City of Saint Paul - Meeting of Board of Water Commissioners on 12/8/2015 at 5:00 PM

Details

Meeting Name:

Board of Water Commissioners

Agenda status:

Final

Meeting date/time:

12/8/2015 5:00 PM

Minutes status:

Final

Meeting location:

Legislative Hearing Room, 330 City Hall

Published agenda:	Agenda	Published minutes:	Minutes
Agenda packet:	Not available

Meeting video:

Not available

Attachments:

File #	Ver.	Agenda #	Type	Title	Action	Result	Action Details	Video
Min 15-60	1	1	Approval of Minutes	Approving the minutes of the November 10, 2015 meeting.	Adopted	Pass	Action details	Not available
RES 15-2137	1	2	Resolution	Approving the Financial Statements for the month of October 2015.	Adopted	Pass	Action details	Not available
RES 15-2138	1	3	Resolution	Pertaining to acceptance of a gift from Water Research Foundation as reimbursement of costs related to SPRWS General Manager attendance at the Foundation’s January 2016 executive board meeting in San Diego, California.	Adopted	Pass	Action details	Not available
RES 15-2139	1	4	Resolution	Pertaining to MnDOT Agreement No. 1001867 with the State of Minnesota providing for the adjustment of water valve boxes within S.P. 6282-204 - I-94 Bridge Maintenance Project at Prior Avenue by State contractor.	Adopted	Pass	Action details	Not available
RES 15-2140	1	5	Resolution	Pertaining to an Omnibus Agreement with the City of Mendota Heights.	Adopted	Pass	Action details	Not available
RES 15-2141	1	6	Resolution	Pertaining to an ordinance amending Chapter 87 of the Legislative Code of the City of Saint Paul pertaining to charges for street restoration costs.	Adopted	Pass	Action details	Not available
RES 15-2142	1	7	Resolution	Pertaining to a Grant of Easement to the Board of Water Commissioners by Gonyea Homes, Inc. over a portion of Red Pine Farm addition in the city of North Oaks.	Adopted	Pass	Action details	Not available
RES 15-2143	1	8	Resolution	Pertaining to an agreement with Black & Veatch Corporation to provide detailed design, construction documents, and construction administration services for replacement of electrical equipment at the McCarrons treatment plant and campus.	Adopted	Pass	Action details	Not available
CO 15-69	1	9	Communications & Receive/File	One-year extension of a professional services agreement with Short, Elliot Hendrickson, Inc. to provide wireless communication equipment plan reviews and installation inspection.	Received and Filed		Action details	Not available
CO 15-70	1	10	Communications & Receive/File	General Manager's Report	Received and Filed		Action details	Not available
CO 15-71	1	11	Communications & Receive/File	Employee Injury Summary - 3rd Quarter 2015	Received and Filed		Action details	Not available
CO 15-72	1	12	Communications & Receive/File	Vehicle Accident Summary - 3rd Quarter 2015	Received and Filed		Action details	Not available
CO 15-73	1	13	Communications & Receive/File	Pipeline Express - November	Received and Filed		Action details	Not available

Add New Comment

Data pager
Data pager
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... Page 1 of 20, items 1 to 100 of 1920.

Date

Comment

Action

Data pager
Data pager
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... Page 1 of 20, items 1 to 100 of 1920.

Ord 26-56

10/25/2026 9:51 PM

Trash "Customer"

Against

ORD 26-56 seeks to fast-track the next "annual" garbage rate increase to begin January 1, 2027 — just NINE MONTHS after the previous rate increase on April 1, 2026. This creates a compressed 9-month rate window rather than the ANNUAL adjustments originally negotiated (i.e., supposedly "promised" to customers) under the contract structure with the hauler, FCC. PLEASE HONOR THE CITY'S ORIGINALLY-STATED COMMITMENTS.

Ord 26-56

10/23/2026 4:27 PM

PROOFREAD?? Official fine print [Sec 220.05 -- "Beginning January 1, 2026"] contradicts the ordinance title.

