We want to make sure we have regulatory framework in place that protects workers more specifically. We'll talk a little bit about that. And make sure that we're being proactive and preventing the displacement of thousands of workers in our city, but also making sure we're taking into broader consideration the impacts it has in our city when it comes to safety, infrastructure goals, things of that nature.

I urge a no vote on this ordinance that includes in its requirements a human monitor in every car, and instead, engage with the broader conversations that are ongoing. These are obviously very complex questions and they need a collaborative solution that invites levels of government for the right aspects of it. Just to give a bit of a perspective from travelers who are blind. The expanded choices that are brought on by autonomous vehicles would bring several benefits.

I believe it was June 11th. And it was a unanimous vote that yes, we would like to have staff spend precious time investigating this issue. The report has not been given to this body. The report was scheduled to be given I believe either this first week of October or the second week. October 7th is ringing in my head. I'm not sure if that's accurate. But we're about one to two weeks passing some important ordinances around new technology that many cities are already working on before we have the data from staff about the pros and cons.

This feels more about saving a particular job rather than an autonomous vehicle regulation for our whole city. I don't see it as local government's place to safeguard a type of job. I do, however, think it is our place to talk about the regulations of how a new business type would operate in our city.

The city and city council at that time essentially gave the red carpet service to Uber and Lyft at that moment, and as a result of that, we have to spend 10-plus years even up to this point, where again I mention on disability matters, we're having to still triangulate with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and AG office for them violating again against our residents. Working with our statewide leaders for two years to put basic regulations in place that guarantee equitable compensation for drivers.

As far as the soil remediation is concerned, as you know, Minneapolis has a long industrial legacy. There have been multiple uses on virtually every site. And you know, what is now a shopping center may have been a gas station at some point or a plating facility. There are many, many decades when people didn't understand the impact of some of the things that they were basically putting into the soil.

So for the person living in a townhome across the street, on the other side of the street from this development, if they are wondering whether the soil that they're home sits on is also contaminated and they just have no idea, should they be worried? Is that a reasonable thing to assume?

I also want to just thank you for your service to the City of Minneapolis. Is this the last time you're going to be presenting on Brownfield Grants to us?

The portfolio has experienced extraordinary challenges due to impacts associated with COVID-19 pandemic, George Floyd murder, the Metro Surge, rising operational costs, vacancies, security expenses, capital needs, and depleted reserves.

First, is how are we going to enforce our protections after we've gotten rid of our stake in the property?

One of the amazing things the last decade is intermediary and partners have done to create and support cohorts and create credit opportunities for developers primarily of color who are people who are interested in doing real estate development as entrepreneurs. That includes Minnesota Housing Fund, MHP and LISK among many. We know the ground is rich with a lot of buyers who they're not going to be able to get credit to do $16 million, $17 million in one purchase. But that one building or two building one or $2 million investment is the right size and self-perform a lot of the work.