Council to order, roll call, please.

Coleman.

Here.

Johnson.

Joe's.

Here.

Kim.

Yang.

Here.

Bowie.

Here.

Council President Naker.

Here.

Five present, two absent, those being council members Kim and Johnson, and they are excused.

Welcome everyone to our St.

Paul City Council Chambers.

Thank you for joining us today.

We invite everyone to join us in standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republicans, one nation better God.

Consent agenda items one through five are before you for your consideration.

Is there anything to be taken for separate consideration?

Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms.

Yang for the consent agenda.

All in favor say aye.

Five in favor, non opposed.

The consent agenda is adopted.

Take a motion from Ms.

Jose to suspend the rules to consider a new uh director of human resources.

All in favor say aye.

All opposed.

Five in favor, non-opposed.

The rules are suspended.

Resolution twenty-six-two thirty-one, approving the appointment of Camaria Cassim as the director of human resources effective February ninth, twenty twenty-six.

And I keep forgetting whether or not we pass the resolution.

We pass the resolution first and then do the swearing in.

Yes.

All right.

Uh I will take a motion from Ms.

Coleman, uh, to approve any discussion of the motion.

I'll just say welcome.

We're really excited.

There you are.

Really excited to work with you and uh looking forward to getting to know you better.

So thanks for joining our team.

Uh all in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Five in favor, non opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

And Mr.

Wilms will do the official swearing in.

Please raise your right hand and repeat after me.

I state your name.

I Camaria.

You solemnly swear.

Do solemnly swear.

To support the constitutions.

Support the Constitution of the United States.

And of the state of Minnesota.

And of the state of Minnesota.

And to discharge faithfully.

And to discharge faithfully.

The duties devolving upon me.

The duties evolving upon me.

As the director of human resources.

As the director of human resources.

Of the city of St.

Paul.

Of the city of St.

Paul.

To the best of my judgment and ability.

To the best of my judgment and ability.

Congratulations.

Thank you so much.

And again, we look forward to working with you.

All opposed.

Five and favor six in favor, none opposed.

The rules are suspended.

Resolution 26-253 calling on the state of Minnesota and Governor Walls to enact an energy and gas shutoff moratorium to keep Minnesota families safe and protect them from ice.

Ms.

Yang.

Thanks, Council President.

I will go to the podium.

Hi, everybody.

Before I begin, I do want to invite O'Neill St.

Paul to join me at the podium here along with Citizens Utility Board and Energy Sense for their work on this issue.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mike and Jean, for being here also at Eastiders.

I want to say Mike, thank you for reaching out directly to me.

You're award six residents and sent over this resolution, which is so important and also a life-saving resolution.

Before I read this, I do um want to say thank you to our council here because we a few weeks ago unanimously approved a um inviction moratorium where it was really about um calling for Governor Walls to issue that so we can protect families right now in our city and truly all across the state who are being displaced as a result of the horrendous ice raids we've been seeing all across our state.

Um this is uh a resolution to call on the state of Minnesota and Governor Walls to enact an energy and gas shutoff moratorium to keep Minnesota families safe and protect them from ice.

I would like to read through it just because I really believe this sheds light on what is happening right now all across our state.

And I know many of you in the room here, you feel it.

You have been impacted directly or know somebody who has, you have shown up in so many ways to resist um the atrocities that we're seeing happening to our communities, especially folks who are immigrants, refugees, undocumented, and our black and brown families and also our working class families, because what will be laid out in this resolution is how deeply um impacted our black and brown and working class people are as a result of Operation Metro Surge in the state of Minnesota here.

Um after I speak, I would like to invite uh the two leaders behind me to say a few remarks as well.

Whereas the federal government's campaign of discriminatory mass deportation has inflicted terror nationwide, and the Trump administration's fixation on Minnesota has cruelly targeted our community with harassment, intimidation, and violence.

And whereas Minnesota is currently experiencing the largest immigration operation by the Department of Homeland Security in the nation's history, with the Trump administration claiming to have sent over 2,000 agents from immigration and customs enforcement, customs and border patrol, homeland security investigations, and other federal agencies to Minnesota, and whereas the public has experienced and documented countless instances of federal agents targeting and harassing residents based on the color of their skin, regardless of immigration status, and whereas federal agents have been escalating violence against legal observers and community members protecting their neighbors, including Renee Nicole Good, who was murdered by an ICE agent on January 7th, 2026, and Alex Jeffrey Pradi, who was murdered by multiple ICE agents on January 24th, 2026.

And whereas these threatening and violent attacks on our residents have occurred in public spaces, including schools, streets, hospitals, sidewalks, grocery stores, places of worship, and bus stops.

As a result, many residents are unable to move freely due to the threat of harassment, violence, and abduction, forcing them to shelter in place and impacting their ability to work and provide for their families.

Whereas, in addition to the threat of violence and abduction, many families are grappling with the fear of having their electricity and heating shut off due to an inability to safely go to work.

Whereas some cold weather protections do exist in Minnesota with the cold weather rule, but only when a resident proactively contacts their utility and is able to work out a payment plan or enroll in an energy assistance program, leaving everyone else vulnerable to shutoffs during the coldest months of the year.

Whereas utilities such as Excel Energy only provide support in English and Spanish on their support line that residents need to navigate in order to set up payment plans, making them inaccessible to a significant proportion of residents.

Whereas the state and federal assistance programs that are available can only be applied for by U.S.

citizens, and in order to apply, they must submit sensitive personal data about every resident of their household, including whether or not they have a social security card, which could potentially be exploited by ICE if they subpoena that information.

Whereas the 55106 zip code, which is in my ward, ward seven, and I believe parts of Ward 5 as well, already have the highest rates of utility shutoffs in all of Excel Energy's territories before Operation Metro Surge began.

Whereas in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Walls issued Executive Order 20-01 declaring a peacetime emergency and directed the public utility commission to enact a moratorium on utility shutoffs and gave residents statewide a lifeline and protection during an unprecedented national crisis.

Whereas residents in Minnesota are once again experiencing an unprecedented danger and are vulnerable to losing their power and heat without government intervention, increasing their vulnerability to violence and abduction by the Trump administration.

Whereas the St.

Paul City Council stands alongside our neighbors who are under attack and calls on elected leaders at all levels to support our efforts to protect our residents.

Now, therefore, be it resolved, the St.

Paul City Council that, subject to applicable laws and regulations, calls on the state of Minnesota and Governor Walls to direct the Public Utility Commission to enact an energy and gas shutoff moratorium to protect residents who have been harmed by the federal government's unprecedented attacks, be it for the resolve that we call on the state to direct the Public Utility Commission to waive late fees, interest and penalties for late payments on utilities for the duration of the moratorium.

Be it for the result that the St.

Paul City Council calls on Excel Energy to expand language service and bill payment assistance and arrear forgiveness to the languages spoken in our communities, including Hmong, Karen, and Somali.

Um to my colleagues, I um asked for your support for this resolution.

When I uh read through it, it just really gave me chills.

And I um wanted to be really clear that for me it was really important to read this out loud because for the people who are out of our state, they are looking at Minnesota.

And we are the ones who are holding the line.

We are the ones who are holding the line.

That's why the ICE agents have continued to be here rather than going out and targeting many other states and cities through the power of our communities coming together, doing rapid response.

I just even had a meeting the other day with an organization in my ward that was planning on fundraising dollars to be able to support households that could not pay for their utility bills.

I mean, there's so much that is happening all across our state, and it is phenomenal, and also it is not sustainable.

They are doing their absolute best.

And right now is a moment where elected officials need to be coming together and really pushing for our governor to issue these moratoriums in the 55106 zip code, which is in my ward, that is also the the zip the neighborhood that has experienced the highest levels of evictions.

Experiences and disparities that are only exacerbated by the by the surge of the ICE agents that we're seeing here all across our state.

And it is unacceptable.

And again, this it hurts me over and over to talk about this, and I said this a few weeks ago.

It hurts to be here again because we know that with every crisis, it is our black and brown communities, it is our working class communities who get hit hardest.

And right now, they need us the most.

They need all of us the most.

And so I am proud to put forward this resolution and I want to name like the work, this work is not possible without a coalition coming together.

And I'm so proud of organizations like the ones I've named before, Unido St.

Paul.

The Citizens Utility Board, Energy Sense, and many, many more partners who are doing this work collectively collectively, whether in Minneapolis or in many other cities all across our state.

And so with that, I do want to yield over to Mike Hirabayashi, our wonderful ward six resident and also a member of Unido St.

Paul.

Thank you, Ms.

Yang.

Welcome up.

Thank you.

Um hi, I'm Mike Hirabayashi.

I live in Sherwood Avenue in Ward 6, and I volunteer with UNIDOS.

Minnesota has been besieged by an unprecedented, unlawful and unconstitutional attack from the federal government with Operation Metro Surge.

Thousands of ICE agents terrorize our communities with wanton violence and sadistic cruelty, putting us in a state of emergency that we haven't felt since COVID.

Just like with the pandemic, many of our neighbors have found themselves forced to shelter in place for their safety and the safety of their families.

Many businesses have closed or are operating in limited capacity to protect themselves and their employees.

Many in our community are in an increasingly difficult struggle to pay their bills.

According to the Citizens Utility Board of Minnesota, struggling households now owe an average of 464 dollars in utility debt, putting them in precarious position.

Many people do believe that we're protected by the cold weather rule, but unfortunately, this is a common misc misconception.

The cold weather rule only applies to households that proactively contact their utilities before a shutoff and successfully negotiate a payment plan.

And according to the PUC, they actually still can get shut off even when on a payment plan.

Minnesotans have no automatic protection, and neighbors in our community get their utilities shut off in the winter all the time.

We heard from the PUC just today about Excel customers calling in this morning about their energy getting shut off.

We recognize that Excel has just declared a supposedly voluntary moratorium for Minneapolis and St.

Poll only.

But they're keeping it secret from the public.

They have no timeline or scope associated with it, and they maintain the right to end it whenever they want to as a business decision.

That's not real protection.

A mediator at the PUC expressed skepticism about whether this declaration would even do anything at all, given Excel's heavily automated slow-to-response system that lacks the discretion of center point system.

Are any disconnections actually going to be averted in their system, or is this just PR?

But our governor does have the power to help our community.

During the pandemic, he declared a peacetime state of emergency and enacted a moratorium on evictions while directing the public utility commission to enact a moratorium on energy and gas shutoffs and a suspension of related late fees.

However, exemptions were made that let delayed fees and interest continue, but these exemptions do not need to be repeated this time.

We can and must protect our neighbors, including applying pressure on those who can help.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Welcome up.

Sure.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Gene Comstock.

I live at 729 East Sixth Street, and that is Ward 7.

And I wanted you to know that we are fully supportive of this resolution also.

And thank Councilmember Yang very much for for bringing it up and Mike for his and others' work on it.

I don't need to tell you what's going on in town, you know.

And I cannot imagine going through all of that and then still having to wonder am I going to be able to be warmed tonight?

Um we've had too much of that.

I I thoroughly hope that you will will pass this and support it.

Thank you all.

Thank you so much.

Um I'll take that as a motion from Ms.

Yang for approval and I'll look to you might have had a version two.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

Did you want to move a version two?

Yeah, let's do that.

I'll return to Ms.

Okay.

Sorry.

A little bit of choreography here.

Thank you very much for testifying.

Uh Ms.

Yang, did you want to move a version two?

All right, so there's a motion from Ms.

Yang for version two.

Is there discussion of the motion?

Uh I will say thank you so much for your leadership in bringing this forward.

I think for all of the reasons you articulated, we need to be doing everything we can right now to support our neighbors.

And when we can't do things, we can we can ask others to do things.

And so in this case, the the governor is the one who we're calling on.

So I appreciate Unidos to bring this forward, and thank you, Ms.

Yang, for your leadership.

Ms.

Justin I just have a comment.

Yeah, I just Councilmore Yang, thank you so much for bringing this forward.

I think this is so important right now.

Um, and I really appreciate our partnership with uh Unidos.

Um I do want to also share that, you know, uh it's it's been confirmed similar to what he testified around that the disconnections are um suspended right now by Excel.

That's what they've confirmed.

Um, and that is, as you mentioned, beyond um our cold weather rule.

I think they're still my understanding is they're still in communication um around this, and they, as he said, they don't have a timeline, but the way I interpreted that is this will be continuing indefinitely, and they're working with the public utilities commission, the Department of Commerce, uh, but that the disconnections as of last week are not taking place in St.

Paul and won't be taking place in the immediate future.

So some of this is already in process, but also I hear the concerns from people in making sure that like this won't continue to happen.

Uh, one thing I did want to also add this isn't related to um to these types of shutoffs, but St.

Paul Regional Water has a water shutoff policy, and they do not shut off your water if you don't pay your bills.

So I just want to make sure that folks are um aware of that.

Um that's something that we always have, but especially during this time.

So just wanted to add some of that information.

Thank you so much, Councilman Yang and Unidos for your work on this.

Thank you, Ms.

Jost.

Any other discussion of this item.

Seeing none, I'll take them up.

We've had to take a motion.

Uh all in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted as amended.

Item number six is or is final adoption of ordinance twenty-six-4, granting the application of Bylon Company to rezone four I1 light industrial parcels to B5 Central Business Service.

So we're moving into the ordinance section of our agenda, and just for folks who aren't following along with us uh every every week, hanging on our every word.

We have a three-step process for adopting ordinances at the city council.

So the very first time we hear a new ordinance, it's the first reading, and we have a staff report to talk about what the ordinance is.

The next week we have a public hearing on that ordinance, and then the third week we take a final vote on it.

So you'll see here that there are items on the agenda for final adoption.

Those are items that have had at least those two readings already, as well as a public hearing.

You'll also see there will be items today for first reading where we'll have a staff report and public hearings are also on the agenda today.

And we'll talk more about public hearings when we get there.

So this is before us for final adoption.

Um I'll take a motion from Vice President Kim.

Is there any discussion of the motion?

See none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The ordinance is adopted.

Item number seven is final adoption of ordinance 26-5, adding chapter 268 of the legislative code to prohibit law enforcement staging operations on city owned properties and limit access to non-public city spaces.

This is before us for final adoption.

I'll take a motion from Ms.

Coleman for final adoption.

Is there discussion of the motion?

Vice President Kim.

Yeah.

Um, per usual every week I talk a lot about gratitude, and I think it's really important because now more than ever hope is just is a conscious practice.

So I'm centering gratitude today, extending it to my colleagues, Councilmember Coleman and Councilmember Yang, thank you so much for your partnership and helping us sort of strategize and roll these out in phased and sequential approaches, and just really the the hard work behind the scenes that not everyone likes to talk about but needs to be done because that's that's how progress is made.

And the federal and uh the federal immigration operation has just changed so much about how our city and residents have had to operate.

The cruelty and recklessness that we've all witnessed literally firsthand has made it clear that we need to act.

Our residents have been asking for more decisive action and more clarity, and our residents deserve at least that much.

By prohibiting federal law enforcement from using city owned property as staging areas for immigrant immigration enforcement operations.

We are establishing a clear boundary about how our city resources can and will be used.

Our city staff work is incredible and they work really hard to ensure that our parks and libraries and rec centers are as welcoming to St.

Paul residents as possible.

Our immigrant neighbors, documented or not, are welcome in St.

Paul, and they are welcome to access recenter and library programs.

Thank you so much, Vice President.

Other discussion of the motion, Ms.

Yang.

Thank you, Council President.

I'd like to echo everything that you share, Council Vice President.

Um, it's really been an honor working with you and Councilmember Coleman on on not just this piece of legislation, but um many more to come.

And I am very supportive of this.

I've shared my support for it um many times now, but I what I do want to share is that um I'm I'm frustrated that with our current charter, uh new ordinances that we approve will actually not take uh effect until 30 days after approval.

And I see this as a huge barrier to what we actually want to get done during a time of crisis like this.

And so I want to name um my my commitment and also my deep interest in looking at our charter for our city and making changes necessary so that um we as the council actually have discretion in determin in determine in determining what that window should be.

Like, do we want a policy to take effect right away upon approval?

Do we need 30 days or you know however many days, and like that should be uh a power that we get to decide on and in in partnership with many of our uh whether it's stakeholders or staff that we're working uh in tandem with on on the legislation here.

Um so I wanted to to share that to all of you because I I believe that right now is a critical moment for us to be having that conversation too.

Um we've heard from our community from many residents who came and testified here the need for us to make our process work for us.

If we see that something isn't working, well, we have the power to come together and decide what those changes should be to actually make it work for us.

And so I'm very committed to that.

Um, this is obviously uh a like legislation that I want to see happen right away.

Um, and even though that isn't something that can happen right now until 30 days after, um, I I welcome my colleagues here to join me in working on the charter changes that are necessary to meet.

Thank you, Ms.

Ying.

Other uh comments on the motion.

Ms.

Bowie.

Thank you, Council President.

Yeah, I just want to say I've always been in support of this ordinance.

I'm really happy to for this day for us to have final adoption.

Also do support councilmember Yang's uh proposal to adjust our time frame of when our ordinances are adopted.

I do think as we are in a spirit of urgency, we should be looking at every single aspect for us to be able to make sure that our policies are real.

Um I also am asking for us to uh assess you know not only our budget but also assess you know the executive orders and the powers that the uh mayor does have, where she does have powers to actually and and make sure this is in effect a lot sooner than what we have in terms as a legislative body.

So again, uh I know this is just one step into the direction to making sure that we have stronger laws and that we are updating our ordinance um to meet the the conditions that we are in today.

Thank you, Ms.

Bowie.

Ms.

Jost.

Um well I'm you know really excited to support this, especially uh in the Chair of the Library Board, and I've heard a lot about ICE staging in our library or parks, parking lots, um, and the season desists letter that we issued around parkland, did not apply the libraries, so this is something I'm very supportive of every part of this, but especially for the part about the libraries.

Um I appreciate the comments from Councilman Ryang, Councilmember Bowie around the you know the 30-day period for ordinances.

Our our charter already does outline language around emergency ordinances.

Um so I'm open to you know diving into both of those things further and seeing you know what uh what might be most applicable if there's something in between that we need to connect with the charter commission about to make a change so that we can be um able to move things further along when we're in a situation like this.

But just wanted to play that is something we can also think about.

Thanks, Ms.

Just.

Other discussion of the motion.

Well, I will add my uh thanks to my colleagues for uh everyone's leadership on this.

Um, and not just this.

I mean, I think one of the things that is really striking to me about this moment is the way that we are taking so many different actions with such urgency to respond.

So this is one banning staging in public parking lots, city controlled spaces.

Um, but prior to this, we passed a resolution as was mentioned earlier, calling on the governor to enact an eviction moratorium, not just for residents but also for small business tenants.

Today we'll be we will be having a public hearing on an ordinance we introduced last week requiring that federal agents have identification, um, their agency name, their name and their badge number on the outermost layer of their clothing.

Um we will also be introducing an ordinance today banning masking by federal agents, um, and we are at the same time working on strengthening our separation ordinance and taking other ideas that are coming to us both here at our standing public hearing via phone call via email via meetings we're having in the community.

So I just want to continue to contextualize the fact that this is one piece and it's just a piece of many many actions that we are trying to take in response, and we welcome other uh ideas and feedback.

Um so thank you again to everyone whose hard work has brought us to this point.

Um there's a motion for final adoption.

All in favor say aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The ordinance is adopted.

Item number eight is first reading of ordinance 26-8, amending section 86.01a of the St.

Paul Administrative Code to authorize up to three assistants to the mayor to execute certain contracts made in the name of the city and authorized by the city council and further amending 86.01A to increase the dollar value amount for contracts executed by designees.

And since this is a first reading, I believe we have a staff report.

We have a staff report from Mr.

Gilchrist.

Come on up.

Welcome.

Thanks for being here.

Could you see a council president and council members?