Ord 26-56

10/23/2026 4:25 PM

PROOFREAD?? Official fine print [Sec 220.05 -- "Beginning January 1, 2026"] contradicts the ordinance title. adoption:

10/20/2026 6:16 PM

Kat Hunter Rising Waters Mutual Aid

For

While this is a positive first step, we are deeply worried that no resident input was sought for this proposal. We believe a public comment period combined with active work to include unhoused residents is necessary. We also believe that specific restrictions must be put in place to ensure this positive step is not used to further harm those individuals who do not use the proposed facility and resources. We have heard worrying rhetoric from the Mayor's office about involuntary commitment for those who 'refuse help' and we will continue to push to ensure people can make real and meaningful choices for themselves without the threat of forcible imprisonment.

10/20/2026 5:14 PM

Dan Krivit

For

I support RES 26-1765. It is very good in general. What is missing are the specific commitments to implement this new plan. Please consider the harm that will be caused if the Mayor's Office insists on sweeping one or both of the encampments. For example, see the article published yesterday, Mon Oct 19, by Kyle Stokes in Axios: "Study: Overdoses spiked after city swept homeless camps" (link: https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2026/10/19/minneapolis-homeless-camp-sweeps-overdose-study). This new plan outlined in RES 26-1765 is a good start, but we need to follow-up with truly coordinated action steps by ALL parties involved: encampment Community Residents, the City, Ramsey County, the State, housing/shelter providers, AND mutual aid organizations.

10/20/2026 5:00 PM

Ryan

For

It's irresponsible for the council to not give the public an opportunity to weigh in on this plan at a public hearing. The fact that the council chambers were packed last time this issue came up combined with the fact that there is no public hearing on this resolution says to me that the council is trying to prevent the public from democratically weighing in because they know exactly how much their constituents would like to have their opinions heard on this matter.

10/20/2026 4:52 PM

Cameron T

For

This is a good first step, but we need more time and real solutions to address the issues that residents are facing! We know that there are residents at the camps that have expressed that no type of shelter will work for their specific needs, and this resolution only threatens them and offers them nothing. I am frustrated that this resolution was drafted without the input of camp residents and that there is no plan for resident representation in city policy moving forward. Encampment sweeps increase overdose rates and separate people from essential relationships and belongings that keep them alive. Please hold a public hearing on this matter. The community will not stop pressing until the city is ready to provide real, long-term support to unhoused people.

10/20/2026 4:51 PM

Paul Ernst

For

This proposal is a step in the right direction. It will provide time to develop working model to ***ist the unhoused neighbors in my community. Until the structural systems in our society that lead to neighbors becoming unhoused can be changed, the need for support will continue into the future. There needs to an ongoing plan to support those that find themselves in such a vulnerable situation.

10/20/2026 4:44 PM

Lily E.

For

This is a first-step resolution that should be p***ed! But it should also be a public hearing so encampment residents and unhoused community members can speak to their own experiences and thoughts on the topic. The resolution also cannot be seen as an end-solution, when it is merely a stop gap. To prevent a cruel and deadly winter sweep, we need a longer pause in sweeps, at least 5 months. And to seriously chart a new path on this issue as a city — something that actually works long-term — any new shelters need to be as low-barrier as possible, as the current shelter systems are marred by barriers, inhospitability, and finding extra reasons to screen people out. Unhoused community members need to have a political venue that actively seeks and elevates them as they express their needs and wants, and we shouldn't stop until encampment residents are treated as equals and supported as neighbors rather than antagonists.

10/20/2026 4:42 PM

John Slade

For

Everyone. Without exception. Deserves safe, decent, accessible and affordable housing. There's many things that feed into the situation in our homeless encampments. The rents are too **** high, wages are too low, and our social safety net has been slashed and tattered since Ronald Reagan was president. Evicting members of the tent cities that grow up is not the solution. It increases overdoses, breaks up social structures, and given how bad the housing crisis is, pushes people from one camp to another. The resolution before the city council is not perfect: it's not binding on the Mayor and it's not currently funded. We have next steps - and this step is a good one.

10/20/2026 12:11 AM

Kristin S

For

I am for the resolution and urge the council to support this!

