[0:21] Good morning everyone. My name

[0:23] is elliot payne, president of

[0:25] minneapolis city council.

[0:26] before we convene our meeting,

[0:28] we have the presentation of one

[0:30] horary resolution recognizing

[0:32] disability pride month. I'll

[0:34] invite council member whiting to

[0:34] give that presentation.

[0:36] » Thank you. And I'll invite

[0:39] our honored guests to come on

[0:41] up, as well. Thank you.

[1:00] u thank you for being here.

[1:02] resolution for 2026 disability

[1:06] pride month. Disability pride

[1:06] month is celebrated in july to

[1:07] acknowledge that the americans

[1:09] with disabilities act of 1990

[1:11] (ada) was signednto law on

[1:16] july 26, 1990; and thousands of

[1:17] resides who have disabilities

[1:20] live, work, learn, and play in

[1:21] the city of minneapolis; and

[1:26] whereas: people with

[1:26] disabilities are valued and

[1:27] essential members of the city o

[1:28] contributing to its economy,

[1:31] arts, and sports communities; ad

[1:34] whereas: people with

[1:34] disabilities have intersectional

[1:35] identities that improve

[1:36] communities and enhance culture

[1:38] thugh their lived experiences; d

[1:42] whereas: the city of minneapoli

[1:43] acknowledges the long history o

[1:43] discrimination against

[1:44] minneapolis residents with

[1:46] disabilities and recognizes the

[1:48] decades of activism and advocac

[1:55] by the disability community,

[1:56] including the city of

[1:57] minneapolis's advisory commiee

[1:58] on people with disabilities

[1:58] which was established in 1976; d

[2:02] whereas: the city of minneapoli

[2:03] acknowledges that the lives of

[2:04] people with disabilities are

[2:05] rth celebrating this month and

[2:06] every month, and that

[2:07] protections under the ada must

[2:08] be preserved for generations to

[2:11] ┘now, therefore, be it resolve┘

[2:18] that the mayor and city council

[2:18] do hereby recognize an

[2:19] celebrate july 2026 as

[2:20] disability pride month in the

[2:20] city of minneapolis.

[2:27] [ applause ]

[2:27] thank you. And I'll pass it

[2:29] over to our guests here. We

[2:31] have our honored guest ken,

[2:32] chair of our minneapolis

[2:35] advisory committee on dability

[2:38] disabilities. I'll pass

[2:39] it over to ken to say a few

[2:41] notes. Thank you, ken.

[2:42] » Thank you. I'd like to

[2:45] extend greetings from my

[2:46] committee members that serve on

[2:48] the minneapolis advisory

[2:49] committee on pple with

[2:49] disabilities. And I'm really

[2:52] happy to report that as of last

[2:55] year with the redesign of city

[3:01] advisory boards and commissions,

[3:02] we, for the first time in a

[3:04] very, very, very long time had

[3:07] full membership with a member

[3:10] representing each of our seats.

[3:11] we expect the same thing to

[3:12] continue this year. So tt's

[3:16] not done alone. That was done

[3:19] by everyone, and especiallycoune

[3:22] to the important work. I want

[3:25] to just say just a couple of

[3:28] words about people that live

[3:30] with disabilities and the value

[3:32] they bring. I don't need to

[3:34] share -- you guys all kno that.

[3:36] but it's really important that

[3:39] we recognize and uphold our

[3:42] values in ways that go beyond

[3:44] just our daily work. And what

[3:48] we each represent individually.

[3:52] resolution sounds really simple,

[3:54] right. Words get made, put on

[3:56] paper, and they're nice words.

[3:59] but the importance is what those

[4:00] words mean. And it codifies

[4:05] what we believes a city and as

[4:11] an entity, a municipality that

[4:14] reprents citizens of all

[4:16] stripes and sizes and

[4:18] conditions.

[4:19] and for my, many, many years,

[4:21] people with disabilities were

[4:24] not visible. We were kept

[4:27] separate. We were kept behind

[4:28] the scenes. It was shameful.

[4:32] there was a lot of negativity

[4:36] attached to living with a

[4:38] disability. Especially a

[4:41] visible disability. But life

[4:43] has changed. And we have e

[4:44] edger manied -- emerged as our

[4:47] rights have been restored and

[4:49] focused on to make life as equal

[4:52] as possible for everybody.

[4:53] and because of that, we are

[4:56] independent today. We're out

[4:57] and about. I doubt you go

[5:00] through ur day without seeing

[5:01] somebody with a disability in

[5:02] the community just in your daily

[5:05] work. We're visible, we're

[5:08] proud, and this resolution puts

[5:10] all of that together and adds

[5:13] the city of minneapolis, the

[5:15] council members, and the mayor's

[5:18] value of what people with

[5:21] disabilities bring to all ofur

[5:23] work. It makes our city better.

[5:24] it makes us better as human

[5:25] beings. And I'm so proud to be

[5:28] representing the minneapolis

[5:29] advisory committee on people

[5:30] with disabilities, which, by the

[5:34] way, celebrates its 50th year

[5:36] of existence! As mayor frey

[5:38] shared last night at our council

[5:41] meeting, we're probably one of

[5:43] the oldest and longest-standing

[5:46] disability advisory committees

[5:47] in a municipality in the u.s.

[5:50] this is 50 years of accumulated

[5:53] work! So I thank you. We

[5:54] can't do this alone. We can't

[5:56] make anybody do anything. We're

[5:58] here to advise, and thank you

[6:01] for putting the spotlight on

[6:03] people with disabilities with

[6:05] lived experience of disability

[6:07] to help us all be a better city

[6:09] and a better council and

[6:13] better serve our citizens. I

[6:14] appreciate being here and your

[6:17] work and I want to lift that up.

[6:19] thank you.

[6:19] [ applause ]

[6:21] » Thank you. I couldn't say it

[6:24] better myself! Anthony, if you

[6:26] have anything. Otherwise we can

[6:27] take a picture over here. Zoe,

[6:30] if you can note where you're at,

[6:32] that would be perfect.

[7:01] » Thank you everyone. At this

[7:03] time, I'm going to call this

[7:04] regular meeting of the city

[7:06] council for july 16th to

[7:07] order. The clerk will call the

[7:10] roll.

[7:13] » Council member chavez.

[7:15] » Present.

[7:15] » Council member warren.

[7:17] » Present.

[7:18] » Council member shaffer.

[7:19] » Present.

[7:20] » Council member wonsley.

[7:21] » Is absent. Council member

[7:23] chughtai is absent. Council

[7:25] member whiting.

[7:26] » Resent.

[7:26] » Council memr chowdhury.

[7:28] » Present.

[7:28] » Council member stevenson.

[7:30] » Present.

[7:30] » Council member rainville.

[7:32] » Present.

[7:32] » Council member vetaw.

[7:33] » Present.

[7:34] » Council member palmisano.

[7:36] » Present.

[7:36] » Vice president osman. Is

[7:39] absent. President payne.

[7:40] » Present.

[7:41] » 10 members present.

[7:42] » L the record reflect we

[7:45] have a q quorum. Let me

[7:48] remind all that this meeting is

[7:51] broadcast live to enable greater

[7:52] public participation. The

[7:53] broadcast includes real time

[7:55] captioning as a means to

[7:56] increase the accessibility of

[7:57] our proceedings to the

[7:58] community. All speakers need to

[8:02] be mindful of the rate of our

[8:05] speech. We ask all speakers to

[8:07] moderate the speed and clarity

[8:09] of their comments. I'll also

[8:11] note we've been joined by

[8:12] council members wonsley and vice

[8:14] president osman. With that, the

[8:16] agenda for today's meeting is

[8:17] before us. Any amendments to

[8:19] the agenda? May I have a motion

[8:23] to adopt the agenda?

[8:24] » So moved.

[8:25] » Second.

[8:26] » The clerk will call the

[8:27] roll.

[8:28] » Council member chavez.

[8:30] » Aye.

[8:31] » Council member yne.

[8:32] » Aye.

[8:33] » Shaffer.

[8:33] » Aye.

[8:34] » Wonsley.

[8:35] » Aye.

[8:36] » Whiting.

[8:36] » Aye.

[8:37] » Council member chowdhury.

[8:38] » Aye.

[8:39] » Council member stevenson.

[8:40] » Aye.

[8:40] council member rainville.

[8:41] » Aye.

[8:42] » Council member vetaw.

[8:43] » Aye.

[8:43] » Council member' palmisano.

[8:45] » Aye.

[8:45] » Vice president osman.

[8:46] » Aye.

[8:46] » President payne.

[8:47] » Aye.>> there are 12 ayes. ?

[8:49] » >>: that carries and the

[8:50] agenda is adopted. And the next

[8:52] item is acceptance of the

[8:53] minutes from our regular meeting

[8:54] of june 25th. May I have a

[8:56] motion to accept the minute s .

[8:57] .

[8:57] » So moved.

[8:58] » Second.

[8:59] » Council member chavez.

[9:00] » Aye.

[9:00] » Warren.

[9:01] » Aye.

[9:02] » Shaff.

[9:03] » Aye.

[9:03] » Wonsley.

[9:04] » Aye.

[9:06] » Whiting.

[9:06] » Aye.

[9:07] » Chowdhury.

[9:08] » Stevenson.

[9:09] » Aye.

[9:09] » Rainville.

[9:10] » Aye.

[9:11] » Vetaw.

[9:11] » Aye.

[9:12] » Palmisano

[9:13] aye.

[9:13] » V vice president osman and

[9:17] president payne.

[9:18] » Aye.

[9:18] » We have the referral of

[9:20] petitions, communications, and

[9:21] reports from proper committees.

[9:22] may I have tt motion, please.

[9:24] » So moved.

[9:25] » Second.

[9:25] » Clerk will call the roll.

[9:27] » Chavez.

[9:27] » Aye.

[9:28] » Warren.

[9:28] » Aye.

[9:29] » Shaffer.

[9:30] » Ye.

[9:30] » Wonsley.

[9:31] » Aye.

[9:32] » Whiting.

[9:32] » Aye.

[9:33] » Chowdhury.

[9:33] » Aye.

[9:34] » Stevenson.

[9:35] » Aye.

[9:35] » Rainville.

[9:36] » Aye.

[9:36] » Vetaw.

[9:37] » Aye.

[9:38] » Palmisano.

[9:38] » Aye.

[9:39] » Vice president osman.

[9:40] » Aye.

[9:40] » President payne.

[9:42] » Aye.

[9:42] » 12 ayes.

[9:43] » That carries and the matters

[9:45] have been referred. The next

[9:46] order of business is the

[9:47] presentation of reports from our

[9:48] standing committees, . Wll

[9:51] begin with the report ofur

[9:52] budget committee given by the

[9:54] committee's vice chair, council

[9:56] member shaffer.

[9:57] » Thank you, mr. President.

[9:59] the budget committee is bringing

[10:00] forward one item. Item one

[10:04] accepts 3w-6789 rny

[10:06] discretionary community project

[10:07] funding programs for evaluation

[10:10] problem nature codes and proves

[10:11] appropriation of funds to the

[10:13] office of community safety.

[10:14] I'll move approval of this

[10:17] item.

[10:17] » Council member shaffer has

[10:19] moved approval of the committee

[10:20] report. Any discussion? Seeing

[10:23] ne. I'll ask the clerk to

[10:24] call the roll.

[10:26] » Chavez.

[10:27] » Aye.

[10:28] » Warren.

[10:28] » Aye.

[10:29] » Shaffer.

[10:30] » Aye.

[10:30] » Wonsley.

[10:31] » Aye.

[10:32] » Hiting.

[10:33] » Aye.

[10:33] » Chowdhury.

[10:34] » Aye.

[10:35] » Stevenson.

[10:36] » Aye.

[10:37] » Rainville.

[10:38] » Aye.

[10:38] » Vetaw.

[10:39] » Aye.

[10:40] » Palmisano.

[10:41] » Aye.

[10:41] » Osman.

[10:42] » Aye

[10:43] » President payne

[10:43] » Aye.

[10:44] » 12 ayes.

[10:45] » That carries and the report

[10:46] is adopted. Next we have the

[10:48] report of the business, housing

[10:49] with and zoning committee given

[10:52] by the chair, vice president

[10:53] osman.

[10:54] » Thank you, mr. President.

[10:58] we're bringing 17 items forward

[11:02] today. One approves a liquor

[11:05] with limited entertainment

[11:06] license for bill's bait shop.

[11:09] two approves an extension of

[11:11] premises and street cafe license

[11:13] for bryant lake bowl. Item

[11:16] three a wine and strong beer

[11:18] with no entertainment license

[11:20] for antojitos.

[11:23] . Four approves a financing

[11:26] for the grain exchange

[11:28] conversion project. This item,

[11:31] item five is variance appeal for

[11:34] the property at 4710 sent

[11:40] forward without recommendation.

[11:42] six approves six liquor

[11:45] licenses. Seven is approving 24

[11:47] liquor license renewals. Eight

[11:49] is two gambling licenses. Nine

[11:55] is amended breakfast barf

[11:58] mibar of minnesota. 10

[12:06] is bid for minneapolis

[12:07] convention center. 11 loan

[12:09] restructure for jigija business

[12:12] center. 12 is minneapolis homes

[12:15] financing rehab project. 13

[12:22] altdtive financing program. 14

[12:24] is hennepin county housing and

[12:26] redevelopment authority. 15 is

[12:28] loan contract with metro con

[12:30] issue chum of community

[12:33] developers. 16 approves two

[12:35] street vacation north of

[12:37] franklin avenue west. And

[12:39] lastly item 17 is a local

[12:43] historic landmark destination

[12:45] for the lakeshore arms

[12:47] apartments. Sent forward

[12:49] without recommendation. I'll

[12:51] move for approval except for 5,

[12:54] 15, and 17. Thank you.

[12:56] » Vice president osman has

[12:57] moved approval of the committee

[13:00] report minus items 5 and 15.

[13:03] any discussion on the remainder

[13:04] of the report? Cncil member

[13:06] whiting.

[13:06] » Thank you, president payne.

[13:08] » And 17.

[13:09] » I have to note, I'll have to

[13:11] recuse myself from item number

[13:13] 15 for a personal conflict.

[13:17] » Noted. Council member

[13:19] chowdhury.

[13:19] » Thank you, presidentayne.

[13:21] I wanted to take a second to

[13:23] highlight item number one. It's

[13:26] a big dl for the restaurant to

[13:28] come into the 12th ward. In

[13:33] corner used to have chicago's

[13:35] taste authority, which provided

[13:36] a lot of activation in the area,

[13:38] walkable area for community

[13:39] members to come and walk in thee

[13:43] bill's bail shop, a woman-owned

[13:46] local business to come into the

[13:48] neighborhood and to provide a

[13:51] bar and karaoke and all the

[13:54] activations is something that

[13:56] has spread across the 12th

[13:58] ward. People want me places

[13:59] where they can walk at night to

[14:00] grab a drink or hang with

[14:02] friends. And I have never seen

[14:04] so many e-mails and calls andtes

[14:09] business. And any type of

[14:11] business coming in. It

[14:13] highlights how exciting it is

[14:15] and how dynamic it will be for

[14:16] the neighborhood. I wanted to

[14:17] thank the business owner for

[14:19] coming into the committee and I

[14:20] so wanted to take some time to

[14:22] thank the neighbors who reached

[14:23] out to my oice in support of

[14:26] this. And shared what they're

[14:29] hoping for in the location.

[14:35] » Seeing no one else left in

[14:38] queue, I'll ask the clerk to

[14:39] call the roll on committee

[14:42] report minus items 5, 15, and

[14:46] 17.

[14:47] » Council member chavez.

[14:49] » Aye.

[14:49] » Wren.

[14:51] » Aye.

[14:51] » Shaffer.

[14:52] » Aye.

[14:53] » Wonsley.

[14:53] » Is absent. Council member

[14:56] whiting.

[14:57] » Aye.

[14:57] » Chowdhury.

[14:58] » Aye.

[14:59] » Stevenson.

[15:00] » Aye.

[15:00] » Rainville.

[15:01] » Aye.

[15:02] » Council member vetaw.

[15:03] » Aye.

[15:03] » Council member palmisano.

[15:05] » Aye.

[15:05] » Vice president osman.

[15:06] » Aye.

[15:06] » President payne.

[15:08] » Aye.

[15:08] » There are 11 ayes.

[15:11] » That carries. Next we'll

[15:13] take up item number 5, and I'll

[15:15] recognize council member vetaw.

[15:17] » Thank you, president payne.

[15:19] I would just like to move to

[15:21] grant the appeal submitted by

[15:24] wayne behalf of family

[15:28] partnership llp regarding the

[15:29] decision of the zoning board of

[15:31] adjustment denying the

[15:32] application forhe variance

[15:34] from the screening requirements

[15:36] for refused and recycling

[15:40] containers on the property

[15:44] located 4710 humbolt avenue

[15:45] north based on the findings you

[15:47] should have it in front of you.

[15:50] so I'd like to make that

[15:51] motion.

[15:53] » Second.

[15:54] » That's been moved and

[15:55] seconded. Any discussion?

[15:59] seeing none. I'll ask the clerk

[16:00] to call the roll.

[16:03] » Council member chavez.

[16:04] » Aye.

[16:04] » Council member warren.

[16:05] » Aye

[16:06] » Council member shaffer.

[16:07] » Aye.

[16:07] » Council member whiting.

[16:08] » Aye.

[16:09] » Council membe chowdhury.

[16:10] » Aye.

[16:10] » Council member stevenson.

[16:11] » Aye.

[16:12] » Council member rainville.

[16:13] » Aye.

[16:14] » Council member vetaw.

[16:15] » Aye.

[16:15] » Council member palmisano.

[16:16] » Aye.

[16:17] » Vice president osman.

[16:18] » Aye.

[16:18] » President payne.

[16:19] » Aye.

[16:20] » 11 ayes.

[16:21] » That carries. Next we'll

[16:23] take up item number 15. Is

[16:27] there any further discussion on

[16:30] this item? Seeing none I'll ask

[16:33] the clerk to call the roll.

[16:36] » Council member chavez.

[16:37] » Aye.

[16:38] » Council member warren.

[16:39] » Aye.

[16:40] » Council member shaffer.

[16:41] » Aye.

[16:41] » Council member whiting.

[16:42] » Ab contain.

[16:43] » Council member chowdhury.

[16:44] » Aye.

[16:45] » Council member stevenson.

[16:46] » Aye.

[16:46] » Council member rainville.

[16:47] » Aye.

[16:48] » Council member vetaw.

[16:50] » Aye.

[16:50] » Council member palmisano.

[16:51] » Aye.

[16:52] » Vice president osman.

[16:53] » Aye.

[16:54] » President pay.

[16:55] » Aye.

[16:55] » 10 ayes and one abstention.

[16:57] » That carries. Next up item

[17:00] number 17 and I'll recognize

[17:01] council memr shaffer.

[17:03] » Thank you, president payne.

[17:05] I'm making motion to deny this

[17:09] designation for several reasons.

[17:10] I'll take a few minutes to

[17:12] outline that. While historic

[17:13] p preservation is important

[17:15] to me, and it should be to

[17:17] everyone. This is a marginal

[17:18] nomination of a property that's

[17:20] not remotely unique. It happens

[17:23] to be located, also, in a

[17:26] transit corridor surrounded by

[17:27] more dense multiunit housing.

[17:30] this area is growing fast. And

[17:32] while the current owner says

[17:33] they have no plans currently to

[17:35] redevelop the property, granting

[17:37] this designation would forever

[17:41] forclose the possibility in an

[17:44] area rapidly growing two blocks

[17:46] from the southwest light rail,

[17:47] and is one of the city's bright

[17:50] housing spots. Out of seven

[17:54] significant criteria, only one

[17:56] was found in the staff report in

[17:58] lims. Reportedly embodies the

[18:03] spanish style of the early

[18:04] 20th century. Nothing of

[18:06] historical note happened here.

[18:08] and it's not a unique resource.

[18:11] the staff report alone documents

[18:14] 17 other properties throughout

[18:15] the city by the same architect,

[18:19] c.j. Bart in the same style,

[18:21] from the exact same period,

[18:23] 1930s. It's not a unique

[18:26] resource. The problem with this

[18:28] nomination is that in order to,

[18:30] quote, embody the style, it is

[18:31] not enough to be simply one of

[18:34] an example. But embodiment

[18:36] means it should be a very good

[18:39] to exceptional example. A

[18:42] review of the quick review of

[18:43] the staff report here shows that

[18:45] it's not the case. Look at the

[18:48] moorish mansion, for example.

[18:49] this is an average to below

[18:52] building on the docket here

[18:54] today in environment where many

[18:56] other better candidates exist.

[18:58] if there's truly a need to

[19:00] preserve an example of spanish

[19:02] eclectic, we should find the

[19:04] best example we can set and find

[19:06] that sets the standard or

[19:08] embodies this particular style.

[19:10] this isn't it. Another

[19:13] important difference between

[19:13] this property and the other

[19:15] dozen half of c.j. Barts

[19:18] apartments, those other

[19:19] properties are largely located

[19:21] in residential areas. That are

[19:23] not on major transit routes and

[19:25] aren't growing by leaps and

[19:26] bounds. While the area

[19:28] surrounding these properties

[19:29] look largely like they did in

[19:31] the 1930s, the lake shore arms

[19:32] does not. It is bounded by lake

[19:35] point condos to the east,

[19:37] roughly 20 to 25 stories. And

[19:39] several mid rise apartment

[19:40] buildings five or six stories to

[19:42] the west. It's on a major

[19:44] transit route already, and

[19:45] designating historical

[19:47] significance to this particular

[19:50] building will permanently

[19:52] foreclosure the preferred

[19:54] development designated for the

[19:56] area under the 2040 plan.

[19:59] while I appreciate the urge to

[20:01] preserve our history, this

[20:02] particular nomination creates

[20:04] more problems than it solves.

[20:06] these apartments, in this style,

[20:08] are abundant. This isn't close

[20:10] to the best example. And it's

[20:13] setting on lake street has

[20:15] changed. And modernized

[20:17] drastically in the intervening

[20:18] 90 years. And this can be

[20:20] expected to continue for the

[20:22] foreseeable future. If we want

[20:23] to preserve the feel of spanish

[20:26] eclectic in the 1930s, there

[20:28] are better places to do it in

[20:29] the city than here. I

[20:31] respectfully request my

[20:32] colleagues join with me to deny

[20:34] the historic designation for the

[20:36] ward 7 property.

[20:40] » Is there a second?

[20:42] » Second.

[20:42] » Council member stevenson.

[20:45] » Yes. Thank you. I spoke

[20:48] with council member shaffer

[20:51] yesterday and asked this. I

[20:52] want to the ask again. Is there

[20:53] any way that we could delay this

[20:56] and have staff think about it

[20:58] more? I think that you told me

[21:01] that this is a strong case. And

[21:02] that you think staff is somewhat

[21:05] behind it. And so I would be

[21:08] interested in supportingtaff

[21:10] and supporting you at the same

[21:10] time. So I'm wondering if we

[21:12] can make that happen.

[21:13] » No. We're going to move this

[21:16] forward today. Just because of

[21:17] the work that I've already put

[21:18] into this and writing the fact

[21:20] finding and working with staff

[21:21] behind the scenes. And bringing

[21:24] forward the arguments we feel

[21:25] are most pertinent to the

[21:28] decision.

[21:28] » Council member chavez.

[21:31] » Ah, thank you, president

[21:34] payne. Is staff here to answer

[21:35] a few questions? So what was --

[21:43] can you walk us through the

[21:47] original item, which is business

[21:49] item number 17. That was

[21:50] brought forward to council. And

[21:52] what was staff recommendation.

[21:54] » President payne, members of

[21:55] the council. My name is erik

[21:58] hansen, director of cped. And I

[22:00] just walked in. So I'm not

[22:02] exactly sure what item we're

[22:03] talking about. I think it's the

[22:06] historic designation of the

[22:07] building on lake street.

[22:08] » Yes.

[22:08] » Okay. All right.

[22:10] if it would -- if I could get

[22:14] some assistance from president

[22:15] payne. Could we delay this and

[22:17] I can get staff from -- oh.

[22:21] there we go. I was just about

[22:24] to get him.

[22:25] [ laughter ]

[22:25] all right. Rob.

[22:27] » Rob.

[22:28] » Welcome! I you can

[22:29] introduce yourself.

[22:31] » Defer to rob for the

[22:32] information.

[22:33] » Thank you, erik hansen.

[22:35] cthank you. I believecouncil ma

[22:39] question. Could you repeat it.

[22:41] » Yeah. What is item number

[22:44] 17. So the public understands.

[22:45] what was the recommendation from

[22:46] staff? And if you can start by

[22:48] introducing yourself.

[22:48] » Sure. Rob skill lek I can in

[22:53] planning. The item that we're

[22:54] considering today is the

[22:56] landmark designation of lake

[22:58] shore arms apartments located at

[23:01] 3026 lake street west.

[23:02] considered by the minneapolis

[23:05] hpc at their meeting in june.

[23:07] and this went in front of

[23:09] business, housing, and zoning

[23:11] committe at the last meeting.

[23:13] staff recommending approval

[23:14] based on a study conducted over

[23:15] the past year following the

[23:18] buildings nomination back in

[23:19] august of last year.

[23:22] so city staff recommending

[23:24] approval of the heritage

[23:26] preservation commission voted to

[23:27] recommend approval at a

[23:29] business, housing, zoning

[23:30] committee and forwarded without

[23:32] recommendation. So that's where

[23:33] we're at now. This is, again,

[23:35] considering the landmark

[23:36] designation of lake shore arms

[23:40] apartments.

[23:40] » Tha you. Yeah. I had a

[23:43] question. Because that was my

[23:44] understanding. And the

[23:46] business, housing, and zoning

[23:47] committee. It's part of why I'm

[23:49] undecided on what to do with

[23:50] this particular item. I think

[23:52] staff has done their work. Has

[23:54] done their own findings. And

[23:56] then the other component I'm

[23:57] concerned about is the variety

[24:00] of other buildings that could be

[24:04] designated for heritage

[24:05] preservation in the future. And

[24:07] what impact that would have, if

[24:09] we were to then move forward

[24:10] with the other buildings. And

[24:12] what it would do to the

[24:13] development of housing across

[24:14] the city. However, that --

[24:16] those are case-by-case

[24:18] scenarios. So that is not a

[24:19] decision we have to do, umm, but

[24:23] I think that -- I don't know if

[24:25] I'm ready to support the motion

[24:29] brought forward by council

[24:31] member shaffer today because I

[24:32] need to have more information in

[24:33] front of me. Given that staff

[24:34] has a different position on

[24:35] this. So I would appreciate a

[24:37] delay so I can could have more

[24:39] time. But if we don't have more

[24:42] time, then I guess I have to

[24:43] make a decision by what I have

[24:44] in front of me.

[24:46] » Council member chowdhury.

[24:48] » Hey, thank you, president

[24:50] payne. I think it was wise for

[24:53] us to forward thisithout

[24:57] recommendation to the committee.

[24:57] I think one thing, and just my

[25:00] observation, as we take up

[25:01] historic preservation items. Is

[25:04] this council needs to develop

[25:06] its ability to discern these

[25:08] items when they're before us.

[25:09] that's not to cast blame on any

[25:12] of us. It's a very wonky type

[25:15] of item. And I think it's a

[25:16] skill set that we need to grow

[25:18] in the way we have needed to

[25:20] grow on our quasi judicial

[25:24] items.

[25:25] I had a question for mr. Skill

[25:29] lek I can. This is based in our

[25:32] process. The way that we're

[25:34] taking this eye up now where

[25:35] it's coming before us as a city

[25:37] council and we're voting on it,

[25:40] is this related to the ordinance

[25:41] change we took up last term?

[25:44] » Council member president

[25:45] payne, council member chowdhury:

[25:47] this is very similar to how

[25:52] how landmarks were considered.

[25:55] there's two parts to considering

[25:56] the ndmark. The first is the

[25:59] nomination that's what happens

[26:00] in order to itiate the study

[26:01] process. The second is the

[26:03] designation which is being

[26:03] considered now. It comes with

[26:06] the resolution formally

[26:08] designating a property to become

[26:09] a landmark. That process has

[26:11] changed in some ways. But the

[26:12] way landmarks is designated is

[26:15] very similar to how it was und

[26:16] the previous ordinance.

[26:17] » If it was any -- any landmark

[26:23] preservation item in the future,

[26:24] or this one, if it were to move

[26:26] through, how doest then go to

[26:29] the hpc? Is there a time in

[26:31] which it goes before them and

[26:34] they begin work. I'm trying to

[26:35] better understand what comes out

[26:37] of our vote here. If it was an

[26:39] affirmative vote, clearly, if it

[26:41] was a vote in the negative, it

[26:43] would just halt all together.

[26:45] but that would be helpful to

[26:47] know.

[26:47] » Sure. So if a landmark is

[26:49] approved for designation, then

[26:51] that is essentially a decisn

[26:55] that lasts in perpetuity. Any

[26:56] changes to the property would

[26:57] come forward for staff review or

[27:01] heritage preservation commission

[27:02] review. Depending on the scope

[27:03] of work being proposed. We

[27:05] would review changes to make

[27:07] sure they meet the standards for

[27:09] rehabilitation. Will are used

[27:10] throughout the country to

[27:11] evaluate changes to the historic

[27:13] properties.

[27:13] if the landmark designation is

[27:15] denied and this is different

[27:16] from the pr previou

[27:20] ordinance. There's no language

[27:22] to guide what could happen in

[27:23] the future. So if it is denied

[27:26] today, or if a decision is not

[27:28] made, there's a possibili that

[27:29] it could come back in three

[27:30] years to be reconsidered with

[27:34] additional informaon.

[27:34] » Okay. And then how many

[27:36] landmark designations have we

[27:38] taken in the last -- I'll say,

[27:39] like, two or three years.

[27:42] » It's generally about one to

[27:44] one and a half a year, on

[27:45] average.

[27:46] » Right.

[27:46] » If we're doing averages. We

[27:48] bring forward for landmark

[27:49] properties.

[27:50] » Yeah. Thank you. I

[27:52] appreciate it. I think the

[27:53] place where I'm sitting, and I

[27:56] appreciate council member

[27:57] shaffer's work on this.

[28:00] absolutely. I'll note, I feel

[28:03] like -- let me know if I miss

[28:05] anything. I didn't get any

[28:06] information on the findings

[28:07] ahead of time. Which I think

[28:08] would have been valuable to sit

[28:10] with ahead of this meeting. I

[28:12] do think it's not atypical for

[28:15] us to take our time on historicd

[28:21] landmark designation

[28:22] discussions. I think the john

[28:24] cook house was a gre example

[28:26] of needing to take time for

[28:29] discernment. The thing that

[28:30] gives me pause is not being able

[28:33] to take time with the current

[28:36] findings, not being able to have

[28:37] enough time to dig in with staff

[28:40] and the fact that staff did put

[28:42] this up for an approval under

[28:45] one criterion, which is

[28:47] required. I'm not opposed to

[28:51] voting this down. And I'm not

[28:53] oppod to voting this up. But

[28:55] I don't feel like we have the

[28:58] proper discernment on this item.

