[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.
[1:25:30] » 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].