[5:41] Mayor: i want to welcome everyone to SEPTEMBER 8th workshop meeting of the Egan City Council. This is our, uh, first workshop of the month of SEPTEMBER, and we ve got a, um, uh, narrow but substantive agenda for tonight. So, um, I ll get right to it. [5:57] Council Member: Um, MISS Miller, are there any changes in agenda? No, MR. Mayor. Uh, Council. Any changes? Yes, sir. Move to adopt. The agenda is presented. Second. That s moved. And second, is there any further conversation on the agenda? Seeing none. Um. Uh, all in favor, say aye. [6:12] Mayor: Opposed? Nay. Motion carries and we have an agenda. Uh, I just want to check. Uh, are there any visitors to be heard tonight on items? Not or not on tonight s agenda? Seeing none. Um, I ll move right to, uh, our first item tonight. Uh, first item is a, uh, license plate reader. Uh, technology overview. Uh, and Chief Amari is joining us, as well as, uh, Deputy Johnson as well as other staff. Um, so we want to get into, uh, this topic. I want to thank the folks who are here today, uh, for the, um, uh, workshop meeting, uh, and those watching at home as well. I know that, uh, there s been a lot of community interest in [6:58] Mayor: the issue of automated license plate readers. And al pr technology. Uh, as the chief and I will probably refer to it tonight. Um, I want to clarify what the purpose of tonight s meeting is. Tonight s meeting is, uh, workshop meeting. Uh, and it s a chance for the council to hear directly from, uh, the chief about how, uh, Eagan police is using Alper technology, uh, and how our policies guide, uh, the use of that technology. Uh, this is a city council workshop, and it s not a public hearing. Um, and, uh, or a public comment session as well. So, uh, it s my hope, uh, that tonight will be educational for the council, uh, as well as for those attending, uh, and watching here at home. Uh, so that we all leave a little bit more [7:43] Mayor: educated on what? Alper. Uh, technology is, uh, and what it is not, uh, look forward to listening to and learning from, uh, Chief Omari. Uh, and I understand he has a fairly thorough, uh, presentation for us. Um, tonight, uh, as we get started, I do want to clarify what the council s role is in regards to Alper technology. [8:05] Mayor: Uh, the city council approves the city s annual budget and its capital purchasing plans. Uh, and provides high level public policy direction, operational decisions, including the selection of specific technologies are made by our professional level staff. Uh, in individual departments, staff keep the council informed about new technology. They often do demonstrations of that technology, such as body camera, body worn cameras, drones, uh, or public facing dashboards that are used for, uh, communication with the public on things like, uh, our comprehensive plan, etc.. Uh, and, um, I want to add and conclude with, uh, that while I am confident that, uh, Alper is currently working as intended, [8:50] Mayor: uh, within the city of Eagan, uh, I also understand the questions that it raises about privacy, data sharing and oversight. Uh, and I believe those are legitimate questions and issues for us to understand, uh, to take seriously, uh, and to question as well. Um, and I believe the chief agrees. Um, uh, that s why I appreciate Chief Omar s proactive review. Uh, in MARCH of our police departments. [9:14] Mayor: Alper. System settings, our policies, uh, as well as our data sharing practices. Uh, that review led to, as he ll explain, uh, disabling of the statewide sharing of Egan s Alper data. Uh, and strengthening safeguards around that access as well. Uh, tonight s an opportunity for the council to better understand the technology. The choice is being considered and how the department is is approaching it. Uh, and approaching its use, uh, responsibly. So, chief, I want to thank you for being here. [9:44] Mayor: Uh, and for your time and thoughtful work on the issue. I know that you, uh, and others on your staff have responded to a number of questions from the public on Alper. Uh, but I appreciate your being here tonight. Uh, and maybe before you start, I believe, uh, MISS Miller wanted to comment on some of the questions that the city has received. Um, and the city s, uh, hopes in responding to those questions as well. [10:07] Ms. Miller: Thank you, MR. Mayor. Members of the council. I simply wanted to say thank you to council members, as well as community members for the numerous questions that were sent in advance of this evening. That was very helpful to us as we prepared. I do want to make a a caveat that we couldn t answer every question that was submitted, but we sure tried really hard to cover as much as we can. And the chief s presentation. So the chief will cover at the end. If you did not get your question answered and you still have questions, our staff is happy to talk to you after the meeting, and we ll have contact information for someone to reach out to. If you do have questions that we didn t get to tonight. So with that, I will turn it over to Chief Omari. Thank you. [10:40] Chief Omari: Thank you, MR. Mayor. Council members and community members. I really appreciate the opportunity to stand before you tonight and talk through how the Eagan Police Department uses automated license plate readers, what it is and how we go. Uh, with your permission, I kind of have a little bit of a roadmap for tonight. Uh, we ll start with the basics. With what this technology is. And it is not, uh, we ll talk about, uh, our policy and our procedures. We ll look at a couple of, uh, actual incidents here in Eagan and then, you know, direct answers to some of the tougher questions that we ve received to include immigration use and oversight and, uh, cover several other questions that we ve heard not [11:26] Chief Omari: only from you, but from members of our community as, uh, both myself and our staff have have been, uh, proactively engaging with members of the community on this. Uh, and then we ll close with. And just we re going to try to get, like, get through the presentation. Um, but council ask questions, do come up if they re important to be answered right then. Uh, I d invite you to ask them. So, Councilmember Bakken. [11:49] Council Member Bakken: Well, you just answered my question. I was going to ask the chief if there s a lot of material as your preference, that we hold all of our questions to the end or ask them as we go. And it sounds like hold them for the end. Uh, you know, council member, to your point, there s a lot of material I m going to try and, um, cover a lot. Yeah. Um, but I ll certainly take questions. [12:08] Chief Omari: If you. Have wait till the end. We ll take notes. All right. Thank you. Uh, yeah. So. And then, uh, you know, like I said, there s a lot of questions that have been coming in. We want to be able to try and just really just answer those as directly as we can and and talk about what we re committed to moving forward. [12:27] Chief Omari: And so there are really two separate questions before us tonight I think. And one is a is about the technology itself and the other is about trust. And uh, and frankly, can this department be trusted to use it? Uh, my goal is to address both of those directly and leave you with a clear answer to each of those. So let s begin with the technology. And before I explain what Alper is, I want to provide some personal context. I first began using this technology in about 2009. [13:01] Chief Omari: So while Alper is relatively new to Eagan, it is not new to law enforcement, and it s not new to me. With that context, let s talk about the the actual function. So Alper function. [13:17] Chief Omari: The Alper function captures an image of a license plate and a vehicle at a specific location. That record includes the date, the time, and that geographical location. It compares the license plate against specific law enforcement databases, including information with missing person alerts, stolen vehicle alerts, uh, wanted person alerts, and then Eagan specific investigations. In Eagan, the technology is deployed at 13 fixed locations and in patrol vehicles on the other side of the slide. And equally important is what it does not do. It is not facial [14:04] Chief Omari: recognition. It does not track anyone continuously. Rather, it s a still image or a series of still images of a vehicle after it passes one of our camera locations. It doesn t enforce anything automatically. [14:22] Chief Omari: Every single alert requires human confirmation, and it s not connected to any state or national database. Finally, it s not used for traffic enforcement. We have communities where there s cameras that are actually taking pictures of vehicles and enforcing red light violations, stop sign violations, etc. This is also not that. I, uh, I like to be able to see things and I learn that way. So, uh, these are the three different types of automated license plate readers that we have here in Eagan. The one on the left that you see there is a solar powered fixed flock camera for [15:08] Chief Omari: locations without easy access to power. The one in the middle is an axon light post camera integrated onto existing streetlights, and then the one on the far right is a dual sensor camera, used both for in-car camera and as a mobile license plate reader. In practice. This tool does six things for us. It helps us recover stolen vehicles. It helps us find missing people faster. It generates investigative leads tied to open cases. It helps locate people connected to violent crime. It helps officers know what they re approaching before [15:53] Chief Omari: contact, such as a suspect vehicle tied to a serious offense. And finally, it flags routine registration and licensing issues like a somebody, a suspended or revoked driver s license. I want to underline the sentence at the bottom of this slide. I hope you guys can see it because it s really important in every single one of those, including that last one, which MAY be considered kind of your lower hanging fruit. They all end with a human officer verifying before anyone acts. [16:28] Chief Omari: An alert is just an alert. It is not by itself a stop, a contact and arrest, or a citation. And the mayor alluded to this when I arrived in the end of 2025. One of the first things our command team started doing was taking a comprehensive review of department policies. As you can imagine, that is a significant undertaking, but a very important one. One of the policies that we reviewed was our Alper policy, which governs how this technology MAY be used. [17:06] Chief Omari: State law allows Alper data to be retained for up to 60 days, and our policy establishes that as a maximum. Operationally, however, we chose a shorter period. Our procedure and system settings automatically delete the data after 30 days. [17:26] Chief Omari: That reflects our effort to balance legitimate investigative needs with the privacy expectations of our community. Every search must be tied to an authorized law enforcement purpose, such as a criminal investigation, a missing person case, a welfare check, and it must include an incident or a case number. If our officers don t have an incident number, they cannot search. We also have two layers of oversight. Each month, our lieutenant of Strategic Development and Technology, Lieutenant Andre. He reviews Alper data for inconsistencies or anomalies. If something appears unusual, it s examined [18:12] Chief Omari: more closely. If a violation were identified, we would determine the appropriate corrective action in line with our standards of conduct policy. In addition, we retain an independent auditor to conduct a comprehensive audit required by state law every two years, and that was most recently conducted in APRIL of this year. Data sharing was another part of our review in MARCH 20th, 2026, I decided to withdraw Egan from the statewide sharing network. That remains our posture today. No outside agency has open access to Egan s Alper data without our knowledge. Our review and our approval. Finally, we [18:58] Chief Omari: re developing a public transparency portal that we expect to have available on the police department s website in the next 30 days. It ll give the public a clear view of how this technology is used, and the safeguards we have put in place. Now, I don t want you just to take my word that a case, number and reason are [19:25] Chief Omari: required. What you see here are the interfaces of the two systems that we use. On the left is the axon search interface. I m just going to highlight the cursor here. Hard to see but it says a fence category. And there s a little asterisk. Here is case number. [19:47] Chief Omari: And again a little asterisk. Going over to the other side of the slide is the FLoc search interface. And here is a fence type with an asterisk and a case number with an asterisk. A fence category and case number are required. Fields. Before any results can come back in our system. This isn t a policy promise on a slide. It s built into the interface that we actually use. So the previous slide showed how an officer conducts a search. This slide shows what the officer receives if the vehicle was captured by one of our alp cameras in Igra, Egan. You re seeing examples from both systems that we use. [20:32] Chief Omari: The displays look different, but they provide essentially the same information. An image of the vehicle and a license plate. Search does not identify the driver. It does not prove that a crime has occurred or automatically result in a contact. It simply tells the officer that a vehicle matching the search was photographed at a particular place and time. [21:03] Chief Omari: Now this one is an actual sample alert, so the previous one was a real Egan alert. This one s a sample alert for demonstration. If a vehicle passes one of our cameras and say, for example, the registered owner of the vehicle has a revoked or a canceled or a suspended driver s license, an alert will pop up and the little red box, it shows that revoked license. Most of the time, an officer isn t even near the alert and therefore no action is taken. Should they be near the alert or it hit on their squad? Alper they have to verify that the driver is likely the registered owner [21:51] Chief Omari: before any action is taken. So let s consider two real life cases. And before I discuss the first one, I want to explain the challenge we face when a vulnerable person goes missing. When someone with dementia or [22:14] Chief Omari: is a child or, um, has a limited ability to care for themselves, goes missing. We can mobilize, mobilize significant resources. And we do. We put out police officers, drones, officers flying those drones, k-9 teams, officers on utv. In the event that they re in hard to reach terrain, we ask for mutual aid partners to assist. Sometimes ask for the State Patrol helicopter, and then we send officers to canvass neighborhoods door by door. And we ask people if they ve seen anybody matching the description, maybe even ask them to check their own camera systems to see if somebody matching the description passed [23:01] Chief Omari: by. And then we enter that person into a law enforcement database and notify the appropriate agencies. That is the full weight of our department and our partners working together. But when that same person leaves in a vehicle, the challenge changes significantly. As you can imagine, they can travel great distances in a short amount of time. And oftentimes we re left wondering, where do we start our search? Without lpr, we re largely dependent on officers happening to see the vehicle or obtain in real time cell phone ping. If there s one available that is a gap that Alper can [23:47] Chief Omari: help fill. In OCTOBER 2025, the Oakdale Police Department was searching for a missing 85 year old man who was last seen leaving a bowling alley on the east side of Saint Paul. The man was expected to be returning to Oakdale when he didn t return. The local police department was notified. I can only imagine that officers checked the area around that bowling alley and where the family thought he was going. [24:13] Chief Omari: Oakdale police entered him into a law enforcement database and attached his vehicle information into the entry. One of our cameras captured the vehicle in Eagan and generated an alert. An officer verified the license plate, located the vehicle, and conducted a traffic stop. The man told the officer he had become confused and believed he was on highway 61 near Oakdale. Our officer remained with him until his family arrived and could take him home safely. Importantly, Alper did not replace the officer or the investigation. [24:52] Chief Omari: It provided timely information about a moving vehicle, something our traditional search resources would not have been capable of. Let s look at another case. These are headlines from the local news. [25:09] Chief Omari: On JULY 11th, a road rage incident occurred on 35 e near Deerwood Drive. As you ll recall, the suspect fired from a moving vehicle, striking the targeted vehicle three times. A fourth round struck an uninvolved vehicle. 