[29:00] if we're not going to delay, I

[29:03] don't feel comfortable -- one, I

[29:07] don't feel comfortable taking on

[29:08] a vote on this today. I think

[29:10] it's my bottom line. And I

[29:12] think based off that, I'll have

[29:13] to make a decision if we're

[29:14] going to vote on this. But a

[29:16] delay, I think, would be

[29:17] appreciated. I don't think it's

[29:19] atypical for us to take our time

[29:20] on this. Even if it's just one

[29:22] cycle. I think we got to bring

[29:24] up -- build our muscle on this

[29:26] topic. Because there are going

[29:27] to be more items like this that

[29:29] come before us. And then under

[29:31] our ordinance change, now

[29:32] council members in partnership

[29:34] with community members can bring

[29:37] up items for historic

[29:38] preservation designation in the

[29:40] future. And that's a new change

[29:42] that we also have to better

[29:45] understand.

[29:45] » Vice president osman.

[29:48] » Thank you, council president.

[29:51] I want top remind the members,

[29:53] council members here. This was

[29:54] a public hearing. We had the

[29:57] opportunity to, of course, hear

[29:58] from the staff and, also, hear

[30:00] from the owner of the building.

[30:03] t actually. Had a wonderful

[30:08] presentation where he kind of

[30:10] compared similar apartments out

[30:13] there in our city. Same type of

[30:18] apartments. And I think maybe

[30:21] all of them were not designated

[30:25] and explained to us the

[30:27] uniquenesses of this apartment.

[30:29] and he acknowledged that. But I

[30:31] also -- we had an opportunity to

[30:33] hear from him. Both sides. Not

[30:34] just the commission here. But

[30:38] also from the owner of the

[30:42] apartments. We had a lengthy

[30:44] conversation. I don't see the

[30:45] point of delaying. We do have

[30:49] the staff to answer the

[30:50] questions. And we also have the

[30:55] dais here of the owner of the

[30:56] apartment. If there's any

[30:58] questions for those folks that

[31:00] are actually know a lot about

[31:02] the item. We can ask and I

[31:04] think we should make a decision

[31:06] and kind of move forward from

[31:07] here. Thank you.

[31:10] »

[31:10] » Council member stevenson.

[31:12] » Okay. I guess we're not

[31:13] going to get more time to get

[31:16] staff to maybe change their

[31:17] minds on this. While you're

[31:18] here, can I ask you. There's a

[31:21] case that's been brought upaboue

[31:25] best example of this te of

[31:26] architecture. Do you see

[31:28] validity in that case??

[31:31] » Council president payne.

[31:32] council member stevenson.

[31:35] staff, the way that the finding

[31:37] is written is that a property

[31:38] would embody that specific style

[31:41] of architecture. So it we do

[31:44] look at every sgle property

[31:45] that we have the availability to

[31:48] look at and the studies to see

[31:49] what the comparisons are. And

[31:50] deciding if a property merits

[31:53] landmark status for being

[31:55] considered in this situation.

[31:55] an example of a style of

[31:57] architecture, through the staff

[31:58] believed. So it understanding

[32:02] council member shaffer's

[32:03] comments on it. And there is

[32:06] the ability to in the findings,

[32:08] take into consideration any

[32:10] public comment received. And

[32:11] with public comment that's been

[32:13] received. Understand that

[32:14] council member shaffer disagrees

[32:15] with staff's findings with the

[32:18] additional research provided by

[32:19] the property owner.

[32:23] » Okay. I gue what I'm

[32:24] asking is, if this building

[32:31] would get destroyed, would the

[32:32] city of minneapolis be losing

[32:34] something special or others that

[32:36] are equal or better in this

[32:40] style?

[32:41] » Council member president

[32:42] payne, council member stevenson.

[32:46] there's -- it's not, you know,

[32:48] there's no -- we have no

[32:49] knowledge of it being destroyed

[32:51] in the future. Or plans to be

[32:53] demolished. And we look at

[32:54] properties as they exist and as

[32:56] it exists. Staff did reco

[33:04] recommend --

[33:04] » Okay. Thank you. Is there

[33:09] any further discussion on this

[33:12] item? Seeing none. I'll ask

[33:14] the clerk to call the roll on

[33:16] the motion to deny historical

[33:19] designation.

[33:20] » Council member cvez.

[33:23] » Can you --

[33:24] » You want t to clarify the

[33:28] vote destruction. What was

[33:29] stated is different than what we

[33:31] have listed.

[33:32] » The motion in front of you is

[33:33] what was distributed by council

[33:35] member shaffer, moved and

[33:38] seconded, denying the local

[33:39] historic designation for lake

[33:42] shore arms and apartmentses.

[33:45] apartments.>> thank you. An ayd

[33:49] deny?

[33:53] » Council member chavez.

[33:56] » I don't want to -- I don't

[33:58] want to deny.

[34:04] [ overlapping speakers ]

[34:05] this is so confusing. I'm

[34:08] sorry. Council member chavez.

[34:11] » Okay.

[34:13] » Microphone.

[34:13] » If I don't want to deny the

[34:16] preservation here, I need more

[34:18] time, obviously. Am I aye then?

[34:21] » You would be a nay.

[34:22] » Okay.

[34:23] » It's just the whole thing.

[34:24] okay. No.

[34:26] » Okay.

[34:27] » Clerk will call the roll.

[34:29] » Council member cvez.

[34:31] » No.

[34:32] » Council member warre

[34:33] » Aye.

[34:34] » Council member shaffer.

[34:35] » Aye.

[34:37] » Council member whiting.

[34:39] » Aye.

[34:40] » Council member chowdhury.

[34:41] » No.

[34:42] » Council member stevenson.

[34:44] » Aye.

[34:45] » Council member rainville.

[34:46] » Aye.

[34:47] » Council member h vetaw.

[34:48] » Aye.

[34:49] » Council member palmisano.

[34:50] » Aye.

[34:50] » Vice president osman.

[34:51] » Aye.

[34:52] » President payne.

[34:53] » Aye.

[34:54] » There are nine ayes and two

[34:56] nays.

[34:56] » That carries. And that

[34:58] completes the biz report. The

[35:00] next report is from our climate

[35:02] and infrastructure committee.

[35:03] which will be presented by that

[35:06] committee's chair, council

[35:06] member wonsley. And before we

[35:08] move on, would you like to be

[35:09] recognized for your consent

[35:12] items on the business agenda?

[35:13] » Aye on consent and then we

[35:15] did not take up the historic

[35:18] designation --

[35:19] » We just did.

[35:20] » I would like to be recorded

[35:22] an aye was affirmative in

[35:23] supporting the historic

[35:24] designation or nay. Nay.

[35:28] » Okay.

[35:29] » Clerks, did you get that?

[35:32] all right. Now I'll recognize

[35:36] council member wonsley to give

[35:37] the climate and infrastructure

[35:38] report.

[35:38] » Thank you. I'm going to land

[35:39] it over to vice chair stevenson,

[35:41] c who chaired that meeting.

[35:44] » Thank you, chair. Thank you,

[35:46] mr. President. The climate and

[35:47] infrastructure committee is nine

[35:50] bringing forward nine items.

[35:51] one considering the lyndale

[35:53] avenue reconstruction project.

[35:54] two resolution for a gift

[35:56] acceptance. Three a resolution

[35:59] for gift acceptance for

[36:00] brookings transportation

[36:01] initiative. Four resolution for

[36:02] a gi acceptance for

[36:03] minneapolis foundation. Five

[36:06] resolutions for support for the

[36:07] minnesota department of

[36:08] transportation highway 280

[36:10] project. Six land sale wedge

[36:15] point park to minneapolis park

[36:16] and recreation board. Seven

[36:20] authorizing grant applications

[36:21] to minnesota department of

[36:23] transportation. For 2026

[36:25] federal highway safety

[36:26] improvement program. Eight

[36:27] accepting the low bid for west

[36:29] river road phase ii project.

[36:30] nine approving a legislative

[36:32] directive proposed closure of

[36:38] hennepin energy recovery center.

[36:41] I'll move approval the report

[36:42] cept for one.

[36:43] » Moved approval of the report,

[36:45] minus item number one. Is there

[36:47] any discussion on the remainder

[36:49] of the report? Council member

[36:50] shaffer.

[36:51] » Yeah. I wanted to stop a

[36:53] moment and pause for the little

[36:54] victories that we are helping

[36:56] for the park board. In the

[36:58] selling of the wedge point park

[37:00] parcels in the lowry hill

[37:03] history neighborhood. Something

[37:03] I've been tracking for the last

[37:05] four years. I wanted to

[37:06] acknowledge and thank city staff

[37:08] for their work in seeing this

[37:09] through to completion. And I'm

[37:12] happy for the neighborhood. And

[37:14] I know couil member chughtai

[37:16] would share those same

[37:17] sentiments, if she were here.

[37:19] this is a win for the

[37:21] neighborhood.

[37:22] » Council member stevenson.

[37:24] » Sorry. I think I was trying

[37:26] to get in first in line for the

[37:28] discussion on the next item.

[37:29] » Got you. Seeing no one else

[37:32] left in queue, I'll ask the

[37:33] clerk to call the roll on

[37:36] climate and infrastructure

[37:38] report minus item one.

[37:41] » Council member chavez.

[37:43] » Aye.

[37:44] » Council member warren.

[37:45] » Aye.

[37:46] » Council member shaffer.

[37:47] » Aye.

[37:47] » Council member whiting.

[37:48] aye.

[37:49] » Council member chowdhury.

[37:50] » Aye

[37:51] » Council member stevenson.

[37:52] » Aye.

[37:52] » Council member rainville.

[37:53] » Aye.

[37:54] » Council member vetaw.

[37:55] » Aye.

[37:55] » Council member palmisano.

[37:56] » Aye.

[37:57] » Council member wonsley items

[38:00] two through nine.

[38:03] » Aye.

[38:03] » Vice president osman.

[38:05] » Aye.

[38:05] » President payne.

[38:06] » Aye.

[38:07] » There are 12 ayes.

[38:09] » Those items carry. Next

[38:11] we'll take up item number one,

[38:13] and I'll recognize council

[38:14] member stevenson.

[38:17] » Thank you. I'm going to move

[38:23] to amend this item. The

[38:26] amendment is in front of you.

[38:30] it's c & I number one by

[38:34] stevenson. These amendments

[38:36] have been done in close

[38:40] consideration with director

[38:44] sexton, and ward 10 office and

[38:47] ward 7 office, council member

[38:49] shaffer's. So we have done our

[38:53] best to take all these voices

[38:57] into account. And make sure

[39:00] that this approval of the

[39:06] municipal consent goes through

[39:08] smoothly. And is taking

[39:10] everyone's voice into account.

[39:12] I'll note that as folks can see,

[39:16] livable lyndale is her and

[39:17] they have delivered to us

[39:19] literally thousands of postcards

[39:22] in support of this plan., and

[39:25] more in terms of safety and

[39:27] pedestrian and bike and bus

[39:29] improvements. And we have heard

[39:33] from probably hundreds of folks,

[39:35] manyrom the business

[39:37] community, who are against. And

[39:40] so to -- given there's large

[39:44] contestation over this item, I

[39:45] think it is right that we are

[39:48] striking a comprise. This

[39:51] comprise does not get everything

[39:52] that I want, by any means. And

[39:54] this comprise does not give

[39:57] others who may disagree with me

[39:59] everything they want, by any

[40:01] means at all. What it does do,

[40:04] this is approving of a design

[40:06] and the way we have written our

[40:08] resolution is approving a

[40:10] resolution that has really taken

[40:12] everybody's voice int account.

[40:13] we have listened and we have

[40:15] listened and we have listened.

[40:18] and given that this street is

[40:21] over 90 years old, it's time to

[40:22] be rebuilt. And this is the

[40:24] comprise that is the right

[40:25] comprise to do that.

[40:28] construction is tiflt for

[40:30] businesses. And I believe we'll

[40:31] be considering another amendment

[40:32] soon to help alleviate that

[40:35] somewhat. I think this body and

[40:36] maybe the county and state

[40:38] should consider different ways

[40:39] to support businesses through

[40:42] construction. Ut I would ask

[40:43] my colleagues to please approve

[40:47] this. Because this is the

[40:49] compromise I think is right and

[40:50] I think works for everybody.

[40:52] and I'm going to quick read my

[40:56] amendments. And I'm going to

[40:57] read all the amendments that

[40:58] have happened in the last two

[41:01] weeks. Some of them mine some

[41:02] of them not.

[41:05] so, one, is prioritize the

[41:07] preservation of existing healthy

[41:09] mature trees along lyndale

[41:10] avenue. The second one is we

[41:14] are striking with consent from

[41:17] director sexton design

[41:20] modifications to the proposed

[41:21] medians to ensure driveway

[41:23] access and business operational

[41:24] needs. This is something that

[41:26] he's talked about they're going

[41:27] to do anyways. To make sure

[41:29] that deliveries can happen in a

[41:31] safe matter. Number three, work

[41:35] with city staff and c

[41:38] corridor stakeholders to

[41:40] minimize disruption to

[41:41] businesses. And ensures access

[41:43] during construction to the

[41:44] extent possible. And then

[41:47] lastly, or almost lastly,

[41:50] prioritize shortening the

[41:51] alternate duration of project

[41:54] may include extended

[41:56] construction work hours as

[41:58] permitted by the minneapolis

[41:59] health department. And then

[42:02] later, whereas, the city of

[42:04] minneapolis supports the county

[42:05] and accessing the federal funds

[42:06] from the project and timeline

[42:08] that is required to get the

[42:10] funds. So I will move this

[42:13] amendment for approval.

[42:17] » Second.

[42:18] » Council member stevenson has

[42:21] moved att item one for

[42:24] approval as amended. While we

[42:26] can take the amendments up. So

[42:28] council member stevenson has

[42:29] moved to amend item number one,

[42:31] that's been seconded. And I'll

[42:33] recognize council member

[42:34] shaffer.

[42:34] » Thank you, president payne.

[42:36] umm, I'll just share my thoughts

[42:37] here. First of all, number one,

[42:39] I appreciate the discussion and

[42:41] problem solving that has been

[42:43] happening both in my dialogue

[42:44] with the ward 10 office and

[42:46] council member stevenson in t

[42:47] last few days. Really, throwing

[42:50] out the idea of trying to get

[42:52] some language for extended

[42:53] hours, actually, specified in

[42:55] some of the amendments, which

[42:57] did not happen. Umm, but I want

[42:59] to say that I really appreciate

[43:01] all the feedback that I've been

[43:03] given on this topic. And really

[43:06] trying to see and recognize the

[43:08] effort that people are making to

[43:09] try to bridge the divide. That

[43:12] being said, I simply cannot

[43:15] support the proposed design

[43:16] concept due to the impact on our

[43:17] small businesses. The business

[43:20] community has opposed the plan

[43:22] at every turn for specific and

[43:24] good reasons. With the

[43:26] experience of hennepin avenue

[43:28] fresh in their minds. My ward 7

[43:30] residents oppose it for some of

[43:31] the same reasons they opposed

[43:34] hennepin avenue. They didn't

[43:35] like the design there when it

[43:37] was first proposed. And don't

[43:39] like the reality now it's

[43:40] finished. And they don't want

[43:42] to see the same mistakes happen

[43:45] on lyndale. What are the

[43:47] problems? From this

[43:48] perspective, here are a few

[43:50] examples: there's been no

[43:52] meaningful specific protections

[43:54] built in for the lyndale

[43:56] businesses. While rudimentary

[44:02] physical access will be

[44:03] maintained, there's no

[44:05] meaningful financial support for

[44:06] the customers. That proved

[44:10] devastating to the businesses

[44:11] along hennepin. There's every

[44:12] reason to believe the dynamic

[44:13] will repeat itself on lyndale.

[44:15] this isn't just for a week or a

[44:17] month. It's two to three years.

[44:21] we can anticipate some of the

[44:22] businesses that currently exist

[44:24] on lyndale will not be there

[44:25] when the project is over.

[44:28] secondly, as the current council

[44:30] member representative on the

[44:31] minneapolis tree advisory

[44:33] committee, I stand with the

[44:34] committee in their opposition to

[44:36] the plan due to tree removal

[44:38] concerns. I was a park

[44:39] exhibitioner during the original

[44:41] hennepin avenue reconstruction

[44:43] where designs plan to remove

[44:45] approximately 120 plus trees.

[44:46] and was able to work with

[44:49] community, expert staff at the

[44:51] park board, and city and county

[44:52] and help save approximately 60

[44:55] mature trees in the project.

[44:57] the frequency with which public

[45:00] infrastructure projects do the

[45:02] continual removal and replanting

[45:04] cycle is really part of the

[45:06] problem that we are facing in

[45:07] aging our urban canopy and

[45:10] creating a greater carbon

[45:13] footprint. Once this project is

[45:15] over, a different set of

[45:17] problems will take over. As

[45:19] with hennepin, travel will be

[45:21] largely constrained to one lane

[45:22] in each direction with left-hand

[45:24] side turns tiflt to impossible.

[45:29] commercial unloading will be

[45:31] impractical in some locations.

[45:32] parking would become more

[45:33] limited. And parking lanes

[45:35] would become more narrow

[45:37] reverting back to the 9 feet we

[45:39] had in the old four-lane

[45:42] configuration. Which actually

[45:44] resulted in the they typicality

[45:47] they tfatality.

[45:52] it will face continued head

[45:54] winds from the end product.

[45:55] this city, in the budget

[45:57] environment currently, can't

[45:59] afford to give up the economic

[46:01] drivers that we do have.

[46:05] lastly, the completed hennepin

[46:06] avenue has not resulted in a

[46:08] renaissance yet for our area or

[46:10] street. Much the contrary. We

[46:12] still have vacant store fronts,

[46:15] sidewalks aren't busy, traffic

[46:17] is backed up creating much

[46:19] idolling in the corridor, and

[46:21] our office is currently hearing

[46:23] reports of residential

[46:24] neighborhoods experiencing

[46:25] greater traffic concerns as

[46:26] folks are avoiding hennepin

[46:28] coming from the west and south

[46:30] and finding alternative routes

[46:32] other than hennepin avenue.

[46:35] unfortunately, the residential

[46:36] streets around lyndale are even

[46:38] narrower than around hennepin.

[46:39] and may experience the same

[46:42] outcome. This was a set of

[46:44] problems predicted by many

[46:45] before the hennepin redo.

[46:49] peoples' lived experience after

[46:51] completion has bourn it out.

[46:53] and I can't support the strategy

[46:55] of making the same choices and

[46:57] hoping for a different result.

[46:59] this is going to be hennepin

[47:02] part ii. My constituents are

[47:05] overwhelmingly opposed, the

[47:06] business community is

[47:07] overwhelmingly opposed, and I

[47:09] feel obligated to support them.

[47:11] with my vote, giving the clear

[47:14] community preference in ward

[47:15] seven. Thank you for your

[47:16] time.

[47:16] » Vice president osman.

[47:19] » Mm, thank you. I want to

[47:21] know if the public works staff

[47:22] is here to answer some

[47:25] questions. Don't see them. I,

[47:32] umm, I think the points council

[47:34] member shaffer made is very

[47:36] valid. The businesses do

[47:37] struggle a lot for

[47:41] constructions. They already are

[47:46] difficult surviving what's been

[47:47] happening. The covid, you know,

[47:49] the I.c.e. Situation. Oh, I see

[47:53] the director here. Welcome,

[47:55] sir. So the challenge is there

[47:57] for the business community. And

[47:59] as we got to have a better plan

[48:01] addressing the businesses that

[48:03] our small businesses that are

[48:05] actually might not come back on

[48:07] where they are having businesses

[48:09] now. Which is lyndale. So the

[48:12] project is, umm, has ef

[48:17] affect on small businesses.

[48:18] that's a fact. Yes, the road is

[48:20] over 70 years old. I think for

[48:21] having a better design, this is

[48:24] better for the future and for

[48:26] the future for our city. For

[48:28] safety wise, for -- it's good

[48:29] toking a knto

[48:34] acknowledge we can say no to

[48:35] that. I want to make it clear

[48:37] what we're hearing from people,

[48:40] I want people to understand it's

[48:41] not a city project. It's a

[48:42] county project. So my question

[48:44] to the direc directer is,

[48:48] if we voted down on the plan.

[48:50] does it mean the project stops

[48:52] and no longer going to continue?

[48:54] or does it just the county will

[48:55] just continue with their plan?

[49:00] » Yeah. Through the chair,

[49:03] council vice president. Tim

[49:05] sexton. Our current

[49:06] interpretation based on the city

[49:08] attorneys. And I'll look to

[49:10] them, maybe, first, if they

[49:11] would like to respond. But I

[49:13] can share my understanding of

[49:15] the legal interpretation thus

[49:16] far. If we do not approve thi

[49:19] the countyannot proceed with

[49:20] the work. They do need our

[49:22] permission to do the work within

[49:25] the city.

[49:25] » Madam city attorney?

[49:28] » That is my understanding, as

[49:30] well.

[49:32] » Okay.

[49:32] » I asked the question because

[49:33] I'm trying to remember the whole

[49:36] blue line situation. They also

[49:38] came for the train. The

[49:40] consent

[49:40] and what I heard back then was

[49:42] if we voted down, they still

[49:46] will continue to have the train

[49:47] move forward. So it's

[49:49] different. Different

[49:50] interpretation the way I see it.

[49:54] but ... You don't have to

[49:56] comment. That kind of changed

[49:58] things for me. You know, and I

[50:01] really want to make sure that we

[50:06] are not voting for this until we

[50:09] have a better plan for

[50:10] businesses. And I don't think

[50:11] we have any plan. Can you talk

[50:13] about if there's any plan. Is

[50:16] there a recovery way of helping

[50:19] the businesses? And I don't

[50:22] think we are talking about that.

[50:26] so .. I'm going to have to

[50:27] think about this. I do

[50:30] appreciate the money that's

[50:31] coming into our city and have

[50:34] the safe roads bike lane and all

[50:36] the great things. We have to

[50:37] think about the small businesses

[50:39] and think about how it will

[50:41] affect them. And my question is

[50:42] this, if we move forward with

[50:46] this project, also, I'd like to

[50:47] see is there a way to get the

[50:49] cross section done without

[50:51] closing the street? I know they

[50:52] can. There's always a creative

[50:54] way of getting things done.

[50:56] I'll leave it there. Thank

[50:59] you.

[50:59] » Council member chowdhury.

[51:02] » Thank you, president payne.

[51:05] I just wanted to take some time

[51:08] to speak in favor of the

[51:12] resolution of support for

[51:13] lyndale avenue reconstruction.

[51:16] I think a vote for this is a

[51:18] vote for progress for our city.

[51:20] one thing that I just want to

[51:22] really hammer home for my

[51:24] colleagues and anyone listening

[51:25] in the community is this is

[51:29] 10year-old street. This is

[51:31] 100 years old and strts have

[51:35] an end of life. There is a

[51:37] point in which they are no

[51:39] longer working a for the

[51:41] community. And our communities

[51:44] deserve nice things. And

[51:46] lyndale is far due for

[51:47] reconstruction. And

[51:49] reconstruction of our streets is

[51:51] a fact of life in a busy city

[51:54] like the city of minneapolis.

[51:55] especially lyndale avenue, which

[51:58] has thousands of people using

[51:59] it. Housands and thousands of

[52:01] people using it each and every

[52:03] day. I also want to hammer home

[52:06] whether we have bike lanes or no

[52:08] bike lanes or any of the

[52:10] amenities we're providing for

[52:12] pedestrians. If we took all

[52:13] that off, that same impact would

[52:17] still happen with construction

[52:18] for the improvemes that are

[52:19] needed in the streets. O what

[52:23] we're voting for is not just for

[52:26] 2028 or 2029. It's for 2128. I

[52:33] think it gives us a valuable

[52:36] perspective. I also want to

[52:38] speak to the fact tt I hear

[52:40] from residents and constituents

[52:42] in my own ward that travel to

[52:44] lyndale avenue from residents

[52:46] and constituents that are on

[52:48] lyndale avee, as someone that

[52:50] ved off of ridgewood off of

[52:53] lyndale in my time as a resident

[52:55] in the city of minneapolis.

[52:57] this is a very hostile, very

[53:00] hostile street for all of those

[53:02] that experience walking, biking,

[53:05] driving, using transit on this

[53:08] street. Lynn lake is the

[53:11] highest injury intersection in

[53:13] the city of minneapolis. We

[53:17] have a responsibility, as local

[53:19] government, to our constituents

[53:20] and our communities to make

[53:22] updates to ensure that,: one,

[53:25] we're addressing aging

[53:26] infrastructure. Two, we're

[53:27] making sure our streets are

[53:28] welcoming for all and people can

[53:30] get around. We have

[53:33] responsibility to ensure that we

[53:35] are reducing crashes and saving

[53:37] lives. And what I'm excited

[53:40] about is seeing a project before

[53:42] us that really brings into the

[53:43] fold the considerations of those

[53:45] that bike, those that use

[53:47] transit, and, also, improvents

[53:49] that will just make it a better

[53:52] and safer place for people to

[53:54] drive, as well as if that's what

[53:56] they choose. I want to

[53:58] acknowledge this was a comprise,

[53:59] overall. There was several

[54:01] things that community members

[54:02] that don't prefer to drive

[54:04] wanted and did not receive.

[54:05] there were several things that

[54:07] people who are a part of the

[54:09] business community or are

[54:12] predominantly drivers wanted and

[54:13] got or wanted and didn't get.

[54:15] and I think the really big sort

[54:18] that hangs over our head is the

[54:20] fact that 45% of the funding

[54:22] that we need to make this

[54:24] project happen comes from the

[54:24] federal governmt. And I thinkwl

[54:30] government isn't coming to save

[54:31] any time soon. We might as

[54:33] well te the funding we have,

[54:35] be able to do this

[54:36] reconstructionroject, and move

[54:39] forward. Or otherwise we might

[54:40] not be guaranteed the funding we

[54:42] need to address a street that's

[54:45] been aging for a hundred years.

[54:48] and I also hear the concern

[54:51] about construction being a death

[54:52] note to a neighborhood and its

[54:54] vibrancy. And that's why I'm

[54:57] bringing forward a motion, an

[54:58] amendment to the resolution, and

[55:02] I'd like to read it a loud.

[55:08] br whereas: the cityencourages h

[55:11] the county to minimize

[55:12] disruption by increasing

[55:14] activation during street

[55:16] closures by supporting

[55:17] development of proamming such

[55:18] as but not limited to daytime

[55:20] events and activities,

[55:22] performances, seating areas,

[55:24] food stalls, interim plazas, and

[55:27] similar uses. And, whereas, the

[55:29] approach is recommended by the

[55:30] national association of city

[55:32] transportation officials for

[55:33] temporary street closures

[55:36] allowing citieto make better

[55:37] use of the roadways.

[55:38] particularly during off peak

[55:39] hours and weekends and creating

[55:41] opportunities to draw attention

[55:42] to neiborhood businesses and

[55:45] destinations while increasing

[55:46] foot traffic on designated

[55:48] corridors.

[55:49] we can make street

[55:51] reconstruction something that

[55:52] brings community members into

[55:53] the corridor. We do it every

[55:55] time we close down lyndale

[55:57] avenue for open streets. So

[55:58] let's do beers and bulldozers,

[56:00] have interim plazas, create a

[56:02] place for our kids to play and

[56:04] let's have the city and the

[56:07] unty chip in. Commissioner

[56:09] marionreen highlighted in an

[56:11] interview recently, this is

[56:13] someing she's interested in

[56:14] collaborating on. Heck, let's

[56:16] bring the dancing pencils from

[56:18] lake of the aisles into lyndale

[56:21] avenue to bring some of that

[56:22] whimsy. I don't think it needs

[56:24] to be a death note for the

[56:25] business community. I think it

[56:26] can be a huge boom. And we can

[56:31] replace 100-year-old

[56:32] infrastructure and build for the

[56:33] future.

[56:34] » Madam city attorne

[56:37] » Umm, thank you council

[56:39] president. I thought I would

[56:40] formally answer the question

[56:41] when I said my understanding

[56:42] was. Director sexton is correct

[56:47] that the process requires

[56:50] approval of the governing body

[56:51] of the city, which, as we've

[56:53] interpreted it, is this body and

[56:56] the mayor. There is a dispute

[56:59] resolution procedure set forth

[57:00] in the statute that if we fail

[57:03] to approve, then the county may

[57:06] request the appointment of a

[57:08] dispute resolution board.

[57:11] consisting of one county

[57:12] commissioner, one county

[57:14] engineer, one city council

[57:15] member, or one city mayor, one

[57:19] engineer and representative of

[57:20] the department of transcription

[57:21] to renew the proposal and make

[57:23] recommendations notwithstanding

[57:24] any other law, the commissioner

[57:26] may approve the establishment

[57:29] ... Recommended by the board.

[57:31] so, essentially, the answer is

[57:33] you have to approve it but there

[57:36] is a process and I wouldn't want

[57:38] anyone to be surprised if you

[57:40] did not approve it, then there

[57:41] could be this dispute resolution

[57:43] process. So hopefully that

[57:45] answers questions.

[57:48] » Council member wonsley.

[57:51] » Thank you, president payne.

[57:53] umm, first, I do want to just

[57:56] say thank you to all the

[57:58] residents who have came forward,

[58:01] umm, and advocated and

[58:03] organized, umm, across our city

[58:06] to ensure that all government

[58:07] agencies that are involved with

[58:10] this project are being held

[58:11] condit accountable

[58:14] to the commitments we've made to

[58:16] improve transportation access

[58:17] and expand multimodal options

[58:19] for getting around minneapolis

[58:21] safely. The lyndale project is

[58:23] county led as established, our

[58:25] residents have been engaging the

[58:26] city council on this proposal

[58:27] for nearly two years. Because

[58:30] they understand that these

[58:31] decisions have lasting

[58:32] consequences for our city.

[58:34] minneapolis, specifically, also

[58:37] understand the significance of

[58:38] this. Because we set the

[58:39] ambitious goal of ensuring that

[58:41] three out of every five trips

[58:43] are made without a car by 2030.

[58:46] and that deadline is less than

[58:47] four years away. So if we are

[58:49] serious about meeting that

[58:50] commitment, then we must take

[58:52] every opportunity available to

[58:53] move closer to that goal. But

[58:56] unfortunately, projects like

[58:57] this have reinforced a troubling

[59:00] reality for many residents

[59:02] indicating that adopting bold

[59:03] transcription plans is one

[59:05] thing. But then when it comes

[59:06] to actually delivering the

[59:09] frastructure necessary to

[59:10] achieve them, becomes a whole

[59:12] other situation. That's

[59:14] becoming overpoliticized in many

[59:16] ways and threatens our ability

[59:17] to meet the goals. And time and

[59:19] time again, we've seen that

[59:21] meaningful improvements for

[59:22] people who walk, bike, or rely

[59:25] on transits are not guaranteed

[59:27] when we do the massive road or

[59:30] resurfacing projects. And they

[59:32] often only happen because

[59:33] residents stay engaged, they

[59:35] speak up, and refuse to let

[59:38] important design elements be

[59:40] quietly stripped away

[59:40] I don't want to continue

[59:42] normalizing the practice of

[59:44] moving goal posts on what a safe

[59:46] complete streets should look

[59:48] like. I'm particularly troubled

[59:50] with the level of opposition to

[59:53] incorporating green

[59:55] infrastructure in other

[59:55] improvement safety improvements

[59:56] into our roadways. And while I

[59:59] understand and sympathize with

[1:00:02] the disruption that construction

[1:00:03] can create for businesses, the

[1:00:04] notion that we should abandon or

[1:00:07] indefinitely delay a

[1:00:08] reconstruction project on a

[1:00:09] corridor that is widely

[1:00:12] recognized as unsafe is simply

[1:00:13] not responsible leadership. And

[1:00:17] further necessary improvements

[1:00:18] what only prolong unsafe

[1:00:21] conditions for everyone using

[1:00:22] the corridor. As elected

[1:00:23] officials, we should be clear

[1:00:24] with the public knowing to

[1:00:26] maximize opportunities to

[1:00:27] improve walking, biking, and

[1:00:30] transit infrastructure is not

[1:00:31] only poor governance. It's also

[1:00:34] inconsistent with the

[1:00:35] transportation policies and

[1:00:35] climate commitments that this

[1:00:37] body and the city has made, umm,

[1:00:39] towards our residents.

