DOCSLIB.ORG

Annual Report PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Annual Report PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE MDID’S ALL-STAR IMPACT PROMOTING A GREENER DOWNTOWN WORKING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACTING OUR YOUTH/COMMUNITY SURROUNDINGS ENGAGEMENT 2014 IMPROVING THE SHAPING OUR DOWNtoWN Annual Report PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE Minneapolis Downtown Improvement District & SafeZone Collaborative Letter from the Board Chair & Chief Executive Officer Dear Downtown Stakeholder, Another successful year is in the books here at the Minneapolis Downtown Improvement District (MDID). We’re pleased we were able to share it with you. Downtown Minneapolis is bustling right now, and at MDID our mission to keep downtown vibrant is more important than ever. Greening initiatives are being 2014 proposed, designed and created all over the area, improving the quality of the public realm while also impacting real and perceived safety in our district. Our ANNUAL MDID Ambassadors continue to be the faces of our organization on the street, helping keep our streets clean, our pedestrians informed and our greening REPORT efforts flourishing. In 2014, we completed our second full year of governance alignment between MINNEAPOLIS DOWNTOWN the MDID and the Minneapolis Downtown Council (MDC)—a partnership that IMPROVEMENT DISTRicT continues to grow while leaving a lasting impact. This upcoming year marks & SAFEZONE COLLABORATIVE my (Tom’s) first as MDC/MDID Board Chair, and we will continue to work together on providing a consistently compelling downtown experience for everyone. Downtown Minneapolis’ residential population once again increased Letter from the Chair of the Board last year, and combined with our thriving businesses and incredible dining and of Directors & Chief Executive Officer ....1 entertainment options, more and more people are spending time inside our About .............................. 2 district. It continues to be important to blend the MDID’s core values with the MDC’s Intersections: Downtown 2025 Plan to ensure our community thrives. Approach .......................... 3 MDID’s All-Star Impact .............. 4 The future is bright for downtown Minneapolis, and with all the changes and progress going on in our district it is important for MDID to continue evolving Promoting a Greener Downtown ....... 5 with our city. This year we began work on evaluating our Strategic Plan, Tactical Urbanism Collaborations ...... 6 including taking a look at our current services as well as our footprint. We are Engaging Our Youth .................. 7 part of an ever-changing downtown, and it is important to adapt with our community. Our vision is to continue working toward what we want our SafeZone Collaborative .............. 8 downtown to be in the future, and we are always looking ahead to what will keep A Better Pedestrian Experience ........ 9 our downtown greener, cleaner and safer three to five years down the road. Downtown Perception With that, let’s build off the accomplishments we enjoyed in 2014 as we & MDID’s Response ................. 10 continue creating an extraordinary downtown for our future. As always, thank Looking Forward ................... 11 you for your support and your commitment to our community. It’s true: We can have the downtown we want—we just have to go get it. Financial Statements ............... 12 Board of Directors, Respectfully Yours, Staff & Committees ................. 13 Tom Hoch Steve Cramer Chair, Board of Directors President & CEO President & CEO Minneapolis Downtown Council Hennepin Theatre Trust Minneapolis Downtown Improvement District 1 ABOUT MINNEAPOLIS DID The Minneapolis Downtown Improvement ting services based on GBA. Charges are governance structure, allowing for the District (MDID) is a business-led, 501(c)6 prorated to properties based on location same individuals to serve on the boards non-profit with a mission to make within pedestrian service level areas. of both organizations, establishing the downtown Minneapolis a vibrant and This three-part method best reflects the MDID as a wholly-controlled subsidiary attractive place for recruiting and retaining volume of people needing service and of MDC. This served to broaden the businesses, employees, residents, the level of services delivered. The Board leadership team, thereby providing more shoppers, students and visitors. This of Directors is comprised of downtown resources and experience, enhancing the is accomplished by providing services property owners, employers, residents and existing services and assuring that both that make over 120 blocks of downtown leaders representing key constituencies organizations are unified in their mutual cleaner, greener and safer. MDID also and areas of expertise. MDID staff oversee efforts to make downtown Minneapolis serves as a catalyst, facilitator and vendors, develop programs, advocate for extraordinary. promoter of public-private partnerships, the public realm, communicate with stake- collaborations and services that enhance holders and administer the organization. the downtown experience. While the MDID partners and collaborates MDID is primarily funded by special with many like-missioned organizations, service assessments. In 2008, a majority a few strategic alignments have been of commercial property owners signed integral to an effective and efficient use petitions agreeing to the ordinance that of resources. In the 1960s, the Nicollet created the MDID. In 2013, this ordinance Mall Advisory Board was established by was renewed once more by a substantial statute to provide advice to the City on all majority of commercial property owners issues related to the Nicollet Mall. When agreeing to tax themselves to collectively MDID was formed, it assumed the roles raise the standard of