An ordinance amending Section 13.08.080 of the Metropolitan Code of Laws relative to the use of drones as first responder programs, unmanned aircraft systems and surveillance technology.

Topics

Introduced: August 18, 2026
Last action: Passed on second reading as amended · August 18, 2026

AI summary — check the source Spot-checked in audit

Council advances drone limits for police, bans Metro use of facial recognition

Council gave second-reading approval to a rewritten ordinance setting rules for a Metro "drones as first responders" program. Sponsor Sandra Sepulveda explained that the substitute version narrows the bill so it only covers first-responder drone pilot programs, requires a public hearing before such a program starts, limits drone deployment to four emergency situations, bars Metro from using AI-flown autonomous drones, and strips facial recognition from all Metro departments. Council Member Zulfat Suara spoke in support, saying she only learned of a weekend drone test because residents called her, and that existing rules requiring council approval and a public hearing for surveillance technology had not been followed in that case. No one spoke against the bill on the floor, though the official record shows two members voting no and one abstaining.

What it does

Amends Section 13.08.080 of the Metro Code to govern "drones as first responder" programs, unmanned aircraft systems and surveillance technology: it requires a public hearing before a drone-as-first-responder pilot program, limits drone use to four situations (active shooter, hostage situation, active search for a missing person, and a mayor-declared state of emergency for up to 10 days), and prohibits Metro from using autonomous AI-piloted drones or facial recognition. As described by the sponsor, it applies only to Metro government drones, not to drones flown by private individuals.

What happened, in plain language

The bill passed on second reading as substituted and amended. All the votes were voice votes — members called out aye or no rather than a recorded roll call — so no full tally of individual positions exists. The official record does note that Council Members Hancock and Eslick voted no and Council Member Styles abstained; Styles also abstained on the earlier vote to swap in the substitute version. This was the second of three readings, so the bill needs a third and final council vote, which the presiding officer said would come at the next meeting, the first meeting in September.

On the floor · 15 points

For

Delivering the Public Health and Safety Committee report, a council member said the committee recommended approval of the bill as substituted and amended, including the late-filed item, 8 in favor, 0 against, 0 not voting.

a council member Watch 2:12:12
For

Sponsor Sandra Sepulveda said the substitute responds to concerns from Metro departments about their existing drone use — Metro Water flies drones to inspect pipes, and other departments shoot video for communications — so the rewrite is aimed specifically at the drones-as-first-responder pilot program rather than all Metro drones.

Sandra Sepulveda Watch 2:13:12
For

Sepulveda said the substitute requires a public hearing whenever a pilot program is proposed, codifying a requirement adopted by an earlier council that new surveillance technology get a public hearing regardless of whether a contract is approved, so the public can weigh in.

Sandra Sepulveda Watch 2:13:45
For

Sepulveda listed the four permitted uses for a first-responder drone: an active shooter incident, a hostage situation, an active search for a missing person (added after floor conversations), and a state of emergency declared by the mayor for up to 10 days, mainly for natural disasters such as floods.

Sandra Sepulveda Watch 2:14:36
For

Sepulveda said the substitute takes out autonomous drones — drones flown by AI rather than a physical person — so Metro could not use that type; she said the restriction does not affect private drones, only Metro drones.

Sandra Sepulveda Watch 2:15:29
For

Sepulveda said the substitute also removes facial recognition from all Metro departments, noting that no Metro department currently uses it.

Sandra Sepulveda Watch 2:15:50
Context

When the presiding officer opened discussion on the motion to swap in the substitute version, no one asked to speak; it was adopted by voice vote with one abstention noted from Council Member Styles.

a council member Watch 2:16:55
Context

A second committee chair reported that his committee had approved the late-filed nature of the amendment unanimously, with none against and none not voting.

a council member Watch 2:17:57
Context

The presiding officer said members received the late amendment around two o'clock that day and that it addresses a typographical error, then found no objection to suspending the rules to take it up.

a council member Watch 2:18:12
For

Sepulveda said the late amendment only fixes a typo in the last section (section five, L two) and asked for approval; it passed by voice vote with no discussion.

Sandra Sepulveda Watch 2:18:28
For

Council Member Zulfat Suara said she had no idea drone testing was happening the weekend it occurred and learned of it only because community members who track such things called her, arguing government has a responsibility to be transparent and open about what is going on.

Zulfat Suara Watch 2:19:21
For

Suara said the rules already on the books require any surveillance technology to be approved by council and go through a public hearing, and that did not happen in this case; she said the bill makes sure there is no way to circumvent those existing rules.

Zulfat Suara Watch 2:19:44
For

Suara tied the bill to police building trust with the community, saying residents want assurance they are not being surveilled and that any technology with a surveillance component should be discussed by council with clear parameters.

Zulfat Suara Watch 2:20:05
For

Suara said people have raised questions about what data is collected and pointed to discrepancies, but council never had the opportunity to even know what was being collected.

Zulfat Suara Watch 2:20:23
Context

A council member rose only to call the previous question (a motion to cut off debate); the presiding officer declined, saying no one else was in the queue, and closed discussion.

a council member Watch 2:20:50

What the AI is unsure about

The packet's structured fields are internally inconsistent: the votes array is empty and voice_vote is set to false, yet both the official action text and the transcript describe voice votes with no roll call, so the outcome is described as a voice vote here. The transcript is auto-transcribed and garbles names (the sponsor's name appears as "Pulvida"/"Pulvita" and the no-voting member as "East"/"Eastlick"); the spellings used above follow the official action text (Sepulveda, Eslick, Hancock, Styles). Several speakers appear only as SPEAKER_NN ids and are described by role rather than name, including the presiding officer and the two committee chairs. The second committee's vote count on the late-filed amendment is garbled in the transcript ("for in favor") and is not reported as a number here. Timestamps mark the start of the quoted line; a few points span several consecutive lines.

This summary was written from the meeting transcript and the official action record, then checked by a second pass looking for claims the transcript does not support. Where the two disagree, the record and the recording are what count.

See this item in the full agenda for August 18, 2026 →

History

Substituted August 18, 2026 Metropolitan Council

Official record

The bill was approved with an substitute by the Public Health and Safety Committee.Council Member Sepulveda moved that the bill be passed on second reading, which motion was properly seconded. Council Member Sepulveda offered a substitute bill and moved that it be adopted, which motion was seconded and approved by a voice vote of the Council, with Council Member Hancock voting No and Council Member Styles abstaining.

See the full August 18, 2026 agenda →
Passed on second reading as amended August 18, 2026 Metropolitan Council

Official record

Council Member Sepulveda moved that the bill be passed on second reading as substituted, which motion was properly seconded. Council Member Sepulveda moved to suspend the rules of procedure to introduce a late amendment. Without objection, Council Member Sepulveda offered Amendment No. 1 and moved that it be adopted, which motion was seconded and approved by a voice vote of the Council. Council Member Sepulveda moved that the bill be passed on second reading as substituted and amended, which motion was seconded and approved by a voice vote of the Council, with Council Members Hancock and Eslick voting No and Council Member Styles abstaining.

See the full August 18, 2026 agenda →

The filed text for this matter has not been published here yet. It is available on Legistar.

Sponsors

History