35 was then closed down for approximately two hours while we processed the scene and collected evidence through witness accounts and an extensive review of Mndot cameras. [25:40] Chief Omari: Investigators developed a specific vehicle description with distinctive characteristics, narrow in the model range and identifying those specific vehicle characteristics. Required several days of detailed investigation and consultation with the Ford dealership. At that point, we still do not have a license plate, but we had narrowed the investigation. [26:08] Chief Omari: A one truck with specific characteristics with that specific description. We can now use lpr to search for the vehicle. We found the same truck on camera before and after the shooting. One detail stood out. The rear window was intact before the shooting and shattered after. That was consistent with what our investigation had led us to believe, that the shooter fired from his moving vehicle at the victim s. This information contributed to probable cause for criminal search warrants at two locations. During those searches, we recovered the suspect vehicle s tailgate with [26:55] Chief Omari: bullet holes in it. That suspect has since been charged with five felonies. I want you to notice what did not happen. Nobody was arrested based solely on a plate. Read and Alper was one part of the investigation. Another piece of evidence that helped investigators develop probable [27:20] Chief Omari: cause and make an arrest. There are multiple concerns that have come up, and I d like to shift to addressing some of those two that have come up, perhaps more than any others are that we use lpr for immigration enforcement, and that is real. [27:37] Chief Omari: The Star Tribune s JULY investigation and into Operation Metro Surge named Eagan among eight twin city suburbs whose camera data s data was searched for immigration purposes. But by the time that data request was made in MAY, we had already been out of statewide sharing for two months. Although our cameras were searched, zero results, zero reads from camera. Ever returned results, and anytime we find gaps, we work diligently to close them. [28:09] Chief Omari: That s the responsible of leadership. The second is they operate without oversight. As I ve said before, and I ll say multiple times every search here in Eagan ties to a case number in an open investigation. Access is logged, reviewed every two weeks by command, and audited by an independent auditor. No outside agency, including federal agencies, have standing or automatic access to our data. [28:45] Chief Omari: That s a full stop. Let s address some other questions that have come in. We ve had questions about camera locations, and if that information is public, all Eagan fixed cameras are on the public right of way. None are on private property. All of our camera locations are published on the bca website. We choose Alper camera location locations based on operational value along those public corridors. [29:23] Chief Omari: Our Alper cameras are not placed to monitor homes, places of worship, health care facilities or other sensitive destinations. Equally important. It would be impossible to determine where vehicle was going solely based on an alp alert. Additional questions. We ve had. Do we have access to a business s private camera? And does FLoc have access to our data? As it sits today, we have no standing access to private cameras. We would follow the same legal process that applies to any privately owned camera, such as consent, a subpoena, or a [30:09] Chief Omari: search warrant. As for Fox, access to our data, again, there is no standing access. FLoc would receive access only if we initiated a tech support request. That access would be limited to the specific issue and the activity would be logged and auditable. This is similar to what would occur if we made a tech support request with logins, or any of our other tech vendors. Because cyber security is a specialized field well beyond expertise, I consulted with our Eagan it manager and asked him to review how these systems are hosted, and whether they present a risk to the city s network. He confirmed that flocks data is [30:56] Chief Omari: stored in aws Gov Cloud, a us based government cloud environment designed to support the highest federal security baseline for unclassified cloud systems. He also confirmed that Axon and FLoc are cloud based, vendor supported systems that do not connect to the city s internal network. As a result, vulnerabilities affecting those systems would not provide access to the city s internal [31:27] Chief Omari: network. Shift into data network and accountability questions. Some have said we re part of we re part of a network of cameras. That s described in Fox nationwide footprint, not Egan s. We ve not shared with we have not shared with the outside network since MARCH of 2026. Some claim there s a searchable record of everywhere they ve been and no opt out option searches are limited to active investigations that the Eagan Police Department is investigating, and vehicle information only. Frankly, we wouldn t want someone involved in criminal activity to have [32:13] Chief Omari: the ability to opt out. All data deletes in 30 days and every access is logged in our audit to a specific employee for the concern that the records are being searched by non law enforcement. Again, no access. Our our data is restricted to authorized mpd personnel. On the concern that floc is selling customer data. [32:42] Chief Omari: We have a master service agreement that explicitly states that FLoc does not own and shall not sell customer data. Doing so would open them up to serious litigation and be a breach of their contract. [32:58] Chief Omari: Just a few more questions that I think are worth answering head on. The claim that this search allows the claim that this allows searches with no connection to a crime. I previously showed you the built in safeguards that we have, and to be clear, our interface MAY look different than another department s. Our search interface requires that case number tied to an active investigation. Some say there are constitutional violations. [33:30] Chief Omari: The Supreme Court has not ruled on lpr, but we re paying attention to the legal question. I do know that in 2026, the lower court ruled that Alper system, the Alper system, did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search because it captured data visible on public roads and did not provide continuous tracking like an ankle monitor or cell phone location data. I think that the law will continue to develop as this technology evolves. That is precisely why we use limited retention, restrict searches to authorized purposes, and maintain oversight in how we use the system. Accuracy is another [34:17] Chief Omari: legitimate concern. Although this technology reports accuracy rates over 90%, it s not infallible. And Alper Search is a lead, not a final determination, which is why we require the officer to visually confirm the plate and verify the underlying information before enforcement action is taken. In fact, there are cases in which officers identified and corrected human error before any action was taken. [34:50] Chief Omari: Finally, there is the potential for misuse when any public employee uses government systems for an unauthorized purpose. It is a serious violation of the public s trust and it is unacceptable. As your chief, my responsibility is to reduce that risk through clear policy training, meaningful audits and accountability. If misconduct occurs, we address it directly. But I do not believe responsible public safety decisions should be driven solely by misconduct elsewhere. They should be based on how the technology is controlled, monitored and used. [35:35] Chief Omari: Here in Eagan. I want to draw a direct parallel here. You MAY recall this over a decade ago, some officers misused Minnesota s driver and vehicle services lookup system, and that led to real discipline and real reform, appropriately so. [35:53] Chief Omari: Nobody concluded from that episode that dvs lookups themselves should be abolished, as it was integral to public safety. The lesson was accountability for the individual, not elimination of the tool. I believe that the same principle applies here, and we found a gap. We closed it. When misuse happens anywhere ours or in other departments. The answer is consequences for that person not taking away a tool that s making our community safer. [36:26] Chief Omari: Let s step back from the individual cases and look at the big picture. Identifying a vehicle in seconds instead of hours shortens the gap between a crime being reported and it being solved. Crime does not respect city lines, so this helps us and our neighbor and agencies close cases that cross jurisdictions like the Oakdale case that we shared. It lets officers. It lets us direct officers to a specific vehicle of interest instead of relying on broader patrol stops, and to make sure it s explicitly clear. [37:08] Chief Omari: Every search here is logged. That s less room for the kind of accountability, unaccountable activity that we ve seen across the country. The lead detective on the 35 shooting case, a 25 year veteran of the Eagan Police Department, said unequivocally that this technology solved that case. When I see technology that is that has this kind of impact, it s my responsibility to find ways to use it in support of public safety. Here in Eagan. So after considering both the public safety value and the concerns we ve discussed, here s our commitment. We ll use this technology responsibly, maintain strong governance, and [37:55] Chief Omari: remain willing to reflect, learn, and adjust our procedures when needed. In practice. We ll continue our newly established command level reviews every two weeks, and our independent audits every two years. We will finish standing up the Public Transparency portal, hold individuals accountable for any misuse, and continue engaging with this Council and our community. One of our department s core values is continuous improvement. And for us, that means when we identify a gap, we close it. When the law, technology or best practices evolve, we evolve with them. That is how we preserve the public safety value of this technology, while [38:40] Chief Omari: continuing to earn communities trust. In closing, I m grateful for a community and a council that asks the tough questions. I m grateful for a community and a council that holds us accountable. I look forward to continued partnership as we strive to make Eagan the very safest place it can be. We do have our resident expert, Lieutenant Matt Andre, who is listed on this slide for community members who MAY have follow up questions about this presentation or anything else. [39:15] Mayor: But now, MR. Mayor Council, I turn it over to you for questions. All right. Thanks, chief. I appreciate the the offer. Um. Uh, I ll check with the council, uh, and see if they have questions. Do you want to remind the audience here in the room, uh, and or at home? Uh, that again, this isn t a public hearing, so there won t be public, uh, questions or comments in this meeting. It s primarily a meeting between the chief and the council. Um, but I do want to encourage you, as MISS Miller did, uh, to take advantage of. I believe there s some paper in the room going around or cards in the room or contact down for, uh, Lieutenant Andre. And thank you for being here as well tonight. [39:57] Mayor: Uh, and, uh, please feel free to direct those questions to, uh, Lieutenant Andre and or to chief uh, um, uh, Omari, uh, in the future. Um, I know you ve been answering a lot of questions, um, since JUNE. Uh, and so I appreciate the comprehensiveness, uh, of the presentation here. I suspect the council still has some questions to follow up on. And if the public does, again, please make sure to submit those. Uh, outside of this meeting, we d appreciate that. [40:23] Mayor: Uh, Councilmember Bakken and then Councilmember Fields. Thank you. Um, this is a little complex. So apologize if I maybe have difficulty articulating this question. Um, so what will happen is I ll probably just talk a bunch and then eventually ask you to respond. Um, I have no doubt that the technology is very valuable for supporting the, uh, health, safety and welfare of the public. And I have absolutely no doubt that our police department uses it responsibly and only in the way intended. Uh, but it s important to maintain the chain of custody of public trust that you referred to. That also extends to the vendor and the [41:09] Council Member Bakken: concerns that I have is contractual. Uh, contract not notwithstanding. Um, we re dealing with a corporation. They don t have morals. They have a profit. Profit motive and perhaps certain corporate values. What I m concerned is that if it s profitable enough for the vendor to share information in an unauthorized way, and that that the gains from that outweigh the consequences of having shared that information, they probably do it. So the question is, who s actually in charge at the end of the day of the back end data storage? Uh, you know, the fact that it [41:55] Chief Omari: s stored on aws is a little promising because it s not a flock server somewhere, but is it possible for flock to access that data without us knowing about it? Is it possible for them to access that data and then cover the tracks, so that we wouldn t know about it in the first place? And if we suspect that there had been unauthorized access and sharing of the data, how would we prove it? No. [42:23] Chief Omari: Uh, Councilmember Baskin, thank you. Great question. Um, that was part of my conversation with our it manager. And, um, and you know, I won t, uh, speculate on on on what flock is or is not doing, but, um, what I know is that, um, they have shared with us our contract at least states that there s a digital footprint. [42:48] Chief Omari: And when people go on the back end of this technology from this vendor and many of our other vendors, again, whether