►
From YouTube: August 4, 2021 Policy & Government Oversight Committee
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
B
C
D
A
B
A
B
And
let
the
record
reflect
that
we
do
have
a
quorum.
We
have
11
items
on
today's
agenda,
including
two
discussions
discussion
items
as
well
as
I
believe
council
member
palmisano
has
an
item
that
she
would
like
to
add
to
today's
agenda.
Councilmember
palmisano.
Would
you
be
willing
to
speak
to
that
item
now.
E
Yes,
thank
you
very
much
council.
Vice
president
colleagues,
as
you
know,
part
of
heather
johnston
moving
into
her
interim
coordinator
role,
meant
that
she
had
to
resign
from
our
audit
committee.
She
was
our
council
appointed
civilian
seat,
so
I
have
been
working
to
do
some
recruiting
and
worked
with
council
members,
schroeder
and
fletcher,
who
also
serve
on
this
committee,
to
narrow
it
down
just
to
make
sure
that
we
have
a
complete
committee,
given
the
important
workload
of
our
audit
team.
E
So
the
three
of
us
have
a
candidate
for
your
approval
and
are
ready
to
move
forward
with
jay
singleton.
With
your
permission,
I
would
like
this
added
to
the
consent
agenda
item.
I
will
say
that
my
impetus
of
walking
this
item
on
today
is:
there
are
only
three
audit
sessions
left
in
a
year
and
one
of
them
is
this
next
cycle,
so
we
could
get
jay
started
quickly.
E
I
I
will
offer
that
jay
is
served
in
the
past,
is
vice
chair
of
pcosi
and
I've
collaborated
with
her
on
detailed
studies
of
policing
and
served
on
panels
and
advisory
committees
with
her
by
career
path.
Jenny
is
a
lawyer
and
I
just
find
her
to
be
particularly
thoughtful
and
ask
thoughtful
questions.
I
know
that
she
would
bring
that
into
all
of
the
work
on
our
audit
work
plan
and
I
find
her
to
be
committed
to
transparency
and
accountability
in
every
way.
E
B
Thank
you,
councilmember
palmisano,
for
that
very
detailed
explanation.
I'm
going
to
defer
to
the
clerk
and
do
we
need
a
roll
call
to
add
this
to
the
agenda
or
is
it
the
discretion
of
the
chair.
F
B
B
All
right,
thank
you.
So
we
will
add
that
item
to
the
agenda
and
item
number
one
on
our
consent
agenda
is
a
resolution
accepting
second
quarter.
2021
donations
and
number
two
authorizes
the
submittal
of
a
grant
application
to
the
national
endowment
for
the
arts
item
number
three:
is
a
contract
with
m
arthur
ginsler
and
associates
inc
and
number
four
authorizes:
a
revenue
contract
with
the
regents
of
the
university
of
minnesota
items.
Five
through
nine
are
legal
settlements
and
then
we
know
we
have
the
item
that
council
member
palmisano
brought
forward.
H
Thanks,
madam
chair,
as
I
have
done,
or
at
least
tried
to
do
for
every
one
of
these,
I
just
did
want
to
note
that
we
have
so.
I
just
want
to
quickly
comment
on
items
five
through
nine
and
just
state
that
we
have
workers
compensation
settlements
in
the
total
of
eight
hundred
fifty
thousand
eight
hundred
fifty
two
thousand
dollars
as
part
of
today's
consent
agenda
we've
been
advised
by
the
city
attorney's
office
that
elected
officials
should
not
comment
on
the
details
of
worker
compensation
settlements.
H
B
Thank
you,
council
president
bender,
and
are
there
any
other
discussion?
Is
there
any
other
discussion
seeing
that
I'll
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
role.
I
B
And
the
consent
agenda
moves
forward.
Next,
we
have
on
our
discussion
item
number
10,
which
is
the
proposed
city
charter,
amendment
related
to
government
structure,
and
I
will
invite
the
city
clerk,
mr
casey
carl,
to
continue
with
that
presentation.
F
Thank
you,
madam
vice
president.
As
you
just
noted,
this
is
a
continuation
of
the
presentation
from
the
committee's
last
meeting
on
july
21st.
It
concerns
various
proposals
to
amend
the
city
charter
to
be
referred
as
ballot
questions
to
the
electorate
at
the
general
municipal
election
this
year,
which
is
set
for
tuesday
november
2nd.
That's
just
90
days
from
today.
F
At
the
last
meeting,
this
body
recommended
approval
of
the
ballot
language
for
the
proposal.
That's
related
to
a
new
public
safety
department.
That
language
was
then
approved
by
the
full
council
in
the
form
of
a
resolution.
At
its
meeting
on
friday
july
23rd,
the
mayor
returned
that
resolution
unsigned
and
it
was
therefore
deemed
approved
under
the
provisions
of
city
charter,
section,
4.4
c
3..
Three
proposals
remain
in
queue.
F
Those
include
the
proposal
about
government
structure,
which
was
initiated
by
the
charter
commission
and
two
other
questions
initiated
by
this
body.
The
city
council,
both
of
which
relate
to
rent
stabilization
staff,
will
be
presenting
the
ballot
language
for
those
three
proposals
at
today's
pogo
meeting.
So
we'll
move
to
the
next
slide,
we'll
begin
with
our
presentation
on
the
charter
commission's
amendment
about
government
structure,
which,
if
adopted,
would
establish
an
executive
mayor,
legislative
council
city
structure.
This
proposal
was
first
introduced
in
september
of
last
year
pursuant
to
minnesota
statutes,
section
410.12
subdivision
one.
F
It
was
formally
adopted
by
unanimous
vote
of
the
charter
commission
at
its
meeting
on
may
5th
this
year
and
was
transmitted
to
the
city
council
for
the
adoption
of
ballot
language.
This
proposal
has
been
discussed
by
this
committee
at
several
prior
meetings,
including
may
26
june
16th
and
july
21st.
F
At
the
june
16th
meeting
the
city
attorney's
office
provided
its
legal
analysis.
Finding
that
the
proposal
was
constitutional
was
not
in
conflict
with
any
applicable
law
or
local
law
and
was
a
proper
subject
for
a
homeworld
charter.
The
city
attorney's
office
also
presented
at
that
time
draft
ballot
language.
The
draft
ballot
language
was
discussed
at
both
the
june
16th
and
the
july
21st
meetings.
During
the
july
21st
presentation,
the
city
attorney
was
directed
to
revise
the
draft
ballot
language
by
using
some
modified
language
suggested
by
council.
F
Member
fletcher
staff
has
attempted
to
respond
to
that
direction
with
the
modified
language
that
we'll
be
presenting
today
and
as
a
reference
for
policymakers
in
the
public.
All
of
the
details
about
this
proposal
and
the
other
ballot
questions
can
be
accessed
from
the
city's
legislative
information
management
system
and
those
are
linked
from
the
agenda
for
today's
meeting
so
to
ground
us
in
the
substance
of
this
proposal.
I'll
refer
again
to
this
table
which
reflects
the
change
that
would
be
made
in
the
enterprise's
operating
structure.
F
This
structure
divides
the
executive
and
legislative
functions
and
responsibilities
of
government
between
separate
but
co-equal
branches.
Here
the
proposal
would
create
an
elected
chief
executive,
the
mayor
and
an
elected
legislative
body,
the
city
council,
as
the
head
of
the
legislative
branch.
That
would
be
the
city
council
established
under
article
four
of
the
city
charter.
The
proposed
amendments
define
the
council
as
being
the
city's
legislative
body
and
vest
in
that
body
full
and
final
authority
over
the
city's
legislative
policy-making
and
oversight
functions.
F
In
addition,
final
authority
over
the
city,
budget
and
financial
policies
would
be
the
responsibilities
of
council
and
council
would
continue
to
exercise
policy,
level,
oversight
and
evaluation
of
the
city's
administration.
The
proposal
would
give
council
its
own
independent
support
system.
This
would
include
the
aides
who
support
individual
council
members
and
assist
with
constituent
service
functions.
The
council
would
also
have
direct
oversight
of
two
professional
nonpartisan
staff
officers,
the
city
clerk
and
the
city
auditor,
and
they
would
be
responsible
for
assisting
the
council
and
its
committees
with
official
legislative
and
policy
making
functions.
F
The
city
auditor
would
also
continue
to
provide
internal
audit
functions
as
well
as
providing
support
for
council's
oversight
and
evaluation
functions
and,
of
course,
the
council
would
retain
its
existing
authority
to
create
advisory
bodies
and
to
appoint
individuals
to
those
boards
and
commissions
to
provide
advice
on
city
policy
and
operations
and
to
provide
meaningful
opportunities
for
community
participation
in
city
decision.
Making.
F
This
proposal
eliminates
the
existing
executive
committee
at
the
head
of
the
executive
branch
would
be
the
mayor
established
under
article
7
of
the
city
charter.
This
proposal
would
explicitly
define
the
mayor
as
being
the
city's
chief
executive
officer
and
administrative
authority.
That
means
the
mayor
would
be
accountable
for
the
operation
of
the
city
government.
The
mayor
would
have
the
power
to
appoint,
subject
to
the
council's
confirmation.
The
heads
of
the
city's
charter
departments
and
other
appointed
officers,
the
charter
department,
heads
and
appointed
officers
would
serve
terms
that
align
with
the
elected
term
of
the
mayor.
F
F
As
the
city's
administrative
authority,
the
mayor
would
be
in
charge
of
its
administration,
which
would
encompass
all
of
the
administrative
and
operating
departments
that
are
not
under
the
control
of
the
council
or
another
body
created
by
the
city
charter.
The
departments
that
would
comprise
the
city's
administration
are
reflected
on
this
slide
under
the
direct
supervision
of
the
mayor.
F
F
Those
descriptions
also
follow
the
outline
of
the
city
charter
in
terms
of
providing
details
about
the
council
about
the
executive
committee,
about
the
mayor
and
about
the
city's
administration
as
a
reminder,
and
as
this
body
has
been
advised,
this
proposal
was
initiated
by
the
charter
commission
pursuant
to
its
authority
vested
in
it
by
the
minnesota
constitution
and
state
law.
The
council
has
no
authority
to
prevent
this
proposal
from
being
referred
to
voters,
and
it
cannot
alter
the
proposal
in
any
way.
B
Language,
mr
clerk,
can
I
stop
you
for
a
second,
and
now
I
stopped
you
in
the
questionnaire
they
decided
they
could
wait.
Do
you
want
to
do
it
now?
Councilmember,
gordon
or
you
want
to
wait.
G
Well,
since
we
already
interrupted,
maybe
it
has
to
do
with
the
department
heads.
We
just
heard
that
the
mayor
will
would
under
these
terms,
nominate
and
then
the
council
would
approve
department
head
appointments
with
the
council
then
also
approve.
If
the
mayor
determined
that
he
wanted
to
dismiss
or
fire
a
department
head,
would
the
council
have
an
opportunity
to
approve
that,
or
would
that
be
done
at
the
discretion
of
the
mayor.
F
Madam
vice
president
councilmember
gordon
the
amendments
drafted
by
the
charter
commission,
this
regard
say
that
the
suspension
and
dismissal
of
the
department
heads
are
a
matter
for
the
mayor
to
decide.
The
council's
role
is
in
approving
of
the
appointments.
Thank
you.
F
So
with
that,
I
will
remind
the
body
that
this
is
a
ministerial
role
in
setting
the
language
of
the
ballot.
The
language
must
factually
present
the
substance
of
the
proposal
in
a
concise
manner,
so
that
voters
can
make
informed
decisions
when
casting
their
ballots.
That
completes
my
summary
of
the
proposal
as
before,
the
council
has
before
a
draft
resolution
for
consideration
that
presents
the
ballot
language
for
this
proposal.
