I think it's important that staff is here to let us know what an entire dissolution of a committee means, what potential impact that would have on our constituents as us as a body. I don't even know what this would mean. And to have no one before us explain what this item is, what potential impact it would have on our residents is just quite frankly not the way we should be governing in our city when we deserve more transparency.

I think quite frankly, it's pretty embarrassing that city staff won't be in these chambers answering questions that we have. I'm sad that it took you running to these chambers uh for an item to be pulled out to get more particular questions about what this is to for us to have answers questions or learn about what this is or get more of our oversight questions answered.

I would be happy to and I think that's why you see me here today. Um, we are at we are at the end. We are at today. We are absolutely not able to wait any longer... I understand you may consider delaying, but I entreat you not to because we are um you know truly at the end. The city has no possibility of being repaid in a foreclosure. That just happens instantly in this circumstance.

I will revise my motion and move this item to committee of the whole Next week, I would hope at that point, uh, CPAD staff or the mayor himself will be here to answer questions and and so that we can get this approved by Thursday. Um, I really want to vote to approve this by Thursday. I just need staff to show up and speak to this item.

AON is such a repi rep um recognizable brand of housing developer within our community. They stated that they are selling um a portion of their portfolio to a new developer. Do we know who that new developer is? How have they been properly vetted? What gives them the bandwidth and the capability to handle a development in proportion of of that size?

This is something that deeply affects my ward and um there is additional discussion that needs to be had around anti-displacement funding um community engagement. all of the things that are indicative and infecting Ward 5 right now is not the time to try to sell a train to my community that could be potentially experiencing up to 18% tax increase. So where I'm seeing this, you know, funding that appears to be going to men collaborative, um at this time I'm not interested.

I just uh wanted to speak on this item or wanted to um have staff speak to the um the projects that are going to be benefiting from um the 2026 brownfield grants from the spring awards... and so just wanted to to get some more information from staff and seeing that no one is here um would make a motion to continue this item by one cycle.

I am asking the mayor to reconsider his directive. This is wrong. It is only going to further divide this organization, the city of Minneapolis, in a time where we really need to be united... Let's revisit it. Reconsider your directive to staff. Let's go back to the way we were doing our agenda settings and our committee meetings and let's figure out a way where we can address the concerns that led to this.

Respectfully, I would like to ask my colleagues that we would vote this forward. Um, if you look, these are all acceptance of a grant. We have already applied for these grants. We have been awarded these grants. And I think that each one of us can individually reach out to staff around our questions about each particular award. At this point, basically we are accepting the money and I do not want us to be put in a point of um questioning um that acceptance of money because I think that communicates to all of the projects that worked hard to apply through the city of Minneapolis and through other agencies and to the Met Council um that this is a bit disrespectful to their initiative and their work.

I would revise my motion to move this item forward to cow where we can discuss this along with the other item that was moved to the committee of the whole um and and hopefully we can get it approved in this cycle. Now, if we don't see staff come to the committee of the whole, um I think our the communication we're receiving from them is pretty clear that the approval of these items is not important.

We're talking about the loss of jobs. The Minnesota Department of Labor commissioned their own study on the ride share industry here in Minnesota. And in that study, they found that 10,000 workers, ride share workers who are predominately immigrant, they're predominately low-wage, many of whom rely on public assistance and benefits, many of those drivers work right here in the metro, here in Minneapolis. And it's important to know as a resident or a member of the public or as my colleagues who's listening to this presentation that these are not just workers who drive you around from the airport or to your destination.

We are protecting thousands thousands of jobs. Um this is their livelihood... what value are they adding in our community? Right? That's the thing we're talking about. What value are they adding in our community? They are not taking a rest 24/7 running. Let's talk about the environment, wear and tear on the roads. Let's talk about where is that money going? It's going straight to Silicon Valley. It's really not coming to our community.

I am blind... There's an issue missing from this ordinance that I would like to bring to your attention. On my way here today, I was I requested a lift ride and the driver saw me and sped away, cancelled my ride... I feel that the character of a person or an organization, a government is represented by who they protect. This ordinance protects drivers and pedestrians. But I do not see protection for us. People with disabilities who have service animals. We get denied on the daily.

One thing I noticed from your speech is it lacked a lot of data. And I'm not surprised because the data would go against exactly what you guys are trying to do. There's over 300 million miles driven by cars that that didn't have a driver behind them. And I'm sure you guys have looked that stuff stuff up. A 94% reduction in serious injury and death. Uh 85 81 sorry 81% reduction in crashes, injury crashes, 85% reduction in reportable crashes... You want us to be more safe? you should be welcoming us in as fast as possible.

This ordinance is supporting the very same workers who carried this city through a pandemic and a federal occupation. These drivers kept working when working men risking their very own kidnapping by ICE and through signets at the height of the CO 19 pandemic... Workers Drive Minneapolis is about protecting black and immigrant jobs meant to prevent their loss to automation.

The thing we know is if we want to reduce injuries, um on our public right of way, we want to reduce injuries in the street, um prevent collisions from happening, the best way, the most effective way and the most long-term way that we can do that is by building infrastructure that is centered around people and not cars. It is to build infrastructure that prioritizes bus riders and pedestrians and cyclists. That is the way that we make our streets safer and it is not through autonomous vehicles.

Can you speak to we requested an LRO around this in June and I believe the return date was like October, early October. So my question to the authors is why are you bringing a vote to the council before we get your same requested that we supported your requested LRO information? It seems out of order to me.

I deeply support Uber and Lift drivers. Let me say that, okay? But I also deeply support options. I think that the conversation and the arguments that have been made about um the impacts that it's had on our ADA um accessibility needed clients is huge. I also think that you know there are a lot of numerous different issues... I think you're going to have way more less of that if you are dealing with an autonomous driver because they're not going to have the ability to assault you in that fashion.