it s logistic or any others, that can be audited. Uh, so I think the best way to answer your question is, um, a few months ago, I was interested in how something worked, and I put in a tech support request to look at this. And we started working together on a sharing screen, and he started showing me what the the audit log looked like. Uh, Lieutenant Andre looks at that audit log every two weeks when when he s going through it. And you know, I would if if we saw something, [43:34] Chief Omari: we suspected something, then I would certainly be uninterested in maintaining a relationship with this vendor or any others that were violating that public trust. Um, but, you know, again, in speaking with our it manager and how things are audited and where the stuff is stored, and looking at our contract. Um, I think there s a [43:56] Chief Omari: level of, of, um, um, you know, this is a large, uh, business who probably I hate to speculate, but probably has more to lose than they do. Um, uh, in, in by doing that because that story gets out and they re know everyone s gonna everyone s gonna leave them. [44:14] Chief Omari: So, you know, I can t, I can t. You know, one of the things I think about is like, you know, do I trust this technology? I think it s a it s a fair question that s come up and I ve said, you know, I trust this technology. I trust this vendor as much as any other vendor that we have. And, uh, and, you know, when we go into these contracts, we try and make good, sound decisions. And I think we did that in 2024 when we went to this. And and that s where that s where we re at right now. [44:45] Council Member Bakken: i, I probably have some follow up questions about the auditing process. You know, who issues the credentials. Where do they come from? Who s in charge of, um, keeping track of those credentials? Yeah. [45:01] Chief Omari: So we have we have, uh, single user. Everyone has their own, uh, login. Um, in-house, even like our, for example, that same call I told you about, our sales person couldn t get on. It was a tech support person that could get on. So our sales rep could not get into that interface at all. Excuse me. [45:21] Chief Omari: Um, and then as administrators, we can go back and. Look, I never pretend to be an expert in there, and and I ve seen it with some of our staff who s gone back there, um, to look at that. You know, the dates, the times on who searched, what information they added. But that s part of that digital footprint. It s it s, uh, where we can see it ourselves. We can actually go in there and look at that, uh, that audit trail. [45:46] Council Member Bakken: Okay. And one other question. Um, is my recollection correct that even before, uh, using the FLoc vendor solution, our squad cars had individual Alper technology? Great question, Councilmember Rock. And so we, uh, rolled out both of both vendors in JUNE of 2020 for axon and FLoc. [46:10] Chief Omari: Okay. Um, was the previous application just part of the data terminal in the squads then, where it wasn t automatic, but officers could enter in a license plate? Yeah. You know, um, I think before my time. So, um, years ago, there were, there were fixed, um, automated license plate readers. And I believe Eagan did this, put them on the trunks of cars. I don t know what vendor uh, Eagan used at that time. However, um, it s still it s still automated. [46:37] Chief Omari: It s reading the same way. And again, I ve been using this technology since 2009. A different vendor at the time. Similar procedures, individual login, audited regularly. Um, had to put the reason why you were searching for my previous agency, and so I could only, um, estimate that Eagan had a similar practice before I started here. [47:01] Council Member Bakken: Okay. I guess the, the the point I was making are the the question I had was that Alper technology has been used in Eagan. Um, on the mobile platforms. The squad cars for nearly two decades. Um without incident. What makes the flock cameras different is that they re in the public right of way and static instead of integrated into a moving squad car. [47:24] Chief Omari: Uh, that is that is correct. That is a a difference in how these technologies are used or placed, really. I mean, it s reading the same way, but one is moving with the car and one is at a fixed public right of way. That is correct, sir. Okay. Thank you. I MAY have other questions, but I ll hold off. COUNCILMAN Fields. [47:42] Council Member Fields: He just asked both questions. I had. Um. That s okay. A couple I had as well. But, chief, I m wondering if you can go back to me just a little bit. Um, a little bit confused. And I d be interested in understanding a little bit better. The timeline on, um, the searching of our database. [48:01] Mayor: Um, from, uh, I ll. I think it was Mille Lacs County. Yeah. Just go there, because that was what was reported in the Star Tribune, I think is probably drawing a fair amount of community attention. Uh, so can you kind of from, for lack of a better terms, tick tock me through what the timeline was there between, um, uh, when their search of us was done? [48:25] Chief Omari: Um, was that before or after the data sharing decision and turn offs? Um, and how that that timeline played out, because it s a little bit confused. By it. Yeah. No. Uh, MR. Mayor, thank you for the question. So, um, as a part of our comprehensive review, um, we have no idea that, um, the Star Tribune is interested in in what we re doing. Uh, we shut off data sharing and MARCH of 2026. In MAY, the data request came, and the story obviously published in JULY. Okay. They found, uh, data from before MARCH 2026, before we shut off our sharing. Okay. That when we were part of the network, um, Lacs County, and I think Crow Wing County, they searched a [49:11] Chief Omari: license plate and it allowed them to search every network that they were sharing with. So pre MARCH 2026. And we ve been looking every month after just to make sure to your point, Councilmember Bakken, that if we say our data sharing is off, we want to see that our data sharing is off. So we ve done our own independent audits of those to make sure that none of our data is going elsewhere. So again, to answer very explicitly is pre us shutting off uh, uh, network sharing, statewide sharing was when that search occurred. [49:48] Mayor: And when when we were sharing with the statewide network that was pretty pre MARCH. That s correct. Because in FEBRUARY and JANUARY I assume. Yeah. My understanding is it was turned on in JUNE of 2025. Um and it remained on until MARCH 2026. Okay. [50:08] Chief Omari: And at that time was that data being shared? Um, only in Minnesota. And what was the relationship between data sharing with the Minnesota Network? Um, and potential data sharing with the federal government? Um, um, Mille Lacs and Crow wing counties, uh, aside, uh, it. [50:27] Mayor: Makes sense. MR. Mayor, thank you for the question. Yeah. So, uh, Minnesota, there s no nationwide sharing that it s allowed, uh, with flocks. So, um, I don t know the exact date. I think it was 20, early 20, 25 that was shut off in the state of Minnesota for automated sharing. Uh, we have not been a part of that network. [50:45] Chief Omari: Okay, so so I understand the process that that that footprint, um, the state of Minnesota did not share with, um, uh, the Department of Homeland Security, uh, and or Ice or other federal agencies in terms of the flock. But in Minnesota, we did share among ourselves, um, as agencies. Um, and Mille and, and and Crow Wing, um judgments aside, uh, utilize essentially that internal sharing, uh, to make a connection across that border with Homeland Security. But it was through their portal, um, and their access to the sharing. Correct. [51:25] Mayor: MR. Mayor, that is correct. Okay. Um, and then what does it mean when you suggest that, um, I think I ve heard you suggest that in other communities, um, Mille Lacs and Crow Wing did have some, for lack of better terms, hits on their search on ours. Um, there was no data shared or no data found. Can you help me understand the difference between those two? [51:48] Chief Omari: Yeah. Thank you for the question, MR. Mayor. So, um, they ve punched in a license plate and searched every network that they were sharing with. Okay. Okay. And so if that license plate hit off of a city, uh, a city s cameras, they would have then gotten those results. So the license plates that they searched as a part of their investigation that we believe was tied to immigration enforcement, which the Eagan Police Department does not participate in. Um, did not read on any of our cameras here in Eagan. Okay. [52:22] Mayor: So so they they looked but didn t find anything in terms of Eagan data. That s correct, MR. Mayor. Okay. So thank you. Um, just a couple of questions. Uh, based on your presentation, looks like we use axon and fly. We have both. That s correct. COUNCILMAN. [52:39] Council Member Sabina: We have that because for different reasons, some are better in one situation than other. Or. Why do we have both? Uh. Great question. Uh, Councilmember subpoena. So, um, when we started our axon contract, uh, they were largely, mobile. Alper. Uh, manufacture and, um, flock was selling a product that really emphasized fixed and solar capability to be able to cover spaces where your mobile cameras were not. Uh, so they they, they serve, um, different needs that we have here in the community. [53:20] Chief Omari: And on the fixed cameras. I just want to make sure I understand kind of how they function. So a fixed camera in one location that s photographing every license plate that goes by and a given day, or given 30 day period, whatever it is. And that data just sits there in storage until someone does a search and says, hey, someone s missing. [53:41] Council Member Sabina: This is the license plate of their car. They put that in and then the system searches every license plate that it scanned. Over the 30 days that we ve retained the data and says, oh, yeah, that one went by. Is that that s basically how it works. Councilmember subpoena. Yes. It also searches the mobile cameras at that same time. I often like to say, uh, you know, if you think of a, um, a draw. Right. It takes the pictures and it puts them in the drawer. And then if you search and it s in the drawer, you would see it. [54:13] Chief Omari: So none of that, none of those license plates would ever show up anywhere unless someone is searching on that specific license plate. That is correct. Um, one caveat. If somebody because we can search by vehicle descriptors as well. So we could see the license plate if it fits all the vehicle descriptors. [54:33] Council Member Sabina: Sure. And then last question, you would mention outside agencies that no outside agency has access to our data. Um, without our approval. Um, have there been requests for our data since we stopped the data sharing in MARCH from outside agencies? And, um, how can we actually say no? I guess that s the next question. I mean, If, say. [54:57] Chief Omari: The federal government or some other state requested our data. Can we really say no to that? Thank you for the question. Council Member Sabina. Unequivocally, yes. We can say no. And we re looking to make sure that it s a part of an active investigation. They have a lawful reason. We search in it and it s tied to an incident number one of their local incident numbers give you an example. Um, because you asked have we have we have we been asked? I know, in fact, I don t know what agency it was, but Lieutenant Andre just shared that, uh, he had one, uh, either yesterday or today. But when the, uh, terrible situation, um, in Mendota Heights, they had a missing elderly male, and we got a request to search that vehicle early on before they knew it had moved to to Wisconsin. And so it [55:42] Chief Omari: s a part of an active investigation. They have a case number. It s for a lawful reason, one in which if that was our investigation, we would search. But unequivocally, we can say no. In fact, um, I showed you earlier that those dropdowns for offense category, um, there are it has the capability to put, uh, you could have in your interface built in their immigration enforcement. Well, you can as you can imagine, that s not an option in ours. So if somebody were to make a request over to us and that was the reason, the answer would be unequivocally no. [56:21] Council Member Sabina: But we need to say it doesn t just block them from making the request. You know, the request still comes in. And then we make a judgment call and say, yes or no. Council member subpoena. Yeah. That s correct. So they ll make a request. Um, again, you know, we are uh, we re it s really important that we continue to adapt with this. And so right now the workflow is the request comes in, it gets reviewed by a supervisor. And then that information can go out if it meets our our protocols. [56:50] Chief Omari: Right. Thank you. Thanks. MR. Mayor. So just to make sure I understood at that point, um, that you were discussing with Council member Sabina, um, since the Eagan Police Department does not enforce or investigate immigration matters, we are on solid ground to refuse anybody access to our data for the purposes of immigration enforcement and investigation. Is that true? [57:14] Mayor: That is true. Okay, um, and if that isn t. A council member backing up, barring a criminal search warrant, that was that was, uh, provided to us. Um, and in fact, that would that we couldn t override a, you know, a judicial court order. [57:34] Council Member Bakken: Yeah. Understood. Um, but these administrative warrants don t hold any weight. No, wait. Okay. Um, so I guess what I have in terms of final comment is, you know, I recognize the technology as being valid and useful. Um, I have absolute confidence that our, our police department is using it appropriately. Um, I still have questions about the vendor. Um, I before I would feel comfortable moving forward into the future, uh, to much longer with this particular vendor. [58:06] Council Member Bakken: I d need, uh, one of our trusted I.T. People to sit down with me and explain for sure that there isn t any type of, um, unlocked back office access opportunity by this vendor. Uh, and I say that, and I need to make it very clear that what I m about to say next is not being put out there as any type of fact, but simply my personal opinion as an individual. But my view is that this particular vendor has corporate values that are aligned with authoritarianism and anti humanist autocracy. I don t trust them. So I don t want our citizens and our community to be put into a position where we [58:53] Council Member Bakken: have to trust a vendor without verification. So I m looking for the verification that the data is actually secure and that we are in control of it. Um, and that if it were ever shared, we d know. I understood Councilmember Bock and I think I can I ll work with our it folks and see what the best way is to facilitate that. [59:17] Chief Omari: Thank you. Um. Chief, um, just to clarify, I want to I want to make sure that we re crystal clear here if, um, and then I want to go back and, uh, reverse engineer the example that you used on the trail. I m not the, um, 35, uh, e um, road rage incident, but, um, uh, I assume, for example, the the example that you used of the general with dementia, and I apologize, I was, I was out of state for the last couple of days, so I m not sure I m familiar with the Mendota Heights, uh, reference that you made earlier. Um, but I am familiar with the example. [59:51] Mayor: And is that one or the same or. They re different, right. MR. Mayor, two different incidents. Okay. I just want to make sure. Um, so the the dementia case that you referred to or that the gentleman who left the bowling alley and and thugs on highway 61 when he was in Eagan, um, but that s an example of where right now we don t have sharing turned on. [1:00:14] Chief Omari: Uh, so other agencies can t access our database. Um, so they Mendota Heights, is not Oakdale. Okay. Uh, Oakdale in this case, made a request of us directly to do that search, or there was an alert statewide, and we undertook to do that search on our own. [1:00:32] Mayor: Uh, uh, thank you, MR. Mayor. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that. So, um, as you recall, there are law enforcement databases that, uh, we can enter things such as missing persons, stolen vehicles, uh, you know, wanted subjects. So. [1:00:48] Chief Omari: That it. Pushes it back. It s, uh, through the National Crime Information Center, ncic. We run stuff through the bca. Okay. Um, and so this person was entered in as a missing person into ncic. So if any police officer who doesn t have alp just physically ran the license plate on their mobile laptop in their squad, they would get an alert. Okay, in this instance, the camera, when it read the plate, it provided the alert and the officer was able to follow up on it. [1:01:20] Mayor: Okay, so so it went into the database. The system was the system because of that was looking for then that license plate. Within hours we get a hit that sends an alert to an officer, um, or a person, uh, in the city of Eagan, and they follow up on that alert. MR. Mayor, you re correct. And and so there s there s no sharing. That s, uh. Okay. [1:01:39] Mayor: That s not a that s not an example of sharing. That s an example of of an alert being entered into National Crime Information Center database. And the alert being revealed any that that plate could have been read off of any communities. Alper. And they would have gotten an alert. [1:02:00] Mayor: Okay. So solely based on it being entered into ncic, not from a sharing from department to department. Okay. So that s an example of where that that alert and search was an automated process based on interaction with a different database. That s correct. MR. Mayor. The example that council member subpoena was referencing, where somebody calls us and makes a request of us, um, at that point, I want to be clear. When we grant the request, we don t grant them access to our data. [1:02:24] Mayor: Um, we re the ones then performing the search that they ve requested. Um, and if there s any data to provide, we provide it from the city of Eagan. Um, but they don t have access to our database to do their search. Correct. [1:02:39] Mayor: MR. Mayor, that is correct. Okay. Um, on the example on the truck, I just want to on 35, and it might have been. So I assume that was not an Eagan. Um, uh, Aldi a pr, um, that narrowed down that truck for us because it was on the state highway. Right. So was that a bca camera? [1:02:58] Chief Omari: Thank you for the question, MR. Mayor. It was, uh, it was actually the car ended up, uh, exiting the interstate and was on a local road here in Eagan, okay. It was in Eagan. Alper. Okay. Um, and that that I think I m clear you suggested that the Alper technology won t necessarily track a vehicle. [1:03:19] Mayor: Um, and or tell you where it s going. It will tell you where it s been and time out that movement, which is what you got from the, um, uh, um, intact window at one reader, um, and then some progression of time and a broken out window at a different period. Is that right? [1:03:38] Chief Omari: Yeah. MR. Mayor, it will not continuously track a vehicle. Uh, you, if you search the license plate or the vehicle descriptions, and it went past one of our cameras, you will see a snapshot in time, past action of where that vehicle was. Okay? [1:03:55] Mayor: Okay. Um, all right, I think that I think that is, is my question. Any additional questions? Comments. Uh, I appreciate the comprehensiveness of the presentation. Um, I think you answered a lot of my questions as I was writing them down later on in the presentation. [1:04:12] Mayor: So I appreciate that. Um, and, uh, and I, you know, quite frankly and, well, um, the lieutenants here and the deputies here as well, um, I m comfortable with the with the use of technology and with the notion that you re still grappling with a lot of these issues, uh, yourself. Um, but I think what I appreciate about about it is, you know, I do think that and I think that the driver s license, um, uh, incident, uh, of 10 or 12 years back, I guess it was, um, is instructive in that, you know, um, any of this technology is going to cut is going to have, um, a sharp edges on both sides. Uh, and if left unfettered, um, there is certainly room for abuse, uh, [1:04:59] Mayor: and inappropriate use of it. Um, but the mitigation for that is, I think, um, solid, accountable and reviewable policy and adherence to that policy. And, um, and so I appreciate your laying out what that policy is. I know that in the past, we ve had, uh, um, uh, incidences where people have violated policy and there has been disciplinary action following that up, have you had any of those kinds of incidences around Alpers? Uh, while you ve been here? [1:05:25] Chief Omari: Uh, MR.. Aaron. I m not to get into any, any, any private data or. Yeah, but. MR. Mayor, uh, not in the city of Eagan. Okay, I appreciate that. Um, have you seen it in other forces? Uh, whether whether there has been corrective action taken. Uh, MR. Mayor, I ve. I ve read the news articles. Uh, I think there s a couple instances in Georgia. Um, so I, I ve read some news articles on it, but I ve not seen anything local. [1:05:48] Chief Omari: And those, by and large come to light because it s actually auditing. Right. Uh, thank you, MR. Mayor, for making that remark. In fact, um, uh, as we were looking at adding our, uh, bi monthly audits, uh, that s actually exactly what the comment was, is that all of these instances that have come to light is because the audits they revealed, um, searches that shouldn t have, shouldn t have occurred, which is also one of the reasons why we wanted to increase our audits from the state mandated bi annual to, uh, every two weeks. Um. [1:06:22] Mayor: Okay. Great. Thank you. Um, Council, any additional questions or comments? Yes, sir. With that, again, thanks for coming in tonight. Thanks for the thorough presentation. Uh, and again, if folks have questions, please feel free to follow up with the chief, uh, or with our lieutenant or our deputy as well. Uh, thanks for your work to as well, gentlemen. Um, with that, um, have a good evening, chief. [1:06:46] Mayor: Appreciate it. Thanks. Um, we re going to move now, uh, to, um, the open discussion of the Blue Cross. Blue Shield, [1:07:06] Mayor: uh, site. And I think. Yeah. Yep. I think that we re going [1:07:16] Mayor: to be joined by Jill. Where are we going? To take a recess and. Yeah, why don t we take about a five minute recess? Uh, because my understanding is that there are some folks from, uh, opus who still need to get here. Uh, so we ll take, uh, about five minutes and try to be back here. Um, uh, when they get here, or in five minutes, whichever one comes first, I [1:13:03] Mayor: guess, uh. And we are back after a short recess. Uh, we re in the, uh, SEPTEMBER 8th workshop meeting of the city council. The second item of our agenda tonight. It s an open discussion for the Blue Cross Blue Shield site. Um, and i m going to, um, uh, first off, uh, welcome. Jill. Uh, it s good to see you, Jill. Um, we ve been thinking about you, and, um, and you have a whole host of folks here. Yes. From, uh, opus development. So I m going to hand it over to you, and you can kind of, uh, lead us into, uh, what kind of visioning and and research we want to do here on the Blue Cross Blue Shield site. [1:13:40] Jill: Sure, absolutely. MR. Mayor, thank you, everyone, for being here tonight. And we have some from both from Opus and Stantec, said everyone. Okay. I ll let them introduce themselves here. Uh, actually, let s just do that now. If you want to just start on one side and introduce yourselves. [1:13:56] Joe Mahoney: Sure. Uh, Joe Mahoney with opus development. Kit Bennett with opus development. See you again. Aaron Sakura, environmental planner, Stantec. Matthew Summers and Stanton.. And I m just gonna ask them a few introductions. I m gonna say I was going to say it s good to see you again. [1:14:12] Mayor: I almost didn t recognize you. I think you re going to. Have a haircut tomorrow. Oh, there. You go. You re kind of looking like little Mark Hamill from, uh, from Corvette Summer. Yeah, I ll take. It. I m sorry. Joe. Uh, I will, I m just gonna kick it off with a few introductory comments, and then I m going to turn it over to, uh, Mike Schultz. City planner Mike Schultz will give a little more, um, information. Detail was also in your packet, but I m kind of go over what the air is, what what s being asked for tonight. So I just want to start out by explaining the, you know, this process that we re doing tonight is a little bit different than what we ve done before, which is actually looking at initiating the air prior to a development [1:14:57] Jill: proposal. There s nothing wrong with there s nothing in statute. Or while we ve typically done it one way, it doesn t mean that we couldn t do it another way. And in fact, other cities do do this with the air first, followed by the development proposal. Um, in fact, one of some of the reasonings opus has for bringing this forward is the city has looked at several development proposals for this site. Um, nothing has really moved forward. Um, there s been a lot of questions and concerns raised by the city council and the community, and opus feels like the the author will actually help answer some of those questions and give them the data they would need to really put together an appropriate development [1:15:42] Jill: proposal. Um, to be very clear, I think Mike will go over this to is the what we are discussing tonight are development scenarios, not development proposals. Um, the scenarios are only setting the parameters of what would be studied within an hour. It is by no means whatsoever, even a nod toward what the council would or would not approve an actual development proposal comes forward. It is just a scenario of what what is to be studied. Um, those the scenarios in Ares are usually set higher than the actual expected development, because we re actually trying to sort of break the system. We re trying to see where things start to not work and, and use that to determine what the mitigation would need to be. [1:16:30] Jill: Um, also, because any actual development proposal has to be, you know, within those parameters set by the ar, it just sort of makes sense to make them a little bit higher, see where the system breaks, knowing the development role is going to come in. Um, at or beneath what that parameter is set. Um, Mike can provide some examples of previous areas the city has done, what was studied and what we ended up actually proving. The city actually approved for development to give some, you know, a better feeling for how that often works in. The in the ar generally ar study 2 or 3 scenarios. More than that really becomes unwieldy in terms of the data, in terms of of options. One of those scenarios must be a baseline scenario. And Mike will go over [1:17:17] Jill: more with that is really sort of existing either existing development or what s allowed through the comprehensive plan. Um, of the scenarios to be presented this evening, there is a base scenario. There is a mixed use scenario that is similar to what the council reviewed a few months ago. But, uh, with with somewhat lower density, as directed by council from a few months ago, there s also 100% business park scenario. Um, and as I m sure you re all aware, is when the city initiates ar only three votes needed, if the city eventually want to get to development proposal, send it to the council for review. Only three votes are needed. But ultimately, when we re dealing with the land use change, four votes are needed. So when we [1:18:04] Jill: reviewing the 100% business park proposal, um, one thing staff asks is if it appears that there simply is not the willingness by council to ever approve 100% business park at this location. We just simply ask for that clear direction at this time and not spend. Staff and consultant time with a very busy fall coming up. It s been a lot of time researching something that in no way possibly could move forward. If it seems like there is some willingness to explore that, then by all means, then we should include that. Um, but just want to ask council for some specific direction on that, as well as clear direction on the scenarios that are being presented. Um, because we do [1:18:50] Mike Schultz: need for this numbers. Essentially, we need actual numbers of what s going to be studied. So with that, I d like to kick it off to Mike Schultz. Thank you Jill, thank you for the introduction. Um, I do have, uh, handouts, but unfortunately I forgot them on my desk. And I m going to ask if I ask if children go down and grab those for council so they could follow along with that. So, um, but I ll go through and until Jill gets back, she ll provide the package for you. So again, if you re familiar with the site, um, again, this was before you back in JUNE. We ve seen other scenarios. Um, but in this particular case, um, opus is looking at just those 42 fish, uh, acres that comprise of the Blue Cross Blue Shield office [1:19:35] Mike Schultz: building and then that daycare building, uh, to the south. And then there s this kind of small remnant piece of property that s also part of that discussion as well. So that whole area makes up the 42.4 acres. And here s the aerial of that. You see the site improvements with that, with the roughly 440,000 square foot office building, uh, the field of parking that covers both of those properties, uh, as well as that parking, that really on that north end of the site that that, uh, basically infringes on the property to the north that s still owned by Blue Cross Blue Shield. Uh, they continue to own that property, um, as well as that property on the on the east side of Blue [1:20:23] Mike Schultz: Cross Drive. Uh, so the our land use scenario, uh, so opus is again requesting that along with wp carry, uh, asking the city as the argue, the responsible governing uh unit uh to basically move forward with an a proposal for the Blue Cross Blue shield headquarters. [1:20:43] Mike Schultz: Uh, again, that would consist of the main building, the daycare and the remnant parcel. Uh, it would not include that soccer parcel. Uh, you soccer parcel owned by by Blue Cross. Uh, so that, uh, so the air does stand for alternative urban area wide review. Council has seen a couple of these in the past few years. Um, they you are as essentially a tool that does help both planners and decision makers to understand the potential environmental impacts regarding those land use scenarios as as presented within that document. [1:21:18] Mike Schultz: Um, that you are is basically a hybrid between the eaw and the eis. Environmental review. Uh, that s also required and called out within state statutes. Um, and the hr does basically utilize that content. And those questions are required as part of the eaw process. Uh, again, here s the state statutes. [1:21:41] Mike