City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Family Feud and something...

Thank you very much. I call our St. Paul City Council meeting to order. Roll call, please. Coleman. Here. Johnson. Here. Joseph.

Here.

Kim.

Bowie? Here. Naker? And Council Vice President Yang? Here. Five present, two absent, one being Council President Naker, who is excused, and one being Council Member Kim, who is expected shortly.

Thank you. Welcome, everybody. I'm Council Vice President Elsa Ying. I'll be chairing our council meeting today. It is my first council meeting that I'm chairing, so I'm very excited and grateful for the opportunity. We'll first start off with the Pledge of Allegiance. So if you are willing and able to join us in the Pledge of Allegiance, and a big thanks to Council Member Bui, who will be leading us in reciting it.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,

Consent agenda items 5 through 21 are before you for your consideration.

Thank you. Is there anything to be taken for a separate consideration from the consent agenda? OK, seeing no hands, then I'll take a motion from Council Member Coleman to approve the balance of the consent agenda. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye for me, too.

All opposed? Five in favor, none opposed. The consent agenda is adopted. Item 22, ordinance 26-38, administrative ordinance establishing a qualifications and examining committee for the position of fire chief pursuant to the provisions of section 9.01a of the administrative code and section 12.12.1 of the St. Paul City Charter.

All right, so now we're in our ordinance section of the agenda. I do want to give a bit of context that for ordinances, usually it appears in front of the council for three readings. So the first week, it would be when we have a staff report. Second reading is when a public hearing happens. And then for the third week, we can either vote on it or lay it over for more discussion. So the only ordinance-related item that we have for today, it's under a public hearing. I want to open up the floor for the public hearing. If you are here to testify on this item, please come on up to the podium. Just a bit of info about public hearings. Folks who come and testify, you get two minutes, so line up on both sides of the microphone. Share what your name is, where you're coming from, and if you are here to testify, please make sure that you do stay on topic with the agenda item we're speaking about. So come on up if you're here to testify.

Sorry, I was given an agenda, but I think item 33, would that be a part of this, or is that later?

Okay, later. Yeah, that'll be later. We are at number 22 right now. OK, I don't see anybody else. So I do want to open up the floor for discussion amongst our colleagues or any questions that you have. I have a couple of quick comments to make. Council Member Johnson.

Just a quick comment on the overall process. Just want to say thank you and also it's been great to be a part of it as one of the council members that has been on this committee. One thing that I would just encourage and also share not to question some of the appointments in any way, but I think for the current chief within the Minneapolis Fire Department, I just want to confirm that that particular seat, I saw that, and just to share that we may need to just make sure that that fire chief will be seated for that position to make sure that they're We may want to confirm that as well. So that was something that was flagged for me recent communication So I just want to make sure that that is that that is indeed confirmed and that we have the latest on that because if not Then we may want to consider their interim but just given some of the business in Minneapolis I want to make sure that we can confirm that person's appointment Thank You councilmember Johnson

Just the comments that I wanted to make is I first wanted to express gratitude to Councilmember Johnson, Councilmember Kim for being partners with me and leading the charge to assemble our slate here. I also wanted to just point out that the slate, whenever I look at it, I'm very, very proud of it. It's a very strong slate that represents a diverse group of St. Paul residents, community leaders, and our subject matter experts, especially in the fire field. It's a slate that is very diverse across race and age, gender, also experience too. I want to give a shout out to the many different partners that we've engaged with along the way, from HR, the director, to Chrissy, and then also the many staff who were a part of providing a lot of really important support around logistics, especially from our council director, Jay Wombs, to Nicole, our city clerk, city attorney, Dan, right next to me, Greg, as well, and then to my legislator, Abe Floh, And then a big thanks to the council members and all of your legislative aides. You are a part of providing really valuable input for us to get this slate together. And thanks to the many community partners who answered whenever we wanted to get their input and connect with them. about the slate overall. I wanted to give a special shout out to our St. Paul Firefighters Union for providing really valuable input. And again, overall, just wanted to emphasize that this is a slate I am very confident in. They are going to be tasked with a lot of important work, especially in reviewing application materials, resumes from HR, and then narrowing it down to five top candidates to be sent over to the mayor so that she can interview with them. And then ultimately, an appointment would come to the council here for approval. So I'm excited for the process ahead and making sure that we will officially have our next fire chief in, hopefully sometime before the end of the year. All right. So, oh, yes, Council Member Kim. Thank you. OK. Why don't we go with you first, and then we haven't closed the public hearing yet. So if anybody's here to testify on this item, they can come up to the mic afterwards.

