>> GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME. MY NAME IS AURIN CHOWED RAH. I'M THE CHAIR -- CHOWDHURY. I'M THE CHAIR OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE. I'M GOING TO CALL TO ORDER OUR REGULAR MEETING FOR NOVEMBER 18, 2025.
I WANT TO REMIND STAFF, THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC THAT THESE MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE TO GREATER ENABLE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. THESE BROADCASTS INCLUDE REALTIME CAPTIONING AS A FURTHER METHOD OF MAKING PROCEEDINGS ACCESSIBLE TO THE COMMUNITY.
THEREFORE BE MINDFUL OF THE RATE OF YOUR SPEECH SO OUR CAPTIONERS CAN FULLY TRANSCRIBE ALL COMMENTS FOR THE BROADCAST. I'LL NOW HAVE THE CLERK CALL
THE ROLL. >> COUNCILMEMBER PAYNE. >> PRESENT. >> WONSLEY. >> PRESENT. >> VETAW. >> PRESENT. >> ELLISON IS ABSENT. OSMAN IS ABSENT. CASHMAN IS ABSENT. JENKINS IS ABSENT. CHAVEZ. >> PRESENT. >> CHUGHTAI. >> PRESENT. >> KOSKI IS ABSENT.
PALMISANO. >> PRESENT. >> VICE CHAIR RAINVILLE. >> PRESENT. >> AND CHAIR CHOWDHURY. >> PRESENT. >> THERE ARE EIGHT MEMBERS PRESENT. >> LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE A QUORUM. I'LL ALSO REMIND MY COLLEAGUES THAT WE'RE USING SPEAKER MANAGEMENT TODAY SO PLEASE MAKE
SURE YOU SIGN IN. WE HAVE TWO ITEMS TO BE RECEIVED AND FILED TODAY STARTING WITH RECEIVING AND FILING AN UPDATE RELATED TO 2026 LEGISLATIVE POLICY POSITIONS. WE WILL NOT BE TAKING FORMAL ACTION ON THE POSITIONS TODAY. WE'LL BE TAKING UP FORMAL ACTION
IN THE NEW YEAR AS LEGISLATIVE SESSION IS LATER ON IN FEBRUARY. SO WITH THAT, I WILL WELCOME UP DIRECTOR TOPENKA FOR A PRESENTATION ON THE POLICY POSITIONS FOR 2026.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR CHOWDHURY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. WE ARE GOING TO BE PROVIDING A PRESENTATION TODAY ON NEW ITEMS THAT CAME THROUGH OUR POLICY LIAISON TEAM PROCESS WHICH IS THE PROCESS WE USE TO SEEK ITEMS
FROM DEPARTMENTS ACROSS THE CITY ENTERPRISE FOR CONSIDERATION FOR OUR LEGISLATIVE POLICY POSITIONS. SO I'LL CALL UP IN A MOMENT TO REMIND YOU ABOUT THAT PROCESS AND GO THROUGH THE NEW ITEMS THAT CAME THROUGH THAT PROCESS. SO WE ARE GOING TO BE SHARING SOME OF THOSE NEW POLICY
POSITION RECOMMENDATIONS. WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF STAFF FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS HERE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THAT PROCESS AND ARE ON HAND TO ANSWER TECHNICAL QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM. SO WE REALLY APPRECIATE THEM BEING HERE AND ALSO FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCESS THAT HELPS SHAPE THE CITY'S
LEGISLATIVE POLICY POSITIONS. AFTER THEY PRESENT THOSE NEW POLICY POSITION RECOMMENDATIONS, I'M GOING TO WALK THROUGH A DRAFT 2026 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA WITH YOU WHICH YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKETS AND ATTACHED TO THE LIMS FILE. AND THEN AFTER THAT, WE'LL MOVE
TO OUR SECOND AGENDA ITEM WHICH IS A FEDERAL UPDATE. WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MS. LANA. >> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR TOPENKA. GOOD MORNING CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I'M WITH THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS DEPARTMENT. I'M HERE TO TALK A LITTLE MORE ABOUT PLT AND THEN WE'LL GO INTO THE PROPOSALS THAT WE RECEIVED. SO THE POLICY LIAISON TEAM OR PLT IS COORDINATED BY THE DEPARTMENT ANNUALLY AND IT'S OUR
PROCESS IN WHICH CITY STAFF EVALUATE AND PROPOSE CHANGES FOR POSSIBLE INCLUSION ON OUR LEGISLATIVE POLICY POSITIONS AND AGENDA. PROPOSED CHANGES INCLUDE POLICY, TECHNICAL, AND LANGUAGE UPDATES. THESE CHANGES ARE BROUGHT TO US AND IDENTIFIED BY DEPARTMENTS AS
SOLUTIONS TO EXISTING PROBLEMS. SO ANY FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES OR EXISTING POLICIES THAT NEED TO BE CHANGED OR TWEAKED OR EVEN CREATED IN ORDER FOR CITY STAFF TO EFFECTIVELY DO THEIR WORK IS THE PURPOSE OF OUR PROCESS. SO THE POLICY LIAISON TEAM IS
MADE UP OF INTERDEPARTMENTAL CITY STAFF AND A FEW STAFF MEMBERS FROM EACH DEPARTMENT THAT'S CHOSEN BY THAT DEPARTMENT'S DIRECTOR IS WHAT MAKES UP THE TEAM. SO THE POLICY LIAISON TEAM REVIEW PROPOSALS AND SUGGESTED POLICIES FOR INCLUSION. WE HAVE TEN RECOMMENDATIONS TO
PRESENT TO YOU TODAY AND NEW LANGUAGE WILL EITHER BE NEW POLICY OR AMENDMENTS TO CURRENT POLICY. SO THE 2026 DRAFT AGENDA POLICY POSITIONS WILL BE INCLUDED EARLY NEXT YEAR, I SHOULD SAY, FOR YOU ALL TO REVIEW AND APPROVE.
AND THEN DEPARTMENT STAFF WHO ARE PART OF PLT ARE HERE TODAY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND THEY'RE READY TO DO THAT AT THE END OF OUR PRESENTATION. SO WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE FIRST ONE. I'LL PASS IT OFF TO MY
COLLEAGUE, STEVE. >> GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I'M STEVE HUSER WITH THE CITY'S IGR DEPARTMENT. THE FIRST PROPOSAL WE HAVE COMES
FROM THE ELECTIONS OFFICE AND THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. THIS PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO ADD CLARIFYING POLICY LANGUAGE RELATED TO CANDIDATE FILING AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE AT THE MUNICIPAL LEVEL. WE WOULD BE SUPPLEMENTING THE CURRENT ELECTIONS PLATFORM TO INCLUDE SUPPORT FOR STATUTORY
CHANGES WHICH WOULD PROMOTE CLARITY FOR THE CANDIDATES THEMSELVES AT THE MUNICIPAL LEVEL AND THE PUBLIC IN CANDIDATE FILING AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTING. A STATE LAW CHANGE IN 2022, MADE IT SO THAT THIS RESPONSIBILITY WAS SHIFTED FROM HENNEPIN COUNTY
TO THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS'S ELECTIONS OFFICE. SO WHAT WE ARE LOOKING TO HAVE THE STATE CLARIFY IS THE STATE STATUTE THAT WOULD SHOW WHAT THE KIND OF RULES OF THE ROAD ARE FOR CANDIDATES AND THEIR CAMPAIGN FINANCE AT THE MUNICIPAL LEVEL. ADDING CLARITY TO THAT STATUTE
SO THAT WHEN OUR CITY ELECTIONS OFFICE IS ASKED, WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE TO GO ON THAT THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN STATE STATUTE. SO THIS WAS A RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND THE FILING THAT HAPPENED AT HENNEPIN COUNTY UP UNTIL THE 2022 CHANGE.
