Legislation Details

File #: RES 26-1399    Version: 1
Type: Resolution Status: Archived
In control: City Council
Final action: 9/9/2026
Title: Authorizing the Police Department to apply to the FY 2026 CPD Microgrants Program from the U.S. Department of Justice. (Laid over from September 2, 2026)
Sponsors: Rebecca Noecker
Attachments: 1. sppd-docked-drone-program-one-pager-2026, 2. 463.06 Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Deployment and Use REVISED 2.7.25, 3. Andrew Howard public comment, 4. Jake Gale public comment, 5. Christa Ernst public comment

title

Authorizing the Police Department to apply to the FY 2026 CPD Microgrants Program from the U.S. Department of Justice. (Laid over from September 2, 2026)

Body

 

WHEREAS, Chapter 10 of the Saint Paul City Charter recognizes the City Council’s authority over the budget and spending of the City of Saint Paul; and

 

WHEREAS, Chapter 86 of the Saint Paul Administrative Code requires all contracts be authorized by the Saint Paul City Council; and

 

WHEREAS, Section 86.12 of the Saint Paul Administrative Code requires City Council approval prior to submission of grant applications; and

 

WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Justice has invited proposals for grants from the FY 2026 Community Policing Development (CPD) Microgrants Program; and

 

WHEREAS, the grants are for a maximum of $200,000 with a grant term of up to 24 months, and would be used as partial funding for expansion of the SPPD’s Drones as First Responders program; and

 

WHEREAS, there is no required match of these funds by the City; and

 

WHEREAS, the Grants Division of the Office of Financial Services has reviewed and approved the Intent to Apply request; now, therefore, be it

 

RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council authorizes the Police Department to apply for the grants from the FY 2026 CPD Microgrants Program

