St. Francis City Council — Transcript
Monday, August 17, 2026
Story
St. Francis approves retail development, defers surveillance camera decision
Resident Concerns: Speed Limits & Pedestrian Safety
Alexandra House Services and Funding
Public Meeting Speaking Rules
Anoka County Sheriff's Office Safe County ALPR/Drone Project
National Night Out
Votes (6)
Alexandra House Presentation
Dissent: Council member Robinson and Mayor Vogel expressed reservations about funding, viewing it through the lens of taxpayer money for charities.
Tina Bronson, Executive Director, presented Alexandra House's vital services for domestic and sexual violence survivors in Anoka County, including shelter, legal aid, and prevention education. She argued the organization functions as essential public safety infrastructure, not merely a charity. Council members debated the appropriateness of using taxpayer funds for such a purpose, weighing the significant community benefit against concerns about setting a precedent for funding non-governmental entities. No direct vote on funding was taken, but the council agreed to further consider support.
Ordinance Amendment Section 3 Traffic Second Reading
Dissent: None
Moved by Council member Farness [1:09:47] · Seconded by Council member Robinson [1:10:00]
The council proceeded with the second reading of Ordinance 359, which amends traffic regulations in the City Code. There was a brief discussion about the importance of informing residents about these changes through social media. The council then approved both the ordinance itself and a separate resolution authorizing its summary publication.
Resolution 2026-32 authorizing summary publication of ordinance 359
Dissent: None
Moved by Council member Udveig [1:10:48] · Seconded by Council member Milbauer [1:11:00]
Following the approval of Ordinance 359, the council moved to authorize its summary publication. This administrative step ensures the public is formally notified of the new ordinance through official channels.
Discuss Meeting Open to the Public
Mayor Vogel proposed implementing an optional sign-in sheet for residents during the 'Meeting Open to the Public' segment to facilitate follow-up responses to questions that cannot be answered immediately. Council members discussed the pros and cons, aiming to improve communication without hindering free speech. The consensus was to create a sample form, allowing residents to opt-in for responses by providing contact information.
South 47 Retail Site Plan
Dissent: None
Moved by Council member Udveig [1:18:14] · Seconded by Council member Robinson [1:18:24]
Beth, city staff, presented a site plan for a new 6,900 square-foot multi-tenant retail building at 4201 Saint Francis Boulevard. The plan addressed previous Planning Commission feedback by reducing the building size, ensuring compliance with setbacks and parking requirements (29 spaces provided for 28 required), and incorporating brick, Nichiha siding, and concrete block for the exterior facade. The Planning Commission had unanimously recommended approval, and the council followed suit.
Anoka County Sheriff's Office Safe County ALPR project
Dissent: Council members Robinson and Milbauer, along with Mayor Vogel, expressed strong reservations or leaned against the adoption of ALPR cameras due to privacy and trust concerns.
Lieutenant Fred from the Anoka County Sheriff's Office detailed the Safe County pilot program, which includes Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) and Drone Assisted Response (DAR). He highlighted ALPR's use for 'hot list' matching (stolen vehicles, missing persons) with privacy safeguards like no facial recognition and 30-day data deletion, and DAR's benefits for real-time situational awareness, especially for fire/EMS. Council members expressed strong support for the drone component but significant reservations about ALPRs due to public concerns over privacy, potential for misuse, and government trust, with a consensus leaning towards adopting only the drone program for now.
Notable Quotes (15)
We are the only comprehensive domestic and sexual violence organization for the county, um, and for a county of more than 360 folks, uh, we are the safety net for victims of domestic and sexual violence.
I met her at the JAYLEC meeting and I know I look back at my notes but since 2022 since we've done anything and at that point the council was kind of mixed as far as do we is it is it our responsibility to give taxpayer money to a charitable organization? Well, this is not the case. You provided a valuable service. So, to me it means it's a different situation entirely.
I will be the Grinch here and say unfortunately I'm one of those people that do not feel that charity is regard much as it's a slippery slope and as much as as important you are to the people that they use your services, um, you know, I stand where I stand unfortunately on the charity and taxpayer dollars.
Alexandra House is not a nice to have. We are not in competition with other nonprofits. Um, if you remove us from the equation, where do your residents go for support? We are public health and safety infrastructure, and this is a public health crisis.
I just think that we need to think about a way that we can shoot this out to our residents, so that they're aware that this change is coming.
I like to try and suggest we go to something where people want to speak, sign sign something, and what or check in with a piece of paper, and when they do, it gives them options on there for giving us their contact information so we can reach back out to them when they have questions that we can't answer at the time, which is a lot of the time.
I don't think everybody necessarily would have to if they're not looking to reply. Um, I mean, if you're just coming up there to comment on you know, how you feel about something or something we're talking about, um wouldn't be a bad thing.
free speech shouldn't be squelched at all, especially when it comes to our city council. We're a small community, we should be able to interact with one another.
What it does not do is there is no facial recognition. That's actually illegal in the state of Minnesota for government to utilize facial recognition.
The biggest benefit is going to be for the fire service.
I think the drone's a great idea. Um I think the drone is less invasive for one. I think it definitely helps support um fire and law enforcement to keep them safe in a lot of aspects.
I'm just going to say this. I mean, I dabble in law enforcement. If I'm in your shoes, I'd be doing the same thing you're doing. I get it. I get it. I I know it will solve some crimes here and there. I'm not I'm not questioning that at all. It's just for me it becomes a slippery slope and a bridge too far because when we talk about passive collection of information. That's what it is. It's passive collection of information.
I think the only way we're going to let this system prove itself um is by using it and getting some success stories, and we will have them um because they continue to we hear new ones every single day.
I hate when our governments do this all the time. I'll call it lipstick on a pig. You get one good thing, but they're going to bulk it in a bunch of garbage along with it just to get it passed.
If they can put that on Flock and make it a lot more than just driving through my neighborhood, what's going to stop that from happening? There may be safety features to it I'm not aware of. I don't know. I'm just telling you that I've been a victim of misidentification of my license plate years before Flock ever existed.
Ordinances & Resolutions (6)
Ordinance amending Chapter 7 Section 3 Traffic of the City Code.
Section of the city code related to traffic, subject to amendment by Ordinance 359.
Resolution authorizing the summary publication of Ordinance 359.
Resolution approving the site plan for the Saint Francis Script Mall.
Minnesota state statute regarding law enforcement use of drones.
Federal reporting requirement (National Incident-Based Reporting System) for offense types used in law enforcement.