F
The
adoption
of
that
resolution
requires
a
minimum
of
seven
affirmative
votes
and
it
is
subject
to
the
approval
of
the
mayor,
as
provided
by
charter
since
the
legal
analysis
and
the
draft
ballot
language
were
previously
submitted
and
reviewed
in
the
public
record.
I'll
then
turn
this
over
to
assistant
city
attorney,
carolyn
bashoon,
to
read
through
the
revised
draft
ballot
language,
and
once
ms
bashun
has
finished
her
summary
of
the
language,
we're
both
available
to
address
any
questions
or
issues
that
the
committee
may
have.
J
Madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
I
will
go
be
going
through
the
draft
ballot
language.
As
casey
carl
stated,
the
city
attorney
was
directed
to
revise
the
draft
out
language
by
using
modified
language
that
was
suggested
by
council
member
fletcher,
so
I
will
be
going
through
this
new
language
and
advising
where
the
changes
are
made.
J
First
of
all,
I
want
to
say
that
this
is
the
basic
question
and
there
will
be
an
explanatory
note
and
I'll
start
with
the
basic
question.
The
title
was
changed
just
a
little
bit
to
add
government
structure
at
the
very
beginning.
J
That's
because
we've
been
calling
this
the
government
structure
charter
amendments
all
along
and
they've
been
in
limbs,
but
that
doesn't
really
change
much
about
the
title,
and
this
title
this
part
of
the
ballot
just
states,
the
general
proposition
that
the
city
council
would
be
the
legislative
body.
J
We
would
remove
the
executive
committee
and
we
would
make
the
mayor
the
chiefs
executive
officer
and
administrative
authority
of
the
city.
The
reason
why
it
was
set
up
where
we
talked
about
the
city
council.
First
then
the
executive
committee.
Next
then,
the
mayor
next
is
because
that
is
how
it
is
ordered
in
our
charter.
J
J
Now
I'm
going
to
go
through
the
explanatory
note,
there
are
basically
four
portions
of
the
explanatory
note.
The
first
portion,
which
is
this
portion,
is
a
general
instruction
or
general
introduction
to
the
amendment.
The
second
one
relates
to
the
city
council.
The
third
relates
to
the
executive
committee.
The
fourth
relates
to
the
mayor
and
the
fifth
relates
to
the
city
administration.
J
J
J
The
city
council
would
continue
to
appoint
and
discharge
the
city
clerk.
The
city
council
would
be
required
to
fund
nonpartisan
administrative
staff
and
could
also
choose
to
fund
their
own
aids
as
they
do
now.
This
new
language
in
this
last
sentence
was
a
reflection
of
what
council
member
fletcher
had
recommended.
J
It
requires
the
city
to
fund
the
nonpartisan
staff,
and
it
chooses
the
city
council
can
also
choose
to
on
their
aids,
as
they
do
so
now.
That
was
language
requested
by
council
member
fletcher.
J
This
ballot
language
also
states
that
it
would
require
the
city
to
establish
an
independent
city
auditor's
office
in
charge
of
audit
services,
and
this
next
portion
was
added
in
as
a
recommendation
from
council
member
fletcher's
amendment
for
the
city's
finance
and
operations.
So
that's
what
the
auditor
would
do.
They
would
be
in
charge
of
audit
services
for
the
city's
finances
and
operations,
and
that's
also
language
specifically
in
the
new
amendment.
Language
and
an
audit
committee
would
oversee
the
city
auditor's
office.
J
B
And
and
was
hoping
to
get
an
explanation
around
councilmember
schrader's
language
that
has
been
included
around
staffing
for.
A
I
B
J
J
J
J
You're
welcome
next
slide.
Please.
J
J
J
This
portion
of
the
explanatory
note
discusses
the
mayor.
It
defines
the
mayor
as
being
the
city's
chief
executive
officer
and
administrative
authority,
and
the
mayor
would
appoint
with
the
city
council's
consent.
The
heads
of
charter
departments
and
other
appointed
officers
unless
the
charter
or
any
applicant
applicable
law
provides
otherwise,
and
all
employees
appointed
by
the
mayor
would
have
a
four-year
term
that
coincides
with
the
mayor's
term
and
could
be
disciplined
and
discharged
by
the
mayor
next,
please
now
this
portion
deals
with
cities,
cities,
administration.
J
J
Dealt
with
the
ability
to
get
data,
not
public
data
and
to
request
other
information,
so
this
was
needed
to
respond
to
that.
So
I'll
go
through
it.
It
defines
the
city's
administration,
under
the
authority
of
the
mayors,
being
all
administrative
and
operating
departments,
not
under
the
city
council,
or
a
border
commission
created
by
the
check
this
charter
or
as
otherwise
provided
by
any
applicable
law.
The
city,
councils,
committees
and
members
would
not
be
allowed
to
issue
orders
to
to
direct
or
to
supervise
those
departments
and
employees
under
the
city's
administration.
J
So
what
we're
doing
here
is
we're
putting
in
the
information
that
council
member
fletcher
wanted
us
to
put
in.
There
was
opposition
to
the
use
of
the
word
interference
that
the
city
council
could
not
interfere
in
what
the
mayor
was
doing.
So
we
put
this
language
in.
We
also
put
in
lane
the
city
attorney's
office
also
put
in
language.
That
would
talk
about
what
kind
of
information
the
city
council
could
get.
The
city
council
could
still
get
information
and
assistance
from
the
city's
administration
and
the
mayor
to
do
their
legislative
function
to
carry
it
out.
J
B
Miss
bishon
council
president
bender
has
a
question
regarding
that
slide.
H
Yeah
thanks,
madam
chair,
so
I've
had
some
conversations
in
in
private
about
this
and
have
a
question
in
part.
I
just
do
want
to
ask
on
the
you
know
in
a
public
forum
about
this
question
of
what
sort
of
constitutes
city,
council,
interference
or
city
council
direction
of
staff.
H
So
I
have
three
examples
and
I
would
like
to
ask
here
in
this
public
venue
the
current
interpretation
of
these
three
examples
and
how
they
would
be
affected
by
this
charter
change.
One
example
is,
during
my
time
in
office
we
directed
staff
in
multiple
departments
to
write
an
ordinance
to
raise
the
city's
minimum
wage.
H
Would
the
city
council
have
the
authority,
under
this
provision,
this
prohibition
to
direct
staff
to
write
an
ordinance?
The
second
question
is
that
during
my
time
in
office,
we
have
passed
two.
I
have
two
examples
of
sort
of
operational
policies
that
we
have
passed.
H
One
is
called
the
complete
streets
policy
and
it
sets
priorities
for
how
public
works.
Employees
designs,
street
design
streets.
It
has
a
little
matrix
of
you,
know
the
most
vulnerable
users
and
says
we
should
prioritize
vulnerable
users
in
road
design,
but
it
is
clearly
an
operational
direction
that
affects
the
day-to-day
operations
of
the
department.
H
The
second
is
the
renter
first
policy,
which
similarly
directs
the
regulatory
services
department
to
prioritize
the
health
and
safety
of
renters
in
their
department's
operations.
Would
those
kinds
of
operational
policies
be
allowed?
If
this
charter
question
were
to
pass
and
then
the
third
is
we
get
all
kinds
of
questions,
hundreds
of
them,
you
know,
can
you
fix
a
road
safety
project
at
this
particular
intersection?
H
Can
you
help
this
business
with
a
licensing
issue?
How
would
the
council
members
and
their
staff
or
not
staff,
be
navigating
day-to-day
constituent
questions
that
have
to
do
with
city
staff.
J
H
Latest
I
understand
that
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
for
us
to
understand
the
impact
of
the
charter,
a
question
so
that
we
can
ascertain
whether
or
not
the
language
here
reflects
the
what
our
constituents
will
experience.
C
C
You
know
you
know
I'll
just
note
that
that,
as
with
other
charter
member
proposals
that
are
on
the
ballot
or
will
be
on
the
ballot,
this
fall,
there
is
a
lot
of
development
that
would
need
to
occur
after
after
it
passes
through
through
ordinance
development
and
that's
where
all
these
details
will
be
figured
out
as
a
charter
commission
originated
proposal
here,
a
lot
of
these
questions
would
need
to
go
to
the
charter
commission.
C
To
answer
frankly,
I
don't
know
that
we
are
in
a
position
to
answer
those,
but
the
clerk
may
have
some
insight.
F
Thank
you,
mr
nelson,
and
to
the
council
president.
Madam
vice
president,
I
would
say
I'll
offer
my
opinion
in
terms
of
how
I
read
the
proposed
amendments
offered
in
this
proposal
from
the
charter
commission.
The
first
question
was
about
an
ordinance
related
to
minimum
wage.
That's
clearly
a
legislative
issue.
F
Legislative
is
defined
as
a
policy
that
has
a
broad
character,
it's
generally
applicable
throughout
the
city.
It
applies
to
everyone,
it
prescribes
penalties
for
any
violations.
So
that's
clearly
a
legislative
enactment
of
the
city
government
and
would
be
initiated
by
the
city
council
departments
would
be
responsible
for
helping
the
city
council
in
the
pursuit
of
developing
that
legislative,
enactment,
a
policy
proposal
for
the
city
government.
F
In
terms
of
the
second
example,
which
were
referred
to
as
operational
policies
and
the
specific
examples
were
the
complete
streets
policy
and
renter's,
first
policy
I'll,
try
and
answer
this
in
a
different
way.
I
don't
believe
these
are
operational
policies.
I
do
believe
they
are
much
like
the
minimum
wage,
a
policy
enactment
of
the
city
that
regulates
our
community.
F
The
difficulty
here
is
that
we
would
probably
need
to
separate
out
what
is
policy
from
what
is
procedural
legislative
bodies,
of
course,
have
the
power
to
set
the
policy,
but
the
legislative
body
does
not
have
the
authority
to
prescribe
the
specifics
of
how
implementation
is
handled.
That's
an
executive
function.
F
The
legislature
adopts
the
law,
the
executive
implements
and
enforces
the
law,
so
there
would
be
a
careful
balance
in
the
crafting
of
that
policy
that
addressed
the
purpose,
the
goals
or
outcomes
that
are
desired,
any
prohibitions
not
to
be
pursued
as
options
and
implementation
and,
of
course,
through
the
budgeting
process,
we'd
be
paying
for
the
work
of
the
policy.
So
I
think
in
both
of
those
regards
complete
streets
and
renters,
first
policies
that
would
be
more
initiatives
led
by
the
legislative
and
policy-making
body
of
the
city,
which
is
the
council.
F
The
third
example
was
what
I'll
call
constituent
services.
This
is
constituents
calling
their
council
members
office
speaking
with
the
council
member
or
the
council
member's
aides
asking
for
assistance,
information
referrals,
in
my
opinion,
nothing
in
terms
of
the
current
practice
changes.
F
What
might
change
is
a
council
member's
office
would
refer
those
inquiries,
requests
for
information,
or
our
needs
for
answers
to
the
departments
certainly
could
track
up
on
those
just
like
they
do
today.
Constituents
always
have
the
ability
to
call
3-1-1
as
well
on
3-1-1
and
the
ward
offices,
as
they
do
today,
would
continue
to
coordinate,
to
make
sure
the
constituent's
requests
and
needs
for
answers,
or
information
or
referrals
were
handled
to
the
extent
that
providing
constituent
services
then
tipped
over
into
operations,
meaning
the
administration
of
the
city.
F
Those
referrals
would
be
made
to
the
mayor's
office.
You
certainly
could
refer
them
to
the
departments,
and
I
think
I
touched
on
this
at
the
last
meeting
on
july.