10/19/2026 6:41 PM

The Wilder Foundation-Adrian Magaña (Policy Director)

For

We appreciate this resolution and would like to see further steps taken. Please hold a public hearing so that community expertise and lived experience can help inform a pathway forward. Sweeps only further destabilize St. Paul residents and make it harder for those in need to connect with critical services that offer meaningful, productive pathways forward. Please hold a public hearing and extend the moratorium on sweeps.

10/19/2026 1:31 AM

Paul Ference

For

I am for this response. This helps provide stability and safety for people who desperately need it. While I would like to see more done, some good done is better than no good done.

10/17/2026 8:31 PM

Rena Curtis

For

In order for this to truly benefit the community and move towards a sustainable and safe plan, this needs to be a public hearing where community members are able to speak and engage with council members.

10/17/2026 6:23 PM

Junail Freeman-Anderson

I want to hear the practice house I want it up and I want to plug it hearing on the blackest house

+3 2

10/17/2026 2:35 PM

Matt Ehlert

For

I strongly support this resolution but 60 days is not enough, we can't have folks losing spaces in the middle of winter. I also would love for this to have a public hearing.

10/16/2026 12:14 PM

For

Residents need to be heard. There needs to be a public hearing because 60 day pause is not enough. We need at least 6 months. A winter sweep would be particularly cruel. Thank you for supporting a low barrier shelter. It must have privacy, pets, partners, and possessions. Clearly congregate shelter will not do. Camps must be supported, not har***ed. Teach fire safety. Staff a resource tent. Provide sanitation at both Shepard and KMart. Help people shelter in place while a new option is being stood up. There WILL be people outside.The mutual aid community is an ***et, not an enemy. Coordinate them into the shelter in place plan.

10/16/2026 3:14 AM

For

I strongly support this resolution. There needs be a public hearing.

+10

10/16/2026 1:52 AM

There should be a public hearing!

10/15/2026 7:58 PM

Gabe Karsh

For

I am strongly in favor of this resolution and urge the council to support it. This summer's encampment sweeps are a moral stain on our city and I am grateful that the council is now moving in a different direction.

+8 -1

RES 26-1651

10/6/2026 11:21 PM

Against

This should be removed from the consent agenda and opened up for public comment. Applying for and/or accepting funds from the DOJ continues to be deeply concerning in the wake of Operation Metro Surge. CM Noecker's recent press release and media coverage suggest she is concerned about the DOJ interfering in our elections. Why would we allow the DOJ to provide funding to SPPD when we've already fail to protect the people of Saint Paul when we were under occupation by the Federal government?

RES 26-1651

10/6/2026 12:16 AM

Against

RES 26-1651

10/5/2026 11:44 PM

Kelsie Onyango

Against

I’m writing as a St Paul resident to implore you to reject this consent resolution to submit an Application for Funds. This resolution is very similar to one that was rejected in September. These grant funds can be used to pay for drones (including Skydio) and other surveillance tech. 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. Reject this proposal.

RES 26-1651

10/1/2026 11:58 PM

Lauren Allen

Against

The Council should deny the authorization to apply. Unacceptable. Ethically and morally, SPPD should not be asking this JoD for money or any other resources. The actions taken by JoD as led by Todd Blanche run strongly against the freedoms of the people and interests of the City of St. Paul. The Council at a minimum needs to mandate that any funds received are prohibited from use in UAS, drones, ALPR or A.I.-enabled surveillance, by SPPD and by Ramsey County within city limits. Act on RES 26-1421, which resolved that the city must invest in strategies to make neighborhoods safer without creating systems of m*** surveillance

RES 26-1651

10/1/2026 11:28 PM

Lauren Allen

Against

The Council should deny the authorization to apply. Any application was due to JustGrants on September 25, 2026, by 8:59 p.m. EST. So the Department applied without authorization, and is again seeking approval after the fact. Unacceptable. Ethically and morally, SPPD should not be asking this JoD for money or any other resources. The actions taken by JoD as led by Todd Blanche run strongly against the freedoms of the people and interests of the City of St. Paul. The Council at a minimum needs to state that any funds received are prohibited from use in UAV drone, ALPR or A.I.-enabled surveillance, by SPPD and by Ramsey County within city limits. Act on RES 26-1421, which resolved that the city must invest in strategies to make neighborhoods safer without creating systems of m*** surveillance.

