The primary focus of the meeting was the proposed budget, which included 78 amendments and faced strong opposition from city leadership. The mayor expressed his disapproval, emphasizing that the budget failed to serve the best interests of all Minneapolis residents. He highlighted that the proposed 6.9% levy increase was higher than his recommended 6.4%, which he believed was more fiscally responsible given the current financial climate. He argued that the additional $6.5 million in spending, bringing the total to $65 million, was unsustainable and would burden property taxpayers, as much of it was pulled from reserves meant for future needs.

The mayor underscored the impact of budget cuts on essential city services, particularly those related to public safety and homelessness. He noted community demands for increased police presence and argued that the council’s budget undermined efforts to recruit more police officers. The budget cuts redirected funds from essential services such as snow plowing and pothole repairs to what he described as “pet projects.” $15.9 million had been cut from departments handling basic services, potentially hindering the city’s ability to maintain infrastructure effectively.

Margaret Anderson Kelleher, the city operations officer, echoed these concerns, describing the budget process as chaotic. She emphasized the negative impact on public works, where street repairs and lighting maintenance could face delays. Anderson Kelleher also highlighted the budget’s detrimental effect on the city’s Race, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging Department, essential for promoting racial equity following George Floyd’s murder. The budget cuts would also undermine the city’s ability to address homelessness adequately, as demonstrated by a recent incident involving propane tanks exploding in a homeless encampment.

Public safety remained a topic throughout the meeting, with Commissioner Todd Barnett of Community Safety stressing the need for a comprehensive safety ecosystem. He warned that budget cuts could create inflexibility and impede the implementation of effective safety initiatives. Similarly, Chief O’Hara of the police department highlighted the strain on an already diminished force due to proposed $1.8 million cuts. The department had lost over 500 sworn officers since 2020, and O’Hara expressed concerns about the negative perception created by ongoing budget cuts.

The debate also touched on the financial implications for the city, with one council member noting the risk to the city’s financial stability. The use of $7 million from reserves could jeopardize the city’s cash reserve standard of 25%, affecting its ability to handle economic downturns and impacting taxpayers’ bond rates. Despite these concerns, there was commendation for city leaders for their efforts in maintaining services like snowplowing and emergency responses.

The mayor remained steadfast in his stance, emphasizing the need for collaboration to create a budget that aligns with the city’s needs and financial integrity.

As the meeting concluded, the next steps involved the mayor’s anticipated veto of the budget, which had not yet occurred. The council would then have the opportunity to either override or sustain the veto. If sustained, negotiations would be necessary to amend the budget to better support essential services without burdening taxpayers. Conversely, if the veto is overridden, the council would proceed with the proposed budget, which the mayor had described as inadequate.