THIS RESPONSIBILITY IS NOW OURS, SO WE ARE LOOKING FOR THE CLARITY IN STATUTE THAT IS NO LONGER IN STATUTE TO GIVE TO THE PUBLIC. AND THE NEXT ONE, I WILL PASS OFF. >> THANK YOU, MR. HUSER.
OUR NEXT ITEM, SECOND ITEM TODAY COMES FROM THE CITY'S COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. ALSO KNOWN AS CPED. IT'S ALL ABOUT REVENUE GENERATION THROUGH ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICTS. SO THE PROPOSAL WILL CREATE AN ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT THAT CAPTURES EXCESS REVENUE AND
VALUE IN PERMITTING OF NEWLY AUTHORIZED DIGITAL OUTDOOR SIGNAGE. THE CITY HAS BEEN APPROACHED BY MULTIPLE MEDIA COMPANIES SEEKING TO EXPAND ALLOWANCES FOR THESE DIGITAL OUTDOOR ADVERTISEMENTS WITHIN THE WAREHOUSE ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT.
THESE FUNDS WILL BE EARMARKED TO FUND OR ENHANCE THE CITY'S PUBLIC ART INITIATIVES OR EVEN PUBLIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS. AND OTHER JURISDICTIONS NATIONALLY LIKE ATLANTA, BALTIMORE, AND DENVER HAVE ADOPTED SUCH OVERLAY OR DISTRICT MODELS. CURRENTLY STATE LAW PROHIBITS US
FROM SIMPLY CHARGING A FEE, SO TO DO THIS WE WOULD NEED SPECIAL LEGISLATION TO GRANT US THE AUTHORITY TO GENERATE SUCH REVENUE. THE NEXT PROPOSAL COMES FROM OUR HEALTH DEPARTMENT WITHIN OUR SUSTAINABILITY TEAM. THIS PROPOSAL CALLS FOR SUPPORT FROM THE STATE FOR MORE ENERGY
CODE ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES FOR BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDING CODES. SO BUILDING CODES AND ENERGY CODES ARE DESIGNED TO ENSURE THE EFFICIENT USE OF ENERGY IN CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION ACROSS THE STATE. IN MINNESOTA, WE ADOPT NEW BUILDING CODES EVERY SIX YEARS. AND THE LATEST UPDATES WERE
EFFECTIVE AS OF 2020 AND FOR ENERGY CODES, THOSE LATEST UPDATES WERE IN 2024. SO THIS PROPOSAL OR THE ASK IS TO SECURE $500,000 IN ADDITIONAL ONGOING FUNDING TO EMBED BUILDING THE NEXT SLIDE.
I'LL PASS IT OFF TO MR. HUSER AGAIN. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THE NEXT PROPOSAL COMES FROM THE CPED DEPARTMENT. IT IS RELATED TO CANNABIS POLICY. SO THIS PROPOSAL WOULD BE
SUPPLEMENTAL -- SUPPLEMENTING CURRENT POLICIES TO BE UPDATED IN FOUR BASIC WAYS. ONE WOULD BE TO PROVIDE EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE LOCAL CANNABIS AID THAT WAS REMOVED FROM THE STATE BUDGET BILL LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
SO THIS WAS AID THAT WOULD HAVE COME TO CITIES AND COUNTIES FUNDED BY THE CANNABIS TAX AT THE STATE LEVEL. THAT MONEY IN AID WAS MEANT TO OFFSET THE COST TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS RELATED TO LICENSURE AND OTHER IMPACTS RELATED TO
LEGALIZED CANNABIS IN THE STATE. HAVING THAT REMOVED DOES LEAVE US WITH LIMITED ABILITY TO GATHER ANY KIND OF REVENUE BASED ON THAT WORK. THERE ARE STILL A REGISTRATION FEE THAT CAN BE COLLECTED BY THE CITY RELATED TO OUR REGISTRATION THAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO REQUIRE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
SO THAT DID NOT CHANGE, BUT THE AID THAT WE WERE RECEIVING IS NO LONGER COMING IN. AND SO THE SECOND CHANGE WOULD BE TO SUPPORT ANY STREAMLINING THAT THE LEGISLATURE COULD PUT INTO THINGS LIKE LOCAL SITE APPROVAL PROCESS, THE BUILDING
AND FIRE CODE ENFORCEMENT, AND POSSIBLY LOOKING AT THE 30-DAY DEADLINE THAT IS RELATED TO THAT SIGN OFF WITH THE STATE. THIS IS PART OF THE PROCESS THAT WE DO WITH THE OFFICE OF CANNABIS MANAGEMENT TO ENSURE THAT WHEN A LICENSEE IS APPLYING
FOR A CANNABIS LICENSE WITH THE STATE, THAT THEY ARE COMPLYING WITH CERTAIN ASPECTS RELATED TO LOCAL AUTHORITY, PREDOMINANTLY ZONING AND THE CODE ENFORCEMENT. THE THIRD IS TO SUPPORT WORK AT THE LEGISLATURE TO LOOK AT THE
IMPACTS OF THE INDUSTRY WHEN LICENSES ARE POTENTIALLY BEING SOLD TO THE CANNABIS LICENSES BEING TRANSFERRED FROM ONE LICENSE HOLDER TO ANOTHER. THER THIS ACTIVITY IS HAPPENING AND
WE DO THINK THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED POSSIBLY A NEGATIVE IMPACT OF THAT ACTIVITY, AND WE WOULD LIKE THE LEGISLATURE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. AND THE FOURTH IS SUPPORTING CHANGES TO EMPLOYMENT RESTRICTIONS FOR WORKING IN THE CANNABIS INDUSTRY. CURRENTLY THERE ARE A LOT OF
JOBS OR A LOT OF OFFENSES THAT PEOPLE MAY HAVE HAD ON THEIR RECORD IN THE PAST THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THEM FROM BEING ABLE TO WORK IN THE CANNABIS INDUSTRY. SOMETIMES THESE OFFENSES ARE NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO THE WORK THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS WOULD LIKE TO DO IN THE CANNABIS
INDUSTRY. WE WOULD ALSO SUPPORT THESE CHANGES TO ALLOW FOR SOME LEVEL OF EMPLOYER DISCRETION TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHETHER THE EMPLOYER CAN TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THE OFFENSE WAS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL LOOKING FOR EMPLOYMENT AND WHETHER OR NOT THE EMPLOYER IS FEELING COMFORTABLE WITH HIRING THAT PERSON INTO THE JOB THAT THEY
WOULD BE SEEKING WITH THAT COMPANY. AND THE NEXT ONE IS ALSO MINE. THIS COMES FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY DEPARTMENT AND IT WOULD BE A PROPOSAL TO MAKE CHANGES TO
CHAPTER 13 DATA PRACTICES LAW RELATED TO VIOLENCE PREVENTION DATA. SO CURRENTLY UNDER CHAPTER 13, IF WE HAVE DATA THAT IS COLLECTED THROUGH OUR MINNEAPOLIS GROUP VIOLENCE
INTERVENTION AND YOUTH GVI PROGRAMS, THAT COULD BE PARTICIPANT DATA, VOLUNTEER DATA, THAT DATA THAT WE COLLECT THAT CAN BE PERSONAL, SO IT COULD BE NAMES, ADDRESSES, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. UNDER THE CURRENT LAW WOULD POTENTIALLY BE PUBLIC IF