RES 26-1659

9/30/2026 8:24 PM

Sarah Evans

Against

It comes down to ethics and common sense; The tax payers have had enough of these “elected” officials having neither. Shame on Mayor Her.

RES 26-1659

9/30/2026 6:45 PM

Kayla

Against

There comes a point in any career when basic professionalism should not need to be taught. If the Mayor has failed to meet that expectation, taxpayers should not be responsible for covering the cost of defending that conduct. At a time when residents are being warned about budget deficits and the prospect of yet another property tax increase, asking them to pay substantial legal fees tied to the Mayor's actions is a tough sell. The city should be focused on improving services and addressing community needs, not managing avoidable controversies. What makes this situation even more concerning is that Mayor Her is still in her first year in office. This is not the result of years of complacency; it is the performance residents are seeing at the very beginning of her tenure.

+3 1

RES 26-1659

9/30/2026 6:01 PM

Ann

Against

City taxpayers should not have to pay the legal costs for the mayor's unprofessional behavior.

RES 26-1659

9/30/2026 2:50 PM

Audrey

Against

Taxpayer dollars should not go towards the mayor's defense. Release the tax-payer funded investigative report into her actions. It's time for members of the City Council, business interests, and community leaders to start putting pressure on Her to resign. This is all beyond embarr***ing.

RES 26-1659

9/30/2026 2:02 PM

Ben Ashley-Wurtmann

Against

I am strongly concerned by the distraction and waste of funds involved here. The mayor's own report called her behavior "offensive and inappropriate." While I recognize the level of inevitability here, it is galling to ask taxpayers to fund this, but not the east side library. This, but not a more effective homeless response. The priorities are completely backwards.

RES 26-1659

9/30/2026 3:26 AM

Thomas Anderson

Against

I do not support using tax dollars to fund the legal defense of Mayor Her. MN State Statute 466.07 governs legal representation for municipal employees. This statute allows for taxpayer funding of officials when they are performing official duties AND not guilty of malfeasance in office, willful neglect of duty, or bad faith. 1. The lawsuit includes allegations that are disturbing and not part of the official duties of the Mayor's office. 2. The independent investigation has already established that Mayor Her engaged in "offensive and inappropriate behavior", which is indicative of malfeasance/acting in bad faith.

+5 -1

RES 26-1659

9/30/2026 3:08 AM

Jason H

Against

Absolutely ridiculous for taxpayers to find this legal spectacle.

+4 1

RES 26-1659

9/30/2026 2:16 AM

Maddie R.

Against

This is not what public tax dollars are for. Paying the legal fees for the personal conduct of an elected official who has acted egregiously is the responsibility of the person on trial and/or at fault and should not be a burden shouldered by the constituents. This is embarr***ing to the citizens of St. Paul and is a frankly horrifying proposition. Fund our libraries and public programs; don't fund the legal fees for someone who definitely acted inappropriately, whether or not this lawsuit is warranted. Strongly opposed.

+1 -1

RES 26-1659

9/30/2026 2:02 AM

Rachel W

Against

We absolutely should not be paying for the legal defense of the mayor in this situation. Strongly opposed

RES 26-1659

9/30/2026 1:27 AM

John C

Against

The City should not pay for legal expenses to represent and defend a Mayor who is accused of doing things that clearly are not a part of her duties as Mayor. The cost to defend her personal inappropriate behavior should not be a public expense.

RES 26-1659

9/29/2026 11:44 PM

A. J. M.

Against

I am against the use of taxpayer money for Mayor Her’s legal defense. Especially in a year of budget cuts to the City budget and asking homeowners to pay more property taxes - this is a completely inappropriate use of taxpayer money. I urge Mayor Her to do the right thing and resign from her position and cover her own legal expenses

RES 26-1659

9/29/2026 11:48 AM

J.S.

Against

Tax payer money should not be used for legal defense. That is what professional insurance is for that is paid for privately.

RES 26-1659

9/29/2026 12:03 AM

Elise

Against

We should not be supporting this in any way. The citizens of Saint Paul deserve better leadership and their tax dollars to be used to make the community we live in better. We should NOT fund the defense for the disgraceful pubescent actions of our Mayor. Let's get the adults and the accountability in the room for our city.