21St
departments
are
naturally
inclined
to
help
ward
offices
so
provided
that
they
have
it
within
their
capacity
and
their
independent
decision-making
authorities.
Departments
could
certainly
choose
to
respond
to
individual
council
members
requests
without
going
through
a
formal
chain
of
authority.
F
What
this
provision
does
is
say
if
that
department
says
I
don't
have
the
budget.
I
don't
have
the
authority,
I'm
concerned
about
potential
conflict
with
policy.
They
could
escalate
that
up
the
chain
and
then
the
mayor's
office
could
be
involved
and
there'd
be
a
formal
process
of
how
to
address
that
request
or
that
complaint,
which
would
be
the
responsibility
of
the
mayor
as
the
chief
executive
officer.
F
It's
not
so
much
a
clear
separation
of
powers
as
it
is
a
respect
between
the
division
between
what
is
lawmaking
and
policymaking
by
the
council.
The
city's
legislative
body,
as
proposed,
and
the
authority
of
the
mayor
as
an
executive,
official
or
executive
officer
to
implement
and
enforce,
evaluate,
monitor
and
recommend
changes
back
to
the
council.
F
So
on
all
cycles
of
that,
it's
a
it's
more
of
a
continuum
between
the
council
at
the
highest
level
in
policy
being
able
to
represent
their
constituents
and
their
wards,
and
thus
the
entire
city,
which
is
divided
into
those
13
awards
and
the
responsibility.
The
mayor
would
have
as
the
official
elected
from
the
entire
city,
which
encompasses
all
13
wards
to
direct
the
daily
administration
and
delivery
of
municipal
services
to
the
community.
I
hope
I
answered.
I
tried
to
answer
all
three
of
those
examples
so
happy
to
answer
any
further
questions.
F
But
I
I
hope
that
addressed
the
specific
concerns.
B
Yeah,
it
doesn't
appear
that
the
council
president
has
any
follow-up.
So
let's
continue.
J
J
I
just
wanted
to
state
that
this
provision
of
the
explanatory
note
is
based
on
the
new
7.1
h
in
the
amendments
of
the
government,
structured
charter,
amendments
that
deals
with
executive
function.
Some
of
the
language
in
here
is
directly
from
that
separation
of
powers
pro
language
in
the
amendments,
so
that
this
is
what
we
put
together.
We
took
out
the
language
related
to
interfering
and
we
put
in
the
information
that
shows
how
there
would
be
somewhat
of
a
separation
of
powers.
J
And
now
it's
the
city
council's
responsibility
to
make
a
decision.
At
this
point,
the
city
council
could
adopt
the
ballot
language
that
was
prepared
by
the
city
attorney's
office
and
direct
the
city
clerk
to
transmit
that
question
to
this
county
auditor,
which
is
due
august
20th,
and
the
other
option
is
to
direct
the
city
attorney's
office,
to
revise
this
most
recent
draft
ballot
language
and
return
it
to
to
the
pogo
committee
on
august
18th
with
some
revised
language.
J
J
B
All
right,
thank
you,
miss
bishon.
It
appears
we
have
some
questions
or
comments
from
councilmember,
schrader
and
gordon.
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
just
to
go
back
to
the
city.
Attorney's
answer
to
the
council
president's
question.
Just
it
did
raise
a
concern.
Am
I
to
understand,
then,
that
many
of
these
interpretations
of
of
how
this
charter
amendment
would
actually
play
out
would
be
up
to
the
city
chart
with
the
charter?
Commission.
K
F
Madam
vice
president
I'll
jump
in
here
right
away
and
mr
nelson
can
certainly
echo
what
I'm
about
to
say,
and
that
is
no.
F
The
charter
commission
could
be
looked
to
as
a
body
of
reference,
because
this
was
certainly
their
initiative,
but
it
is
the
mayor
and
council
that
are
together
the
governing
body
of
the
city,
and
if
the
voters
enact
this
amendment
to
their
city
charter,
their
constitution,
then
their
elected
officials,
the
mayor
and
council,
would
be
responsible
for
its
implementation
and,
as
mr
nilsson
was
alluding
to
before,
I
cut
him
off
and
offered
a
long-winded
explanation.
F
The
mayor
and
council
would
have
to
implement
this,
and
that
would
be
through
a
series
of
ordinances
either
to
the
city
charter
as
necessary,
but
more
likely
to
the
city's
code
of
ordinances
very
much
as
it
would
with
the
public
safety
department.
The
proposal
could
be
adopted
by
voters.
The
implementation
of
that
amendment
to
the
charter
would
require
ordinances
to
be
enacted
by
the
council
and
the
mayor
together
to
determine
the
implementation
of
the
will
expressed
by
voters.
So,
mr
nelson,
if
you
want
to
add
to
that,
I
just
want
to
be
very
clear.
C
Right
that
that
that's
correct
council
vice
president
council
member
trader,
casey
carl
stated
it
much
better
than
I
could
per
usual.
The
the
the
point
I
was
trying
to
make
was
echoing,
or
at
least
coming
in
after
mr
schuen
accurately
stated.
The
issue
for
the
decision
today,
which
is
the
ministerial
act
of
setting
the
ballot
language
and
not
the
substantive
debate
on
the
merits
of
the
proposal
and
question
questions
pertaining
to
the
language
as
it
currently
exists
in
terms
of
where
it
sits.
C
Right
now
could
be
questions
that
would,
if
there
was
time
or
or
ability
directed
to
the
charter
commission
to
to
explain
their
intent,
but
going
forward
were
this
to
pass.
As
I
stated
as
casey
stated
much
better.
That
is,
is
subject
to
the
you
know:
the
legislative
and
policy-making
functions
of
the
city
council
and
the
mayor
to
determine
how
this
will
work
in
practice
and
in
operation.
C
K
Well,
thank
you,
and
I
do
have
a
another
question
on
a
kind
of
a
different
note.
So
right
now
the
yes
from
minneapolis
is
assuming
is
taken
to
litigation
on
the
wording
of
the
other
charter
amendment.
My
question
is:
how
does
that
impact
this?
You
know
I
brought
up
last
meeting
some
of
my
concerns
with
even
including
an
explanatory
note.
Many
of
those
same
concerns
are.
K
Are
this
explanatory
note
such
as
having
say
well
I'll
say
that
for
a
comment
afterward,
but
just
if
you
could
talk
a
little
bit
about
how
that
litigation
will
impact
this.
C
Sure,
council
vice
president
council
member
trader,
the
one
is
for
for
purposes
where
we're
at
right.
Now
it
does
not
affect
it.
I'll
say
this:
we
are
confident
that
the
city
will
prevail,
that
it
accurately
and
fairly
fulfilled
its
duty
of
setting
the
ballot
language
that
the
inclusion
of
an
explanatory
note
was
proper
and
and
and
so
I
do
believe
it
will
prevail.
The
court
is
also
cognizant
of
the
deadlines
at
issue
here.
C
I
haven't
checked
yet
today,
but
as
of
yesterday,
we
were
anticipating
getting
a
hearing
date
on
this
matter
and
it
is
likely
that
that
hearing
will
be
very
early
next
week.
Miss
machine
might
have
the
latest.
I
think
I
think
we
were
looking
at
monday,
so
no,
I
don't.
I
don't
think
that
lawsuit
has
implications
for
what
is
teed
up
for
you
today.
The
decisions
that
need
to
be
made
today
in
terms
of
the
ministerial
act
of
setting
the
ballot
language.
K
Oh
try
just
waiting
for
miss
bushoon
if
she
had
anything,
but
if
not,
I
would
just
you
know
reiterate
my
concerns
with
the
last.
I
will
be
voting
to
fulfill
my
ministerial
duty
on
this,
but
that
said,
I
am
very
concerned
about
the
explanatory
note.
K
I
think
it
has
the
same
problems
that
were
have
brought
about
the
litigation
that
we're
talking
about
some
issues
that
are
currently
part
of
our
charter
and
not
distinguishing
that
for
for
voters
and,
in
the
best
case,
that's
very
confusing
in
the
worst
case,
it's
very
deceptive
to
make
it
seem
like
we
are
now
creating
this
new
system
when
in
actuality
parts
of
that
already
are
there,
and
it
does
not
really,
I
think,
address
the
real
issue
of
what
change
will
voters
see
in
their
democracy
in
all
the
cities.
G
And
I'm
assuming
that
we're
going
to
try
to
act
on
these
one
at
a
time
separately,
and
this
is
the
appropriate
time
to
look
at
those
two
options
before
us
and
respond
with
my
thoughts.
I'm
not
prepared
to
make
a
motion,
and
with
that
assumption
I
would
say
that
my
preference
would
be
to
have
no
explanatory
note.
I
find
all
the
explanatory
notes
to
this
and
more
confusing
confusion
and
are
more
misleading.
G
We'd,
probably
be
better
off,
including
in
some
kind
of
voter's
guide
the
exact
language
of
the
proposed
charter
amendments
and
make
sure
that
voters
have
access
to
those
and
then
relying
on
others
to
share
information
and
to
make
pitches
and
clarify
and
those
kinds
of
things
outside
of
the
city
process.
I
actually
thought
the
ballot
language
in
and
of
itself
without
that
sentence
about
the
explanatory
note
was:
was
adequate
and
I'd
be
interested
in
supporting
that
and
I'm
not
not,
including
these
complicated
and
confusing
and
misleading
explanatory
notes.
H
Thanks,
madam
chair,
I
had
just
put
myself
in
cue
earlier.
I
think
mr
nielsen
said
the
same
thing,
which
is
that
you
know
no
matter
what
it
says
in
the
sort
of
black
and
white
print
of
the
charter.
Certainly
political
power
shifts,
you
know
organizational
culture
shifts.
I
this
conversation
is
happening
all
over
the
country
around
kind
of
power
and
who's
in
charge.
I
know
in
seattle,
which
has
a
structure
similar
to
the
one
that
would
be
proposed
by
the
charter
amendment.
H
H
I
think
both
the
clerk
and
the
and
the
city
attorney
sort
of
pointed
out
that
over
time
it
will
depend
on
who's
in
office
and
how
interested
they
are
in
in
you
know
kind
of
implementing
this
in
different
ways.
Thanks.
L
Thank
you,
council.
Vice
president.
First,
I
do
want
to
say
thank
you
to
the
staff
who
worked
on
this.
I
think
that
it
is
an
improvement
in
line
with
what
we
asked
for
as
a
council
that
11
of
us
voted
for,
and
I
appreciate
seeing
that
I
think
it
it
works
to
you
know.
L
L
Vulnerable
to
a
similar
suit
or
a
similar
set
of
questions
being
raised,
I
do
have
concerns
about
explanatory
notes
and
I
I
think
that
they
are
causing
us
a
sense
by
many
of
our
constituents
that
there
are
games
afoot
and
that
there's
there's
a
lot
of
room
for
bias
and
editorializing.
Within
the
explanatory
note.
L
So
I
guess
I'm
I'm
wondering
if
it
would
make
sense.
Procedurally
for
us
to.
L
To
delay
to
see
what
the
courts
do
on
the
public
safety
question,
that's
being
raised
to
see
if
that
would
prompt
a
change
in
our
approach
to
the
wording
on
this
question,
that's
probably
a
question
for
mr
nelson.
C
Sure,
council,
vice
president
council
member
schroeder,
that
that
that
would
certainly
be
within
within
your
discretion.
Assuming
we
have
a
hearing
early
next
week.
C
You
know
one
would
hope
that
the
judge
would
then
issue
any
decision
either
either
perhaps
tipping
their
hand
from
the
bench
about
what
they're
going
to
do,
or
the
subsequent
written
decision
in
time
for
us
to
then
pivot,
if
needed,
but
there's
no
guarantee
of
that.