I'm Dan Gilchrist of the City Attorney's Office.

Um, this ordinance is amends 86.1A of the administrative code, authorized which currently authorizes the mayor and the executive assistant to the mayor to sign all contracts.

It also authorizes the mayor to designate a person to sign contracts under 50,000.

The mayor would like to amend 86.01A to add three assistant mayors to have the same authority as the curr as the mayor and executive assistant currently have.

In addition, the mayor would like to amend 86.1a to increase the dollar value of the contracts that have such authority for designees up from 50,000 to 175,000.

The reason for the request is to remove signature contract bottlenecks and to allow the three assistant mayors to focus on areas that they're responsible for.

Any questions?

Okay, short and sweet.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Um, and this will be before us next week for uh public hearing.

The item is laid over to February 11th for second reading public hearing.

I'll take a motion from Vice President Kim to suspend the rules uh to introduce ordinance 267.

26-7.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The uh rules are suspended.

Ordinance 26-7, adding chapter 268 B to the legislative code to require law enforcement officers to conduct law enforcement operations without a mask or facial covering, unless certain exceptions apply.

Vice President Kim.

Great.

I believe we have uh a mighty staff report.

Yes, I'm just pulling that up.

My children will be very pleased to watch the recording of this and see what you did there.

I saw it.

26-7.

No comments.

I want to start eight line.

I won't be using the slides right away, so I figured it'd be good to just start with uh brief introduction.

Um my name is Tim Greenfield, I'm the chief policy officer for the city council.

Thank you, Council President and Council members for the opportunity to present today.

Um I'm here for the third straight week to present on the city council's immigration related uh enforcement ordinances and ordinances that generally speak to the conduct of law enforcement in our city.

Um, as the legislative body of this city, the city council is empowered to create and make changes to our city's laws, which include both the city charter, as council member Yang noted, our administrative code, which dictates what actions our city staff can take, and our legislative code, which applies to the public living and working in our city limits.

The city has committed itself to meeting the needs of our city's people during this time of crisis, including updates to the city's existing separation ordinance.

However, based on the phased approach that was agreed upon by this council and moving ordinances uh based on their legal durability and their readiness to move forward, uh this is the third and that phased approach to recognize the need to address certain conduct that we we are seeing uh in our community.

So I want to um before I dive into the details of the ordinance, kind of highlight four major arguments that exist within the whereas clauses to kind of give a little bit more detail to the rationale behind a requirement for law enforcement to conduct their operations without a facial covering.

The first argument is up until 2025, it was very rare for common police practice to be conducted without mask or facial covering.

Only tactical or very specific special situations would exist across the country, across a variety of different circum circumstances, including those that put officers in danger, which did not necessitate the need of a facial covering.

This is um, you know, the the main source of alarm that has been raised by cities like ours and states in the legislation that they've enacted to address this alarming rise in masked law enforcement operations and the threat that it poses to public trust and public safety.

The second argument, uh the reason why a mask uh require uh a you know, a facial covering requirement ordinance in the city of St.

Paul is appropriate, is that it's consistent with Minnesota state law and Minnesota uh history uh requiring that uh individuals not wear a mask to conceal their identity.

And in fact, it's been a law of Minnesota statute for over a hundred years, enacted in response to Ku Klux Klan activity across the country, uh built in with an intent requirement uh initially, that uh section 60975 makes it a misdemeanor for a person to be conceal their identity in a public place with a robe, mask, or other disguise, unless certain specified exemptions apply, including things like Halloween costumes.

The idea is the disguise of one's personal identity is something that's already reflected in state law, is already an expected practice of everyone uh that includes law enforcement.

The third thromatic argument is um you know, more of a general, you know, there will be a question of whether this is a constitutional act given that the uh the potential agents that are or potential officers that are applicable to this ordinance include federal law enforcement.

However, first, uh a demasking requirement is not inconsistent or does anything to take away from the federal government's authority to enforce federal immigration law.

Second, immigration enforcement operations up until 2025 were conducted without a mask.

This is reflected in their uh rulemaking authority where they require um ICE uh agents to identify themselves at the point of making arrest.

So existing codified practice has not enabled them to wear masks or authorize or require them to use a mask.

Rather, it's a new practice that's emerging, and there's no regulation speaking for or against it.

And given that environment in which it poses a very real threat to public safety, as laid out in the second part of the results whereas clauses.

This the city is not doing anything in this ordinance that would undermine the ability to conduct those operations as they had done so before 2025, before this ubiquitous use of masking and the terror that it caused uh ran rampant over our community.

So those are the three major thematic buckets.

And I think it, you know, in addition to the claims that were, in addition to the arguments that were advanced last week regarding the visible display of insignia about a person on the street or a resident calling for assistance needs to know with whom they are interacting.

The same applies for being able to visibly identify an officer and their facial characteristics.

So there are a variety of reasons laid out in the ordinance language itself that specifically identify the threats posed by masking.

The first is the implications for public perception, officer community interactions, and accountability.

When individuals purport themselves to be in law enforcement, an easy way to impersonate law enforcement would be to conceal your face.

We in Minnesota know the tragic history that's connected to that activity, and we know that the rampant use of it by certain law enforcement make it questionable of who is legitimate and who is not legitimate.

Visibility of another's facial features is also important to understand body language, verbal and nonverbal communication, which are essential tools for law enforcement.

They have to be able to interact, understand, communicate, and incorporate that in their dialogue with and with whom they with whoever they interact with.

Three, preventing other law enforcement officers from identifying other masked law enforcement agents in the city poses a very real public safety threat to our own officers, the St.

Paul Police Department, especially when both officers may be armed.

So if one officer is armed and masked and unable to identify or produce those credentials, there is a very real danger situation that exists at that point of contact.

Fourth, unnecessary escalations in the community based on the intensity and the fear that's caused by masking with law enforcement, and that is very likely to heighten or intensify the risk of noncompliance or the situation escalating beyond either party's control.

Finally, risk to non-native English speakers, persons with disabilities, persons with speech processing or auditory issues, persons in mental health crisis or any other physical or mental health reason where an interaction with mass law enforcement officer would be would become extremely difficult.

So it's not so much the conduct of the officer that is important here, it's the safety of the public with whom they are interacting with the officer that matters the most.

And so that is the basic crux of the reasoning behind.

There's, you know, I think both a compelling legal argument to say that this is not necessary for any law enforcement officer to conduct their activity, nor is it authorized in any federal law for them to be exempt from these uh from this ordinance's requirements.

So up until 2025, this wasn't an issue, but now it is, and so the city has to move forward with the proper durable legal approach, which I will cover in brief detail now with the slides.

All right, so starting from the beginning, we are adding uh chapter 6268 B to the legislative code as a legislative ordinance.

Um this again would apply to external actors, not just city employees.

The crux of the requirement is that a law enforcement officer shall not wear a face covering or personal disguise that conceals or obscures their facial identity and the performance of law enforcement duties.

Prohibited facial coverings and certain masks permitted under certain certain specified circumstances, while certain facial coverings are not subject to the requirement, and I will do a little bit of statutory interpretation to justify why those two categories are treated separately.

So in terms of an overview of ordinance 26-7, the definition of face covering in personal disguise, I think is really important to focus on.

There are what I would highlight as three categories, um, one of which is not subject to the requirement that a law enforcement officer conduct their operations without that covering.

So applicable facial coverings that are prohibited include any opaque mask, garment, helmet, headgear, or any other item that can skewer uh conceals or obscures the facial identity, including a balacava, tactical mask, ski mask gator mask, or any similar type of facial covering or face shielding item to obscure effect of an individual's facial features.

So the intent behind this clause is this, anything covering the face that is meant to you know, make it almost incredibly impossible, incredibly difficult to identify who that officer is.

And the final catch-all at the at the back of the of that language makes it clear that there is a distinction between what is not applicable, meaning not subject to the prohibition includes an N95 medical mask, a surgical mask, or transparent face shield designed to transmit or protect against transmission to disease or any other mask, helmet, device, air purifying respirator, fuller half mask, or self-contained breathing apparatus necessary to protect against any toxin gas and gas, smoke, inclement weather, or any other harmful or hazardous condition.

And again, that modifier on the back end is meant to highlight that there is not meant to be a uniform exception to allow the face covering of a gator or a balacava or you know, where the percentage of most masked law enforcements are using facial coverings.

Rather, it's supposed to identify very clear health and safety situations where a face covering isn't considered a mask and isn't subject to the applicable requirement.

So I think those categories may be all lumped together to say there is you know a potential way to say because of the you know the weather that they are not able to, that they were justified in wearing a balacava.

This would say that there has to be you know a hazardous or harmful environmental condition related to that inclement weather, and it's related to a medical or health and safety reason, not just a carte blanche, it's cold outside type of situation.

Um definitions uh include law enforcement agency.

This is consistent with the language of ordinance 26-6 uh six, um, the the visible display of insignia as well as law enforcement officers, so we have consistency across categories as well as the definition of law enforcement duties, of which um the requirement is to apply.

And then finally, um there are exceptions to uh the requirement um to not conduct law enforcement operations with a facial covering, and those um are specified here.

Um the first is conducting active undercover operations or investigative activities, second, conducting tactical operations where protective gear is necessary for physical safety, third, utilizing eye protection with a face covering from the use of retinal weapons, uh, and fourth, assigned to SWAT team units or agency equivalent while actively performing their SWAT responsibilities.

Uh and again, similar to the ordinance 26-6, the uh criminal penalty is the same.

Any law enforcement officer who willing willfully and knowingly violates the ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor and may be punished pursuant to the city's legislative code.

Great.

That was a lot.

Thank you very much for the comprehensive report, Mr.

Greenfield.

Um are there questions?

All right, this will uh be laid over till next week for a public hearing.

Thanks so much again for the staff report.

Thank you.

The ordinance is laid over to February 11th or second.

Oh, sorry.

Oh, I'm sorry, Ms.

Yang, go ahead.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um our speaker today is um Tim, our chief policy officer.

So thank you, Tim, for the the very detailed presentation there.

I um I'm very proud to co-sponsor this, and and it's again, it's been great working with you, Councilmembers Coleman, and and uh well, Council Vice President Kim on this.

I do want to say thank you to all the staff for the time you put into this from Tim to Dan, our city attorney, the partnership from the mayor's office, and um you know, countless others, um, also the community members who came and testified about this over and over again, like the ordinances that you're seeing us introduce is coming directly from the community.

And um this ordinance is really about transparency and accountability, which is essential to maintaining public trust when it comes to law enforcement operations.

I'd like to read a line that we have in our ordinance here.

Um, it's aware as class and it talks, it says mass law enforcement interactions render it nearly impossible to report or hold officers accountable for unprofessional behavior or conduct, uh, even in instances of violent activity.

I mean, that's really just speaks to the importance of making sure that our law enforcement officers are not masked up.

That well, this is an ordinance that um does create exceptions for that.

But for the most part, I mean, we there is there should be no question at all to why the Trump regime, the author authoritarian Trump regime has wanted to cover up um the faces of ICE agents.

And I want to be clear like this is also an ordinance that applies to law enforcement officers across all units of government.

But I'm talking specifically about ICE agents because we're seeing instances where they are detaining citizens, children.

I spoke to one of my my constituents yesterday who was a very young person whose father was detained, and they said that their father got a call from ICE agents about a new process where ICE check-ins are happening at your home.

So they came to that family's home.

And that person's loved one got detained.

This is horrendous.

These are straight up lies coming from the Trump administration and being acted out by ICE agents.

And it is unacceptable.

And it is a time for accountability.

It is time for transparency.

We've always wanted that from the start.

But it unfortunately takes ordinances like this to try and put um put a stop to the things that we're seeing happening and the injustices that were happening.

And so I want to say thank you to everybody in the community who has been speaking up so much about this.

Um, and I um that that would be that of my remarks.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Ms.

Yang.

Other comments?

Ms.

Bowie and Ms.

Coleman.

Thank you, Council President.

And also thank you, Councilmember Yang.

I think this moment really requires authenticity and gravity of like just a moment.

I never thought in a million years when I will be a council member where we will be reviewing a mask ban policy on so-called law enforcement.

Um I just think about just, you know, even my own story, my own lineage.

Um, my grandfather was born and raised in Mississippi and had told very terrifying stories of seeing KKK members um burning crosses in his yard and being terrorized by um hate groups that were too afraid or too coward to show their face, and how we are up against that same type of force of white supremacy that is too cowardice to show their face, and that we need to make sure that the profession of law enforcement has a standard that is across the board.

Even if you are a federal agent, you do not, you cannot, you know, uh violate our laws.

And we need to also make sure we're upholding not only the profession of law enforcement, but having a complete ban on anyone who can come in here and terrorize our neighbors and not show their face.

That's very, very important.

So I am full support of this ordinance.

I am aware that this ordinance, like we've seen across different um cities across the country, has challenges, legal challenges.

But I think the the biggest risk right now is making sure that our neighbors feel safe and that we aren't tolerating any inch, or we're not tolerating any amount of legal risk to to give any inch for anyone to come into our neighborhoods and not show their face.

So it's so important all the work that we have been doing to make sure that we have not only a police department that is respectful of our neighbors, but all different forms of police departments should follow these rules.

So thank you so much.

I also want to say I appreciate the staff that put the time in for this.

Um, you know, from my experience here, I know it really has been dependent on council members to bring forth language, council members to bring forth a first reading.

So I am really happy to see just that we have the staff to actually make sure that we are conveying to the public what all of the um ins and outs of our policy um um can do for our community.

So again, thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Bowie, Miss Coleman.

Thank you, Council President, and I'll echo thanks particularly to Council Vice President Kim and Councilmember Yang for their partnership on this and to Mr.

Greenfield and all the city staff who have been integral to getting us to this point of introduction.

For months, as we all know, federal agents have terrorized our community under the color of law and the cloak of anonymity.

From the first large-scale raid in Ward 4 back in mid-November, to what is now daily attacks on immigrants, citizens, the elderly, and children alike.

We've seen ICE and border patrol agents obscure their identity to avoid the accountability that Minnesotans know must come.

The response from the residents of St.

Paul has been clear.

People are demanding that these agents be unmasked and identifiable, just as our local law enforcement is required to be.

Adam Serwer wrote recently in The Atlantic quote, the public has the right to know the identity of the people who wield power in their name, so that they can withdraw that power from those who abuse or misuse it.

If people can wield power over life and death without showing their face, we have a gang of criminals, not a police force.

End quote.

Today, our council has introduced this ordinance which would prohibit the performance of law enforcement operations while the officer wears a facial covering or personal disguise, unless certain exceptions, as detailed by Mr.

Greenfield, apply.

This is such a common sense measure that it's long been standard practice, not just in the St.

Paul police department, but within the very federal agencies that are now attacking our neighbors.

Until 2025, federal law enforcement officers did not conduct enforcement operations while wearing masks, again, unless there were certain limited exceptions.

No federal law changed to suddenly permit masking, and in fact, no such law does prohibit uh permit masking.

What changed?

Simply the desire of Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, and others to allow men and women to roam our streets with weapons, abducting and even killing our residents with complete and total anonymity.

As council members sworn to uphold the Constitution, it's our obligation to understand the limits of our power.

As a municipality, we do not have the authority to regulate the actions of the federal government or its officers directly.

We are, however, required to enact and uphold generally applicable laws designed to keep our residents safe.

It is, in my opinion, our highest duty as public servants.

No federal agent is above the law when they are in St.

Paul, as much as men in DC might want them to be.

We saw this just last week when a border patrol agent was found in his car in my neighborhood, covered in his own vomit.

He was arrested by a straight state trooper because our laws against drunken driving apply to federal agents, just as they do to you and me.

Similarly, we see it in the assurances from our St.

Paul police department that our speed limits and other road safety laws are enforced when violated by ICE agents, even if those violations occur when an agent is ostensibly acting in the course of their duty.

As federal courts have established, on-duty federal employees may be subjected to non-federal legal restrictions, like city laws, if the federal employees' actions are unnecessary or improper to carrying out their duties.

Immigration officials do not need to cover their face with masks to do their jobs, as long-standing ICE practice makes clear.

Everyone can see that.

Any belief that they do is unreasonable.

This ordinance does indeed touch federal activity in our city, but it is not an unconstitutional direct regulation.

It is instead a legitimate exercise of our city's authority, generally applicable to all law enforcement, with only an incidental effect on the behavior of federal enforcement officers.

I'm confident that this ordinance is well within our constitutional power, and I am certain that it is the correct public policy, one that will make our community safer than we are today.

I expect the federal government will disagree, but I refuse to obey in advance their tortured reading of the Constitution and their disdain for the safety and well-being of our neighbors in our city.

I look forward to the public hearing on this item next week and to casting the final vote later this month.

Thank you so much, Ms.

Coleman.

Any other uh discussion on this issue.

Vice President.

Thank you.

I'll be very brief.

Um I really appreciate the comments of my colleagues and this ordinance really more than anything is responsive to the reality of our neighbors that they're living in right now.

When masked agents can operate without identification, there's no accountability.

There's no recourse when someone's rights are being trampled.

And we know this ordinance will push legal boundaries.

We know the federal agent, the federal government will challenge us, but our residents are living in fear.

And with little or no recourse when their rights are being violated, the city can and must do something.

The risk of doing nothing is far greater than the risk of this fight.

Our residents need to see us act and act with courage.

The federal government has abandoned its responsibility to govern with transparency and accountability.

So residents are left to organize ourselves and create networks of support and care.

Local municipalities are left carrying the weight, and we are the ones fielding the calls from terrified families.

We're those watching our small businesses shudder because customers are too afraid to leave their homes, their workers are too afraid to go to work, and the business owners are struggling to leave their house with safety.

We are the ones who are dealing with the trauma, the economic fallout, and the shattered trust of our residents, and that is felt every single day in the city of St.

Paul.

If the federal government won't protect our residents' basic rights, we will.

At this point, we have seen countless videos and firsthand accounts of agents who are masked in plain clothes and refuse to identify themselves and kidnap our residents without warrants.

And one of the first times we saw this happen downtown St.

Paul was when they, in a unmarked vehicle and some masked and unidentified agents arrested, our neighbor, Isabella Lopez, back in June.

So this trend is one that we've been seeing for since since June.

Too many months.

These aren't just random or isolated events, they are clear patterns to their operations because cruelty, confusion, and fear are intentional.

We must point our efforts towards what we can do.

And we can demand transparency.

We can continue to record who is violating our residents' rights or our ordinances, and we can establish that in St.

Paul, public safety means accountability even for federal law enforcement.

I look forward to the public hearing.

Please submit written testimony to our offices and consider coming down and testifying in person next week.

Thanks so much, Vice President.

And Ms.

Just.

Thank you so much, Council President.

I just have a quick comment.

Um, also want to um express my thanks to Mr.

Greenfield, our policy officer, for all of his work on this.

Um, it's really helped us sort through what is uh, you know, a very a lot of very complex legislation that matters so much to our community.

Uh I just want to share that, you know, the other thing I've been thinking about.

I uh visited some second graders a few a week ago, and they had some really great questions for me.

I was hoping to talk to them about parks and libraries, um, but they asked me uh a lot of questions about ICE, but particularly what are you gonna do about our federal tax dollars being spent to support ICE from an eight-year-old.

Um, and I I think the other thing that's just really on my mind when I'm thinking about this is the idea that agents can come in our communities and inflict violence, harm, chaos, while not showing their faces, as my council members said, and then on our dime.

And that's something that I'm not okay with.

Additionally, uh, the next item you're gonna hear us talk about is not while they're not displaying their identification.

Additionally, uh, the next item you're gonna hear us talk about is not while they're not displaying their identification, um, and that's just not acceptable to us.

And so I'm so glad to see this moving forward.