+6 -1

ABZA 26-4

9/9/2026 6:34 PM

Bonita Steppa

Against

The Domino's appeal is asking for a variance to code 65.616 specifically to expedite their delivery drivers. It does not improve safety.

ABZA 26-4

9/9/2026 3:48 PM

Julie Hellwich

Against

In their applicaiton for curb cut variances, the applicant only requested a variance for 65.616, condition (e) regarding curb cuts within intersections in their application to the BZA. In the applicants letter to the City Council, dated July 13, 2026, the applicant confirms that this by stating "While the requested varince does not comply with St. Paul Zoning Code 65.616, condition (d), the unique conditions of the site make strict compliance impractical". The applicant understood that they would also require a variance for (d). The variance was denied. In their appeal, they state zoning code (d) as the citation of the appeal. They never applied for or received a variance for this condition. The appeal should be denied as the appeal is not based on the citation they used to request a variance (e). Permit corrections report to approve building plan notes that they need to remove the curb cuts and revise the site plan, or obtain variance from this requirement.

RES 26-1399

9/8/2026 7:52 PM

Kristen 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.

RES 26-1470

9/8/2026 3:02 PM

Lauren Allen

Against

SPPD should not be authorized to apply to a closed grant. The FY26 Community Policing Development (CPD) Microgrants Program funding opportunity closed on Monday, August 24, 2026, at 4:59 PM ET. SPPD needs to be held to a higher standard

RES 26-1470

9/8/2026 2:56 PM

Lauren Allen

Against

The Council should reject the authorization to apply. Until the completion of investigations and subsequent trials ***ociated with the civil rights violations of the Righteous 39, Minnesota 15, and murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, SPPD should not be asking this JoD for money or other resources. The actions taken by JoD as led by Todd Blanche run strongly against the people and interests of the City of St. Paul.

RES 26-1399

9/7/2026 4:31 AM

Brianne 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.

RES 26-1399

9/2/2026 6:00 PM

Erin

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.

RES 26-1399

9/2/2026 5:06 PM

Bob 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.

RES 26-1399

9/2/2026 2:22 PM

Judy Rodriguez

Against

Vote against this. It’s an invasion of my rights.

RES 26-1399

9/2/2026 1:19 PM

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.

RES 26-1399

9/2/2026 11:57 AM

Against

We do not want to live in a surveillance state, strongly against.

RES 26-1399

9/2/2026 3:01 AM

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.

RES 26-1399

9/2/2026 1:58 AM

Jeffery Thole

For

I support St. Paul Police and funding for any tools they need to help control crime.

-3

RES 26-1399

9/2/2026 1:38 AM

Lia 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.

RES 26-1399

9/2/2026 1:20 AM

Jeffery Thole

For

I support funding our police and funding any tools to help them do therir jobs.

-5

RES 26-1399

9/2/2026 12:30 AM

Fiona 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!

RES 26-1399

9/2/2026 12:26 AM

Amanda 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

RES 26-1399

9/2/2026 12:08 AM

Lindsay 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.

RES 26-1399

9/1/2026 11:22 PM

Stuart 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

RES 26-1399

9/1/2026 11:09 PM

Heather 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.

RES 26-1399

9/1/2026 10:48 PM

Rachel Osborne

Against

We don’t want to live in a surveillance state and I’m concerned that this is being considered - strongly against.

RES 26-1399

9/1/2026 10:14 PM

Jennifer 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.

RES 26-1399

9/1/2026 9:19 PM

Brendan LaMagdeleine

Against

Absolutely against!!!

RES 26-1399

9/1/2026 9:19 PM

Hayley 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.

RES 26-1399

9/1/2026 8:50 PM

Karen 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.

RES 26-1399

9/1/2026 8:43 PM

Ian 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.

RES 26-1399

9/1/2026 8:13 PM

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.

RES 26-1399

9/1/2026 8:10 PM

Jennifer 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.

RES 26-1399

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.

RES 26-1399

9/1/2026 6:59 PM

Brianne 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.

RES 26-1399

9/1/2026 5:54 PM

Against

We should not be living in a surveillance state. This goes too far.