Date NameDistrictOpinionCommentAction
9/9/2026 4:23 PMKG   We should be pushing back against this forced AI technology and prioritizing human contact instead. Flock cameras and drones are and will be used for surveillance under the guise of public safety but in reality this is the big brother state we have been warned about. Research proves they do not improve public safety. They erode trust. I will echo another respondent here and say that "as a resident of Ward 2, I am deeply disappointed in Council President Noecker for sponsoring this resolution and am frustrated that it was added to the consent agenda with no public hearing. I (strongly) urge the Council to vote against this". +1 2
9/8/2026 7:52 PMKristen Elliott Against Absolutely against any AI based surveillance system. It is often faulty, an invasion of our privacy to track and store data on everyone's movement, and it accelerates the climate crisis, which was recently declared as no longer able to avoid p***ing the 1.5 degree tipping point. We must radically vote against these programs and treat the cause, not the symptoms of crime. +2
9/7/2026 4:31 AMBrianne Reeves Against At last week's council meeting, the SPPD representative made it clear that the police department has, in fact, already put in the application for this grant without prior city council authorization. The submission for further drone resources is entirely unnecessary for the safety of our city. Moreover, we know that private companies involved in this level of surveillance have consistently FAILED to respect data privacy standards. The council should vote against this motion, forcing the department to rescind their application. +1
9/2/2026 7:03 PMMac Against This resolution is a slap in the face to every St. Paul resident who called, emailed, showed up at the City Council meeting last week, or encouraged neighbors to do the same to get the City Council to remove the SPPD Flock cameras and take steps to ban m*** surveillance tools in St. Paul. We don't want Flock cameras in our city, and we sure don't want drones either. The info do***ents attached to this agenda item state that drones will only be used for calls and that m*** surveillance is prohibited, but the same thing was said about Flock. There is not even close to enough oversight or auditing of these tools to even start to justify them, especially when research shows they don't actually improve public safety. As a resident of Ward 2, I am deeply disappointed in Council President Noecker for sponsoring this resolution and am frustrated that it was added to the consent agenda with no public hearing. I urge the Council to vote against this. +2
9/2/2026 6:00 PMErin Against I am opposed to St. Paul seeking DOJ funding for drones because accepting these dollars creates serious & avoidable safety risks for our community. DOJ grant language is vague enough to allow federal agencies to mandate access or operational control over any equipment purchased with their funds, including drones. Drones are increasingly being weaponized, used for surveillance of residents, & deployed as tools of deadly force, raising profound civil liberties and public-safety concerns. Relying on DOJ funding for this technology opens the door for DOJ authorities to determine how, when, and against whom these drones may be used—not our local community, and not under standards set by St. Paul. To protect residents from expanded surveillance, misuse, and escalating militarization, St. Paul must prioritize community safety and fully consider the long-term consequences of introducing technology that can be turned against the very people it is meant to protect. +2
9/2/2026 5:06 PMBob Goonin   I am opposed to this resolution. If you put yourself in the shoes of your immigrant residents who were (and still are) terrorized by ICE, that uses Skydio drones to surveil their neighborhoods, you would oppose this resolution. If you put yourself in the shoes of your Black and Indigenous residents whose neighborhoods are discriminated against by police and over-surveilled, you would oppose this resolution. +3
9/2/2026 2:22 PMJudy Rodriguez Against Vote against this. It’s an invasion of my rights. +3
9/2/2026 1:19 PMSJ Against The authorization for pursuing a microgrant that would be "used as partial funding for expansion of the SPPD’s Drones as First Responders program" is the antithesis of last weeks public overtures towards reduction of police m*** surveillance. The source of this funding also gives pause. Please always prioritize offering opportunities and community services, for instance libraries, over expansion of avenues towards broad surveillance of its people. +2
9/2/2026 11:57 AMAJ Against We do not want to live in a surveillance state, strongly against. +1
9/2/2026 3:01 AMML Against I am asking you to vote against authorizing the police department application to the DOJ CPB Microgrants Program. Especially given the Federal occupation and trauma inflicted on community members this past year, I urge you to approach surveillance technologies with deep skepticism; and to improve transparency so that the public is given an opportunity to understand and participate in decisions that affect civil rights, privacy and policing in our neighborhoods. +4
9/2/2026 1:58 AMJeffery Thole For I support St. Paul Police and funding for any tools they need to help control crime. -3
9/2/2026 1:38 AMLia A. Against Resident of St. Paul here. We do not need to be making defense contractors richer at the expense of ALL of our privacy. Please do better, council members. We are already distraught and traumatized as a community by the constant monitoring.
9/2/2026 1:20 AMJeffery Thole For I support funding our police and funding any tools to help them do therir jobs. -5
9/2/2026 12:30 AMFiona Carson Against I absolutely oppose seeking funds from the DOJ for more surveillance drones. We need to see the city's contract with Skydio NOW! +2
9/2/2026 12:26 AMAmanda Puente For I love this idea, way too much crime gets overlooked. I think it’s about time we all stop fearing m*** surveillance like we are not being monitored by our smart phones and internet activity. Like come on, this is not a sci-fi movie. I have small children that I want safe, I hope this is voted on with rational decision making and not influenced by the fear mongers. +1 -9
9/2/2026 12:08 AMLindsay Shimizu Against Please vote against this. We do not need more expensive military toys for m*** surveillance. Just another Shotspotter or Flock. We need more funding for proven solutions that work, like violence interruption programs and expanded social services in our schools and group homes. Frankly, I'm shocked Councilmember Noecker would sponsor this after just pushing for the cancellation of city contracts with Flock. +3
9/1/2026 11:22 PMStuart Orlowski For I am in support of seeking out this grant. I think drones can be a valuable tool for law enforcement +1 -9 4
9/1/2026 11:09 PMHeather Worthington Against Please do not vote in support of this funding for drones. Drones used by law enforcement present significant risks to civil liberties because they enable cheap, pervasive, and warrantless m*** surveillance that erodes traditional constitutional protections. Without strict legal boundaries, their widespread deployment threatens fundamental human rights, particularly under the First and Fourth Amendments. Thank you. +3
9/1/2026 10:48 PMRachel Osborne Against We don’t want to live in a surveillance state and I’m concerned that this is being considered - strongly against. +1
9/1/2026 10:14 PMJennifer Allen  Against Absolutely against. Additional surveillance is exactly the opposite of what is needed for Saint Paul or any community. Our children must be protected from being watched. Women must be protected from being watched. Our neighbors who are homeless do not deserved to watched by a drone. I believe that additional surveillance will increase civil unrest and distrust in our government and will absolutely influence and be evident in the ballot box. +2
9/1/2026 9:19 PMBrendan LaMagdeleine  Against Absolutely against!!! +1
