Councilmember Wonsley seeks temporary move of GVI and YGVI programs to Hennepin County; committee forwards item without recommendation

Councilmember Digna Wonsley on Monday asked the Minneapolis Budget Committee to temporarily transfer the city's Group Violence Intervention (GVI) and Youth Group Violence Intervention (YGVI) programs to Hennepin County for the remainder of 2025, citing persistent capacity and management problems in the Neighborhood Safety Department (NSD).

Wonsley told the committee there was "a motion before us today to consider appropriating $1.1 million to essentially move both GVI and YGVI programs temporarily to Hennepin County for the remainder of 2025." She framed the move as a temporary measure to preserve services while the city restructures NSD and rebuilds internal data, contract and oversight systems.

The proposal drew sustained questioning from councilmembers about procurement status, continuity of services and fiscal detail. Interim Neighborhood Safety leadership and procurement staff said the city had restarted procurement for GVI and YGVI in mid-2024, that RFPs were developed beginning in August and issued in October, and that top-scoring YGVI vendors were in negotiation while GVI selections were also in late-stage negotiation. "The YGVI RFP process — those vendors who scored the highest are in negotiation right now," Interim Director Todd Barnette said.

City staff and a department compliance official said contracts had been extended to March 31, 2025, to allow the RFP process to finish and stressed the authors built conditions into the motion. The motion's second part requires any agreement with the county to include a transition plan, timeline, data and outcome reporting, and to return to Council for approval before city funds are released.

Councilmembers split along concerns about timing, vendor selection, and whether moving administration to the county would prevent service interruptions. Several members asked for a written county timeline and assurances about operational continuity; staff acknowledged the county does not currently operate the exact GVI program model and that moving administration could cause an interruption if implementation details are not finalized. An Associate Director of Compliance said a county MOU would need to address transition and reporting obligations to reduce that risk.

After extended debate, the committee held a roll-call vote on the motion to approve the transfer as written; the vote was six ayes and six nays and the motion failed. Vice Chair Koski then moved to forward the item to full Council without recommendation; that motion passed on a 7-5 roll call. The matter will next be considered at the full City Council, with any county agreement required to return to Council for final approval.

The discussion also highlighted unresolved budget questions. Councilmembers requested a memo showing which city-funded programs would be reduced if roughly $1.1 million is moved, and asked staff to obtain written commitments from Hennepin County describing how quickly it could begin administering the work and how it would avoid service gaps.

What happened next: the committee forwarded the item to Thursday's City Council meeting without recommendation. Any agreement with Hennepin County must be negotiated and brought back to Council before city funds are released.