rent
control,
but
not
on
other
topics,
and
that
that
makes
sense
that
the
city
should
be
able
to
limit
and
decide
how
much
the
voters
should
be
able
to
get
involved
in
creating
and
setting
forth
ordinances
for
the
city.
G
G
The
state
this
the
state
law
in
alaska
also
also
has
the
similar
limitations
and
then
also
the
anchorage.
Alaska
charter
has.
G
On
voter
initiatives,
so
voter
initiatives
can
be
used,
but
there
are
certain
topics
that
are
prohibited
from
from
voter
initiatives,
so
I
mean
from
my
research
and
using
statutory
construction.
It's
my
legal
opinion
that
there
can
be
a
voter
initiative
in
the
city
of
minneapolis
charter
that
allows
the
voters
to
use
the
initiative
power
only
for
one
purpose
and
that
would
be
for
the
rent,
control
purpose.
G
I
can't
okay.
Now
I
can
okay.
Yes,
it's
the
same
language,
it's
the
same
language
in
the
statute,
and
I
think
that
could
be
this
the
case
I
can
let
you
know
that
the
the
case
law
talks
about
initiatives
and
it
talks
about
not
when
there's
an
initiative.
G
It
means
you
can
change
you
can
you
can
create
a
new
one,
you
can
create
a
new
ordinance
or
you
can
revise
or
repeal
an
ordinance,
so
initiative
covers
all
of
those,
but
if
you're
asking
about
a
referendum,
yes,
I
would
think
that
would
be
the
same
argument
that
the
language
in
410.20
is
very
permissive,
and
let
me
just
double
check
sorry
about
that.
Let
me
just
check
the
stat
sheet
real
quick.
G
G
G
Yeah
with
the
referendum
and
the
statute
couches,
the
rep
provides
that
the
referendum
listed
here
is
that,
if
you
wanted
to,
then
no
ordinance
would
be
passed
by
council
you
could.
You
could
state
that
no
ordinance
would
go
into
effect
unless
it
would
be
sent
to
the
electors
for
their
vote
and
in
that
language
it
also
says,
may
also
provide.
B
I
don't
see
anyone's
hands
raised.
I
I
would
just
say
that
I
did
some
honest
research
myself
on
this
topic
and
I
have
not
located
anything
that
would
cause
me
to
have
any
disagreement
with
ms
bushoon's
opinion.
B
The
discussion
does
raise
a
point
that
I've
thought
about
in
the
in
recently,
and
it
goes
along
with
the
substitute
motion
that
ms
bushoon
is
proposing
that
she
would
prepare
and
send
to
us,
and
I
would
again,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
we
have
an
initiative
amendment
in
front
of
us.
We
have
a
referendum
amendment
in
front
of
us
and
something
that
I
thought
of
the
other
day
is.
B
Basically,
what
you've
done
is
given
back
the
authority
that
the
legislature
took
from
them
and
I
bring
it
up
because
I
also
think
it's
interesting
in
our
other
amendment
that
is
going
forward
on
our
executive
mayor
and
legislative
council
that
there
is
some
fit
with
that.
I'm
throwing
that
out
there
I'm
not
advocating
one
way
or
another,
but
I'm
just
as
we
think
about
this
going
forward.
I'm
just
throwing
it
out.
D
B
B
Rent
control
in
the
absence
of
this
statute
would
have
been
something
that
the
city
council
could
have
done
by
ordinance
on
its
own.
But
since
the
legislature
took
that
power
away,
it
now
can
only
be
exercised
after.
There
is
some
form
of
referendum
or
initiative,
giving
that
power
back
to
the
city
council,
and
so
that's
kind
of
more.
I
guess
a
better
explication
of
what
I'm
kind
of
throwing
up.
D
Thank
you
so
you're
not
differentiating
initiative
in
referendum
at
this
point
just
that
what
the
police
power
is.
B
D
A
A
I
realized
that
there
already
has
been
a
public
hearing
by
the
city
council
and
I
also
realized
that
people
may
not
stick
to
the
actual
issues
before
us,
but
I
would
argue
that,
for
purposes
of
transparency
of
the
commission,
that
we
hold
a
public
hearing
on
these
items
and
give
people
the
opportunity
the
chance
to
voice
their
opinion
on
the
subject
matter
before
us
as
a
commission
and
not
doing
so,
I
think
makes
it
look
like
we
are
being
secretive
and
working
behind
the
scenes,
and
I
don't
want
that
to
be
we're,
obviously
not
trying
to
do
that.
A
H
Sandberg,
thank
you.
I
understand
what
commissioners
perry's
is
saying
and
I
I
did
listen
to
the
other
public
hearing.
It
all
focused
on
the
desirability
of
the
council
making
changes
to
affect
rent
control.
I
would
be
very
interested
in
a
hearing
on
the
initiative
component.
Unfortunately,
I
think
there's
no
way
to
practically
do
that
to
separate
all
the
issues
and
I
think
that
we
would
be
getting
into
a
hearing
that
would
focus
on
that
people
want
red
control,
not
whether
the
city
council
should
have
the
ability.
H
Having
said
that,
I
understand
his
issues
about
transparency
and
so
forth.
So
I'm
not
sure
what
it
would
get
us
in
terms
of
making
a
decision,
but
there
may
be
other
factors,
so
I'm
I'm
still
thinking
anyway.
Just
the
thought.
F
F
F
F
B
Thank
you
chair,
commissioner
rubenstein.
D
Sorry,
if
we
offer
a
substitute
amendment
as
ms
bushoon
has
just
suggested
and
which
seems
quite
desirable,
I
guess
the
the
substitute
amendment
would
really
be
more
technical
than
substantive
from
what
I
can
tell.
But
in
any
event,
if
we
do
offer
a
substitute
amendment,
does
that
change
our
obligation.
B
Before
I
call
on
the
commissioner
perry,
I'm
going
to
just
weigh
in
at
this
stage
since
he's
spoken
once
first
to
answer
christian
ruinstein's
question,
my
answer
is:
no,
I
don't
believe
it
does,
because
the
topic
is
the
same.
There
would
be
no
change
in
that,
but
I
am
also
opposed
because
under
our
rules
we
would
not
normally
provide
a
public
hearing
in
this
kind
of
matter
and
two
we've
been
fully
transparent
on
all
of
our
meetings.
B
In
addition,
by
creating
our
own
legislative
file
on
this,
that
not
only
has
the
rent
control
on
it,
but
also
initiative
and
referendum
materials
so
that
we've
been
fully
transparent.
What
we've
been
gathering,
and
also
with
the
final
point
that
co-chair
sandberg
raised-
is
that
there's
it
would
be
an
impossibility
of
trying
to
have
the
nuance
that
this
would
only
be
a
public
hearing
about
initiative
and
referendum
and
not
the
subject
matter
of
rent
control,
and
we
would
not
be
able
to
control
the
meeting
in
that
regard.
B
So
I
I
would
be
opposed,
but
I'll
then
I'll
go
back
to
commissioner
perry.
A
Thank
you.
So
I
recognize
the
points
of
the
fact
that
it
would
be
difficult
to
control
what
people
are
talking
about,
but
I
think
they
could
be
encouraged
to
discuss
the
subject
matter
at
hand.
A
B
I
will
shortly
discuss
with
the
co-chair
the
schedule
our
next
meeting
and,
as
I
indicated
earlier,
I
think
we
want
to
try
and
keep
this
moving
in
light
of
everything
else,
that's
going
on
with
the
charter
commission,
but
with
that
we've
concluded
what
was
to
come
before
our
rent,
stabilization
work
group
and
without
objection.