But
but
certainly
if
you
wanted
to
build
in
some
time,
assuming
all
other
things
in
terms
of
you
know,
meeting
dates
that
we
already
have
set
and
or
contemplated.
Special
meetings
are
available
that
that
that's
within
your
discretion.
C
L
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that,
and
you
know
I'll
also
just
kind
of
kind
of
state.
My
you
know
my
sense
for
the
record.
I
think
this
language
is
a
good
representation
of
how
city
staff
are
honestly
interpreting
this
language.
In
this
moment,
it
is
not
my
belief
that
this
is
how
it's
going
to
be
interpreted
in
future
years
by
future
staff
and
future
councils
and
future
mayors.
I
actually
think
that
this
is
going
to
be
much
more
impactful
than
the
way
it's
being
interpreted
and
described
today.
L
I
don't
read
the
language
the
same
way.
The
clerk
does
on
some
of
the
questions
around
how
it's
gonna
actually
feel
and
and
operate
to
operate
within
that
language,
around
constituent
service
and
around
some
of
the
policy
questions
that
the
council
president
raised.
We
can
have
an
honest
disagreement
about
that.
I
think
that's,
okay.
L
I
think
this
language
is
where
it's
going
to
be
given
the
given
the
universe
of
of
who's
interpreting
and
and
through
what
lens
we're
interpreting
it
in
this
moment,
but
I
want
to
just
sort
of
offer
my.
L
Concern
that
I
still
think
this
is
soft
pedaling,
the
level
of
change
that
this
creates
and
and
the
level
of
impact
this
is
going
to
have
on
government.
And
I
will
I
will
vote
to
pass
this
because
I
think
we're
probably
where
we're
going
to
be.
But
I
actually
do
think.
Maybe
I
will
just
to
see
to
see
where
my
colleagues
are
I'll
go
ahead
and
make
a
motion.
Would
the
proper
motion
be
to
to
refer
to
next
cycle's
pogo
meeting?
L
So
I
I
will
make
a
motion
to
refer
this
to
next
cycle's
pogo
meeting
and
and
to
make
clear
not
so
that
we
can
make
further
edits
to
the
language
other
than
to
see,
if
there's
an
impact
of
the
current
litigation
on
the
status
of
explanatory
notes,
so
that
we
have
an
opportunity
to
pass
something
without
an
explanatory
note.
If,
if
that
seems
to
be
the
direction
we're
getting
from
the
courts,.
B
So
there
is
a
proper
motion
to
delay
action
on
this
draft
ballot,
language
to
the
next
pogo
meeting
on
august
18th.
Is
there
a
second,
oh
second
path?
We
have
a
motion
and
a
proper
second.
Is
there
a
discussion.
G
I'd
like
to
make
a
comment:
council,
member
gordon,
thank
you
very
much
vice
president
jenkins,
and
maybe
it's
comment
and
a
little
bit
of
a
question.
So
I
appreciate
this
I'll
support
this
delay,
especially
because
councilmember
fletcher
was
teasing
me
with
the
notion.
We
might
not
need
an
explanatory
note,
which
I
would
prefer.
I
did
just
want
to
get.
Maybe
get
really
brief
clarity
that
when
the
election
occurs
and
there's
these
charter
amendments
is
the
actual
language
of
the
charter
amendment
available
in
the
polling
places
for
people
to
review.
G
F
This
was
the
reasoning
why
and
as
I've
expressed
in
public
meetings
before
we
are
limited
by
state
law
as
to
what
we
can
say
to
voters
when
they're
in
the
polling
place
with
their
ballot,
we're
limited
to
simply
reading
the
question
or
if
it's
in
another
language
interpreting
the
literal
words
in
another
language,
we
cannot
offer
explanations,
we
cannot
post
explanations
into
the
polling
place.
There
are
statutes
and
state
regulations
that
dictate
what
can
be
displayed
and
what
must
be
displayed,
and
this
would
not
be
something
appreciate
that.
B
I
will
now
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
role
on
the
motion
by
councilman
fletcher
to
delay
action
on
this
item
to
the
next
pogo
meeting
on
august
18th.
D
A
I
B
D
Why
don't
we
just
kick
that
can
forward
too?
Then
I
fee,
I
I
I'm
not
opposed
to
delay.
I
just
feel
like
this
is
like
jacking
around
and
kicking
the
can
forward
over
and
over
again,
and
so
I
don't
appreciate
being
in
the
meetings
to
discuss
this
multiple
times
so
now.
We're
facing
this
next
thing,
two
more
charter
amendments
that
if
I
understood
council
member
fletcher's
motion
which
was
to
delay
based
on
the
courts,
why
would
we
bother
to
take
those
up
today.
B
D
No,
no,
I
would.
I
would
consider
that
like
calling
the
question
without
letting
anyone
else
speak.
So
no,
I
won't.
I
won't
make
a
motion.
I'm
sure
some
of
my
colleagues
have
opinions,
but
I
just
feel
like
we're
going
to
go
through
another
hour's
worth
of
discussion
and
then
not
take
an
action
and-
and
that
is
frustrating.
H
Thanks,
madam
chair,
for
any
of
the
outstanding
items
we
do
need
to
also
bear
in
mind
the
final
deadline,
which
is
august
20th.
So
our
next
council
meeting
is
that
day
of
august
20th.
H
H
So
I'm
not
anticipating
that
the
mayor
would
veto
the
one
that
we
just
discussed,
but
if
the
mayor
did
veto
that
one,
we
would
now
not
have
any
time
to
override
the
veto,
but
that
one
doesn't
have
any
sort
of
substantive
question
because
it
was
initiated
by
the
cap,
the
charter
commission.
So
both
the
council
and
the
mayor
have
a
ministerial
decision.
H
However,
we
could
consider
convening
a
special
counsel
meeting
if
we
don't
want
to
wait
until
the
august
20th
deadline
and
the
second
question,
our
our
question
is
not
ministerial.
It
is
substantive,
so
we
do.
H
H
I'm
sorry
I
was
thinking
aloud
a
little
bit,
so
I
just
I
guess
I
want
to
point
out
that
we've
as
it
stands
now,
we
would
be
voting
taking
our
final
action
on
the
government
structure
question
on
august
20th
at
the
council
meeting,
and
that
would
be
due
that
day.
But
since
all
of
our
posit,
all
of
our
actions
are
ministerial.
I
would
assume
that
the
mayor
would
be
able
to
take
that
action
that
day
and
we
would
still
have
time
to
get
it
to
the
the
office.
H
H
Maybe
that's
a
question
to
the
clerk
and
then
for
this
one
I
just
a
delay
would
likely
mean
it
would
not
be
on
on
the
ballot
one
way
or
another
or
we
may
have
to
schedule
a
number
of
special
meetings.
If
that
were
the
case,.
B
Thank
you,
madam
president,
because
is
there
a
question
in
there
for
the
clerk
or
for
the
body?
I'm
not.
H
Well,
I
know
that's
that
the
clerk
was
asked
before
we
voted
on
the
last
question,
if
there's
anything
more
that
mr
carl
or
any
other
staff
would
like
to
add
about
the
mayor's
role
and
the
mysterial
decision
on
the
government
structure
question
here,
I'm
happy
to
hear
it.
Otherwise
just
want
to
offer
that
I'm
happy
to
follow
up
in
the
case
that
we
need
to
schedule
a
special
city
council
meeting.
F
Yes,
madam
vice
president,
the
mayor,
I
I
can't
predict
what
the
mayor
would
or
would
not
do.
The
mayor
and
the
council
both
have
a
ministerial
responsibility
as
council
president
bender
pointed
out
to
set
language,
it
could
be
that
the
mayor
objects
to
the
language
that
the
council
takes
on
the
government
structure
proposal
that
was
put
forward
by
the
charter
commission
and
in
that
case,
could
veto
if
we're
down
to
the
last
day,
to
get
that
done,
then
there's
no
way
we
can
get
it
to
the
ballot
or
yeah
to
the
county.
F
So
it's
on
the
ballot,
so
I
would
say
the
action
to
delay.
Another
cycle
on
government
structure
puts
us
at
the
deadline
and
there
is
no
wiggle
room
at
that
point.
I
would
also,
while
I
have
the
floor
with
your
indulgence,
say
we
should
go
ahead
and
look
at
the
two
ballot
questions
around
rent
stabilization,
because
we've
not
in
public,
discussed
the
language.
This
is
our
first
presentation
of
language
and,
as
the
council
president
indicated,
not
only
is
are
we
closely
getting
to
the
deadline?
F
This
is
a
different
beast
in
terms
of
an
animal
or
in
terms
of
an
amendment,
because
this
was
initiated
by
the
council.
So,
as
I've
said
previously,
there
is
both
an
ordinance
and
a
resolution
that
has
to
be
adopted.
This
is
not
something
where
the
council's
just
doing
a
ministerial
role.
This
is
a
substantive
policy
rule
and
so
bringing
that
forward.
Now.
B
Yeah,
no,
I
I
I
agree.
I
you
know
I
wanted
to
clarify
from
councilmember
goodman
her
intentions
and
she
she
seems
to
agree
as
well
counsel,
member
allison.
M
Looks
like
we're
all
those
questions
are
answered
that
we're
going
to
be
moving
forward
on
receiving
this
language,
but
I
also
just
wanted
to
note
that
I
think
the
discussion
that
we
just
had
wasn't
only
about
yes
or
no
to
the
explanatory
note,
but
also
the
name
of
the
information
within
those
explanatory
notes,
some
council
members
feeling
and
some
members
of
the
public
feeling
that
they
explain
things
that
are
already
true,
which
makes
those
things
seem
not
true
already
and
new,
which
you
know
was
the
nature
of
that
debate.
M
I
don't
think
that's
a
dynamic
with
the
language
that
we're
going
to
be
discussing
here,
you
know,
and
so,
and
so
I
think
that
the
the
substance
around
not
only
yes
or
no
on
the
explanatory
note,
but
the
substance
of
the
explanatory
note
is
different
in
the
the
conversation
that
we're
about
to
have
so
just
wanted
to
offer
that
and
I'm
glad
we'll
be
taking
this
up.
N
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I
get
the
concerns
too
around
the
timing
of
all
of
this,
but
I
appreciate
what
council
member
goodman
brought
up
with
this.
I
know
at
the
last
meeting.
One
of
the
things
I
mentioned
is,
I
think
we
should
be
consistent
with
the
explanatory
notes.
N
Either
we
do
explanatory
notes
for
all
items
on
the
ballot
or
we
do
none
and
I
think,
with
the
action
we
just
took
to
delay,
it
is
possible
it
could
land
either
potential
way
for
both
government
structure
and
for
the
public
safety
depending
on
what
the
court's
rule,
but
you
know
I
would
have,
I
would
say
you
know
we
should
certainly
proceed
with
the
presentation
today
around
rent
stabilization,
but
to
make
a
decision
on
the
explanatory
note,
at
least
for
me
that
would
seal
the
deal
on
the
other
items
as
well.
N
In
the
sense
of
I
want
to
see
consistency
on
the
ballot,
so
I
appreciate
that
council
member
goodman
brought
up
that
point
because
it
does
have
implications
if
we
move
on
the
explanatory
note-
and
I
also
understand
the
complexities
around
scheduling
in
order
to
meet
the
deadlines.
So
I
appreciate
the
conversation.
B
Great
looks
like
councilmember
palmisano
removed
herself
from
the
queue
and
we
have
discussed
this
item
and
there's
no
motion,
so
I
think
we
move
forward
to
the
next
presentation.
F
Thank
you,
madam
vice
president.
So
the
next
proposal
for
discussion
today
relates
to
the
subject
of
rent
stabilization.