Schultz: There are some mandatory thresholds in which basically that eaw or Ars is required. Uh, so for any type of industrial or warehouse type facilities for our particular class city, it s 450,000ft. [1:21:56] Mike Schultz: Anything, uh, at that level are greater. Uh, eaw or environmental review is required. Uh, any housing developments with 375 uh, attached units or more? Uh, or basically a proportionate formula that reaches 1.0 or more than that environmental review, uh, is triggered. Uh, so as Jill indicated, that a yard, uh, must include a minimum of two development scenarios. One has to be the existing land use designation, uh, as approved under the comprehensive plan. So that has to be one of the scenarios that is considered, uh, that acts basically as the base scenario, [1:22:43] Mike Schultz: uh, to basically understand the conditions as built conditions. One of the things to note that the Blue Cross property still has an active plan development, uh, that pd is set to expire in OCTOBER 2027. Uh, that pd, at least for these two portions of the site, uh, did illustrate over 450,000ft of additional office space. So beyond what was existing with the original building, in addition to a daycare conference center, which, uh, was built to some degree on that south end, uh, south end of the site. So, uh, so staff would coordinate with the environmental consultant on how best to reflect that. Is it reflected on current conditions as, as they re built, or does [1:23:29] Mike Schultz: that approve preliminary pd need to be considered at least call out as part of that that ar consideration. Uh, so as Jill indicated, the aor does not provide or even assume any type of land use approvals. Uh, so even though the scenarios are called out, uh, it does not grant that applicant any approvals with those scenarios. [1:23:52] Mike Schultz: Um, as Jill also indicated, there should be some worst case scenario determined to really test that infrastructure and what those impacts are, such as roads, utilities, the environment, you know, what are those worst case scenarios that would then trigger that mitigation, uh, to be considered as part of that? Uh, the, uh ar also ensures future proposals should be within those parameters of that study. [1:24:20] Mike Schultz: So, uh, any proposals that do come forward cannot exceed, uh, those parameters as called out within the hour. If they do, then basically would void the air. So, uh, even the suv does start to shoot high with the intent that everything should fall underneath. Uh, that maximum, uh, scenario. Um, and also stated that only local governmental units or they argue, can authorize the, uh, the aor process so an applicant can t go on his own and initiate a or are rg you actually has to, uh, recommend, uh, or call for the draft to be to be completed. Um, so just a couple of recent examples. Uh, Ryan Company and Thomson [1:25:07] Mike Schultz: Reuters. Uh, that particular instance, the applicant used the base scenario of what, uh, existed on the property. Uh, and then there was basically as shown on this plan, and they actually also provided an, a maximum scenario. Uh, so for instance, on here and I know that s kind of difficult to read and maybe you can pick it up on the slides, but, uh, the number of homes is 71 that s shown on the plan. But under the max where they showed 140 single family homes, what was actually approved was seven single family lots. Uh, as part of that development, uh, townhomes, as shown on the plan was 132, the a actually contemplated 180 units as part of that. Uh, what ultimately [1:25:52] Mike Schultz: was approved up in that, uh, northwest corner of the, of the development was 104 townhome units. So again, well, under that aor maximum, uh, for light industrial, uh, as part of this, they, uh, what was called out was actually building footprint, um, and that maybe gross floor area, but they actually did provide a maximum aor of 780,000 square foot footprint of the industrial areas. Uh, called out in here, uh, with a maximum, uh, that would exceed 3.6 million. [1:26:29] Mike Schultz: Again, even with the existing building and those that have been approved, it s going to be well under that. Those maximum thresholds. Um, one other slight change, obviously, uh, you ll see what was actually approved. Single family. Uh, nowhere near what ultimately was approved, which is uh, basically those seven single family lots, uh, some additional, uh, park space and then that conservation easement that that covers most of this property. Um, and then for the, uh, industrial area, that area is essentially going from those four buildings down to down to three buildings, uh, for Viking Lakes. Uh, again, they provided, uh, three scenarios, uh, as part of the ultimate build out, uh, the adopted [1:27:15] Mike Schultz: comprehensive plan, uh, that showed what was anticipated as far as land uses, which included office and medical office. Um, and then the scenario which is the proposed comprehensive plan, which they, uh, was kind of more middle of the road. And then they provided a maximum scenario, uh, which, uh, basically for the corporate headquarters in the indoor practice facility basically remained the same. [1:27:38] Mike Schultz: But they showed a stadium increase of 8000 seats for the scenario, 2 to 10,000 seats for the multi-family residents. They went from 780 to 945 units. Um, and then for hotel, they had a maximum of of 500 rooms on there. So, uh, in each of those cases, basically the approved land use is all well under that, that maximum scenario. Uh, so as Jill mentioned before, there s been a number of recent proposals. [1:28:09] Mike Schultz: Um, if you remember, back in DECEMBER 2023, uh, Johnson Brothers had proposed redevelopment of the entire 55 acres, um, plus, uh, that area of the former Delta Dental building as well, that included raising, uh, the Blue Cross building and constructing a 550,000 square foot distribution facility and reuse of the Delta Building for corporate offices. Uh, at that time, council directed staff on a four one vote to submit the comp guide amendment, uh, for the major office. Uh, they did complete, uh, in a year as part of that. So it actually never did, I think, officially get to the Met Council for review. Um, and then in MARCH, in 2024, Johnson brothers decided to withdraw their their comp [1:28:56] Mike Schultz: amendment, uh, due to, uh, um, issues that they cited during the due diligence process. Uh, and then back in FEBRUARY 2025, uh, Inland Development Partners, uh, submitted a mixed use that consisted of Buddy s Kitchen and a residential component that north 26 acres, uh, was consisted of industrial and about 282,000ft of industrial. And then the south 16 acres consisted of medium and high density residential. [1:29:25] Mike Schultz: However, that applicant never came forward. Uh, following that, City council and formal discussion with yourselves back in back in FEBRUARY. And of course, uh, opus was before city council back in JUNE of this past year, again with the mixed use proposal. Uh, at that time, they had shown 450,000ft on the north, 25 acres. Uh, and then that south 17 acres made up that, uh, medium and high density residential. Uh, and then, as you know, uh, opus did eventually postpone, uh, citing that they didn t know if they had the votes to move forward with this, with that land use proposal. So, uh, so before you and I did not provide a copy of [1:30:11] Mike Schultz: this one, but there is the Blue Cross. Uh, this is the base scenario that just shows the existing conditions. The 440,000ft of office building, uh, the field of parking, uh, and then that daycare use that would make up basically that that base scenario, uh, that s required as part of the our process, uh, scenario b, which I believe you all should have two copies, scenario b and scenario c, uh, this is the mixed use scenario. Uh, this again shows that business park, uh, comprised of only 425,000ft on that north half. [1:30:48] Mike Schultz: So, uh, less than what was called out back in JUNE. Uh, that comprises about 40%, uh, building coverage on the site, which is the maximum allowed under the business park zoning. Uh, this scenario also shows a maximum of 400 or, excuse me, 348, uh, high density uh, apartment units. Uh, they arrived at that with the acreage times the high end range for high density, which is 60 units per acre. Uh, and then the medium density, they show 115 units for about 11 units less than shown in JUNE. [1:31:24] Mike Schultz: Uh, in total, there was about 160 plus less units shown as part of this uh, uh, land use scenario, as was presented back in, uh, back in JUNE. So what s not indicated, at least on this, uh, illustration, but it is located within the narrative. Uh, is the potential consideration to preserve the daycare for future daycare use so that commercial component of that would then also need to be, uh, consist with within some type of scenario called out within that scenario. So there is that possibility that that could be considered. Uh, and then scenario c is the all business park scenario. Uh, again, they show as part of this illustration, five [1:32:09] Mike Schultz: buildings, a total of 575,000ft, uh, which only is about 33% lot coverage, uh, so much less than the 40% maximum. Um, I should note that the Ars MAY indicate square footages that are consistent, uh, are the consist of numerous buildings. Um, but sometimes they will put footnotes within the ar that they MAY consist of make up 2 or 3 buildings. They MAY not necessarily reflect exactly as illustrated in the, uh, in the land use scenario. [1:32:41] Mike Schultz: And as you can see also within especially the Viking Lakes and the Thomson Reuters scenario, what was approved doesn t look anything like the scenarios that were called out as part of the ar. So one thing I also do want to mention is part of this process. Um, uh, Met Council. [1:33:00] Mike Schultz: Uh, will not review any comprehensive guide plan amendments. Uh, after you actually direct staff if you do support actually a comprehensive plan amendment and direct staff to submit it to Met Council. Met Council will park that and sit on that until actually some type of environmental review is completed. As, as required. So if that proposal actually requires an environmental review, they want the review to complete that environmental review before they even take the time to review that comprehensive plan amendment. [1:33:28] Mike Schultz: So they ll basically park it and wait for that, for that document to be completed. So for the first policy question, does the council and as Jill indicated, we this is not following maybe our typical process. Does a council follow, uh, support or at least support moving forward within a year prior to advancing, uh, any consideration for a comp plan amendment for Met Council review. [1:33:58] Mike Schultz: Council. What s the value editor and for whom? The value? Again, I think the applicant can maybe speak to this, but they would like to move forward to maybe answer some of those environmental questions, I think, that have been raised either at council or by by residents at least demonstrating how we guide future land use considerations when they do come forward. [1:34:22] Mike Schultz: So I, the a user, will determine what type of densities will pass the environmental review, but it doesn t speak at all to nor is it definitive. Um, in determining land use approval. [1:34:38] Mike Schultz: It it does not. Uh, but basically the applicants would have to follow basically whatever those maximums are that are illustrated within those scenarios. So they would have to basically stay under those maximums as illustrated in those scenarios. Well, I can see how there would be value then to the developer to make sure that whatever proposal they come forward with at some point starts below those limits, instead of finding out after the fact and having to adjust so I can see the value add, who pays for it? [1:35:08] Council Member: The developer. Okay. MR. Mayor, Council. Um, yeah. I just want to check if we can ask some questions before we start getting into the policy question. I just had a couple, um, this is maybe a minor one. There seems to be a little bit of difference in numbers. The 115 and the 348. [1:35:26] Mayor: And I know the numbers aren t are basically a scenario. Right? It s a it s a max that we re looking at. But then there s another place where they show 78 medium density, 330 high density. And I m just curious what what. Yeah. Yeah. We would go with the maximum, since that s the whole purpose of this is to. [1:35:44] Jill: Yeah. And maybe before. Yeah. And mayor and council member before we get to the questions, maybe we can let the applicant speak a little bit to the scenario so they can maybe provide a little bit more insight. But yeah, I did see this at that does seem to be maybe a little bit more middle of the road and, and maybe the applicant can can speak to that. But that did seem to be more of a middle ground between that low end and that high end. [1:36:08] Jill: Uh, as far as at least townhomes, uh, are concerned. That one includes the daycare. I don t know if that s kind of. What they do know. If the daycare, at least as that, and they do provide that footnote in there that, um, that it would maybe be considered as part of a future reuse of the, of the building. So. [1:36:25] Jill: Well, maybe. Yeah, maybe before that, I ll just throw my other question out there too. Um, the base scenario, it sounds like there hasn t been a decision made of which way to go with that, whether it s what s there right now or the or the last operating kind of, um, business that was there or the, um, what? [1:36:46] Mayor: There prom. Excuse me. Preliminary plan development was from 2002, um, which was kind of the, the built out, you know, maximum vision. Um, do you know if that 2002 preliminary plan development had an ar done at that time? [1:37:05] Jill: They did. Okay. So, I mean, it sounds like that s something that will be done, like you said, in coordination with the environmental consultant. It seems like if that was an approved preliminary planned development, it had a you re you know, the way I look at it anyway is that should be the baseline that we use. But I guess that ll be decided with the environmental consultant. [1:37:24] Jill: Mhm. And with that maybe I ll go to I ll let Opus and Stantec maybe speak a little bit to those two scenarios. I know Joe or Kit, if you want to speak a little bit more to those, I ll, I ll keep the scenarios on the screen for you. [1:37:39] Jill: That yes, I do. I maybe before we get on to the policy questions, we do have the opportunity to talk about these scenarios, uh, and have some of the questions and comments that Councilmember Spina was bringing up, as well as, um, be able to unpack a little bit more of what the value add is or isn t in the concept. [1:37:55] Jill: Generally, before we get down to the list of questions, so. You got it. Well. Mayor McGuire Council, appreciate you having us. Um, and the opportunity here to hopefully gain some insight and input of what you MAY or MAY not approve in the future to kind of give us some direction as, as we move forward. Um, as everyone said, you know, doing this, our process first gives us the opportunity to front load this traffic, environmental, um, you know, density data on the sites, uh, to help inform what that comp plan amendment should be versus the other way around. That, um, just gets tricky to there s a lot of questions from staff council, the community that we just, at that time of the project