[1:00:41] and at the same time, I agree

[1:00:43] that the agencies undertaking

[1:00:45] these projects of scale should

[1:00:46] have the responsibility to

[1:00:48] support small businesses

[1:00:50] affected by, ah, construction.

[1:00:52] I think those intentions are

[1:00:53] reflected in the amendments

[1:00:55] being brought forward by council

[1:00:57] member chowdhury and stevenson.

[1:01:00] umm, we also should expect from

[1:01:01] our partners that, you know, the

[1:01:03] things that we're asking of

[1:01:05] them, we should be modeling

[1:01:06] ourselves. And that's exactly

[1:01:08] why two years ago, I supported

[1:01:10] council member chughtai's

[1:01:11] amendment to create a pilot

[1:01:13] program providing financial

[1:01:14] assistance to businesses

[1:01:16] impacted by major transit

[1:01:18] construction. And that proposal

[1:01:20] was made using feedback from our

[1:01:23] residents, from business owners

[1:01:25] in her ward and gave mitc

[1:01:29] minneapolis the opportunity to

[1:01:30] lead by example on how to

[1:01:31] address the challenge that we're

[1:01:33] repeatedly running into.

[1:01:35] unfortunately, that nearly $1

[1:01:37] million used to address that

[1:01:39] very real challenge was

[1:01:40] redirected because of mpd's

[1:01:43] budget overruns and thus the

[1:01:44] pilot was never implemented.

[1:01:46] had the program been carriedoutu

[1:01:49] be in a much stronger position

[1:01:52] to ask hennepin county to

[1:01:54] provide similar support tobusine

[1:01:56] lyndale construction. Or

[1:01:58] reconstruction. But my hope is,

[1:02:00] the county will continue to work

[1:02:01] with business owners to minimize

[1:02:04] construction impacts while

[1:02:05] preserving the critical design

[1:02:06] elements that would provide

[1:02:07] lasting benefits for, again, for

[1:02:09] our residents who walk, bike,

[1:02:11] who use transit, or otherwise

[1:02:14] travel without a car. I also,

[1:02:15] again, I want to say thank you

[1:02:17] to the hundreds of residents who

[1:02:18] participated in this process,

[1:02:20] who reached out to my office and

[1:02:21] council members if for the past

[1:02:23] several weeks. Your advocate

[1:02:24] sied a have side

[1:02:26] communi --

[1:02:30] advocacy change the course of

[1:02:31] the design. You helped bring

[1:02:33] forward a proposal that

[1:02:34] hopefully this body can move

[1:02:35] forward and support today. And

[1:02:37] I just want say thank you for

[1:02:39] your leadership and your

[1:02:41] persistence for holding us

[1:02:41] accountable to the commitments

[1:02:43] that we made. Thanks. S

[1:02:51] council member chud I are

[1:02:53] chowdhury introduce canned the

[1:02:55] amendment. I think we should

[1:02:56] take it as amended with both

[1:02:57] amendments. Is that okay,

[1:03:00] mr. Clerk?

[1:03:00] » Objection in the body, we

[1:03:02] have an amendment in front of

[1:03:05] us. We had an amendment offered

[1:03:18] by stevenson no second. And

[1:03:19] council member chowdhury

[1:03:20] mentioned she had an amendment

[1:03:21] and read it

[1:03:24] » Point of order. I'm in queue

[1:03:25] to talk about this. Okay

[1:03:29] council member stevenson had a

[1:03:31] second.

[1:03:31] » I seconded it.

[1:03:32] » We didn't catch it.

[1:03:34] » Okay.

[1:03:34] » Yeah. Yeah. Okay. We'll

[1:03:36] get through the rest of this

[1:03:37] conversation and then we'll deal

[1:03:40] with how we'll package that.

[1:03:42] council member chavez.

[1:03:44] » Council president payne, hi,

[1:03:47] staff. Welcome. One question.

[1:03:48] can you please outline the risk

[1:03:51] of delays or the risk of not

[1:03:54] approving this today.

[1:03:58] » Welcome. Introduce yourself,

[1:04:00] if you could.

[1:04:01] » Council president, council

[1:04:02] member chavez, my name is

[1:04:04] fontaine burrs. A senior

[1:04:06] transportation planner with

[1:04:07] public works. The county's

[1:04:09] demo deadline, which means

[1:04:13] need to have full final plan

[1:04:15] sets is june of 2027. Risk of

[1:04:19] delay would risk the federal

[1:04:20] funding for the project.

[1:04:24] » Would you please outline how

[1:04:25] much money that is. My

[1:04:27] understanding that it cou lose

[1:04:31] $9 million in federal funding.

[1:04:32] » That's correct.

[1:04:33] » And my understanding is that

[1:04:35] by delaying or voting against

[1:04:37] this, we could then add

[1:04:39] increased costs to the project,

[1:04:41] is this correct?

[1:04:43] » Cou council president,

[1:04:47] council member chaz, there

[1:04:48] would be a funding gap if the

[1:04:51] fedel funding is lost. That

[1:04:53] is about 45% of the total cost

[1:04:56] that would need additional

[1:04:58] funding.

[1:04:58] » Great. Thank you so much.

[1:05:00] I'm proud to support this today.

[1:05:03] if I don'tant to be in a

[1:05:04] position to throw over

[1:05:06] $9 million in federal funding.

[1:05:08] I also want to say that projects

[1:05:10] like this also help bring

[1:05:11] business to the area, customers

[1:05:12] to the area, and as I take this

[1:05:18] vote today, I think about the

[1:05:21] kids that deserve safe streets.

[1:05:23] they don't deserve

[1:05:24] infrastructure that is unsafe.

[1:05:25] I wanted to flag that. I think

[1:05:27] it is important to vote for

[1:05:28] this. Because I think that if

[1:05:30] we are going to be t t

[1:05:32] delaying this or not approving

[1:05:34] it, throwing away millions of

[1:05:36] dollars, it's not in the best

[1:05:37] interest of the city and our

[1:05:40] residents.

[1:05:40] I understander the concerns that

[1:05:42] folks have when it comes to

[1:05:44] construction. And since there

[1:05:44] was comparisons made to hennepin

[1:05:46] avenue. I think it is important

[1:05:48] to talk about the lessons

[1:05:49] learned from that. I was proud

[1:05:51] to support a budget amendment

[1:05:52] led by council member chughtai

[1:05:55] for $900,000 for small business

[1:05:57] construction and hardship fund

[1:05:59] for hennepin avenue and other

[1:06:01] areas. While the city council

[1:06:02] helped fund this, it was never

[1:06:04] implemented by the mayor's

[1:06:05] administration. So I hope the

[1:06:07] county ends up putting some

[1:06:08] funding into supporting these

[1:06:10] small businesses and I hope it

[1:06:12] gets implemented. And I hope

[1:06:13] that it does get implemented.

[1:06:16] because if what happens when it

[1:06:17] came to hennepin avenue it was

[1:06:18] not implemented when the city

[1:06:20] council funded it, we saw

[1:06:21] massive implications for the

[1:06:22] small businesses. There are

[1:06:24] lessons learned. I hope that's

[1:06:25] one of them.

[1:06:26] » Council member chowdhury.

[1:06:29] » Thanks, president payne. I

[1:06:33] wanted to make -- I don't think

[1:06:35] it's making a motion. But

[1:06:37] asking that we -- if, umm,

[1:06:40] cocil member stevenson would

[1:06:42] be all right if I had myamendmee

[1:06:45] that's before us. I believe we

[1:06:47] can take that up as, like, a

[1:06:49] friendly addition to his

[1:06:50] amendment. No? What's the

[1:06:55] process for packaging these

[1:06:56] together then?

[1:06:56] » That's a vote of the body.

[1:06:58] if there's no objection,

[1:06:59] certainly, the body can say we

[1:07:01] want to take it up. If any

[1:07:03] member objects, it has to be

[1:07:05] done by an amendment process.

[1:07:07] is there any objection to

[1:07:10] merging the two amendments on

[1:07:11] the dais?

[1:07:13] » Any objection from the body?

[1:07:15] not seeing any. Let's take it

[1:07:17] up as a package. Is that good,

[1:07:21] council member?

[1:07:23] that works for me. Looks

[1:07:25] like it works for council member

[1:07:27] stevenson.

[1:07:27] » Sounds good. Council member

[1:07:28] shaffer.

[1:07:29] » Yes. I'm wondering if

[1:07:31] council could reiterate for me

[1:07:33] one time if we were to deny it,

[1:07:34] you mentioned there was another

[1:07:36] council that was set up. Can

[1:07:38] you repeat that.

[1:07:39] » Madam city attorney.

[1:07:43] » Council member president,

[1:07:44] council member shaffer. So the

[1:07:46] statute provides that if the

[1:07:49] city's governing body does not

[1:07:54] approve, then the county board

[1:07:57] may, by resolution, request a

[1:08:02] dispute resolution body that

[1:08:04] would gather together again with

[1:08:06] many different employers from

[1:08:07] the different entities that

[1:08:08] would gather together and review

[1:08:12] the recommendation and make a

[1:08:14] recommendation to the department

[1:08:16] of transportation.

[1:08:16] » Ek 0 tha okay.

[1:08:19] thank you. I don't want to

[1:08:20] pause on the project. I don't

[1:08:22] want to lose federal funding on

[1:08:24] the project. We need to move

[1:08:26] this project forward. We have

[1:08:28] aging infrastructure that needs

[1:08:30] to happen. I support a lot of

[1:08:31] the elements of the design. To

[1:08:34] me, the most primary thing that

[1:08:37] we have an opportunity before us

[1:08:38] as a board to do at this moment

[1:08:42] in time is take a different

[1:08:44] approach to how we handle

[1:08:47] infrastructure overlapping with

[1:08:48] businesses in a very strong

[1:08:51] commercial corridor. To take

[1:08:53] the time with a mediating body

[1:08:55] to sit down and say, hey, it's

[1:08:57] not xyz that's the problem.

[1:09:01] it's the problem of how we've

[1:09:04] handled infrastructure in

[1:09:05] protecting our city revenue.

[1:09:07] when we go through multi-year

[1:09:10] projects. That really we need

[1:09:13] and want. So my idea is, this

[1:09:17] is an opportunity to build

[1:09:20] trust. Currently, we I think as

[1:09:24] a public and residents here,

[1:09:25] city staff, county staff,

[1:09:28] council member staff, yes, we

[1:09:29] hear the concerns. We know that

[1:09:32] you don't think you're going to

[1:09:34] have the band width to be able

[1:09:35] to get through the shut down

[1:09:37] your business might close, et.

[1:09:39] cetera, et. Cetera. All the

[1:09:40] things we've been hearing. The

[1:09:41] fear. Real fear we've been

[1:09:43] hearing from small family

[1:09:45] members that run small

[1:09:46] businesses on the corridor. But

[1:09:48] we say yes we hear it all and

[1:09:49] we'll take it into

[1:09:52] consideration, in general

[1:09:52] additions to our amendment.

[1:09:54] like we'll try to save more

[1:09:55] trees or we'll try to make up

[1:09:57] the timeline go faster. But

[1:10:00] unfortunately, there's nothing

[1:10:02] specific. To me, I see it as an

[1:10:06] opportunity to the vote it down

[1:10:07] and say not a bad design. Not,

[1:10:10] you know, going to lose the

[1:10:11] federal funds. But take one

[1:10:13] core piece of the discussion and

[1:10:16] hyperfocus it on how we can do

[1:10:17] things differently and have

[1:10:20] specific languages for our

[1:10:22] business that doesn't get the

[1:10:23] city or the county doing more

[1:10:24] than they should for businesses.

[1:10:27] but have something specific for

[1:10:29] them to hang their hat on and

[1:10:32] say, you know, the city and the

[1:10:35] county listened. City really

[1:10:37] appreciate hearing about council

[1:10:38] member chavez and council member

[1:10:39] wonsley bringing up this pilot

[1:10:43] program. Of the $900,000. We

[1:10:47] don't know what happened to it.

[1:10:49] went away. This is what I'm

[1:10:51] asking my colleagues to consider

[1:10:52] again. Let's go back to the

[1:10:54] table. I don't know where we

[1:10:55] would find the money, but we can

[1:10:56] start with just language around

[1:10:59] extended hours that lays out

[1:11:01] clearly where we're heading with

[1:11:03] construction timelines. Once we

[1:11:04] get the phasing. So we have

[1:11:07] time. We have time, it sounds

[1:11:11] like, until, forgive me if I'm

[1:11:13] wrong, june 1, 2027. I'm,

[1:11:15] director. Obviously, we want to

[1:11:16] be done before then. We don't

[1:11:19] want to push the project past

[1:11:22] 2028 start. That's my plea. I

[1:11:25] understand that's a little

[1:11:27] outside the box. But I think we

[1:11:30] are a body that's willing to

[1:11:32] think outside the box. An so

[1:11:34] thank you for your

[1:11:37] consideration. Of not pausing,

[1:11:40] not saying it's a bad design.

[1:11:41] not complete I willing we're

[1:11:42] voting to lose our federal

[1:11:44] funding. But voting to say no

[1:11:45] in this moment that we can do

[1:11:46] better to the county and let's

[1:11:48] put our heads together to make

[1:11:50] something really exciting to be

[1:11:54] a road map for future

[1:12:00] multi-jurisdictional multiyear

[1:12:01] infrastructure project. Thank

[1:12:02] you.

[1:12:02] » Council member whiting.

[1:12:03] » Thank you. A point of

[1:12:05] clarification, maybe, for the

[1:12:06] clerks here. I know we have two

[1:12:08] different amendments in front of

[1:12:12] us. They don't necessarily

[1:12:13] match. With the merger of

[1:12:15] these, like, I'm just -- I know

[1:12:17] this isn't normal that we can

[1:12:19] kind of do amendments from the

[1:12:23] da. But trying to figure out

[1:12:26] how these, like, are we

[1:12:28] accepting the deletions and

[1:12:29] acceance of one, merging them

[1:12:31] over? Like, just kind of c

[1:12:34] confused here how they're going

[1:12:35] toerge together.

[1:12:37] » Mr. Clerk.

[1:12:38] » Mr. President, exactly as

[1:12:39] council member stevenson said.

[1:12:41] the motion pending now is the

[1:12:44] combination of the amendment

[1:12:45] offered by council member

[1:12:47] stevenson and the amendment

[1:12:49] offered by council member chud I

[1:12:50] are. You'd have to look at both

[1:12:53] the documents in front of you

[1:12:54] and accept the strike throughs

[1:12:55] and the underlined additions as

[1:12:58] one single document. My best

[1:13:02] advise, in terms of clarity on a

[1:13:04] vote. So the record is correct

[1:13:05] and people know what they're

[1:13:06] voting on, is that we set this

[1:13:09] aside. Let the clerks go

[1:13:11] prepare one document that merges

[1:13:13] all these things. We're

[1:13:14] legislating in real time. It

[1:13:15] makes it difficult for all of

[1:13:18] this. And I know there's a lot

[1:13:20] of energy around this right now.

[1:13:21] I think I would recommend the

[1:13:23] body give us 10 minutes to go

[1:13:26] merge those so there's a clear

[1:13:29] single document in front of you.

[1:13:30] we can move on to other

[1:13:32] business, or if you want to body

[1:13:34] the wishes to take a recess to

[1:13:36] allow the clerks to produce the

[1:13:37] single combined document.

[1:13:38] either of those, I think, would

[1:13:39] be a better process for us. So

[1:13:41] there's clarity for everyone on

[1:13:44] the dais what's in front of

[1:13:46] you.

[1:13:47] » That's helpful for me. But

[1:13:48] it's the will of the body.

[1:13:50] » We can take -- I would

[1:13:52] recommend tabling this. And

[1:13:53] revisiting it once the clerks

[1:13:55] come back prepared. And we can

[1:13:57] move on to the next committee

[1:13:58] report. Does that sound --

[1:14:00] » Yeah. I'll pass it over to

[1:14:02] the city attorney.

[1:14:03] » If council president. Sorry.

[1:14:05] just for point of

[1:14:07] clarification. I'm betting I'm

[1:14:08] going to be helping with this,

[1:14:10] too. The only thing, you know,

[1:14:11] it's easy to add things. What

[1:14:16] 50i'm confused about is in

[1:14:20] one version, the bullet point

[1:14:21] that says design modification to

[1:14:23] the propose the meetings to

[1:14:25] ensure driveway access and

[1:14:26] business operational leads one

[1:14:30] is struck. In one version. In

[1:14:32] the other version it's not

[1:14:33] struck. In terms of the clerk

[1:14:35] and I trying to come to one

[1:14:38] document, should we be striking

[1:14:40] that bullet point or not?

[1:14:44] » Correct.

[1:14:44] » Can I make a point of order

[1:14:47] and potentially a suggestion for

[1:14:49] us how to handle it?

[1:14:51] » Council member chowdhury.

[1:14:52] » Thank you. If it makes it

[1:14:55] easier for the body, what we

[1:14:57] could do is if there is noobjece

[1:15:01] object if there is. We can take

[1:15:03] up my motion first. Which the

[1:15:05] only change is my addition and

[1:15:08] it keeps the integrity of what

[1:15:10] we did in c & I. And then we

[1:15:13] take up the stevenson amendment.

[1:15:18] would that work?

[1:15:23] » Mr. Clerk?

[1:15:24] » I think that was a question

[1:15:25] for the body.

[1:15:28] » Oh.

[1:15:30] » It was largely a question for

[1:15:32] the clerks and the cy attorney

[1:15:33] in terms o your clarity.

[1:15:34] » Oh. I think if you

[1:15:36] you're asking the clerks. I

[1:15:37] think the attorney can prepare a

[1:15:39] document. I think the claty

[1:15:41] is on the item that's either in

[1:15:44] or stricken what does the body

[1:15:46] want do they want the design

[1:15:47] modifications to the proposed

[1:15:49] medians to ensure driver access

[1:15:51] and business operational needs

[1:15:52] to be in or out of the combined

[1:15:54] version of the resolution.

[1:15:55] » Got it. And as the author of

[1:15:58] the second amendment, it's my

[1:16:01] intention for it to be in

[1:16:06] alignment with council member

[1:16:07] stevenson's amendment.

[1:16:08] » Which is the direction, I

[1:16:10] think council president you

[1:16:11] said. To strike that out of the

[1:16:13] resolution. That clarifies that

[1:16:14] one issue. If that's the

[1:16:15] direction of the body. Then I

[1:16:17] think the people can go draft

[1:16:19] that quickly.

[1:16:20] » Okay. Let's have that

[1:16:21] happen. And then we'll move on

[1:16:25] to the committee of the whole.

[1:16:32] and that will be give by the

[1:16:35] chair, council member chowdhury.

[1:16:40] » Thank you, president payne.

[1:16:42] of the committee of the whole is

[1:16:44] bringing three items forward.

[1:16:46] one is a resolution expressing

[1:16:48] solidarity with workers at

[1:16:49] target field. Two is an

[1:16:51] amplified sound permit and block

[1:16:53] event permit for the aquatennial

[1:16:57] festival. And three is

[1:16:59] allocation of funds from the

[1:17:01] affordable housing trust fund to

[1:17:02] be given to heritage park for

[1:17:05] repairs. This was sent forward

[1:17:07] without recommendation. With

[1:17:09] that, I'll move all items for

[1:17:11] approval and three for a

[1:17:12] separate vote and discussion.

[1:17:17] » Council member chowdhury has

[1:17:19] moved approval of the committee

[1:17:22] report separating out three.

[1:17:23] any discussion? Council member

[1:17:25] rainville.

[1:17:25] » Thank you. I would like to

[1:17:27] speak briefly to item number

[1:17:29] one. In support of this as a

[1:17:32] past member of local 17. I

[1:17:34] served on the executive

[1:17:36] committee for a number of years

[1:17:39] as a shop steward. I would be

[1:17:42] out on the strike line, if I was

[1:17:43] still doing that for a living.

[1:17:45] instead of being up here. So I

[1:17:48] think we all should support

[1:17:51] those workers as they engage in

[1:17:52] their fight. Especially for the

[1:17:54] health care portion.

[1:17:56] » Seeing no one else left, I'll

[1:17:58] ask the clerk to call the roll

[1:18:02] items one and two.

[1:18:02] » Council member chaz.

[1:18:03] » Aye.

[1:18:04] » Warren.

[1:18:05] » Aye.

[1:18:05] » Shaffer.

[1:18:06] » Aye.

[1:18:06] » Wonsley.

[1:18:07] » Aye.

[1:18:08] » Whiting.

[1:18:08] » Aye.

[1:18:09] » Chowdhury.

[1:18:10] » Aye.

[1:18:11] » Stevenson.

[1:18:12] » Aye.

[1:18:12] » Rainville.

[1:18:13] » Aye.

[1:18:13] » Vetaw.

[1:18:15] » Aye.

[1:18:15] » Palmisano.

[1:18:16] » Aye.

[1:18:16] » Vice president osman.

[1:18:17] » Aye.

[1:18:18] » President payne.

[1:18:19] » Aye.

[1:18:19] » 12 ayes.

[1:18:21] » Those items carry. Next

[1:18:22] we'll take up item number three

[1:18:24] and I'll recognize council

[1:18:25] member warren.

[1:18:27] » Thank you, council president

[1:18:30] payne. It is my pleasure today

[1:18:35] to have before you a request for

[1:18:41] the $2.5 million from the

[1:18:42] affordable housing trust fund to

[1:18:45] support the residents at

[1:18:46] heritage park. I'm pleased to

[1:18:49] work with the city of

[1:18:52] minneapolis, director rachel

[1:18:53] sayers on the relocation plans

[1:18:56] if are the residents of heritage

[1:18:59] park. This has been an ongoing

[1:19:04] experience they have had there.

[1:19:08] I'm glad to be able to be

[1:19:10] getting some relief for the

[1:19:12] residents. And I want to keep

[1:19:14] the focus on the residents at

[1:19:17] heritage park. I want to,

[1:19:21] first, thank you at this time

[1:19:23] for that. There's a motion that

[1:19:27] is before you that is just

[1:19:30] asking in this process. Because

[1:19:33] we know it's such a delicate

[1:19:36] dance that is an amendment to

[1:19:40] this asking that we move the

[1:19:43] following legislative directive

[1:19:48] related to affordable housing

[1:19:50] trust fund for heritage park

[1:19:51] that we are asking for regular

[1:19:56] scheduled reporting for the

[1:19:57] progress of what is happening.

[1:20:01] progress for the relocation of

[1:20:02] the residents and information

[1:20:04] related to the distributed funds

[1:20:08] for rehabilitation. I believe

[1:20:11] we -- correct me if I'm wrong.

[1:20:14] yes, director hansen, please

[1:20:18] forgive me. They're not going

[1:20:21] to be funds distributed of this

[1:20:24] specifically for rehabilitation.

[1:20:26] correct?

[1:20:27] » Director?

[1:20:28] » President payne, council

[1:20:29] member warren. The authority

[1:20:31] that we are seeking allows for

[1:20:34] us to put funding into both

[1:20:38] relocati and emergency-like

[1:20:40] safety repairs within the

[1:20:42] building. As I mentioned at

[1:20:43] committee of the whole on

[1:20:45] tuesday, I'll repeat for those

[1:20:46] that didn't watch it. We are

[1:20:48] focused on relocation efforts,

[1:20:51] and that's, you know, we need

[1:20:52] the ability for us to do

[1:20:57] potential repair work in the

[1:20:58] event that while people are

[1:21:00] seeking relocation services, we

[1:21:02] can address immediate needs.

[1:21:03] that's the reason why we want

[1:21:07] that authority.

[1:21:07] » Okay. Thank you so much for

[1:21:09] that, director h hansen.

[1:21:12] there's a third piece to this

[1:21:16] motion. That is basically

[1:21:20] directing that the city

[1:21:24] attorney's legal analysis of

[1:21:26] pathways for availability for

[1:21:28] the city to recoup the funds.

[1:21:30] I'm not interested in that right

[1:21:31] now. I think that's something

[1:21:32] that can be taken up at another

[1:21:35] time. And I'm just specifically

[1:21:37] focused on the residents, the

[1:21:40] relocation plan, and ensuring

[1:21:42] the stabilization of the

[1:21:44] residents at heritage park.

[1:21:47] anything that has to do with any

[1:21:48] financial recouping can be taken

[1:21:50] up some other time. That's not

[1:21:51] my concern at this time. My

[1:21:52] concern is the residents and I

[1:21:55] thank you for your due diligence

[1:21:57] in that.

[1:21:59] » Council member wonsley.

[1:22:02] » Thank you, president payne.

[1:22:07] I want to, first, as I did on

[1:22:09] tuesday, give kudos to council

[1:22:11] member warren for h leadership

[1:22:12] on this issue. We've been clear

[1:22:15] across the board that inhumane

[1:22:18] conditions are something we

[1:22:21] should not be normalizing. It's

[1:22:23] devastating your residents had

[1:22:23] to endure that. That said, I

[1:22:26] want to say, we all have robust

[1:22:29] conversations around, one,

[1:22:30] wanting to support this

[1:22:33] $.5 million allocation. I think

[1:22:37] there there will be unanimous

[1:22:38] support of moving that item

[1:22:40] forward. Where we wanted to

[1:22:41] make sure that there's some

[1:22:43] continued conversation amongst

[1:22:44] the body because we were asked

[1:22:47] to approve $2.5 million within

[1:22:49] 48 hours of consideration is to

[1:22:51] make sure that we have regular

[1:22:53] reportinfrom the

[1:22:55] administration on how the

[1:22:57] relocation process is proceeding

[1:22:58] forward. How the stabilization

[1:23:01] plans that this contract or the

[1:23:03] rca we're considering gives

[1:23:05] director hansen the ability to

[1:23:07] figure out in partnership with

[1:23:09] all the relevant entities and

[1:23:11] stakeholders essentially come

[1:23:11] back to this body and give us

[1:23:14] reporting on how that process is

[1:23:16] moving forward. Because we

[1:23:17] don't want to be in another

[1:23:19] situation where we might have to

[1:23:20] move additional dollars and have

[1:23:22] no information about what took

[1:23:24] place with the first allocation.

[1:23:27] that segues into the second

[1:23:29] motion before you. Where it

[1:23:31] does request the city attorney

[1:23:33] to present council with a client

[1:23:36] privileged memo. So essentially

[1:23:37] this is pretty standard process

[1:23:40] where the city attorney will

[1:23:42] tell us what ways in which they

[1:23:44] can recoup the $2.5 million. We

[1:23:49] had robust conversations about

[1:23:50] that on tuesday, as well. Why

[1:23:52] aren't we moving through the

[1:23:54] existing tenant relocation

[1:23:56] program allowing us to recoup

[1:23:57] coasts. Especially when the

[1:23:59] whole overarching thing of this

[1:24:01] debate has been the partners

[1:24:05] property owners, sev

[1:24:07] receivers. There's failures of

[1:24:09] agency charm charged with

[1:24:15] holding responsibility and

[1:24:15] failed to meet the standards.

[1:24:19] if we're going to give the

[1:24:20] partners $2.5 million, we need

[1:24:22] to make sure that this is not

[1:24:25] just a freebie. We have

[1:24:27] mechanisms to hold a property

[1:24:28] owner that has received not only

[1:24:33] market-rate income, because

[1:24:34] there are market-rate units

[1:24:35] here. They're receiving income.

[1:24:37] they have received mas

[1:24:40] massive subsidies from

[1:24:41] government agencies, as well.

[1:24:42] we don't want to make sure that

[1:24:43] we're rewarding a problem

[1:24:45] property owner with $2.5 million

[1:24:48] and not have any means to try to

[1:24:50] recoup those costs. Especially

[1:24:52] since we're taking th this

[1:24:55] from the affordable housing

[1:24:57] trust. We have made significant

[1:24:59] cu to it already. I think in

[1:25:01] a financial predicament where

[1:25:02] we're at as a city, we're

[1:25:04] already $30 million in a

[1:25:05] deficit. We want to make sure

[1:25:07] that we're able to recoup costs

[1:25:08] by any means. And if that

[1:25:11] entails the city attorney

[1:25:13] writing us a four or five or

[1:25:16] six-page memo articulating their

[1:25:17] plans to do so. That's not a

[1:25:20] heavy lift. I think it's worth

[1:25:22] our due diligence. I'll make

[1:25:23] the motion to move all items as

[1:25:27] amended for approval and ask for

[1:25:29] a second.

[1:25:30] » Second.

[1:25:31] » And with that, I'm so excited

[1:25:35] to support this comprehensive

[1:25:37] packet.

[1:25:38] » Okay. Council member wonsley

[1:25:40] moved all items for approval.

[1:25:43] it's been seconded. So let me

[1:25:45] just clarify what we have in

[1:25:47] front of us. We have the

[1:25:49] underlying motion, which we took

[1:25:52] up in c.o.w. It has three sub

[1:25:55] bullets under it. The motion

[1:25:57] that council member wonsley made

[1:25:59] was to add a sub bullet 3.4, the

[1:26:03] legislative directive on

[1:26:06] reporting. And 3.5, which is a

[1:26:10] staff direction to the city

[1:26:11] attorney's office around recoup.

[1:26:14] a motion to this, city

[1:26:16] attorney, to bring forward

[1:26:19] privileged memo on how we might

[1:26:22] recoup expenses. And I see

[1:26:24] council member warren raising a

[1:26:26] question.

[1:26:28] » Correct. I would like a

[1:26:30] separate vote on 3.5. As I

[1:26:32] stated before, this is not about

[1:26:37] that. If we want to the make it

[1:26:39] about that. We'll have to

[1:26:42] ask -- to bring his happy body

[1:26:44] to the table. He neglected to

[1:26:46] do so. The majority of the

[1:26:48] residents there at heritage park

[1:26:51] are participants of minneapolis

[1:26:52] public housing authority. And

[1:26:56] until he does his damn job,

[1:26:58] there is no questions to be

[1:26:59] asked to anybody about

[1:27:01] absolutely anything. And what

[1:27:02] he needs to do is then start

[1:27:04] issuing people not only back

[1:27:07] whatever it was that was lost,

[1:27:08] but their section 8 vouchers,

[1:27:10] handled, what's going on with

[1:27:12] me, and my residents and the

[1:27:14] city office. We're working with

[1:27:16] the emergency management system.