9/1/2026 9:19 PMHayley Saccoman Against Absolutely not a good use of our funds. Let’s create better lives for the kids of Saint Paul. Not for heightening the surveillance state. +3
9/1/2026 8:50 PMKaren Shore Against Why are drones better for the public good than Flock cameras? More crime-prevention good could be done with the microgrant money through harm reduction, housing, and health services. Our spending shows our priorities and I am against surveillance as a priority. +4
9/1/2026 8:43 PMIan Dees Against Please do not authorize the use of a DoJ microgrant to add more surveillance to our community. I can understand the Police Department's desire to make their job easier through the use of this drone system, but the cost is a dramatically easier path for surveillance on innocent bystanders. If this tool is useful, I would encourage the Department to find solutions that do not send data to 3rd party companies where we lose control and jurisdiction. +2
9/1/2026 8:13 PMTR Against I am strongly and diametrically opposed to this resolution. I have rapidly increasing concerns over not only expansion in police presence and funding, especially in certain communities, but also the manner in which police use their powers. The catalyst for sending drones into a situation seems to be just about anything - any "threat to public safety" (real or otherwise) sets the stage for an unprecedented risk of pretextually sending in an arm of law enforcement into just about any place at any time. The risk of unchecked surveillance and unethical use of this technology is just too great. I have sincere concerns about Fourth Amendment violations, abuse of power, and using technology under the guise of "safety and efficiency" to mask the aforementioned concerns. This is a bad idea. It is a slippery slope. It is unnecessary and unwanted. It will deepen distrust of the community toward police. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. +7
9/1/2026 8:10 PMJennifer Thissen  Against Until and unless there are sufficient laws and regulations in place to appropriately manage the data collected, we need to not buy anything from the companies who are providing the technology. +1
9/1/2026 7:15 PM    The city council just stopped Flock cameras out of surveillance concerns. This does the opposite of that. Do not allow this cooperation or grant, it would only harm St. Paul citizens. +5
9/1/2026 6:59 PMBrianne Reeves Against The use of drones in policing, including for seemingly benign use, is an encroachment on our city's privacy rights. More importantly, it furthers the cause of overpolicing from a Department of Justice notorious for it and for a police department that has an already contentious relationship with the community. Absolutely not. +6
9/1/2026 5:54 PMKM Against We should not be living in a surveillance state. This goes too far. +7
9/1/2026 5:37 PMJeff White Against Skydio partners with ICE and CBP in providing data to them, and has partnered with Israel in supporting the genocide of Gaza. To try to slip this by one week after saying no to Flock, when many St. Paul residents treat the police with mistrust, after the police brought bulldozers to an encampment eviction after the city promised not to trash anyone's belongings further erodes public trust. We would do well to remember that Melissa Hortman might still be alive if police didn't rely on drone technology and did their jobs to protect and serve. These drones won't be used to protect the community. This contract should be canceled, not prolonged, in the interest of public trust. +4
9/1/2026 4:58 PMAM Against Placing this authorization on the consent agenda after publicly declaring concerns over surveillance immediately after the August 26th hearing on police surveillance, erodes public trust in this process especially when the grant in question is funded by the DOJ. Please take the necessary steps to remove this from consent and open it for public comment and discussion. +8
9/1/2026 4:51 PMErik Hoover Against After last week's hearing it should be abundantly clear to the council and especially Pres Noecker that m*** surveillance programs and technology should be matters for public discussion. Citizens have made it clear that we do not want AI-enabled, m***-surveillance technology including drones given the track record of abuse by law enforcement and outright lies and half-truths coming from the technology vendors themselves. And certainly not at a time when trust in law enforcement and local, state, and Federal government is already low and falling. +7
9/1/2026 4:44 PMKelsie Onyango  Against I’m writing as a St Paul resident to implore you to reject the consent resolution to seek additional funding for Skydio (or any other drone surveillance). This is an unnecessary, harmful, privacy invasive tech. As a St Paul resident, I don’t want any Flock cameras, any other ALPRs, or any drone surveillance. +5
9/1/2026 4:33 PMBK Against Placing this authorization on the consent agenda after publicly declaring concerns over m*** surveillance immediately after the August 26th hearing on police and m*** surveillance, erodes public trust in this process. +7
9/1/2026 3:28 PMJessica S Against Putting an expansion of the SkyDio drone program into the consent agenda comes off as sneaky and underhanded after you clearly heard from the community at large that we don't consent to surveillance technology. There was some skepticism that the anti-Flock resolution last week was simply a political stunt meant to pacify a population you don't respect, and this move is definitely going to deepen that suspicion. We are not fixated on a particular brand name due to a social media trend; we have real concerns based on the data analysis of the bias and ineffectiveness of these policing methods, the history of how these technologies have been used against civilians internationally, and our own lived experience of being stalked through our own streets by a government eager to use every means it can to violate our rights. +10
9/1/2026 3:07 PMKeith Dawson Against This authorization should not be on the consent agenda. Last week's public meeting on m*** surveillance technology made abundantly clear that the Drone as First Responder program is anything but uncontroversial. This topic deserves broad public discussion — and far more transparency into its details than the council or the SPPD have exhibited to date. +7
9/1/2026 2:51 PMLauren Allen Against Authorizing this grant application is a slap in the face of our communities who put their trust in you, and expect you to learn from the city’s experiences during federal operation Metro Surge. I expect you to empathize with the trauma caused by drone surveillance, and benefit from hindsight, and to protect us going forward. Surveillance is not protection. Drone technology is not a solution to police abuses and over-policing of communities, or to the degrading relationship between people and law enforcement. Drones provide law enforcement with another layer of anonymity, invite lazy policing and are a sinister technology masquerading as a safety program. Beyond this, we don't want any DoJ dollars before complete investigations of civil rights abuses and the homicides of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Reject the grant application authorization, and draft an ordinance curtailing m*** surveillance and banning A.I.-enabled drones and cameras. +9
8/31/2026 11:26 PMWyatt Miller Against This resolution refers to "partial funding for expansion of the SPPD’s Drones as First Responders program." As many residents highlighted during last week's hearing on police surveillance technology, the details of SPPD's drone program do not appear to have been made public. It's unclear what "expansion" is being considered. Drone supplier Skydio's products are an unnecessary 'hammer in search of a nail' after first selling its drones on an institutional scale to the Israeli military for use in the Gaza genocide. When Minneapolis was considering a similar program with Skydio, it attracted much public participation, and ultimately its city council voted against the contract. By contrast, St. Paul seems to be hiding the details of this program from the public. Residents need to know the details of this reported "expansion." +10