REQUESTED. WHAT WE WOULD BE ASKING THE STATE TO LOOK AT IS WHETHER OR NOT SOME OF THAT DATA COULD BE MADE NON-PUBLIC DATA. THE MOTIVATION BEHIND THIS IS TO ENSURE THAT FOLKS THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY BE INTERACTING WITH OUR PROGRAMS COULD FEEL
CONFIDENT THAT THE DATA WE COLLECT WITH OUR PROGRAMS IS SAFE AND PROTECTED. AND IT IS OUR HOPE THEN THAT WE WOULD POTENTIALLY INCREASE THE PARTICIPATION IN THOSE PROGRAMS. AND I JUST REALIZED THAT THE THIRD ONE ON THIS PAGE IS ALSO MINE. SO THIS COMES FROM THE PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT. THIS WOULD BE SUPPORT FOR A LOW INCOME RESIDENTIAL WATER AFFORDABILITY SERVICES PROGRAM AT THE STATE LEVEL. SO THE CITY WOULD BE SUPPORTING THE CREATION OF THIS PROGRAM. IT WOULD BE FUNDED THROUGH A
STATEWIDE FEE THAT WOULD BE COLLECTED ON SERVICE CONNECTIONS FOR BOTH DRINKING WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS. IT WOULD BE USED TO OFFSET THE COSTS FOR THOSE WHO QUALIFY AS A YET TO BE DETERMINED QUALIFIER FOR LOW INCOME FOR THIS SPECIFIC
PROGRAM. BUT IT WOULD HELP OFFSET THE COSTS FOR DRINKING WATER BILLS, WASTEWATER BILLS, AND STORM WATER BILLS. WE WOULD ALSO UNDER THIS PROPOSAL WOULD POTENTIALLY BE SUPPORTING AN OFFSET WHERE IF
THE STATE, IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT DID NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STATE PROGRAM, THEY COULD OPT OUT BY HAVING A STATE PROGRAM AS WELL. I WILL PAUSE. I SEE THAT THE NEXT ONE IS ALSO
MINE. THIS PROPOSAL ALSO COMES FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. THIS IS SUPPORTING, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THIS WOULD BE MAKING A CURRENT CHANGE RELATED TO THE
MUNICIPAL STATE AID FLEXIBLE DESIGN STANDARD. WHAT THIS WOULD BE ASKING FOR IS UNDER CURRENT LAW, AS A CITY ABOVE 5,000, THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS IS ELIGIBLE FOR MUNICIPAL STATE AID FUNDING FROM THE STATE. THESE FUNDS COME FROM THE
HIGHWAY USER TAX DISTRIBUTION FUND WHICH IS PREDOMINANTLY FUNDED THROUGH THE GAS TAX. AS PART OF THE RESTRICTIONS THAT WE HAVE ON THE USE OF THAT MONEY, THE CITY, WE CAN ONLY USE IT FOR UP TO 20% OF OUR ROAD
SYSTEM IN THE CITY. AND THESE STREETS HAVE TO ACHIEVE A CERTAIN LEVEL OF DESIGN QUALITY AND STANDARD. PART OF THAT STANDARD IS THAT OUR STREETS MUST BE DESIGNED TO
THE MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET STANDARD. WE ARE RESTRICTED TO THOSE DESIGN STANDARDS, HOWEVER THERE IS A VARIANCE PROCESS CITIES CAN
APPLY FOR. WHAT WE ARE LOOKING TO CHANGE IN OUR POLICIES IS TO GO BEYOND OUR CURRENT POLICY WHICH IS ASKING THE STATE FOR FLEXIBILITY AND GETTING A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT WE WOULD BE SUPPORTING. SO ONLY OF THOSE ITEMS WOULD BE EXPRESSING MORE CLEARLY OUR
SUPPORT FOR USING SOME OTHER DESIGN STANDARD SUCH AS ALLOWING CITIES TO USE THE MNDOT DESIGN GUIDE OR ENACTO CITY STREET DESIGN STANDARD. IT WOULD ALSO BE ASKING FOR SOME AMENDMENTS TO THAT PROCESS THAT
WOULD POTENTIALLY ALLOW FOR A WAY TO APPEAL A DECISION BY THAT VARIANCE PROCESS. I WILL PASS IT OVER TO MS MS. FALANA FOR THE NEXT ONE. >> THANK YOU AGAIN, MR. HUSER.
WE HAVE ANOTHER PROPOSAL FROM PUBLIC WORKS COMING OUT OF THE SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING DIVISION. CONSTRUCTION AND DEBRIS IS MORE THAN TWICE THE AMOUNT OF SOLID WASTE. HOWEVER IT DOESN'T FACTOR INTO SOLID WASTE GOALS. SO THE AMOUNT THAT'S GENERATED
IS WHAT I MEANT FOR THE STATE BUT IN FACT IN OUR SOLID WASTE GOALS. THIS PROPOSAL ASKS FOR ANY FUNDING INVESTMENTS IN WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS TO PRESERVE, REUSE, RECYCLE, AND RECONSTRUCT THOSE BUILDING MATERIALS. THERE WAS A TASK FORCE IN 2019
RELATED TO THIS THAT THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY PUT TOGETHER AND THIS WAS A RECOMMENDATION THAT CAME OUT OF THAT TASK FORCE. THIS NEXT PROPOSAL ALSO COMES FROM SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING, AND IT CALLS FOR A STATEWIDE
FOOD DISPOSAL BAN. THIS IS FOR WASTE TO ENERGY FACILITIES. IT WOULD REQUIRE BUSINESSES TO GENERATE LARGE QUANTITIES OF FOOD SUCH AS RESTAURANTS AND GAUCHES TO USE RECYCLING SERVICES. DIVERTING EDIBLE FOOD FOR
CONSUMPTION, AND COMPOSTING OF FOOD WASTE FROM FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS WILL HELP REDUCE WASTE AND OTHER ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. THIS HAS BEEN A POSITION THAT HENNEPIN COUNTY HAS BEEN CALLING FOR FOR YEARS. AND I BELIEVE THEY ALREADY HAVE ENACTED AN ORDINANCE. SO THIS WOULD JUST BE FOR A
STATEWIDE FOOD DISPOSAL BAN. THERE WAS ALSO A BILL THAT THE MCPA WAS PUSHING A FEW YEARS AGO RELATED TO THIS TOPIC AND WE EXPECT THEM TO BRING IT FORWARD FOR THE UPCOMING LEGISLATIVE SESSION. AND THEN THE LAST PROPOSAL WILL
BE COMING FROM MR. HUSER. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. SO THE LAST PROPOSAL THAT WE HAVE COMES FROM THE CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT. THIS WOULD BE TO EXPAND THE MINNESOTA HUMAN RIGHTS ACT TO INCLUDE SOME PROTECTED CLASSES
AND THOSE ARE TO INCLUDE JUSTICE-IMPACTED STATUS, HOUSING STATUS, AND HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. WHAT THIS ASK WOULD BE AT THE STATE LEVEL IS TO MAKE THE STATE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RECENT CITY ORDINANCE THAT WAS ADOPTED SUPPORTING THE
SAME CLASSES AS I'VE JUST IDENTIFIED. ONE BENEFIT TO DOING THIS THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD IDENTIFIED WOULD BE TO PROVIDE CONSISTENCY ACROSS THE STATE. THERE HAVE BEEN RECENT LAWSUITS RELATED TO THE PROTECTION FOR THOSE WHO ARE USING THINGS LIKE SECTION 8 HOUSING VOUCHERS THAT
WAS UPHELD. SO IF WE WERE TO INCORPORATE THIS INTO THE MINNESOTA HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, IT WOULD ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A BOOST TO THE LEGAL DEFENSE OF THESE PROTECTED STATUSES.