I think it is um, as my colleagues have said, something that is within our power, something that is reasonable and appropriately, I think balances uh the risk um that we're facing of what you know could happen if we do uh when we do move forward with this ordinance.

But I just think that this is so important in this time.

So thank you so much to all of you.

Thank you, Ms.

Joost.

And thank you again to all of my colleagues for your courage and leadership and bringing this forward.

I'm proud to be part of this council.

I I think the fact that we are applying a law originally intended for the KKK to our own federal government um really says a lot about the moment that we're in.

So thank you.

We will have public hearing on this next week.

Um, and we will now transition to public hearings this week.

The item is laid over to February 11th for second reading public hearing.

Item number nine is public second reading public hearing of ordinance 26-6, adding chapter 268a to the legislative code to require law enforcement officers performing law enforcement duties to display just to visibly display identification on the outermost layer of their uniform.

So this brings us to the public hearing section of our agenda.

Um so for public hearings, we um ask folks to come on up and line up on both sides of the two huge golden columns.

Um when it's your turn to speak, just come on up, stand in between the two microphones.

You don't need to adjust them or lean over towards them, just stand in between both of them and they'll pick up your voice just fine.

Um we ask that you start your testimony with your name and where you're coming from.

Um that can be as broad as you'd like.

And then when you're done testifying, to please sign in on either of the two sign-in boards on either side.

Um we we do limit testimony to two minutes per person.

There is a clock right in front of you while you're testifying.

Two minutes does go quickly, um, but the purpose of this is to make sure that everyone gets a chance to be heard, and we have a lot of folks here today.

Um, and it's not fun, but it's my duty to make sure everyone sticks to the two minutes.

So um please take a look at the clock as you're speaking.

If you find that you've run out of time, I will ask you to stop.

You can always give us additional testimony in writing.

Um, and if you brought it with you and want to hand that around, you're welcome to do that as well.

Um, so with that, this is a public hearing on ordinance 26-6, uh, which again is requiring law enforcement officers to visibly display identification.

Um, if you're here for this public hearing, please come on up.

Welcome up.

Hi, my name is Silas.

Uh, I live in Frogtown, and I believe this was brought up last week when this ordinance was first read, but I am concerned by how broad some of the exceptions are for this ordinance.

Um, and I know if someone is determined to find a loophole, we probably can't stop them to some degree, but I would urge you to make the exceptions as specific as possible so we can do what we can to prevent people from misusing this.

Thank you so much.

Make sure to sign in.

Welcome up.

Hi again.

Uh I'm Sarah Gartner.

I live in Ward 7.

And I specifically wanted to call out that comment about the loopholes, specifically the mobile field force.

Um, I just want to make sure that as we're looking to tighten up these ordinances, that we are ensuring that officers that are deployed as part of the mobile field force and crowd control does not exempt them from displaying their badge or any other identifiers, um, especially if they're activated by the chief of police.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in.

Everyone so far has been well below the two minutes, just to be clear.

So not everyone has to be that short.

Welcome up.

Hello, I'm John Benda, uh St.

Paul resident from Ward 3.

I'm a board member and co-chair of an organization called ICOM, the Minnesota Interfaith Coalition on Immigration.

I was at the two large ICE raids that took place in St.

Paul in November, one at Brotex Incorporated, and the other on Rose Avenue.

Both were shocking experiences, especially the Rose Avenue event where St.

Paul Police collaborated with ICE, formed a perimeter around the home and sprayed chemical irritants at us peaceful protesters, despite our so-called separation policy.

They also are St.

Paul police were all were all masked, and most did not show their names or badges that day.

That was great to hear.

But I have to say that I am disappointed that it's taken this long for the city council to get around to making some changes.

I do understand that some of that is now happening.

Uh we just you just passed an ordinance ordinance um uh uh preventing ICE to use city-owned properties to uh to stage.

And uh this one that we're discussing now about uh showing identification on their uniforms and what we was just discussed about showing their the the requirement to show their faces are coming.

Uh those are great.

Thank you for those.

And we would like to see more.

We'd like to see the culture work within different levels of government and influence and influence influence them, do everything in their power to advocate for protections from ICE in our hospitals, schools, daycares, and churches.

We'd like to see that it's clearly and publicly restated that our St.

Paul police will not cooperate with ICE in any manner, and that they will in fact intervene and arrest them if they are breaking the law, and the city will prosecute them in solidarity with other cities, namely Chicago and Philadelphia that have promised to do so.

We'd also like to hear a public apology for the St.

Paul Police Department's cooperation with ICE back on November 4th.

Please push back harder.

And show us that you do indeed stand against ICE.

Our St.

Paul residents, no matter what their status is, need you to push back with urgency during this evil against this evil regime.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for listening.

Make sure to sign in.

Thank you.

Welcome up.

Good afternoon.

My name is John Jocelyn.

I'm not the ring guy, Justin, otherwise I'd have a Cadillac here.

But I'm here to express I've been a line 23-year member of St.

Paul.

I've come from out of town, but I'm disgusted and totally disgusted what is happening with ICE, like all of you, I'm assuming here.

But um I also am a member of ICOM.

I've been to the border, and I've um so I am very happy to stand here and support everything that was just said.

Everything that you're doing now to move this forward in terms of because I've been here before a couple of other times, so I appreciate that.

I would simply say I uh um have uh supported people coming from coming to the from the border here and to the Bishop Whipple with the immigration court.

I helped uh uh a family get uh an asylum, and and I'm hoping that they are in safe keeping now, but I'm worried about them as well.

So I just uh hope I'm proud that everybody here is moving forward on this and making sure we're holding our current administration, federal administration, culpable for all the things, and I can't believe that there were two murders already conducted by ICE, and then I'm hopefully that we get all these ordinances passed before they try a third one.

So with that, I um again thank all of you for being here.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in.

Welcome up.

Hello, I'm gonna be up here a couple times today.

My name is Heather Liu.

I live in Ward 6.

Um, Councilmember Yang is my council member.

Thank you for pushing this forward.

Um, there's a few different things I want to put forward.

Um, yes, we need to think about face coverings.

We also need to be thinking about public health and safety.

My biggest concern is the way that ICE and law enforcement, there's a lot of collusion, and I do believe that we need to abolish ICE.

One of my concerns is how youth, particularly children, have been abducted, trafficked, detained, traumatized, and terrorized.

I was uh an advocate for survivors of sexual violence, particularly youth for many years, an educator as well.

And in Loco Parentis, and what we need to do is to act within Inloca Apprentice and protect our youth.

One of my concerns is that youth are being detained.

Um they are the most vulnerable, and the president and people operating in leadership roles have been confirmed pedophiles who have trafficked, assaulted, and murdered infants, children, and women for over 40 years.

These people are detaining youth, they have little to no trainings, no requirements around those detainments, and then also when we are asking for them to say who they are, they're not telling us.

And then these children are going in in unmarked cars to places like Whipple, and we have no idea what happens.

There is no documentation of what happens between the time they are detained through Whipple and then also going to Dilly, which are completely inhumane, cruel, and unusual conditions for anybody to be detained under.

And so we need to have these folks be obviously identified.

They need to say who they are, they need to roll up in actual cars that are very clearly quote unquote law enforcement, even if it's federal.

Thank you.

Um, however, my concern is what is happening in terms of accountability around sexual violence, sexual assault, as well as other kinds of trauma that are happening to youth, our families, and this is gonna impact us for generations.

This is epigenetic trauma.

We must abolish this and please make sure we know who the hell is impacting and taking our children.

Because if and when they don't make it back, this is on all of us as community.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I'll show to sign in.

Is there anyone else here to testify on this ordinance, which again is about the identification being required?

I'll testify.

Okay, come on up.

And maybe if anyone else is here to testify in the ordinance, this ordinance, if you could just line up now so we have a sense.

Come on up.

Hello, it's nice to speak with everybody here today.

Um I heard about this meeting in connection with the waterfall contract.

We'll discuss.

I mean, I'm sorry, the Lockheed Martin contract we'll discuss later today.

And I just want to highlight that I really feel that I represent a lot of people who care about both of these issues in connection.

Um there is you know a crossover in how people are funded from ice to uh where ice trains in occupied Palestine and the people who come to these uh protests and show up for our community.

We care about people, you know, all around the world, and we see our struggles as connected, and the world's eyes are on us.

So I'm really proud of my community for showing up in all these ways to be here for each other as neighbors from opposing the war on Venezuela, the sanctions on Cuba, and opposing ICE in the Twin Cities.

So thank you, everybody.

Would you just say your your name?

Yes, Yuri Command.

My name is Lyndon Burns Garcia Torres.

Um, I am a member of SEIU.

I'm a healthcare worker at Planned Parenthood, and um yeah, um grateful to everybody here today.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in.

Hi there, my name is Samantha Brandt.

I'm from Ward 6.

I didn't actually come here intending to speak today, but this is common sense.

We've created an environment where anyone can be put in danger.

Anyone can put on a gator, claim their police ice, and limitlessly terrorize our community and say that any defense against them is a federal crime.

We had an official killed last year by someone in impersonating a cop.

This can't continue.

It's common sense.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in.

All right.

Doesn't look like there's anyone else here to testify on this item.

So I will take a motion from Ms.

Coleman to close the public hearing and this matter will lay over till next week for final adoption.

All in favor say aye.

All opposed?

Six in favor, none opposed.

The public hearing is closed, and the item is laid over to February 11th for final adoption.

Item number 10 is resolution public hearing 26-28, authorizing the city to accept a $500,000 grant from the state to pay for the technology rich space improvements to the Rondo Community Library authorizing the execution of a grant agreement related thereto, authorizing the appropriate city officials to record a declaration related to the grant agreement on the Rondo Community Library property and demanding the St.

Paul Public Libraries 2026 financing and spending plans.

This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak on this item?

Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms.

Just to close the public hearing, and then we'll have some comments.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

Six in favor, none oppose the resolution.

The public hearing is closed.

Ms.

Jost.

Oh you I just wanted to say a little more about what this is.

Um we're accepting a grant from the state to be able to uh do the renovation uh for the technology rich spaces at Rondo Library while we're doing the renovation that's currently already happening there now to the entryway.

Um this is part of the transforming libraries uh projects uh that St.

Paul Public Library are doing, where we're gonna be making these updates to every library in the city, and so really looking forward to this being done at the same time.

I want to thank um our uh library staff, our director, and also um councilmember Bowie for her partnership on this.

Thanks so much, Ms.

Joe.

Sorry, I was a little bit distracted there for a second.

Uh all right, so any further discussion on the motion to approve.

Otherwise, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Uh so my discussion just there was it turns out there's a version two of the ordinance 26-6 that we just considered um that includes a severability clause that we intended to move before the public hearing.

Um, so we're being advised we should recall the motion to lay over so we can adopt the version two and then lay it over.

So I um version two and hold a public hearing on version two.

Um, so I will I will take a motion from Ms.

Yang to reconsider the last item.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, non-opposed.

The item is reconsidered.

Item number nine, ordinance 26-6, adding chapter 268A to the legislative code to require law enforcement officers performing law enforcement duties to visibly display identification on the outermost layer of the uniform.

Take a motion from Vice President Kim for version two of this uh ordinance.

Vote on it.

Yeah.

All in favor say aye.

Aye, aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, non opposed.

The amendment is approved.

Uh so this is a public hearing on the same thing we just had, a public hearing about uh the ordinance requiring identification.

We added a severability clause.

Um do you want to say what a separability clause is?

It just means if there's any provision in the ordinance that gets struck down by a judge or that all the other provisions will stay in place.

So it basically allows us to not harm the entire ordinance if one part of it is found to be um uh illegal, which is very important to do.

Um so this is a public hearing again on the same item.

Uh anyone want to testify on this item.

Okay.

Uh seeing none, uh, I will move to close the public hearing.

Oh, sorry, Ms.

Yang.

Thank you, Council President.

I just have a question for a clarification.

The testimonies that we heard earlier, will that be added to the public record still?

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you for asked.

So all of the testimony will be in the record.

Um so I will move to close the public hearing and this matter will lay over till next week for final adoption.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The ordinance is laid over to February 11th for final adoption.

Item number 11 is resolution public hearing 26-13, ratifying the assessment for repair of sanitary sewer line on private properties.

This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak on this item?

Okay.

Uh seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms.

Bowie to close the public hearing and approve.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed, the resolution is adopted.

Item number 12 is resolution public hearing 26-14, ratifying the assessment for replacement of lead water service line on private properties.

This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak on this item?

Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms.

Coleman to close the public hearing and approve.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Item number 13 is resolution public hearing 26-16, amending the financing and spending plan in the Department of Parks and Recreation Grant Fund in the amount of 35,000 to reflect grant funds received from the State Arts Board to support the St.

Paul get down.

And just as a point of personal privilege, I will say if you have not gone to a St.

Paul get down performance, uh, it is remarkable to see the talents of our young people, and this is this is a really wonderful program.

Uh so this is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak on this item?

Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms.

Jose to close the public hearing and approve.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Item number 14 is resolution public hearing 26-18.

Approving the 2026-2027 capital improvement budget committee capital maintenance fund uh funding recommendations and amending the 2026 capital improvement budget to allocate the funding for the capital maintenance projects to the appropriate departments as recommended by the committee.

This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak on this item?

Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Vice President Kim to close the public hearing and approve.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Item number 15 is resolution public hearing 26-21, authorizing the extension of the terms of the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development Grant under the Minnesota Investment Fund Program for Forward Edge ASIC LLC.

And just sorry, before people uh get up for this one, we are gonna have just a quick staff report just to say what we're talking about since this uh hasn't been before us before, and we want to make sure that we have some context.

So welcome up, Ms.

Lorenz.

Um from our planning and economic development department.

Welcome up.

Yes.

Good evening, everybody.

Um, as Council President Naker said, I'm Daniela Lorenz.

I work for our um planning and economic development department as a project manager and uh project manager supervisor.

Um so a little bit of background about the item before you tonight.

Um in 2023, April of 2023, the St.

Paul City Council unanimously approved an application to the state of Minnesota's Minnesota Investment Fund or MIF program for a project that will be benefiting forward edge ASIC LLC or forward edge, as I will refer to them going forward.

Deed approved the and awarded $800,000 forgivable loan to forward edge um to the city, actually, for a project benefiting forward edge in May of 2023.

So the action before you all tonight is to approve a one year or consider approving a one-year extension to an approved agreements compliance timeline that would allow the forward edge to complete its requirement to hire 113 jobs as part of consideration for its loan forgiveness.

So a little bit about the Minnesota Investment Fund program.

MIF, as it is commonly recalled called, is a business retention and attraction program that is administered by the Minnesota Department of Economic Development and Employment, or DEED.

This program provides loans to manufacturing and tech-based businesses that are locating to or expanding in Minnesota, so it can either be for somebody that is brand new to the state of Minnesota, the city of St.

Paul, or is already here and planning to do a substantial expansion within their space.

Award eligibility and size of MIF loans are determined by the state based on the number of jobs created at specific wage levels.

This is a program that's really meant to attract high paying jobs, typically in like the manufacturing, industrial, and tech sectors.

And then these dollars, this is a structured as a pass-through program.

So a lot of our development loans and grants are done in the same way.

So what happens is the city is awarded these funds.

We apply for them, are awarded them, and then pass them on to the business, the benefiting business at the end of the day.

About Forward Edge's project, so you understand what we're looking at here today.

Forward Edge, as we stated, is located at 2340 Energy Park Drive.

As part of their MIF funded project, Forward Edge is located its venture in St.

Paul with the plan to create 113 jobs ranging from 40 an hour to 127 an hour.

That is exclusive of benefits.

All of these jobs also come with significant benefit packages as well.

To date, Forward Edge has created 83 jobs.

They are at the end of their original two-year kind of compliance period.

They said that they were gonna create 113, so they are about 30 jobs short of what they were anticipating hiring.

Per the MIF program, they are allowed one, we are allowed to consider one extension for them at the city, so that is what they're asking for from us here today.

Um they're very confident that they will hire all their jobs before the end of 2026.

Their new compliance period, if we do decide to extend this, um, would be in March of 2027 rather than what it is now, which would be March of 2026.

Um the action before the council, as I said again, is to allow that one year extension to the initial two-year job creation period um and give forward edge additional time to create that remaining 30 jobs.

Um, if they do not create all 113 jobs, whether that is because we decide not to extend or they just don't make it, the state will just simply reduce the amount of the award that's already been approved to them on a pro rata basis.

Happy to answer any questions.

Are there I have a couple questions, but any questions for my colleagues?

Um, did this company was this based in St.

Paul prior to the MIF grant, or was this a grant that brought them to St.

Paul?

Nope, Forward Edge is a brand new company for St.

Paul.

And uh if they are not granted the extension or if they don't create the 30 additional jobs, what would be do you know the rough amount that they would need to return to the state?

I don't know the exact amount.

The state would have the actual formula, but in my quick math from um the loan agreement that currently exists, it could be up to about a 200,000 dollar reduction in their overall award.

And then last question if those dollars come back to the state, do they go back into the MIF fund?

And do they remain allocated to St.

Paul or do they go statewide?

Uh council president, I believe that is correct that they would go back into MIFS just overall pot, wouldn't be allocated specific to one community or one specific type of project.

It would just go back into the statewide fund.

Any other questions, Ms.

Bowie?

Thank you.

You have a technical question.

Um, since these are state dollars, can you explain maybe like legally what grants like the council the authority to approve an extension or not approve extension?

I'm just trying to understand why uh the council has to make this decision when these are state dollars.

Council President, council member, good question.

Because we're a pass-through agency and the original applicant, that is what gives us that authority.

It's written into the state program guidelines.

Okay and that whoever the governmental agency is would be the one that makes the decision.

So initially the the city was the ones who actually applied for these dollars.

So we're the we're the entity that's asking for this extension.

Come on, behalf of this organize or this company.

Yes, that's correct.

Um Ms.

Bowie's question made me think of another question.

Are we um do we have other businesses that were are also getting funds through MIF funds?

Can you give us a sense of sort of what this how big the total pool is in terms of who what we're supporting with this fund?

Council President, I am not sure the total pool of MIF funds that they have available.

This is something any business that is eligible can inquire about at a time.

There's not it's not an application deadline, it's rolling, it's always open because these are pretty specific programs meant to be able to have economic development people from across the state, um, be able to say we're we're wanting to get this company to move in.

We think this is an opportunity for us.

St.

Paul has participated in this program before.

We've got right now, I think three active, I would including Forward Edge's loan in that um that run through this program.

Depends on when businesses are moving in, um, and again, the amount of investment that they're making, the jobs that they're hiring.

It's pretty narrow in terms of what this is used to attract.

Um, but yes, we've we've been users of this program in other ways.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Any final questions?

Not seeing any.

Thanks so much, Ms.

Lorenz.

Appreciate it.

Maybe stick around in case we have questions after the public hearing.

Great.

All right, so again, this is a public hearing.

Um, so we'll welcome folks up.

You can stand right between the two microphones.

You'll have two minutes.

Please start with your name and where you're coming from.

My name is Jeanette Corsilius, and I live in the St.

Anthony Park neighborhood in St.

Paul.

Therefore, I'm a Ward 4 resident.

I am absolutely enraged that not only did my city council member Molly Coleman not respond to my emails or calls about this, but this entire city council did not.

I am dumbfounded that you all would consider continuing a contract with a military contractor, Forward Edge ASIC, which is a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin, the most powerful weapons manufacturer in the world.

For those in the chamber that don't know, this military contractor is located at 2344 Energy Park Drive.

Shouldn't you be using this grant for good pen union jobs for honest, hardworking people, not murderers?

Right now in Minnesota, as ICE terrorizes our community with military grade weapons.

It's unconscionable to allow our tax dollars to fund a tech company that contributes to this same mass violence.

Forward Edge ASIC is not just a tech company.

They produce computer chips that power the world's deadliest warplane bombs, the F35.