RES 26-1399

9/1/2026 5:37 PM

Jeff 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.

RES 26-1399

9/1/2026 4:58 PM

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.

RES 26-1399

9/1/2026 4:51 PM

Erik 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.

RES 26-1399

9/1/2026 4:44 PM

Kelsie 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.

RES 26-1399

9/1/2026 3:28 PM

Jessica 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

RES 26-1399

9/1/2026 3:07 PM

Keith 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.

RES 26-1399

9/1/2026 2:51 PM

Lauren 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.

RES 26-1399

8/31/2026 11:26 PM

Wyatt 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

PH 26-16

8/24/2026 2:47 PM

Rochelle Schmidt

I hope that this meeting is related to my recent complaint to Councilmember Johnson regarding Flock cameras and other automated license plate readers (ALPRs) in Saint Paul. There is no ambiguity in the Fourth Amendment: Government searches require a warrant. Having a private company doing the surveilling and then contracting with police departments to provide that information to them is a blatant end-run around the Constitution. It is the sort of thing that belongs in China or Russia (or 1984's Oceania), not a supposedly democratic society. The multiple allegations of misuse of the system - police officers arrested in multiple localities and charged with using Flock cameras to stalk their romantic partners or ex-partners, Flock employees spying on a children's swimming pool - give added urgency to this matter. (The title of this topic needs clarification. I don't know how to rate my opinion because I don't know whether we are discussing keeping this technology or getting rid of it.)

+4 -1

RES 26-1296

8/12/2026 2:43 AM

27-CV-25-5519 is a Hennepin County District Court File Number.

RES 26-1253

8/7/2026 5:48 AM

I don’t believe the city has the authority to create private rights of action that also award attorneys fees. That’s a big one and part of the reason the tenant protection ordinance version 1.0 was successfully challenged several years ago. That’s just not something that municipalities have unilateral authority to create. I also don’t think they have the authority to supplant the existing tenant remedy action process, especially in a way that does not provide adequate (or any) due process protections but yet creates significant civil and criminal liability. Those are just 2 very obvious issues.

PH 26-14

8/4/2026 2:54 PM

Ryan Nelson

Against

Like. "The city can't delay a closure without a plan." No, the city can't DO the closure without a plan. Doing nothing without a plan is fine. Forcing people out of where they live and throwing away all of their belongings and getting them killed without a plan, that's not okay at all. Murderers.

PH 26-14

8/4/2026 2:49 PM

Ryan Nelson

Against

So Mayor Her is just charging ahead, despite unanimous public backlash. Quick question - what is wrong with you? This is called being "drunk with power".

PH 26-14

8/4/2026 5:03 AM

Jerome

Against

There is no nuance to be had here. By continuing the sweep you are choosing to cause harm to the most vulnerable of our city. People need help, not to be repeatedly punished simply for trying to live their life. I find it very disrespectful how this is framed as helping people, destroying people's stuff and treating them like trash doesn't help. It only makes it harder for them.

PH 26-14

8/2/2026 12:57 AM

Teri

You wreck these encampments knowing full well people can't afford the skyrocketing cost of everything and there aren't near enough shelter beds. And what happens? Then end up sleeping on my porch or in my back yard. What do you think will happen by making them scatter? How does that help, except to make it even harder to get them any kind of aide? Are you just hoping they die off if you abuse them hard enough? Literally what possible good outcome could this have? These are still people of St Paul and you have a responsibility to them, just like those of us who can still afford our homes. Shame on you.

PH 26-14

8/1/2026 6:47 PM

Theodore "Theo" Johnson

Against

You reopened comments just hoping someone would speak up in favor of this authoritarianism which nobody wants. I don't recall having a chance to vote for this. I wouldn't vote for any person that I thought was remotely capable of something like this. The closest thing we have is this public comment section, which makes it quite clear where the community stands. Yet you think you know what's better for us (at least that's what you claim). Every day it becomes more obvious that Republicans and Democrats are working together and ruling by monarchy. "Our response centers on safety, stability, and dignity." - Actions speak louder than words. YOU ARE CREATING A CRISIS - pointlessly, and despite continual contrary advice. Primum non nocere - "First, do no harm."