I'LL PASS IT OFF TO KATIE OR MS. TOPENKA. >> THANK YOU. SO THOSE ARE THE ITEMS THAT CAME THROUGH THE POLICY LIAISON TEAM PROCESS. AND JUST AS A REMINDER FOR HOW
OUR PROCESS THEN WORKS, SO WE HAVE OUR LONGER LEGISLATIVE POLICY POSITIONS DOCUMENT THAT WE BRING TO YOU EACH YEAR. WE'RE NOT STARTING FROM SCRATCH, SO THINGS THAT ARE ON THERE ALREADY WILL LARGELY STAY UNLESS PERHAPS THEY WERE ACTED ON
DURING THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION, THEN YOU MAY SEE THOSE COME OFF. SO WHEN WE COME FOR YOUR FIRST CYCLE IN THE NEW YEAR, WE WILL BRING AN EDITED LEGISLATIVE POLICY POSITIONS DOCUMENT THAT
REFLECTS THESE ITEMS THROUGH THE PLT PROCESS AND THEN ANY CLEAN UP OR THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. AND THEN WE ALSO BRING FORWARD LEGISLATIVE AGENDA THAT I'LL TALK THROUGH IN A MOMENT, BUT MAYBE I CAN PAUSE HERE JUST TO SEE IF THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE POLICY ITEMS THAT
CAME THROUGH THE PLT PROCESS. >> MEMBERS, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE PRESENTATION? COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAYNE. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR CHOWDHURY. I WAS CURIOUS IF ANY OF OUR STATE LAWMAKERS ARE TALKING
ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE FEDERAL BAN ON HEMP DERIVED THC. I KNOW PEOPLE ARE FAMOUSLY FRUSTRATED WITH HOW SLOW THE ROLL OUT OF RECREATIONAL THC IS IN MINNESOTA. BUT THAT ROLL OUT IS INTENTIONAL TO BALANCE SAFETY AND ACCESS, RIGHT? AND I FEEL LIKE THIS IS PUTTING A WRENCH INTO THAT PROCESS.
IS THERE ANY TALK OF ANY CHANGES THAT MIGHT NEED TO HAPPEN AT THE STATE TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THESE FEDERAL CHANGES? >> I'LL LET MR. HUSER TAKE THAT ONE. >> MADAM CHAIR, COUNCIL PRESIDENT, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING VERY SPECIFIC. HOWEVER, I THINK THAT THIS HAPPENED SOMEWHAT SUDDENLY WITHOUT MUCH HEADS UP. IT'S STILL A RATHER NEW THING THAT I THINK WE'VE GOT ABOUT A WEEK INTO THIS NEW REALITY. SO I THINK THERE'S STILL SOME
WRAPPING OUR MINDS AROUND IT. ONE THING THAT THEY WILL NEED TO LOOK AT IS THE CURRENT STATE LAW FOR LOW DOSE HEMP IS TIED TO THAT STATE DEFINITION AND IT MAKES AN ASSUMPTION ABOUT THAT WORKING FORWARD. SO THE STATE LAW WAS WRITTEN IN A WAY TO WORK WITH THE OLD LAW AND DEFINITION ON THAT.
I THINK THE LEGISLATURE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT BECAUSE THIS IS IMPACTING, THERE LIKELY WOULD NEED -- THEY WOULD LIKELY CONSIDER CHANGES TO HOW THEY'VE SET UP THE LOW-DOSE HEMP STATUTE. THERE IS SOME TIME DUE TO THE
FACT THAT THE FEDERAL HEMP DEFINITION CHANGE HAS A YEAR BEFORE IT'S EFFECTIVE. SO THERE IS SOME TIME TO EITHER CHANGE THE FEDERAL LAW IN SOME WAY THAT IS MAYBE NOT ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS, BUT AT LEAST SOME VERSION OF IT THAT WOULD NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THEN THE CURRENT STATE LAW. EVEN IF THEY DO THAT, THERE'S
THE POTENTIAL THAT IF THERE WAS OTHER ADDITIONAL FEDERAL REGULATION THAT WAS INCLUDED IN ANY CHANGE, WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THOSE ARE, HOW THAT INTERACTS THEN WITH THE STATE STATUTE. SO I DO THINK THAT PEOPLE ARE BOTH AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, THOSE BUSINESSES THAT ARE IMPACTED ARE
TAKING NOTE. I CAN SAY THAT I'M AWARE THAT THERE'S SOME WORK AT OUR CITY LEVEL TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE OPERATING IN THE CITY. AND THEN WE'RE CONTINUING TO WORK WITH FEDERAL AND STATE PARTNERS TO GET A BETTER HANDLE ON WHAT EXACTLY THE CHANGE IS.
>> THANK YOU. >> NEXT I'LL RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER WONSLEY. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR CHOWDHURY. ALSO THANK YOU, STAFF, FOR UPDATES. I JUST HAVE A COUPLE COMMENTS TO SHARE AND I DEFINITELY LOOK FORWARD TO COLLABORATING WITH YOU ALL AND OUR MINNEAPOLIS
DELEGATION MEMBERS ON ADVANCING A NUMBER OF PRIORITIES THAT WE'LL CONTINUE DISCUSSING INTO THE EARLY NEW YEAR. BUT I AT LEAST WANTED TO SHARE A COUPLE BASED OFF THE PRESENTATIONS THAT I'VE HELD IN COLLABORATION WITH MY COLLEAGUES HERE WHERE WE'VE INVITED OTHER EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS AND ALSO
MEETINGS I'VE HAD WITH MY OWN CON STI -- CONSTITUENTS AROUND CLEAR PRIORITIES I'LL BE BRINGING FORWARD NEXT YEAR. THE FIRST ONE IS ONE WE DISCUSSED IN THE HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE, WHICH IS AN INVESTMENT IN THE NONFATAL TASK
FORCE WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE LEGISLATURE LAST SESSION BUT DID NOT MOVE FORWARD. BUT JUST A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT ON THAT, A NONFATAL SHOOTING TASK FORCES ARE A MODEL THAT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT NOT EVERY NONFATAL SHOOTING COULD HAVE BEEN FATAL, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT
THAT WE DO DIRECT INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCES TOWARDS CLOSING THOSE CASES. AND THEY'VE SHOWN PARTICULARLY THIS MODEL TO BE EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE IN PREVENTING MORE SHOOTINGS AND ALSO BRINGING DOWN OVERALL GUN VIOLENCE RATES. AND THIS IS HAPPENING RIGHT
ACROSS THE RIVER IN ST. PAUL. SPECIFICALLY ST. PAUL AND RAMSEY COUNTY HAVE ALREADY IMPLEMENTED THIS MODEL USING THEIR OWN EXISTING RESOURCES AND USE IT AS A BASELINE FOR STATEWIDE ADVOCACY THIS PAST SESSION. AND AGAIN CAME TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE AND I ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
CHECK OUT THAT PRESENTATION. WHEN WE CAN GET A PRESENTATION THAT INCLUDES ALSO QUOTE UNQUOTE CENTER OR LIBERAL LEADERS. AND ALSO THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN EXPERIMENT. ALL CLAPPING TOGETHER SAYING
THIS MODEL IS SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE SHOULD ADOPT. SO WE RECEIVED A REALLY GOOD PRESENTATION FROM THERE. AND SEEING JUST THE SUCCESS THAT RAMSEY COUNTY HAS EXPERIENCED IN INCREASING ITS CLEARANCE RATES, I BELIEVE UP TO 75% OF SHOOTINGS THERE.