care and behavior and responsibilities of the Nicollet Mall in downtown – with a focus on enhanc- Advisory Board. In 2006, Minneapolis ing competitiveness. By statute, only SafeZone Collaborative (MSZ) was formed commercial properties are required to as a 501(c)3 to bring public and private pay the MDID assessments. However, as sectors together through collaborative The district is divided into three service all properties benefit from an improved strategies in safety, greening and other level areas: Core , Standard Plus and public realm downtown, some non-profit, projects that enhance downtown and government and residential properties improve safety. In 2009, MSZ became Standard . These areas were determined voluntarily contribute. a wholly-controlled subsidiary of MDID, based upon the level of pedestrian activity giving it stability to successfully and the resulting need for intensity of More than 1,000 properties consisting continue public-private collaborations, and service to maintain a consistent standard. a broader platform from which to establish of over 64 million square feet of Gross The service level areas can be modified Building Area (GBA) are located within the initiatives for downtown. And most recently, as needed to reflect any land use changes MDID boundaries. Properties are assessed effective January 1, 2013, the boards of for directly lineal services based on lineal the MDID and the Minneapolis Downtown that result in changes to pedestrian frontage and for more globally benefit- Council (MDC) voted to align their activity patterns and intensity. 2 ApproacH MDID continues to evaluate our tactics of focus through tactical urbanism, youth As we continue this work, it is important of making downtown more vibrant and outreach, safety workshops, student- that we maintain our connection with attractive. We understand that all areas influenced programming, greening all aspects of downtown. Our close of our 120-block district are distinctly efforts and more. The results of these partnerships with the City of Minneapolis, diverse and economically mixed, and collaborations made immediate impacts. East Downtown Council, business it is important that we continue commu- They laid a foundation for influencing leaders, community organizations and nicating with you as we evolve with our not only the greening, cleaning and neighborhood groups all play a big role in ever-changing downtown. It is why we safety realities of downtown but also accomplishing our goals. We continue to annually reach out to the community the perceptions of those key aspects of broaden our reach through our alignment through our Perception Survey in order our community. with MDC, and as we keep working closely to keep a pulse on how we can improve with MDC’s 2025 Plan committees, we will our impact and outreach. The 2014 Annual Report aims to showcase strategize how we can as an organization those initiatives sprinkled throughout can evolve to impact our ever-changing Our core mission to keep our downtown the past year. In doing so, it shows how community. greener, cleaner and safer remains intact MDID’s work and local collaborations throughout, and our 2014 Operating Plan have an all-encompassing impact on MDID is now mobile. Visit again focused on making downtown our downtown. An initiative like the MinneapolisDID.com on your computer, attractive to business investment while University of Minnesota’s College of or view our website on the go. maintaining a commitment to control Design partnership, for example, not costs. We focused on collaboration in only generated engagement and 2014, working with different organizations programming in the public realm, but in order to improve our three key areas it also had an impact on wayfinding and perceived and real safety. “ I value DID — what they do every day makes a difference and I want that pedestrians assisted:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2012 ADC Executive Summary
    22001122 CCEDAR­­RRIVERSIDE CCOMMUNITY SSPACE SSTUDY FFINAL RREPORT Cedar‐Riverside Community Space Study – September 2012 ADC Executive Summary The Cedar Riverside neighborhood is home to over 7,000 residents and numerous organizations that need space for meeting, gathering, performing, educational, social service, and other types of activities. Often times, the demand for space is greater than the supply in this densely populated neighborhood. In order to determine the community spaces available and types of community spaces most needed in the neighborhood, the African Development Center (ADC) conducted a community space study, with financial support from the Cedar Riverside Neighborhood Revitalization Program. After extensive outreach and information gathering, the ADC found that the Cedar Riverside neighborhood is sometimes lacking in both knowledge of and access to currently available community spaces. In order to increase the level of awareness of available space in the Cedar Riverside neighborhood, ADC has created a Space Inventory document, which can be found here as an appendix, as well as on ADC’s website. The space inventory provides information regarding specific locations and rental terms of available space in Cedar Riverside. ADC expects that this inventory will help community members to better utilize space currently available in the neighborhood. Despite the fact that several neighborhood organizations are willing to open their doors for community use, there is still a major need for more spaces. Neighborhood representatives reported that the greatest desires are: community spaces for youth recreation and related services, fitness/exercise activities, adult/elder activities, large events/gatherings and social services. Despite many creative and cooperative approaches occurring to meet space needs among organizations large and small, there are still significant unmet needs.
