58° and Sunny
MINNEAPOLIMEDIA NEWS | Minneapolis Council Leaders Move to Dismantle Office of Community Safety as Mayor Frey Warns of Risks to Public Safety
A proposal sponsored by Council President Elliott Payne and Council Member Robin Wonsley would eliminate a central administrative office while retaining core safety departments, setting up an October 27 public hearing.
MINNEAPOLIS, MN (October 15, 2026). Minneapolis City Council leaders are advancing legislation to eliminate the Office of Community Safety, reopening a fundamental dispute over the organization of city government and the supervision of police, fire, emergency communications and violence prevention programs.
The proposal, introduced by Council President Elliott Payne and Council Member Robin Wonsley, would dismantle the administrative office established in 2022 as part of Mayor Jacob Frey's restructuring of Minneapolis public safety.
At a committee meeting Tuesday, October 13, council members voted to schedule an October 27 public hearing on the ordinance.
The proposal has not yet been adopted.
Its supporters argue that the office has added bureaucracy without demonstrating sufficient improvements in oversight or public safety outcomes.
Frey has sharply opposed the effort, warning that eliminating the office without a comprehensive replacement plan could jeopardize services and undermine the city's continuing reform work.
A Structure Created After a Major Political Debate
The Office of Community Safety emerged from years of disagreement over Minneapolis policing following the 2020 murder of George Floyd.
In 2021, Minneapolis voters rejected a proposed charter amendment that would have replaced the Police Department with a broader Department of Public Safety.
The following year, Frey advanced a different approach.
Rather than eliminate the Police Department, the city created an administrative structure intended to coordinate existing public safety functions.
The Office of Community Safety became responsible for overseeing departments that included police, fire, emergency communications and neighborhood safety.
The reorganization was presented as a means of improving coordination and establishing stronger executive accountability.
The office also reflected a broader shift in Minneapolis government following changes that strengthened the mayor's authority over executive departments.
Four years later, some council members argue that the additional administrative layer has failed to justify its existence.
What Payne and Wonsley Want to Change
The proposed ordinance would eliminate the Office of Community Safety itself.
It would not automatically eliminate the Minneapolis Police Department, Fire Department, 911 services or the Department of Neighborhood Safety.
That distinction is essential.
According to MPR News, the proposal would return department heads to direct reporting relationships with the mayor, similar to the arrangement that existed before the office was created.
The Department of Neighborhood Safety would remain in place.
The ordinance would also transfer certain responsibilities currently associated with the city's Racial Equity, Inclusion and Belonging Department to the Neighborhood and Community Relations Department.
The proposal therefore reaches beyond the name of one administrative office.
It would change the structure through which departments report, coordinate activities and receive executive supervision.
The Argument Against the Office
Wonsley has questioned whether the Office of Community Safety has produced measurable benefits during its existence.
She argues that it has failed to provide sufficiently rigorous oversight of police spending and has not demonstrated meaningful improvements in public safety outcomes.
Her concerns include whether the additional administrative layer has helped improve police clearance rates or prevented spending problems.
Supporters of eliminating the office contend that important public safety work can continue within the existing departments without a separate coordinating bureaucracy.
They also argue that community-based safety initiatives should be strengthened rather than weakened.
Wonsley has pointed to the Department of Neighborhood Safety as the place where much of that work is already being carried out.
The proposal's logic is that eliminating an administrative office could allow the city to focus more directly on departments and programs responsible for delivering services.
Whether that would improve accountability depends on the replacement arrangements and how responsibilities are assigned.
Frey Warns Against Eliminating the Structure
Frey has criticized the proposal as insufficiently developed.
In a statement reported by MPR News, he argued that the office coordinates mental health response, violence prevention and police reform responsibilities.
His position is that eliminating the structure without a detailed operational plan could put those functions at risk.
The mayor's objections highlight an important question.
Even if council members conclude that an office has not performed effectively, its responsibilities must still be assigned somewhere.
The city would need to determine who supervises interdepartmental coordination, evaluates performance, oversees relevant contracts and ensures compliance with ongoing reform obligations.
A direct reporting relationship between department heads and the mayor could simplify some lines of authority.
It could also increase the need for clear mechanisms to coordinate services that cross departmental boundaries.
The Dispute Over Accountability
The controversy is unfolding amid continued scrutiny of Minneapolis public safety administration.
Questions about police spending, violence prevention contracts and program oversight have intensified disagreements over the effectiveness of the existing structure.
Financial oversight concerns are particularly important because the city relies on outside organizations to help deliver certain community safety programs.
Residents have an interest in knowing whether public money is being used appropriately and whether funded services are producing results.
But identifying deficiencies in financial controls is not equivalent to establishing fraud by every contractor or wrongdoing by every employee.
A credible restructuring debate must distinguish documented failures from unproven allegations.
It must also explain how any proposed alternative would improve supervision, transparency and accountability.
Police Reform Adds Another Layer of Responsibility
Minneapolis remains subject to major police reform obligations.
Those obligations require sustained administrative attention, coordination and documented progress.
Any change to the city's public safety leadership structure must therefore be evaluated against the practical requirements of reform implementation.
Residents deserve to know which officials would be responsible for meeting those obligations if the Office of Community Safety is eliminated.
They also deserve an explanation of whether the restructuring would affect staffing, reporting procedures or the city's ability to monitor compliance.
The proposal cannot be judged solely by whether it reduces bureaucracy.
Its consequences for reform implementation are equally important.
An Earlier Leadership Dispute
The latest proposal follows another disagreement between the council and mayor over public safety leadership.
In April, the council rejected the renomination of Community Safety Commissioner Todd Barnette.
Barnette is expected to step down in the coming months, according to MPR News.
That earlier dispute illustrates the continuing tension over who should lead Minneapolis public safety administration and how elected officials should exercise oversight.
It also means the city is considering structural changes during a period of leadership uncertainty.
October 27 Public Hearing
The next confirmed step is the October 27 public hearing.
That proceeding will provide an opportunity for residents, service providers and other interested parties to comment on the proposed ordinance.
Council Member Elizabeth Shaffer has expressed interest in further discussion and collaboration, including the possibility of avoiding another veto dispute with the mayor.
The final outcome remains uncertain.
The council must determine whether to proceed with eliminating the office, amend the proposal or pursue another approach.
For Minneapolis residents, the critical question is not which branch of city government prevails in the dispute.
It is whether the resulting structure will deliver effective emergency services, transparent financial oversight, reliable violence prevention programs and sustained police reform.
Those responsibilities will remain regardless of what happens to the Office of Community Safety.
Official Resources
Minneapolis City Council: https://www.minneapolismn.gov/government/city-council/
Legislative information: https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/
STAY CONNECTED TO MINNEAPOLIMEDIA
Local stories matter. Subscribe free to MinneapoliMedia and receive independent news, community reporting and important updates from Minneapolis, the North Metro and communities across Minnesota.
SUBSCRIBE FREE: https://minneapolimedia.town.news/subscribe
MinneapoliMedia | Community. Culture. Civic Life