I THINK MINNEAPOLIS RESIDENTS ALSO DESERVE THAT SAME LEVEL OF SERIOUSNESS AND INVESTMENT IN PUBLIC SAFETY STRATEGIES THAT COLLECTIVELY MAKE OUR COMMUNITY SAFER. AND AGAIN IF I'M BRINGING THIS ALSO AS A BUDGET AMENDMENT AND WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE STATE'S
TWO LARGEST CITIES WHO ARE CHAMPIONING THIS WORK ALSO BE USED AS A LEVERAGE POINT JUST LIKE WE SAW WITH THE HUMAN RIGHTS EXPANSION PRIORITY TO HAVE IT BE LEVERAGED TO ALSO INSPIRE AND INFLUENCE STATEWIDE ACTION. THE OTHER TWO PRIORITIES THAT I'M GOING TO BE BRINGING FORWARD
ARE RELATED TO MY WARD, WARD 2 SPECIFICALLY, ONE IS TO EXTEND THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA'S GOOD NEIGHBOR FUND FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS WITH A NEW FOCUS ON FOOD SECURITY AND GROCERY STORES. THE GOOD NEIGHBOR FUND IS A COMMUNITY GRANT PROGRAM THAT IS
SUPPORTED BY THE UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT. AND IT IS ADMINISTERED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA AND IT GIVES SMALL GRANTS TO SUPPORT COMMUNITY INITIATIVES AND BASICALLY IN THE BROADER UNIVERSITY AREA RANGING FROM PUBLIC SAFETY TO ARTS TO CULTURE AND OTHER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ISSUES. THE GOOD NEIGHBOR FUND WHICH CHARTERED AT THE STATE LEGISLATURE BACK IN 2007 AND IS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED TO SUNSET AFTER 20 YEARS, BUT MANY CONVERSATIONS THAT I'VE HAD WITH LEADERS IN THAT AREA, THEY'VE MADE IT LOUD AND CLEAR THAT THEY
WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT ASSET BE SUSTAINED FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS AND WANT TO SEE IT BE EXTENDED. AND I WOULD LOVE TO WORK WITH OUR STAFF AND STATE LEADERS ON LOOKING AT HOW DO WE EXTEND THAT FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS, WITH AGAIN A SPECIFIC FOCUS ON ADDRESSING
FOOD INSECURITY AND ACCESS WITHIN THAT AREA. AND THEN LASTLY, THE OTHER PRIORITY IS DINKY AFTER DARK PHASE TWO. MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES KNOW THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS WE FUNDED THE FIRST PHASE OF
INSTALLING PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING AROUND THE UNIVERSITY AREA SPECIFICALLY IN THE DINKY TOWN AREA. TO ENSURE THAT STUDENTS, RESIDENTS, TOURISTS, VISITORS, WHOMEVER IT MAY BE COULD GET AROUND THE AREA FEELING SAFER.
AND IT'S VERY CLEAR IT'S AN ADDITIONAL PRICE TAG THAT'S COUPLED WITH THE $500,000 INVESTMENT THAT THIS BODY MADE TOWARDS IT. AND WE'VE HEARD LOTS OF POSITIVE FEEDBACK FROM STUDENTS, FROM UNIVERSITY COMMUNITIES AROUND THE AREA OF HOW THAT HAS HELPED TO IMPROVE SAFETY CONDITIONS
OVER THERE. SO WE WANT TO CONTINUE BUILDING UPON THAT AND THEN WORKING WITH OUR PARTNERS TO THEN LOOK AT BUILDING THE PHASE OUT OF THAT TO INCLUDE MORE AREAS AROUND DINKY TOWN. THERE'S ALREADY A PEDESTRIAN
LIGHTING CORRIDOR ORDINANCE THAT GIVES AN OVERLAY OF WHAT THAT COULD LOOK LIKE FOR THAT AREA. SO I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOME STATE DOLLARS BE ALLOCATED TOWARDS THAT PROJECT AS THE CITY HAS ALSO STEPPED UP IN THAT ASPECT AND HAVE BEEN IN CONVERSATIONS WITH LEADERS SAYING OKAY, WE DID OUR BIT.
IT'S A SHARED GROUP PROJECT, OTHER FOLKS CAN BRING MONEY TO THE TABLE AS WELL. SO AGAIN LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING FUTURE CONVERSATIONS AROUND THESE THREE PRIORITIES THAT I NAMED AND WANTED TO GIVE A HEADS UP THAT I'LL BE BRINGING THEM FORWARD IN EARLY JANUARY. >> THANK YOU.
I'LL RECOGNIZE THAT COUNCILMEMBER OSMAN AND COUNCILMEMBER CASHMAN HAVE JOINED THE MEETING. AND I PUT MYSELF IN QUEUE TO KIND OF JUST SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO LOOKING AHEAD INTO NEXT YEAR. I THINK COUNCILMEMBER WONSLEY, I'LL USE YOU AS A MODEL.
NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO START HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH MYSELF AND THEN DIRECTOR TOPENKA FOR US TO REALLY TALK ABOUT WHAT OUR LEGISLATIVE ITEMS THAT MEMBERS WANT TO BRING FORWARD INTO THE NEW YEAR. AND WHAT PRIORITIES LOOK LIKE.
WANTED TO CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE NEW MEMBERS NEXT YEAR THAT WILL BE JOINING THE COUNCIL TO GET AN INTRODUCTION TO THE IGR TEAM SINCE WE DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME BEFORE LEGISLATIVE SESSION. BUT NOW IS A REALLY GREAT TIME TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION AND ALSO JUST UNDERSTANDING
TYPICALLY WE DO OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AT THE END OF THE YEAR. BUT OUR AGENDA AT THE END OF THE YEAR IS EXTREMELY PACKED. SO WE ARE JUST SHIFTING IT TO THE TOP OF THE YEAR. SO IF YOU HAVE IDEAS SIMILAR TO COUNCILMEMBER WONSLEY THAT YOU
WANT TO SHARE WITH ME AND DIRECTOR TOPENKA, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. I DID HAVE JUST ONE QUESTION AND MORE SCHJUST LIKE AN OPPORTUNITO SHARE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DETAIL WITH THE BODY. SO CURRENTLY WE ARE TAKING UP
THE SIGNS ORDINANCE IN THE BUSINESS HOUSING AND ZONING COMMITTEE, AND A LOT OF THE THINKING AROUND THAT ORDINANCE IN TERMS OF OFF PREMISES SIGNS, THE INCREASE OF THOSE SIGNS AND THEN THE DIGITIZATION, THERE WE
GO. THE DIGITIZATION OF THOSE SIGNS ARE LOOKING AT A PAUSE OR A PROHIBITION FOR SOME TIME FOR SPEC SPECIFICALLY THIS REVENUE GENERATION ASPECT. AND I WAS WONDERING IF WE COULD HAVE SOMEONE JUST KIND OF SPEAK TO THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE
POLICYMAKING DECISION THAT WE'RE HAVING RIGHT NOW AND THIS LEGISLATIVE ITEM. >> THANKS, CHAIR CHOWDHURY. I WILL START AND THEN CALL UP FOLKS FROM CPED IF THEY WANT TO FILL IN. SO I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT COMPONENTS TO THE
POLICY THAT'S GOING THROUGH BHZ COMMITTEE. AND I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON ALL OF THOSE. BUT ONE PIECE OF IT AND ONE IDEA THAT HAS COME UP IS THIS CONCEPT OF AS SEEN IN SOME OTHER CITIES, DENVER AND A COUPLE OTHERS THAT MS. FALANA MENTIONED, THERE ARE
CITIES THAT HAVE HAD FOR ALLOWING A NEW SIGN IN A CERTAIN DISTRICT WHERE THERE'S AN OVERLAY, THERE IS A FEE THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. AND THEN THAT FEE CAN GO INTO PAY FOR THINGS LIKE PUBLIC ART OR LIGHTING OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN AN AREA.