    [Show full text]
  • Recreation Guidelines Public Hearing Draft
    MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING BOARD RECREATION GUIDELINES PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2016 Prepared by the Montgomery County Planning Department www.MontgomeryPlanning.org Table of Contents Chapter 1: 4.1.5 Step 4, Continued: Revising Supply Selections - Us- Overview of the 2016 Recreation Guidelines �������� 2 ing Recreation Elements ������������������������������������������������������21 4.1.6 Exporting the Recreation Adequacy Report ������������22 1�1 Introduction ������������������������������������������������������������������2 1�2 Purpose of the Update ������������������������������������������������3 Chapter 5: Flexibility: Custom Recreation Facilities ��������������� 24 1�3 Overall Recreation Guidelines Goals ��������������������������3 5�1 Custom Facility Tool ��������������������������������������������������24 1�4 Use of the Recreation Guidelines ��������������������������������3 5.1.1 Custom Facilities Evaluation Method �����������������������24 1�5 The 1992 Recreation Guidelines Method �������������������4 5.1.3 Planning Board Findings ��������������������������������������������25 1�6 The Web Tool ��������������������������������������������������������������5 5�2 Custom Facilities Evaluation ��������������������������������������26 Chapter 2: Chapter 6: Recreation Demand Overview ������������������������������� 6 Off-Site Recreation������������������������������������������������� 27 2�1 Approach to Establishing Demand � ���������������������������6 6�1 Using Existing Off-Site Public Recreation Facilities 2.1.1 Recreation
    [Show full text]
  • White Paper: #Backyardexperiment © SFA 2017 Street Furniture Australia 1300 027 799 Streetfurniture.Com 2 1.0 Introduction
    WHITE PAPER #BackyardExperiment a pop-up park and social study in garema place, canberra #BackyardExperiment was a collaboration between Street Furniture Australia and the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects, in partnership with ACT Government and In the City Canberra. This paper was released by Street Furniture Australia on 6 February 2017. contents 1.0 introduction 3 2.0 project rationale 5 3.0 objectives 6 4.0 key challenges 7 4.1 a thoroughfare 7 4.2 not family friendly 8 4.3 low population density 9 5.0 key tools 10 5.1 movable seats 11 5.2 art and colour 12 5.3 lighting 13 5.4 lawn 14 5.5 digital 15 5.6 community collaboration 16 6.0 results 17 6.1 time-lapse results 17 6.2 missing seat tally 25 6.3 social media responses 26 6.4 empathy interviews 30 6.5 ACT Government survey 32 7.0 conclusion 33 7.1 key learnings 33 7.2 recommendations 34 acknowledgements 35 references 36 time-lapse data 37 White Paper: #BackyardExperiment © SFA 2017 Street Furniture Australia 1300 027 799 streetfurniture.com 2 1.0 introduction How do you attract people to public space? #BackyardExperiment seeks to answer this A bright pop-up park, designed by landscape question. architecture firm Context, was built to attract people and make the area more family-friendly, on The pop-up park and social experiment ran for 8 a limited budget. days at Garema Place, in the heart of Canberra, Australia’s capital city. Three time-lapse cameras were installed to observe and compare data on how people Garema Place is a largely concrete, underused interacted with Garema Place before and during open area surrounded by cafès, shops and the experiment.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Open Space Plan Urban Open Space Plan
    “It is the great spaces between the great buildings that make a great city.” - Winston Churchill URBAN OPEN SPACE PLAN URBAN OPEN SPACE PLAN www.tempe.gov/comdev/urbanopenspace.htm REPORT PREPARED BY: with PROS Consulting 201 S. Capitol Ave, Suite 505 Indianapolis, IN 46225 Drake & Associates 8003 East Del Tornasol Scottsdale, AZ 85258 REPORT PREPARED FOR: The City of Tempe, Community Development Department December 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 5 2. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND PLANNING INPUT 13 3. OVERALL VISION AND PROGRAM PLAN 17 4. NEIGHBORHOOD PLACES 87 5. GETTING AROUND: ARTERIALS, TRANSIT & CONNECTING PLACES 97 6. IDEA BOOK ON KEY ELEMENTS 109 7. SUSTAINABILITY: A KEY PART OF THE VISION 119 8. DIRECTING THE DREAM: MAINTENANCE, OPERATION, RESOURCE 127 REQUIREMENTS, REVENUE OPTIONS AND STRATEGIES 9. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 131 10. CONCLUSION 135 4 TEMPE URBAN OPEN SPACE PLAN FINAL REPORT 5 INTRODUCTION PROJECT GOALS The desirability of a city goes beyond its job foresight when they decided to initiate an Urban offerings, retail centers, housing stock, or even Open Space Plan in the fall of 2006 to nurture its cultural and recreation offerings. A city is also and build on that unique downtown experience. judged by its sense of place, social atmosphere, and This document is the result of that decision, and of certain quality of life elements that are often hard more than a year’s effort, working with downtown to define or plan for. People want to live or work in residents and other stakeholders to explore how the a place that is pleasant, stimulating, attractive and city could develop a great public space environment safe.