Let me remind you that I am a member of OPEIU Local 12, which has taken a strong stance against the Palestine the genocide of Palestinian people.

I also have Palestinian family.

My taxes and a business in a neighborhood that I live is killing my people.

I urge you to vote against this extension request today by voting not to extend the grant contract.

Their $800,000 forgivable loan won't be forgiven, and instead, they'll have to pay it back.

These funds can go towards fully funding St.

Paul public schools.

The Imperial Boomerang has come back around on us.

The IDF trains with ICE.

They train our police forces.

Thank you very much.

It's all connected from Turtle Island to Palestine.

We say no to Genocide!

Thank you.

Make sure to sign in.

Welcome up.

Hello, my name's Christina.

I'm a St.

Paul resident, and I am a United States military veteran.

I am also a member of the organization about face veterans against the war.

I was trained not to question violence.

I was taught that obedience was duty, that harm done in the name of patriotism made the harm acceptable.

I know now that this is how the machinery of war protects itself by turning human beings into abstractions and accountability into paperwork.

That is what this vote represents.

Forward Edge ASICs, as stated before, is a substerior of Lockheed Martin.

Lockheed Martin is the largest weapons manufacturer in the world.

Its technology is being used right now to bomb civilians, to destroy hospitals, and to erase families in Palestine.

The subsidiary operating in St.

Paul designs components that feed directly into that machinery.

There's no plausible deniability left.

And yet this city chose to fund it.

$800,000 in public money, money that could have gone to schools, health care, andor housing, was given to a war profiteer with clear conditions attached.

Those conditions were not met.

Now that comp the company is asking for more time, more leniency, and more silence so that they may continue to profit from our tax dollars.

This is not economic development.

This is how violence is normalized.

This vote is about whether our city will be complicit in violence.

And you are being asked whether St.

Paul will help pay for it.

Neutrality is a choice.

Silence is a choice.

Complicity is a choice.

As a veteran, I'm here to tell you what comes after those choices.

I was complicit in the destruction carried out by the American war machine once, and I will live with those consequences for the rest of my life.

You don't have to.

Vote no.

Thank you very much.

Welcome up.

Hi, Council members.

My name is Jacqueline Jong.

I am a resident of Ward 2.

I live just a few blocks down that way.

I'm testifying today to urge you to not approve, uh not approve the Minnesota Investment Fund grant extension.

Ford Edge ASIC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin.

In 2024, Lockheed Martin made over 71 billion dollars of profit, 26% of which came specifically from the sales of the F 35 fighter jet, which is the main focus of Ford Edge ASIC's work.

Israel has used F-35s to carry out crimes against humanity in Palestine, including bombing safe zones in Gaza, such as the Jabila refugee camp and Al-Mawazi humanitarian zone.

Ford Edge ASIC itself claims to have made the brain of the F 35 smarter.

I'm extremely concerned that state and city resources are being used to fund this horrifying genocidal violence.

Furthermore, I think it is pretty ridiculous that despite US taxpayers funneling billions of dollars into into Lockheed Martin each year, they still want more free money from us.

Like they clearly have funds.

To fund violence abroad is to ensure violence at home.

We know that many of the strategies ICE is using to terrorize our community had first been battle tested on the I by Palestinian or on by the IDF on Palestinians.

Lockheed Martin currently has contracts to modernize Black Hawk helicopters used by ICE during Operation Midway Blitz in Chicago.

During this time of crisis in our state, we have seen how important Minnesota businesses are to the fabric of our community.

If you look at the other other beneficiaries of the Minnesota Investment Fund, you will find numerous tech companies that are creating products that actually better people's lives.

If you vote against this resolution today, perhaps the money Ford Edge ASIC will return to the state can be invested back into more companies like these.

I believe in a world free from US backed violence.

I will fight for it.

And voting against this grant extension today would be one step towards that future.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in.

So come on up.

Yep.

And you'll be next.

Hello, Council members.

My name is Willow Stevens.

I'm a member of Ward 4.

Um, I would just like to reiterate.

Um the uh opinions uh put forth uh by the people before me.

Um I do not want my state tax dollars um to fund genocide here or abroad.

Um that's what I have to say.

Thank you very much.

Thanks for the sign in.

Welcome up.

Hello, my name is Shelby June Pemberton.

I live and work in St.

Anthony Park, um, right around the corner from the Ford Edge ASIC office, so I'm a member of Ward 4.

I'm asking you to vote against the grant extension today, because this company is a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin, as we know, and it produces the semiconductor chips used in the jets that carry out the genocide on the Palestinian people.

To vote no would follow the recent precedent set by the Minneapolis City Council when they chose to divest from Zen City, an Israeli company.

Um, here in St.

Paul, the Board of Water Commissioners recently decided to explore alternative options to their contract with an Israeli cybersecurity company, waterfall uh waterfall security solutions.

Many of us St.

Paul residents do not want our taxpayers' dollars to support Israel because of their violations of international law in Gaza.

We don't want our money used to create weapons, and we don't want those weapons to go and fight a war that's on a completely different continent when right here and right now, ICE is terrorizing our communities, and many people don't have the money to forward basic necessities.

Today we have the opportunity to see some of that $800,000 loan to Ford Edge ASIC return to our community and invest in businesses that would help us.

I strongly believe this is the right choice, and I appreciate your consideration.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Simon.

Welcome up.

Hi, uh, my name is Maria.

I'm a child care provider in Ward 5.

I wasn't originally planning to speak on this item today, but when I learned about it, I couldn't stomach it.

So today I'm urging City Council not to extend their contract with Ford Edge, uh, otherwise known as Lockheed Martin, and demand that they pay back their forgivable loan.

Not only did Lockheed Martin fail to deliver on their end of the bargain by not creating jobs, they're profiting from ICE's reign of terror on St.

Paul to the tune of 1.1 billion dollars in contracts to ICE.

Lockheed Martin specializes in surveillance equipment like the helicopters that circle my child care center and scare kids.

They also make the biometric identification systems that the feds use to label us well-meaning neighbors as domestic terrorists.

We can thank Lockheed Martin for that too.

Beyond what's happening locally, Lockheed Martin participates in horrific acts of violence for years on a global scale.

They create weapons that are used to kill people in Palestine and Venezuela.

Our freedom is inextricably linked with our neighbors next door and across the world.

St.

Paul wants its blood money back from Lockheed Martin.

We want to invest it into the community for something that actually makes our lives better.

No billion dollar corporation needs a forgivable loan from the city.

Let alone one that commits that further acts of violence.

I also call on the city council and the mayor's office to conduct an immediate audit of any city spending that directly or indirectly benefits ICE and their reign of terror on St.

Paul.

I've been advocating for affordable health care in St.

Paul for decades.

Do you know what we always hear?

There's not enough money for that.

Well, it sounds to me like Lockheed Martin owes us $800,000.

We do not have to participate in our own questions.

Vote no on these.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks for the sign-in.

Welcome up.

Hi.

Hi, my name is Rennie.

I live in Ward 3, and I work in St.

Anthony Park in Ward 4.

In November, I was pleased to hear that you all voted, I think unanimously to pass a gun violence prevention ordinance banning assault rifles and other weapons components that put our community in danger.

I feel grateful to be represented by council members that have a shared interest in getting military grade weapons off of our streets.

But in the age of smart warfare and globalized supply chains, the work you've already started is far from over.

Forward Edge ASIC is using this deed loan to design computer trips used in airstrikes, surveillance, and electronic warfare.

They have bombed Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, and Syria.

I am not exaggerating when I say that the planes operated by computers made by this company in St.

Anthony Park are responsible for the deaths of thousands of people.

Kids should be kept safe here in St.

Paul and everywhere else.

A subsidiary of the largest weapons manufacturer in the world does not need grants from the state.

Please vote not to authorize this grant extension.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Welcome up.

Hi, my name is Raymond.

I'm a concerned community member.

I, for one, am disgusted with how much taxpayer money has already gone to Ford Edge ASIC.

And I strongly urge City Council to vote against any further funding for the to give any taxpayer money to bombs.

Right now, in this time of terror that has been imposed upon us by the federal government.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Welcome.

Hi, my name is Emily.

Lockheed Martin and Ford Edge ASIC design microchips that go into intercontinental missiles.

They go into F-35 planes that have bombed Palestine and Venezuela recently and Lebanon and Yemen.

And we're in this moment where we know our community needs other things.

Anyone in this room can tell you that our schools need funded, right?

Our roads need clearing, right?

And it's just ridiculous that uh the biggest weapon, the biggest weapons contractor in the world, the biggest in the world is getting this money from us when they have so much money and they just got a billion dollars from ICE last week, right?

They're ICE just gave them.

ICE just gave Lockheed Martin a billion dollars to to make to maintain planes that are doing surveillance um for of immigrants.

And um this money has a much better place.

So I think just like all people here asking you all to not renew this money and to not go through with it.

Um I think we all in this room know that there are things our community needs right now.

Our neighbors need rent, our schools need funding, we need health care.

There's so much we need, and this company who can't even fill 100 jobs and makes their money off of terrorizing the whole world does not leave us money.

So do the right thing here, support our communities.

Thank you very much.

Hi.

My name is Carolyn.

I've worked in St.

Paul for the last several years, um, serving St.

Paul residents experiencing homelessness.

Um recently, that work has focused on young people experiencing homelessness.

I want to say off the bat that homelessness should not exist.

We live in the wealthiest country in the world.

There's no reason that we can't ensure that everyone has a roof over their heads at night.

However, too much of that wealth is currently being spent on war and weapons manufacturing.

So much so that social services and the people of this country have to operate on scraps.

According to the pit count data from 2024, there were 200 young people and their children experiencing homelessness on the night of the pit count in Ramsey County.

200 is too many, and yet we know that the pit count is not a perfect measure.

This is an underrepresentation of what homelessness looks like for young people in this community.

Wilder's reach search says that 13,000 young people experience homelessness across the state in the course of a year.

Where we put our money matters, it communicates our values.

At a time when social programs are being cut, every dollar counts.

$800,000 for a weapons manufacturer to operate in St.

Paul is criminal at any time.

But how can we look young people in this city in the eye and tell them that there are no shelter beds and there are no long-term housing solutions for them when there is close to one million dollars that our city would rather be spent on creating the bombs that are developed and dropped on young people across the world?

I'm sure everyone in this room could tell you how to spend $100,000 to prove this to improve the city and to build more jobs in the city if that's the goal.

I don't think anyone's top answer would be to incentivize jobs in the weapons manufacturing business.

And I urge you to consider the 200 plus young people who are homeless on one night in January when you make a decision on this extension.

Thank you very much.

If you asked anyone in this room, would you terrorize kidnap, brutalize, or kill a child?

I would hope most people in this room would say no.

And yet, that is exactly what you are asking us to do by extending this grant.

If I asked the same question about a mother or a doctor, everyone would be horrified, as they should.

And yet, that is what you are asking.

Currently, our tax dollars support these brutal, disgusting, and violent acts of the police, ICE, and the genocide in Gaza.

Ford ASIC directly assists in killing thousands of children, brutalizing thousands of families, and killing thousands of people.

Sorry.

Accomplices to cruelty both abroad and on in our very neighborhoods.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hello, my name is Emily, and I'm a nurse in Minneapolis.

Everyone has said a lot of things that I've already wanted to say, but I do want to point out that y'all just passed an ordinance around masking and wanting people to like name themselves for who they are.

And this is how these corporations like continue to gain wealth and um like create this enormous wealth disparity by creating these companies that new companies starting up in Minnesota to bring economic development.

This is the most profitable weapons manufacturer in the world, and they got us, you know.

Um I just like losing my train of thought.

Um these like this like our obsession with like economic development and like creating jobs just because like they're gonna like bring some jobs to the economy.

It's like these the um think about all the minerals all over the world that have to be extracted, all the places that we've had to colonize and um that we've we've colonized, put our military bases there, put our put these corporations in all of these places to um be able to build these weapons, which is going to lead to um climate collapse because the US military is the largest fossil fuel waster, um fossil fuel user in the world.

Um we are like the driving force of climate catastrophe.

So it's all it's these genocides, it's the violence here at home from IC.

Um, where just this violence will be cyclical, like continuing to vote for these things is um going to create an unlivable planet and a society that is just based in continuing violence.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in.

My name is Wyatt Miller.

I live in Ward 4, where the Forward Edge facility is located.

I implore this council to vote not to extend the terms of the Minnesota D grant to Forward Edge.

Over the last month, St.

Paul, along with the rest of Minnesota has been on the receiving end of the federal government's so-called national security apparatus in a way that is unprecedented in the modern history of the United States.

Advanced surveillance technology and weapons of war have been deployed by federal agents against St.

Paul residents.

Now, the technology produced by Lockheed Martin's subsidiary Forward Edge might not have been directly used on St.

Paul residents, but as the world's largest weapons manufacturer, Lockheed is deeply built into that same so-called national security apparatus.

Courageous Minnesotans have drawn a line in the sand to say no to this federal occupation.

The city of St.

Paul can be part of this historic movement by refusing to offer any public resources to any part of the federal government's machinery of oppression inside city limits.

The actions of ordinary Minnesotans have opened up totally new political possibilities for the entire nation.

It's time for our elected officials to come with us into the future to take a stand against the business as usual complicity that brought us to this point.

And to build a resilient St.

Paul, whose economy is not tied to war crimes nor dependent on the companies that make the tools to commit them.

By voting no, this council would be making a powerful statement against the militarism and the moral rot of the Trump administration.

Please vote no on this resolution.

Free Palestine.

Welcome up.

Hello, my name is Mason Persons.

I use he and pronouns.

Paul for seven years.

Lockheed Martin is not only one of the wealthiest companies in the world, but also produces weapons for ice, as we are now well aware.

The same weapons that are being used to brutalize our neighbors and yours also.

Voting for this extension is voting against the safety and well-being of St.

Paul residents.

$800,000 could go towards the many other better things that the people of St.

Paul have already been asking for for a while.

Affordable housing efforts, schools, the arts, things that actually help our communities thrive.

This extension also goes against the crossroads to justice plan to create pathways to housing, racial and health justice for people facing homelessness.

It was created by a group of people with lived experience in homelessness in Minnesota, including myself.

This plan centers homelessness and connects to everything we are here fighting for today.

Vote no for this extension and use your position of power to put that money back into the hands of the people it affects most.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Miss Hammond.

Hi, Council members.

My name is Marie Stebbins, and I work in St.

Anthony Park, about a mile away from the Forward Edge ASIC facility.

Every time I pass by the building, the parking lot is empty and the building is dark.

Forward Edge ASIC is mostly remote employees, and they do not engage or economically invest in the neighborhood that they pretend to support.

Speakers tonight have talked about a lot of social issues like housing, health care, and education.

While understanding that this money is grant restricted and will be returned to the Minnesota Investment Fund, I believe we have an opportunity to put 200,000 towards a company that designs technology that uplifts our community that reflects sort of the care and consideration we've shown each other in the past few months, and I hope you take this opportunity to do so.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Simon.

Welcome up.

Wow.

To be in a room with so many dedicated people like our president, council members, and all the members of the public, I just really gotta thank God.

Um my name is Natasha.

I'm a St.

Paul resident, nonprofit leader, and community advocate, and I stand before you today, grounded in one truth.

Um the people are the power, as you can see.

So my comments are in direct response to PH 26 for the public hearing and grievance about federal immigration operations and RESPH 26 through 37 establishing the festivals and events security credit.

First, on immigrations, I want to say across St.

Paul, families are living in fear, as you all know.

And parents are afraid to take their children to school, and um workers are afraid to report to their jobs.

Even the elders are even afraid to attend churches, and we're all working together as community members to support one another.

And so when people feel targeted, I do want to point out that trust it collapse.

And when that collapse, the safety and the uh instability and safety increases, and our safety slowly begins to deteriorate.

So we see isolation, trauma, and instability to take root in our neighborhoods.

So St.

Paul has um both a moral and governing responsibility, and we want you to protect the dignity, humanity, and civil rights of all residents, and to ensure that city policies, partnerships, and practices are not contributing to fear, harm, or displacement in our communities.

And second, I want to talk about the festivals, because this is exactly why community-led cultural festivals matter now more than ever before.

The festivals like Rondo Days and Grando Days, uh Grando days are not just entertainment.

They are generational institutions, they are spaces of healing and unity, youth engagement, cultural pride, and economic opportunity for local vendors and families.

Um I just want to be clear, and I know that's the two minutes, but I can't really talk about that.

Actually, I I'm sorry to stop you, but actually, we have a public hearing just on the festivals and events uh credit later on in our meeting.

Oh, she's so that is time, but you can come back.

Oh, okay.

So, well, then I'm gonna come back.

All right.

Transfer those first.

Then we're gonna talk about a different meeting.

Take the money from it and give it to our community.

Make sure to sign up.

And it and it is a public hearing later in this meeting.

Just so don't go away.

Okay.

Sorry.

Yeah, thanks, everyone.

We have a lot of public hearings, and we do we do ask that people keep their comments to the topic at hand, so this one remains uh the forward edge extension.

So go ahead, sir.

Thank you.

Good evening, y'all.

My name is Nick, and I'm a teacher with St.

Paul Public Schools and a proud alumni.

And I'm here today to talk about the state of education.

Long before I snatched up beloved and cherished community members, students, and staff, many of them on the way to school, our schools were struggling to get by as is.

Nobody wants to talk about it because everybody's uh circumplainer is already out of education, but everyone in education knows the simple reality of the situation.

It's a whole different ball game post-COVID.

I want you all to pay attention to who actually has proven results time and time again in Minnesota, our teachers.

Lockheed Martin's subsidiary is currently asking for an extension after failing to hire the contractually agreed amount without even having jobs posted on LinkedIn as a 402 p.m.

today.

I'd like to ask two rhetorical questions to the committee.

At what point in your educational career were you allowed to ask for an extension after the assignment was due?

We haven't even started.

And second, why should the citizens of Minnesota be on the hook for big corporations and inability to meet basic contractual obligations that individuals are consistently forced to meet?

This teacher calls baloney sausage on the idea that the subsidiary of the world's largest weapons manufacturer can't meet simple deadlines, especially when they've already received significant federal subsidies.

I'd bet if you ask the citizens of St.

Paul's if they want more dollars for weapon manufacturers, we'd resoundingly say no.

Even if the committee feels this money shouldn't go to our children, there's other non-evil corporations with no ice contracts that could have positive effects beyond a simple job posting.

Just last year, the Raspberry Pi Foundation announced a yearly computer science comp uh conference in Minnesota.

They have the best free resources for students, teachers, administrators.

They're a highly ethical Cambridge University research computer science company that could help take our state from 48th out of 50 in public access to computer science education.

Thank you.

I'd like to end by saying how many educational statistics are we 48th of 50 states.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in.

Hi.

My name's Stuart Bennett.

I'm a resident in Minneapolis.

I used to live down the street from Ford Edge ASIC's corporate office, and I'm also formerly an engineer working in industries adjacent to weapons manufacturing.

I was not planning to speak today, but I've been inspired by how many people there are that are very passionate here.

And one thing it has me thinking about is despite the number of people that you see here today.

And so I see, you know, at a meeting like this where we are passing, or you're talking about passing meaningful and impactful things like blocking ICE agents from blocking their faces and displaying their badges and um keeping them out of city owned property.

And there's a lot of self-graduate congratulatory talk there.

And that I don't mean to deride those things.

Those things deserve congratulation.

It is the leadership we need in the city and this country.

Admittedly, as a Minneapolis resident, sometimes I look to your council and think, wow, they really got it together.

And it's not just Minneapolis looking at you right now.

It's not just Minnesota, and it's not just the United States of America.

I was out of the country recently, and people as far as New Zealand were saying, wow, you're in Minnesota, thank you for what you're doing.

What can we do to help?