don [1:38:40] Joe Mahoney: t have answers for. So this because that gives us the opportunity to to do that and, you know, come equipped with, um, just working on the site longer, having public input periods. I believe there s two throughout the process. Um, and we re open to kind of having everybody have a say, uh, to give their opinion on, um, what should what should this site ultimately, ultimately be? Um, and so when we came back with these plans, this is, you know, fairly similar in land use to what you saw back in JUNE. [1:39:09] Joe Mahoney: Can you either speak up a little bit or maybe move the microphone a little closer to you? Is that a little better? Uh, yeah. All right. Um, this site plan is is similar to the one back in JUNE. The densities are significantly reduced, mostly on the residential components there. Um, we ve done a bit of homework on, uh, access and truck traffic spend a big issue with a lot of the residents nearby. We ve had discussions with Mndot of a right and right out off of 13. There. Um, ultimately, they re not supportive of moving forward with that, but we re just looking at all avenues of how to mitigate those concerns, more of which would be coming through the our process. Um. [1:39:51] Joe Mahoney: Off of Blue Cross, Blue Cross. Road, something that we re looking at as well, you ll see on the diagrams. Got those left turn only um, for trucks to try to move them north on blue. Blue Cross Road up to Yankee Doodle and just try to divert that traffic as much as possible. We ve split the north half and southern half residential and business park components. Um, so there s not going to be any through traffic either, just to try to really separate those two pieces of the parcel. Um, on the all business park scenario, I know that s a new one, um, that has not been shown yet. Um, but with that one, we think we ve heard issues with, you know, views. I think overall traffic, in addition to truck traffic, um, views down through 13, um, through the river towards [1:40:37] Joe Mahoney: Minneapolis. Um, and then, you know, the setback from Black Hawk Road, the all business park scenario gives the opportunity to have a larger buffer there. Again, this is just an example of of where these footprints MAY or MAY not go. But the vision here would be to pull as much density as we can off of Black Hawk Road. [1:40:54] Joe Mahoney: And all these buildings are single story. Um, it s not going to have the mass that a mixed use development with high density might have. Um, and, and we were looking at studying that one to see what the, the data might show. And I m sure it ll some folks might respond better to it, some worse. Um, but we thought it was [1:41:16] Joe Mahoney: worthwhile to study, um. Let s see generally that s we wanted to keep it pretty high level with just any intro and wanted to keep it conversational of questions and answers and happy to answer anything else you might have. I don t know if you have anything right off the bat, but. [1:41:32] Jill: Uh, no, I don t. But Aaron, do you maybe want to talk a little bit about the user process, especially the the scoping process in the first 30 days of that and kind of the community input, stakeholder input. And that s where where we can really refine and hone in on what these numbers are going to be. [1:41:52] Aaron Sakura: Sure. I can do that. Um, so an ar is different. It can be used in lieu of an eaw or as um, it s usually done. It can be used as a planning tool. So sometimes communities will use an ar as just some a master planning process when they re trying to target a redevelopment or growth area. [1:42:11] Um, there are two comment periods. If, um, there is a scoping step, there is a 30 day comment period with the scoping um order and the eaw, the scoping eaw that is done. And then there was another comment period with the draft ar. We ve also seen a third public engagement opportunity early on. Um, ahead of the publication of the scoping eaw and draft order for our um and that first public comment period, the goal is really to comment on the development scenarios and it s opportunity for agency reviewers and the community to comment on those development scenarios and also provide additional resources and questions, concerns that they want to be studied in the draft ar. So that first document that is published is really just summarizing [1:42:57] Aaron Sakura: existing conditions and summarizing the scope to be completed as part of the draft ar and what the development scenarios are. There s still some flexibility to change those until the final ar order is adopted. Following that first comment period by the council. Um, the second comment period, the comments are really intended to be more about, um, the content of the ar. It s an opportunity for agencies to provide feedback and input concerns. They MAY have, um, if they have any recommendations. [1:43:30] Aaron Sakura: They also includes a mitigation plan. Um, and that is required for future developers that would come forth with a development plan, would have to adhere to that mitigation plan in some instances there, it s calling out if there are certain changes, what additional studies are needed versus for like it s such a as a on the traffic side or like a field survey for example. Um so an ar does provide quite a bit of public engagement opportunity. And that first scoping step is unique. And then it provides an opportunity for reviewers, the public to provide feedback on the development centers. So they aren t really set in stone until we get to the draft ar stage and the final order is [1:44:17] Mayor: adopted. So questions on that. So maybe I want to maybe throw out a few, um, questions or observations. Uh, much like Councilmember Bach and I think, um, there are a couple of questions in here, but I m just going to talk a lot, uh, and ask you to respond. Maybe, um, um, but, uh, first, you know, a couple of observations in terms of, um, vocabulary here. And that is, you know, we talk about an ar as an environmental assessment. Um, and I want to be clear that we re using the word environmental assessment, um, in a very broad sense. Um, and that that doesn t mean that at this point, we re [1:45:04] Mayor: evaluating, for example, the impact of development or of a specific development proposal on groundwater or on, um, uh, habitat or things like that at this point. Yeah. But it s more focused from an environmental perspective on what s the infrastructure capacity within a particular area to handle a development that puts that taxes a system or uses a system, um, for residential use, uh, versus an industrial use to try to set up. Where s the system? A I it scares me when you talk about breaking systems. Um, but what we re trying to establish really is, [1:45:49] Mayor: um, how far can you dial up a particular use or dial it back to be able to fit within the capacity of the existing system? Um, and if you realize that when you go to 11, that s when the speakers blow, um, then that means that you, you can only go up to ten or or even 7 or 8, um, before you reach the capacity of the infrastructure to actually hold the development. Um, and if you want to go beyond that level of capacity, you re going to have to change the environment. And the infrastructure. Is that a fair assessment? [1:46:23] Aaron Sakura: Correct. And MR. Mayor, um, I, I have never seen an air that says you cannot do this development. It says you can do this development if you do this, this, this, this, for this, for mitigation. Now, sometimes all of that mitigation becomes infeasible. And so that is really what determines the right sizes, the development. And I would add that everything you said, MR. [1:46:46] Jill: Mayor, was correct and that it certainly does it all the infrastructure. It also looks at habitat and yeah, um, it is very comprehensive looking at many things, uh, for, for uh, for Thomson Reuters is looking at what seasons can you take down the trees because of what might be nesting in them. Yeah. [1:47:04] Jill: Um, so it s, it s a very, very broad, um, study at many environmental issues, not just things that we think of, the green groves that we think of as environmental, but also, as you mentioned, infrastructure. And mayor. And here s the list. Hey. Yeah, I didn t want to make it part of my presentation, but I figured the question might come up. But this is the list, not the entire list. But this is the major makeup of that environment. Eaw content that has to be part of that area. [1:47:32] Mike Schultz: So it s it initially speculative in nature, but it s it s kind of an educated guess. Um, but and I think that notion of mitigation is important. And one of the things I want to be clear on is, um, because I can see the wheels turning from people in the room, uh, or people, you know, back at home. [1:47:52] Mayor: These are these are scenarios where we re really hypo testing the ability of the environment to support that kind of development. None of these are specific proposals. Um, and they and they they ll only inform a specific proposal going forward. Um, but after that, I mean, what what the aoa finds or produces says, if you go at this level of development or this intensity of a particular kind of development, you would have potential of this impact. But those impacts aren t carved in stone. I mean, there are abilities to mitigate them. And ultimately what the impacts would be would depend on not what the scenarios tell us, but what the actual development proposal that comes in, um, suggests. So, you know, [1:48:39] Mayor: that notion of, you know, you ve had this this much max at Vikings Lakes? Um, but almost every proposal is below those maxes for whatever reason. Usually that s when the site, um, factors of the, of the actual development come in and the, the proposal comes up in conflict with the theoretical that s produced in the aoa. Is that fair? That s fair. MR.. Okay. Um, so I just want to be I mean, I, I m not sure if that makes it clear or confuses it, but, um, this is a first swipe at what the impacts might be. Um, but then it s fine tuned beyond that based on whatever development comes forward. Um, and usually it goes down in terms of those maximums. Um, and then the, you know, the, the two things, I [1:49:25] Mayor: just want to make sure, um, the aoa does not speak to, um, um, uh, a market assessment of what s viable within the marketplace, right? I mean, it s it s tiny. It s tuned to what s viable within the infrastructure and to what extent within the infrastructure or the environment in on the site, is that right? [1:49:44] Mayor: That is correct, MR. Mayor. It is not a market study. Okay. Um, and then, um, and I guess and it s no offense, I, I just want to make sure that I, that I kind of flag it, um, in my mind, uh, this is much less, I think, around what we MAY or MAY not approve, although we ll have a conversation, uh, I hope on the on the full industrial scenario and whether or not we see, uh, um, benefit in that going forward, but it s more a matter of tethering the theoretical to what the infrastructure is and being able to envision what s possible and what s beyond the capacity of this infrastructure and require additional changes in the environment. But I just want to I get I get scared when [1:50:30] Mayor: you use the word trying to figure out what you d approve, because the purpose of this really isn t to do that. It s to set the table, um, for you guys to understand the environment better, uh, and hear back from us a little bit on what we might, um, consider within that environment. Um, but ultimately, um, it sets parameters you work in and figure out what you re going to propose. What you propose is when we start talking about approvals, um, when I was talking about start talking about approvals at this point, uh, by any stretch of the imagination, I want to make sure to make that as clear as I can. Agreed. All right. [1:51:05] Mayor: Councilman. Gotta Open up a little bit of a can of worms, but, you know, when we were trying to vision and look at the redevelopment of the site, it was comprehensively for the whole site. And after the Johnson brothers backed out of their proposal, doesn t seem like anybody wants to touch that northeast parcel or the soccer fields are. So I guess at the very basic level, my question is, what s up with that? Is it so undeveloped that nobody wants to consider it? Or, for the purposes of today s conversation, is it simply because opus doesn t have that under contract? [1:51:46] Council Member Bakken: MR. Mayor and Councillor Bacon one there s two different owners. Um, you know, the site that we re talking about today is owned by wp. Carrie. They re are a reit, I believe. Um, they want to sell this the soccer field parcel is owned still by cbs. Yep. Uh, during the Johnson brothers proposal, they did find some significant soil issues there. We don t really know what cbs wants to do with this. They don t seem to be in a particular hurry because of soil issues. There. It would. [1:52:21] Joe Mahoney: It would. I can t really make an assumption of why it s not happening other than it s not happening. And cbs would need to be a willing seller to do anything, and they don t. They re not coming forward to us saying we we want to sell this in the near term. I haven t shared what their long term plans are for the site, so it s hard to make a private party come to the table with this kind of an exercise. If they re not, they re just sort of sitting back. [1:52:59] Council Member Bakken: Yeah, I, I get it. Um, frankly, I don t know why they re sitting on it. Um, maybe there s some super secret reason why it s desirable, but it seems like a lot of the concerns with the redevelopment of this site would be solved by just shifting the whole thing north. Um, like the original Johnson brothers proposal attempted to do, which to put most of the density away from the existing residential. Um, but, I mean, I get it. It requires a willing seller and participants from multiple parties. I just worry that by making the investment in the. [1:53:35] Council Member Bakken: Oh, we re setting ourselves up for a future mistake or difficulties because that property is right in the middle of everything. And instead of being an exception from consideration, it could be a [1:53:54] Council Member Bakken: part of the solution. So. Is it possible? For the city to initiate an aoa on privately held property? Absent a request from the property owner. Seems a little edgy, but is it possible? [1:54:14] Aaron Sakura: Aaron, can you answer that? Yeah. Um, you can make the ar boundary, include additional property owners. Um, ideally, you know, it d be helpful just in terms of just having a good relationship with the property, to have them be part of that conversation. You don t want them to find out that their included an ar boundary during a comment period. Right. Um, but you can expand the ar boundary to capture future theoretical redevelopment or development. Um, the ar provides flexibility. So I was just kind of discussed earlier. [1:54:51] Aaron Sakura: The footprints can change if you are going substantially greater in intensity or land use. The types of land use change. And they re um, that could be consider substantial change. And then you would have to you d be at risk of I mean, to go through the whole ar process again or do an eaw or yes or whatever is appropriate at that time. Um, once the ar boundary is set, you can t change that. So if Ars are updated every five years. Um, if it s updated down the road and there s something there s interest in that site, you can t change the boundary. So once