As
we've
mentioned,
this
is
framed
in
the
form
of
two
separate
but
related
questions.
The
proposal
was
first
introduced
by
the
city
council
in
january
this
year,
pursuant
to
minnesota
statutes,
section
410.12,
subdivision
five,
the
details
of
this
proposal
are
accessible
through
limbs,
file,
2021-104
and
linked
from
today's
meeting
agenda.
F
The
first
question
here
seeks
to
amend
article
one
of
the
city
charter
by
including
a
limited
right
of
initiative
by
a
petition
which
would
authorize
voters
to
propose
to
impose
contro
rents
on
private
properties
to
be
controlled
by
the
city.
The
second
question
seeks
to
amend
article
4
of
the
charter
by
including
within
the
list
of
enumerated
powers,
the
authority
for
the
council
to
impose
control
over
rent
on
private
residential
properties
within
the
city
by
ordinance,
as
required
by
law.
Both
of
these
amendments
were
referred
to
the
charter
commission
for
its
review.
F
In
late
february,
at
this
bodies
july
21st
meeting
staff
reported
that
the
charter
commission
had
rejected
the
proposed
amendment
related
to
article
1,
which
is
the
initiative
petition,
but
had
also
offered
a
substitute
for
the
proposed
amendment,
article
4,
in
acting
by
ordinance
after
receiving
that
report,
as
well
as
the
legal
analysis
from
the
city
attorney
the
council
directed
staff
to
finalize
those
ordinances
by
incorporating
its
original
proposals
that
were
generated
by
the
city
council.
In
addition,
the
attorneys
were
instructed
to
prepare
ballot
language
for
both
of
those
questions.
F
Staff
were
specifically
directed
with
this
question:
to
provide
options
for
the
ballot
language
that
included
explanatory
notes
and
which
did
not
include
explanatory
notes.
So
for
each
of
the
two
questions
we
will
have
two
options.
We
will
have
an
option
with
an
option
without
an
explanatory
note,
on
this
slide
before
you,
I've
attempted
to
visualize
the
two
separate
independent
pathways
to
enact
a
rent
stabilization
policy.
Under
the
proposed
amendments
on
the
left
side
of
the
screen,
you
can
see
the
process
that
would
be
available
to
voters
by
way
of
an
initiative
petition.
F
This
would
be
the
process
codified
under
section
1.4
of
the
charter,
if
approved
by
voters.
As
you
can
see,
an
initiative
petition
would
be
submitted
if
validated,
then
the
underlying
proposal
of
the
initiative
petition
could
be
enacted
by
the
council
in
the
form
of
an
ordinance
or
it
could
be
referred
to
voters
to
make
that
decision
on
the
right
side
of
the
screen.
You
can
see
the
process
that
would
be
codified
under
section
4.1
of
the
charter,
if
approved
by
voters.
F
This
is
the
process
to
be
followed
by
council
in
adopting
a
rent
stabilization
policy
by
ordinance
that
policy
could
be
enacted
by
the
city
council
through
its
legislative
process,
or
it
could
be
referred
to
voters
to
make
the
decision
at
this
point.
The
body
then
has
before
it.
As
I
have
mentioned
four
resolutions,
two
for
each
of
the
questions.
These
resolutions
present
the
recommended
ballot
language
prepared
by
your
city,
attorney's
office.
For
each
proposal,
the
attorney
has
prepared
a
version
of
the
ballot
language.
F
That
includes
an
explanatory
note,
consistent
with
the
other
two
proposals
and
a
version
that
does
not
include
an
explanatory
note.
The
committee
needs
to
determine
which
format
will
be
submitted
to
voters
in
the
final
resolution
for
each
of
these
two
proposals.
Passage
of
each
resolution
requires
a
minimum
of
seven
affirmative
votes
and
are
both
subject
to
the
approval
of
the
mayor,
as
provided
by
city
charter.
F
There
are
also
two
underlying
ordinances
which
are
the
body
of
the
proposals,
as
I've
mentioned,
which
must
be
approved
by
the
full
council,
and
those
would
require
the
same
vote
threshold
for
passage.
Seven
affirmative
votes
at
a
minimum,
plus
the
approval
of
the
mayor
since
the
legal
analysis
and
the
draft
ballot
language
have
already
been
submitted
and
are
part
of
the
public
record.
I'll
refer
to
ms
bashun.
F
J
Madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
the
first
ballot
question
we're
going
to
go
through
relates
to
the
initiative
petition
and
that's
an
amendment
to
1.4
of
the
city
charter.
This
is
without
an
explanatory
note,
and
it
goes
into
the
details
of
the
ability
to
initiate
rent
control,
rem
control,
ordinance
by
the
voters.
J
It
states
shall
the
city
charter
be
amended
to
add
authority
for
the
registered
voters
of
minneapolis
to
propose
a
rent
control
ordinance
by
initiative
petition.
It
also
goes
into
the
requirements
for
the
petition.
It
must
be
signed
by
registered
voters
of
minneapolis
of
at
least
five
percent
of
the
total
votes
cast
at
the
last
previous
state
general
election
in
the
city
of
minneapolis,
and
it
has
to
be
enacted
either
by
city
council
again,
there's
a
two-path
way
either.
J
It
has
to
be
that
ordinance.
Language
proposed
by
the
voters
has
to
be
enacted
by
the
city,
council
or
the
city
council
could
determine
that.
It
wants
to
refer
that
to
to
the
voters
to
be
voted
at
in
an
election,
and
in
order
for
it
to
be
adopted
at
an
election,
it
would
have
to
be
voted
on
by
more
than
half
of
the
votes
cast
at
the
election.
J
J
It
shows
what
the
requirements
are
to
bring
forth
an
initiative
petition
and
the
ultimate
re
ultimate
decision
on
the
voters
and
how
many
voters
would
need
to
vote
on
that
for
it
to
be
adopted
by
the
voters.
So
this
is
the
initial
language.
Without
the
explanatory
note,
so
I'll
go
on
to
the
next
slide.
Please.
J
J
This
states
shall
the
minneapolis
charter
be
amended
to
add
authority
for
voters
to
propose
a
rent,
control
ordinance
by
initiative
petition.
J
Also,
the
amendment
does
go
into
a
little
bit
more
detail
which,
which
you'll
see
here,
there's
a
two-part
process.
Really
the
city
clerk
has
to
review
the
petition
to
make
sure
it
has
the
proper
amount
of
registered
voters
and
to
ensure
that
it
meets
all
the
technical
requirements
of
the
petition,
the
city
clerk
it
doesn't
state
here,
but
the
city
clerk
will
set
up
processes
in
place
for
the
technical
requirements
of
the
petition.
J
So
the
first
step
is
that
the
city
clerk
will
validate
it
and
ensure
that
it
meets
all
technical
requirements.
The
next
step
would
be
if
it
meets
the
technical
requirements.
The
city
of
the
city
attorney
would
then
look
at
the
legality
of
that
petition
and
make
a
decision
on
that.
So
this
would.
This
is
what
this
provision
would
relates
to
next
slide.
J
Under
number
three,
the
initiative
petition
could
be
enacted
in
two
different
and
independent
ways.
So
this
number
three
lays
out
for
the
voters
those
two
different
ways
that
it
can
be
passed.
The
city
council
may
enact
the
initiative
petition
by
ordinance.
J
So
once
the
petition
comes
in
the
city,
council
could
decide
that
it
wants
to
enact
it
without
going
in
the
voters
under
b.
The
city
council
may
refer
the
initiative
petition
as
a
ballot
question
to
the
voters
and
again,
if
more
than
half
of
the
votes
cast
on
the
ballot
question
are
in
favor
of
its
adoption,
it
would
be
enacted
and
the
ordinance
would
take
effect
30
days
after
the
election
or
at
such
other
time,
as
provided
in
the
petitioner's
ordinance.
J
So
the
petitioners
could
put
in
their
petition
that
it
would
be
enacted
at
a
different
time
say,
for
example,
six
months
later
to
allow
time
for
it
to
be
fully
enacted
by
the
city,
or
they
could
say
nothing
at
all
about
the
timeline.
And
then
it
would
be
effective,
30
days
after
the
election,
this
language,
that
it
would
be
effective
30
days
after
the
election
or
at
some
time
is
provided
in
the
petitioner's
ordinance,
is
basic
language
that
is
used
when
there
is
a
petition
for
charter
amendment
language.
J
J
This
amendment
to
4.1
would
authorize
the
city
council
to
enact
the
rent
control
ordinance.
This
is
the
language.
With
no
explanatory
note,
shall
the
city
charter
be
amended
to
authorize
the
city
council
to
regulate
rents
on
private
residential
property
in
the
city
of
minneapolis,
either
by
ordinance
or
by
referral
to
the
voters
at
an
election
where
more
than
half
of
the
votes
cast
on
the
ballot
question
are
in
favor
of
its
adoption
next
slide.
J
J
J
If
more
than
half
of
the
votes
cast
on
the
ballot
question
are
in
favor
of
its
adoption,
the
ordinance
would
take
effect
30
days
after
the
election
or
at
such
other
time,
as
provided
in
the
organs
this
language
about
the
more
than
half
the
votes
cast,
would
would
be
needed
to
adopt
the
language
and
that
the
effective
date.
This
is
similar
to
what
we
saw
with
the
amendments
to
1.4
and
again,
this
language
is
similar
well,
at
least
the
language
regarding
the
effective
date
is
similar
to
what
would
be
required
for
a
charter
amendment.
J
M
I
just
wanted
to
thank
miss
machine
for
the
presentation.
I've
had
a
chance
to
look
at
the
language
before
her
hand,
and
it
was
good
to
get
the
the
explanations
here.
I
think
that
the
I
think
that
both
versions
are
are
pretty
clear.
I
think
that
with
or
without
the
note
that
the
essential
information
is
the
same.
I
am
open
to
discussion
from
my
colleagues.
M
Obviously
I
want
to
hear
folks
feedback,
but
I
did
have
one
question
because
I
know
that
some
of
my
colleagues
feel
really
strongly
that,
even
though
I
I
feel
like
the
essential
information
in
each
quest,
each
question
that
we're
facing
are
are
very
different,
this
one
being
maybe
the
most
straightforward
in
comparison
to
those
other
charter
amendments
I
wanted
to.
I
wanted
to
ask
the
clerk
or
the
city
attorney
if
the.
M
If
the
question
on
the
the
current
lawsuit
that
we're
facing
is
resolved
by
this
friday
hypothetically,
could
we
bring
forward
a
a
substitute
motion
to
either
add
the
note
or
remove
the
note
based
on
that
outcome?
Trying
to
ask,
because
I
know
that
some
of
my
colleagues
are
really
concerned
about
having
all
of
the
charter
amendments
either
have
a
note
or
not
have
a
no.
F
Madam
vice
president
I'll
wait
into
the
breach.
Here
I
don't
see
mr
nelson
activating
his
camera.
I
believe
that
it
was
stated
earlier,
but
if
not
I
I
will
share.
The
court
has
set
the
date
for
monday,
so
acting
by
this
friday
would
be
premature,
and
that
would
put
in
place
the
action
by
council
to
go
to
the
mayor.
For
you
know
that
would
continue
that
process.
F
So
if
the
goal
is
to
suspend
action
on
this
pending
a
court
decision,
then
I
would
agree
with
the
prior
direction,
which
was
this
matter
should
be
postponed
to
the
august
18th
meeting
or
another
meeting
that
could
be
called
prior
to
that
time.
F
In
order
to
allow
this
body
to
see
what
action
the
court
took
and
then
the
body
could
certainly
address
all
of
the
four
ballot
questions
most
expeditiously.