[1:27:17] we're working with our systems.

[1:27:19] we're taking the lead. Because

[1:27:21] we are leaders of this city.

[1:27:23] these are our residents. The

[1:27:25] end of that. That's how that's

[1:27:27] going to be handled. We're not

[1:27:30] putting any extra slide and

[1:27:31] signal on whatever else that's

[1:27:33] happening. I don't want to hear

[1:27:35] anything more about it. That's

[1:27:36] the end of it. So the second

[1:27:38] vote on that 3.5 or whatever

[1:27:41] with respect to the 2.5 that is

[1:27:43] being utilized to serve my

[1:27:47] underserved residents in ward

[1:27:48] five, in h heritage park is a

[1:27:53] no on that. The end.

[1:27:55] » What I'm going to recommend

[1:27:56] based on the feedback, council

[1:27:57] member. We take up each of

[1:27:58] these as separate votes. So

[1:28:00] we'll vote on 3.4, we'll vote on

[1:28:03] 3.5, and then based on the

[1:28:04] outcome of that, we'll take the

[1:28:06] final vote on the full package.

[1:28:08] does that make sense to

[1:28:10] everyone?

[1:28:11] » I have a question. I see

[1:28:12] council member warren is listed

[1:28:13] as an author on the motion. If

[1:28:15] she's withdrawing her motion --

[1:28:17] » I'm not an author.

[1:28:18] » Oh. Your name is on ...

[1:28:21] » I'm not anymore.

[1:28:22] » Oka

[1:28:23] » The end.

[1:28:23] » All right. Thank you.

[1:28:28] » Right now item 3.4, the

[1:28:33] legislative directive on

[1:28:34] reporting. That will be the

[1:28:36] vote that we take. The queue is

[1:28:39] for the underlying motion. I

[1:28:43] see it. Once we go to roll

[1:28:45] call, we'll take up 3.4. I'll

[1:28:48] recognize council member

[1:28:49] chowdhury.

[1:28:49] » Thank you, president payne.

[1:28:51] really appreciate it. And I'll

[1:28:54] just say with the different

[1:28:55] motions we have, I feel like

[1:28:57] just giving grace to everybodyhi

[1:29:00] don't think anyone is trying to

[1:29:02] step on anyone's toes. I think

[1:29:05] things are shifting quickly,

[1:29:07] like, we had o motion with the

[1:29:10] legislative directive. And then

[1:29:12] under the direction of the city

[1:29:14] attorney, we weren't able to

[1:29:15] have a piece of it in the

[1:29:17] legislative directive. And so

[1:29:19] it then turned generated into

[1:29:21] a third motion. And that's kind

[1:29:23] of where we are and that's why

[1:29:26] the authorship has remained

[1:29:29] same. I want to provide the

[1:29:33] clarity up front and give

[1:29:34] everyone a lot of grace here.

[1:29:36] one of the things that I wanted

[1:29:40] to ask about in with respect to

[1:29:42] the conversations with council

[1:29:43] member warren and her office and

[1:29:44] the concern for the people at

[1:29:46] heritage park. Is regarding

[1:29:51] relocation of people and the 2.5

[1:29:53] we'll contribute to it. I want

[1:29:55] to get an understanding one,

[1:29:57] wh's the division of that

[1:30:00] money for rehabilitation of the

[1:30:02] building. And how much is going

[1:30:03] to relocation? And then I also

[1:30:05] see that we have emergency

[1:30:08] management director sayer here

[1:30:10] with us. I want to see, like,

[1:30:12] what kind of steps your

[1:30:14] department is going to take to

[1:30:15] help the people relocate. I'm

[1:30:18] concerned about having a

[1:30:20] dignified process especially

[1:30:22] right now in this very poor air

[1:30:26] quality situation and heat wave.

[1:30:28] I'm also wondering if we're

[1:30:29] going to need to get additional

[1:30:31] support from partners like the

[1:30:33] red cross and just kind of what

[1:30:34] it looks like. Because moving

[1:30:39] 686 people all at once seems

[1:30:40] like a really huge feat. I

[1:30:44] would imagine there's going to

[1:30:45] be a lot of steps to that.

[1:30:53] director has been

[1:30:56] hansen, do you want to answer

[1:30:58] the first part?

[1:30:58] » We can start with director

[1:31:00] sayer.

[1:31:01] » Director say yo sayer.

[1:31:05] all right.

[1:31:05] » Good morning. Director

[1:31:07] hansen asked me to commune kate

[1:31:08] on the split of funding.

[1:31:10] something determined through the

[1:31:10] pro process that we're

[1:31:15] running. I'll speak about the

[1:31:16] process. Noting that council

[1:31:20] member warren absolutely want to

[1:31:22] work through the thing with you.

[1:31:25] I know we haven't had time to

[1:31:27] connect in person since I came

[1:31:29] in yesterday. I look forward to

[1:31:30] that. Let me talk about how

[1:31:32] this process works.

[1:31:35] yesterday we stood up something

[1:31:36] called a heritage park

[1:31:38] coordination gup. That will

[1:31:40] consist of operational staff

[1:31:42] across city departments as well

[1:31:44] as partnerse've already pulle

[1:31:46] in for calls like r red cross.

[1:31:49] it includes coordination with

[1:31:54] mpha. We are using our national

[1:31:58] incident management syste

[1:31:59] protocols as the basis for this

[1:32:02] structure. What that means, it

[1:32:04] brings into place regular

[1:32:07] meetings, regular coordination

[1:32:09] calls, and regular reporting.

[1:32:11] so you will see all of that

[1:32:14] start to come through in the

[1:32:15] next few days. As we get staff

[1:32:22] to be dedicated to the party

[1:32:24] effort. Our first objective is

[1:32:26] meeting urgent needs of

[1:32:28] residents. So this is

[1:32:29] absolutely something I want to

[1:32:30] sit down with council member

[1:32:32] warren and understand immediate

[1:32:33] needs that have been

[1:32:34] communicated to her and her

[1:32:36] team. My team is already

[1:32:38] working on options for meeting

[1:32:41] urgent needs. What it could

[1:32:42] look like. While we work on

[1:32:44] potential plans for relocation.

[1:32:47] so, the plans for relocation,

[1:32:49] council member, as you

[1:32:50] mentioned. It's large-scale.

[1:32:52] it's beyond the capacity of any

[1:32:53] one agency to do. So absolutely

[1:32:56] the county is a huge partner in

[1:32:59] this, as well. As well as many

[1:33:01] other agencies that we're

[1:33:02] lling in. So there's a lot

[1:33:04] more to come. Just to note, our

[1:33:06] immediate focus is on the urgent

[1:33:09] needs. Thank you, director, I

[1:33:18] .

[1:33:18] » Thank you, director. I

[1:33:19] appreciate it. We'll see how

[1:33:20] the conversation continues on

[1:33:21] the item. I do believe 100%

[1:33:25] this is about the residents here

[1:33:27] and supporting the fourth ward.

[1:33:31] I'll share the reason --

[1:33:34] apologies, fifth ward.

[1:33:36] supporting the fifth ward. And

[1:33:39] heritage park. The reason why

[1:33:43] I'm interested in furthering the

[1:33:44] discussion o the motion for

[1:33:46] request for information is, I

[1:33:49] just don't -- I just feel like

[1:33:50] it's a greatnjustice for a

[1:33:54] very wealthy property owner to

[1:33:57] lay so much negligence on to

[1:34:00] this community. And don't pay

[1:34:08] the taxpayer dollars. You owe

[1:34:12] back people money in a lot more.

[1:34:14] I think it's a part of what the

[1:34:16] motion gets at. I'm interested

[1:34:17] in continuing the conversation

[1:34:19] but wanted to give my thought in

[1:34:21] real time as the discussion is

[1:34:23] evolving. And with respect to

[1:34:25] your comments, council member

[1:34:26] warren, as well.

[1:34:32] » Council member chavez.

[1:34:33] » Thank you. I have a question

[1:34:35] for clerks and the city

[1:34:36] attorney's office. Who has the

[1:34:38] power of the purse?

[1:34:41] » Madam city attorney?

[1:34:44] » Ah, council president, it

[1:34:45] sounds like a good attorney

[1:34:49] leading question. The city

[1:34:50] council has the pour of the

[1:34:51] purse.

[1:34:51] » Thank you.

[1:34:53] » Does an individual council

[1:34:54] member have the power of the

[1:34:55] purse.

[1:34:56] » Ah, again, no. The cncil

[1:34:59] as a body.

[1:35:00] » So as a body, we have the

[1:35:01] power of the purse. Not an

[1:35:03] individual council member.

[1:35:04] council member chowdhury,

[1:35:05] council member wonsley, can you

[1:35:07] please explain your motion. My

[1:35:10] understanding is that -- and

[1:35:11] I'll read it for the public.

[1:35:12] it's requesting the city

[1:35:13] attorney's office for a legal

[1:35:15] analysis of what pathways may be

[1:35:19] or may be available for the city

[1:35:21] of minneapolis recoup from the

[1:35:23] appropriate entities, the city's

[1:35:24] costs related to this.

[1:35:26] » It's not a requirement of

[1:35:27] saying it's a memo we're asking

[1:35:28] for, correct.

[1:35:29] » That is correct. It's been

[1:35:34] reviewed with the city

[1:35:35] attorney.

[1:35:35] » Yep.

[1:35:36] » We've done it before when

[1:35:37] we're asking or expanding

[1:35:39] funding and wanting to now how

[1:35:42] we can recoup the dollars back.

[1:35:43] » Thank you. There's asking

[1:35:44] for a memo. Nothing is

[1:35:46] happening here. Budget

[1:35:48] director, can you let us know

[1:35:50] what the current budget deficit

[1:35:52] is heading into the exin year.

[1:35:56] next year.

[1:35:59] » Director.

[1:35:59] » Chair payne, council member

[1:36:03] chavez. Deputy cfo, jane

[1:36:10] jane I did zen disa. The

[1:36:15] current -- we gave a rake with

[1:36:17] current expenses and reestated

[1:36:19] revenues about $28 to $33

[1:36:21] million.

[1:36:21] » Thank you. Who is getting

[1:36:24] this $2.5 million.

[1:36:29] » Through the chair, council

[1:36:30] member I'm not sure if it's a

[1:36:31] question for me.

[1:36:33] » Anybody. .

[1:36:42] » I believe the way it's

[1:36:43] written. I haven't been here

[1:36:44] for the changes. It's addressed

[1:36:46] to the financial receiver or

[1:36:47] other parties that may be needed

[1:36:49] to assist with the relocation.

[1:36:50] » Director h hansen.

[1:37:05] » Discenza nailed it. For the

[1:37:08] relocation services and

[1:37:10] relocation funders. We'll be

[1:37:11] working through the emergency

[1:37:14] management process that directer

[1:37:15] sayer mentioned. Providing

[1:37:17] resources for relocation. So

[1:37:19] that could be any organizations

[1:37:20] like mpha, red cross, hennepin

[1:37:24] county, other agencies that help

[1:37:25] with relocation. Far as if

[1:37:50] there's any renovations needed

[1:37:52] to related to the relocation.

[1:37:55] that's acting as the owner for

[1:37:56] the property at this point in

[1:37:59] time.

[1:38:00] » Thank you. Yeah, so the

[1:38:01] motion, at least, since I want

[1:38:03] to talk about everything. It's

[1:38:04] so many votes happening. At

[1:38:05] least the motion I'm requesting

[1:38:06] a them emp memo it

[1:38:09] seems pragmatic and makes sense

[1:38:12] to ask for a memo to potentially

[1:38:15] recoup the cost, if it's going

[1:38:16] to the receiver who has issues.

[1:38:18] and has really made a big impact

[1:38:20] to the residents in north

[1:38:21] minneapolis at heritage park.

[1:38:23] so I think we can -- if we're

[1:38:27] giving away $2.5 million to the

[1:38:29] receiver or those who harmed the

[1:38:30] residents on our site. I think

[1:38:32] it makes sense to get a memo and

[1:38:33] see how we could possibly recoup

[1:38:37] the costs. It's not required

[1:38:38] to. I think it makes sense

[1:38:40] given the budget deficit. If it

[1:38:41] was rental assistance or the

[1:38:43] money was going to the

[1:38:45] residents, and cash is going to

[1:38:46] the residents to help them with

[1:38:49] their anti-displacement or

[1:38:50] funding to move into a different

[1:38:51] place. That's a different

[1:38:53] conversation. I wouldn't be

[1:38:54] interested in recouping the

[1:38:55] cost. If it's going to the

[1:38:56] receiver, I think it's more

[1:38:57] important we get the information

[1:38:58] to see how we can recoup the

[1:38:59] costs. If it's going to those.

[1:39:03] » Vice president osman.

[1:39:05] » Thank you. There's no amount

[1:39:16] that can help our residents that

[1:39:18] are struggling in the

[1:39:19] conditions. We've seen the

[1:39:21] video council member warren

[1:39:22] posted. I feel like this is

[1:39:24] a -- I wasn't here on tuesday.

[1:39:25] my apologies. My comment is

[1:39:27] that the city department wh

[1:39:34] who oversees rental licensing

[1:39:36] has to do better. We have

[1:39:39] 3-1-1. We are letting this go

[1:39:43] on. And this is what we end up

[1:39:47] with. I'm going to tell you,

[1:39:55] there's more apartments like

[1:39:55] this in our city. There has to

[1:39:57] be a better process that the

[1:40:00] violations that are being --

[1:40:02] that have gone and addressed.

[1:40:10] if you need more staff to do --

[1:40:13] services to make sure that the

[1:40:15] fire inspector is going there

[1:40:16] and checking the boxes necessary

[1:40:18] for human beings to be in that

[1:40:21] condition. Let us know during

[1:40:23] the budget. Request those.

[1:40:24] we'll happily add those staffs.

[1:40:27] it's a failure on the city

[1:40:28] department, in my opinion. They

[1:40:33] got to do better. We have to be

[1:40:35] aggressive on landlords who are

[1:40:37] abusing our residents. I think

[1:40:39] we talked about the team three

[1:40:43] properties that come. Come in

[1:40:45] front of the council. The

[1:40:46] reason we even did that, for

[1:40:48] them to get their act together.

[1:40:51] right. You're coming for a

[1:40:52] license and want to rent in

[1:40:54] minneapolis. You want to do

[1:40:54] business with the city of

[1:40:55] minneapolis. We expect the

[1:40:58] minimum requirement for people

[1:40:59] to live in those. In a basic

[1:41:03] need. A livable conditions.

[1:41:07] but this is what we're paying

[1:41:09] for. This is something we got

[1:41:11] to do better. So enforcing the

[1:41:18] policies on the books and not

[1:41:19] just ignore it or not just

[1:41:21] document it. 3-1-1 has to be a

[1:41:24] meaning. There has to be

[1:41:26] consequences. City has to take

[1:41:27] action. Whatever it looks like.

[1:41:29] and what I know so far, the

[1:41:33] mpha does inspections. And, you

[1:41:38] know, in that itself too I'm

[1:41:45] surprised. And I'm not really

[1:41:47] sure if an indianapolis has

[1:41:50] taken place. If you are paying

[1:41:56] the voucher or the rent of the

[1:41:57] unit. You should check it out.

[1:41:59] what unit you're paying for.

[1:42:01] but at the end of the day, the

[1:42:02] residents are the ones that have

[1:42:03] the least voice here. We are

[1:42:07] the responsible oversight

[1:42:09] government for city of

[1:42:10] minneapolis. We have to do

[1:42:12] better as council members. I'm

[1:42:13] gladly happy to give you the

[1:42:16] budget items you need to make

[1:42:19] sure that landlords that a

[1:42:26] putting people's lives at-risk.

[1:42:28] I appreciate council member

[1:42:28] warren in bringing this forward.

[1:42:30] this might not be the only one.

[1:42:31] I have some, you know,

[1:42:35] collections of apartments that

[1:42:36] have health and safety

[1:42:37] violations in my ward. But

[1:42:38] thanks a lot.

[1:42:42] » Seeing no one else in queue.

[1:42:44] I'll remind folks what we're

[1:42:45] going to do as far as wrapping

[1:42:49] out the votes. We'll take up

[1:42:50] the legislative directive. I'm

[1:42:52] labeling that item 3.4. After

[1:42:55] that, we'll take up the motion

[1:42:58] to the attorney's office for a

[1:43:00] privileged memo. I'll label

[1:43:02] that item 3.5. After we

[1:43:04] complete the votes, we'll finish

[1:43:06] a vote of the full package, so

[1:43:08] with that, I'll ask the clerk to

[1:43:09] call the roll on item 3.4, the

[1:43:12] legislative directive asking for

[1:43:16] regular reporting.

[1:43:20] » Aye.

[1:43:21] [ away from mic ]

[1:43:22] » Council member warren.

[1:43:24] » Aye.

[1:43:24] » Shaffer.

[1:43:25] » Aye.

[1:43:25] » Wonsley.

[1:43:26] » Aye.

[1:43:27] » Whiting.

[1:43:28] » Aye.

[1:43:29] » Chowdhury.

[1:43:30] » Aye.

[1:43:30] » Stevenson.

[1:43:31] » Aye.

[1:43:32] » Rainville.

[1:43:33] » Aye.

[1:43:33] » Vetaw.

[1:43:35] » Aye.

[1:43:35] » Palmisano.

[1:43:36] » Aye.

[1:43:37] » Vice president osman.

[1:43:37] » Aye.

[1:43:38] » President payne.

[1:43:39] » Aye.

[1:43:39] » There are 12 ayes.

[1:43:40] » That carries. Next we'll

[1:43:43] take up item 3-.5, which is

[1:43:46] requesting a legal memo from the

[1:43:48] city attorney. I'll ask the

[1:43:49] clerk to call the roll.

[1:43:50] » Council member chavez.

[1:43:51] » Aye.

[1:43:52] » Council member warren.

[1:43:53] » No.

[1:43:53] » Council member shaffer.

[1:43:54] » No.

[1:43:55] » Council member wonsley.

[1:43:56] » Aye.

[1:43:56] » Council member whiting.

[1:43:58] » Aye.

[1:43:59] » Council member chowdhury.

[1:44:00] » Aye.

[1:44:00] » Council member stevenson.

[1:44:02] » Aye.

[1:44:02] » Council member rainville

[1:44:05] .

[1:44:06] » No.

[1:44:06] » Vetaw.

[1:44:07] » No.

[1:44:07] » Palmisano.

[1:44:08] » No.

[1:44:08] » Vice president osman.

[1:44:09] » Aye.

[1:44:10] » President payne.

[1:44:11] » Aye.

[1:44:11] » There are seven ayes and five

[1:44:13] nays.

[1:44:14] » That carries. And then now

[1:44:16] 'll take up the package as a

[1:44:19] whole. Item number 3 for

[1:44:22] heritage park. I'll ask the

[1:44:23] clerk to call the roll.

[1:44:24] » Council member chavez.

[1:44:26] » I have a question.

[1:44:28] » Go ahead.

[1:44:29] » Is staff here to talk about

[1:44:31] what the plan is for the money

[1:44:34] after?

[1:44:37] » We're in the middle of a

[1:44:39] vote, mr. President.

[1:44:41] » He's in queue. It's a

[1:44:44] reasonable question.

[1:44:44] » We have the authority to ask

[1:44:46] questions. Director hansen, can

[1:44:47] you talk about what would be the

[1:44:48] plan after the funding is

[1:44:50] distributed. Just --

[1:44:51] » President payne, council

[1:44:52] member chavez, we'll be working

[1:44:55] under the direction of director

[1:44:57] sayer and the team she's

[1:44:58] assembled. And they'll identify

[1:45:00] needs and then we'll work

[1:45:01] through the administrative

[1:45:03] process to designate those funds

[1:45:04] for those needs.

[1:45:05] » Perfect. Thank you.

[1:45:08] » Council member --

[1:45:09] » Just auestion.

[1:45:11] » Did you say me?

[1:45:13] » Uh-huh.

[1:45:14] » Oh, thank you. I'm just

[1:45:16] wondering about the motion that

[1:45:18] we're at now. Was this made by

[1:45:19] council member warren?

[1:45:23] » Mr. President, what's in

[1:45:27] front of the body now is what

[1:45:29] came out of committee. So the

[1:45:31] motion that was on the committee

[1:45:33] of the whole report included

[1:45:35] three sub parts. Number one,

[1:45:36] the delegation of the authority.

[1:45:39] then the approval of the

[1:45:41] $2.5 million from the affordable

[1:45:43] housing trust fund to fund that

[1:45:45] activity as already discuss.

[1:45:46] and then, also, an authorization

[1:45:48] for the execution of any

[1:45:50] necessary documents to implement

[1:45:52] that decision.

[1:45:56] » Okay. So by council member

[1:45:59] warren and seconded by whom?

[1:46:00] » It was moved for approval

[1:46:01] during the committee report.

[1:46:02] » Okay. All right. Thank you.

[1:46:06] » Council member whiting.

[1:46:08] » Yeah. Just reading our

[1:46:10] definition here. Is this -- are

[1:46:12] we taking a vote on three as it

[1:46:14] fits one, two, three, four, and

[1:46:16] five sub parts as a whole? Or

[1:46:18] one through three?

[1:46:20] » Mr. President, I think

[1:46:22] it's -- I think we're voting on

[1:46:24] the item that came out of

[1:46:26] c.o.w., parts one, two, three.

[1:46:27] we dealt with four and five

[1:46:28] already.

[1:46:28] » Okay. Yep.

[1:46:30] » Thank you.

[1:46:32] » Okay. Seeing no one else in

[1:46:35] queue, do we know what we're

[1:46:37] voting on? Clerk will call the

[1:46:39] roll.

[1:46:39] » Council member chavez.

[1:46:42] » Aye.

[1:46:43] » Council member warren.

[1:46:44] » Aye.

[1:46:44] » Council member shaffer.

[1:46:45] » Aye.

[1:46:46] » Council member wonsley.

[1:46:47] » Aye.

[1:46:48] » Council member whiting.

[1:46:49] » Aye

[1:46:49] » Council member chowdhury.

[1:46:51] » Aye.

[1:46:51] » Council member stevenson.

[1:46:52] » Aye.

[1:46:52] » Council member rainville.

[1:46:54] » Aye.

[1:46:54] » Council member vetaw.

[1:46:55] » Aye.

[1:46:56] » Council member palmisano.

[1:46:57] » Aye.

[1:46:57] » Vice president osman.

[1:46:58] » Aye.

[1:46:59] » President payne.

[1:47:00] » Aye.

[1:47:00] » There are 12 ayes.

[1:47:02] » That carries. And that

[1:47:04] completes the committee of the

[1:47:05] whole report. We have the

[1:47:09] amended resolution for item

[1:47:11] number one from c & I that the

[1:47:13] clerks have diligently put

[1:47:14] together. And we can revisit

[1:47:16] this. Is there any discussion

[1:47:19] remaining discussion on item

[1:47:21] number one from the c & I

[1:47:23] report, lyndale reconstruction?

[1:47:28] seeing none.

[1:47:29] » Do we need to move it?

[1:47:31] » Does this need to be moved,

[1:47:33] mr. Clerk?

[1:47:33] » The standing motion that we

[1:47:35] were working on amending was

[1:47:36] already offered by stevenson on

[1:47:38] behalf of the committee. So I

[1:47:40] assume we have the motion in

[1:47:41] place from council member

[1:47:44] stevenson.

[1:47:44] » Okay. So we will be voting

[1:47:46] on item number one as amended by

[1:47:49] council member stevenson and

[1:47:51] chowdhury.

[1:47:51] » Correct. Which is marked

[1:47:53] revised in yellow highlighting.

[1:47:59] » Seeing -- council member

[1:48:02] warren.

[1:48:03] » What is the plan that keeps

[1:48:09] lyndale avenue the way it is

[1:48:10] right now? What is that? Is

[1:48:12] that -- is that this? Or what

[1:48:14] is happening here? I'm so

[1:48:17] confused by all of the different

[1:48:19] motions that have come forward

[1:48:22] about lyndale avenue. And if

[1:48:28] it -- the design -- if it

[1:48:29] changes anymore, it's definitely

[1:48:31] going to be a detriment. I

[1:48:32] don't know if you guys remember

[1:48:36] this, but during the time that

[1:48:39] we had, the emergency at

[1:48:41] annunciation. My kids attend

[1:48:44] school right on lyndale avenue.

[1:48:46] they go to stonebridge. That

[1:48:48] morning when I was driving my

[1:48:49] kids to school, we already have

[1:48:51] a single lane of fricken

[1:48:55] traffic. There are ambulances

[1:48:58] flying. Trying to get past.

[1:48:59] and there's nowhere for cars or

[1:49:02] anyone to go because you are in

[1:49:06] one lane. You're -- there's

[1:49:08] nowhere for you to pull over to

[1:49:09] get away. You can't jump up on

[1:49:12] the median in your car, your

[1:49:15] suv, your nothing. There's

[1:49:16] nowhere for you to go. And I

[1:49:18] was trying to figure out what

[1:49:20] happened. Because as soon as I

[1:49:22] would move and try to make a

[1:49:24] quick dip turn off into the next

[1:49:26] break of a street to get away

[1:49:29] for the -- let the emergency

[1:49:32] vehicles pass. I was -- I would

[1:49:35] travel barely a half a block

[1:49:37] before hear come come --

[1:49:39] here comes some more. There was

[1:49:41] nowhere for traffic to go.

[1:49:43] nowhere! They were on both

[1:49:45] directions of the street trying

[1:49:47] to hurry up and get there to

[1:49:50] service our babies who were in

[1:49:52] danger. Leave these streets

[1:49:55] alone! My goodn

[1:50:02] goodness! We've done enough to

[1:50:03] hennepin. The main things in

[1:50:06] these neighborhoods, you got to

[1:50:09] get emergency vehicles through

[1:50:10] there. You got to get to people

[1:50:12] quickly. There's all of those.

[1:50:15] I get the traffic calming. I

[1:50:17] respect the traffic calming. I

[1:50:19] respect the oversaturation of

[1:50:22] omissioned air and all the

[1:50:23] cumulative air qualities. I'm

[1:50:25] an environmental justice fellow.

[1:50:27] I respect that. The tree c

[1:50:30] canopies, everything. Man,

[1:50:32] would you please leave the

[1:50:33] streets alone. I want to go

[1:50:34] with whatever the plan is. This

[1:50:36] is leave the street alone! My

[1:50:39] god! I just want to drive

[1:50:44] down -- these people are

[1:50:45] laughing at me. I want to drive

[1:50:46] down a normal street. And I

[1:50:48] want our emergency responders to

[1:50:51] be able to get to people

[1:50:54] effectively. I get the bike

[1:50:55] lanes. I get all of that stuff.

[1:50:58] I get the everything. I've

[1:50:59] been to other cities. They got

[1:51:01] bike lanes, two-lane traffic on

[1:51:03] one side of the street. One

[1:51:06] side. So people can move and

[1:51:08] your bike bike bikes,

[1:51:12] scooters, whatever it is. You

[1:51:13] have a two-lane street. It's

[1:51:15] cute. They got the traffic

[1:51:16] signals and everything. It's

[1:51:18] cute. And it's, like, real posh

[1:51:20] and everything. Like, it's

[1:51:21] nice. It's really nice. Leave

[1:51:24] these people in the street

[1:51:26] alone! I don't know is that

[1:51:28] this plan? I don't know. I'm

[1:51:29] confused. I just want the plan

[1:51:32] that's no thank you to anymore

[1:51:34] changes to lyndale. Hennepin is

[1:51:36] already stressful enough. And I

[1:51:39] just -- I just want to leave

[1:51:41] lyndale. Lyndale north side is

[1:51:43] jacked up. I want lyndale to be

[1:51:46] left alone. Like, let lyndale

[1:51:49] be lyndale! My goodness.

[1:51:51] » Council member --

[1:51:53] » The end.

[1:51:54] » Council member stevenson.

[1:51:55] » Tha you, mr. President. It

[1:51:57] seems like council member warren

[1:51:58] and I totally agree there should

[1:52:00] be a bus lane the full length of

[1:52:04] lyndale so buses and emergency

[1:52:05] vehi vehicles can pass

[1:52:09] quickly. Unfortunately, we're

[1:52:10] not being presented with the

[1:52:11] plan. We're the city and giving

[1:52:13] municipal consent. As much as I

[1:52:16] would have like to drawn up the

[1:52:18] plan myself and deal with it at

[1:52:20] this council. It's not how it

[1:52:22] works. So, yeah. This is --

[1:52:25] this is the plan. This is the

[1:52:27] plan that the county came up

[1:52:29] with. They listened for years

[1:52:31] and years and years to folks

[1:52:34] coming out and talking about the

[1:52:36] strengths, weaknesses, and hopes

[1:52:38] and desires for lyndale. Umm, a

[1:52:42] lot has been said about the

[1:52:43] business community. And I

[1:52:44] like to -- I'd like to say a

[1:52:46] little something for the

[1:52:47] residents who live around there

[1:52:49] in my ward and in ward 10.

[1:52:52] people who have been hit by cars

[1:52:54] and killed on this road. People

[1:52:58] who have been injured, people

[1:53:01] who don't -- don't css the

[1:53:02] road because it's so dangerous.

[1:53:05] so they feel hemmed in, in one

[1:53:08] neighborhood as opposed to going

[1:53:11] to the other. There are so many

[1:53:12] reasons why the update is

[1:53:15] happening. I personally don't

[1:53:16] feel like it goes nearly far

[1:53:18] enough. There are so many other

[1:53:19] safety improvements, transit

[1:53:21] improvements to deal with

[1:53:22] congestion. To deal with the

[1:53:25] fact that we're all in here

[1:53:27] coughing up a lung because

[1:53:28] there's so much smoke outside

[1:53:31] because carbon pollution has

[1:53:32] heated up this earth to the

[1:53:34] point where our forests can no

[1:53:37] longer exist in the way the do.

[1:53:39] I mean, this is -- this is

[1:53:41] climate action right here. And

[1:53:43] we are in a climate emergency.

[1:53:46] so I am begging, I'm asking for

[1:53:49] my colleagues to please give

[1:53:51] municipal consent so that we are

[1:53:54] lurch making them drive up the

[1:53:56] costs even further, and

[1:54:00] potentially threatening the

[1:54:01] federal funds so we can build

[1:54:04] the compromised proposal.

[1:54:06] frankly, doesn't go nearly far

[1:54:08] enough for me. That's what

[1:54:09] listening is. Listening is

[1:54:11] hearing from all sides of the

[1:54:14] community, all sides of the

[1:54:15] stakeholders, and coming up with

[1:54:17] something that can work. And

[1:54:18] that's what this proposal is.

[1:54:20] so I am asking, please, for the

[1:54:22] sake of my residents, for the

[1:54:24] sake of theesidents in ward

[1:54:27] 10, please approve this so that

[1:54:29] we can move forward with a

[1:54:34] safer, more legible lyndale that

[1:54:37] gives transit irovements so

[1:54:39] that emergency vehicles and

[1:54:41] buses can skirt by when they

[1:54:42] need to. That gives safety

[1:54:45] improvements, that expands green

[1:54:47] space, that expands sidewalk

[1:54:49] cafes for some of our small

[1:54:51] businesses. There is so much to

[1:54:52] like in this proposal. And

[1:54:55] there's so much that it leaves

[1:54:57] to be desired. But I am asking

[1:54:59] for e sake of my residents in

[1:55:01] ward eight and for the sake of

[1:55:03] residents in ward 10, that we

[1:55:05] please approve this so we can

[1:55:07] move forward in the most

[1:55:11] financially sound way. And get

[1:55:12] the street that we need rebuilt

[1:55:16] and get the street rebuilt after

[1:55:21] 92 years.