What I'm asking you to do is be the kind of leadership that we need.

And even though this is not an issue that will buy you any sort of political credit and may even hurt.

I know that you know there's important people with a lot of money that make decisions about this that aren't here today that are more powerful than the people speaking.

But if this council means what they say about wanting to protect our communities and other communities and being in the real leadership we need as a city, as a state, as a country, you will not extend forward edge ASICs contract.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Welcome.

Hello, my name is Mitchell Brunco.

I'm a resident of Minneapolis, and I've been a machinist in manufacturing for 10 years now.

For three or four years, I worked at a company called Par that had their hands in a lot of different different things.

They manufactured medical devices, they helped manufacture civilian aircraft and military aircraft.

And you get to see those products out in the world and say, hey, I had a hand in that.

You know, when Grandma Betty got a heart stint put in, I got to say I had a hand in that.

Um when weapons started to go into Ukraine, I got to say I have a hand in that.

When they started bombing Gaza, I had to tell myself that I had a hand in that.

This summer I did a repair for one of the engineers, and I handed it, handed the part back to him and asked, what is this machine do?

What is this machine build?

And the engineer told me that this machine builds landmines.

And I had to tell myself that I had a hand in that.

So I'm asking you to withhold this money from Lockheed Martin and spend it on something better, so that you can tell yourself I had a hand in that.

Welcome up.

I figured somebody with gray hair needed to come up here as an 84-year-old grandmother.

I beg you to say no to this.

I never heard of this company until December when I was walking in the streets in St.

Anthony Park where I live for many years.

I met a group of these protesters walking around with science and dressed in costumes.

And since then, I've been absolutely appalled at what this company does.

And so, as your grandmother, I ask you to say no.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in.

I'm just gonna do my sort of call.

If anyone else plans to speak on this issue, it'd be great to know how many more folks we have.

So if you could just stand up now and line up if you're planning to speak on this now, that would be that would be great.

Thank you.

Welcome.

You can be my grandma.

That's fine.

Um again, Heather Lou board six.

Um I'm gonna start with some storytelling.

Uh when I was 11, so I grew up Jewish.

Uh I grew up in LA.

I'm also uh Chinese and Southeast Asian, but I went to Hebrew school.

Uh when I was 11 years old, I went to Hebrew school.

I was almost to my mitzvah, and I winced and talked to the teachers, and I said, what what do we think about this?

Like apartheid in Palestine.

All of my teachers stopped and said, you don't need to be here anymore.

And as one of the only kids of color, Persian, Iranian, Ashkenazi Jew, I got asked to leave, and I never went back.

If I knew at 11 years old that the ways in which Palestines apartheid and continued genocide, um, as well as other countries that we know are having genocides right now impacted by Lockheed Martin.

If I knew at 11, that was not okay.

I know that all of us in this space know that it is also still not okay.

I will say white supremacy and capitalism go hand in hand.

Also, Lockheed Martin is the peanut in the Epstein Files.

Hmm, I just talked about that.

Um the best way that I can ask this council to actually do something is to not extend this loan.

Um the best way to combat beyond complicity and the bare minimum would be to not approve this loan.

This can go to reparations to our communities, especially those in Rondo, right?

Old or old Rondo, Cathedral Hill.

Um, and also it is not congruent to be anti-ICE and want to abolish ice and to extend this loan.

Also, I will say to any council members as award sixth member, if you continue with this, I am happy to lead community organizing to make sure you are unseated, that you are recalled, and that we are going to make sure that our community actually represents the interests of the people in this space.

And if you are, I have 13 seconds left.

If you are going to speak, even if you want to come up and say your name and say hell no, please do that.

It's important.

I I urge you.

Thank you very much.

Hi, my name is Alexis.

Uh, I live in Shoreview, so I live in the burbs of uh St.

Paul.

And um, I'm gonna be super honest uh right now that um I didn't even know about this until like last week.

Um I've been getting very into the protest for anti-Ice, fuck Ice.

Um, and uh I can understand how you may have voted on this at one point, being ignorant or unaware of what was going on as I was until I got here, and until I learned about this.

So, not only are you guys getting a lot of heat, which honestly necessary heat, but also I would I would ask that you do take a modicum of grace if you are a good person, if you are an understanding person, that you made a bad decision.

But also, like, y'all got interns, and I know this is just a part-time gig for you, but how did this pass in the first place?

How did you not look into these companies in the first place?

I guess my listen to the public here, and you're gonna hear me.

But um, like I'll again I'm I'm the first to admit to my own ignorance about even how our governments work, how city councils work and all that jazz, and I and again I reiterate I get that this is a part-time gig for y'all.

But this is obviously like making a huger impact than I ever fucking thought that a city fucking council could do.

So I would ask that you please just really moving forward on everything.

Please put a little bit more due diligence because you are being paid to put due diligence into your decisions.

You shouldn't have to just be taking whoever's word from a lobbyist is coming up here telling you, oh, this is what our thing is, and just taking that at face value, especially nowadays, especially now in the inform in the misinformation, the hiding shit that that we know is happening all the fucking time.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I just I just want to remind just want to remind folks.

We do have young people here.

We have young people watching at home.

I would love it if people could express themselves without using expletives.

Thank you.

I'm not here to testify again.

I just have a legitimate safety concern that I think should be brought up in front of everyone choosing to speak as well as you guys.

I've seen now two men um on it who didn't identify themselves come up and take photos of the sign-in sheets, which list our phone numbers, our addresses, and our email addresses, as well as our names.

Um I know now, having confronted them that they're members of the press, but they did not ask for permission, and it was not disclosed to any of us that by choosing to fill out the sign-in sheet, my information could be released like that.

Um so I think that's something one, everyone who wants to speak, you should be made aware of.

And I think the council should clarify whether that's standard procedure or not, um, especially in the current security concern.

Yes.

Thank you very much.

Um I I appreciate that note, and and choosing to testify publicly, it is public data.

This is a public meeting, it's being recorded, so I do want everyone to know that.

Um, welcome up.

Um hello, my name is Kristen Tremblum.

I live in Word 4, and um just really echoing everything everybody's already said.

Um I don't understand how this was approved in the first place, why such a rich corporation needs money from us for them to say that they're gonna promise us jobs.

I think that's ludicrous.

And going forward, um, first of all, yes, no, do not extend the ordinance.

And going forward, please take some more consideration from who these companies are that we're doing business with, giving us giving them their money.

Um, you know, like especially with everybody pointing out that we have all these anti-ICE ordinances coming into this.

Um, we need to be consistent with our actions and where we're putting our dollars.

Um, so um no.

Thank you, thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in.

Welcome up.

Hi, everybody.

Thank you for being here.

Thank you for choosing to do what you do, everyone, everyone here.

Thank you.

I thought life and limb to come live here in St.

Paul.

I've been fighting to come live here for years.

I finally got the opportunity to move here and stay here in 2024.

And since then, I have had all of the feelings, all of the emotions.

But right now, I am so proud of everyone for doing what you're doing, even you guys sitting in these seats right now.

I know you can make the right decision.

I know you're going to make the right decision.

Everyone's watching us.

Everyone's watching you.

I'm Star Cloud Pink and Purple from Ward 1.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Well, welcome up.

Hi, my name is Jackie.

I was not anticipating speaking today, uh, but hearing the the information given about the amount that we are paying for this massive corporation to have weapons of destruction created here, basically.

Um, I think it's really interesting coming from North End neighborhood where I'm considered to be in an area that's densely popular uh an area of concentrated pot roti that Race Street is getting redone, and then yet the city asks every single one of the residents in the area to pay about $600.

I don't have to necessarily $600 to be paying for road work when this massive group is getting close to $800 or getting $800,000 from the city.

I think there's better things that we could be paying sending our money to.

I think a lot of people have already spoken on that, and that's all I wanted to add was that there are other projects that could be using this money.

Thank you very much.

Welcome up.

Hi, uh, my name is Susan Dumbleton.

I was not planning to speak today, I don't have anything prepared.

Um, I live in Sorgeo's uh ward.

Um it's really upsetting that this was ever approved in the first place.

Uh, that we would give money to people who are murdering people around the world, helping murder people around the world, and right now to know that ICE is using these technologies on us in the way that violence abroad does come back to us.

Uh it's very frustrating that we even have to have a conversation that it isn't a given that we're not going to fund this, that we're not going to fund genocide.

Um, I just urge you to do the right thing and think about what you want St.

Thank you very much.

Welcome up.

Hello, I'm Jackie Picorney.

I live in St.

Anthony Park, which is Ward 4.

I strongly support all the information that's been shared today and ask you to vote to not extend the grant time frame for uh Forward Edge ASIC, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin.

I I wanted to spend this time just to say, as others recently have said, I'm disappointed that St.

Paul City Council approved this grant in the first place.

I strongly encourage all of us that have testified today that I think we need to reach out to the state as well for this whole grant program when I hear that this not only all the things that we know about Lockheed Martin, but then to hear the details that they were gonna create a small number of jobs that they haven't even fulfilled, starting at like 40 some thousand up to a hundred and forty some dollars up to 127 dollars an hour.

I've been a physical therapist for 35 years.

I'm I'm barely over that bottom edge, right?

You know, so if we are going to do this work in the future, and these sorts of grants are important, they need to be for working class and middle class people, or they need to be to help support these other programs that we've talked about schools, health care, daycare.

This is what we voted you into office for, and we will hold you accountable for.

So I strongly encourage you to vote no on this extension.

Thank you very much.

Do we have anyone else on the side?

No, no one's standing to speak on this side.

Okay, great.

Come keep coming on that.

Hi, my name is Peter Sentner.

I'm a St.

Paul resident of Ward 2.

I just want to throw my name in with all of the uh really impassioned and powerful speakers.

You just heard countless moral, economic, um, and just common sense reasons to not extend uh this contract to not provide loan forgiveness when this company did not meet the terms of the agreement with the when we set them out.

Uh a company like Lockheed Martin, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin, any of these big corporations, they would not give us loan forgiveness if we failed to meet our financial commitments.

And we should not do the same for them.

We don't have to, and we shouldn't.

So please uh vote with your conscience here.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Welcome up.

Hi, Rachel, Ward 1.

Never spoken before at a city council.

And so I don't know if this is allowed, but can I ask a question?

We can't interact, like it's not a dialogue, but you're welcome to ask a question.

Can you non-verbably react?

I just want to know because it's been raised a few times.

Did any of you vote to pass the original funding for this?

So this is it's not a dialogue.

Feel free to give your testimony.

And I was just curious because it seems as we were bringing it forward, some people were confused or curious, or asking questions on the MIF program itself.

I will admit I was uninformed of this as a citizen, so I just looked into a little bit about what the MIF program is.

I'm gonna read a tiny excerpt if time allows.

The Minnesota Investment Fund MIF is a loan program and available to businesses engaged in manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, and technology-related industries and other activities that could be located generally anywhere, yet still serve the same marketing customers, is designed to generate new income and wealth to the state that would not be generated by local demand conditions, and there is so much more.

Um but the reason why I think that's important is that so many people today have brought up really great ideas about what the money could be used for, but please understand that some of them may not be eligible for this particular pot of money.

And we can't change what was done, whether you here today did or did not have a hand in that, we can't change that.

But what we can do is urge you as our city council members to look out for any new MIF funding that comes through and is eligible as laid out by Deed to reiterate what another person who spoke earlier said that whatever it is, that it uplifts our community.

And so, with that in mind, um, I do want to understand more and um just ask for this particular motion to not extend the loan.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Welcome up.

My name is Margaret Munson.

I live in Ward 4, precinct two, and ever since this current administration has come into power, I keep wondering as these despicable actions are happening all the time.

How can the people that support this administration look in the mirror at night?

So I just hope you are all, and you must have been listening.

This has been an amazing, amazing number of people spoken.

I hope you all will vote no so you can look in the mirror at night.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Welcome up.

Hi, my name is June, and I just kind of jumped in line.

I'm heartbroken about this.

It's hard to even speak.

I it violates my conscience, and even just being human, it violates my religion to be forced to fund something that terrorizes people and kills people.

I a huge part of my own spiritual path was visiting the birthplace of Jesus, which is in the occupied territories of Palestine, where people are terrorized every day.

And there's people that I care about there, and they cared about me, and they're still my friends.

Pay my taxes knowing that it's hurting my friends and people who supported me on my spiritual journey.

And again, it just violates my religion and my own humanity.

Thank you very much.

I think uh this might be the last speaker.

Three speakers.

Okay.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Back.

Lenin Garcia Torres again.

Uh nice to speak with everyone here.

Um I just wanted to highlight that while um the funds that this company has connected itself with to ICE, um, make it directly complicit against the crimes that ICE continues to perpetrate against Minnesotans.

Um it also contributes to global death and destruction.

Um, from the bombs dropped on Somalia to Venezuela to Palestine.

Um and whatever people feel about those different operations, the F-35 is the world's deadliest warplane.

Um, they can carry 1,000 to 2,000 pound bombs and nuclear bombs.

After we see us having nuclear weapons off the coast of Venezuela, I think this is the kind of vote that we can do on the local level to oppose that massive risk to the entire world population, that risk of nuclear war and that risk of you know, war right off the coast of this country, and to protect American citizens, but also to remember the victims of these horrific operations.

Um I just want to say we should remember Hindra Jab, uh a terrified five-year-old, just like Liam Kuneja Ramos, who was shot 335 times.

I think we should remember Nurto Mohammed Haza, a seven-month-old baby killed with her mother in Somalia.

I think we should remember Rosa Elena Gonzalez, uh Venezuelana Buelita killed by killed at 79 years old in an American apartment bombing.

These are the companies that make that possible.

Um, and they make that possible in a situation where um funding is directed away from preventing maternal mortality rising in this country and generally serving the public.

So thank you for everyone who came here in solidarity today, and thank you.

I know my time is about up, so I'll use the rest of it in a moment of silence for those people.

Thank you very much.

Welcome up.

Hello, council members.

My name is Alexandra Kahn, and I am a middle school educator and resident of Ward 1.

I echo all of the beliefs and sentiments of the people who have spoken before me.

The United States war machine and military industrial complex demands us handing over our money, our resources, our livelihoods, and our futures unendingly so that it can continue to terrorize and destroy for profit and power.

If the city council believes what it says, and if you as people believe what you say, that you care about this community and its people, then you will put your money where your mouth is and not into the hands of military contractors to continue their reign of destruction abroad and right here at home.

Voting against this grant extension is a clear investment in the city, a clear stance against militarized violence and the decision that the hardworking people of this city and the world at large deserve.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And this is our last speaker on this public hearing.

It looks like just a last call.

If anyone else wants to speak, this is this is last call on this topic.

Welcome up.

Well, if I'm the last speaker, this is an anti-climax.

I'm sorry about that.

Um sell yourself short, you know.

My name is Claire.

I'm a constituent from Ward 1.

Um look, this sucks.

Vote no.

Yes.

You have spoken so eloquently and so forcefully.

Your commitment to stand behind the people of St.

Paul, your commitment to stopping this violence in our community, your commitment to wanting to do what is right.

If you want to do what is right, you need to do what is right every time.

And this time, it's voting no.

So do it.

It's easy.

It's one word.

It's so small.

Two letters.

That's it.

No, we got it.

All right.

Thank you guys.

Green Palestine.

Thank you all very much for taking time to testify.

I'm gonna look to Miss Coleman for a motion to close the public hearing.

Um, and then we will honor the moment of silence that was asked for earlier.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

Six in favor, none opposed.

The public hearing is closed.

We'll just take a brief moment of silence.

Thank you.

Uh thank you again for coming out to testify, and I would look to Ms.

Coleman.

I will echo Council President, your thanks to everybody who came today.

And I know folks waited nearly two and a half hours to speak in some instances.

So I thank you for your dedication to our community and to making your voice heard and being a part of this process.

I think at this point, I have outstanding questions.

Um, not for our planning and economic development department, but for our city attorney's office around the terms of this contract.

My understanding is that we had the possibility of a winning year extension baked into the original contract back from 2023, but I think understanding what our option, what both our obligations, our options are under that would be it is necessary for me to know how to proceed at this point.

So I would like to or make a motion to lay this over for a week.

Lay this matter over for a week to get more information from the city attorney's office.

All right.

So the motion is for thank you.

We we really need to be able to hear each other.

I understand.

We need people not getting off the screen.

The motion is for a one-week layover to be able to get more information from our city attorney's office.

Is the discussion of that motion?

Ms.

Yang.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh, um I will not be supporting the layover.

And uh I I want to council Mr.

Coleman, I I respect the the ask that you put out.

I just want to name from me personally.

I have had the conversations I needed to uh get my questions answered.

I met with our PED staff.

I got communication from our city attorney as well.

Um at this point, I don't have questions.

I uh I will not be supporting the layover.

I also will not be supporting the extension as well.

Um, okay, we're not gonna we're not gonna have that in here, okay?

I need to ask you to please stop disrupting the meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

Um, and respectfully, you know, Councilmember Coleman.

I know everybody has their own style of governing, but in this moment, all the overwhelming amount of testimonies that we have heard, and even the the separation ordinance that you have boldly led on, I think all of this is none of this is an isolated moment.

This is all part of the military industrial complex, and we we can't piecemeal of what we will support.

We can't piecemeal, we have to be firm on what we are against.

And as a council member, and also black, happy black history month, everyone.

I want to start off happy black history month, and I just want to give a quote from uh artist, our author, Zora Neil Hirsten.

If we are silent in our oppression, they will kill us and say that we enjoyed it.

We are consensus body.

We have the power to vote yes or no, our refrain from our vote.

I was here elected to make sure that I'm standing in solidarity with my community.

I've heard several Ward 1 residents here stand up today and ask for us to vote no.

One of them said it was so simple, it's just a two-letter word.

And when I think about the week that I had to go through personally as a council member, violently awakened by military guns, extremely unnecessary force at my door.

Political retribution and weaponization of our department of defense to arrest my husband, who was someone who does not have a violent past to arrest my husband who was not a flight risk.

I standly firm, I firmly stand against all forms of domestic terrorism in this industrial complex.

For someone who also have been through several uprisings, I think about the time when Philano Castile was murdered, and our community stood up and said we will not stand for police brutality from any levels of law enforcement, and how we have witnessed experience, helicopters, military grade officers on the streets, and that we as a as a state decided that it was okay to invest into a manufacturing company that is producing terror and contributing and have a hand in this violence.

So it is very simple for me to vote no.

It is very easy for me to vote no.

This actually, in a council member Coleman, you had mentioned this that this was actually voted for um in 2023.

This is before our council um seat here.

So no, I did not have a role to play in um approving that our our city um uh requests these dollars or are uh uh apply for these dollars.

Um, but this is yet another example of how a council can inherit violent practices, policies, and procedures.

But just because we inherit these practices and policies and procedures does not mean that we have to continue going forth.

We have the power to make a different decision.

Yeah, um, council vice president.

Yeah, um, I'm gonna hold my comments for potentially the vote, but I am not in support of a layover.

Um, like council member uh Yang, I have all the information that I need.

I'm voting no today because they've not met their contractual obligation to the city.

Um I'd also request uh a roll call vote.

Okay.

Um so it's been request for roll call vote, uh, Ms.

Coleman.

Sorry, one more.

Well, couldn't you mind if I have one more sure do you mind if Ms.

Bowie goes while you miss Bowie?

I also want to just up um uplift that there was requests for us to also have an audit on all um spending um with any businesses or companies.

Um I do know that we have an audit committee here in this council.

I don't serve on this audit committee, but I do think that is appropriate body to review um and make that action if that's something that we you know have to bring forth, but I think that's deeply important because as a council member, I was not fully aware of this.

It I literally was relying on um social media influencers and educators letting us know um that is a problem.

This is something that should have been alerted to us, yeah, like ahead of time.