WE WOULD NEED TO BE ABLE TO CHARGE A FEE OR TO DO A DISTRICT LIKE THAT, WE WOULD NEED LEGISLATIVE AUTHORIZATION BECAUSE WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT. WE HAVE LOOKED AT SOME MODELS OF WHAT THAT COULD LOOK LIKE. IT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING SIMILAR
TO AN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT OF SOME KIND WHERE YOU HAVE A CERTAIN DISTRICT WHERE WE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO CHARGE THAT FEE. BUT THAT IS SOMETHING WE WOULD NEED LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL FOR. SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THAT REFLECTED HERE AND THEN HAVE HEARD THAT IN THOSE
CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE GOING THROUGH BHZ. WE'RE PRETTY EARLY IN STARTING TO TALK WITH OTHER CITIES ABOUT THIS. I THINK THERE IS SOME INTEREST, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT COULD,
WILL TAKE SOME EFFORT, I THINK, TO MOVE FORWARD AT THE LEGISLATURE. SO WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS AND FIGURE OUT THE RIGHT WAY TO MOVE THAT FORWARD. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO SARAH MILNER FROM CPED. >> THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIR CHOWDHURY, COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS SARAH MILNER, I'M THE POLICY RESEARCH AND OUTREACH MANAGER IN CPED. I WILL ECHO WHAT WAS SAID AND ALSO IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE, WE'RE HAPPY
TO OFFER ANY BRIEFING OR FURTHER CONVERSATION ON HOW THESE TWO PIECES CONNECT TO EACH OTHER. >> THANK YOU, REALLY APPRECIATE IT. I'LL JUST MAKE SOME COMMENTS ON THAT ITEM. I THINK OUR STAFF IS WORKING ON THIS PHASE ONE OF THE SIGNS ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE DIGITAL
OFF PREMISES. AND THEN THE GOAL IS TO GO INTO A PHASE TWO ONCE THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF SHARED COMMITMENT TO GO INTO A PHASE TWO TO TALK ABOUT OFF PREMISES SIGNS AND TURNING THEM INTO DIGITAL SIGNS.
I THINK THIS SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY, REALLY PRIORITIZE PUSHING THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE THIS YEAR. ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE'RE IN A MOMENT WHERE WE NEED AS MUCH REVENUE GENERATION TOOLS AS POSSIBLE. AND THIS CREATES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO HAVE IT.
ONE THING THAT I WILL NOTE AND I THINK IT WILL BE A SUGGESTION TO OUR IGR TEAM IS WHILE I APPRECIATE WE'RE GOING IN FOCUSED ON AN ARTS AND SAFETY DEDICATION, I THINK IT WOULD BE
WISE TO KIND OF EXPAND BEFORE WE LIMIT OURSELVES TO THAT. I'M INTERESTED IN IT BEING ABLE TO GO TO THE GENERAL FUND OR BEING ABLE TO SUPPORT INITIATIVES THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS IN COMMERCIAL
CORRIDORS AND DIFFERENT CORRIDORS THAT NEED EXTRA VIBRANCY. ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE GOING TO SEE A LARGE INCREASE OF DIGITAL SIGNS OR NEW BILLBOARD SIGNS WHERE WE'RE LETTING GO OF THIS OLD CREDIT SYSTEM THAT ALLOWED
FOR ESSENTIALLY A MONOPOLY IN OUR CITY OF WHO GETS TO HOLD BILLBOARDS AND OWN THEM AND PROFIT. SO I SEE A FUTURE OF REALLY LARGE EXPANSION AND IF WE'RE GOING TO CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ADVERTISEMENT AND WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO COLLECT
REVENUE, I THINK OUR CITY, PARTS OF OUR CITY THAT HAVE BEEN UNDERINVESTED IN FOR DECADES DESERVE TO HAVE AN IN TO THAT FUNDING. BECAUSE EVERYBODY GOES INTO THOSE AREAS AND VIEWS THOSE SIGNS AND PARTICIPATES.
AND SO I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO CONSIDER A MORE EQUITABLE WAY TO SHARE THAT REVENUE THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. WITH THAT, I AM NOT SEEING ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS, SO I WILL ASK THE CLERK TO RECEIVE AND FILE THAT PRESENTATION.
AND NOW MEMBERS, THE LAST ITEM WE HAVE IS RECEIVING AND FILING OUR FAVORITE PART WHICH IS AN UPDATE ON THE FEDERAL AND STATE ACTIONS AFFECTING THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. I'LL INVITE DIRECTOR TOPENKA AGAIN TO BRIEF US ON THIS ITEM.
AND I BELIEVE LAUREN OLSEN WILL ALSO BE HELPING WITH THIS PRESENTATION. I'LL JUST WELCOME LAUREN OLSEN UP.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON ALL, OR IT'S STILL MORNING. GOOD TO BE HERE. I'M LAUREN OLSEN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS REPRESENTATIVE. AND I AM HERE TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF FEDERAL UPDATE. WE WILL COVER THE CONCLUSION TO
THE SHUTDOWN AND A FEW OTHER ITEMS. WHOEVER WASN'T FULLY FOLLOWING THE DISCUSSION OF HEMP AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, WE WILL GO BACK
OVER THAT ISSUE. I THINK EVERYBODY IS AWARE THAT THE 43 DAY SHUTDOWN FINALLY CAME TO AN END ON NOVEMBER 12TH. THAT WAS THE LONGEST SHUTDOWN IN UNITED STATES HISTORY.
THE RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE WAS THAT SOME OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS JUST FUNDED THROUGH JANUARY 30TH. AND THEN THERE ARE A FEW AREAS THAT ARE FUNDED THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2026, WHICH WOULD BE THE NORMAL FISCAL YEAR.