    [Show full text]
  • U of M Minneapolis Area Neighborhood Impact Report
    Moving Forward Together: U of M Minneapolis Area Neighborhood Impact Report Appendices 1 2 Table of Contents Appendix 1: CEDAR RIVERSIDE: Neighborhood Profi le .....................5 Appendix 15: Maps: U of M Faculty and Staff Living in University Appendix 2: MARCY-HOLMES: Neighborhood Profi le .........................7 Neighborhoods .......................................................................27 Appendix 3: PROSPECT PARK: Neighborhood Profi le ..........................9 Appendix 16: Maps: U of M Twin Cities Campus Laborshed ....................28 Appendix 4: SOUTHEAST COMO: Neighborhood Profi le ...................11 Appendix 17: Maps: Residential Parcel Designation ...................................29 Appendix 5: UNIVERSITY DISTRICT: Neighborhood Profi le ......... 13 Appendix 18: Federal Facilities Impact Model ........................................... 30 Appendix 6: Map: U of M neighborhood business district ....................... 15 Appendix 19: Crime Data .............................................................................. 31 Appendix 7: Commercial District Profi le: Stadium Village .....................16 Appendix 20: Examples and Best Practices ..................................................32 Appendix 8: Commercial District Profi le: Dinkytown .............................18 Appendix 21: Examples of Prior Planning and Development Appendix 9: Commercial District Profi le: Cedar Riverside .................... 20 Collaboratives in the District ................................................38 Appendix 10: Residential
    [Show full text]
  • Improvin G Water Quality in the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes and Minnehaha Creek: Stakeholders and Potential Strategies
    NPCR 1053 Improvin_g Water Quality in the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes and Minnehaha Creek: Stakeholders and Potential Strategies A CONSORTIUM PROJECT OF: Augsburg College; College of St. Catherine; Hamline University; Higher Education Consortium for Urban Affairs; Macalester College; Metropolitan State University; Minneapolis Community College; Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program; University of Minnesota (Center for Urban and Regional Affairs; Children, Youth and Family Consortium; Minnesota Extension Service); University of St. Thomas; and Minneapolis community and neighborhood representatives. CURA RESOURCE COLLECTION Center for Urban and Regional Affairs University of Minnesota 330 Humphrey Center Improving Water Quality in the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes and Minnehaha Creek: Stakeholders and Potential Strategies Report prepared for the Lynnhurst Neighborhood Natural Environment Committee Andrzej Kozlowski Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota February, 1997 -==:. February, 1997 Neighborhood Planning for Community Revitalization (NPCR) supported the work of the author of this report but has not reviewed it for publication. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and is not necessarily endorsed by NPCR. NPCR is coordinated by the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs at the University of Minnesota and is funded in part by an Urban Community Service Program grant administered by the U.S. Department of Education. NPCR 330 lilI Center 301 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 phone: 612/625-1020 e-mail: [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ................................................................................3 II. The major stakeholders ...................................................................3 III. Preliminary list of potential strategies for improving water quality ................ 16 IV. Summary: discussion of partnerships and areas of future exploration ..............20 V.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 a View from the 2,9 Prize Blidges of 1971