I
wouldn't
want
the
body
to
go
down
the
path
and
then
have
the
court
act
and
and
have
confusion
with
the
ballot
questions.
Yeah.
M
Well,
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
that.
That's
that's
clarifying.
You
know
my.
I
know
that,
for
I
don't
think
that
this
ballot
language,
whether
with
the
note
or
without
the
note,
generates
the
same
level
of
questions
that
some
of
the
those
other
two
initiatives
have
have
generated,
and
so
I
I'm
prepared
to
make
a
motion
today.
M
I
think
that
if
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
move
both
ballot
question
one
and
we
can
take
these
up
separately
if
my
colleagues
would
like,
but
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
move
question
one
and
question
two
without
a
note,
and
and
I'm
I'm
open
to
feedback
from
my
colleagues,
but
that's
the
motion
that
I
will
put
before
the
body.
B
Second,
so
we
have
a
motion
and
a
proper
second.
The
motion
is
to
move
forward
both
questions
without
a
explanatory
note,
if
I'm
understanding
that
correctly,
is
there
any
discussion,
council
member
council
president
bender.
H
H
H
So
I
just
want
to
be
very
very
clear
that
if
we
delay
this
so
that
our
final
decision
as
a
council
is
on
or
our
our
decision
as
a
council
is
on
friday
august
20th,
which
is
the
deadline,
that
would
mean
that
if
the
mayor
vetoed
them
that
we
would
run
out
the
clock
and
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
be
on
the
ballot
at
all.
So
I
just
really
caution
against
I
mean
whatever
your
position
is
on
this
issue.
I
just
a
vote
to
delay
this
one
means
it's
very
likely.
H
It
would
not
be
on
the
ballot
at
all,
so
just
want
to
make
sure
everyone
understands
that's
how
they
would
be
voting
today.
Of
course,
as
one
of
the
authors
of
these
two
ordinances,
I
certainly
would
encourage
us
to
take
action
and
to
fulfill
this
piece
of
our
role
on
this,
which
is
different
than
on
the
two
questions
that
we
were
just
talking
about.
N
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I
appreciate
the
discussion
on
this.
You
know
I
we
the
other
week
move
forward
the
public
safety
tournament.
With
an
explanatory
note,
I
mentioned
at
the
time,
I
thought
it
was
important
to
be
consistent
and
we've
got
explanatory
notes
either
on
all
or
none
of
these
items.
So
I
am
concerned
with
the
motion,
not
having
an
explanatory
note.
N
I
know,
as
this
appears
at
least
on
the
limbs
agenda,
it's
item
11
and
then
there's
some
points,
one
two
three
and
four,
and
so
yeah,
I'm
just
trying
to
think
of
what's
the
best
way,
ultimately
to
structure
this,
so
that
we
have-
or
at
least
that
I
have
an
opportunity
in
particular
to
vote
for
if
we're
ready
to
move
this
forward
today
and
we're
not
interested
in
any
sort
of
delay
waiting
on
the
outcome
of
a
trial
which
it
sounds
like
a
number
of
my
colleagues
are
not
interested
in.
N
F
Madam
vice
president,
I
didn't
hear
council
member
johnson
offer
to
amend
the
standing
motion.
That's
in
front
of
the
body
now
the
motion
offered
by
councilmember
ellison,
one
of
the
three
authors,
was
to
approve
the
ballot
language
in
the
form
of
resolutions.
That
does
not
include
an
explanatory
note.
B
N
N
All
right,
thank
you.
I
see
council
member,
ellison
and
q,
which
I
I'm
guessing,
is
to
respond
to
my
comments,
and
so
I
would
defer
to
him
to
see
if
he
has
thoughts
on
how
to
proceed
in
that
direction.
M
Thank
you
vice
council.
Vice
president
jenkins,
you
know
I
I
made
the
motion
as
one
of
the
authors
based
on
you
know
I
my
understanding
of
the
language
and
and
and
what's
before
us,
but
I
think
that
I
would.
M
I
would
100
welcome
a
substitute
motion
if
you
wanted
to
make
one
and-
and
you
know,
as
an
author,
I
I
think
that
the
question
before
that
we're
putting
before
voters
is
clear
with
or
without
the
explanatory
note,
but
I
by
no
means
have
some
strong
opposition
to
the
explanatory
note,
so
I
I
would.
I
would
definitely
welcome
a
substitute
motion
if,
if
one
was
made.
B
Great
councilmember.
E
Pamasano
you,
madam
chair,
I'm
having
some
technical
issues
here.
I
might
need
to
leave
my
camera
off
there.
We
go.
You
know
we.
We
took
action
on
the
other
one
on
the
basis
that
we
wanted
to
hear
from
the
courts
about
explanatory
notes,
you
voted
to
delay
so
that
the
courts
would
decide
the
explanatory
note.
So
I
would
think
that
should
also
hold
true
on
this
one,
and
I
guess
I
just
don't
understand
why
we
wouldn't
then
use
that
same
rationale
on
this
one.
E
What
I
like
about
having
explanatory
notes
is,
I
agree
with
council
member
ellison
that
it
it
does,
for
the
most
part,
say
the
same
thing.
I
like
the
way
that
it's
organized
again
explanatory
notes
in
general
are
about
voter
education
in
at
least
one
other
state.
They
require
this
kind
of
explanation
and
in
the
voting
booth.
M
B
Please
come
to
my
realism,
responses.
M
I
I
I,
and
maybe
this
is
a
question
for
one
of
the
city
attorneys,
but
the
discussion
that
we
just
had
around
the
the
the
court
proceedings
are
not
about
involve
the
explanatory
note,
but
a
part
of
what
is
being
claimed.
Is
that
the
explanatory
note
in
those
in
those
instances,
name
things
that
already
exist
make
them
feel
like
they
would
be
new
which
which
which
which
some
folks
have
interpreted
as
misleading?
M
That
is
the
basis
of
of
of
of
the
claim
that
the
folks
who
are
suing
us
are
making.
M
I
felt
like
what
my
from
this
the
last
discussion
that
we
just
had
some
of
my
colleagues
felt
like
the
language
and
the
explanatory
note
for
the
for
the
for
the
government
structure
did
something
similar.
I
have
not
heard
anyone
say
that
the
language
in
this
explanatory
note
is
misleading
intentionally
unintentionally.
M
I
just
haven't
heard
that
here
so
and
so
yeah.
So
I
think
that
it
would.
It
would
be
mischaracter
a
mixed
characterization
to
say
that
folks
disagreed
with
the
very
concept
of
an
explanatory
note
and
more
with
the
substance
of
the
content
of
the
two
previous
explanatory
notes
that
we
that
we
discussed
so
I
just
would
offer
that
and
just
say
that
that
I
haven't
heard
any
of
those
criticisms
here.
Regarding
this
explanatory
note-
and
so
I
don't
see
how
folks
are
making
this
this,
this
false
equivalency.
B
Yeah,
I
I
did
put
myself
in
queue,
but
I
am
going
to
defer
to
council
president
pinder.
H
Thanks,
madam
chair,
I
will
move
to
substitute
the
version
that
has
the
explanatory
notes.
G
B
So
we
now
have
a
substitute
motion
to
and
a
proper
second
to
substitute,
a
change
to.
B
N
B
D
Thank
you
so
I
I
appreciate
this
motion
by
council
president
bender,
I'm
just
wondering
if,
when
you
call
the
vote,
you
can
be
very
specific
about
them
and
call
them
individually,
because
I
support
one
and
don't
the
other.
So
I
want
to
be
able
to
cast
my
vote
that
way
and
also
it
I
was
going
to
ask
about
what
would
happen
if
we
delayed,
but
it
sounds
like
we're
going
to
move
forward,
but
perhaps
mr
carl
can
tell
us
what
the
timing
options
are
if
they're,
if
this
doesn't
pass.
F
Madam
vice
president,
I
am
happy
to
take
a
stab
at
that.
The
council
knows.
We
all
know
that
the
deadline
to
submit
these
ballot
questions
to
the
county
is
friday
august
20th.
The
council's
next
regular
meeting
is
this
friday,
the
6th
of
august.
F
I
believe
it
had
been
council
president
bender's
intention
to
recess
that
meeting
in
order
to
allow
sufficient
time,
assuming
the
questions
move
forward
from
this
meeting
with
recommendations
for
approval
to
council
meeting
on
friday
that
we
would
recess
that
meeting
to
allow
sufficient
time
for
reconsideration
in
the
event
of
a
mayoral
veto
on
any
of
those
items.
Given
that
it
is
still
possible,
the
council
could
recess
its
regular
meeting
from
friday
this
week
august
6th.
F
As
I
mentioned,
the
court
hearing
is
set
for
monday,
the
9th
we
could
set
the
reconvene
session
of
the
regular
meeting
from
friday
to
tuesday,
the
10th
of
august,
and
that
way
it's
possible.
I
can't
guarantee,
of
course,
but
it's
possible
that
we
could
have
a
decision
from
the
court
on
monday
and
we
and
the
council
could
revisit
all
of
these
issues
and
make
decisions
on
the
10th.
That's
a
full
council
meeting.
So
as
long
as
we
keep
the
council
meeting
open,
the
council
can
take
final
action
at
any
time.
F
So
it
is
an
option
for
us
to
recess
the
council
meeting
from
friday,
the
6th
to
a
date
next
week
and
thereafter
we
could
continue
to
recess
that
meeting
if
the
court
had
not
acted
from
day
to
day
in
order
to
keep
that
window
open
and
not
deliberately
run
out
the
clock
by
only
leaving
us
the
20th
on
which
to
act
and,
of
course,
because
I've
already
chewed
off
all
of
my
fingernails
to
know
it's
because
we're
running
up
against
the
timeline.
That
would
be
preferable
for
me.
F
So
I
just
want
to
sort
of
put
out
there
that
we
do
have
options,
as
the
council
president
alluded
to
much
earlier
to
recess
the
meeting
and
keep
that
meeting
open
and
take
action.
So
if
it
is
the
body's
concern
about
the
court
decision
and
the
previous
action
related
to
the
proposed
public
safety
department,
certainly
that
would
be
an
option
for
this
body
to
consider.
B
So,
mr
clerk,
I
just
want
to
get
a
little
clarification
on
council
member
goodman's
request
to
split
the
votes.
Does
that
require
another
motion?
No.
F
Madam
vice
president
and
I've
already
communicated
to
the
clerk
ms
sedan,
that
we'll
have
to
have
separate
roll
call
votes
on
the
resolution
related
to
proposal
to
amend,
section
1.4,
which
is
the
petition
initiative
and
then
we'll
have
to
have
a
separate
roll
call.
Vote
on
the
resolution
related
to
the
amendment
to
section
4.1,
which
is
enactment
by
ordinance.
So
we'll
have
two
motions
and
two
votes.
F
Separate
sect,
that's
the
second
vote.
The
first
vote
will
be
on
the
proposal
to
amend
the
city
charter
in
section
1.4
to
allow
a
limited
right
of
citizen
initiative
so
that
they
could
petition
in
order
to
have
a
rent,
stabilization
policy
put
on
the
ballot
or
enacted
by
council.
That's
question
number
one
and
then
question
number
two
that
we'll
take
up
separately
is
the
proposal
to
amend
section
4.1
of
the
city
charter,
which
would
put
an
enumerated
power
for
the
council
to
enact
rent
stabilization
by
ordinance
and
perhaps
perhaps
to
clarify
this.
F
I
find
it
helpful
visually
if
the
tech
team
could
roll
back
the
slides
to
the
picture
during
my
part
of
the
presentation
I
had
each
of
these
options
visually
outlined.