SO THERE ARE STILL NINE BILLS OUT THERE THAT CONGRESS NEEDS TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON AND COME TO AN AGREEMENT BY JANUARY 30TH. IF NOT, WE RISK THAT THERE COULD BE ANOTHER SHUTDOWN POTENTIALLY. BUT THERE WERE A FEW BILLS THAT
DID GET PASSED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR. AND THOSE BILLS WHICH INCLUDED THE USDA OR EGG BILL INCLUDED SNAP FUNDING AND WIC FUNDING AT I BELIEVE 2025 ENACTED LEVELS. SO THAT PROVIDES STABILITY FOR
THOSE PROGRAMS WHICH IS GOOD AND THEY WILL NOT BE A PART OF THE DYNAMICS THAT WOULD EFFECT THE JANUARY 30TH DEADLINE. SO THOSE ARE FUNDED WHICH IS NICE. THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND MILITARY CONSTRUCTION WERE ALSO AMONGST
THE BILLS THAT WERE FUNDED AND ALSO ONGOING FUNDING FOR THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH SO FOR CONGRESS AND THEIR STAFF.
THERE WERE SOME ADDITIONAL THINGS INCLUDED IN THIS BILL BESIDES THE ONGOING FUNDING. THERE WAS A COMMITMENT TO REIMBURSE STATES FOR FUNDS THEY USED TO CARRY OUT FEDERAL PROGRAMS DURING THE SHUTDOWN, THAT'S GENERALLY INCLUDES ANY EXPENSES RELATED TO SNAPS.
IT DIRECTS THAT LAYOFFS THAT OCCURRED DURING THE SHUTDOWN BE REVERSED AND THAT FURLOUGHED EMPLOYEES RECEIVE BACKPAY WHICH BECAME AN ISSUE OF DEBATE EVEN THOUGH I BELIEVE THERE WAS A LAW TO THAT EFFECT ANYWAY. BUT THE AGREEMENT MAKES CLEAR THAT THE FURLOUGHED EMPLOYEES
WOULD RECEIVE BACKPAY. WE HAVE BEEN WATCHING THIS ISSUE WITH LAY OFFS BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN SOME LAY OFFS WITHIN HEALTH, WITHIN THE OFFICE OF POPULATION AFFAIRS SPECIFICALLY WHICH IS A PART OF THE
GOVERNMENT WHICH FACILITATES SOME OF OUR PROGRAMMING THAT WE PROVIDE AT SCHOOL-BASED CLINICS FOR TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION FOR EXAMPLE. AND THERE WAS SUCH SIGNIFICANT LAY OFFS THAT OCCURRED DURING THE SHUTDOWN THAT WE WERE REALLY WORRIED ABOUT THE ABILITY TO EVEN CONTINUE TO ADMINISTER
THESE SERVICES. WE CONTINUE TO WAIT AND SEE IF THOSE JOBS ARE RESTORED. SO THAT'S A POSITIVE THING. ANOTHER THING IS THAT THE AGREEMENT PROHIBITS ANY OTHER
MASS LAYOFFS THROUGHOUT END OF THE YEAR FOR WHAT THAT'S WORTH. IT ALSO ENSURES ONGOING FUNDING FOR THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE WHICH IS GOOD BECAUSE THAT OFFICE ALLOWS CONGRESS TO KEEP TABS ON HOW THE ADMINISTRATION IS HANDLING THE
APPROPRIATIONS THAT IT RECEIVES AND HELPS GET GOOD NONPARTISAN INFORMATION. AND THERE WAS SOME THREATS THAT SOME PEOPLE DID NOT SUPPORT FUNDING FOR THAT OFFICE. SO THAT IS POSITIVE.
AS YOU KNOW, A MAJOR ISSUE OF DISCUSSION DURING THE SHUTDOWN OF COURSE WAS HOPES TO EXTEND THE ENHANCED AFFORDABLE CARE ACT TAX CREDITS. AS YOU KNOW, THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. SENATE MAJORITY LEADER THUNE
COMMITTED TO HAVING A VOTE ON THIS TOPIC IN DECEMBER. SO WE CAN KIND OF AWAIT MORE DETAILS ON THAT. AND THEN I WILL CALL UP MR MR. HUSER ON THIS ITEM.
THERE WERE A COUPLE OF ISSUES THAT CAME UP IN THIS SHUTDOWN BILL THAT KIND OF CAME AS A SURPRISE TO PEOPLE, TO A LOT OF PEOPLE. AND ONE OF THEM RELATED TO PROHIBITING THE SALE OF PRODUCTS
THAT INCLUDE THC AND I'LL LET STEVE TALK ABOUT THE DETAILS AND THEN WRAP UP. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, OR AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE WAS
A CHANGE TO THE FEDERAL HEMP DEFINITION. WITHOUT GETTING TOO FAR INTO THE WEEDS OF THAT, THE BASICS ARE THAT THE MOST IMPACTFUL CHANGE WAS THEY LOWERED THE AMOUNT OF THC THAT IS ALLOWABLE WITHIN HEMP PRODUCTS TO A POINT WHERE THESE PRODUCTS THAT ARE BEING MADE AND THE PRODUCTS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE THINGS LIKE
HEMP EDIBLES, THC EDIBLES, LOW-DOSE BEVERAGES, THINGS LIKE LOTION, POSSIBLY LIKE TEXTILES, THINGS THAT USE HEMP IN ALL OF ITS DIFFERENT FORMS AND DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF HEMP ARE NOW IMPACTED BECAUSE THAT LEVEL IS REDUCED TO VERY LOW.
WHAT THIS IMPACTS THEN IS WHAT AND HOW THESE PRODUCTS CAN BE MANUFACTURED WITH HEMP-DERIVED THC AND CBD. SO WHAT WAS ABLE TO HAPPEN PRIOR TO THIS DEFINITION AND WHAT CAN
HAPPEN FOR THE NEXT YEAR UNTIL THIS IS FULLY IMPLEMENTED IS THAT THE BIG THING IS BEING ABLE TO MOVE PRODUCT ACROSS STATE LINES AS WELL AS ACCESS TO FINANCE AND BANKING. SO FOR AN EXAMPLE IF SOME SORT
OF A HEMP EDIBLE IS USING THE THC THAT IS DERIVED FROM HEMP, SO THERE IS A PROCESS BY WHICH TO PULL THC OUT OF HEMP. THOSE ARE INPUT PRODUCTS THAT CAN GO INTO OTHER PRODUCTS LIKE EDIBLES, GUMMIES, THC BEVERAGES. SO THAT PRODUCT CAN BE MOVED
ACROSS STATE LINES TO THEN BE MANUFACTURED IN ONE STATE AND THEN THAT PRODUCT THEN UNDER THE OLD FEDERAL DEFINITION COULD THEN BE SOLD IN OTHER STATES AS WELL. SO A BEVERAGE THAT WAS POTENTIALLY MADE IN MINNESOTA COULD THEN BE SOLD IN A STATE
LIKE WISCONSIN. AFTER THIS IS IN FULL EFFECT, THAT WOULD NO LONGER BE LEGAL UNDER FEDERAL LAW. WHAT WOULD STAY IN PLACE IN MINNESOTA IS THE STATE CANNABIS LAW. SO ANY PRODUCT THAT IS MADE
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTE FOR CANNABIS LICENSING AND PRODUCTION WOULD STILL REMAIN LEGAL IN MINNESOTA. IT'S THE QUESTION OF WITH THE FEDERAL LAW DEFINITION BEING CHANGED, THOSE HEMP-DERIVED THC PRODUCTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY
LEGAL WOULD NOT THEN BE ABLE TO BE SOLD ACROSS STATE LINES. FURTHER, THE MINNESOTA BUSINESSES THAT ARE CREATING THESE PRODUCTS NOW HAVE IF THEY HAVE HEMP-DERIVED THC PRODUCTS, LOW DOSE, THEY CAN HAVE ACCESS TO SOME FINANCING ASSURANCE AND
BANKING SYSTEMS. WITHOUT THAT, WHEN THIS IS IN FULL EFFECT, THOSE BUSINESSES WOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THAT. AND SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO OPERATE THE SAME AS THE NEW MINNESOTA LEGAL CANNABIS MARKET WOULD HAVE TO WHICH IS MORE OF I GUESS YOU COULD SAY CASH BASED
OR BANKLESS TYPE OF A FINANCING SYSTEM. LIKE I SAID EARLIER, THIS GOES INTO EFFECT IN ONE YEAR FROM ENACTMENT. SO THERE WILL BE OPPORTUNITIES OVER THE YEAR, I'M AWARE THAT THERE ARE GROUPS THAT ARE
WORKING WITH FEDERAL LEGISLATORS TO MAKE THIS CHANGE, EITHER REVERT BACK TO THE OLD DEFINITION OR MAKE SOME SORT OF A VARIATION OF THAT THAT ALLOWS FOR THE SALE OF THESE PRODUCTS. SO I THINK I'LL JUST PAUSE THERE AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS. I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE SOME OTHER
STAFF HERE THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER SOME TECHNICAL QUESTIONS AS WELL. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ON THIS PORTION OF IT? OKAY, COUNCILMEMBER PALMISANO.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MR. HUSER, CAN YOU EXPAND ON WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER ABOUT HOW THE STATE LEGISLATURE COULD POSSIBLY ADDRESS THIS THROUGH OUR CURRENT LOW-DOSE HEMP ORDINANCE? OR IS THERE A CREATIVE WAY TO
AMEND OUR STATUTE SO THAT THE BAN WOULDN'T LIMIT THE IMPACT LOCALLY? >> MADAM CHAIR, COUNCILMEMBER PALMISANO, I AM NOT AWARE OF A WAY IN WHICH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WOULD BE ABLE TO CHANGE THEIR STATE LAWS TO GET
OVER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE PART OF THE IMPACT. SO THERE'S NOTHING THAT COULD BE CHANGED, IN MY UNDERSTANDING AND I WANT TO SAY I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE'S NOTHING THAT CAN BE CHANGED IN MINNESOTA LAW THAT WOULD PREEMPT FEDERAL LAW.