So I do want to say I do appreciate how the people power that showed up today to inform us because these are just on these agenda items are very technical, very technical, but it's really important that our staff also alerts us because something as controversial as this could have really, really, really took us by storm.

So I do want to say um I do support the the audit for all of the businesses that's in St.

Paul.

Thank you, Miss Bowie.

Did you no?

I was just okay.

Ms.

Coleman.

Um I'm happy to withdraw my motion.

I think it's clear that there's support for taking the vote today, and like I said, I would have I think given that we're dealing with contracts here, I would have appreciated the time to speak a little, you know.

We'd had some preliminary conversations with the city attorney's office, but you know, I think it would have been valuable to have additional time.

That said, if we are voting today, I will be voting against the contract extension.

Um, like I said, I really appreciate everybody taking the time to be here today.

And so wanted to show that that will be my vote for moving forward.

Thank you, Miss Woman.

Just have one more question for Ms.

Lorenz if she's still here.

Sorry.

Can you remind us you said that the contract actually expires in March?

Can you let us know that the date?

Council President, yes, their compliance date would be March of 2026, end of March 26th.

Then they get a couple of months.

So I think it actually is probably expiring closer for like June.

Technically, but they have to complete their hiring by the 31st of March.

Thank you, Ms.

Lorenz.

I guess I would just say that I think that uh June is plenty of time for them to be able to make some LinkedIn posts and complete this contract.

So uh it sounds like we have a request for a roll call vote.

Is there any further discussion?

Uh Vice President and then Ms.

Yang.

Sorry, just a point of clarification.

I was asking for um a roll call vote on the motion for labor, but if that's being withdrawn, I don't know.

I don't know how necessary that is.

Okay at this point.

Any discussion on the motion to uh well are you moving to vote against no motion.

There's no motion.

There's currently motion on the table.

Is there a motion on the table?

Yeah.

I mean I guess.

Vice President Kim.

Yeah.

I'll make a motion to uh deny the deny the contract extension.

Okay.

The motion is to deny the contract extension.

Is there any discussion of that motion?

Ms.

Yang.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh, Council Vice President, I will be supporting your motion to deny the the extension for forward edge.

I have a lot that I want to say.

Um the first thing is I want to say thank you to each and every one of you who came here to testify.

And when I looked at the faces of folks in the in the front of the room, um, or even you know, just sitting out on the benches, I see many familiar faces that have been in the chambers before from when you were here almost two years ago pushing for a ceasefire resolution to end the war in Gaza.

And that passed unanimously because of um of your organizing.

Also, um, when I was on maternity leave recently, I did hear about the um uh your request for the water board to end the contract with waterfall security solutions.

It was because of your advocacy that that um water board commissioners like me even knew about the affiliation that that company had.

Um it was an Israeli-based company, and for me personally, like I don't want to do any business with a company, a company that is going to perpetuate warfare um and hurt people and harm them, whether it's overseas or here.

And um, and that's exactly you know, Lum, why why I'm so grateful once again for your leadership in showing up in the chambers today, urging us to um to step up and be leaders and vote against this extension.

One, because this is a company that um has not met their contractual goals, but also for me personally, I see many uses of where this these public dollars can go.

I mean, we have many projects, um large projects happening all across our city, and like these are dollars that in the future could be used for the heights, um, where we have we have um many uh light industrial companies that we want to bring into St.

Paul here.

I'm even thinking about the vacant Kmart site over in Word 5 too.

Where I hope that one day that would be a future use of these dollars from the state.

And this is all to say that these are dollars that are coming directly from each and every one of us.

And even though those of you in the in the um room here and maybe watching, even though you're not at the table here voting, all of us, the seven of us or six, since Counselor Johnson isn't here, she's on maternity leave.

Um it's the six of us here have a duty.

We have a duty to listen and to honor and to cast a vote that we believe is in the best interests of of our residents um in our city.

At least that's that's what I believe my role is here.

Um and I will I will definitely be carrying that forward um in the spirit of me being among daughter of refugees.

Um even though I was born in Delouv, Minnesota, I will always remember the story from my Hmong parents and also my elders, my ancestors, who basically are here because of warfare, where they had to flee political persecution.

My parents had to leave their home country of Laos after the secret war was lost.

And that is a literally a secret war during the Vietnam War.

Where our monk people they were left to die after the US CIA recruited us to fight for them.

To fight off communism.

I mean, there's so much grief that I hold in that.

And many of you have heard me share about it before, even recently when I introduced a resolution to honor 50 years of the Mm people coming here to the US.

And you know, these these are stories that are important to be shared.

And the same people that we are are fighting to save and make sure that um, you know, we we endorsed internationally.

I mean, that this that same fight is for the fight for people in our state right now who are getting terrorized by ice.

There's a there's a deep um intersectionality there that I really want to point out.

Um I I just want to say um thank you.

And like those, you know, you all are looking to us for leadership and and like I am learning from you and looking to you for leadership.

And so thank you for what you um have brought into the the room here in the space here, but also the clarity that you bring um uh in global issues that happen that are happening right now and how clear you are in the role that we here have to play, even though we are um at a local level.

I mean, we we have um we have a way to be able to leverage and make sure that we are playing a key role in ending in international warfare.

Because you know what, even after passing that the ceasefire resolution a couple of years ago, the war in Gaza has not ended, and people are still hurting and dying.

Um so uh there were questions at the front of the room there about how did this pass in the first place.

Um we this is a pretty new council that was back in 2023 where this was voted on, and so it's um just two of us at the table who were there for the vote.

Um, I I think probably this passed unanimously.

I the the way I remember this being framed up, and really when the company came and relocated here to St.

Paul was this is a really great opportunity for us to bring in more jobs into St.

Paul.

And that was really the message behind it.

So had I known then what I know now, um, I would not have voted for it.

But because I did, I um I want to say I I'm very sorry about that.

And uh today I probably cast my vote to make sure that this extension um does not get granted.

Um I have very high expectations for how our public dollars should be used, and we all should.

I'm questioning the requirements of of this grant um overall from um Minnesota deed.

I do not want to see these dollars go to large corporations or uh employers.

I mean, I think that maybe they see a use for that, but I personally am very invested in making sure these dollars go to small businesses that are hurting so deeply right now.

There is not enough mutual aid for our small businesses businesses that are hurting.

In fact, it's actually um it's actually people like us who are who are going to local restaurants, local stores, helping and and making sure that they survive this crisis that we're living in.

And I hope along the way we'll see, you know, we'll see a bit more um more many more initiatives where organizations um and hopefully even corporations are coming together to support our small businesses.

I think I I saw um that come out um what that's happening right now from like Minneapolis Foundation.

I think they're actually rolling out um a funding right now, a funding program for that, which is incredible, and we need more of that, but we do not have enough of that right now.

So it's so important for us to figure out like how we can how we can or how we can um educate people to organize them, right?

Because we don't want to just organize people and then educate them and then that's it.

We actually want to educate, to organize them, to make decisions that are in favor of the future that we want to build together, the the future that we want to live together, where people can live dignified lives, regardless of your race, your class, gender, sexuality, your citizenship status.

And so I just wanted to put in to perspective, like I'm a very visionary person, so put into perspective um how how far um uh even a conversation and a decision like this can reach because we absolutely have more work to do, and it is not just end here with the no vote that I hope will take place um and that we will be successful in.

And so um, this is just all to say you all are incredible, and there is nothing more powerful than the power of people coming together, and please continue everything that you are doing.

There's no nobody coming here to save us but us.

Thank you, Mike Yang.

Vice President Kim.

Yep, thank you, Council President.

Yeah, so um my reasoning for my no today is is very clear, they haven't met their contractual obligation to the city.

Um, and that being said, I do just want to take a moment to respond to some of the testimony that we heard today.

Um, I just really feel that all of you shown a light on the potential hypocrisy that this chamber and this council could act on.

Um you are all not only calling out what you don't want, but you're also showing us the things that you want to see from your from your city council member.

What is the way forward?

I heard housing, food security, right?

Thriveable wages.

So it's I just appreciate the fact that it's not just about saying no, which I said earlier, it's not just about what we're against, but what are the things that we're fighting for together and where are we going?

What's that bigger vision that we're doing most importantly together?

And I also heard in the same in in all of your testimony no military grid weapons here, but use them on others.

Safety here, but not safety on anywhere else.

Ice out, but occupy and bomb other countries.

And a lot of times we've we've heard in this chamber is it being talked about as an occupation, and I've even said it.

We are experiencing a military occupation in our cities right now.

Um by saying that we are okay with some of their city resources going towards funding violence and other lands and occupations and other lands.

We're saying don't occupy us, but it's okay for other people to live under an authoritarian regime and occupation.

So I want to just add which I said during my comments when we brought forward the resolution for for Palestine, is that my ancestors have also lived under two occupations, are currently experiencing U.S.

imperialism with thousands of troops still in my homeland.

And the reason why I bring this forward is because this is a mindset.

White supremacy is not this, it's this.

And that's what all of our constituents here are telling us.

Colonial colonization is not this, it's this.

It's the way you think, the way you share, the way that you understand that our futures are intersecting.

So as we continue to move, and this is sort of my ask of all of you, truthfully, to help me do this.

Colonization, we can we can talk about it, right?

We also need to understand that it is a rebrand, what we are experiencing here right now and in other places of the world, is a rebranded version of ICE, a rebranded version of our military militarized police force that have a long history of violence, systemic violence against our black and brown communities.

It's also a rebranded version of slave catchers, and it's a rebranded version of the original colonial violence that happened on indigenous lands.

And at a certain point, we need to understand that we are also a settler state.

So, as loud as you we are around pushing back against this occupation and occupations and other lands, we also have to recognize that we need to bring forward indigenous sovereignty and indigenous rights in this conversation.

Because I question because I question if we had honored sovereignty of indigenous peoples, how different this moment would look.

And so look at what our indigenous uh sovereign nations are doing right now, passing their own legislation and their own rules about whether or not they'll lie ice into their sovereign nations right here in Minnesota.

And on the last note, in the same breath, I saw a really cool t-shirt that said gender is maybe garbage or trash.

But also in this moment, the first act of colonial violence was gender side.

So as we fight for the liberation of others, we need to do it at the intersection of yes, race and class, but we also need to do it at the intersection of gender.

Thank you so much for being here today.

I really appreciate the testimony.

Thank you for everyone that came out from Ward 5.

Your voice is heard.

And again, my reasoning for today for my vote is that they did not meet their contractual obligation.

I'm very supportive of the um withdrawing of the labor layover.

Thank you so much for council member Coleman.

Thank you, Vice President Kim.

It's Joe Um Thank you, Council President Naker.

Mine's more of a clarification, just I know our council's been sitting here for a while, but the motion on the table was a no.

So if you support not extending the extension, you should vote yes.

That's kind of that opposite.

Just an aware of what we do, so I just wanted to make sure folks understand it.

And I think we should probably take the vote given that we have a number of folks here for other public hearings and also for this one.

So if there's no further discussion, uh all in favor of the motion, which is to not extend the contract, so you would vote aye if you favor that.

Um say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, non-opposed, the resolution fails.

Item number sixteen is resolution public hearing 26-20.

Two authorizing the police department to amend the 2026 grant fund for the subgrant received by the from the Ramsey County for the violent crime enforcement team.

This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak on this item?

See none, I'll take a motion from Ms.

Coleman to close the public hearing and approve.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, non-opposed, the resolution is adopted.

Item number 17 is resolution public hearing 26-29, amending the financing and spending plans in the fire department and the amount of $20,000 for a grant from the Ramsey County Public Health to purchase a Lucas device.

This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak to this item?

Item 17.

Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms.

Jose to close the public hearing and approve.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay.

All opposed.

Six in favor, non-opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Item number 18 is resolution public hearing 26-30, amending the financing and spending plans in the fire department in the amount of 115,393 for a contribution received from the Minnesota Board of Firefighter Training and Education to pay for training for firefighters.

This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak to this item?

Item 18.

Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms.

Yang to close the public hearing and approve.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, non opposed, the resolution is adopted.

Item number 19 is resolution public hearing 26-31, authorizing the Office of Financial Empowerment to apply for and accept a 165,000 dollar grant from the McKnight Foundation to support operation costs for its shared ownership initiative and amending the 2026 budget for the Office of Financial Empowerment.

This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak to this item?

Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Vice President Kim to close the public hearing and approve.

All in favor say aye.

Number 19.

Oh, that's the wrong that's the wrong one.

Sorry, they put the wrong one up there.

Sorry.

We'll get we'll get you, don't worry.

I'm not gonna forget you.

Uh item 19, which is now on the screen.

Anyone here to testify in that item?

Take a motion from Ms.

Yang to close public hearing and approve.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, non-opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Item number 20 is resolution public hearing 26-37, establishing the festivals and events security credit.

And um, I just will note that any amendments should probably take place before the public hearing, or else you'll have to reopen the public hearing.

Sure.

Um so this is so this is a um attempt to help support festivals and events in our community.

This is a topic that we've been discussing for some time, um, especially since we've been hearing from many festival organizers, especially neighborhood level festival organizers, community events, um, that security costs have just made it impossible for them to continue operating.

Um, this council allocated 155,000 ongoing in our general fund last year to try to do something about that issue, knowing that 155,000 isn't much, but it will go uh some part of the way towards helping relieve that burden and making sure that our festival organizers are able to continue bringing vibrancy to our community.

Um we talked about this at a policy session, I believe it was last April, and uh discussed how we would want to do this, the different criteria we would like to use.

Um, and it has taken quite a while to get to the point of actually being able to roll this out due to a lot of back and forth with the administration with departments to try to figure out how this could actually get done.

Um, but it's very important to me that we move forward on this with urgency because we went through a whole year last year where this did not get done, um, and we are in festival and event season right now.

So um I have put forward uh one version.

I think Councilmember Bowie has another version to propose.

Um and we'll hold the public hearing after that, but I think it's um mostly important to me that we get this done.

So very open to other thoughts and discussion about that.

Um Ms.

Bowie, do you want to talk about your version three that is in front of us?

Uh before I do that, I do have some questions because I think it is related to this resolution.

Um, I you know I know you sponsored this item.

Uh I think it will be really important that we get a staff report, particularly because there are some details of this item, especially regarding the budget that has not been um actually solved.

Um so if you can, I guess you know, I know you've been in conversations with uh both OFS and also the police chief and um his assistant chief on this.

Um, but one of the things that before we even get into the policy or the implementation that's very important is that we uphold public trust to have transparency around what happened to the um funds from last year.

I know you mentioned that you know we were not able to um um um spin those dollars last year and it was transitioned or the expectation uh when I voted on the budget was those dollars were going to roll over into this year's um budget, and we will have uh um twice the amount of funds to be able to allocate to our community members.

Um but I think it's really important to have that on the record so people are aware um that you you know that the that the funds that we have right now are not the funds that we were expecting.

Um so just want to make sure we have just an accurate uh interpretation about that.

Sure, thanks, Councilmember Bowie.

So um our budget director is not here, but Mr.

Wilms used to be our budget director.

Um so my understanding from the Office of Financial Services because to Councilmember Bowie's point, I think we all were under the impression that these funds would roll over.

Um towards the end of December.

I called the Office of Financial Services because I was concerned about that, and I was informed that because they were general fund dollars and not in a special fund, like all general fund dollars.

Um, we get 155,000 again this year, but we wouldn't be able to carry over.

Um that was a surprise to me as well, and I know you and I talked about it at the time, Ms.

Bowie, um, but I appreciate the chance to have it um clarified on the record as to how exactly that funding works.

Would it be possible to close the doors to the chamber?

I think someone hit the button.

Oh, sorry, okay.

Yes, just a little bit.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Wilms.

Thank you, Council President and Council members, councilmember Bowie.

Um so uh essentially there's two types of funding appropriations.

Uh there's one-time appropriations and then there's standing appropriations.

The standing appropriation occurs annually within the budget and as part of the base budget.

Um, within the general fund, uh, one time appropriations, um, unless they have specific language that allows them to be available until expended, or at time of budget resolution adopted, have specific language in the resolution to carry it forward, uh, the money will cancel.

So it's the same for standing appropriations.

Um, and and so unless there's an open purchase order or there's specific language within the resolution to carry forward the the money, the money isn't encumbered and essentially falls in the bottom line.

It doesn't accrue on top of itself uh year over year.

Um, special fund dollars are also a little bit different.

For instance, the grant fund, if there is uh grant funding available, um it carries forward and is available until expended.

So in this case, in 2024, the council uh adopted a budget that contained 155,000 in ongoing funding.

The council also made an additional 160,000 allocation, but that was line item vetoed.

Um so the money that we're discussing today is the standing ongoing appropriation of 155,000 per year.

Okay, thank you for clarifying.

I do um Ms.

Bowie, there's a couple things, and I'm you know, I'm happy that we have our budget chair here, and I know last year we were really intentional on making sure that what our intentions are with our budget and what we voted on, and I believe we actually overrid overrid those um that veto.

Um that we have a process that we solve if we have budgetary errors.

This sounds like a technical error.

When we voted for these dollars, the intentions was they were gonna roll over.

Now, whether or not we had the special fund or whether it was a step standing fund, I believe it's really important that our council leadership make sure that we take action, that we can't just shrug our shoulders and say, hey, we didn't do the technical aspect or we didn't make sure that our budget officer didn't have um clamps for these dollars so we can have it for community.

It's so important.

We know our community is under so much distress right now, and to find out that our intentions of voting for these dollars to roll over, did not roll over.

That sounds like it needs to be something that a staff member needs to resolve for.

Um, that's really important um for this process.

And then also when we're thinking about what the intended purpose for these dollars was to make sure that we are revitalizing our cultural festivals, our community events and festivals.

Um, I stand firmly opposed to um divesting from our community funds and investing into police.

Um I totally understand that we were trying to have a policy to actually decrease the amount of um uh police costs that a event organizers have to actually acquire.

Um but until we actually get there, I want to make sure that we have the entirety of that budget available for our communities.

This is very important.

We understand 155k is not a lot, but it means a lot for people who have to spend their life literally fundraising every single year for these dollars to put on these um phenomenal festivals for our community.

So before we even start with the public hearing, I really wanted to just put on record that it's so important that council president Naker that your leadership that you don't make it acceptable for anyone to just say that it was an error or we didn't do the technical things that when we go into our budget and before we vote on our budget to make sure that we have everything we need to protect these dollars for our communities that we have promised to them.

Thanks, Ms.

Bowie.

It was actually my leadership that got the question asked to OFS and that got us to this point of having this resolution in front of us.

Mr.

Wilms, did you have something else that you wanted to say about the budget questions that Ms.

Bowie raised?

Yes, um, thank you, Council President and Councilmember Bowie.

The the only additional thing that I would add um relevant to your comments is that the council essentially takes one action on the budget, sets it up, and then and then from there the mayor initiates the process to amend the budget.

So essentially the mayor identifies any amendments in the current year and submits them for council approval.

So just clarifying the process that if there were going to be an additional allocation to resolve you know the funding from last year that expired that would need to occur from the administration by the mayor proposed to council.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Welms.

I think Ms.

Bowie, we should talk about your version three so we can discuss version three and version two before the public hearing.

Yes, I um in this uh for the second version, or excuse me, version three.

This is actually a resolution that was drafted last year when I first advocated for these dollars.

Um specifically initially it was for 255,000 dollars.

This was in 2024 for the 2025 um budget.

And uh with the mayor's veto, we had just remaining 155 um thousand.

And this was at the time where uh uh council president Jalali, former council president Jalali, me and her, our intention was to have direct appropriations directly to community organizations because we know from our experience that many community organizations have challenges negotiating their police um bill or no excuse me, negotiating their bill with other departments, and that this wasn't just like an easy uh transition or transfer of funds to the police that we needed to have a policy to centralize our systems.