[1:55:22] » Just the last comment for me

[1:55:24] here. Looking for the business

[1:55:32] community, it's very important

[1:55:33] we think about them and the

[1:55:34] outcome and just imagine, this

[1:55:37] construction happening and we're

[1:55:39] celebrating, weave the safety

[1:55:40] bus lane, all those good things.

[1:55:45] I was suggesting not to close

[1:55:49] the whole road but there is a

[1:55:52] major project and it is not like

[1:55:56] you can open one side of the

[1:55:59] road. I will support -- I think

[1:56:01] it's worth investment. If you

[1:56:03] look at it, you know, let's not

[1:56:06] forget our business community. I

[1:56:07] encourage the county and the

[1:56:08] city to find a way to support

[1:56:10] the businesses and the project,

[1:56:12] the county who is running the

[1:56:15] project actually give this in

[1:56:18] phases. Do it in a phase way

[1:56:22] that you can connect with the

[1:56:23] business community, have

[1:56:25] meetings with the community,

[1:56:26] have better signage of where

[1:56:30] people are supposed to go,

[1:56:31] supporting the businesses that

[1:56:32] way and instead of closing and

[1:56:34] leaving there with years, years

[1:56:36] to come. I would definitely

[1:56:40] encourage the county and the

[1:56:42] city to find a way so we can

[1:56:47] minimize the effects of

[1:56:50] businesses, because we want the

[1:56:51] businesses to come back. We're

[1:56:53] building the road for that

[1:56:54] reason, for people, for

[1:56:56] businesses, for the community,

[1:57:00] and I would like to see

[1:57:01] businesses get as much support

[1:57:02] as they can. I appreciate

[1:57:05] everyone who tried to, you know,

[1:57:08] work with and with this project,

[1:57:12] finding amendments and amending

[1:57:14] some of the motions we see which

[1:57:18] are pretty important. Overall,

[1:57:20] it's worth the investment to

[1:57:22] approve this. Thank you.

[1:57:26] » Council member chavez.

[1:57:30] » Council president payne,

[1:57:32] thank you. Does this allow for

[1:57:33] emergency vehicles to go

[1:57:34] through, along with the

[1:57:36] resolutions in front of us

[1:57:39] today?

[1:57:40] » Council president, council

[1:57:43] member chavez, senior

[1:57:46] transportation planner with

[1:57:47] public works. This plan does not

[1:57:49] change the lane configuration

[1:57:51] that is out there today. It

[1:57:54] maintains for a large portion of

[1:57:58] the roadway as a center turn

[1:57:59] lane, which also allows for

[1:58:01] space for vehicles to move out

[1:58:03] of the way of emergency

[1:58:06] vehicles, or for emergency

[1:58:08] vehicles to use that center turn

[1:58:14] lane. Where there are center

[1:58:15] medians, we worked with

[1:58:18] emergency services and fire to

[1:58:20] make sure they can be navigated

[1:58:22] and driven over, so they are

[1:58:28] mountable. Both across the

[1:58:30] intersections where the median

[1:58:31] spans the intersection and along

[1:58:35] lyndale avenue.

[1:58:36] » Thank you, I wanted to make

[1:58:37] sure that the public was not

[1:58:39] given misquotes on what can

[1:58:41] happen here. Emergency vehicles

[1:58:43] can still go through. Thank you.

[1:58:46] » Cncil member whiting.

[1:58:47] » Thank you, president payne.

[1:58:48] just maybe a quick note for

[1:58:49] staff here as well. Quickly, I

[1:58:52] just wanted to note particularly

[1:58:53] how it goes to the logistics of

[1:58:57] this plan as stated. I know we

[1:58:59] kind of have the removal of the

[1:59:02] design modification to ensure

[1:59:03] drive way access and business

[1:59:05] operational needs. I think

[1:59:07] council member stevenson noted

[1:59:08] that is because hennepin county

[1:59:10] is open to changing that design

[1:59:14] or working through that. Does

[1:59:16] the design that is in front of

[1:59:18] us, based on lyndale layout, are

[1:59:22] we giving municipal consent for

[1:59:24] that specific design or is it

[1:59:28] subject to change without --

[1:59:30] like does it have to come back

[1:59:32] to us for municipal consent if

[1:59:34] they change the design of the

[1:59:39] layout?

[1:59:41] » President payne, council

[1:59:43] member, this is a resolution of

[1:59:44] support. It's a minor, slightly

[1:59:46] different than municipal

[1:59:48] consent. It doesn't really

[1:59:50] matter. The point is, with the

[1:59:53] medians, what we asked the

[1:59:54] county to look at is to ensure

[1:59:56] that they can function with say

[1:59:57] large delivery vehicles, and

[1:59:59] those operational needs are met.

[2:00:01] I want to be clear though that

[2:00:04] it's not about reducing or

[2:00:06] eliminating the medians. Those

[2:00:08] are critical safety features on

[2:00:10] the project. Removal of a median

[2:00:13] would constitute a substantial

[2:00:16] change, which would come back to

[2:00:19] the city. In general, this is a

[2:00:22] 30% plan, more or less. It's

[2:00:24] saying where the curbs are going

[2:00:25] to be, more or less, what

[2:00:27] features are going to be on the

[2:00:30] projects, say bike lanes,

[2:00:32] parking, those kinds of things.

[2:00:33] so the median conversation, we

[2:00:35] would be engaging the county to

[2:00:37] make sure vehicles can get in

[2:00:38] and out as intended, so the curb

[2:00:41] where exactly it is may move,

[2:00:43] but it's not saying whether or

[2:00:44] not if there would be a curb.

[2:00:46] » So it snds like any minor

[2:00:48] changes would not need to come

[2:00:49] baun to council. So anything

[2:00:52] over substantial change would.

[2:00:53] » That is correct. I will

[2:00:55] acknowledgehat is a bit of a

[2:00:56] gray area, but in general, these

[2:00:58] do not come back to council.

[2:01:00] » Thank you. That's all.

[2:01:04] » Okay, seeing no one else left

[2:01:06] in queue, I will ask the clerk

[2:01:09] to call the roll on the

[2:01:11] resolution as amended.

[2:01:12] » Council member chavez.

[2:01:13] » Aye.

[2:01:14] » Council member warren.

[2:01:14] » No.

[2:01:15] » Council member shaffer.

[2:01:16] » No.

[2:01:16] » Council member wonsley.

[2:01:18] » Aye.

[2:01:18] » Councilember whiting.

[2:01:20] » Aye.

[2:01:20] » Shout.

[2:01:22] » Aye.

[2:01:23] » Council member stevenson.

[2:01:23] » Aye.

[2:01:24] » Council member rainville.

[2:01:25] » No.

[2:01:26] » Council member vetaw.

[2:01:27] » No.

[2:01:28] » Council member palmisano.

[2:01:30] » Aye.

[2:01:31] » Vice president osman.

[2:01:32] » Aye.

[2:01:33] » President payne.

[2:01:33] » Aye.

[2:01:34] » There are 8 ayes and 4 nays.

[2:01:37] » That item carries and that

[2:01:38] completes the climate and

[2:01:40] infrastructure report and we

[2:01:41] will return to our agenda. Next

[2:01:44] with the report of our

[2:01:46] enterprise and labor relations

[2:01:48] committee, which will be

[2:01:48] presented by its chair council

[2:01:51] member palmisano.

[2:01:52] » Thank you, mr. President, we

[2:01:53] have five items to bring forward

[2:01:55] today. The first is our

[2:01:57] appointment of the city

[2:01:58] assessor. This is the nomination

[2:02:02] of rebecca to be our city

[2:02:04] assessor for this next term,

[2:02:07] ending january of 2030. Item

[2:02:09] number 2 is a resolution for the

[2:02:11] first quarter of quarterly

[2:02:14] donations, item number 3 is an

[2:02:17] acceptance for council member

[2:02:19] stevenson's attendance at a

[2:02:20] summit in duluth. Item number 4

[2:02:24] is a collective bargaining

[2:02:25] agreement for our firefighters,

[2:02:28] local 82. Item number 5 is a

[2:02:30] settlement of a workers' comp

[2:02:32] claim for genevieve hanson. I

[2:02:35] will move approl for this for

[2:02:37] report.

[2:02:39] » Council member palmisano has

[2:02:40] moved approval for the report.

[2:02:42] is there any discuson? Seeing

[2:02:44] none, I will ask the clerk to

[2:02:47] call the roll.

[2:02:48] » Council member chavez.

[2:02:49] » Aye.

[2:02:50] » Couil member warren.

[2:02:51] » Aye.

[2:02:52] » Council member shaffer.

[2:02:53] » Aye.

[2:02:53] » Council member wonsley.

[2:02:54] » Aye.

[2:02:55] » Council member whiting.

[2:02:56] » Aye.

[2:02:57] » Council member chowdhury.

[2:02:58] » Aye. >> council member steve

[2:02:59] » Aye.

[2:03:00] » Council member rainville.

[2:03:01] » Aye.

[2:03:02] » Council member vetaw.

[2:03:03] » Aye.

[2:03:03] » Council member palmisano.

[2:03:04] » Aye.

[2:03:05] » Vice president osman.

[2:03:06] » Aye.

[2:03:06] » President payne.

[2:03:07] » Aye.

[2:03:08] » There are 12 ayes.

[2:03:09] » That carries and that

[2:03:11] completes the elr report.

[2:03:13] finally we have the public

[2:03:16] health, safety, and equity

[2:03:16] committee which will be

[2:03:18] presented by the committee's

[2:03:19] chair, council member chavez.

[2:03:21] » Thank you mr. President,

[2:03:22] we're bringing forth three

[2:03:25] items. Item 1, consent to the

[2:03:26] mayor's nomination of kayla to

[2:03:29] the point of position of civil

[2:03:30] rights commissioner director.

[2:03:32] item 2, considers the contract

[2:03:35] with sky deal for a pilot

[2:03:37] program. This item was sent

[2:03:39] forward without recommendation.

[2:03:40] item 3, accepts a donation with

[2:03:42] the university of chicago for

[2:03:44] police inspector molly fisher to

[2:03:45] attend the policing leadership

[2:03:49] academy. Move approval of item

[2:03:50] number 3 and I will pull out for

[2:03:52] discussion item 1 for a motion

[2:03:54] and 2 for discussion.

[2:03:59] » Council member chavez has

[2:04:01] moved item 3 in the report and

[2:04:03] we're going to take each one of

[2:04:05] these up separately so council

[2:04:06] member chavez, do y want to

[2:04:07] make a motion for item number 1?

[2:04:09] » I would like to move approval

[2:04:11] of item number 1 and I want to

[2:04:14] thank director kayla for

[2:04:16] stepping up for this fresh term

[2:04:20] as a permanent civil rights

[2:04:21] department director. I'm

[2:04:24] thankful for her work and I

[2:04:25] wanted to send my kudos.

[2:04:27] » Okay. We have items 1 and 2

[2:04:31] moved -- sorry, 1 and 3 moved

[2:04:34] for approval. Is there any

[2:04:35] discussion on these items?

[2:04:40] council member chowdhury.

[2:04:40] » Thank you, president payne. I

[2:04:41] wish I would have caught the

[2:04:45] it previous to the appointment

[2:04:46] of the city assessor. I hope

[2:04:47] that I can just speak highly of

[2:04:51] both director kayla and director

[2:05:00] rebecca. Really excited to

[2:05:02] supporting two phenomenal women

[2:05:05] in leadership whose staff really

[2:05:07] just love working for the

[2:05:09] departments at they'r in and

[2:05:11] they're fging ahead on really

[2:05:13] wonderful work. I want to thank

[2:05:16] the director of civil rights

[2:05:18] that we're going to appoint, it

[2:05:20] seems like, today for taking the

[2:05:21] time with me and sitting down

[2:05:23] and really talking through all

[2:05:24] of the things you worked on and

[2:05:26] the vision for the future ahead.

[2:05:29] I think it's an ambitious vision

[2:05:31] and I look forward to a future

[2:05:34] wher the civil rights

[2:05:35] department is a first resort for

[2:05:37] all minneapolis residents,

[2:05:39] especially in seeking justice

[2:05:41] for the number of things that we

[2:05:43] aid in. As it comes to rebecca,

[2:05:46] I want t thank her for our

[2:05:50] meeting. She brought her whole

[2:05:52] team and we went through some of

[2:05:54] the weeds of assessment in the

[2:05:56] 12th ward and the city of

[2:05:58] minneapolis and it was really

[2:06:00] valuable for me and my staff.

[2:06:03] it's a really, like technical

[2:06:06] and cumbersome level of

[2:06:08] information to understand city

[2:06:09] assessments, but her team did a

[2:06:12] phenomenal job of explaing

[2:06:13] what that was and it was really

[2:06:14] great to meet the assessors that

[2:06:16] do the job on the ground each

[2:06:18] and every day. I think it's

[2:06:20] wonderful we're getting to

[2:06:21] appoint her as she is a leader

[2:06:24] nationally on assessment work

[2:06:25] across the country and she also

[2:06:28] is a professor in this work and

[2:06:30] so, we just have some of the

[2:06:33] brightest women in leadership in

[2:06:35] our city and I'm proud to

[2:06:38] support them.

[2:06:39] » Seeing no one else in queue,

[2:06:41] I will ask the clerk to call the

[2:06:44] roll on items 1 and 3.

[2:06:47] » Council member chav.

[2:06:48] » Aye.

[2:06:48] » Council member warren.

[2:06:49] » Aye.

[2:06:51] » Council member shaffer.

[2:06:51] » Aye.

[2:06:52] » Council member wonsley.

[2:06:52] » Aye.

[2:06:53] » Council member whiting.

[2:06:54] » Aye.

[2:06:54] » Council member chowdhury.

[2:06:56] » Aye.

[2:06:56] » Council member stevenson.

[2:06:57] » Aye.

[2:06:58] » Council member rainville.

[2:06:58] » Aye.

[2:06:59] » Council member vetaw.

[2:07:00] » Aye.

[2:07:00] » Council member palmisano.

[2:07:01] » Aye.

[2:07:02] » Vice president osman.

[2:07:03] » Aye.

[2:07:03] » President payne.

[2:07:04] » Aye.

[2:07:05] » There are 12 ayes.

[2:07:07] » Those items carry. Next we

[2:07:08] will take up item number 2, the

[2:07:13] sky deal contract. Is there any

[2:07:16] discussion? Council member

[2:07:17] vetaw.

[2:07:18] » Thank you, president payne.

[2:07:19] first, I just want to take the

[2:07:22] time to thank lots of people who

[2:07:23] had been helping on this pilot

[2:07:25] project. This has been in the

[2:07:26] making for 2.5 yea. So, I want

[2:07:29] to thank my team, I want to

[2:07:31] thank d.c. Campbell, who has a

[2:07:34] couple of promotions since we

[2:07:36] started this work, sergeant, the

[2:07:39] pilot for drones and the

[2:07:41] minneapolis police department,

[2:07:44] andy, john in the mayor's

[2:07:47] office, minneapolis fire,

[2:07:49] regulatory services, public

[2:07:52] works, 9-1-1, there has been a

[2:07:53] lot of us working on this

[2:07:54] project for 2.5 years and so,

[2:07:57] thank you all for all the work

[2:07:59] you have done. Then I want to

[2:08:01] start my comments out by saying

[2:08:03] since the day I was collectrd --

[2:08:07] elected, I made a commitment, to

[2:08:10] work every day to solve the

[2:08:13] problems they face, faster

[2:08:15] police response times, cleaner

[2:08:17] streets, and less violent crime.

[2:08:19] year after year, I had to tell

[2:08:20] them that we cannot make the

[2:08:21] progress they deserve because we

[2:08:23] do not have enough officers on

[2:08:25] our streets. I am tired of

[2:08:27] saying that. I fought for

[2:08:29] solutions, but came up short. I

[2:08:31] am tired of explaining that we

[2:08:33] lost two additional officers to

[2:08:35] the non-fatal shooting task

[2:08:38] force after council member

[2:08:39] wonsley's proposals passed. I'm

[2:08:41] tired of telling residents we

[2:08:43] lost an alternative to

[2:08:44] traditional policing when my

[2:08:46] colleagues voted to end the

[2:08:48] contract with knew salem. I'm

[2:08:49] tired of explaining that we

[2:08:51] cannot secure much needed

[2:08:52] additional crime prevention

[2:08:54] specialists because I could not

[2:08:54] get the votes. I am tired of

[2:08:57] telling neighbors they must live

[2:08:58] with the safety operation center

[2:09:00] in front of their homes because

[2:09:04] my colleagues eliminated the

[2:09:04] other option. Most of all, I am

[2:09:07] tired of watching my community

[2:09:09] absorb one loss after another

[2:09:11] and then facing my constituents,

[2:09:14] knowing their concerns remain

[2:09:16] unresolved. They deserve bter

[2:09:19] than excuses, they deserve

[2:09:22] results. If I had the powero

[2:09:24] make these changes on my own, I

[2:09:26] would, but I am not. I'm one of

[2:09:29] 13 members on the council,

[2:09:30] meeting with residents every

[2:09:31] day, and that is my

[2:09:34] responsibility. The

[2:09:35] responsibility is on all of us

[2:09:37] to make sure they are safe. What

[2:09:39] I am proposing is not a

[2:09:42] permanent solution, it's a free

[2:09:44] 75-day pilot program, it's a

[2:09:45] chance to test the technology,

[2:09:47] evaluate the results, a

[2:09:49] determine whether it works for

[2:09:50] our city or not. I also want to

[2:09:54] address concerns about privacy

[2:09:56] and accountability. Skydio will

[2:10:01] not have the data, it remains

[2:10:03] with the minneapolis police

[2:10:05] department and every deployment

[2:10:07] is documented through a public

[2:10:08] dashboard that shows where the

[2:10:10] drone was used, why it was used

[2:10:12] and how it was used. This is a

[2:10:14] pilot built with transparency

[2:10:16] and public accountability from

[2:10:17] the start. I have also heard

[2:10:20] concerns about skydio's business

[2:10:23] relationship with federal

[2:10:24] agencies but if our standard is

[2:10:26] that we cannot work with any

[2:10:27] company that has contracts with

[2:10:29] a federal agency who has

[2:10:32] policies we oppose, we will

[2:10:34] quickly find that standard

[2:10:35] impossible to apply

[2:10:38] consistently. The question

[2:10:39] before us is, will this pilot

[2:10:41] help the people of minneapolis?

[2:10:43] will it operate under minnesota

[2:10:46] state law and minnesoapolis's

[2:10:52] policies and with full

[2:10:54] transparency. I believe the

[2:10:55] answer is yes. When I saw this

[2:10:57] technology demonstrated, I saw a

[2:10:59] practical way to make better use

[2:11:00] of the resources we already

[2:11:03] have. This is not about

[2:11:05] replacing human interaction,

[2:11:06] this is about giving our

[2:11:08] existing personnel another tool

[2:11:11] to respond more quickly and more

[2:11:13] efficiently. Today, the average

[2:11:15] police response time in the

[2:11:18] fourth precinct is more than 7

[2:11:19] minutes. With this pilot

[2:11:22] response time for eligible cause

[2:11:24] could be reduced to under 2

[2:11:26] minutes. So far this year, there

[2:11:27] have been more than 7,800 calls

[2:11:30] whe this technology could have

[2:11:32] been deployed. Roughly 40 calls

[2:11:35] every day. Those are thousands

[2:11:37] of opportunities to get help to

[2:11:40] residents, faster while allowing

[2:11:43] officers to focus on the calls

[2:11:45] that require an in-person

[2:11:47] response. Take the story of

[2:11:48] mr. Bob stewart, an 82-year-old

[2:11:51] marine veteran in ward 4

[2:11:53] resident who went missing for

[2:11:55] 5.5 hours and was eventually

[2:11:57] found having fallen into shingle

[2:12:00] creek. After a drone was finally

[2:12:02] deployed, it found him in just 9

[2:12:06] minutes. Under this pilot

[2:12:07] program, a drone could have been

[2:12:08] in the air in under 2 minutes,

[2:12:12] once the 9-1-1 call came in

[2:12:13] instead of waiting for

[2:12:14] deployment. In emergencies,

[2:12:16] minutes matter. We can never

[2:12:18] know the outcome of every case

[2:12:20] but what we do know is that

[2:12:23] getting ayes on a missing person

[2:12:26] sooner can make the difference

[2:12:28] between life and death. If this

[2:12:30] progm saves one life, it's

[2:12:31] worth trying. If it doesn't

[2:12:33] deliver the results we expect,

[2:12:35] that's why it's a 75-day pilot

[2:12:38] program. We evaluate it and we

[2:12:39] make a decision based on

[2:12:42] evidence. St. Paul, duluth,

[2:12:45] rochester, minnetonka, brooklyn

[2:12:46] park are already using this

[2:12:48] technology from the same

[2:12:51] company. Members of this body

[2:12:52] often look to these cities for

[2:12:54] ideas on policies and programs.

[2:12:56] members of this body look to

[2:12:58] duluth for bathhouses and safe

[2:13:01] bays. Members of this body look

[2:13:03] for rent control and non-fatal

[2:13:06] shooting tasks rce. If we look

[2:13:08] to them for those initiatives,

[2:13:10] why don't we look to them for a

[2:13:12] tool they have found success

[2:13:13] with and has the potential to

[2:13:16] improve the public safety and

[2:13:17] city services. At times, it

[2:13:19] feels like members of this body

[2:13:21] are searching for reasons to say

[2:13:24] no instead of looking for

[2:13:25] reasons to give this pilot a

[2:13:26] chance, to make the outcome of

[2:13:28] this decision hinge on whether a

[2:13:30] country halfway around the world

[2:13:33] purchases equipment from the

[2:13:35] same company does not make sense

[2:13:36] to me. I do not believe that

[2:13:38] this is a reasonable basis for

[2:13:41] deciding whether our residents

[2:13:42] should have access to a tool

[2:13:43] that can improve public safety.

[2:13:46] at some point, we havto decide

[2:13:49] whether our responsibility is to

[2:13:51] reject any imperfect option or

[2:13:54] to test ideas that can make a

[2:13:56] meaningful difference for the

[2:13:57] people we serve. This is all

[2:13:59] about a pilot. That is all I am

[2:14:01] asking for, a pilot. Thank you.

[2:14:07] » Council member chavez.

[2:14:08] » Thanks president payne, I

[2:14:08] want to thank the public for

[2:14:10] engaging on this topic. It

[2:14:12] allowed me to look more deeply

[2:14:13] into this tool. I have a few

[2:14:16] questions for the minneapolis

[2:14:18] police department. First, before

[2:14:20] this was brought to council, did

[2:14:24] mpd do any due diligence on

[2:14:28] skydio's contracts or do they

[2:14:31] sell drones to ice or other dhs

[2:14:37] components?

[2:14:39] » Deputy chief.

[2:14:41] » Council president payne,

[2:14:44] council meer chavez, I run the

[2:14:50] day-to-day operations for the

[2:14:52] drone program.

[2:14:53] » Good morning, I'm the drone

[2:14:55] coordinator for the minneapolis

[2:14:57] police department, council

[2:14:59] member payne and chavez, prior

[2:15:04] to looking into skydio, we did

[2:15:07] do our due diligence. If we were

[2:15:10] to look at every other company

[2:15:12] that we're also associated with

[2:15:13] difficult types of technologies

[2:15:15] or tools, we wouldn't be able to

[2:15:17] get anywhere at all. We did look

[2:15:20] into them, but more so we

[2:15:21] focused on the good they were

[2:15:23] doing and we focused on the fact

[2:15:24] that they were contracted

[2:15:25] partners with one of our largest

[2:15:31] evidence management.

[2:15:32] » Thank you, and in california,

[2:15:33] they spent over $1 million in

[2:15:35] legal fees to withhold drone

[2:15:39] footage, and lost at the

[2:15:40] california supreme court. Has

[2:15:42] mpd reviewed the public records

[2:15:44] law and how it would apply to

[2:15:46] this footage and would mpd be

[2:15:50] withholding drone footage from

[2:15:51] the public?

[2:15:56] » Council member payne and

[2:15:58] council member chavez, we're a

[2:15:59] little bit different than true

[2:16:02] la vista because we have

[2:16:03] safeguards in place. We have

[2:16:05] safeguards with our state law,

[2:16:07] with our department policy. What

[2:16:09] true la vista did, they operated

[2:16:11] their drones under a blanket as

[2:16:14] in they withheld all the data as

[2:16:18] evidentiary data and when the

[2:16:19] lawsuit came forward, they were

[2:16:20] basically stuck in a tight

[2:16:22] place. We're not like true la

[2:16:25] vista. We're all about

[2:16:27] transparency, we will have a

[2:16:28] public dash board, and we will

[2:16:30] abide by state law because state

[2:16:31] law requires us to delete all

[2:16:35] non-evidentiary value within 7

[2:16:37] days. If there is a public data

[2:16:39] request within the minnesota

[2:16:41] state statute, all drone video

[2:16:44] is considered private data,

[2:16:47] however if there is any video of

[2:16:51] non-evidentiary data that is

[2:16:52] going to be categorized, and

[2:16:55] within seven days, it has to be

[2:16:57] deleted. If there are public

[2:16:59] data questions within those

[2:17:00] seven days, it will be up to the

[2:17:02] records unit to determine if

[2:17:03] they can release those videos.

[2:17:04] on the minneapolis police side,

[2:17:06] we're going to abide by state

[2:17:07] law and the department policy.

[2:17:10] » Flight records show these

[2:17:12] drones were launched to surveil

[2:17:15] a january 31st ice out protest

[2:17:17] in los angeles, which saw

[2:17:19] thousands peacefully protest

[2:17:20] against the trump

[2:17:22] administration. Will mpd follow

[2:17:23] suit and use these drones to

[2:17:26] respond to 1st amendment

[2:17:27] protected activities like

[2:17:28] protests, marches, vigils,

[2:17:30] demonstrations, regardless of

[2:17:32] call volume.

[2:17:36] » Council member payne and

[2:17:38] council member chavez, we will

[2:17:38] not be following suit. We will

[2:17:40] follow what state law dictates

[2:17:42] we can do. We respect people's

[2:17:46] 1st amendment rights. As public

[2:17:47] servants, that's what we do. We

[2:17:49] help preserve people's civil

[2:17:51] rights and civil liberties, but

[2:17:52] if there is an emergency

[2:17:54] situation that fits state law

[2:17:56] and our department policy allows

[2:17:57] us to, we will utilize this

[2:17:59] technology to help out the

[2:18:00] community the best we can.

[2:18:03] » A wired article states a

[2:18:06] drone followed two young men in

[2:18:08] their car, at least one of them

[2:18:09] who is described in police

[2:18:11] records being identified as a

[2:18:13] suspicious person in a vehicle

[2:18:15] and then two men emerged on to a

[2:18:16] basketball court and started

[2:18:18] playing, and the drone departed.

[2:18:20] how does mpd feel about this?

[2:18:23] » Council member payne and

[2:18:25] council member chavez, for an

[2:18:25] incident like that, we wouldn't

[2:18:27] be utilizing drones for a

[2:18:28] situation like that. So I don't

[2:18:29] know what their polies are,

[2:18:31] but I can only speak to our

[2:18:33] policies. We wouldn't be

[2:18:34] operating drones in that

[2:18:36] situation.

[2:18:36] » Given that maninneapolis

[2:18:40] residents spent months

[2:18:41] documenting unmarked

[2:18:44] surveillance and ice activity,

[2:18:50] how could this not be mistaken

[2:18:53] from aerial surveillance in the

[2:18:55] ayes of minneapolis residents,

[2:18:58] besides the police markings that

[2:19:00] are hard to identify in the air.

[2:19:03] » Council member payne and

[2:19:05] council member chavez, right now

[2:19:06] we don't have any detection

[2:19:07] systems at all. Whether a drone

[2:19:09] is in the sky, no one in the

[2:19:11] city is going to know whether

[2:19:12] it's a police drone, whether

[2:19:14] it's a federal one, or it's a

[2:19:17] recreational user. What I would

[2:19:20] suggest to the community with

[2:19:21] concerns is that they identify a

[2:19:26] drone in the air, they have

[2:19:28] concerns, they can call us and

[2:19:29] we can go out there and document

[2:19:31] it. I am in charge of the drone

[2:19:32] program so I will oversee all

[2:19:36] the reports and I can follow up

[2:19:37] with them through the marshals

[2:19:39] or the faa. I will follow up on

[2:19:41] all the complaints.

[2:19:42] » Will drone data be included

[2:19:46] in the mpd reports to the

[2:19:49] settlement agreement monitor so

[2:19:51] racially disparent patterns are

[2:19:52] tracked from day one and not

[2:19:54] after.

[2:19:54] » Council member payne and

[2:19:56] council member chavez, all of

[2:19:57] the data, all of the metrics we

[2:20:00] are going to be documenting,

[2:20:01] we're not going to be

[2:20:02] documenting race or anything

[2:20:03] like that. We will be

[2:20:05] documenting drones based off of

[2:20:09] behaviors. That's what state

[2:20:11] statute dictates for us to do.

[2:20:13] » Okay, the contract that mpd

[2:20:15] will be signing with this states

[2:20:19] that skydio's use and sharing of

[2:20:22] personal information is governed

[2:20:23] by the company's privacy policy.

[2:20:25] the privacy policy states that

[2:20:27] it does not govern how they

[2:20:28] collect, use, and disclose

[2:20:32] personal information to

[2:20:33] customers who use the type of

[2:20:34] service that we're talking about

[2:20:35] here. So if the privacy policy

[2:20:37] does not govern skydio use of

[2:20:43] sharing personal information, I

[2:20:49] know that skydio claimed they

[2:20:50] will not have access to data. My

[2:20:52] question is, what governs

[2:20:55] skydio's collection use and

[2:20:56] sharing of personnel information

[2:20:58] that they may collect in any

[2:21:01] ans?

[2:21:02] » There is only seconds left.

[2:21:04] all right, we'll have to return

[2:21:06] to that question. Council member

[2:21:07] wonsley.

[2:21:08] » Thank you, president payne.

[2:21:10] also, thank you council member

[2:21:11] chavez for highlighting and

[2:21:13] raising some further concerns

[2:21:14] with skydio that really show

[2:21:15] that this is a company that does

[2:21:17] not align with the city's

[2:21:19] overall values and I have been

[2:21:21] consistent about my skepticism

[2:21:22] and concerns about mpd's drone

[2:21:27] use, which is why I brought

[2:21:28] forward the ordinance that

[2:21:29] allows us to have public

[2:21:31] hearings when mpd is seeking to

[2:21:33] purchase new technology,

[2:21:36] surveillance technology, such as

[2:21:39] the one we're proposed to

[2:21:39] consider today. That said, I do

[2:21:41] think that it's also important

[2:21:43] as we go further into the item

[2:21:47] to make it known that mpd has

[2:21:51] the ability to still purchase

[2:21:53] drones and already have drones.