SO WE CAN ONLY CHANGE STATE LAW AND ONLY HAVE IT APPLY WITHIN MINNESOTA. THAT BEING SAID, THERE WILL LIKELY BE A LOOK AT HOW BECAUSE THE WAY IN WHICH LOW-DOSE THC HEMP-DERIVED STATE LAW WAS
WRITTEN, IT WAS WRITTEN WITH THE ASSUMPTION OF THIS FEDERAL DEFINITION THAT ALLOWED FOR THESE PRODUCTS TO BE MADE AND SOLD ACROSS STATE LINES. SO THAT WOULD NEED TO BE LOOKED AT TO SEE IF THERE ARE CHANGES THERE THAT WOULD AT LEAST PROVIDE A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF ASSURANCE FOR THESE COMPANIES
THAT WOULD BE WORKING WITHIN A MINNESOTA-ONLY REALITY. MY VERY QUICK AND CRUDE UNDERSTANDING OF THE INDUSTRY IS THAT THAT WOULD STILL BE DIFFICULT. A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT THEY HAVE DONE, THE FINANCING, THE BUSINESS MODELS THAT THEY'VE DEVELOPED WITHIN THE INDUSTRY
ARE PREMISED ON THE LEGALITY AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. SO I THINK IT WOULD BE, WHILE THE STATE COULD MAYBE SMOOTH OVER SOME OF THOSE HURDLES THAT THEY'RE NOW FACING, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT BECAUSE OF THE LOSS AH -- OF MARKETS BEYOND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, IT WOULD BE HARD
TO SMOOTH THAT OVER WITHIN STATE LAW. IF I'M BEING CLEAR ABOUT THAT. >> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. AND SORRY TO MAKE YOU THINK OUT LOUD HERE CREATIVELY. BUT I THINK WE'RE ALL JUST, THAT CAME AS A BIT OF A SURPRISE AND WE HAVE A LOT OF LOCAL BUSINESS
OWNERS THAT HAVE INVESTED PRETTY HEAVILY IN THIS AND SMALL DISTILLERIES AND THAT. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE HOW WE MIGHT FIND A WAY THROUGH IT. THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. I'M NOT SEEING ANY FURTHER
QUESTIONS. >> BY THE WAY, IT IS MR. HUSER'S BIRTHDAY, SO HAPPY BIRTHDAY. >> HAPPY BIRTHDAY! >> I'LL JUST CONCLUDE HERE.
SO BACK TO THE OVERALL FEDERAL BUDGET. SO AS I NOTED, THERE ARE NINE APPROPRIATION BILLS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PASSED FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR. SO AGAIN EITHER THEY CAN COME TO AN AGREEMENT AND ADOPT A BUDGET BY JANUARY 30TH OR THEY CAN USE
A CONTINUING RESOLUTION AGAIN WHICH IS OF COURSE ALWAYS AN OPTION AS WELL. THERE ARE STILL SOME EARMARKED PROJECTS THAT HAVE POTENTIAL IN THIS PROCESS INCLUDING THE ONE EARMARK PROPOSAL FROM THE CITY
THAT SURVIVED TO THIS POINT WHAT IS $250,000 FOR LOGAN PARK RAIL CROSSING PROJECT TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF EVERYONE INTERACTING WITH THE RAIL CROSSING IN THAT AREA.
WE DID ASK FOR I THINK ABOUT $1.8 MILLION. SO THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE. BUT THE AMOUNT THAT IS IN THE BILL CURRENTLY IS $250,000 WHICH WE WILL BE VERY GRATEFUL FOR. ALSO AND THEN I GUESS FINALLY I THINK I'D BE REMISS NOT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THAT ONE ITEM THAT'S HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATION IN CONGRESS IS THE EPSTEIN FILES. AND THERE WILL BE, A VOTE IS EXPECTED ON THAT TODAY AROUND 2:00. AS YOU KNOW THERE WAS A DISCHARGED PETITION WHERE IF A
SIMPLE MAJORITY OF CONGRESS AGREES, THEY CAN KIND OF COMPEL THAT AN ITEM IS BROUGHT TO THE HOUSE FLOOR. AND THAT PETITION FINALLY GOT A FINAL SIGNATURE FROM THE NEW MEMBER FROM ARIZONA WHO FINALLY GOT SWORN IN AFTER THE SHUTDOWN ENDED. SO TODAY THERE WILL BE THE VOTE
IN THE HOUSE. AND THEN LIKE ANY BILL, IT WILL GO TO THE SENATE AND ALSO REQUIRES THE PRESIDENT'S SIGNATURE. AND THEN YOU MAY ALSO BE AWARE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS MOST RECENTLY STATED THAT HE SUPPORTS RELEASING THE FILES. SO WE'LL SEE HOW THIS UNFOLDS
STARTING WITH TODAY'S CHAPTER IN THE STORY. SO ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR US ABOUT THE FEDERAL BUDGET? >> I AM NOT SEEING ANY QUESTIONS. SO THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.
>> THANK YOU. >> SO I'LL ASK THE CLERK TO RECEIVE AND FILE THAT PRESENTATION. AND WITH THAT, MEMBERS, WE HAVE COMPLETED ALL BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE US AND THE COMMITTEE TODAY IS ADJOURNED WITHOUT ANY
OBJECTION.