    1 A View from the Bleachers page 9 2,9 Prize Blidges of 1971 page 12 MODERN STEEL CONSTRUCTION • Published by VOLUME XI I NUMBER 3 I THIRD QUARTER 1971 American Institute of Steel Construction 101 P.,k Avenue, New York, N. Y. 10017 CONTENTS A View from the Bleachers 3 A Rustic Bridge with a Weathered Finish 10 Edwin H. Webster, President Prize Bridges of 1971 12 Gilbert M. Dorland, First Vice President Van W. Coddington, Second Vice President William R. Jackson, Treasurer John K. Edmonds, THE T. R. HIGGINS LECTURESHIP AWARD Executive Vice President leslie H. Gillette, In 1972, the American Institute of Steel Construction will Assistant Executive Vice President conduct the second annual T. R. Higgins Lectureship A ward. William W. lanigan, Secretary and General Counsel The Awa"d honOl'S former AISC Director of Engineering and Research Theodore R. Higgins for his substantial cont,ibu­ tions to the advancement of the structural steel industry through innovative engineering, technical papers, and pro­ • DITO"IAL 8TA~" fessiOltal lectures . Daniel Farb, Director of Publications The Award J'Ccognizes the author of the technical paper that Mary Anne Donohue, Editor is judged to be the 1nost significant contJ'ibution to ellgineerillg literature on fabricated stmctural steel published within the period from July 1, 1969 to July 1, 1971. The Award consists of an engraved certificate and a $2,000 honorarium. If the RaalONAL O ...... IC •• paper selected has more than one author, the principal author Atlanta, Georgia listed will receive the Award, but the other authors will also Birmingham, Alabama be hOllOred.
    [Show full text]
  • CEDAR-ISLES-DEAN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION Annual Members Meeting Minutes, May 12, 7-8:30 P.M
    CEDAR-ISLES-DEAN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION Annual Members Meeting Minutes, May 12, 7-8:30 p.m. Online via Zoom Minutes by Rosanne Halloran Board members present: Chair Mary Pattock, Vice Chair Tim Sheridan, Secretary Rosanne Halloran, Dean Kephart, Claire Ruebeck, Amanda Vallone and CIDNA Coordinator Michael Jon Olson. Absent: Evan Carlson, Stephen Goltry, Treasurer Kevin Johnson Invited guests: Lisa Goodman / Minneapolis City Council Member - Ward 7, Marion Greene / Hennepin County Commissioner - District 3, and CIDNA accountant Robert Thompson. About 25 community members were also present. Call to order: Mary Pattock, Chair • Mary called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. The board approved the meeting agenda and the April 14, 2021 meeting minutes. Mary welcomed attendees and invited them to consider running for board membership later in the meeting. • She welcomed CIDNA’s new coordinator, Michael Jon Olson, who comes to CIDNA with extensive neighborhood organization experience and management skills. He reviewed the Zoom meeting protocols with attendees. Financial Report / Robert Thompson, CIDNA Accountant Robert said CIDNA is financially healthy. In addition to ongoing City funding, we have access to $18,000 previously contracted but unspent, which must be spent by the end of December. Our loan to Propel for affordable housing was paid back; those $134K Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) dollars can be used again for housing or other projects allowable under NRP legislation. Annual Report / Mary Pattock, Chair • CIDNA made substantial progress in community engagement this year, due in part to Communication Committee activities, including the “Take a Look at CIDNA” Facebook project, and the neighborhood survey, which has nearly 200 responses so far.