it s, it s set. Um, but it really just depends on what s envisioned there and what s feasible. And, you know, generally, I would recommend having the property owner be part of that conversation. [1:55:38] Council Member Bakken: Yeah. I mean, one would think that Blue Cross Blue Shield might have an interest in having some indication of what the potential future of this personally in the northeast corner would be. And I, I mean, I support the idea of doing the aor. Um, I m just wondering if we could pump the brakes a little bit and have some conversations with Blue Cross Blue Shield and see if they d be interested in being wrapped into a more comprehensive evaluation. Because this is cherry picking. [1:56:11] Council Member Bakken: Um, MR. Mayor, Council, um, I know I believe. The city. Through because it has been used by soccer. There is an agreement this year with the Eagan Athletic Association for use of soccer. Um, that has had some conversation just to have that, that some parties not in development have been having conversations with these us and that s what they want to do. [1:56:32] Jill: Um, I d also like to just take a step back for a few years ago when staff went to the finance committee and talked about the pending departure of Thomas Thomson. Reuters Blue Cross, Blue Shields, Blue Cross Blue Shield, as well as. [1:56:51] Jill: Shield didn t depart. They they they. Departed from the site. They departed from the site. They stayed in Eagan. Thomson Reuters also stayed in Eagan through a lot of hard work from a lot of people. Um, um, as well as Delta and Unisys. It was councilor, finance committee direction at that time that, um, city would need to become more directly [1:57:19] Jill: involved in the vision for, uh, the Northwest Central Park Commons property, which is what we did. We went through an entire study, went through a lot of public input, a lot of visioning on that. Um, but the finance committee director at that time was that we would let the private the city would let the private market determine what the path was for the Blue Cross Blue Shield site and the Thomson Reuters site. So Thomson Reuters successfully being development plan was developed, um, led by the private party. If council is is suggesting as I m not saying good bad or whatever, but if council suggesting a more active city role in what this visioning process would be as staff, I think we would like to step back and take another look at that. Question is what is the city s involvement in their [1:58:05] Jill: visioning and redevelopment of the site and have something that is agreed upon is here as our process moving forward? Um, just to so staff isn t we d like clear direction on how to move forward. What what is our role in this one? [1:58:24] Council Member Bakken: Yeah. Agreed. Um, you know, the Central Park campus, uh, that work, we re very involved. Please, with Braddock. Thomson Reuters, uh, the private sector stepped up and came up with something that was kind of, sort of. Okay. And with some council pushback and negotiation, I think we arrived at a good spot. Um, the hands off approach with the Blue Cross Blue Shield, former campus. We ve been through a couple of private sector iterations now, and none of them have hit. So, I mean, I guess it s a question for my colleagues, too. I mean, have we gotten to the point where maybe since those other two sites are off our plate, um, the city needs to get a little bit more involved in the visioning because what we thought was going to work so far hasn [1:59:09] Council Member Bakken: t worked. And again, I do have the concern that, um, piece mailing it is ultimately going to end up in something that s not going to be in the best interest of our community. So., um, I think you bring up good questions. Councilmember Bacon. Um, uh, which shouldn t surprise anybody, but the I think to the earlier question, in terms of the northern property, I think the challenge that I that I m having is, um, you know, you asked earlier who pays for the aoa and, and currently it s it s, uh, it s the fine people at opus, uh, who are paying for this, um, and I have a hard time making a business case as to why they should pay for an ar that [1:59:55] Mayor: includes a property that they don t have under control. Um, which is the Blue Cross blue shield piece. Um, and, um, and so in that scenario, you could offer Blue Cross Blue Shield the opportunity to come in, um, and participate in the aoa. Um, uh, in terms of scope, um, and, uh, in terms of finance, because theoretically, uh, they would stand to benefit from the conduct of the aoa. Um, and that would be an opportunity. [2:00:29] Mayor: And if they didn t want to do that, then the question would fall to, well, if we wanted to include them, then what part of the tab for the oh, where would the city be willing to pick up? Um, uh, in conjunction with what Orbis is paying for specifically on that northern site? I don t have the answers to those questions, but it seems to me that s the crux of the issue, is if we want to include that, then we need to step up as a city. [2:00:54] Council Member Bakken: That s a fair way to frame it. I mean, I don t I don t expect opus to pay for a study on property that they don t have any control or interest in, correct? I mean, I was hoping we could make the opportunity available to Blue Cross Blue Shield. You would think it would be obviously in their long term interests to participate in this. And if they re asked and they say no, then we can ask ourselves if the city wants to support it. [2:01:22] Council Member Bakken: And if the answer is no, well, then it s been asked and answered and we re right back where we started. Sure. Yeah, yeah. And I think that s the right order of things. But I also wouldn t want to hold up the our, um, in hopes of Blue Cross Blue Shield. Maybe someday deciding they want to join. Because I think that pushes out a timeline even further. But within some level of reason, I think both of those conversations are appropriate. [2:01:44] Council Member Hanson: Councilmember Hanson and I suspect that Council Member. Bodkin suggestion is move the development farther north, away from the neighborhood to the south. Doesn t necessarily mean that the soccer field would be lost, because we ve talked about them being placed to the south end, possibly. [2:02:01] Council Member Hanson: I mean, in an ideal world, in an ideal world, something very much like what s being proposed here shifted to the north and the soccer fields in the south as an extension of Sky Hill Park. Yeah, I think would be very palatable to the, uh, the neighbors who live in the area. [2:02:20] Council Member Hanson: And, you know, from a city tax base perspective, it s a wash. It s just the same parts being moved around, you know, putting the soccer use closer to an existing park use makes a little more sense to consolidate those uses. Now, whether there s a feasible pathway to get there, I don t know, because we re dealing with multiple property owners and it starts to get complex. [2:02:42] Council Member Hanson: And there s the questions about soil condition on the northern property and whatnot. But I think it s at least worth asking the question and seeing if it s possible. Yeah. Um, otherwise we re looking at, you know, as is or these two scenarios and I, I can already hear, uh, the, the opposition from people who live in the area because we ve heard it before. Yeah, sure. I mean, it s the same issues and it s the same questions. They haven t changed. Yeah, sure. [2:03:13] Mayor: Um. Agreed and understood. Um, yeah. Yeah, I don t I don t disagree with you. I think it s a different way, different point in the conversation where opposition to a plan requires a plan. And this doesn t get us to that point yet. But I understand what you re saying. [2:03:28] Mayor: And I also want to make it clear, uh, you know, to the representatives from opus, I, um, my intention here isn t to pointlessly pump the brakes and slow things down. I just think there s an opportunity to do things really right in a way that will be palatable to the broader community. And I d like to take at least the necessary time to explore that path and see if it s even possible. Um, one of the worst things a policymaking board can do is set somebody up to expend a lot of their resources in exchange for a slow no, um, I don t want that to happen to any developer that does business with the City of Vegan. [2:04:10] Mayor: Um, other comments. I was curious out of these three scenarios, is there is it identifiable? Is one of them more identifiable as requiring a greater level of mitigation than the others? Probably wouldn t be preferable. Do we have any basis to make that judgment? [2:04:32] Aaron Sakura: I would, um, you know, as part of the our that s really where we get that information and answer those questions. You don t have a basis now to to know that. I think it would be hard to to gauge at this point, um, you know, the traffic trap estimates might vary depending on if it s residential, what the density is and if it s, you know, business Park. Um, the greenhouse gas analysis would vary and noise and other items. [2:04:59] Aaron Sakura: So, you know, part of the benefit of the value out of doing the ar is getting that information and being able to present that to the community. Councilmember fields. And I support doing the oar because of the traffic. I live in this area. So, um, that is my concern. I know that the the residents concern is what potential traffic and, um, I think starting there is important and then we can go from there. You know, I think that s the most important thing for the neighbors. If you re going to get buy in from neighbors, they need to know that they re not going to sit at a stop site for 40 minutes just to get on to 13 out of [2:05:48] Council Member Fields: their neighborhood. So. Um, on the, the, um, the current scenario. Uh, the level set as to what current use is, um, am I, am I with the inclusion, uh, with the, um, the, uh, daycare center be included in that under assumptions that it s operational, um, to at least level set that and then be able to build up some sense of, um, for lack of better terms, component parts, um, so that, you know, if at some point, you know, maybe the, um, the mixed use piece comes back, but there s some attraction in [2:06:33] Council Member Fields: maintaining the, um, the childcare, uh, piece so we can take that, that component from the existing scenario and essentially move it into a different scenario, uh, and still be able to understand the, the infrastructure impacts of that. Is that is that, I mean, is that these things operate within kind of components are physically movable. Um, but we re trying to set the the general put some numbers on blobs, for lack of better terms. Um, from the last time we saw this. Is that right? [2:07:05] Jill: Um, yes. And actually, so it s not shown within the scenario, the mixed use scenario b um, but within our, our narrative, there is a blurb that we want to be able to study the, um, daycare. So let s say when the time comes, you know, this takes seven months approvals for, you know, other development happens. And at that time, if a user comes along, we would certainly love to be able to have them operate in there. And we just want to have that flexibility, um, and be able to work around it. [2:07:35] Joe Mahoney: Should the market be there. And how does that interact with the question that that Councilmember subpoena asked earlier in terms of whether we re looking at what I assume to be, um, the potential maxes under the approvals they have, or is it the way the planned development was actually being used as a level set for that? [2:07:54] Mayor: Does that make sense? Does that still with the daycare? I m trying to figure out in that scenario whether or not, for example, there s a there s a. Does it move the Max s or does it move. Yeah. I mean I think I think it proved within their plan development. There is some there s some area that s approved for single family. [2:08:09] Jill: That s a, that s um, in the plan development as uh, single family development, but has never, has never been proposed and has never been active on the site. So when we re setting, when we re setting that middle, um, the existing what is it, the existing base. [2:08:29] Mayor: Base. Do we include what has been done there? So there has been a corporate headquarters. Uh, there has been a daycare center. Um, that s all stuff that s been executed within the plan development, I would assume we would look at that. Um, but then the question becomes, are we including stuff that they re approved for but haven t done yet? Um, or for example, if they re approved for more office space than they actually utilized, um, uh, are we are we evaluating the potential of it as office or just the actual use of it as office? Does that make sense? [2:09:05] Joe Mahoney: That does make sense. Um, and something Mike, Jill, Joe and I have talked about and I d say it s still up for debate. I think we have a path picked on. What is the appropriate way, statute wise, or if they re if we have leeway there on discretion of which one we pick. But Aaron, you re probably better equipped to answer that. Uh, but I don t believe we have one identified today. Okay. [2:09:30] Jill: So per the Minnesota rules, one scenario has to be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan, which shows major office. Um, so I think there s some flexibility there to factor in additional considerations. Um, I think in terms of being a valid and realistic point of comparison with what the existing conditions are, I you know, I have some concern about adding on too much, especially if it s just not realistic in today s market. Yeah. Um, and I think I believe Thomson Reuters for that scenario. Existing conditions for the there was some narrative and story about what was could have been um, with the pd, but the analysis in terms of assumptions that were made in the traffic analysis and the greenhouse gas [2:10:16] Mayor: and the noise and whatnot, um, largely were based on what the existing had been built conditions were. So as long as for me, as long as that the existing includes the daycare use as active um, and within that scenario, um, I m comfortable with that. Um, and maybe from a philosophical point of view, every time we talk about about redevelopments and comprehensive plan changes or perspective ones, we talk about, if not this, then what? [2:10:43] Mayor: Uh, and really, this existing one is the this in that conversation. And the other two scenarios are the if not this, of the current, then what? And it s giving a parameters for what s possible, at least within the existing infrastructure. Um, and so um, uh, the more that this can reflect what s actually happening there as opposed to what they re approved for in terms of total space. Uh, that seems to me to be more functional. Um, because we we are assuming that it s not this, but we should at least understand what the capacity of it is for comparative purposes. [2:11:22] Mayor: Right? Okay. Additional comments. Or are we ready for the policy questions? Okay. Sounds good. Oh. I m sorry. Uh, well, uh, yeah, we can we can go back to the, um, all industrial scenario and see if the council has an inkling there or not. [2:11:39] Mike Schultz: But it s. Coming up. Okay, good. Okay. It s it s coming up in the policy questions. Mike. Go ahead. Okay. Okay. So that first policy question again which seems to be maybe the the answer I m hearing is that maybe at least inquire with Blue Cross to see if there s that