[2:21:58] mpd can and will likely purchase

[2:22:00] their own drones with their

[2:22:01] budget for as long as the mayor

[2:22:03] allows them to. We cannot stop

[2:22:04] them and I want to make sure I

[2:22:06] level set that because if you

[2:22:07] still see drones in the air and

[2:22:09] think council took up this item

[2:22:12] regardless of the vote outcome,

[2:22:17] I thought I would see those.

[2:22:19] they do have these in their

[2:22:21] possession. Council has the

[2:22:23] right now to vote this contract

[2:22:24] down, knowing that the vendor

[2:22:26] has a documented history of

[2:22:31] having sowed weapons that killed

[2:22:33] innocent people. There are no

[2:22:37] reasons to contract with

[2:22:40] companies that shown a disregard

[2:22:43] to life, including the

[2:22:46] occupation that took the lives

[2:22:47] of two of our residents, and

[2:22:49] created lifelong trauma for a

[2:22:52] north minneapolis resident who

[2:22:53] was also shot and we have seen

[2:22:55] in recent days, several other

[2:22:58] residents of the general public

[2:23:01] be killed at the hands of ice.

[2:23:04] it would be no chance why we

[2:23:05] were asked to consider this

[2:23:07] today.

[2:23:07] [applause].

[2:23:07] » This is and business

[2:23:10] relationship that we're seeking

[2:23:11] out that does not align with the

[2:23:13] values of our residents of our

[2:23:16] city. I am not in support of

[2:23:17] drones overall. One of the main

[2:23:19] reason is because I do not

[2:23:20] trust mpd's ability to practice

[2:23:23] and enforce good policy around

[2:23:25] data collection, especially when

[2:23:27] it's been note in the emotion

[2:23:29] recent elefa report, where they

[2:23:33] have found that mpd was not able

[2:23:36] to use facebook in an ethical

[2:23:40] constitutional way. Why would we

[2:23:42] give new tools when it'sot

[2:23:44] very clear and I don't believe

[2:23:45] the elefa report said that we're

[2:23:48] in compliance with being able to

[2:23:50] use facebook even at this

[2:23:53] current moment. With that said,

[2:23:55] earlier this year o, going

[2:23:56] back to the federal occupation,

[2:24:00] residents have repeatedly raised

[2:24:02] concerns around what is the

[2:24:03] city's responses to surveillance

[2:24:06] practices, especially in a way

[2:24:09] which we're protecting our

[2:24:11] residents' private data when the

[2:24:12] federal government is hostile

[2:24:13] and is using a multitude of

[2:24:17] initiatives from extorting

[2:24:19] information and political

[2:24:20] retaliation to try to extract

[2:24:22] information of our residents so

[2:24:24] they can target them. Because of

[2:24:27] that, my office actually brought

[2:24:29] forward a legislative directive

[2:24:31] asking the administration how

[2:24:37] they are employing data

[2:24:40] practices to protect our

[2:24:41] residents and hold ice agents

[2:24:43] accountable when they're

[2:24:44] violating the constitutional

[2:24:45] rights of our residents, and is

[2:24:47] engaging in unlawful behavior.

[2:24:51] despite being requested to

[2:24:52] provide that information about

[2:24:52] their policies, the frey

[2:24:56] administration declined to do

[2:24:58] so. We're having to navigate a

[2:25:00] hostile federal governmt and

[2:25:03] we have not seen the frey

[2:25:06] administration and the office of

[2:25:08] community safety use these

[2:25:09] opportunities to showcase that

[2:25:10] there are thoughtful and

[2:25:12] intentional policies set up to

[2:25:18] center the safety of ordinary

[2:25:20] residents. I don't feel

[2:25:21] confident in the ability to

[2:25:26] enter into this contract. There

[2:25:28] is no such thing as a no cost

[2:25:32] after a 75-day trial period

[2:25:34] where we're going to say no,

[2:25:35] we're not going to move forward.

[2:25:37] that's unrealistic. With that, I

[2:25:40] am going so say no. I want to

[2:25:42] thank the hundreds of residents

[2:25:43] that reached out to council to

[2:25:45] share their thoughts, including

[2:25:48] to excess -- came to the

[2:25:51] committee, we had those testify

[2:25:52] around their concerns regarding

[2:25:54] the pilot. Residents overall do

[2:25:57] deserve quality public safety

[2:25:59] services. I do want to highlight

[2:26:00] too that there are so many

[2:26:04] approaches we can employ.

[2:26:06] council member vetaw mentioned

[2:26:08] the non-lethal task force. From

[2:26:13] my understanding, that is all

[2:26:16] based in getting external

[2:26:21] partners, specifically

[2:26:22] investigators to come and help

[2:26:27] us. Many help reduce gun

[2:26:31] violence and do significant work

[2:26:33] to close cases of unsolved

[2:26:35] shootings in our community,

[2:26:38] which we know is happening in

[2:26:40] our community,

[2:26:43] disproportionately in black and

[2:26:45] brown communities. We have seen

[2:26:47] case closure rates for non-fatal

[2:26:53] go up by triple percentages.

[2:26:55] that's less than 2 million. I'm

[2:26:57] grateful that we're employing

[2:26:59] data-backed solutions, one that

[2:27:01] does not hinder or compromises

[2:27:03] our residents' ability, it gives

[2:27:05] targeted resources to our

[2:27:08] residents. They ask mpd to use

[2:27:10] your resources efficiently in a

[2:27:12] way that meets the needs, the

[2:27:14] safety needs of our residents. I

[2:27:16] don't see how this does that.

[2:27:20] there has been a change in

[2:27:23] goalpost on the usage of this.

[2:27:25] we were told this could be used

[2:27:27] to address illegal dumping. Then

[2:27:30] I think there were further

[2:27:31] conversations with legal experts

[2:27:32] to show that maybe that didn't

[2:27:35] fit the guidelines of the state

[2:27:39] statute --

[2:27:40] » Point of order. Could you

[2:27:42] remind the audience of our

[2:27:44] decorum here.

[2:27:46] » You interrupt me when I talk.

[2:27:52] » Council member wonsley has

[2:27:52] not finished her speech. Let's

[2:27:54] give her a minute back, but just

[2:27:56] as a general advisory, council

[2:28:00] rules do not provide comment

[2:28:03] from the public. The purpose of

[2:28:04] this meeting to conduct the

[2:28:06] business of the city, it's not a

[2:28:07] form for public testimony or

[2:28:10] comments under the minnesota

[2:28:11] open meeting law, the committees

[2:28:13] are open to the public for the

[2:28:17] purpose of observation only.

[2:28:19] thoswho purposely disrupt or

[2:28:21] disturb these proceedings and

[2:28:23] interfere with the body's

[2:28:26] ability to conduct the business

[2:28:27] of the city will be asked to

[2:28:28] leave. Those who refuse may be

[2:28:31] removed from the chamber. Clerk,

[2:28:33] can we give council member

[2:28:34] wonsley another minute to

[2:28:35] complete her speech.

[2:28:36] » Thank you, I should not be

[2:28:39] interrupted by council member

[2:28:40] rainville when I am speaking so

[2:28:41] I respect you when you speak, I

[2:28:44] extend that to everyone. I ask

[2:28:45] for the same consideration. So

[2:28:47] with that said, I want to be

[2:28:49] very clear about my concerns

[2:28:51] around this contract that I have

[2:28:53] been consistent about and that

[2:28:55] there are tons of documentation

[2:28:57] that shows this is not

[2:28:59] appropriate for us to enter

[2:29:01] into. So again, I want to thank

[2:29:04] our residents for being bold and

[2:29:05] persistent in raising these

[2:29:07] concerns for holding us account.

[2:29:08] this represents the opportunity

[2:29:09] for us to not set a new

[2:29:13] precedence in entering into what

[2:29:17] is a non-necessary relationship

[2:29:18] with the company that does not

[2:29:19] align with our values, that does

[2:29:20] not support the well-being of

[2:29:22] our residents. Thank you all for

[2:29:23] your leadership and I look

[2:29:24] forward to voting no on this

[2:29:29] contract.

[2:29:29] » Council member palmisano.

[2:29:31] » I am not part of phs

[2:29:34] committee but I watched this

[2:29:36] long public comment period with

[2:29:38] interest and I wanted to address

[2:29:40] the suggestions and feedback we

[2:29:42] received, specifically from the

[2:29:44] aclu of minnesota. As we deploy

[2:29:46] this new program, we heard

[2:29:47] concerns from the community and

[2:29:49] groups like the aclu about

[2:29:52] balancing public safety and

[2:29:53] protecting people's privacy.

[2:29:55] that is a really important

[2:29:58] balance. The sergeant mentioned

[2:30:03] some of this earlier and later

[2:30:04] we will get back to council

[2:30:05] member chavez's questions, which

[2:30:06] really reflect some of the

[2:30:07] things we heard in the public

[2:30:09] comment period. I think that is

[2:30:12] important. I want people to

[2:30:14] understand that this pilot

[2:30:16] proposal exceeds all thresholds

[2:30:18] and recommendations from the

[2:30:20] aclu. We are already beyond

[2:30:23] their standards. Mpd has offered

[2:30:26] clarity about their use of

[2:30:27] drones and I will share some of

[2:30:29] the specific clarifications for

[2:30:30] the public. Drones will be used

[2:30:32] to respond to priority 0 and 1

[2:30:36] calls, such as a person with a

[2:30:37] weapon, an accident, an auto

[2:30:39] theft, or shots fired. During

[2:30:41] the pilot, a physical squad will

[2:30:43] still be sent out, will still be

[2:30:48] sent out. Drones will not be

[2:30:51] utilized for every 9-1-1 call

[2:30:52] and will only be authorized if

[2:30:53] there are circumstances that

[2:30:56] authorize their use under state

[2:30:58] law. The federal aviation

[2:31:01] administration, the faa and

[2:31:02] state law do not allow drones to

[2:31:04] be used for routine patrols or

[2:31:07] surveillance, to have facial

[2:31:09] recognition capabilities, or to

[2:31:11] be equip with weapons. State

[2:31:13] statute mandates that footage

[2:31:18] without evidentiary value be

[2:31:20] deleted within 7 days and

[2:31:21] different from our body camera

[2:31:24] footage, drone footage is

[2:31:26] private, nodata. Just like vide

[2:31:33] evidence, whether that is

[2:31:35] submitted by neighbors or

[2:31:37] captured on a security camera,

[2:31:38] all data is stored in a way that

[2:31:40] is only accessible to mpd. What

[2:31:43] is before us today is a free

[2:31:46] pilot program. This is an

[2:31:47] opportunity for minneapolis to

[2:31:49] trial this kind of technology,

[2:31:51] technology that is currently

[2:31:53] used in st. Paul, minnetonka,

[2:31:56] rochester, duluth, and brooklyn

[2:31:57] park to determine if it works

[2:31:59] for us. The goals of this pilot

[2:32:01] are to reduce our response

[2:32:02] times, clear low level 9-1-1

[2:32:05] calls without officers being

[2:32:08] dispatched, increase safety,

[2:32:09] safety of the community, safety

[2:32:12] of our officers. We will be

[2:32:13] tracking and measuring those

[2:32:15] outcomes, specific to our city.

[2:32:16] let's see what those outcomes

[2:32:18] are. We all agree that drones

[2:32:20] are not a substitute for

[2:32:23] uniformed personnel but this

[2:32:24] pilot provides critical support

[2:32:26] to a severely understaffed

[2:32:28] department and not only that,

[2:32:30] community sees some great

[2:32:33] improvement in response that was

[2:32:34] previously impossible. I have

[2:32:36] seen demos with these drones

[2:32:37] that do things like bring narcan

[2:32:39] directly to someone in need to

[2:32:41] be used by a community member.

[2:32:44] this can save lives. I have seen

[2:32:46] demos where a drone drop a

[2:32:50] flotation device with someone

[2:32:51] struggling in the water with

[2:32:53] amazing speed and accuracy. I

[2:32:55] want that. Do you know how long

[2:32:56] it takes a fire rescue boat to

[2:32:59] get in the water in lake

[2:33:06] harriet

[2:33:07] harriet? Agonizingly long,

[2:33:08] dangerously long. It's important

[2:33:09] to me and I think it's important

[2:33:11] to every single one of us

[2:33:13] sitting up here, public safety

[2:33:16] broadly defined. Our residents

[2:33:18] deserve police response that is

[2:33:20] as safe and as efficient as

[2:33:22] possible. If technology can

[2:33:23] clear certain calls and provide

[2:33:25] better information before

[2:33:26] officers arrive, it frees up

[2:33:29] officers to respond to other

[2:33:30] calls and service the community

[2:33:34] better. Our first responders

[2:33:36] deserve to know if they are

[2:33:37] truly needed. Drones could help

[2:33:39] us avoid situations where

[2:33:41] personnel arrive and ultimately

[2:33:43] no one is there. We heard you

[2:33:46] deputy chief campbell in your

[2:33:47] presentation that there were

[2:33:52] 33.5 thousand priority 0 and 1

[2:33:53] calls in the fourth precinct

[2:33:58] alone in 2025. Drones could

[2:34:01] respond to 5,000 of them in

[2:34:02] under 2 minutes. That is

[2:34:04] significant. We know 5 other

[2:34:07] cities in this state utilize

[2:34:09] drones and they are making their

[2:34:11] communities safer. We have

[2:34:14] guardrails around this pilot

[2:34:15] program and they meet and exceed

[2:34:17] the standards set out by the

[2:34:20] aclu. I will be voting in

[2:34:21] support of this pilot and I am

[2:34:23] really eager to see how it helps

[2:34:26] us to reduce response time and

[2:34:29] protect safety overall. I'm

[2:34:31] grateful for the work you have

[2:34:32] done to establish these

[2:34:34] guardrails and bring this kind

[2:34:36] of technology to our department.

[2:34:38] thank you.

[2:34:39] » Council member chowdhury.

[2:34:41] » Thank you, president payne. I

[2:34:45] just have a couple of questions

[2:34:55] on this. The first question I

[2:34:57] have, how will the drones

[2:35:01] themselves be controlled? Is it

[2:35:04] controlled by human beings? Just

[2:35:09] go through the logisticses for

[2:35:12] me.

[2:35:12] » Council member payne and

[2:35:13] council member chowdhury,

[2:35:15] operationally, the drones will

[2:35:16] be remotely flown from someone

[2:35:18] from dispatch. The drones will

[2:35:21] be operated. By someone, like an

[2:35:25] actual officer from dispatch. So

[2:35:31] dispatch would get a call, we

[2:35:32] see it on their screen, and then

[2:35:34] they will assign it to the drone

[2:35:36] pilot. The drone pilot would

[2:35:38] respond to that location. While

[2:35:40] in route, again, the camera

[2:35:42] would be set at the horizon at

[2:35:46] 180 degrees. Once it gets to the

[2:35:47] scene, it will pan to the

[2:35:48] location and do an assessment of

[2:35:50] the area. That formation is then

[2:35:53] relayed to dispatch and officers

[2:35:54] on the ground and from there, we

[2:35:56] can taylor a response, according

[2:35:57] to what we've seen.

[2:35:59] » Got it. So it will be

[2:36:02] officers controlling the drone.

[2:36:04] » That is correct.

[2:36:06] » And then you had said

[2:36:08] previously that these drones

[2:36:10] would not be identifiable to

[2:36:11] other drones, is that correct?

[2:36:15] » So, council member payne and

[2:36:19] council member chowdhury, our

[2:36:20] drones can see other drones that

[2:36:21] are broadcasting what is called

[2:36:23] rem

[2:36:24] remote id. If you think about

[2:36:27] it, it's a beacon. Our drones

[2:36:28] can see them, however that is

[2:36:33] not the case for all

[2:36:35] recreational drones out there.

[2:36:36] can our drones see other drones?

[2:36:39] that question is yes and no,

[2:36:43] depending on the types of

[2:36:44] drones.

[2:36:44] » Thank you for that response.

[2:36:46] let me clarify wha my question

[2:36:48] is. Will the public be able to

[2:36:51] discern between what drones are

[2:36:52] used by mpd compared to other

[2:36:54] drones by other law enforcement

[2:36:56] agencies or recreational drones?

[2:36:58] » So, council member payne and

[2:37:00] council member chowdhury, our

[2:37:01] drones will be marked with blue

[2:37:02] and red markings, so that is one

[2:37:06] identifier. So if community

[2:37:07] members are looking up at the

[2:37:08] sky and they see a drone, they

[2:37:10] will be marked with mpd markings

[2:37:12] and they will have red and blue

[2:37:14] lights to indicate they are

[2:37:15] police drones. A normal

[2:37:19] recreational drone will not have

[2:37:20] the red and blue lights.

[2:37:22] normally they're red and green.

[2:37:24] » Will they be discerned from

[2:37:26] other law enforcement drones or

[2:37:27] other drones used by skydio,

[2:37:29] such as the ones used by ice?

[2:37:32] » So council member payne,

[2:37:34] council member chowdhury, a

[2:37:35] normal person won't be able to

[2:37:37] differentiate between the two

[2:37:39] but again, they won't be able to

[2:37:41] differentiate between what we

[2:37:42] had with the 4th of july. I

[2:37:44] worked that day. There were

[2:37:46] maybe -- we saw 15 to 20 drones

[2:37:48] and we were able to identify if

[2:37:50] they were pice drones or if

[2:37:51] they were recreational users. So

[2:37:54] for now, there is no standard

[2:37:56] that holds citizens to that

[2:37:58] standard of identifying and

[2:37:59] marking their own drones. So for

[2:38:01] now, we just have to essentially

[2:38:04] identify police drones as our

[2:38:09] markings or lights with our

[2:38:12] drones.

[2:38:12] » If I may speak too, for our

[2:38:15] identification purpose for our

[2:38:16] drones, it goes back to that

[2:38:19] public-facing dashboard. So if

[2:38:20] someone does see a drone flying

[2:38:23] and they want -- they think it's

[2:38:25] an mpd drone, they have the able

[2:38:28] to go on the public-facing

[2:38:29] dashboard, which is on the

[2:38:30] city's website. Within 24 hours,

[2:38:31] they can see that is an mpd

[2:38:35] drone and wre it was flown

[2:38:36] from and to, and for what

[2:38:42] reason.

[2:38:42] » Okay, I feel like there is a

[2:38:44] lot of issues with being able to

[2:38:46] discern between other law

[2:38:47] enforcemt drones and I think

[2:38:48] it puts a lotf onus on every

[2:38:51] day people to do that due

[2:38:54] diligence. That is just a quick

[2:38:56] comment that I will make. The

[2:38:59] other thing is since mpd

[2:39:01] officers will be flying this

[2:39:02] drone and let's say they go

[2:39:04] outside of the scope of what is

[2:39:06] occurring here and do, let's say

[2:39:11] one of the worst-case scenarios

[2:39:12] is someone is followed and

[2:39:14] profiled by a drone. What is the

[2:39:17] recourse for complaints from

[2:39:18] citizens and other officers.

[2:39:22] » So council member payne and

[2:39:24] council member chowdhury, we

[2:39:25] already have policies in place

[2:39:26] that dictate what happens if we

[2:39:31] improperly use this technology.

[2:39:33] so, going off of that, we would

[2:39:36] just follow our own sops, our

[2:39:38] policies and procedures, as well

[2:39:40] as state law.

[2:39:41] » So it would likely go through

[2:39:44] either the opcr or internal

[2:39:46] investigations if a complaint is

[2:39:48] filed about misuse of drones by

[2:39:50] officers, correct?

[2:39:50] » Correct.

[2:39:51] » Okay, thank you. Those are

[2:39:52] all my questions for you. I will

[2:39:54] make a couple of comments with

[2:39:56] the minute and0 seconds I

[2:39:59] have. Based off of that

[2:40:01] information, I have aot of

[2:40:03] concerns in our ability to have

[2:40:05] accountability over these

[2:40:07] drones, especially since

[2:40:10] complaints will be made through

[2:40:11] internal investigations and we

[2:40:13] gotten a report in our committee

[2:40:15] of the whole from the

[2:40:19] independent monitor that the lis

[2:40:20] or cal backlog for internal

[2:40:22] affairs remains. We're not

[2:40:24] investigating theomplaints at

[2:40:25] the rate we need to satisfy the

[2:40:28] goals of the settlement

[2:40:30] agreement. I have no reason to

[2:40:31] believe we will have a higher

[2:40:33] level of accountability on this

[2:40:34] matter or the level of

[2:40:35] accountability that is necessary

[2:40:37] and that is deeply troubling to

[2:40:40] me because you can say that it's

[2:40:42] going to follow the scope of

[2:40:44] what's going on, but if it veers

[2:40:47] out of it, the recourse is slow,

[2:40:51] limited, and documented to be

[2:40:53] off track byyears. The other

[2:40:56] thing that I will just share,

[2:40:58] during the ice occupation, to my

[2:41:01] office, we have 40 documented

[2:41:03] instances of drones flying all

[2:41:06] throughout the neighborhoods

[2:41:07] that residents were not able to

[2:41:11] identify, even in conversations

[2:41:12] with the faa, the mpd and

[2:41:15] hennepin county, no one was able

[2:41:16] to identify them. My

[2:41:18] constituents are traumatized by

[2:41:20] drones flying over their

[2:41:22] households. They do not like

[2:41:23] them. They feel surveilled. They

[2:41:26] have been follod by drones.

[2:41:28] they have had drones show u by

[2:41:31] their windows as late as

[2:41:32] 5:00 a.m., and that's to speak

[2:41:38] somethingn that my

[2:41:39] constituents say is traumatic

[2:41:41] for them to experience. We were

[2:41:44] still unable to get any

[2:41:45] responses on who operated the

[2:41:48] drones.

[2:41:48] » You're at time. Council

[2:41:51] member rainville.

[2:41:51] » Thank you. I a going to vote

[2:41:52] yes on this just like I voted on

[2:41:55] some other pilot projects we

[2:41:57] did. We voted to start a pilot

[2:42:00] understand how we canet a

[2:42:02] handle on that. It's perfect for

[2:42:04] our approach to non-armed public

[2:42:06] safety. Also, a pilot project

[2:42:08] for non-injury traffic

[2:42:11] accidents. Another move towards

[2:42:13] the goal of more and more

[2:42:16] non-armed public safety working

[2:42:18] for us. The success of the

[2:42:20] v.c.r., that started out as a

[2:42:24] pilot project. Toot vote for

[2:42:25] this today would be a real loss

[2:42:26] for our community, not just in

[2:42:28] north minneapolis where we can

[2:42:30] hope to start this, but for the

[2:42:31] whole city of minneapolis. As I

[2:42:35] contemated the information we

[2:42:37] received after all these weeks,

[2:42:40] the one thing that has come to

[2:42:43] my mind time and time again, if

[2:42:46] this drone project was in place

[2:42:46] when we had the horrible

[2:42:49] shooting in south minneapolis

[2:42:52] where officer mitcher was

[2:42:54] killed, there could have been a

[2:42:56] drone to advise him of the

[2:42:59] danger. The person he went to

[2:42:59] help killed him. A drone would

[2:43:01] have prevented that. I hope that

[2:43:03] my colleagues see that we need

[2:43:05] to gather this data and I look

[2:43:06] forward to making law based on

[2:43:12] fact, not fear.

[2:43:13] » Council member shaffer.

[2:43:14] » Yeah, can you just clarify

[2:43:17] that the rhythm of the drone

[2:43:20] use. Are they going to be

[2:43:24] restricted to ward 4 or are they

[2:43:27] going to be pilot in other

[2:43:28] wards? I know there is a lot of

[2:43:30] concern about other areas of the

[2:43:32] city. Can you speak and I may

[2:43:34] have missed that and reitete

[2:43:37] that for me.

[2:43:40] » So paycouncil member payne a

[2:43:46] council member shaffer, it

[2:43:48] contains two drones, and will

[2:43:50] only operate within ward 4.

[2:43:51] » Great, I really appreciate

[2:43:53] that the ward 4 council member

[2:43:55] for this area has taken the

[2:43:57] responsibility and leadership to

[2:43:58] step up and say this is

[2:44:00] something that my community

[2:44:01] wants. This is something I am

[2:44:02] familiar with and I'm

[2:44:03] comfortable with. I have done a

[2:44:04] lot of research on it for 22.5

[2:44:08] years. I think we should respond

[2:44:12] and acknowledge the privacy of

[2:44:13] her leadership in this test. She

[2:44:14] is for it, just like we're

[2:44:16] supporting council member warren

[2:44:17] in heritage park, I think we owe

[2:44:19] it to our colleagues for her

[2:44:22] work to allow this to move

[2:44:25] forward and see how her

[2:44:26] residents respond to this and

[2:44:27] look at the data that comes

[2:44:33] back. I understand the fear and

[2:44:35] the moral arguments around

[2:44:37] surveillance and where it was

[2:44:39] use in various conflicts and

[2:44:41] federal contracts. I get it.

[2:44:44] there is a moral argument on the

[2:44:47] other side just as strong or

[2:44:50] stronger. We are municipal

[2:44:51] leaders for the city of

[2:44:55] minneapolis. We need to do what

[2:44:56] is right for the citizens of our

[2:44:59] city, right here. If it's proven

[2:45:02] that it can save lives and other

[2:45:04] jurisdictions that we are

[2:45:06] friendly with, duluth, et

[2:45:08] cetera, then I think we deserve

[2:45:10] it to council member vetaw to

[2:45:11] support her in this trial and

[2:45:13] get the data. I believe the

[2:45:19] moral argument to use drones to

[2:45:22] help save lost children and

[2:45:23] adults, drones that could be

[2:45:24] used as a force multiplier for

[2:45:27] mpd when we're short officers,

[2:45:29] doing more with less, drones

[2:45:30] that can be used as first

[2:45:33] responders in unusual situations

[2:45:34] that take time as we mentioned

[2:45:35] with the water rescues, and

[2:45:39] takes an element of danger away

[2:45:40] from those who are first on

[2:45:43] scene. That is a moral argument

[2:45:44] I will stand behind for the

[2:45:47] citizens of minneapolis. I am

[2:45:48] the mother of a first responder,

[2:45:51] I will be supporting this drone

[2:45:55] pilot.

[2:45:56] » Vice president osman.

[2:45:58] » Thank you so much. I listened

[2:46:00] to the meeting a couple weeks

[2:46:06] ago about this drone pilot

[2:46:11] program. As you can see, my name

[2:46:14] is on the co-author. I made the

[2:46:20] commitment to support it because

[2:46:22] I thought this was something

[2:46:23] that could be helpful. I did

[2:46:25] change my mind. I will tell you

[2:46:27] why I changed my mind. Number

[2:46:29] one, I strongly support the

[2:46:32] public safety. This is the best

[2:46:36] tool they have to protect our

[2:46:43] community. This is why I cannot

[2:46:45] support this skydio pilot

[2:46:47] because it must include trust,

[2:46:50] ethics, and accountability.

[2:46:51] those are my core beliefs. We

[2:46:55] are human beings with ethics. I

[2:47:00] talked to the assistant chief,

[2:47:03] our police leadership, and I

[2:47:04] expressed to them I do support

[2:47:06] police having a tool that can

[2:47:08] help our residents when there

[2:47:09] are calls. They already have bo

[2:47:13] cameras on the buildings. Now

[2:47:15] this is just another camera in

[2:47:17] the sky. I don't have an issue

[2:47:19] with that, right? If we have a

[2:47:21] policy around it and a strong

[2:47:24] leadership that can protect

[2:47:26] those concerns and rights, but

[2:47:33] skydio supplies drones to the

[2:47:35] military, who committed a

[2:47:36] genocide against palestinian

[2:47:38] people and children. That is not

[2:47:40] my opinion, that is u.n. Human

[2:47:45] rights office. Look it up. They

[2:47:50] also work with ice department,

[2:47:52] homeland security on immigration

[2:47:54] enforcement surveillance. Nobody

[2:47:57] knows more than immigrant

[2:47:59] communities, city of

[2:48:01] minneapolis, what has taken

[2:48:02] place in our cities. Bringing

[2:48:09] offenders that ties to

[2:48:11] militarized operations into our

[2:48:13] city underlines the trust that

[2:48:15] we are trying to rebuild with

[2:48:16] the city, especially in major

[2:48:19] black neighborhoods, black

[2:48:23] immigrants, muslim immigrants. I

[2:48:25] do not trust the skydio. And I

[2:48:28] will not allow for them to

[2:48:30] arrive here in our city. I

[2:48:34] support exploring technology

[2:48:36] that can help, including drones,

[2:48:40] in our first response, but only

[2:48:42] with a vendor that has no

[2:48:44] contract with militaries that

[2:48:47] are killing other people. It

[2:48:49] might be far away, but it is

[2:48:51] seen on your phones and we have

[2:48:58] experienced last winter what ice

[2:48:59] did to our community. Those

[2:49:05] drones were hovering on top of

[2:49:06] you when you were protesting and

[2:49:08] exercising your rights. These

[2:49:15] are the reasons why I am voting

[2:49:17] against and it does not mean,

[2:49:19] let me just say this, I am vo

[2:49:22] voting because nobody support

[2:49:27] it, public safety than me. Since

[2:49:29] I came in 2020, public safety

[2:49:30] had been in the conversation, I

[2:49:32] have supported our police

[2:49:34] officers, I have supported the

[2:49:42] consent decree, all this change

[2:49:44] we need to do. So this does not

[2:49:48] mean we're against the police.

[2:49:50] it does not mean we're against

[2:49:53] public safety. Taking a stand

[2:49:56] ethically and morally is the

[2:49:57] right thing to do. I think,

[2:50:00] focusing on the city of

[2:50:01] minneapolis, what we have seen,

[2:50:04] 99% of the people that came here

[2:50:07] are close to that, it's because

[2:50:10] they care, right? We are

[2:50:17] discussing their taxes, their

[2:50:19] city, and we should consider

[2:50:20] that. So the reason I'm voting

[2:50:22] against it is because of the

[2:50:25] skydio basically working with

[2:50:28] ice that terrorized my community

[2:50:31] and also working with a genocide

[2:50:35] military government that

[2:50:37] continues to kill innocent

[2:50:38] children. That is not made up,

[2:50:40] that is a fact. You can look it

[2:50:44] up. Thank you, council

[2:50:47] president.

[2:50:47] » I wanted to note that we were

[2:50:48] joined by mayor frey and I will

[2:50:51] recognize him.