    [Show full text]
  • 03 Prospect Park
    NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 8/2002) OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5-31-2012) United States Department of the Interior Prospect Park ResidentialPut Here Historic District National Park Service Name of Property Hennepin County, MN County and State National Register of Historic Places N/A Continuation Sheet Name of multiple listing (if applicable) Section number 8 Page 1 NARRATIVE STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE The civil engineers who laid out the Prospect Park plats, Samuel Harlan Baker and Joseph H. Gilmore, were influenced by the work of their contemporary, Horace William Shaler (H. W. S.) Cleveland, and the picturesque landscape designs that are a hallmark of the era. Upon the framework of these plats, the residents shaped Prospect Park’s character and appearance. The neighborhood is significant as the home of the first community association in the city of Minneapolis, the Prospect Park Improvement Association (PPIA). The PPIA quickly established itself as a major influence, effecting changes ranging from the removal of weeds to the construction of the neighborhood’s iconic water tower. The community’s culture was enriched by its proximity to the University of Minnesota, which drew many academics to Prospect Park. The Prospect Park Historic District is one of three suburban-type developments that were established in Minneapolis in the late nineteenth century. While the architectural design in the other two, Kenwood and Washburn Park, is relatively homogeneous, following the pattern of many of the city’s neighborhoods, the houses in Prospect Park display a spectrum of the residential styles that appeared in Minneapolis during the late nineteenth century and the twentieth century.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Comment Phillips South Powderhorn and 35Th St E Street
    Date: February 2,2021 Property ID: 02-028-24-12-0110 Address: 3027 14th avenue south, Minneapolis, MN 55407 Owner name & Taxpayer of above address: Brenda Short Dear Mayor Frey, Transportation and Public Works committee, and Minneapolis City Council: I am writing to you to object to the above resurfacing project. By allowing this project during a time of morning of four men and one 18-year-old woman who lost their live on these same streets you are trying to cover. As a Mother of four children, I am very disappointed on how the city of Minneapolis, has handled a lot of issues in the Year 2020. This being said ,I do not believe that this is not the correct time morally or financially for this work to be done. Many homeowners like myself had to take fewer hours at work or was asked to take furloughs, or just lost their job. On top of the financial stress due to cov-19. Homeowners is still dealing with the emotional stress that the city of Minneapolis and city council has forced upon them. Shortly after the George Floyd riot many homeowners like myself found out about families in need at our local parks. Is stead of getting help for these people from the city or mayor or Hennepin county. Homeowners and volunteers were force into unpaid roles as, social workers, and financial assistant workers. we tried to help the people unfortunate during a time of need. The city and law enforcement abused them and destroyed the little property and dignity these people have.
    [Show full text]
  • Ballot Question Regarding a Proposed Amendment to the Minneapolis City Charter, for The
    STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: CIVIL – OTHER Yes 4 Minneapolis, Court File No. _________________ Petitioner, PETITION TO CORRECT BALLOT v. UNDER MINN. STAT. § 204B.44 City of Minneapolis and Casey Joe Carl, in his official capacity as City Clerk of the City of Minneapolis, Respondents. The Petitioner Yes 4 Minneapolis, through its counsel, brings this Petition under Minn. Stat. § 204B.44 (Errors or Omissions) to correct the errors, omissions, and wrongful acts of Respondents City of Minneapolis (the “City”) and Casey Joe Carl, in his official capacity as City Clerk and chief election official of the City of Minneapolis (“Mr. Carl” or “City Clerk”). INTRODUCTION On July 23, 2021, the Minneapolis City Council unlawfully added an “Explanatory Note” to a ballot question regarding a proposed amendment to the Minneapolis City Charter, for the City’s November 2, 2021 general election. If passed, the amendment would establish a Department of Public Safety. The “Explanatory Note” should be stricken from the ballot because it is not authorized by law and is also a misleading partial description of the impact of the proposed amendment. 30416.0001 – 5333203.1 To be clear, this Petition does not address the merits of the ballot question itself, but challenges the addition of the “Explanatory Note.” The ballot question fully and fairly explains the proposed amendment’s “essential purpose.”1 The City Council exceeded its power by adding its own subjective version of what will happen if the amendment passes. For proposed charter amendments, Minnesota law authorizes that a ballot question include only a description “sufficient to identify the amendment clearly and to distinguish the question from every other question on the ballot at the same time.” Minn.
    [Show full text]
  • Charter Commission
    Council President Lisa Bender 350 S. Fifth St. – Room 307 Minneapolis, MN 55415 TEL 612.673.2204 August 5, 2020 To the Members of the Minneapolis Charter Commission: Thank you for your consideration of the City Council’s proposed charter amendment this past month. Our commitment, as expressed in the resolution passed by the City Council on June 12, 2020, is to transform the way we provide for community safety and respond to decades of failed reforms and deepening mistrust in the Minneapolis Police Department. Our constituents have called for structural change using words like “defund” and “disband” to describe our current, broken system alongside aspirational language like “transform” and “reimagine” as we begin the work toward the system we believe is possible, in which everyone feels safe. As elected representatives in a city demanding systemic change, we are proposing a charter amendment that allows us to meaningfully reimagine our city’s approach to safety. We expect the transformed system to include law enforcement as part of a multi-faceted approach to public safety. As you know, the charter amendment replaces the charter-mandated Police Department with a Department of Community Safety and Violence Prevention. It also states that “the Council may maintain a division of protective law enforcement services, composed of licensed Minnesota Peace Officers, subject to the supervision of the department of community safety and violence prevention.” From a governing perspective, there are two reasons why we used the word “may” instead of “shall.” First, it ensures the possibility that the City could choose to contract with another jurisdiction for public safety services if it made sense to do so, as many other towns and cities do.
    [Show full text]