Uh, with the transition um of council president Jalali and then you know council president Naker, uh we we were very aware that we had two separate directions that we wanted to go.

You were very aware that uh we already know the relationships.

Uh we have the the relationships with community organizations who can really benefit from these dollars.

You're aware that I wanted to establish a community belonging and vitality fund, and that we were going to advocate for permanent funding.

Uh we went through a series of different options, whether uh OFS uh approved to have direct funding directly to these organizations.

The other option that I was negotiating um with PED to actually have this as another tier of their cultural star in neighborhood fund.

Both of those funds you did not agree to support.

You wanted to have a process and a protocol that I guess has staff make those decisions.

Uh, this resolution, version three, as people can review it, uh has the same exact criteria.

So I do want to give credit that we did come to agreement agreeing on what our criteria is.

Uh, and I am still you know behind that.

Um, but the things that's different about this version is that it does not put another, it doesn't create another hoop for a community organizer to jump through for them to get this funding.

We know this is just a little bit of funding, $7,000 compared to some organizations that are requiring uh a $75,000 um police budget is just in in comparison not that huge.

So I also just want to say it's just been a really traumatizing time for me.

I actually was initially going to take a mental health break and not be here, but it was important for me to be here because I know folks who are organizing and bust their butt raising money for grassroots organizations like Cinco de Mayo, like Ronda Days, like Little Mekong, who come to me time and time again saying, are there resources?

What is the city doing for us to actually invest?

And we advocated for these funds, and I think it's just really uh bad policy making and bad governance to have them transferred to the police department.

And I think in the in the testimonies that you hear today, you're going to realize why that is not a good move and why we need to relieve community members have going and working, particularly with police who they have shared that had challenges whether or not they're getting a fair share in terms of how much their uh police bill are or excuse me, bill is.

Um, but it was important for me to be here.

I have this version just printed out for people to read.

I am going to be uh editing and revising this version.

So I just wanted to make sure that everyone had it before them because I think what's really important is that we're being as genuine as possible.

This language was this language was designed about six months ago.

Um so if you people have anything that they want to amend on it, please let me know.

Uh but I just wanted to make sure that people were aware.

And last but not least, um, the second page of the language actually lists all of the organizations that are uh eligible based off the criteria that we created.

And I think it's really important that I um just list these organizations are cultural organizations, they're based in a neighborhood.

They are also in areas of concentrated poverty, but most importantly, they are um preserving our legacy, they're preserving neighborhoods' legacy, and they're also making sure that we are building wealth in our neighborhoods.

So that is the difference between um the routes that we are going.

I um I don't have faith and a department that I was waiting for literally four months to get the bills of all these other organizations.

I don't have faith in directing community grassroots organizers to negotiate and first come first serve with services or with resources that we already guaranteed and promised to them.

So I think it's really important for us as council members just be the decision makers.

We were voted in to make decisions.

We make funding decisions all the time.

We just literally made a decision to not fund uh that that that horrible company and we can make a decision to make sure we're investing in our community organizations.

Thanks, Ms.

Bowie.

I see some questions or comments.

Vice President Kim.

Yeah, I am I'm so sorry, I just take a hygiene break.

Um just I'm a little lost.

I'm not I like not with the intent, but I'm just um can would the council director be willing to offer sort of like what is what's kind of the key difference between the version two and version three?

Because like as I'm tracking it, like I see maybe a different rebate amount.

I'm seeing maybe can I just get like the two sentence of how how it's different, so I'm tracking changes because I want to.

Yeah, because I want to be supportive, but because it's not track changes in the language, it's hard for me to see, but want to be supportive.

This version is hard to buoy.

This version is just basically the council deciding on who gets the funding versus depending on police to make that decision.

So I'll let you know with that.

Thank you, Council President.

I just have a couple of questions for you, Council Bowie.

The text that you have here that you see the the um dollar amount $9,000 come up for a rebate.

Did you mean 9,000 or is it 7,000?

I think with this one, um, initially we had 9,000 because it was 20 organizations that met the criteria.

Um, and then in uh council president Naker's version, it was 21 or 22, I believe, that met the criteria.

So it's just adjustment of um of dollar amounts based off of how many organizations meet the criteria.

Okay.

Well, I will say that for me personally.

I'm interested in making sure that this is uh there it is the council that um that is deciding um the organizations um the that's there's the the process exists within the council basically for us to select like who gets the the credit here.

Um that was my understanding of this when we had a conversation at the table here almost I think over a year ago.

Um and so I uh I just want to make sure that that is preserved in in what we are moving forward.

I'm um I'm one I'm curious to uh whether this is the version that you're putting in.

Um if it is, I'm willing to support it.

I just want to name that I think it's really I think this is a conversation that we need to have more of.

Um, and so if there's a way to lay this over, I would be really interested in that so that we can actually make sure that the final version of this of this resolution is what um we can have majority support on.

And it is overall, it seems like there's still some some changes that you're hoping to make still.

So I think a layover seems very appropriate.

Thanks, Ms.

Yang.

Um, I see a question from and we will hold the public hearing today, no matter what, because it has been noticed.

So just to be clear for anyone who's here, we'll hold the public hearing today.

Um we're just trying to figure out which version we are putting forward for the public hearing.

Um I see vice president and then Ms.

Joe's.

Yeah, and I just um the thing I want to name then is I'm I'm wondering about a version.

So this is this is a version three because it looks like in version two the the credit or rebate is seven thousand and this is nine.

So one of the language changes is that adjustment.

And so this this is a version three, and it's for the record, yep, President Acre.

This is not entered into it.

This is just for people who have questions and you want to look at the language.

So we I can withdraw my version three and we can lay it over, and then I can enter a uh resolution that has the same principles of like council making a decision on how this money is gonna be spent.

I would this isn't in legislator right now.

It is not in legislatar.

This is just printed out and made for your awareness.

That's what I'm saying.

So if you are willing to this is not in legislature, yeah.

This was so I think it might be helpful just because I want to make sure we can hold a public hearing today to hold a public hearing on version two, which I'm happy to speak about that.

Um and then Ms.

Bui, you to bring a version three next week, which we can discuss based on what we hear tonight and any amendments people want to bring.

Um Ms.

Jost, and then I'm happy to speak to what version two says and doesn't say.

That I appreciate that.

That's kind of I had some of the same questions around that.

I um if this is for our awareness, that's helpful because I just noticed there's nine thousand dollars in one spot and seven thousand dollars in another spot, and so that the specific language concerns me.

Um, and then I'm a little concerned about the um specific event names and organizers being listed in here because that would kind of be bypassing the criteria process by already naming them, and that's not something that we typically do.

Um, we usually direct money to you know within the budget and to like city processes and things like that.

But I just would have more questions about that if we were moving this version, but it sounds like we're not moving this version.

We're going back to the other version, holding the public hearing, and then we have more time to maybe be able to digest and go over this.

Okay.

Yeah, we're good.

Thank you, Mr.

Yes.

And just just to clarify, and I'm very open.

I mean, our our council wants to get these dollars out the door, and so I it's under my sponsorship because I didn't want to lose this opportunity again for another year to get this done.

Um, but I'm very open to folks' thoughts.

The the resolution is trying to reflect what we discussed again in our April policy committee meeting.

Um basically the way it would work is it because we want to make it as easy as possible for organizations to get the dollars.

Um, when organizations apply for a special event permit, which they do through the police department, um the idea is that there would be these six criteria would be check boxes that organizations would check off that they meet them.

So there would be no picking winners or losers from any of us, from us, from the police, from anybody.

It would just be if you meet these six criteria, you get the credit.

Um, and then the Office of Financial Services would send those dollars to the police department who would say to that organization, your bill is is you've gotten a credit, you don't pay us seven thousand dollars less or half of your security bill, whichever's less.

Um and the to me, the value of having the objective criteria rather than listing out uh these all organizations would all qualify, so these are all the organizations that we want to support.

Um, but I'm thinking about if a new organization comes to St.

Paul and wants to have a festival next year that we don't know about yet, right?

And they they they're based in St.

Paul, they're held within city limits, they're free and open to the public, and they're in an area of concentrated poverty.

I mean, we would want, I think, to support that festival, and just because we don't know about it yet doesn't mean it doesn't qualify based on these criteria.

So I think the advantage to having criteria rather than that all of these organizations would meet and would get the money, um, is that it allows for um newness and for organizations that we don't know about yet and festivals that we don't know about yet.

So again, I'm very and then I guess the last thing I'll say is in terms of where it's held, where it's housed.

Um, I mentioned this to council member Bowie early last year.

It it matters to me not at all where it's housed and who runs it, um, but we need a department to be able to be willing to run it.

And if we say we're gonna do it as a council, that means we need to have a staff person to do it.

We currently don't have that staff person.

If we say it's gonna be in the Office of Financial Services, they need to be willing to run it.

To this point, we haven't been able to identify a department that is willing to run it, but the police department has said that they are happy to have people check those boxes and then get the money from the OFS.

So this would be ready to go as of tomorrow in version two.

It is ready, the application is ready, the check boxes are there, the dollars can go out the door.

If we want to find somebody else to run it, do a different process.

Um, someone just needs to be willing to do that and find that or that department or hire that staff person to do it.

Um, so again, my my goal is just to get this, get these dollars out to the community organizations that that need them.

Yes, Ms.

Coleman.

Can I just and I know that we'll be moving the version three next week, but just to make sure I'm understanding because I was in here last year.

Um, either way, the proposal is for the money to go to off-state security costs.

Is that and the security costs are provided as we heard in the police department's budget presentation through SVPD?

Is that true in both versions?

Ms.

Bui.

I can share initially the security costs is the most important priority, but as we have heard from our community organizations, many of them acquire um costs from on public works.

Um also um um roadblocks, parades, parks and recs, they also acquire costs from.

So initially it was just like how can we centralize and lower costs from city expenses as a whole, but uh police being one of the most like largest um um expense for community organizations any other questions or discussion before we open up the public hearing?

Okay, um, and it sounds like we will have further discussion about this next week, but for now, um this is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak on this item?

Did you do version two?

Yeah.

Oh, I'm sorry, I need to move version two, actually.

Yes.

All right, so I will move version two for the public hearing.

All in favor, say aye.

Hi.

All right, all opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The amendment is approved.

All right, if you're here for this uh public hearing, welcome up.

And I'll jump at once.

Welcome.

How are you guys doing?

Uh city council members, thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Bob Cruz.

I'm the executive director of the West Side Boosters, an organization that has served the West Side and the City of St.

Paul for over 55 years.

I'm also a co-chair of the Cinco de Mayo Festival, the Mexican Independence Day Festival, two of the largest Latino cultural celebrations in the city.

In 2025, the Westside Cinco de Mayo Festival alone brought 30,000 people from across the city, the state, and the upper Midwest has celebrated the Latino culture, strength and community, and generated real economic activity for the St.

Paul.

And yet every year it becomes harder to make these events happen.

Costs keep rising.

Last year our single largest expense is required was the required contract with the St.

Paul Police Department, 74,000.

Before that event, I met with Council President Naker.

I was promised around 20,000 to help cover police costs.

I followed up repeatedly.

I was told the funds would be delivered by Cinco to Maya.

That event came and went.

The money never did.

I was also told I would be connected to Anika to help move this forward.

That never happened.

And despite my ongoing engagement with council and collab and collaborative groups, I was not informed about today's meeting.

That matters because while community leaders and organizers were left out, a proposal surfaced to route festival and security funding directly to the police department and said to the organization to actually produce these events.

Let me be clear.

That's unacceptable.

Why is the city sitting on funds meant to support community events?

Why are grassroots organizations being bypassed?

And who decided this with all transparency, public notice, or community input?

Councilmember Naker, you meet with me and our collaborative group every two weeks.

At no point were you told uh was I told that the funds might be redirected.

There were no community meetings, no opportunity to speak.

My community feels misled and deeply let down.

I want a direct answer today.

Where's the 155,000 allocated last year for festival support?

Why did it not reach community organizations?

And why was it not rolled over to support events like Cinco de Mayo, Mexican Independence Day, and Rondo Days?

We have repeatedly raised concerns with St.

Paul police about the high cost of required presence.

Their response has been consistent, talk to city council.

Thank you.

So here we are.

We do not need promises, we do not need real support.

We do not need clear answers.

Thank you.

I need you to stop your testimony now.

These events are not optional.

These events need to happen.

Make sure to sign in.

Thank you very much.

Welcome up.

Welcome back.

Okay.

Um well, thank you for having me back.

Um and thank you to council president, council members.

And I just really wanted to um say that uh as people we hold the power because we are the ones that just like all of you, we wake up, we go to work, we do what has to be done to make income, and we try to support each other as neighbors as we've done um here in Minnesota, where um you know all of the things that's been taking taking place.

I've seen a lot of people step up in ways that I've not seen them, whether if it's getting people food, groceries, or just really working together, and I think that love um will help um cure a multitude of sin.

And I think that it's more about being and having the ability to produce the love.

So I think that I do like the idea of introducing new organizations and allowing organizations opportunity, whether you know they were they don't have to be the five-year mark, but I do think that the police are already paid, and police and community have not always had the greatest history.

So I think that individuals should have freedom of choice, freedom to choose who do they feel would be best to secure their um or you know, their festivals because um we don't want intimidation when we're trying to spread love and for our families, like organizations with the rondo days where you know my child is able to dance and feel free and have uh you know opportunity of voice or uh Westside boosters where my child is able to play football and be a part of something meaningful in the gentleman installs the right principles and morals in my young men, right?

And so I just want to say um I hope we don't put this off too too long.

I think I think this should definitely be a priority.

I think that um I'm glad that we are here with these funds.

I love the idea of getting them out the door, but all I would say is together we can do this, it's very simple.

We don't need police to make choices for us.

Thank you very much.

Welcome up.

Oh last and fountain.

Well, thank you.

Thank you, uh, council president and also council members.

Uh thank you for having us.

Uh I'm my name's Kel Kung.

I'm with the United Hmong family here in St.

Paul.

Obviously, the reason why I'm here is because you know, we hope two of the largest events in that uh in St.

Paul, particularly for the Mmung community.

We have the Mmung International Freedom Festival, which happens uh during the the July 4th event, and also the Hmong New Year, right here, just a couple blocks here from the the River Center.

And security is has always been something that we treasure.

Uh but uh the last couple years we know that uh the cost of security has gone up tremendously last year for us from 24 to 2025, it gone up probably about 40 percent.

And so when we looked at that, now that's because our attendance from 2024 to 2025, we went from uh 40,000 to 58,000 in attendance.

And so with that, when we're working with uh SPPD, uh they knew that uh we had to increase the number of uh police and so presence.

And so that's what we did, and so uh absolute that is critical for us.

So I'm glad that you guys are bringing this up to the council to vote.

And one of the things is that not only that, but we have three tiers of security.

We also have uh private security that comes in, and then we have our own security group that also does both of the events as well.

And so anything as you mentioned, uh Council Bowie, you mentioned a little bit, uh, every dollar really helps us.

And uh not only that, but the when I when I look at the economic impact, uh particularly all these uh events that we bring together, whether it's our uh International Hmong Freedom Festival or any other events, we bring in a lot of dollars and end of Soviet launch when we look at the economic impact that we bring to the city of St.

Paul here, when we look at it, just that event itself, it brings about 14 million dollars into the city of St.

Paul.

And not only that, but in terms of tax dollar, we bring about four four million dollars.

And so that's tremendous.

And so I'm just looking forward to all the environment uh investment that you guys are gonna have, and I hope that you guys will continue to have that investment for us.

Thank you very much.

Perfectly timed.

Yeah.

Make sure to sign in.

Welcome up, welcome back.

Hi, name's Alexis.

Um, as a festival goer, I can understand the need for like security and wanting to make sure everything runs very smoothly, but also um, as somebody who uh yikes cops, like like they have to BIPOC communities have to pay the the MP or the police department to give security.

That that's wild to me because um I always went to these festivals assuming that you know the protect and serve part of these police departments was was doing their job as well to protect and serve these festivals and these communities that the city allows these communities and these organizations to put on, and then I'm sure they're still paying, like you know, booths, like you know, fees, any other kind of like microfees that might be inside of there.

So uh I'm just like, yeah, I'm just a big advocate for not paying the police more for doing a job that they already do.

And honestly, it should just be par for the course.

They are here to serve the community, they're here to help the community, they're here to especially help a community that they need to really start making amends with, building bridges with, because I know many, many, many people that are still not okay and are still like very big on like abolishing the police system in general.

So this could have perhaps maybe they would take into consideration that to mend the bridges with uh with the BIPOC communities, especially.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Welcome up.

Hello, my name is Santano Franco.

I'm co-chair of the Cinco de Mayo, Mexican Independence Day.

Um talk to a lot of people that run other festivals.

And when we talk about finances and we talk about what we spend, they're kind of blown away sometimes because they can't, they they can't believe what we pay.

They tell us the prices that they're paying, and we tell them what we're paying, and they they don't understand how there can be such a discrepancy.

So when you talk about giving the power to the police and to the permit to have them hand out the money, that doesn't sit well with me.

Um they've already proven that they're not as fair as they can be.

And um, you know, like I said, they're charging us differently, charging everybody differently.

I would love to see the city council disperse that money.

I would love to see uh the transparency and how you do it.

Um, and I'm hoping that the city council, you'll fight for for the single mile, you'll fight for our festival.

We don't have anybody in war two that's fighting for us and fighting for this community right now.

So I'm gonna ask the the council as a whole to fight for us.

Uh we need we need representation.

Um, and we need somebody to fight for our singular mile because we don't have it right now in Ward Two.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in.

Welcome up.

Council President Maker, members of the council.

My name is Caleb McCulloch, um, and I'm the director of government affairs of St.

Paul Chamber.

Um we have prepared remarks, but with a layover, I think we'll wait um to see what those changes are to offer uh nuanced opinions on those, but I just wanted to reiterate uh that we value events and festivals in St.

Paul, we see the value.

Um we know they bring in um they bring in uh visitors and they support communities.

So um we want to say thank you for taking this up and considering it.

And um, we look forward to seeing the changes.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in.

Welcome up.

Good evening.

Um I'm I'm the ball near.

I'm in support of funding community-led festivals and events across the city.

Right now, a lot of us are carrying trauma where we're living through hard times, loss, stress, violence, division, and uncertainty.

And while policies matter, so does so does what holds people together in everyday life.

Community events are one of the few places where people come together, breathe again, and remember that they are not alone.

These gatherings are not extra, they're a part of healing.

They're where we hug our neighbors, check on elders, and let our kids laugh and play.

Our families feel safe in public spaces, they preserve culture, history, and rebuild trust, neighborhood, the neighborhood, and block the block.

These these events also generate real economic activity and income.

They support local artists, vendors, small businesses, and nonprofits.

They activate public spaces in positive ways and strengthen belonging.

But it's but it's getting harder to do the work.

Costs keeps rising, especially safety and security.

Grassroot organizations are doing their best to meet requirements to protect the public, but without support, many events won't survive.

That's why it's important to fund these works and create long-term solutions.

As we continue to celebrate in heal, I hope the city will explore established festivals and events, credits, creating long-term support for communities-led gatherings that preserve history, generate economic activities and income, and strengthening belonging, because when our communities are hurting connection, it's not optional, it's necessary.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in.

And I'll just do one last call before when I, who I think is our last speaker.

If there's anyone else here to testify on this item, please line up now just so we know you're here.

Welcome up.

Hi, thank you.

Um, sounds like you guys have a pretty great opportunity to take power from the police and probably give it to the people.

And it sounds like the people have already done a great job of policing themselves, even within their own communities, forced by our hand.

We did that.

We made it to they had so they had to protect themselves.

So maybe it's time for them to get a little bit of a reward for the hard work they have done, and maybe we can set the world stage to show everybody what global culture looks like and global celebration of global culture, and we can all hang out together and have a good time and not be policed.

