Meeting Information

• Date: February 10, 2025
• Title: Budget Committee Regular Meeting
• Present: Payne, Wonsley, Rainville, Vetaw, Osman, Cashman, Jenkins, Chavez, Chughtai, Koski, Palmisano (Chowdhury left early)
• Absent: Ellison
• Guests: Todd Barnette (Commissioner of Community Safety), Jane Di Cenza (Budget Director), Deputy City Attorney Dana Ableson
• Votes: 2 roll call votes

Highlights

• Discussion and vote on transferring $1.1 million in Group Violence Intervention (GVI) and Youth Group Violence Intervention (YGVI) funding from Minneapolis Neighborhood Safety Department to Hennepin County
• Technical discussion of RFP process for violence prevention contracts
• Debate over public purpose doctrine and procurement rules for violence prevention vendors
• Concerns raised about transparency in departmental budgeting process

Discussion

Transfer of GVI/YGVI Funding to Hennepin County

The main item of discussion was a proposal by CM Wonsley to move approximately $1.1 million in funding for GVI and YGVI programs from the city’s Neighborhood Safety Department to Hennepin County for the remainder of 2025. Wonsley argued this was necessary due to ongoing management issues within NSD, including problems with data collection, contract administration, and partnerships with stakeholders. She presented evidence that Minneapolis’ violence prevention programs scored poorly (39/100) on a national assessment.

Opposition came from several council members, particularly CMs Vetaw and Palmisano, who questioned the timing and motivation of the move, especially given that the city is currently in contract negotiations with vendors. They expressed concern about service disruption and argued the department should be given more time to implement improvements.

Commissioner Barnette and staff explained they are in the middle of a 6-8 month RFP process for both programs, with new contracts set to begin April 1st. This led to debate about whether moving the funding would cause service gaps.

The discussion became heated at times, with accusations about motivations and several calls for decorum. CM Ellison attempted to mediate, suggesting this could be a temporary reset opportunity for the department.

The motion to approve failed on a 6-6 vote. A subsequent motion to forward without recommendation passed 7-5.

Quote from CM Ellison: “90% of the discussion should be happening between the authors and staff in the commissioners’ office…If that’s not happening, it’s easy for councilmembers to point the finger or staff to point the finger at councilmembers. That’s shared responsibility.”

Public Comments

There were disruptions from the public gallery early in the meeting that required a brief recess, but no formal public comment period was held during this session.