PH 26-14

8/1/2026 5:49 PM

Mia

Against

Stop the sweep!! This is such a lazy and inhumane way to address the unhoused crisis. Where will they go? There is no plan. You will end up killing people and turning your constituents against you. LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE!

PH 26-14

7/31/2026 12:37 PM

Molly Overkamp

Against

Mayor Her can look to Minneapolis to see how ineffective encampment sweeps are in addressing homelessness. The residents of encampments in St. Paul are her constituents, not a problem that can be swept away. They have a right to autonomy in where they live, Mayor Her is coercing them through force into shelters that do not address their needs or provide them with stability. The city should try actually talking with the encampment residents and meet their demands rather than acting paternalistic and dehumanizing them with sweeps. Despicable behavior.

PH 26-14

7/30/2026 8:38 PM

Lauran White

Against

As a resident of St. Paul, I demand that you s**** the mayor's plan to forcibly displace my neighbors from their encampment. The plan is as crude and inappropriate as the messages she sent. It's clear that the current plan is to force unhoused people to die in isolation of preventable neglect. My tax dollars should never be used to violate the human rights of fellow Saint Paul residents. You are not murderers yet. You can save your legacies from being that of death and cruel ignorance. There is still time to do the right thing for all of us and exchange a plan to cull, a plan to kill, a plan to disenfranchise, with a plan to house, a plan to render stable healthcare and social services, a plan that is clearly what the public hired you to do! We are exhausted by death in the Twin Cities. Deaths caused by fascism in government. You can be the fascists or you can protect us to the utmost of your abilities from fascist influence. There is no middle ground. You can still be good/innocent.

PH 26-14

7/30/2026 6:09 PM

Kyle Dekker

Against

This "plan" is poorly thought out and inadequate to serve my neighbors in the encampments with dignity amd safety. There are simply not enough shelters or beds for everyone in the area. The August 5th date is arbitrary and cruel. This will sever people from their support networks and help and will lead to suffering and even death. Out government is supposed to help people.nlt harm them. I am a homeowner in Ward 7 and will hold this action against the mayor and any supporting council members im future elections and work to stop this.

PH 26-14

7/30/2026 5:45 PM

Courtney

Against

It’s laughable to even call this a “plan.” This is sweeping homelessness under the rug and hoping the problem will go away, or at least somewhere else where you won’t have to deal with it. The system is broken, and this encampment has found a crumb of stability for our unhoused neighbors, helping them more than navigating shelters and social programs ever have. I would absolutely love it if my neighbors did not have to live in a tent in Pig’s Eye Park, but until you fix the ACTUAL issues that lead to homelessness, the city of st paul is only making the problem worse. The blood is on YOUR hands.

PH 26-14

7/30/2026 3:41 PM

Adam

Against

I am against the sweeps of the communities our unhoused neighbors call home. I don’t think the city council members would like it if bulldozers came to their front door and completely demolished their dwellings. Why is it okay to do that to others - especially those are are experiencing one of the hardest times in a person’s life?

PH 26-14

7/22/2026 9:36 PM

Gaebriel Lyrek

Against

I oppose the plan to clear Pig’s Eye Park and other encampments. Displacement without guaranteed housing harms unhoused residents, worsening health, stability, and access to services. Research shows Housing First approaches, immediate permanent housing with voluntary support, reduce homelessness and improve outcomes. Sweeps do the opposite, increasing trauma, overdose risk, hospitalization, and mortality by disrupting care, social networks, and harm reduction access. Before any closures, the city must commit to reserved housing units, clear move in timelines, and measurable retention goals. Without these, displacement is not a solution but a harmful relocation that pushes people into more dangerous, less accessible conditions. Encampments form from necessity; removing them without alternatives deepens risk. I urge you to pause planned clearances and adopt evidence based, housing centered strategies that reduce harm rather than escalate it. Anything less is irresponsible.

PH 26-14

7/22/2026 8:42 PM

Tabatha Barrett

Against

I disagree with the approach. If you clear the encampments without ensuring that there are adequate supports in place, which there are not, you are just being cruel. I understand that it is a health hazard, but unless you are providing a reasonable alternative for the individuals living there, you are only making a bad situation worse.