[2:50:52] » Thank you for having me here

[2:50:54] today. The ethical and moral

[2:50:57] stance that I am taking in

[2:51:01] support this pilot is on behalf

[2:51:03] of our constituents that need

[2:51:05] response from a police officer

[2:51:07] or a safety system that allows

[2:51:08] us to see what is going on in

[2:51:12] real-time. This program, which

[2:51:15] is modeled after dozens of other

[2:51:17] programs in major cities

[2:51:19] throughout the country and in

[2:51:20] minnesota has shown to save

[2:51:22] lives and reduce the numbers of

[2:51:25] calls that our police officers

[2:51:26] need to go to. They both reduce

[2:51:29] the number of unnecessary

[2:51:30] interactions between law

[2:51:31] enforcement and residents and

[2:51:33] also improve the response time

[2:51:38] and the time that officers need

[2:51:39] to spend on each individual

[2:51:41] call. Let me explain what this

[2:51:42] looks like practically. A call

[2:51:45] comes in from a constituent

[2:51:48] saying that there is an

[2:51:49] individual on the corner with a

[2:51:52] gun. We can send a drone out to

[2:51:56] that location sometimes within

[2:52:00] 60 seconds and that drone,

[2:52:01] through the camera footage, can

[2:52:03] the our police officers that

[2:52:04] it's not a gun at all, in fact

[2:52:06] it's a cell phone. That footage

[2:52:11] can alert the police officer

[2:52:13] that they're not actually

[2:52:15] walking into a very dangerous

[2:52:17] where they may need to have

[2:52:18] their hand on a gun. That

[2:52:21] footage can let us know ahead of

[2:52:22] time that in fact that police

[2:52:24] officer is not needed at all and

[2:52:28] they can instead tend to a far

[2:52:29] more critical and dangerous

[2:52:31] situation that is happening

[2:52:33] perhaps in a neighborhood away.

[2:52:36] this technology is not novel in

[2:52:39] use by cities. It is presently

[2:52:45] used in duluth, rochester,

[2:52:47] brooklyn park, minnetonka, and

[2:52:50] st. Paul. This technology is

[2:52:52] being used by new york city,

[2:52:54] philadelphia, atlanta, los

[2:52:57] angeles, san francisco, chicago,

[2:52:58] denver, and I could go on. This

[2:53:01] technology is also in so many

[2:53:04] respects a part of the future of

[2:53:07] where law enforcement is going

[2:53:11] because it allows us to get to a

[2:53:13] location faster, helps somebody

[2:53:16] sooner, and s, also save

[2:53:18] lives, which becomes all the

[2:53:20] more important when we're down

[2:53:22] over 200 officers where we have

[2:53:24] fewer officers per capita than

[2:53:27] virtually any city in the whole

[2:53:28] country and we need to be using

[2:53:30] our time and our dollars as

[2:53:32] efficiently as possible. So

[2:53:34] council members on many

[2:53:36] occasions have righteously asked

[2:53:38] for grateater service, for quicr

[2:53:41] response, for more attention to

[2:53:44] victims and their needs. This

[2:53:47] gives us the ability to do

[2:53:50] exactly that. Council members, I

[2:53:53] ask for your support on this

[2:53:55] because I know that it will help

[2:53:56] our residents. I ask for your

[2:53:58] support on this because I know

[2:53:59] that it will help you provide

[2:54:02] the constituent service that you

[2:54:04] demand of our administration.

[2:54:06] this is not a small item. It is

[2:54:09] in the sense that it's a free

[2:54:11] pilot. It's a free pilot. It's

[2:54:17] incredibly important in that it

[2:54:19] gives us the testing ground for

[2:54:21] free where yes, we can expand,

[2:54:26] in full transparency, we want

[2:54:28] to. Virtually every city in the

[2:54:31] country is going to be

[2:54:32] ultimately going in this

[2:54:33] direction, I believe. I don't

[2:54:35] think that minneapolis should

[2:54:39] have our own residents as

[2:54:43] collateral damage because of gee

[2:54:44] pot -- geopolitics. We're not

[2:54:51] sending --

[2:54:53] [gavel].

[2:54:53] » Please don't interrupt.

[2:54:57] » Thank you, council president.

[2:55:00] refusing this pilot, I don't

[2:55:02] believe sends a message to

[2:55:06] israel. It does make it more

[2:55:07] difficult for us to provide the

[2:55:09] necessary safety to our

[2:55:11] residents in this city at this

[2:55:16] point in time. I respect all of

[2:55:18] the arguments here, including

[2:55:20] those that I don't agree with.

[2:55:24] my ask today though is that we

[2:55:28] find a way to work together, to

[2:55:31] provide the service and the

[2:55:32] safety that I believe residents,

[2:55:35] and by extension, council

[2:55:37] members are deserving of. This

[2:55:41] pilot, this program was not

[2:55:44] entered in a half hazard

[2:55:47] fashion. As council member vetaw

[2:55:48] can attest, I'm sure she would

[2:55:49] have liked it to come forward

[2:55:54] earlier, years ago. We have done

[2:55:55] a lot of work on this. I'm

[2:55:58] grateful to our police officers

[2:56:01] who have done due diligence to

[2:56:04] put together the plan, address

[2:56:07] concerns, understand the law. I

[2:56:10] am impressed by the work. I ask

[2:56:12] that we have the opportunity to

[2:56:16] move forward with this important

[2:56:18] pilot and the ability to provide

[2:56:21] safety in the immediacy to

[2:56:23] residents that need it. Thank

[2:56:24] you council mbers.

[2:56:27] » Ouncil member chavez.

[2:56:28] » Thank you, council president

[2:56:29] payne. I just wanted to say that

[2:56:33] concerns with ice are not

[2:56:36] geopolitics. Surveilling ice out

[2:56:39] protests using these drones is

[2:56:41] not geopolitics. Surveilling

[2:56:43] people who are playing

[2:56:44] basketball is not geopolitics.

[2:56:46] having concerns about the use of

[2:56:48] these drones is not geopolitics,

[2:56:50] it is just concerns we have

[2:56:51] about surveillance in our city.

[2:56:53] I just wanted to add that

[2:56:55] comment. Going back to my

[2:56:57] question as I mentioned earlier,

[2:56:58] the contract states that

[2:57:01] skydio's collection use and

[2:57:02] sharing of personal information

[2:57:03] is governed by the company's

[2:57:05] privacy policy. The company's

[2:57:08] privacy policy says it does not

[2:57:10] govern how they disclose

[2:57:12] personal information for

[2:57:13] customers who use this type of

[2:57:15] service, which we're talking

[2:57:16] about here. So if the privacy

[2:57:19] policy does not govern skydio's

[2:57:21] use and sharing of personal

[2:57:22] information and the contracts

[2:57:24] mention privacy rights,

[2:57:26] mentioning the privacy policy,

[2:57:28] which doesn't govern here based

[2:57:29] on my reading, skydio claimed

[2:57:31] they will not have access to

[2:57:33] data. My question is what

[2:57:35] governs skydio's collection use

[2:57:37] and sharing of personal

[2:57:39] information they may collect.

[2:57:42] » So council member payne and

[2:57:44] council member chavez, with

[2:57:45] regards to the data collection,

[2:57:47] that was something we were

[2:57:48] concerned about, as well as our

[2:57:50] city attorneys. Initially when

[2:57:51] we saw the contract, we reworded

[2:57:53] it that way so they would have

[2:57:56] no say in how we collect our

[2:57:58] data. So we would set the

[2:58:00] parameters on how we would

[2:58:03] document these incidents, and

[2:58:05] then from there they are just

[2:58:07] helping us basically set

[2:58:08] different parameters to help us

[2:58:12] out.

[2:58:12] » So it would be set after if

[2:58:14] this were to get approved?

[2:58:15] » For all of the data?

[2:58:17] » Yes.

[2:58:17] » So, we would collect all of

[2:58:20] the data in-house and then we

[2:58:23] would present it to council.

[2:58:25] » I'm concerned about the

[2:58:27] guardrails here.

[2:58:27] » What guard rail? I'm

[2:58:31] confused. I am going to the next

[2:58:33] one because I have limited time.

[2:58:35] if something goes wrong during

[2:58:36] the pilot or a data breach, the

[2:58:38] contracts seems like it give it

[2:58:39] is city no meaningful recourse,

[2:58:43] the service level agreement

[2:58:44] doesn't apply to any of the

[2:58:46] services offered on the trial

[2:58:48] pilot or beta basis. Neither the

[2:58:52] warranty or the dao warranty

[2:58:56] under the trial period and

[2:58:58] skydio's total liability to a

[2:59:00] city for any claim is capped at

[2:59:04] the amount the city paid skydio,

[2:59:07] which in this instance, it's a

[2:59:10] free trial so it's $0. I am

[2:59:12] concerned that we will be flying

[2:59:15] this technology that contracted

[2:59:17] away our responsibilities for

[2:59:18] the consequences of violations.

[2:59:21] can you explain under skydio's

[2:59:24] terms if a drone crashes or

[2:59:25] causes a data breach during this

[2:59:28] trial, what is skydio's actual

[2:59:30] financial liability to the city

[2:59:32] and can they confirm whether

[2:59:34] that liability is 0?

[2:59:38] » So council member payne and

[2:59:40] council member chavez, with

[2:59:41] regards to data breaches that

[2:59:42] you are talking about, I know

[2:59:44] there are concerns. However,

[2:59:46] there hasn't been any documented

[2:59:47] cases that I am aware of any

[2:59:49] data breaches. However, we are

[2:59:51] working closelyith our I.t.

[2:59:55] unit and we will deal with it as

[2:59:56] it comes. For now, there hasn't

[2:59:58] been any documented cases,

[3:00:01] again, when we're utilizing

[3:00:02] these drones, we're going

[3:00:03] through axon, and we have

[3:00:06] already been usineing axon.

[3:00:13] everything gets updated through

[3:00:16] their servers.

[3:00:17] » Section 12.2, skydio will

[3:00:18] notify the city before complying

[3:00:20] with a legal demand for

[3:00:22] confidential information but

[3:00:23] only if legally permissible.

[3:00:24] this contract never defines what

[3:00:26] counts as confidential

[3:00:27] information. It describes how

[3:00:28] that information must be handled

[3:00:31] but not qualifies. Section 6

[3:00:34] prohibits customers from using

[3:00:36] skydio drones as weapons, likely

[3:00:39] to cause death or injuries. This

[3:00:41] has an exception for lawful

[3:00:43] government action. That phrase

[3:00:45] is not defined. What makes an

[3:00:48] action lawful for a government

[3:00:50] to use to cause death or injury,

[3:00:52] or who makes that determination.

[3:00:55] the city's standard contract

[3:00:57] don't apply to skydio unless

[3:00:59] separately negotiated in writing

[3:01:01] that includes any commitments we

[3:01:03] might want from skydio around

[3:01:04] data sharing guardrails with the

[3:01:06] federal government when it comes

[3:01:07] to ice actions, consistent with

[3:01:10] our ordinance, and section 3.3

[3:01:14] confirms skydio collects

[3:01:19] metadata, and improves skydio's

[3:01:21] current and future products.

[3:01:23] that doesn't specify when or how

[3:01:25] often this is generated. Lastly

[3:01:28] I am concerned about how we are

[3:01:29] going to use the flight footage

[3:01:32] we have here.

[3:01:33] » You are at time. Council

[3:01:36] member chowdhury.

[3:01:37] » Thank you president payne. I

[3:01:37] just wanted to share that I am

[3:01:41] entering into the public record

[3:01:42] this document supplied by skydio

[3:01:44] called previous sales questions

[3:01:45] that answers several questions

[3:01:47] about skydio's contracting with

[3:01:49] the idf. So that is available to

[3:01:51] the public. I think everyone

[3:01:53] deserves to know that. There are

[3:01:55] several contradictions within

[3:01:56] this document and it highlights

[3:01:59] that skydio is not just a

[3:02:00] surveillance company, but it is

[3:02:03] a coractor of the ward. They

[3:02:10] do plan to do so. I wanted to

[3:02:12] highlight off the top there was

[3:02:15] a massive security breach just

[3:02:17] this last week in san francisco.

[3:02:19] this was under the operation of

[3:02:22] the san francisco police

[3:02:23] departnt. So it could happen he

[3:02:26] in another major city. We

[3:02:28] shouldn't take that lightly. The

[3:02:30] other thing I wanted to

[3:02:31] highlight is the fact thate

[3:02:34] still didn't answer the

[3:02:35] accountability question. There

[3:02:36] viually is not a way to have

[3:02:38] accountability on breaches of

[3:02:39] this scope that our department

[3:02:41] ma have and there has been a

[3:02:42] pattern and practice of misuse

[3:02:45] of technology in the police

[3:02:47] department. There just has been

[3:02:48] and we have the historical

[3:02:51] backlog. How would we get

[3:02:53] recourse? So, I want to be very

[3:02:55] clear, I am a no. There have

[3:02:58] been very few times where I have

[3:03:00] felt absolutely appalled and

[3:03:04] disgusted by an item that has

[3:03:05] come before me. I just -- like

[3:03:08] it is my honest truth,

[3:03:12] especially as a daughter of

[3:03:14] survivors of genocide and the

[3:03:17] granddaughter of a law

[3:03:18] enforcemen officer who had to

[3:03:21] revolt against a genocidal

[3:03:24] country, it was pakistan at the

[3:03:26] time, backed by u.s. Military

[3:03:28] aid, it does just run super deep

[3:03:31] and any participation in

[3:03:33] surveillance technology that

[3:03:34] participates in genocide

[3:03:37] ultimately aids and abets and my

[3:03:44] parents didn't come here for me

[3:03:45] to sit on this body and sanitize

[3:03:47] any of my feelings surrounding

[3:03:49] this and my deep history. This

[3:03:52] action is morally nkrupt. It's

[3:03:54] an abysmal mistake. Nothing is

[3:03:56] free. This costs the trust of

[3:03:59] our residents, this costs us

[3:04:04] valuable, valuable information.

[3:04:06] this costs us people's sense of

[3:04:10] freedom. Constituents are crying

[3:04:11] out all of the time, worried

[3:04:14] about surveillance and the

[3:04:17] impacts of this ice occupation

[3:04:21] exacerbating this. This was

[3:04:23] funded, this organization was

[3:04:24] funded by the big beautiful bill

[3:04:29] of $514,000 in 2025 for

[3:04:32] immigrations customs

[3:04:33] enforcement. I understan why

[3:04:34] some members of this body may

[3:04:36] not care about the relations to

[3:04:40] the I.d.f. A israel related to

[3:04:42] the genocid in palestine. We

[3:04:47] are talking also about

[3:04:48] immigration customs enforcement.

[3:04:51] we cannot going through an ice

[3:04:54] occupation, and say f-ice, turn

[3:04:57] around and the build out our

[3:04:59] sueillance state and saying we

[3:05:00] are going to have a sweetheart

[3:05:02] deal with the company that is

[3:05:04] working with ice, the same

[3:05:06] organization that killed our

[3:05:10] neighbors, brutalized our

[3:05:11] community, and surveilled each

[3:05:13] and every one of us. Those are

[3:05:20] facts. I think there is so much

[3:05:24] to consider. I keep hearing this

[3:05:28] is going to solve our public

[3:05:29] safety problems. There is no

[3:05:32] silver bullet to solve our

[3:05:34] public safety problems. We

[3:05:36] wouldn't be overspending our

[3:05:37] budgets if that wasn't clear. I

[3:05:38] want to dispel that illusion

[3:05:41] that a free pilot is going to

[3:05:44] solve our public safety issues.

[3:05:46] I think that is unfair to the

[3:05:48] community to set up that

[3:05:57] premise.

[3:06:00] » Council member whiting.

[3:06:01] » Thank you, president payne. I

[3:06:02] have received a substantial

[3:06:07] amount of constituent feedback

[3:06:10] on this issue, in favor and

[3:06:12] against this pilot. I want to

[3:06:14] thank everyone that has come

[3:06:16] within the community to speak on

[3:06:17] this issu I will be supporting

[3:06:20] this issue today and this pilot

[3:06:22] today and I want to talk through

[3:06:24] it. I want to thank council

[3:06:27] member vetaw for her leadership

[3:06:30] on this. My colleagues and

[3:06:33] community members have made

[3:06:35] extremely valid points about the

[3:06:37] potential negative impacts of a

[3:06:39] ogram like this. The civil

[3:06:41] liberty concerns, the

[3:06:43] over-policing concerns, the

[3:06:44] concerns about where we are

[3:06:45] sourcing these drones from

[3:06:48] particularly with the issues

[3:06:49] with the idf and with dhs and

[3:06:53] ice. A general hesitancy to

[3:06:55] introduce this kind of

[3:06:56] tenology as it relates to data

[3:06:58] privacy, data retention, and

[3:07:00] accountability measures in the

[3:07:03] business of policing and public

[3:07:05] safety. I believe it's entirely

[3:07:06] valid. I take those concerns

[3:07:08] seriously and think that issue

[3:07:10] alone is why we as a body should

[3:07:13] work to figure those out. With

[3:07:18] that, if this body were to

[3:07:19] commit themselves to a paid

[3:07:21] contract with this or any other

[3:07:23] drone first responder contract,

[3:07:25] I would n be supporting thi

[3:07:27] moon. Before the city commits

[3:07:29] itself to significant resources

[3:07:31] to a program such as this, I

[3:07:34] think many of my colleagues

[3:07:35] agree that we need a clearer

[3:07:37] understanding of the data that

[3:07:39] supports its effectiveness and

[3:07:41] whether our current ordinances

[3:07:43] and oversights are sufficient to

[3:07:45] limit their use in the city of

[3:07:49] minneapolis. I think what we

[3:07:50] have seen, whether it's

[3:07:54] effective or not effective is

[3:07:56] through a program such as this.

[3:07:57] I do not believe those polics

[3:07:59] are strong enough. Right now, we

[3:08:02] have data from other minnesota

[3:08:04] cities that employ programs such

[3:08:06] as this, including st. Paul,

[3:08:08] which seem to support a level of

[3:08:10] safety and effectiveness, but we

[3:08:11] have also seen across this

[3:08:13] country an ability for police

[3:08:16] departments and jurisdictions to

[3:08:18] abuse programs and technologies

[3:08:22] such as this. So if we are going

[3:08:24] to commit ourselves to a program

[3:08:25] like this, I think we would need

[3:08:28] a full level of information in

[3:08:30] front of us to make an educated

[3:08:32] decision. Luckily, we are not

[3:08:35] committing ourselves to a

[3:08:37] permanent paid contract today.

[3:08:38] we are voting to approve a time

[3:08:43] limited pilot that cost

[3:08:44] essentially $0. There is n such

[3:08:46] thing as a free lunch, that's

[3:08:48] entirely true. I think skydio

[3:08:50] probably clearly believes that

[3:08:52] if this city went forward with a

[3:08:54] program such as this, that we

[3:08:56] would be so impressed by the

[3:08:57] results that we wouldn't be able

[3:09:00] to approve a paid contract. It's

[3:09:02] my understanding that any

[3:09:03] permanent contract, any paid

[3:09:05] program would need to come back

[3:09:06] to this city council for a full

[3:09:09] vote, a full separate vote. This

[3:09:11] kind of pilot, I believe, can

[3:09:13] give us hard data about the

[3:09:15] potential uses of effectivene

[3:09:17] of drones or the opposite, or

[3:09:19] the complete failure of a

[3:09:21] program like this for a first

[3:09:24] responr's program in

[3:09:24] minneapolis and help us again

[3:09:26] make a long-term informed

[3:09:29] decision on effectiveness. My

[3:09:31] reasoning for supporting this

[3:09:34] motion is that I think it has

[3:09:36] the potential to make our city

[3:09:38] safer and save lives, a

[3:09:41] fundamental part of the police

[3:09:43] reform process, I believe is

[3:09:46] removing officers in situations

[3:09:48] which their bias or spontaneous

[3:09:51] decision making drives their

[3:09:52] thinking. More or less, I

[3:09:54] believe you can't train your way

[3:09:56] out of human fallibility. So,

[3:09:59] while we train officers, we also

[3:10:00] have to advance alternatives to

[3:10:04] traditional law enforcement. An

[3:10:05] officer speeding towards a shots

[3:10:08] fired call that can be rerouted

[3:10:10] because a first responder drone

[3:10:12] reveals that actually no shots

[3:10:14] were fired and they were just

[3:10:16] fireworks, I believe lowers the

[3:10:18] temperature. Drone programs when

[3:10:20] done with stringent

[3:10:22] restrictions, privacy

[3:10:23] protections, I believe can

[3:10:25] provide on the ground

[3:10:26] information that reduces the

[3:10:27] likelihood of an officer's

[3:10:30] arrival escalating a situation

[3:10:32] or provide information that an

[3:10:34] officer's response is entirely

[3:10:36] unnecessary. Our council members

[3:10:38] on the north side where this

[3:10:39] program is going to be deployed

[3:10:42] clearly believe that it could

[3:10:43] save lives. I think at least

[3:10:47] some deference should be shown

[3:10:50] to our council members that

[3:10:52] represent communities this will

[3:10:55] have the most impact. With that,

[3:10:58] as someone who has seen and

[3:10:59] grown up in this thicity. It is

[3:11:04] really hard for , the moral

[3:11:08] arguments of what is coming up

[3:11:09] here. I truly hear it. I believe

[3:11:12] the obligation that is in front

[3:11:14] of me as a minneapolis city

[3:11:16] council member is to reduce the

[3:11:18] harm for my residents. If that

[3:11:22] is the case, if this saves one

[3:11:24] life of an unarmed black man in

[3:11:26] the city of minneapolis because

[3:11:28] instead of an officer going into

[3:11:30] that call, that is something

[3:11:31] that we as minneapolis city

[3:11:33] council members need to take

[3:11:35] serious. As someone who has

[3:11:37] live in this city fory entire

[3:11:38] life, I have had friends,

[3:11:41] teammates who have been lost to

[3:11:43] gun violence on the north 150si

[3:11:46] on the south side every single

[3:11:48] corner of this city. If this can

[3:11:49] save one of their lives, it is

[3:11:51] worth it. If this -- not even

[3:11:57] st save their lives, if this

[3:11:59] gives a family the ability to

[3:12:02] find some level of justice, some

[3:12:04] level of hey, this is the person

[3:12:06] that injured my loved one. That

[3:12:09] is something that we have to

[3:12:15] consider. If we approve this

[3:12:16] pilot program, when it expires

[3:12:21] in 75 days, I will be looking

[3:12:23] extremely, extremely close at

[3:12:24] the results and at every single

[3:12:27] regulatory framework I believe

[3:12:28] has to be around a program like

[3:12:30] this because I think while we

[3:12:33] have state safeguards and

[3:12:35] guardrails in place, I don't

[3:12:39] think they go far enough. I want

[3:12:41] to thank those who reached out

[3:12:44] to this council because I

[3:12:45] believe there are valid points

[3:12:46] across this dais and I am

[3:12:49] encouraged that this city and

[3:12:51] that my council colleagues are

[3:12:54] putting weight to those

[3:12:56] conversations. Thank you.

[3:12:58] » Council member warren.

[3:13:02] » Thank you, council president

[3:13:02] payne. First of all, I want to

[3:13:04] say congratulations to my

[3:13:07] council colleague council member

[3:13:15] vetaw for your research the last

[3:13:21] 2.5 years and all those

[3:13:22] individuals that worked hard

[3:13:23] with you on this project. It is

[3:13:26] really interesting when my

[3:13:28] council colleague had initially

[3:13:29] started sharing with me that

[3:13:31] this was something she was

[3:13:32] working on. I was very, I was

[3:13:34] very proud of her because there

[3:13:37] are a lot of things that I know

[3:13:43] that we take for granted. There

[3:13:49] is the fact that we as average

[3:13:51] americans are on camera 35 to 45

[3:13:54] times a day. You're on camera.

[3:13:56] someone is always watching

[3:13:57] what's going on, walking down

[3:13:58] the street, from the ring

[3:14:00] cameras, here there, what have

[3:14:02] you. No one is asking where that

[3:14:04] information and data is stored.

[3:14:13] no one is asking where alexa and

[3:14:16] siri, who is tracking you, where

[3:14:18] they are storing the data on

[3:14:20] where they are tracking you,

[3:14:23] what you're doing, what's going

[3:14:28] on. No one is asking who apple

[3:14:34] and samsung is selling their

[3:14:38] phones to. Everyone has the same

[3:14:42] things, levi's and nikes too.

[3:14:46] it's the same stuff. We're no

[3:14:50] different the people in those

[3:14:53] places are not asking what's

[3:14:55] happeng in north minneapolis

[3:14:58] or minnesota. They're not

[3:14:59] standing up for what's happening

[3:15:01] over here when things are

[3:15:04] happening in our immediate

[3:15:07] communities. They're not saying

[3:15:11] do you sell that cup to a girl

[3:15:13] in north minneapolis? If so, I

[3:15:18] am not sure I want to buy it. No

[3:15:19] one is saying that but us and

[3:15:22] that's cky. When we have

[3:15:23] serious things at stake here

[3:15:24] that we're trying to work on to

[3:15:27] build imbetterment for our

[3:15:30] community and ourselves. Drones

[3:15:36] don't shoot at people unless

[3:15:39] they are armed with a weapon.

[3:15:41] these ones aren't. They're not

[3:15:44] reading your text messages, but

[3:15:46] your phone does. They're not

[3:15:48] listening to your conversations

[3:15:52] unless they're armed with audio.

[3:15:57] they're going to report on

[3:16:00] incident. That's all they're

[3:16:02] doing to say if the coast is

[3:16:05] clear so emergency officials

[3:16:08] like the fire department can

[3:16:10] pull up because they can't do

[3:16:12] that until the coast is clear,

[3:16:16] until they know it's an all

[3:16:20] clear, to save someone's life.

[3:16:21] that's it. I'm just asking for

[3:16:24] lifesaving opportunities. I

[3:16:30] don't understand why that is

[3:16:32] such a challenging thing to

[3:16:35] think about. Maybe until it's

[3:16:37] you and you need a lifesaving

[3:16:39] measure, you don't think about

[3:16:41] what could have been done in

[3:16:44] that immediate moment to save

[3:16:49] your life, t prevent something

[3:16:51] from happening, to go one step

[3:16:55] further. I know you can heckle

[3:16:57] and all of those things and it's

[3:17:00] fine and cool. At the end of the

[3:17:01] day, there are people in my

[3:17:05] community who are asking for

[3:17:06] these things. There are people

[3:17:14] in my community who are opposed

[3:17:15] to it. There are people who are

[3:17:18] opposed to a lot of things too.

[3:17:21] it's a test. It's to figure out,

[3:17:24] it's research. The biggest thing

[3:17:31] that is interesting to me in my

[3:17:33] research with skydio is that

[3:17:35] their drones are pretty weak.

[3:17:36] actually, the drones that you

[3:17:38] have at the minneapolis police

[3:17:40] department are alleged to be a

[3:17:43] lot better than skydio's drones.

[3:17:46] so we're getting a washed out

[3:17:50] version right now. I don't know

[3:17:55] where you got the versions you

[3:17:57] have. Why aren't we using those?

[3:17:59] » I'll speak to that.

[3:18:05] » Council member payne and

[3:18:07] council member warren, the

[3:18:08] reason why we're not going with

[3:18:09] our current manufacturer of

[3:18:11] drones is because a few years

[3:18:13] ago, the federal government came

[3:18:15] up with basically an act through

[3:18:18] the nda. Because of this

[3:18:20] authorization act, it basically

[3:18:23] questioned our current fleet of

[3:18:24] drones right now. We utilize dgi

[3:18:28] drones and the federal

[3:18:29] government is basically saying

[3:18:30] they want to put a stoppage on

[3:18:32] fcc licenses. So for those who

[3:18:34] are not aware, every drone,

[3:18:37] whenever they come through

[3:18:38] customs, gets provided an fcc

[3:18:41] license. Because the government

[3:18:44] has questioned that our current

[3:18:46] fleet of drones, which is dgi

[3:18:49] has potential security concerns,

[3:18:51] they put a stoppage on fcc

[3:18:54] licenses for dgi products.

[3:18:57] that's why we're opting to go

[3:18:58] with more nda compliant drones,

[3:19:02] which are acknowledge to be more

[3:19:03] safe by the federal government.

[3:19:04] » So the drones that you

[3:19:06] currently are using are far more

[3:19:08] dangerous than these drones?

[3:19:11] allegedly.

[3:19:13] » Allegedly.

[3:19:15] [laughter].

[3:19:15] » Okay. Well, we are getting a

[3:19:18] knock off. Heck, let's try the

[3:19:20] knock off for 75 days. I will

[3:19:22] take the knock off for 75 days.

[3:19:26] thank you.

[3:19:28] » Council member stevenson.

[3:19:29] » Knock off for 75 days, that

[3:19:32] sounds great. I want to talk

[3:19:34] about the context that we're

[3:19:36] considering this in. I have a

[3:19:37] few different things, so bear

[3:19:39] with me. The first is this

[3:19:42] morning we heard honorary

[3:19:43] resolution about the 250th

[3:19:45] anniversary of the declaration

[3:19:48] of independence. So, it got me

[3:19:49] thinking a little bit about our

[3:19:51] founding documents. So I just

[3:19:52] want to read the 4th amendment.

[3:19:54] the right of the people to be

[3:19:56] secure I their persons, houses,

[3:19:58] papers, and effects against

[3:20:00] unreasonable searches and

[3:20:02] seizures shall not be violated

[3:20:04] and no warrant shall issue but

[3:20:06] upon pbable cause supported by

[3:20:07] oath or affirmation and

[3:20:09] particularly describing the

[3:20:10] place to be searched and the

[3:20:12] persons or things to be seized.

[3:20:15] while the courts may not have

[3:20:18] found skydio and surveillance

[3:20:19] drones as explicitly illegal to

[3:20:22] me, it strikes me as

[3:20:25] un-american. This is not within

[3:20:26] our culture. This is not within

[3:20:28] our tradition to allow this kind

[3:20:34] of surveillance and it rubs me

[3:20:35] the wrong way and it rubs a

[3:20:38] great, great numberf might

[3:20:40] constituents the wrong way. Cou

[3:20:43] clearly laid o the level of

[3:20:45] surveillance that we're under

[3:20:47] now and how disturbing it is. It

[3:20:50] is disturbing that amazon is

[3:20:53] nstantly listening to you.

[3:20:54] it's disturbing that I'll have a

[3:20:59] conversation with my partner ab

[3:21:02] children and then get baby ads

[3:21:05] moments lar. That's

[3:21:07] disturbing. It's disturbing that

[3:21:10] ice was able to use cameras in

[3:21:12] our city to follow us during

[3:21:15] this recent, very recent

[3:21:20] occupation to report, brutalize,

[3:21:22] and murder our anybodies. --

[3:21:27] neighbors. I don't think we

[3:21:28] should add to that problem. So

[3:21:30] what context are we considering

[3:21:32] this in? In the context of

[3:21:34] minneapolis in 2026. In

[3:21:38] minneapolis 2026, the federal

[3:21:38] government came in and occupied

[3:21:41] our city, they hijacked our

[3:21:46] public safety systems, and used

[3:21:48] that information to steal our

[3:21:50] neighbors and murder other

[3:21:51] neighbors. I believe it's naive

[3:21:54] to think that ice won't get

[3:21:56] access to the data from skydio.

[3:21:58] I can't tell you ectly how

[3:21:59] they would get it. It just seems

[3:22:03] very obvious that they would get

[3:22:05] it, particularly in light of the

[3:22:07] recent data breach out of san

[3:22:08] francisco, I believe. Lastly,

[3:22:12] again, we are considering this

[3:22:13] in the context of a place and

[3:22:19] time. Skydio has helped

[3:22:20] prosecute a genocide in gaza.

[3:22:24] that alone, we're talking about

[3:22:26] innocent lives and I don't think

[3:22:31] we suld be party to an

[3:22:34] oration, to a company that says

[3:22:35] their technology used to

[3:22:37] prosecute genocide is fine with

[3:22:40] them. So each of these levels of

[3:22:42] context alone frankly is enough

[3:22:44] for me. I have to be fully

[3:22:47] honest with my constituents.