That sounds great. I appreciate it. I just want to also extend some gratitude to Council of our Vice President Yang for leading this process. I'm very supportive of the slate that was constructed, but specifically because I feel like it really represents folks that have not just sort of fire experience, but experience specifically with our fire department. We are unique in the way that we are staffed. We are unique in the way of what services we provide, specifically our paramedic services. So I really just appreciate the thoughtfulness of the approach and the input from all the different experts to help us build a really robust panel, one that has a certain level of expertise on how St. Paul runs our department. So thank you, Council Vice President.

Thank you. Just the last couple of things I wanted to share, too, is Councilmember Johnson, I did take note of what you shared earlier. My understanding is everybody on this slate, their participation and ability to participate overall has been confirmed. But I will make sure to have my staff double check with our HR department about that. And just a final thank you to all of the individuals on the slate itself. Every person who was contacted, they were very eager, interested, and just really excited about being able to give back to St. Paul in this way. So come on up to the mic. If you are here to testify, you have two minutes. So share your name, where you're coming from, and then if you can sign in at the end, that'd be great.

Sure. Hi, friends. Good afternoon, Council President Aker, Council Vice President Yang, and esteemed members of the City Council. My name is Kyle Thornburg. I'm the president of St. Paul Firefighters Local 21, and I have the privilege of representing the 475 firefighters, paramedics, and EMTs who serve this great city. Local 21 is the city's second largest labor union that represents employees exclusively within a single department. I'm here today because Local 21 supports Ordinance 26-38, the establishment of the Fire Chief Qualifications and Examining Committee and Proposed Slate as a whole. No committee of this size assembled to represent so many interests will be configured exactly as any one stakeholder might choose. The relevant question is whether this slate brings together the experience, community perspective, and professional knowledge necessary to carry out this responsibility. We believe it does, and we believe it is time to establish a committee and begin the selection process. This is a well-rounded slate. It includes the St. Paul residents and community leaders, people with experience in healthcare, public safety, state government, neighborhood engagement, current and retired fire service leaders, and representatives from workers who perform this work every day. It effectively connects the expectations of the community with the operational realities of the fire service. Local 21 especially appreciates that labor has an influential role in this process. The next fire chief's decision will determine how companies are staffed and deployed, how members are trained and equipped, and whether the people answering these calls have the resources and support necessary to return home safely to their families. Our members spend more time inside the fire department than nearly anyone else. Without St. Paul firefighters, the big red trucks, the fire stations are just hollow shells. My members carry generations of institutional knowledge and they see immediately when a policy succeeds or fails in the street. In a profession where consequences are measured in seconds and lives, worker input is neither symbolic nor courtesy. and it's an operational necessity. The next fire chief will inherit one of Minnesota's busiest and most complex all-hazards fire and EMS systems. Just last month, overall responses were 8% higher than the same month in 2025, with the fire responses increasing by more than 15%. I'll yield my time. Thank you. I urge the council to... support the ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Motion from Council Member Kim to close the public hearing and lay this matter over until next week. All in favor? Hi.

Hi. All opposed. Six in favor, none opposed. The ordinance is laid over for final adoption. Item 23, Resolution Public Hearing 26-149, approving the establishment of the Como-Eustis Special Sanitary Sewer Availability Connection Charge District, determining the Como-Eustis Special Sanitary Sewer Availability Connection Charge for Phase 1 and 2 sewer capacity improvements.

This is a public hearing. If you're here to testify, come to the microphone. Are you seeing none? I'll take a motion from everything. OK, come on up. You get two minutes. Share your name, where you're coming from, and then sign in afterwards.

My name is Barbara Holmes, and I live in the Como Eustis area that's indicated on this established, this Como Eustis Special Sanitary Sewer Availability Connection Charge District. I'm one of the residents, homeowner in that area, who received a notice about this district. I can speak on behalf of my household and some of my neighbors that we were a bit confused as to what it all meant. Our understanding after reading and conversing and talking to somebody with the city is that if this proposal passes, the owners of the new properties being built, health partners and whoever buys the Luther Seminary property within this district, will be responsible for improvements to the old 1918 sanitary lift station. and the residents will not be responsible for those improvements. What the notice failed to say is what happens if the proposal doesn't pass. Our understanding is that you, city council, basically just give a blessing to this proposal, and there is little chance that it won't pass. I would like to just advocate for its passing. I think that it's only fair that those who burden the sanitary sewer that is very old with new development should be responsible for those charges, those costs. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. If anybody else is here to testify, come on to the front. All right. Seeing none, I will take a motion from Council Member Coleman to close the public hearing. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Six in favor, none opposed. Public hearing is closed. Any discussion on this? Questions? OK, seeing none, then motion from Council Member Coleman for approval.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Six in favor, none opposed. The resolution is adopted. Item 24, Resolution Public Hearing 26-158, amending the financing and spending plans in the Department of Parks and Recreation in the amount of $633,224 to reflect remaining bond-issued interest proceeds received from the St. Paul Port Authority for the EAB Capital Project.