PH 26-14

7/22/2026 8:12 PM

Brian Warden

Against

Thank you for allowing me to comment on the mayor's proposal, I highly suggest looking at how the city of Denver is handling encampments. Simply clearing encampments without coordinating wrap around services and support with local agencies and non-profits, and without providing actual housing, harms inhabitants, and ultimately, the surrounding communities. It disperses and disconnects folks from the community they are currently calling home and it makes them more vulnerable and less safe. The mayor's plan simply shifts the problem from one area to another area. Encampments form out of necessity and it is in***bent on the mayor her office to offer real solutions and support when they seek to remedy societal problems by taking away the place an unhoused, displaced- and often struggling individual -calls home.

+5 -1 4

PH 26-14

7/22/2026 8:09 PM

Calli Oberembt

Against

Dear Mayor Her and City Council Members, I'm asking you to hold off on clearing the Pig's Eye Park encampment and the others planned after it. I get why you're doing this: the overdoses, fires, and ***aults are real problems. But clearing camps doesn't solve those problems, it just moves them somewhere with less oversight and no outreach workers around to help. There's actual research on this, not just opinion. A 2023 study in JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical ***ociation) modeled what happens after sweeps in cities across the country and found they could lead to 15 to 25% more deaths among unsheltered people over 10 years, mainly from more overdoses, infections, and hospitalizations. The researchers didn't find a single scenario where displacement made things better. Here's the study if you want to see it yourself: https://nhchc.org/study-shows-involuntary-displacement-of-people-experiencing-homelessness-may-cause-significant-spikes-in-mortality-overdoses-and-hospitalization

PH 26-14

7/22/2026 8:04 PM

Against

As a long-term resident, I oppose the mayor’s encampment eviction plan. While I understand the concerns about public spaces, evicting people from encampments without adequate housing and supportive services does not solve homelessness—it simply moves it elsewhere. These sweeps have serious public health consequences for our entire community. They disrupt access to medical care, mental health treatment, medications, and outreach services while increasing instability and the risk of disease, overdose, and emergency service use. Repeated evictions also waste public resources by addressing the visible symptoms of homelessness rather than its root causes. I urge the mayor and City Council to pursue evidence-based solutions that expand housing, treatment, and outreach instead of policies that displace people without resolving the problem.

PH 26-14

7/22/2026 7:52 PM

Rowan Q

Against

I am strongly in opposition of evicting people from Pig’s Eye and other encampments in the city. This action will cause a rise in overdose deaths, disconnect vulnerable community members from vital services and important people in their lives, and will not resolve the underlying issues that cause and perpetuate homelessness. The City of Saint Paul must work with the community to find more comp***ionate, common-sense, evidence-based ways of addressing homelessness.

PH 26-14

7/22/2026 7:46 PM

Kiki Stevens

Against

I urge Mayor Her to reconsider the closing of encampments without providing a real housing solution. It is the city's job to make decisions based on evidence and comp***ion, not to make decisions that can lead to harm or even the death of its citizens. There are amounts of research and evidence that shows all the public health repercussions that displacing unhoused people without any real solutions can have. This is simply an inhumane and uneducated move from those we put in power. These citizens are also you citizens and responsibility; they are not lives to be disregard.

PH 26-14

7/22/2026 7:30 PM

Emily Regan

Against

Destroying encampments and displacing people is not only inhumane and cruel, but an irresponsible use of public funds. Public health research evidence shows that bulldozing camps severs essential connections within communities, to outreach workers, health and social services, and essential medications. I'm vehemently opposed to Mayor Her's & city council's actions. You are supposed to represent all St Paul constituents, not just those who own property.

PH 26-14

7/22/2026 7:23 PM

Andre Robinson

Against

As a Saint Paul resident and homeowner, I am strongly against the encampment eviction. These encampment clearings have been shown to be harmful to people living in them, do not solve the issue of housing for anyone involved, and are a m***ive waste of money. Public health officials have a large body of evidence to support the claim that these evictions are dangerous and can even be deadly. If the city wants to prevent encampments, then they should invest in more low-barrier housing. My next vote for council and mayor will be heavily influenced by the decision that Molly Coleman and Mayor Her make on this issue.

Meeting Details