[3:22:48] when this first came up, there

[3:22:52] was some speculation on whether

[3:22:53] it would be used to catch people

[3:22:55] doing the smash and grabs that

[3:22:58] we experience and all across the

[3:22:59] city. At the time, it was a lot

[3:23:01] in south minneapolis. So I was

[3:23:04] actually really considering

[3:23:05] this. I was thinking maybe this

[3:23:07] is a good idea. When we listen

[3:23:09] to the context that we' in,

[3:23:12] the context of an american

[3:23:13] tradition of freedom from

[3:23:15] government repression that is so

[3:23:17] under threat right now. The

[3:23:18] context of a federal occupation

[3:23:21] and the lack of data security,

[3:23:25] and the real threat that there

[3:23:28] will be an additional federal

[3:23:29] occupation, whether around our

[3:23:31] electionsr another surge to

[3:23:32] steal more of our neighbors and

[3:23:34] the context that the company

[3:23:35] that we'reanting to do

[3:23:39] buness with parents in

[3:23:40] genocide. These things. So I

[3:23:43] cannot support this. I won't

[3:23:45] support it. Thank you.

[3:23:47] » Council member woley.

[3:23:51] » Thank you, president payne. I

[3:23:51] just wanted to share something

[3:23:55] that council member warren

[3:23:56] mentioned that one of the things

[3:23:58] we need to consider is y know,

[3:24:00] when we're sidciting other

[3:24:05] countries and other demographics

[3:24:07] for our reason of not wanting to

[3:24:09] enter into contracts with

[3:24:12] questionable governments and

[3:24:14] entities when they don't show up

[3:24:15] for us. I just had to sha my

[3:24:18] own testimony that contrasts

[3:24:20] that. In 2020, when george floyd

[3:24:24] was killed, thousands of us were

[3:24:29] in the streets being tear gassed

[3:24:32] by the minneapolis police

[3:24:35] department, I recall palestinian

[3:24:37] organizers reaching out and

[3:24:40] organizing workshops for those

[3:24:41] of us, black folks to learn how

[3:24:44] we could take care of each other

[3:24:47] when we were being tear gassed,

[3:24:49] how to treat munition wounds,

[3:24:52] and all sorts of things because

[3:24:53] those are the things they

[3:24:55] experienced day after day even

[3:24:58] more while living under

[3:25:00] apartheid conditions. So I don't

[3:25:01] have that experience. I remember

[3:25:04] seeing even under those

[3:25:06] apartheid and segregated

[3:25:08] conditions, they used the wall

[3:25:09] that the state of israel has

[3:25:11] used as a barrier to confine

[3:25:14] them to substandard conditions,

[3:25:17] even in those moments of us

[3:25:21] exper

[3:25:22] experiencing one of the most

[3:25:25] gravest trajdyes that this city

[3:25:28] has seen next to the federal

[3:25:30] occupation. They painted murals

[3:25:32] of george floyd and so many

[3:25:34] pictures of minneapolis in

[3:25:36] solidarity with us and made the

[3:25:39] connection of the over-policing

[3:25:41] because many of our law

[3:25:42] enforcement agencies are

[3:25:44] alongside the idf, made the

[3:25:46] connections to say we know the

[3:25:48] injustice and abuses we suffer

[3:25:50] here and by the hands of a

[3:25:54] fascist state of israel, we know

[3:25:56] you are experiencing that under

[3:25:57] your racist policing system as

[3:25:59] well. For me, that is the reason

[3:26:02] why I think of those folks when

[3:26:05] I brought the ceasefire

[3:26:07] resolution, where we explicitly

[3:26:10] named as part of that resolution

[3:26:12] that we would not enter into

[3:26:15] contracts or agreements that

[3:26:16] help to fund and support the

[3:26:18] genocide in gaza. This is

[3:26:20] literally one of the moments

[3:26:21] where we get to act in alignment

[3:26:24] with that resolution we passed

[3:26:27] and when may frey vetoed it. I

[3:26:31] nnot resonate with that, that

[3:26:35] sentiment in my experience.

[3:26:37] also, I wanted to name the

[3:26:40] opposition is not rooted in a

[3:26:43] vocal minority. We had in our

[3:26:52] public health, safety, and

[3:26:52] equity committee received over

[3:26:57] 300 petition signatures, not by

[3:26:58] my residents, in ward 2, not by

[3:27:02] ward 9, all ward 4 and 5, north

[3:27:04] minneapolis residents. These

[3:27:09] petitions have, and I will

[3:27:10] forward them if they are not

[3:27:12] entered into the record, into

[3:27:14] our file so they can be recorded

[3:27:16] to sw who was speaking out

[3:27:20] about this pilot long before we

[3:27:22] consered it and while we were

[3:27:23] considering it in committee. I

[3:27:26] wanted to name in terms of when

[3:27:28] I am thinking of my votes, I

[3:27:30] cannot say other countries,

[3:27:32] other demographics who have been

[3:27:35] opposed, who know what it feels

[3:27:40] conditions, why they didn't show

[3:27:41] up for me. That has not been my

[3:27:43] experience. I also am grateful

[3:27:45] for those north minneapolis

[3:27:47] residents who did come forward

[3:27:48] and shared their opposition when

[3:27:50] they are being named as rational

[3:27:52] for moving this forward. So, I

[3:27:57] just wanted to share that before

[3:27:59] we move into further discussion

[3:28:00] and vote, but yeah. That's all.

[3:28:06] » Council member vetaw.

[3:28:08] » Thank you, president payne.

[3:28:09] so, I am aware that there were

[3:28:11] some north minneapolis residents

[3:28:13] who came here, along certainly

[3:28:15] people from other parts of the

[3:28:17] city to speak against this. I

[3:28:24] want to be clear here that there

[3:28:24] are residents, there are

[3:28:26] business owners, there are

[3:28:27] business owners of north

[3:28:28] minneapolis who are certainly

[3:28:30] okay with this pilot project. We

[3:28:32] would not be moving forward had

[3:28:36] we known that the north side was

[3:28:38] completely against this.

[3:28:39] actually, this has been a long

[3:28:42] time coming and this could have

[3:28:46] been launched in several police

[3:28:48] precincts. The north side

[3:28:49] council member just decided that

[3:28:51] we would be the ones brave

[3:28:52] enough to bring this forward

[3:28:56] because we knew this is what was

[3:28:57] going to happen. So, I am doing

[3:28:59] this on behalf of my

[3:29:03] constituents. Cleagues, I

[3:29:04] listened carefully to your

[3:29:06] concerns and reasons and many of

[3:29:07] you are going to vote no. I keep

[3:29:10] coming back to the same

[3:29:12] question, how am I going to

[3:29:14] explain this decision to the

[3:29:15] people I represent? How am I

[3:29:18] explain to the residents that

[3:29:19] call my office every day, often

[3:29:21] multiple times with concerns

[3:29:23] that this program could help

[3:29:25] address, that we are choosing to

[3:29:28] not even give a chance, that my

[3:29:31] colleagues are focused on events

[3:29:33] halfway around the world and not

[3:29:34] the needs of every day people

[3:29:35] he in minneapolis who elected

[3:29:41] u

[3:29:41] us, who elect us to serve. I

[3:29:43] cannot in good conscious give

[3:29:45] them the answer we once again

[3:29:48] said no. The objection to

[3:29:53] another country, around the

[3:29:54] world, or halfway across the

[3:29:56] world, neither changes the

[3:29:57] question before us. The question

[3:29:59] before us is how minneapolis

[3:30:00] will use this technology under

[3:30:02] minnesota state law and

[3:30:04] minneapolis policies with

[3:30:06] minneapolis retaining the data,

[3:30:08] public transparency, and council

[3:30:11] oversight. That is the decision

[3:30:13] we're making today. I want to be

[3:30:20] able to tell the grandmother

[3:30:22] that wasarjacked taking her

[3:30:24] kids to school in the morning

[3:30:26] that we care about her. I want

[3:30:28] to tell the father whose

[3:30:30] autistic child who keeps leaving

[3:30:32] the house to go to hisavorite

[3:30:34] park in the northeast that our

[3:30:36] lleagues care about them. I

[3:30:38] want to tell the people that

[3:30:41] hear gunshots every day, and

[3:30:43] have bulleted holes in tha

[3:30:45] homes and cars that my

[3:30:47] collgues care about them. I

[3:30:48] want to tell the blind couple

[3:30:49] who lives in the mckinley

[3:30:51] neighborhood, who are

[3:30:52] experiencing a medical emergency

[3:30:54] that my colleagues care about

[3:30:56] them. I want to tell the

[3:30:58] business owners who are spending

[3:31:02] $5,000 to $25,000 every month to

[3:31:04] keep removing illegal dumping

[3:31:07] and garbage from their parking

[3:31:09] lot while already struggling to

[3:31:11] keep their doors open that my

[3:31:14] colleagues care about them. I

[3:31:15] want to tell the people in

[3:31:18] victory that call 9-1-1 because

[3:31:19] they see a suspicious person in

[3:31:21] the neighborhood, possibly with

[3:31:23] a weapon that my colleagues care

[3:31:25] about them. I want to tell the

[3:31:28] family in shingle creek who are

[3:31:29] watching their car get stolen

[3:31:31] while they're sitting at the

[3:31:32] darren -- dinner table that my

[3:31:36] colleagues care about them. I

[3:31:38] want to tell the woman that

[3:31:39] moved from the cleveland

[3:31:41] neighborhood from ecuador who

[3:31:43] was robbed at gunpoint while

[3:31:46] waiting at the bus stop that my

[3:31:49] colleagues care about her. What

[3:31:50] I am asking you colleagues is

[3:31:52] simple, give this a chance. I'm

[3:31:53] asking you to acknowledge the

[3:31:55] challenges my community faces to

[3:31:58] recognize the voices of

[3:31:59] residents I represent and to

[3:32:00] give them the opportunity to see

[3:32:04] if this solution can make a

[3:32:07] difference. At its core, this is

[3:32:09] a request to try, to put our

[3:32:11] residents first, test whether

[3:32:13] it's possible and let the

[3:32:14] results guide us. I am not in no

[3:32:16] way asking you to make a

[3:32:17] decision on this, a final

[3:32:20] decision. I'm asking for a

[3:32:21] chance to try. I am asking for

[3:32:23] you to take all the work that

[3:32:25] we've done for 2.5 years, all

[3:32:27] the calls that we gotten, that

[3:32:30] we know could have been

[3:32:36] answered, all the people that

[3:32:37] wished someone could have showed

[3:32:39] up or something would happen

[3:32:40] when they were at their worst.

[3:32:44] colleagues, I'm asking for your

[3:32:46] support.

[3:32:47] » Vice president osman.

[3:32:47] » I want to thank you guys for

[3:32:50] being patient and listening to

[3:33:01] us. I support technology that

[3:33:04] will help community safety,

[3:33:06] including drones. I would say go

[3:33:08] back to your leadership and come

[3:33:10] up with better plan other than

[3:33:14] skydio. It's as simple as that

[3:33:23] for me. It's effected by my

[3:33:27] community here, so I really want

[3:33:28] to take the time and say I spoke

[3:33:31] to the mpd leadership to express

[3:33:32] my stand. I do support public

[3:33:35] safety. I support council

[3:33:37] members who really want to do

[3:33:39] something for their

[3:33:40] neighborhoods. I just can't do

[3:33:44] this -- we can't -- we just

[3:33:46] can't do this based on the

[3:33:47] safety side of it. I think there

[3:33:49] are so many other ways that we

[3:33:51] can secure the safety of our

[3:33:54] residents and dealing with

[3:33:58] companies that have, you know, a

[3:33:59] lot of ethical questions is

[3:34:03] there. There was an interview, a

[3:34:05] quote, you can do a little

[3:34:06] research. That's how I studied

[3:34:09] it. There is a quote from the

[3:34:12] ceo that said something about

[3:34:16] the limit of ethics of

[3:34:21] surveillance, he refused to

[3:34:27] limit ethical surveillance and

[3:34:29] companies like that should not

[3:34:31] be dealing with the city of

[3:34:33] minneapolis. Again, please come

[3:34:35] back. I'm happy to support

[3:34:39] technology that can support but

[3:34:42] not this way. Thank you again.

[3:34:46] » Council member stevenson.

[3:34:49] » Thank you, mr. President. I

[3:34:51] wanted to clarify that as I am

[3:34:53] making my decision, I am not

[3:34:57] lost halfway around the world.

[3:34:58] I'm in the central neighborhood

[3:35:00] whe dads were dragged out of

[3:35:02] the housend dragged into I

[3:35:04] detention facilities. In that

[3:35:09] neighborhood where green

[3:35:11] central, students were forced to

[3:35:13] stay home and they lived under

[3:35:16] toxic fear for months. In my

[3:35:18] neighborhood, and in the central

[3:35:21] neighborhood, where renee good

[3:35:23] was murdered by our government,

[3:35:25] and where my constituent alex

[3:35:27] pretti was executed for loving

[3:35:29] his neighbor. So when I make my

[3:35:32] decision, I am rooted deeply in

[3:35:35] my community, with my ward, and

[3:35:39] my constituents.

[3:35:40] » Seeing no one else in queue,

[3:35:43] I don't believe there is a

[3:35:44] motion on the table. Is there a

[3:35:46] motion for this item?

[3:35:48] » So moved.

[3:35:54] » I'll second.

[3:35:56] » The clerk -- what are you

[3:35:58] moving? Toapprove?

[3:35:59] » To approve, yes.

[3:36:02] » Seconded. The clerk will call

[3:36:04] the roll.

[3:36:06] » Council member chavez.

[3:36:07] » No.

[3:36:08] » Council member warren.

[3:36:09] » Aye.

[3:36:10] » Council member shaffer.

[3:36:11] » Aye.

[3:36:12] » Council member wonsley.

[3:36:12] » Nay.

[3:36:13] » Council member whiting.

[3:36:14] » Aye.

[3:36:14] » Council member chowdhury.

[3:36:16] » No.

[3:36:16] » Council member stevenson.

[3:36:17] » No.

[3:36:18] » Council member rainville.

[3:36:19] » Aye.

[3:36:20] » Council member vetaw.

[3:36:21] » Aye.

[3:36:21] » Council member palmisano.

[3:36:23] » Aye.

[3:36:24] » Vice president osman.

[3:36:25] » No.

[3:36:26] » President payn

[3:36:27] » Nay.

[3:36:28] » There are 6 ayes and 6 nays.

[3:36:31] » That motion fas.

[3:36:34] [appl

[3:36:47] [applause].

[3:36:47] [gav

[3:36:51] [gavel].

[3:36:51] » Please, we need to continue

[3:36:52] our business. Mr. Clerk,

[3:36:59] guidance. Is it done? We're

[3:37:02] done?

[3:37:02] » Mr. President, it would be an

[3:37:04] orde for a motion to delete

[3:37:06] from the agenda if the council

[3:37:08] wishes to remove this from

[3:37:10] consideration.

[3:37:11] » So moved. We want to delete

[3:37:15] it.

[3:37:15] » Is it seconded?

[3:37:16] » Second.

[3:37:17] » The clerk will call the roll.

[3:37:22] » Council membechavez.

[3:37:23] » Aye.

[3:37:23] » Council member warren.

[3:37:25] » No.

[3:37:25] » Council member shaffer.

[3:37:26] » No.

[3:37:28] » Council member wonsley.

[3:37:28] » Aye.

[3:37:29] » Council member whiting.

[3:37:30] » Just a quick question clerk,

[3:37:32] I'm confused by the process

[3:37:35] here. Because it stays because

[3:37:36] we don't have a dispositive

[3:37:39] action? I see. Okay. Nay.

[3:37:45] » Council member chowdhury.

[3:37:47] » Aye.

[3:37:48] » Council member stevenson.

[3:37:49] » Aye.

[3:37:50] » Council member rainville.

[3:37:51] » No.

[3:37:52] » Council member vetaw.

[3:37:54] » No.

[3:37:54] » Council member palmisano.

[3:37:56] » No.

[3:37:57] » Vice president osman.

[3:37:58] » Aye.

[3:37:59] » President payne.

[3:37:59] » Aye.

[3:38:00] » There are 6 ayes and 6 nays.

[3:38:03] » That motion fails. I don't

[3:38:05] think we're going to --

[3:38:08] » We have an impasse here.

[3:38:11] » So council member chavez.

[3:38:12] » Council president payne, I

[3:38:13] have a question. There was a

[3:38:15] legislative directive or motion

[3:38:18] that council member wonsley

[3:38:19] brought before where the vote

[3:38:21] was 6-6 abstain and that was

[3:38:24] about asking, related to the

[3:38:25] commissioner of public safety.

[3:38:26] there was no dispositive motion,

[3:38:30] that item was never brought

[3:38:31] forward at the following council

[3:38:33] meeting, so what makes that

[3:38:35] different from this if this

[3:38:37] already failed and why not a

[3:38:38] previous item brought to our

[3:38:40] agenda as a 6-6 vote? What's the

[3:38:43] difference here?

[3:38:45] » Mr. President, I am not sure

[3:38:47] I understand the context. The

[3:38:49] contract hasn't been approved,

[3:38:50] it wasn't approved, it wldn't

[3:38:52] deleted from your agenda. The

[3:38:53] staff could bring a different

[3:38:55] proposal forward on the same

[3:38:56] matter of a contract for use of

[3:38:59] drones, clearly. They could do

[3:39:02] from the agenda as I tried to

[3:39:05] explain it before is closing out

[3:39:06] the file and limbs, procedurally

[3:39:09] taking it off the anda and

[3:39:11] moving that. That simply

[3:39:13] closes the file on the issue.

[3:39:15] the staff can bring a new

[3:39:18] proposal with a different

[3:39:19] company for the use of drones

[3:39:21] for the same purpose.

[3:39:22] » If there is no action by

[3:39:24] council today, then it's off the

[3:39:25] agenda anyway, correct?

[3:39:27] » This particular item will not

[3:39:30] come back. The motion to delete

[3:39:32] from the agenda is to say with

[3:39:35] denitive assuredness that the

[3:39:37] item is done.

[3:39:39] » The 6-6 vote makes it so this

[3:39:40] item is not before us unless

[3:39:42] staff resubmits.

[3:39:44] » The failure to pass this item

[3:39:47] means that the particular item

[3:39:50] as it was brought forward with

[3:39:52] that particular proposal is

[3:39:54] dead.

[3:39:54] » Okay, thank you.

[3:39:58] » That completes the reports of

[3:39:59] our standingcommittees. I did

[3:40:02] get a request for a lunch. We

[3:40:04] cod power through. I want to

[3:40:06] get a sense from the body.

[3:40:09] » Let's go. Let's keep going.

[3:40:11] » Let's be efficient. The next

[3:40:14] order of business, we have four

[3:40:18] notices today. First council

[3:40:19] member chavez, council member

[3:40:19] wonsley, council member warren,

[3:40:20] and I give notice of intent to

[3:40:21] introduce at the next regular

[3:40:23] meeting the subject matter of an

[3:40:25] ordinance amending the liquor

[3:40:27] and beer code, requiring any

[3:40:31] license premises. For the second

[3:40:35] idea, shaft gives five ordinance

[3:40:39] introductions in five separate

[3:40:40] titles of the code related to

[3:40:41] noise regulations, to remove

[3:40:43] relevant content, clarify

[3:40:48] language, regulating the sound

[3:40:50] of motion sensor devices on

[3:40:52] private property, and correcting

[3:40:54] associated reference numbers.

[3:40:56] third, council member shaffer

[3:40:57] and council member rainville

[3:40:58] give notice of intent to

[3:40:59] introduce at the next regular

[3:41:00] meeting the subject matter of an

[3:41:02] ordinance amendmenteding the

[3:41:04] license and business regulation

[3:41:05] code amending repealing, and

[3:41:08] adding provisions related to

[3:41:09] rental halls and places of

[3:41:13] entertainment, allowing for the

[3:41:14] hosting of both public and

[3:41:15] private events. Finally council

[3:41:18] member wonsley, council member

[3:41:19] chavez, council member whiting,

[3:41:20] and council member chowdhury

[3:41:21] give notice of intent to

[3:41:22] introduce at the next regular

[3:41:23] meeting the subject matter of an

[3:41:25] ordinance amending the animal

[3:41:27] care and control code, moving

[3:41:30] restrictions on pet ownerships

[3:41:31] due to prior convictions on

[3:41:34] certain felonies. No further

[3:41:37] action is required at this time.

[3:41:39] council member stevenson.

[3:41:40] » I just wanted to ask if I

[3:41:43] could be an author for the noise

[3:41:45] ordinance.

[3:41:46] » Yes, if the clerks could note

[3:41:47] that. The next order of business

[3:41:49] is t introduction and referral

[3:41:50] calendar. We have one item

[3:41:53] today. Council member osman and

[3:41:54] council member wonsley move to

[3:41:54] introduce the subject matter of

[3:41:56] an ordinance amending the

[3:41:57] license and business regulations

[3:41:59] code for the first reading and

[3:42:01] referral for the business

[3:42:02] housing and zoning committee,

[3:42:04] adding a chapter 270, licensing

[3:42:07] requirents, relating to bail,

[3:42:08] fugitive recovery, referred to

[3:42:10] as bounty hunters. May I have a

[3:42:13] motion to approve this

[3:42:15] introduction.

[3:42:15] » Moved.

[3:42:16] » Second.

[3:42:16] » The clerk will call the roll

[3:42:18] » Council member chowdhury.

[3:42:20] » I would like to be added to

[3:42:29] the queue, not the queue, as an

[3:42:34] author. It's been a long

[3:42:37] meeting. We do need lunch.

[3:42:39] » The clerks have noted that.

[3:42:41] will the please cl the roll.

[3:42:45] » Council member chowdhury.

[3:42:46] » Aye.

[3:42:48] » Council member stevenson.

[3:42:48] » Aye.

[3:42:49] » Council member rainville.

[3:42:50] » Aye.

[3:42:50] » Council member vetaw.

[3:42:54] » Is absent. Council member

[3:42:58] palmi

[3:42:58] palmisano.

[3:42:59] » There are 11 ayes.

[3:43:01] » That motion carries. The next

[3:43:03] order of business is

[3:43:04] resolutions. We have two

[3:43:06] resolutions on our agenda, one

[3:43:08] of which received a presentation

[3:43:09] at the beginning of our meeting.

[3:43:13] may I have a motion to adopt

[3:43:14] these resoluons.

[3:43:16] » Moved.

[3:43:16] » Second.

[3:43:16] » The clerk will call the roll

[3:43:18] » Council member chavez.

[3:43:19] » Aye.

[3:43:20] » Council member warren.

[3:43:21] » Aye.

[3:43:21] » Council member shaffer.

[3:43:22] » Aye.

[3:43:22] » Council member wonsley.

[3:43:23] » Aye.

[3:43:23] » Council member whiting.

[3:43:24] » Aye.

[3:43:25] » Council member chowdhury.

[3:43:27] » Aye.

[3:43:27] » Council member stevenson.

[3:43:29] » Aye.

[3:43:30] » Council member rainville.

[3:43:30] » Aye.

[3:43:30] council member vetaw.

[3:43:31] » Aye.

[3:43:32] » Council member palmisano.

[3:43:33] » Aye.

[3:43:33] » Vice president osman.

[3:43:34] » Aye.

[3:43:35] » President payne.

[3:43:36] » Aye.

[3:43:37] » There are 12 ayes.

[3:43:38] » That carries and that

[3:43:40] resolution is adopted.ur next

[3:43:42] order of businesss unfinished

[3:43:44] business.

[3:43:44] » Do we want to ask council

[3:43:46] member vetaw if she wants to be

[3:43:47] recorded on the introduction

[3:43:50] calendar?

[3:43:51] » Yes.

[3:43:51] » As an aye.

[3:43:52] » Aye, please.

[3:43:54] » Thank you.

[3:43:54] » Our next order of business is

[3:43:56] unfinished business. We have two

[3:43:58] items today. The first is

[3:44:00] considering the appeal about the

[3:44:07] heritage preservation commission

[3:44:09] to demolish the property known

[3:44:10] as the tyler street northeast

[3:44:12] john cookhouse. An individual

[3:44:14] historic landmark. This was

[3:44:16] postponed at our may 21st

[3:44:17] meeting to allow for a sale of

[3:44:19] the property. The sale is going

[3:44:21] through its final stages so

[3:44:22] after conversations with staff

[3:44:24] and the attorney's office, I

[3:44:25] will move to postpone this item

[3:44:27] two more cycles to our

[3:44:28] august 13th meeting. May I have

[3:44:31] a second.

[3:44:32] » Second.

[3:44:32] » The clerk will call the roll.

[3:44:34] » Council member chavez.

[3:44:35] » Aye.

[3:44:36] » Council member warren.

[3:44:36] » Aye.

[3:44:37] » Council member shaffer.

[3:44:38] » Aye.

[3:44:39] » Council member wonsley.

[3:44:40] » Aye.

[3:44:40] » Council member whiting.

[3:44:41] » Aye.

[3:44:41] » Council member chowdhury.

[3:44:43] » Aye.

[3:44:43] » Council member stevenson.

[3:44:45] » Aye.

[3:44:45] » Council member rainville.

[3:44:46] » Aye.

[3:44:46] » Council member vetaw.

[3:44:47] » Aye.

[3:44:48] » Counc member palmisano.

[3:44:49] » Aye.

[3:44:50] » Vice president osman.

[3:44:51] » Aye.

[3:44:51] » President payne.

[3:44:52] » Aye.

[3:44:53] » There are 12 ayes.

[3:44:54] » That carries. That is

[3:44:57] adopted. The next item is the

[3:44:59] automatic reconsideration of the

[3:45:00] mayor's veto of the appointment

[3:45:03] of jim to the minnesota ballpark

[3:45:05] authority. I will ask the clerk

[3:45:07] to explain our next steps.

[3:45:09] » Mr. President, the mayor did

[3:45:11] veto with his objections in

[3:45:12] writing what was council action

[3:45:14] number 2026a450, the appointmen

[3:45:19] authority found in file

[3:45:23] 2026-667, as provided in the

[3:45:23] city charter, section 4.4c3 and

[3:45:27] under council rule 7.8 an act

[3:45:29] that is vetoed by the mayor's

[3:45:31] rern for automatic

[3:45:34] reconsideration at the next

[3:45:36] meeting and the act is placed

[3:45:37] before this body in the same

[3:45:39] form as it was originally

[3:45:41] passed. The immediate question

[3:45:41] before the council is as

[3:45:43] followed, shall the decision of

[3:45:44] the city council stand,

[3:45:46] notwithstanding the veto of the

[3:45:47] mayor. If at least two-thirds of

[3:45:49] the council votes in the

[3:45:50] affirmative on that motion, then

[3:45:52] the mayor's veto I overwritten

[3:45:57] and the original act is passed.

[3:45:58] that means an override requires

[3:46:02] 9 affirmative votes, otherwise

[3:46:03] the mayor's veto is sustained

[3:46:05] and the prior action is

[3:46:06] defeated. To be clear, all

[3:46:08] council members, a yes vote on

[3:46:11] reconsideration is a vote to

[3:46:12] override the veto and approve

[3:46:14] the original act. A no vote is a

[3:46:16] vote to sustain the mayor's

[3:46:18] veto. With that mr. President, I

[3:46:19] am ready to call the roll on the

[3:46:20] motion to reconsider.

[3:46:22] » So to summarize, an aye vote

[3:46:24] is a vote to override the veto.

[3:46:27] I will ask the clerk to call the

[3:46:31] roll.

[3:46:31] » Council member chavez.

[3:46:33] » Aye.

[3:46:33] » Council member warren.

[3:46:34] » No.

[3:46:35] » Council member shaffer.

[3:46:36] » No.

[3:46:37] » Council member wonsley.

[3:46:38] » Aye.

[3:46:38] » Cncil member whing.

[3:46:40] » No.

[3:46:40] » Council member chowdhury.

[3:46:42] » Aye.

[3:46:42] » Council member evenson.

[3:46:44] » Aye.

[3:46:45] » Council member rainville.

[3:46:46] » No.

[3:46:47] » Council member vetaw.

[3:46:48] » No.

[3:46:48] » Council member palmisano.

[3:46:49] » No.

[3:46:51] » Vice president osman.

[3:46:52] » Aye.

[3:46:54] » President payne.

[3:46:55] » Aye.

[3:46:56] » There are 6 ayes and 6 nays.

[3:46:58] » That motion fails and the

[3:46:59] mayor's veto is sustained. The

[3:47:01] appointment of jim to the

[3:47:03] minnesota ballpark authority

[3:47:05] appointment is not adopted.

[3:47:06] finally we have the order of

[3:47:08] announcements. Are there any

[3:47:12] announcements? Going once.

[3:47:15] counl member chavez.

[3:47:16] » Thank you. I just wanted to

[3:47:18] let the public know sincee

[3:47:20] have folks from -- can you hear

[3:47:23] me?

[3:47:23] » Uh-huh.

[3:47:24] » Yeah, okay. I wanted to let

[3:47:27] the folks hear from target

[3:47:29] fieldworkers that the resolution

[3:47:31] didn't pass authored by council

[3:47:36] member wonsley.

[3:47:37] » Council member warren.

[3:47:37] » I just wanted to say, give a

[3:47:41] shout-out to council member

[3:47:42] shaffer and her team for

[3:47:44] organization -- organizing the

[3:47:47] event this morning. It was great

[3:47:50] and an honor to have my daughter

[3:47:52] a part of that. So, I just

[3:47:54] wanted to say that lots of

[3:47:56] festivities and funool stuff

[3:47:58] happening in enabneighborhoods,

[3:48:01] outside, be outside, but take

[3:48:04] care of yourself. The air equal

[3:48:07] is bad, drink water, mind your

[3:48:09] busiss if you have to, which

[3:48:11] is a fun and safe thing to do,

[3:48:12] and relax. Just eat some ice

[3:48:14] cream and just relax. Yeah, stay

[3:48:19] cool.

[3:48:19] » Council member shaffer.

[3:48:20] yeah, I just wanted to

[3:48:21] meion to my colleagues, many

[3:48:23] of you co-authors that the

[3:48:25] original idea outlined for data

[3:48:27] center regulations will be

[3:48:31] coming forward to the committee

[3:48:33] of the whole at the planning

[3:48:36] commission this afternoon.

[3:48:37] » Council member whiting.

[3:48:38] » Thank you, president payne. I

[3:48:38] sent all of you an e-mail. You

[3:48:41] are all cordially invited to the

[3:48:46] second annual cookout. We will

[3:48:47] have free food, bounce houses,

[3:48:49] all the fun things. Invite your

[3:48:51] friends, invite your family,

[3:48:55] inviolent your aunty and

[3:48:57] neighbors.

[3:48:57] » Time and date?

[3:48:59] » August 8t from noon to 4:00.

[3:49:03] saturday.

[3:49:04] » Where?

[3:49:06] » Washburn high school.

[3:49:07] » Great. With th, we

[3:49:09] completed o business today

[3:49:10] withothing further to come

[3:49:11] before the council and without

[3:49:13] objection, this meeting is here

[3:49:15] by adjourned.

[3:49:16] [gavel].

City Council

Agenda

Transcript