And we police ourselves, because that's what community is.

And the Twin Cities has already shown that.

So I think the I think we're all up for the challenge.

Thank you.

Star Cloud Pink and Purple, Albor 1.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in.

Um if we introduce, should we continue the public hearing?

No, because I can have you wrong more than that.

So I needed that.

So you don't need to have another.

Okay.

Okay.

Mistaken.

Okay.

So I'm gonna make a motion to close the public hearing, and then we'll have some discussion.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye, aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The public hearing is closed.

Ms.

Yang, thank you, Council President.

Why I want to say thank you to everybody who came and testified.

I do have a question for your director of I know you have moved on, moved on to be our council of directors, so you're no longer a chief budget officer, but um you are the expert when it comes to um, you know, our our budget.

And so earlier you mentioned a bit about about um like uh um actions like the the mayor can take and then the council as well.

But I I think for me, I'm just wanting more clarity about that because um my like basically my interest is making sure that the dollars that didn't get rolled over from last year um can be tapped into, and so um I uh through conversations a few with a few of our council members here, like my understanding is it rolled it went into the fund balance.

And so can you explain if there's a way that we can we can um get those dollars back and then make sure that we are utilizing it for this credit here.

Um I clearly heard there's many organizations that held their events, they were hoping to get the credit, and I I think there's a way for I hope there's a way for us to be able to make sure that they still get it for the events that they held this past year.

So is there a pro can you just reiterate if there's a process for us to retrieve those dollars again from last year?

Thank you, uh Council President and Councilmember Yang.

So there's there's a couple components to this, and so as it relates to the funding that was available last year, essentially um the budget appropriation or the allocation cancels out.

So any um, you know, non-use of funds uh in one area is balanced potentially by overspending in another.

Um so what the process for amending the current budget, because essentially every year we pass a balanced budget where revenue matches expenditures uh under the charter, the um mayor would have to identify that there is available resources that can be repurposed, and then based on that, can submit a um you know, a recommendation or a budget amendment to council uh as far as the use of fund balance that is an available resource.

However, the usage of fund balance is often governed by specific considerations related to our credit rating, um, how much balance we carry.

So I think as a first option uh would not be recommended out of fiscal prudence.

However, that's not to say um there couldn't be other solutions proposed by the mayor uh to make that uh happen.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

And just want to name that I feel it's really important for um us on the council here, if not all of us, maybe a couple of us, maybe council president you and councilman Bouli, since you have been taking lead on the taking lead on this to connect with me or her about this.

Um that would be uh a request that I have.

And I know I'm making the request, so if you need me in that meeting, like I'm happy to be there too, but just wanting to honor that that it's see who's been leading this.

So thank you for your work as well.

Yes, and again, it was it was a surprise to me too when I learned that the dollars were going to go into fund balance and that wasn't in a special fund.

My recommendation actually would be that we move these dollars into a special fund so that they can roll over, and that's um, I believe an action that we can take.

Um, but happy to follow up with the mayor on that.

I just want to say um to two things.

Thanks to everyone again for coming out to the public hearing.

Um, I think just to clarify in terms of where the money is going, um, there's there's two ways that we could give we could lower the costs for festivals, right?

We could write a check to the festival directly, um, or we could tell them that they have to pay us that same amount less.

Um, and backfill that money by giving it to the police department, so the festival pays the same amount less, um, or we write a check for the same amount.

It's the same thing.

The difference is that um for the festival itself, a lot of folks mentioned how difficult it is to put on festivals.

For us to actually have to write a check to a festival is much more work and paperwork on their end, as we all know from any time we've ever tried to do grants in the city with organizations.

So this is an attempt to make it the same dollar amount, um, but easier on the festival to just not have to pay as much in.

There's also an oversight requirement in version two that requires that the police department tell the council every time they do one of these disbursements so that we can track and have that oversight and accountability, and we are keeping track.

So the council is ultimately in charge.

And finally, um, I I understand there will be a version three coming next week.

As I said from the very beginning, I am happy to get this done however we can get it done.

Um, I don't want to create false expectations for our community though.

So I don't want to pass a resolution that says something is going to happen if it's not ready to start happening as soon as we pass that resolution.

If there's additional work to be done, if there's additional departments to contact, because then we're gonna have community members coming next year and saying, You told us you would do this and it didn't happen.

So whatever version is brought next week, I just need to know that the departments that are named, the processes that are articulated are ready to be rolled out as soon as we pass that resolution.

Um version two again is ready to go if we pass it.

Um so any further conversation, otherwise we will lay this matter over for a week and I'll make that take that motion from Ms.

Bowie to lay over.

Yes, Ms.

Booty.

Thank you.

Um I just want to say in closing, like we heard the room.

If we are reading the room, I don't want us to be a prisoner to a failed process and having the expectations that a police department that has not been successful with actually ensuring that we can have events, community events, without having the burden of high police costs.

There's a lot of intersectionality that comes into you know whether or not we are going to actually be a city that really truthfully promotes and supports these cultural festivals.

We have heard from some of our legacy festival organizers that they don't feel supported by this leadership, and that is I take that seriously.

And it's really important that we aren't just sticking to a process because we're just a slave to a process.

We are elected to be, we are elected to have a process that actually works for our people.

And um, some of the things I want to just echo that heard today um by um the young young woman, I believe in um reward one was saying how it's just a crazy process to have BIPOT community members have to pay for police.

When I came into office, I was really shocked that we have about what was it, 125 or I believe 185 dollars per hour per officer for the event, and it's going to even um um um exacerbate depending on how successful they are with having attended.

So I think we need to really think out of the box.

Um, I am committed to talking with mayor her and making sure that mayor her can identify those funds.

I think I already sent an email to our office of financial, our chief office of financial services, particularly asking for a budget amendment from the 155k from the police department back to Office of Financial Services so we can recoup those dollars.

I'm also committed to making sure that we don't have to get money to pay the police back.

The police literally can have in their budget for officers to work at community events.

The police have the power to even waive all of these costs.

Like that's where we need to be as a council of thinking boldly, and I get it, not everybody is there, but our community is under distress, and we have the power to use our policy tools or our budgetary tools to make sure that we're relieving our community members of this burden.

They shouldn't have to be worrying about raising funds to hire police officers while they're under federal occupation and they have not been fully supported by police officers.

That is that is not a good use of our dollars.

And if the council has the power, if we have this budget, and we have these funds, particularly even in PED.

Um, an excuse of saying that we just can't find someone to manage funds, cut a check, process payroll, that's not an excuse.

We can't, that cannot be the excuse.

We are not a chain, we can't just be chained to a process.

We have to actually have the guts to lead and have the guts to direct this council, or excuse me, this city and our directors and also our mayor to make sure that these dollars are out the door.

Council member or council president Naker, the reason why these dollars did not get out the door, because you were waiting around for police to create a system, create a process.

And I told you from the get-go that this is a failed process.

Even the chief of police had said that it is unethical for him to decide who gets these funds.

He said that to us time and time again, and you still try to move forward with a process that you know is going to harm our communities and not set up to support our communities.

And I tried to be nice, I tried to be diplomatic.

I've tried to be a good partner.

I've really, really, really have tried, but I'm just getting so fed up, so fed up that I do not have you as a colleague or as an ally or as a partner to make sure that our community gets the funding that they deserve and that they've been asking for, and we cannot be dependent on failed systems to actually help us.

These dollars, like I said, we're supposed to revitalize our community festivals.

We if if the police was actually excited or wanting to support us, tell them actually waive the fees.

Tell them to wave the bees.

Thank you, Ms.

Bowie.

I look forward to your uh version three and your plan next week.

Um, and I will move a one-week layover.

All in favor say aye.

Aye, aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is laid over to February 11th.

Item number 21 is public hearing 26-4.

Public hearing on grievances about federal immigration operations.

This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak on this item?

I think everyone knows the drill at this point, but just a reminder two minutes, help me help you help us.

Welcome up.

Hi again.

Um, I'm Sarah Gardner.

I live in Ward 7, and I'm asking council today to explore an ordinance that would prevent the city of St.

Paul, including any departments under council's authority from employing individuals who have previously worked for ICE or customs and border protection.

This is about public trust and aligning our workforce with our values as a city that it welcomes immigrants.

Um I also just wanted to make a note that despite repeated requests, the mayor's office has not appointed an independent investigator to review St.

Paul Police Department's use of force on November 25th at Rose Avenue.

Accountability requires timely and independent review.

So thank you again for your continued work and all that you do, but I do urge you both to uh urge the council to take action on both of these items.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in.

Welcome up.

Good afternoon.

Uh good afternoon, council members.

My name is Don O'Malley.

Uh I'm a proud Ronde resident, and I'm here today because during the day I'm a Hennepin County software developer trying to serve residents, and by night, I mentor Central Robotics, the Minute Bots.

I also coach soccer and have coached at Jimmy Lee over the past seven or eight years.

I have two kids, uh 25 central grand and a junior set to graduate in 27.

I'm here because as a community member, I know our current our current environment is fouling our children.

Recently, uh January 20th, actually, uh, I lost instructional time with my students.

We were interrupted because of two massed ICE agents parked in the Dunning parking lot.

Central's overflow law, when they were already supposed to not be in.

This wasn't just a parking issue, it was a disruption that terrorized our students.

It didn't just affect robotics, it impacted the basketball teams and the many community groups that share our school.

A little bit later that evening, I found the same vehicle at Selby and Oxford, right across from the old JJ Hill building.

Neighbors were already out watching.

When I approached the car with my camera, they strove my face with a flashlight to prevent me from recording and make it hard to see before they drove north towards Central High School again.

This is the new normal we are all being forced to navigate.

During the day, while I should be focused on county work, I literally wear a whistle, ready to rush out to help a neighbor in distress at a moment's notice.

At night, instead of only coaching robotics or sports to the rec centers, I'm forced to spend precious instruction time discussing emergency plans that really have no place in a school.

We need a formal policy that ensures every building where children gather from daycares to rec centers to schools and home through their bus stops is a safe space free from intimidation.

It's time we all tell ICE they are unwelcome and need to go home.

They didn't exist before the Islamophobia of 2001.

They don't need to exist now.

Our schools deserve better than a smaller scar.

They deserve safety.

Thank you very much.

Welcome back.

Here I am.

Um I'm Maria.

I'm a child care director, uh owner in Ward 5.

I'm here today to focus on one grievance with federal immigration, which is the continued targeting of child care, schools, and hospitals.

I want to also note that what council member Yang brought up about the charter being changed.

We want that.

We want these ordinances to be in effect day one when they get passed by this council, not in 30 days.

We want safe zones banning ICE from child care schools and hospitals.

This is not radical.

It's in accordance with international law, which declares access to education and medical care is a human right.

Every day since the first week of January, I drive to work and I grip the steering wheel and I try not to check all of the chats that are pinging on my phone.

On a scale of one to murderous, how are ICE agents behaving today in St.

Paul?

Will today be the day that ICE kidnaps a child from my center?

A teacher, a parent.

ICE agents routinely circle my child care center.

We're on lockdown three to five times a week.

Children can't play outside.

I don't want to hear that these ordinance are laws don't matter because ICE doesn't follow them anyway, or because maybe the federal government will sue us.

We don't make laws for them to protect criminals or with the expectation that no one will ever break the law.

We make them to draw a line in the sand to say, here we do not tolerate your violence.

Here, we do not tolerate your terrorism.

Here we protect the sick and the injured, and here we protect children.

I urge the city council to continue to have bold leadership and to continue to stand with us and use the power that you do have to protect the people in St.

Paul.

When you are deliberately slow, and when you are silent, you are complicit in the violence that happens every day.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hello, I think everyone knows my name by now.

I'm Heather.

I'm still from Ward 6.

Um, there's a lot of things I want to say about all of my grievances against ICE, and that's why I keep showing up today.

So a couple of things.

People in my community are getting texts and calls from unknown numbers telling them that they have their children or they need to come outside or they must report to certain spaces.

If we're concerned about ICE agents and federal or uh law enforcement, excuse me, just in general, to be able to be identified, it's gonna be important for us to try to find ways to streamline these kind of communications.

What numbers are we getting phone calls from?

Where are people supposed to report?

Where do people actually report these issues?

I have no idea.

As a community, we are starting to document that because obviously other people won't.

The priority should be the public health and safety of people around us, our basic needs being met.

Can people go to school safely?

Can they learn?

In times of trauma, we cannot integrate new information as we saw with COVID, and we continue to see.

Here we are today.

Um are street lights lit.

I can't walk in my neighborhood without being afraid of being disappeared.

I'm one of the people in my community that everybody knows.

They'd hear me.

They know I'm I'm missing, I'm loud.

But here's the thing I can't walk around in my own frickin' neighborhood.

Sorry.

I got you.

Um the mayor.

Oh, also, we're we're thinking about people going to food shelves.

Um, one of our community members with a Halley Q, Tao Song, and was abducted trying to help our community get food.

This is unacceptable.

Having ICE agents at our places of learning are getting our basic needs met, medical institutions, not okay.

Um, mayor her and the city council shouldn't you already pass this resolution.

We we passed it on.

However, we need to be still pushing Governor Walls to not only sign the eviction moratorium, but also having a shelter in place for our community.

We need to make sure that families and small businesses can stay in our homes.

In January alone, I raise 10,000 in mutual aid.

We can't mutual aid ourselves out of this.

Where are we?

Where's our community?

We're exhausted.

Do something.

Thank you so much.

Make sure to sign in.

Welcome up.

Let's just go back and forth.

So I think it's the side's turn.

Or you're good.

Okay.

That side's turn.

It's like a four-way stop in Minnesota.

Okay.

My name is Tony.

Um, I live in Ward 1.

Uh, we moved here about two and a half years ago from a small and very politically conservative town in West Michigan.

We came here looking for a community that cared for all of its citizens, including and especially its most vulnerable.

Shortly after we arrived, there was a city council election that was filled with optimism and the promise of making St.

Paul a safe home for all.

More recently, there was an election for a mayor, and I voted with confidence for a mayor who would move us forward toward these ideals.

I'm sorry to say that I stand here today, as I stand here today, my confidence and optimism are on a decline.

On a daily basis, I bear witness to the fear and harm borne by the people who live and work here due to unlawful federal actions being carried out in our community.

Daycares and schools that require volunteers to shield children and adults from adopt abductions.

Hospitals that are caring for the ill, invaded by ICE and border patrol agents.

Citizens harassed and abducted on our streets.

If we're honest, we all see it and feel it.

Some brave citizens take action to protect our neighbors and feed them and shield them.

Others respond to this fear through silence or hiding behind procedural procedure as political cover.

Sadly, I've come to believe that some of you on this council fall into that latter category.

Hiding behind procedure as political cover.

Many of us are here today to tell you we will not let you continue claiming that you are protecting vulnerable human beings at the same time, clearly enabling these unlawful actions to harm them.

We want a separation ordinance now, not piecemeal now.

It's past time, the emergency is here, and it's time to stand up for all of your citizens.

Thank you so much.

I see you have more.

Maybe you could leave it with us for us to read, or feel free to email it as well.

I'm sorry.

I need you to stop now, but if you have more written down that you want to share with us, you're welcome to leave it or dick things.

Okay, thank you very much.

Welcome up.

Hi, I'm Celeste Finn, a St.

Paul resident.

We are wearing tape on our mouths to represent those who are in hiding and in silence by ICE and to represent the city's response to ICE.

Um fear is designed to make us comply.

What you have before you as a council and a city is the hardest thing you will ever have to do.

It is far harder than saying no to an extension on a loan.

The feds are here to make us terrified.

They are here to sue the crap out of St.

Paul.

And we still have to figure out how we're going to protect each other.

I'm sure you're as weary as I am, as heartbroken as the rest of us.

Your role as council members is especially challenging during these turbulent times.

And I sympathize with you on how hard that is.

And I must push you to fight harder.

As a child care director, I learned the hard way to plan for the worst.

When assessing risks, I don't look for what's plausible.

I look for what is the worst possible outcome and plan for that.

The city council, the mayor, and the St.

Paul police must do the same.

Let's be real.

You messed up painfully with how slow the revision of the separation ordinance has been over the past two months.

You have been fearful to plan for the worst and lead with the courage needed during these turbulent times.

Meanwhile, Philadelphia, Chicago, and our twin Minneapolis exceed St.

Paul and how they are limiting ICE's ability to harm residents.

These cities are willing to take risks to reduce the harm.

We need and deserve the same courageous leadership in St.

Paul.

And we need clarity from the council, the mayor, and the St.

Paul police on how you intend to protect us moving forward.

From a resident's perspective, we have seen St.

Paul Police assisting ICE in harming its own residents.

And we've heard mixed messages with the mayor's office, the council and the police.

And we have seen the council advance at a snail's pace with no clarification as to why.

Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

And we need the council to and we've seen the council advance at a snail's pace with no clarification as to why.

While other cities stand up and do what is hard and what is right with the swiftness that we crave.

So of course, we're mad.

But we do want to extend our collective power to give you the courage to be brave and do what is right and exercise the full extent of your power to protect our most vulnerable, to be creative and audacious in your willingness to protect us so that St.

Paul is a safe haven for human rights.

And that will go beyond the three ordinances that are in motion.

I appreciate those, and they're not enough.

I understand that the council and the mayor are fearful of retribution and are dealing with current lawsuits with DHS.

This is a fair concern, and we should be mindful of it.

However, litigation is unavoidable.

You didn't start the civil war.

The president did.

The only way to win this is to love courageously and stand together in solidarity.

Penguins know this, orcus know this, pigs know this.

We all know this.

Minimizing the risk of litigation litigation for the city of St.

Paul will not save us.

Doing everything in our power to protect our most vulnerable will.

Funding for ICE will continue to surge.

The current occupation will subside and return, just as it did and will continue for the next three years.

Now is the time to plan for the worst.

Unite in our values and in our courage.

We urge you to stand in solidarity with Chicago, Minneapolis, and Philadelphia.

Chicago will fail on its own.

So will Philadelphia.

Silence is compliance, and compliance is violence.

Do not let them win.

Do not let them fear you into inaction.

Link arms with Minneapolis, Chicago, and Philadelphia, and fiercely protect St.

Paul residents, Americans everywhere, and our Constitution.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Welcome up.

My name is Teresa Reagan.

I am from Ward One.

Um, I've listened to you tonight, and I've listened to everyone here tonight who spoke again.

And I want to continue.

I want to encourage you to continue to listen to one another and us and challenge each other.

Just as Celeste said, we are asking so much of you, and we are also doing so much.

We're so tired, but we are not going to give up.

I'm sorry that you went through what you had to go through this week.

I'm terrified for children who are beyond COVID scared.

In COVID, our safe place was our homes.

We got sick of our family.

I watched, just I was sitting here tonight, a video of a family's home in Minneapolis that was circled by ice within the past 90 minutes.

Agents were looking in the windows while people filmed.

Thank God for the people who are filming.

Silence from you, which is procedure, is compliance, and it equals violence.

Every single time I drive around and I see people patrolling schools, hospitals, daycares.

I'm embarrassed, and I'm thankful.

So I want to ask you in my final 30 seconds.

Challenge one another, disagree, and get this done now, not in 30 days.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Silence.

Welcome back.

Hi guys.

Claire from Ward One.

Yeah, you guys have a tough job.

You guys are not people I would consider to be really heavily protected by the government.

But the reason we elected you is to be brave and to stand for us.

And being brave doesn't matter in moments when it's easy.

It was easy earlier.

It was a no, it was one minute, one second.

Right now, you have to change that sprint into a marathon.

You have to be able to sustain that bravery that you were able to show for your constituents who showed out for you.

We are here today to show you that we want this.

We back this.

We need that separation ordinance.

We need it to be stronger than these three piecemeal pieces that you've put out so far.

It's tough.

And it's it's not bravery when it's easy.