So,
if
you're
seeing
the
screen
in
front
of
you
now,
the
first
vote
will
be
on
the
matter
on
the
left
side
of
the
screen.
This
is
citizen
petition,
we'll
take
a
vote
on
that.
Then
we'll
take
a
vote
on
what's
on
the
right
side
of
the
screen,
which
is
counsel
action
by
ordinance.
D
F
D
F
F
First
series
of
items
is
related
to
the
slide
on
the
right
side
of
the
screen,
which
is
ordinance
so
council
member
goodman
is
correct.
The
agenda
has
it
backwards.
The
first
action
would
be
on
article
four,
which
is
council
action
by
ordinance
and
items.
Three
and
four
printed
on
the
agenda
are
related
to
article
one,
which
is
citizen
petition,
my
apologies.
They
should
be
listed
in
article
order.
It
should
be
one
and
four
but
they're
backwards.
So
to
counseling
for
goodman's
point
and
my
apologies
items.
F
One
and
two
are
about
the
slide
on
the
right,
which
is
about
council,
taking
action
by
ordinance
items.
Three
and
four
on
the
agenda
are
about
a
citizens
initiative
petition
to
enact
rent
stabilization,
which
is
shown
on
the
left
side
of
that.
B
F
I
B
H
B
B
I
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
mr
carl
did
clarify
my
question,
which
was
to
talk
about
what
a
delay
might
bring
us
and
I
would
be
okay
with
a
recess,
as
he
suggested
you
know,
to
august
10th
after
we
get
the
other
piece
about
explanatory
notes
cleared
up.
We
seem
to
be
past
that
in
a
different
part
of
the
discussion,
but
thank
you,
mr
carl,
for
clarifying
that.
H
Thanks,
madam
chair
first,
I
just
wanted
to
share
with
all
of
you
that
have
reached
out
to
mayor
frye,
to
coordinate
on
the
government
structure.
Question
like
I
do
with
all
of
you.
Even
if
we
disagree
on
substance.
I
will
always
put
on
my
council
president
hat
and
make
sure
that
we
are
meeting
our
governance
obligations,
so
he
and
I
will
be
able
to
touch
base
and
if
we
need
to
do
anything
to
adjust
for
the
government
structure
question
to
meet
our
obligations
on
that.
H
You
all
have
my
commitment
that
I'm
working
with
the
mayor
and
all
of
you
to
make
sure
that
we
do
that,
and
I
think
maybe
we
all
got
a
little
caught
off
guard
with
the
motion
earlier.
So
if
there's
any
need
to
adjust
I'm
working
on
it,
I
want
to
move
to
call
the
question
on
the
items
before
us.
A
B
Yes,
so
now
we
have
a
motion
to
call
the
question
and
I'll
ask
the
clerk
to.
I
A
A
M
B
The
motion
to
call
the
question,
and
so
now
we
will
vote
on
the
substitute
motion
by
council
president
binder
to
vote
on
the
two
items.
B
With
an
explanatory
note,
and
I
will
ask
the
clerk
to
call
her
or
do
we
have
more
discussion
since
the
question
has
been
called
and
we
just
vote
right.
F
A
I
A
I
I
M
B
And
that
item
carries
next,
we
will
be.
We
have
a
motion
on
article
1.4
to
is
that
the
underlying
motion,
or
is
that
still
related
to
council
president
binder's
motion
to
move
this
with
an
explanatory
note.
B
And
I
do
want
to
just
acknowledge
that
council
member
johnson
was
in
queue
prior
to
council
president
call
for
the
question
and
if
it's
okay,
I
would
like
to
give
him
an
opportunity
to
speak
to
this
emotion.
This
current
motion,
council
member
johnson.
N
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I
really
appreciate
that,
and
you
know
I
was
sensitive
in
our
cue
here
about
that
called
a
question.
I
know
in
the
past
when
we
used
to
call
the
question
it's
usually
after
you
know
an
hour
plus
of
discussion.
In
this
case,
we've
been
explicitly
advised
by
the
city
attorney's
office
that
we're
not
to
speak
about
these
amendments
or
rationales
or
decision
outside
of
these
council
meetings
and
so
being
able
to
have
public
discussion.
N
I
think
is
particularly
important,
since
this
really
is
kind
of
our
one,
formal
opportunity
to
put
statements
on
the
record
about
this,
and
so
I
appreciate
getting
an
opportunity
to
speak
at
least
on
1.4,
and
I
will
say
on
4.1,
which
I
voted
for.
I
am
happy
to
support
the
rent,
stabilization
ordinance
by
city
council.
I
supported
the
original
council
language
that
went
through
last
time.
I
think
it
provides
more
flexibility
and
more
ability
to
tweak
policy
as
necessary
on
it.
I
know
we
have
these
two
different,
independent
paths
before
us.
N
You
know
this
wasn't
an
easy
decision
for
me
on
this
one.
I
do
support
like
I
mentioned,
that
rent
stabilization
policy.
I
think
the
cura
report
was
really
great
and
spoke
to
a
lot
of
the
nuance.
This
needed
a
lot
of
the
considerations
that
go
into
this,
and
so
I
do
expect
it's
probably
going
to
pass
today.
This
initiative
be
a
referendum
path.
I
personally
have
reservations
on
this.
One
though-
and
I
just
wanted
to
speak
to
that-
you
know
if
we're
going
to
introduce
initiative
via
referendum
and
granted.
N
This
is
in
limited
form
due
to
the
structure
of
the
state
law.
I
think
we
need
to
have
an
intentional
conversation
and
study
session
about
the
initiative
via
referendum,
because
it
would
be
a
really
big
change
in
departure
from
the
way
that
we
legislate
as
a
city.
That
said,
there's
a
lot
of
other
cities
that
do
this.
So
this
is
not.
N
You
know
a
completely
unprecedented
thing
out
there,
but
certainly
there's
been
a
variety
of
different
experiences
with
that,
and
I
think
if
we
are
opening
the
door
to
initiative
the
referendum,
that's
something
we
want
to
do
so
very
carefully
and
very
intentionally
with
eyes
wide
open
on
it
and
what
that
would
mean
going
into
the
future.
N
N
That
deserve
a
lot
of
discussion
and
careful
analysis
and
work
together
and
that's
not
to
say
that
whoever
might
bring
forward
a
proposal
won't
be
engaging
with
experts
in
doing
legal
analysis.
I
would
expect
them
to
do
that,
but
I
also
think
part
of
what
I
appreciate
about
our
process
is
that
we
collaborate
with
a
lot
of
different
stakeholders
and
look
at
all
of
those
different
pieces,
and
I
mean
that's
our
job.
N
It's
our
full-time
job,
to
work
through
that
and
to
try
to
with
that
all
the
information
we
have
craft,
the
best
policy,
that's
going
to
avoid
any
sort
of
unintended
consequences
and
and
do
the
most
good
kind
of
balancing
all
considerations.
And
then
you
know
for
the
same
reasons.
N
I
voted
for
the
council
original
language
on
this
for
item
4-1,
that
same
kind
of
rationale
or
thought
process
applies
to
item
1.4,
which
is
that
you
know
it's
not
uncommon
for
us
to
tweak
policy
and
be
adaptive
and
responsive
with
changes
as
we
monitor
how
our
policies
have
been
implemented
and
to
have
a
very
complex
consequential
policy
that
potentially
is
going
to
have
to
go
through
multiple
iterations
of
coming
back,
going
out
getting
signatures
coming
back
being
put
on
the
ballot.
N
N
But
you
know
I
want
to
note
that
this
really
puts
an
emphasis
on
and
a
responsibility
on
the
council,
whether
it's
this
council
or
an
incoming
council
to
develop
and
pass
a
good
rent
stabilization
policy
that
does
the
most
good
out
there
and
protects
tenants,
because
there's
nothing
stopping
citizens
from
bringing
forward
a
petition
right
now
to
amend
our
charter
to
open
it
wide
up,
for
instance,
for
initiative
referendum
and
so
or
certainly
even
this
language.
N
That's
before
us
today,
and
so
I
think
that,
there's
to
the
degree
that
I've
heard
concerns
that
will
the
council
act
fast
enough
or
will
the
council
pass
a
good
enough
policy?
I
do
think
there's
that
counter
pressure
that
exists
there
in
order
to
push
the
council
towards
enacting
a
good
policy
on
rent
stabilization
from
this.
So
I
support
a
rent,
stabilization
policy
after
the
cura
conversation
and
and
the
extensive
work
that
went
into
that.
I
think
it
makes
sense.
N
I
B
Thank
you,
councilmember
johnson,
and
I
put
myself
in
queue
as
to
just
I,
I
guess,
sort
of
emphasize
some
of
the
the
ideas
that
you
brought
forward.
You
know
I
served
on
a
work
group
with
councilmember
ellison
and
others
in
the
city.
The
policy
link
anti-displacement
work
in
which
rent
stabilization
was
a
big
part.
B
A
big
recommendation
of
that
work
that
I
fully
supported,
and
I
voted
on
the
initial
affirmative
on
the
initial
council
resolution
as
well
as
today,
but
I
I
do
think
that
policy
making
by
initiative
is
a
a
broader
conversation
that
we
need
to
have,
and
in
many
in
in
many
times
in
the
past,
and
you've
mentioned
that
councilman
johnson,
that
there
are
other
cities
and
and
states
that
use
these
processes
and
then
many
many
times,
communities
of
color
minority
communities,
lgbt
communities,
etc
end
up
on
the
short
end
of
those
ballot
measures
and
initiatives
as
such,
and
so
I
I
really
believe
that
we
need
to
have
a
a
much
more
robust
conversation
than
simply
opening
the
door
through
through
this
policy.
B
Without
having
that
that
broader
impact,
I
think
that
a
council
driven
policy.
B
You
know
we
have
a
onus
to
make
sure
that
we
are
listening
to
all
the
stakeholders,
bringing
in
all
the
voices
that
are
impacted
by
by
an
issue
and
just
not
always
clear
that
that
is
a
something
that
happens
with
a
excuse
me,
a
voter
initiated
pad.
So
again,
I
I
am
just
challenged
by
by
this
proposal
as
well.
Council
president
binder.
H
Thanks
man
of
chair,
I
I
can
certainly
appreciate
the
perspectives
of
my
colleagues.
I
just
wanted
to
just
really
briefly
kind
of
reiterate
or
emphasize
why
I
is
one
of
the
authors
offered
this
version
of
a
pathway
to
passing
red
stabilization.
H
I've
worked
on
sort
of
all
the
major
housing
policy
or
a
lot
of
them
along
with
almost
all
of
you
during
my
time
in
office,
and
and
so
when
you
know
when
our
city's
low
income
renters
came
to
us
and
said
you
know,
this
is
a
critical
piece
of
our
housing
policy.
It's
missing,
you
know
I've.
I've
been
honored
to
be
one
of
the
authors
to
move
this
forward.
We
spent
many
years
talking
about
the
legal
context
and
ramifications
and
pathway
to
getting
this
passed
in
one
way
or
another.
H
That
would
only
apply
to
rent
stabilization
and
not
to
any
other
kind
of
policy
proposal,
and
it
is
responding
to
the
state
law
that
had
put
forth
a
charter
amendment
in
the
first
place,
and
so
you
know
I
just
want
to
just
be
really
clear
that
this
this
this
proposal
today
is
is
only
to
create
a
pathway
for
rent
stabilization,
and
you
know
for
me,
I
you
know
I
can
agree
with
a
lot
of
the
points
about
initiative
generally.
H
I
also
know
that
it
takes
us
many
many
many
years
to
get
any
housing
policy
through
our
process,
or
at
least
it
has
for
the
last
eight
years
that
I've
been
in
office
and
so
when
the
low-income
renters,
who
have
championed
this
policy
for
many
years,
you
know
say
to
me:
we
just
don't
trust
the
city
to
make
good
on
your
promise
to
get
this
done.