possibility of, of maybe partnering or co-sponsoring the order to include that parcel on the north. If not, then basically maybe moving forward with just the 42 plus acres. [2:12:14] Mike Schultz: Yeah. Or I mean, seeing if Andrew and the Parks Department want to want to cough up some of their budget. Or does value. We don t give them much. Yeah. I mean. I m comfortable supporting moving forward with it. I think it s more valuable if it looks at the whole site. If that just doesn t work out, I m still comfortable moving ahead with an aoa on the the portions that are shown, but everybody needs to know that. I see that it would have less value, frankly. [2:12:47] Council Member Bakken: Yeah. And I mean, I joke about Andrews budget, but the fact of the matter is, I mean, would you spend money envisioning and planning out our fields and, you know, at some point, you know, if Blue Cross Blue Shield doesn t want to participate because they don t see an upside to them. Um, the city MAY still have an interest in understanding what impact that does or doesn t have on our fields, and at which point we d probably have to pony up a little bit, uh, at least in terms of including that within the aoa. Um, and getting at least the acquiescence of Blue Cross Blue Shield, if not the active participation would be an important part of that. I think. [2:13:18] Council Member Bakken: I agree. Excellent point. Because if in the comprehensive redevelopment of this entire area, we don t find a way for those fields to remain or replacements to somehow be incorporated, they will be gone. There s no other place in Eagan where we ll be able to create new fields. We might cross that bridge. [2:13:39] Mayor: Many times. Yeah. All right. Uh oh. My order got. I don t know what that does for you guys in terms of timeline, but, you know, I m sure it ll all get worked out. Um, my order got screwed up here a little bit. Does the council support moving forward with the. I answer that the second question. Does the council support the proposed scenarios? Um, should the 100% business park scenario be studied? If so, is the proposed scenario with a maximum of 575,000ft of business park, uh, appropriate, um, should the, uh, mixed use scenario with the business park, high density and medium density residential be studied? Uh, if [2:14:26] Mike Schultz: so, those maximums that are called out in there to those also seem appropriate. Uh, to, to council. And lastly, as part of this three part question, if the proposed amounts of the identified land uses are not appropriate, uh, what specifically should be studied or included as part of the aor scenario? [2:14:45] Council Member Fields: Councilmember. Um, uh. Fields who you are. That s my fields. Not calling me Carlson. No. Um, I support the our I and I. I want to know what that comes in at because b is the one that I want to know what the traffic study is going to say, because in just your scenario, looking here with the, um, traffic study in and out, um, the people off of Robin Lane are never going to get onto Blackhawk, ever. Um, because we sit there, um, and I watch people go up. Do Huey halfway up and that won t happen. So [2:15:32] Council Member Fields: before anything, I need to see that traffic study that s imperative for the neighbors on Ashbury, Black Hawk and Burgundy and Robin. I m not Burgundy, Robin and Burgundy. [2:15:47] Council Member Fields: So, um, I appreciate the fact that you taking the density down. I think the high density still needs to come down quite a bit. And that, um, write in right out. Um, on Black Hawk is going to be an issue. That s my opinion. [2:16:06] Council Member Bakken: Um, I ll, I ll. Come to Councilmember Barkin after I, um, so I d like to see the, the 100% business park scenario. Um. I m going to. Assume for right now. Because it s an intellectual exercise. Anyways, um, that the 575 is a fine square footage starting point. [2:16:27] Council Member Bakken: At the very least. Um, and, um, and the reason why I m supportive of doing that is not because I m inclined necessarily to approve it. Um, but I have a hard time saying what I m inclined to do until I see what the data actually produces in terms of scenarios. [2:16:45] Council Member Bakken: Um, and I think we should at least consider all the options if we re going to do a thorough job of answering the question, if not this, then what? Um, and so I d say include it. Um, but I want to be clear. Um, I don t say include it because I m necessarily supportive of that scenario and want to see it moving forward. I m just not opposed enough to it yet, but I don t think that it would be useful to at least put it in competition with other approaches where we can move, when we can move components around and figure out how they work in a more creative way than we ve been able to do that. As far or so. Yeah. [2:17:20] Council Member Bakken: Councilmember. Um, I agree, maybe for different reasons, but I agree. Um, I m also interested in the, um, uh, public feedback component of the process. Um, it d be interesting to see what the comparative feedback is between scenario b and scenario c. Yeah. Um, you know, with the 100% industrial use, there MAY be more opportunities for robust buffering between it and the residential uses to the south. On the other hand, um, folks who live there might prefer residential uses adjoining, even though they re not as well buffered. Um, like Cindy, I m also interested in [2:18:06] Council Member Bakken: the comparative traffic impact, particularly in relation to time of day. Um, you know, the industrial uses would tend in some ways to be more compatible with residential uses, additional residential uses in the area will be competing with the existing existing residences for the use of the streets at the exact same time, so that trying to use them. So I d be interested in that data too. Um, so yeah, I m a yes on both.. [2:18:34] Council Member Sabina: Councilmember snare just yeah. Quickly. I m a yes. I m both a mixed use and the 100% industrial, uh, similar to you, I, I, uh, not necessarily because I m leaning towards one or the other. I just think if the we re doing the work, let s do it thoroughly so we re not later. Why didn t we look at this other option? Um, I also, uh, just to throw out there on the surface here, I m kind of liking the idea of doing the hour prior to, um, looking at the comp plan amendment. So I m hoping that once this process is done, we ll see how that works out. But right now, that looks like kind of an interesting and a different approach and one that maybe is something we want to keep doing in the future for other projects. [2:19:18] Council Member Hanson: Councilmember Hanson and I would agree with scenarios b and c, have we concluded then that we are not doing scenario a existing major office? The base scenario. You have. To. Yeah. Have to you have to include it. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. But I mean but it s there for comparison s sake. So yeah. [2:19:40] Mike Schultz: I think that answers a b and c on. Yep yep. Uh last question. So the state statutes um allow for scoping process prior to the ar report and that scoping process basically helps establish those parameters of the study area. [2:19:57] Mike Schultz: Um, those land use scenarios, other aspects of that. Um, so as part of that, the applicant did indicate that they re willing to have an early scoping open house type, um, process involving the residents. If you recall, I think the residents have been involved and shown up at each of the council meetings. So I think we ve encouraged your staff, has encouraged the applicant to consider that early outreach, uh, with residents as part of that, that early scoping process. Would council support that early process or that early outreach with residents? [2:20:32] Mike Schultz: Yeah, absolutely. 100%. Yep. So I don t know if that will necessarily change or modify any of those scenarios based on some of that, but at least we ll provide some, some early feedback. So cool. Okay. [2:20:48] Mike Schultz: Agreed. That s it for my, uh, portion of the presentation, unless there s any other questions, I think. There s questions. Comments. Yeah. If I MAY, a question. For board and the mayor, in terms of engaging with Blue Cross Blue Shield, I d say we re we re neutral on that. [2:21:06] Joe Mahoney: Um, but I guess what would be like a timeline for getting a hearing back from them and what would constitute a yes or no and move forward with or without them? [2:21:25] Mayor: Um. My inclination is to ask Jill what your thoughts are. Um, I for me personally, um, it would seem to me that, um, that the city might be in a position to at least initially approach Blue Cross, Blue Shield and see if there s a conversation that can be had. Um, but I wouldn t want to delay the commencement of this process in scoping. Um, for an unreasonable period of time. So, I mean, my gut is, you know, if we can initiate some of those conversations, Blue Cross, Blue Shield, and at least have some information on what openness they MAY or MAY not have so that you and the council can talk about, if they [2:22:10] Mayor: re not interested, where s the city going to be if can we wrap that process up inside of a month or. Um, I feel like there s a couple of different I ve heard a few different things. Things one to wrap in Blue Cross Blue Shield. Certainly staff can reach out to Blue Cross Blue Shield and ask if there s interest. I ve also heard a lot of desire. We need a solution for the soccer fields. The private developers are not in a position to maybe solve our soccer fields. Um, I m not sure that the owner of the wp carry wants to have any involvement in solving our soccer field issue, so that really is something that we need to talk about internally and understand [2:22:59] Jill: better. Where does the interest of the private owner to sell the property, the interest of the developer develop the property, the city s interest in retaining the soccer field somewhere, and be interest in doing something? How all that intersects. I don t think we re going to have an answer to that in three days. [2:23:15] Jill: MR. Mayor, I think I d heard maybe within 4 to 6 weeks. Could we have an answer to all those questions? Maybe. I think us as a staff and take it back, start having those conversations with Blue Cross. Depending on how those go, have the conversation with Park and Rec and then come back to council to share what we ve learned within the next 4 to 6 weeks. That seems doable. [2:23:32] Jill: That s fair. Just question. Once we start rolling in soccer fields, doesn t it start to morph more towards the what we did kind of in Central Park area, where we actually are putting together our own vision plan. And I don t think that s where the direction we re going with this right now. So how how does that happen? [2:23:53] Council Member Sabina: And MISS Mayor, you know, Kelly, thank you. That is kind of where I was going earlier is I, I m a staff I m feeling a little bit of confusion right now of where where where do you want us as staff to be going with this. And I feel like I m hearing some different things and I ve heard some different things. Um, and we can take this back and kind of think of it and make some calls, meet internally and think about this. But I think we re going to have more questions to council before we re going to feel comfortable saying, here is the divine path forward, right? Because I think we re looking for some unity, unanimity of direction of how we re moving forward. And where do the soccer fields fit in with this. [2:24:36] Jill: So I guess I ll I ll just try to take a quick shot. I don t know if I need to have all of the answers in the next 4 to 6 weeks, but enough of them to understand what direction Blue Cross, Blue Shield might be wanting to take with those lands. Um, whether that s to be resolved separately between them in the city of Eagan or them as an inclusion within this. A you re at least having some understanding of that direction would be useful. And being able to define whether or not they re going to be in the hour or not. Um, but how that MAY or MAY not filter in if they re, if they re saying, look, you know, I mean, I, the people at opus seem to be nice enough, but we re never going to be interested in selling to [2:25:21] Mayor: them, um, because we re really committed to to providing the fields for the city of Eagan. And that s on our land. Well, then we know, uh, and then we know, okay, so they re probably not going to be open to understanding if it s to their benefit, if industrial be moved further north, because for whatever reason, they re not going to adopt that. So I mean, I maybe to your question, Joe, I mean, I m I m envisioning this moving forward with the aoa as kind of a hybrid, um, of, um, of not what we did at, um, at North Central Special Area Commons. Um, throw in whatever word you can. [2:26:02] Mayor: Um. It all the elements. All the elements. Yeah, exactly. All out of order. Um, but I do think that that the, the the kind of hands off let the market bring forward what it s going to do has been effective at determining what we don t want to do. Um, and, but it hasn t been effective at defining a path. What would be comfortable moving forward. Um, and at least this will move the ball forward on that question. [2:26:30] Mayor: Um, so I don t think we re doing 100% of the master planning. Um, uh, you know, ultimately after the our, um, we re still going to probably look to the private sector for what that master plan is, but we ll have a better idea of what we re going to hold them responsible for, for lack of better terms versus not. Um, and I think I absolutely agree with you. There s no reason why opus, um, is or should be invested in solving our soccer field problems. Um, but we should be able to speak to them in the context of the our, um, as to whether or not we re going to be addressing our soccer challenges on that site, uh, or Blue Cross Blue Shield is open to working with them. [2:27:15] Mayor: Um, with them as part of that broader site. So if we can move that, that conversation at least a little bit ahead, that ll provide some clarity where we re not doing all the master planning, but we re at least helping to contribute some of the data that s going to help them be more clear on it. Does that make sense? Sure. [2:27:33] Jill: Okay. Makes sense to Diane and she ll get it. Yeah. I mean it s it s challenging. And I mean, ideally it d be great if Blue Cross Blue Shield would respond to the first column and say, hey, you know what? We re not sure what we want to do, but we d be willing to participate with you guys. Um, I don t know what that looks like, though. Um, we should at least ask them, right? Yep. [2:27:58] Council Member Bakken: Okay. Uh. Sounds good. So, clarity coming in 4 to 6 weeks. Maybe we ll keep the council updated by that. Here we go. Yeah. That s right. I know for us as well. Okay. Uh, anything else from the side of the table. [2:28:13] Joe Mahoney: Up here? Just really appreciate the time and kind of open dialogue here. And, uh, excited to come back and learn more about the soccer fields as well. So thank you and have a great evening. Be careful. What you wish for. Yeah. All right. Uh, sounds good. Uh, thanks much. Appreciate it. [2:28:30] Mayor: Thank you. And thanks for the comments as well. Uh, with that, um, uh, we have no other business tonight, is that right? Correct. Uh, Council, I m open to a motion to adjourn. To adjourn. Second moved and seconded. All in favor, say aye. Aye, aye. Opposed? Nay. That motion carries, and we