H
I
it's
hard
for
me
to
say.
Oh
no,
you
know
this
will
be
different.
I
know
it
took
five
years
to
pass
inclusionary
zoning.
It
took
many
years
to
pass
renter
protections,
we're
still
waiting
to
get
a
topa
ordinance
even
in
front
of
the
council.
For
consideration
after
four
years,
you
know
so
to
me
for
me
as
one
one
council
member
as
one
of
the
authors
of
this,
it
felt
disingenuous
to
make
any
kind
of
promise
that
that
this
would
be
different
and
that
this
policy
would
move
more
quickly.
H
So
that
is
why
I
came
to
support
this
narrow
application
of
citizen
initiative
for
rent
stabilization.
I
do
agree
with
our
city's
renters
that
this
is
an
important
piece
of
our
holistic
housing
policy.
H
G
Yeah,
thank
you
very
much.
I
I
also
consider
this
a
really
critically
important
part
of
the
piece,
maybe
for
for
a
lot
of
reasons.
One
of
my
biggest
concerns
is
without
this
resident
option,
to
bring
something
forward.
It'll
be
much
harder
for
the
council
to
be
held
accountable.
G
I
think
there's
a
it
could
be
an
easy
decision
to
say.
Well,
we
won't
do
anything
we'll
delay
doing
anything.
G
We
won't
stabilize
the
rents
much
easier
to
decide
to
do
that
and
not
have
to
do
the
hard
work
and
and
fix
things
if
there
isn't
an
alternative
for
the
voters
and
and
conversely,
if
the
council
isn't
doing
anything,
there
should
be
another
option,
so
something
else
could
come
forward
that
would
be
popular
and
would
be
supported,
and
if
it's
put
on
the
ballot
it's
going
to
have
to
get
a
majority
of
the
voters
to
pass
it
anyway.
So
that's
the
safeguard
against
it.
G
The
city
is
not
going
to
create
a
stabilization
program
and
the
residents
aren't
if
there
isn't
a
majority
of
voters
who
support
it,
and
I
think
that
will
be
a
motivating
factor
for
the
council
to
say
we
can
get
it
done
faster.
We
can
come
up
with
something,
and
let's
do
this
on
our
own.
I'll,
also
note
that
any
initiative
and
petition
that
came
forward
would
probably
have
provisions
in
there.
That
would
allow
the
council
to
refine
it
and
fix
it
over
time
and
could
easily
be
placed
in
there.
G
So
acting
like
for
every
amendment
on
anything
in
the
future,
maybe
couldn't
be
done
well.
Drafting
that
initial
proposal
and
program
could
certainly
have
provisions
about
how
the
program
could
change
now
could
be
made
different
as
it's
going
forward.
I
think
these
two
and
maybe
there's
even
more
versions.
If
you
look
at
how
the
council
even
has
a
couple
options
within
them,
but
these
options
and
having
all
these
alternatives
before
us
would
be
ideal
and
would
be
great.
G
And
besides
that,
I
I
think
we
should
at
least
give
the
voters
a
chance
to.
Let
us
know,
I
think
you,
even
if
you're,
making
really
good
arguments
about
why
not
to
have
the
initiative
petition
pathway
forward
and
viable.
Why
don't
we
actually?
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
wanted
to
just
briefly
explain
my
votes
here
today.
I
really
appreciate
that
we
are
putting
explanatory
notes
in
these
ballot
amendments
that
I
want
to
thank
my
colleagues
for
that.
I
think
that's
the
right
thing
to
do.
E
That
said,
we
have
never
had
an
opportunity
to
petition
council
for
an
ordinance
before,
and
I
don't
think
that
that's
necessarily
a
good
thing
with
something
like
a
voter
initiative
that
doesn't
account
for
how
we
would
need
to
build
an
infrastructure
to
deliver
on
initiatives
brought
forward
by
advocacy
groups
or
others
in
the
community
to
make
it
legal.
It
also
doesn't
account
for
all
of
council.
Vice
president
jenkins
concerns
around
leaving
out
minority
groups
of
all
different
kinds
across
the
city.
E
E
If
you
want
to
ignore
the
advice
of
the
charter
commission,
I
don't
think
that
we
should
be
ignoring
the
city,
attorney's
advice
that
speaks
to
the
legality
of
this,
so
unfortunately
no
one
will
be
held
accountable
for
this,
because
I
fear
that
both
of
these
things
will
be
in
court
for
many
many
years
to
come.
So
I
wanted
to
just
point
out
my
concerns
with
these
as
to
how
we
are
moving
forward.
Thank
you.
M
Thank
you,
council.
Vice
president,
I
I
I
feel,
like
my
co-authors
said
it
really
well,
but
I
just
wanted
to
emphasize
the
fact
that
there
there
is
no,
that
I
know
of
there
are
no
other
state
laws
that
that
create
this
kind
of
hurdle
and
threshold
for
pe
for
passing
something
at
this
at
the
city
level.
M
In
most
states,
the
state
cities
are
informed
that
they
they
can
either
pursue
arrest,
stabilization
policy
or
rent
control
policy,
or
that
they
can
or
that
they
cannot,
but
here
in
the
state
of
minnesota.
We
have
this
this
this
this
instance
where
there
is
a
very
narrow
pathway.
M
I
think
that,
with
both
of
these
tools
in
hand,
they
allow
us
to
pursue
that
pathway.
That's
very
that
that
is.
That
is
that
that
has
proven
to
be
very
up
for
interpretation
a
couple
of
years
ago,
especially
when
we
all
first
got
into
office.
We
were
told
this.
This
wasn't
possible
that
we
were
one
of
the
states
that
completely
prohibited
this
policy
from
happening
at
the
city
level
and
through
a
lot
of
research
and
diligence
and
study.
M
We're
discovering
that
that's
not
necessarily
the
case
and
that
we
can
pursue
this
policy,
but
that
we
need
these
tools
open
to
us.
M
This
is
not
a
slippery
slope.
This
does
not
open
up
a
whole
can
of
worms
for
for
a
citizen
petitions
to
to
happen
on
every
topic.
M
It's
a
very
narrow
scope
based
on
the
writing
of
the
state
law,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
to
to
to
just
state
that,
because
I
think
that
we
can
get
maybe
a
little
carried
away
with
how
this
might
be
a
slippery
slope,
how
this
could
be
applied
to
other
state
laws,
but
other
state
laws
aren't
written
like
this
one,
and-
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
clear-
and
to
say
that
a
vote
for
this
today
is
a
vote
for
us
to
continue
pursuing
this
policy
in
earnest
and
and
and
I
and
I
think
that
it
keeps
a
pathway
open
for
us
and
to
pursue
rep
stabilization.
M
B
You
seeing
it's,
no
one
else
is
in
queue,
I'm
I'm
just
curious.
So
what
if
both
pass,
then
then
what
happens?
How
do
we
determine
which
process.
B
Role
and
matter
clerk,
if
you
can
just
identify
what
what
we
are
voting
on,
I'm
pretty
sure
everyone
is
understands.
We
are
voting
on
1
4,
but
if
you
can
just
restate
it,
please.
I
F
Madam
vice
president,
you
said
it
quite
well
we're
voting
on
items
three
and
four
on
the
agenda.
This
relates
to
the
amendment
to
article
1.4
citizen
initiative,
petition
for
rent
stabilization.
D
B
F
Madam
vice
president,
now
that
we've
finished
that
business,
I
just
wanted
with
your
indulgence
to
conclude
our
presentation
by
reviewing
some
key
dates
in
this
year's
municipal
election.
Normally,
I
would
go
through
this
in
person
in
the
chamber,
and
I
know
we've
had
a
long
meeting,
but
for
the
benefit
of
the
voters
and
the
community
at
large.
F
I
just
wanted
to
highlight
these
key
things
that
are
coming
up.
As
you
can
see
here
and
as
you
know,
we
are
in
the
middle
of
canada
filing
right
now
for
this
year's
municipal
election,
the
filing
period
will
continue
through
next
tuesday.
It
closes
at
5
pm.
Next
tuesday
august
10th
candidate
filings
are
listed
on
our
elections
and
voter
services
website,
which
can
be
accessed
at
vote.minneapolismn.gov.
F
We
will
know
the
final
list
of
all
candidates
in
all
ballot
races
by
the
end
of
next
friday,
friday,
the
13th
as
we've
discussed
many
times.
The
statutory
deadline
for
submitting
these
ballot
questions
is
the
following
friday
august
20th.
The
early
voting
period
for
this
year's
election
begins
just
a
little
less
than
a
month
later,
on
friday
september.
17Th,
that's
just
44
days
away
from
today.
Early
voting
begins.
F
The
early
voting
period
continues
through
5
pm
on
monday
november,
1st
that
overlaps
with
the
7
day
direct
balloting
period
that
runs
october
26th
through
november
1st,
all
of
our
early
and
direct
balloting
will
end
at
5
pm.
On
monday
november.
1St,
the
city
will
only
be
operating
one
early
vote
center.
F
This
year
it
will
be
located
at
our
elections
headquarters
facility
at
980,
hennepin
avenue,
east
details
about
all
of
the
options
for
absentee
early
and
direct
balloting
options
are
available
from
our
elections
website,
which
again,
as
I
said,
is
vote.minneapolismn.gov
and,
of
course,
election
day
is
set
for
tuesday
november
2nd.
That's
just
90
days
from
today.
All
polling
places
will
be
open
on
election
day
to
serve
voters
at
7am
and
will
remain
open
for
service
to
voters
until
8
pm
that
night
and
until
the
last
voter
in
line
at
that
time,
is
done.
F
Any
tabulation
required
in
any
of
the
races
this
year,
because
we
use
rank
choice.
Voting
will
be
determined
in
the
days
that
follow
on
election
night.
We
will
be
posting
the
sum
total
of
first
choice
rankings
in
each
of
the
races
only
and
if
we
can
declare
unofficial
winners
that
night,
based
only
on
first
choice
rankings,
we
will
do
that.
Otherwise,
in
the
next
few
days,
we'll
tabulate
up
the
results
and
we
hope
to
have
all
of
the
results
publicly
posted
and
available
no
later
than
friday
november
5th.
F
And
then
we
would
plan
to
present
the
unofficial
results
to
the
canvassing
board,
which
is
the
city
council
for
its
review
and
official
certification
at
a
meeting
on
friday
november
12th,
and
at
that
time
the
results
would
be
certified
official
and
the
election
would
be
done.
I
want
to
offer
my
thanks
to
all
of
the
council
members.
F
This
is
these
ballot.
Questions
are,
are
big
and
are
not
small,
as
many
of
you
have
acknowledged,
both
in
today's
meeting
previous
meetings
and
privately
with
me.
All
of
these
questions
are
significant
and
they
would
present
significant
changes
to
minneapolis,
both
its
government
and
its
operation
and
our
ability
to
serve
voters.
So
I
appreciate
your
attention,
your
thoroughness,
your
interest
in
this,
and-
and
so
we
will
carry
forward
with
the
public
safety
and
the
rent
stabilization
and
bring
back
the
the
final
decision
around
government
structure
and
have
those
completed
in
time.
F
B
Thank
you,
mr
clerk
and
yeah.
Thank
you
to
staff
for
all
of
your
diligence
due
diligence
and
and
and
work,
and
we
still
have
a
little
more
work
to
do
around
this
issue
as
well
as
thanks
to
all
my
colleagues
for
this
very
robust
conversation,
and
I'm
saying
that
we
have
no
further
items
on
our
agenda.
This
meeting
is
returned.
Thank
you
very.