This is a public hearing. If you're here to testify, come up to the microphone. Okay, seeing none, then I will take a motion from Council Member Jost to close the public hearing and approve. All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Six in favor, none opposed. The resolution is adopted. Item 25, Resolution Public Hearing 26-194, Amending the City's Capital Improvement Budget and Operating Budget to Reflect the Final Sale Details Resulting from the Issuance of the GO Capital Improvement Bond Series 2026B and the GO Street Reconstruction Bond Series 2026C.

This is a public hearing. If you're here to testify, come on up to the microphone. Seeing none, I will take a motion from council. Okay, come on up. You get two minutes to share your name, where you're coming from, and then sign in afterwards.

Hi, my name is Wyatt Miller. I live in Ward 4. I'm here to testify that it's very difficult for the public to weigh in on anything regarding the budget when there has been a expansion of a drone program that the city of St. Paul has implemented. with the docking drones in Skydio, which Minneapolis recently rejected. In St. Paul, it's our understanding that this was...

Thank you for coming to share about that. It isn't about the topic here, though.

This is a topic that has to do with the budget. We have a quote in the St. Paul Pioneer Press which says $300,000 were spent on this. That's an estimate coming from the St. Paul Police Department. We can find no record of the actual contracts, so we have no idea what budget is going towards this program. These are weapons of war that were...

Do you bring that up? It's not directly related.

The only reason that they have them is because they were used in Palestine, and now they're being used in cities across the United States. We deserve a public hearing. We deserve transparency on this issue, and we deserve disclosure of what that contract actually is before we have any discussions of the budget with a public hearing.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

OK, anybody else here to testify on this item here?

Yeah, Barry Reich, St. Paul, lifelong resident of St. Paul City of St. Paul. I just heard about this issue yesterday, so I don't have any kind of prepared speech, but I'm opposed to this. We do not need drones in St. Paul. We don't need drones in Minneapolis. How is it going to improve our safety? I just, you know, we become more and more militaristic. You know, don't we have enough war going on? I'm going to repeat the same thing I said earlier. Make sure you're on the topic. It's completely insane. I'm going to have to cut this. Yeah, it's insane.

All right, thank you all.

Okay, anybody else here to testify on this item? Come on up.

Okay, seeing none.

Hi. My name is and I live in Ward 7, Dayton's Bluff, in East St. Paul. I'm outraged because the library in Dayton's Bluff, one of the most underserved communities, is being closed. Our unhoused neighbors are being swept.

The testimony is not about the items. I won't have you talk about that.

It's about budget. It's being closed because there's no money. Right? It's about budget. And then we have unhoused neighbors being swept. At the same time, an unknown amount of money is being spent on drones. Do we need drones in St. Paul when we don't have libraries? I'm an educator. Our kids don't have access to library. Our own house people who need to use the library to look for jobs because they don't have computers, they're being swooped away and they're being cleared.

OK, I do want to let you on. I'm trying to move our meeting along, all right? So if I have to give out three warnings, and I will let you know when I give out a warning. If I have to get to three, then we're going to have to be forced to adjourn.

If you need to remove me by force, I will not resist. Yet I need to say this as a St. Paul resident, that I do not appreciate our libraries being closed for lack of budget, yet at the same time, huge amounts of money are spent on drugs. I did already give you...

Okay, thank you all. Thank you all. All right, so... I don't see anybody else here for the public hearing, so I will take a motion from Council Member Kim to close the public hearing and approve the item. All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Six in favor, none opposed. The resolution is adopted. Item 26, resolution public hearing 26-197, authorizing the police department to accept the second amendment to the sub-grant agreement from the St. Paul and Ramsey County Domestic Abuse Intervention Project and Add Grant Activity Budget.

This is a public hearing. Anyone who is here to testify, come on to the mic.

Hello, my name is Cedar Larson. I live in Ward 1. I'm a resident of St. Paul, and I'm a member of Women Against Military Madness. I wish that the city was able to truly have safety for victims of domestic abuse. I wish that St. Paul police were not the people put in charge of this, because we know that it's not an insignificant percentage of police that are themselves domestic abusers. I wish that resources to help the domestic abuse crisis could be used for outreach organizations, housing, therapy, and prevention of domestic abuse as a whole. I know police do not keep us safe and we don't need police to protect women or victims of domestic violence because they don't do that currently. We've seen that police use flock cameras to track their girlfriends, wives, and exes, and I strongly oppose the use of and contract with Skydio Incorporated as well. These drones and this company have blood on their hands from Palestine to the Philippines, and we cannot continue to allow St. Paul to be complicit in these human rights abuses. Skydio has sent hundreds of drones to the Israeli occupation forces where they rape and abuse Palestinians. The St. Paul contract with Skydio further enables them to commit genocide in Palestine. Wham stands firmly against complicity in genocide, and that's exactly what they're doing by continuing to contract with Skydio. We cannot trust AI-powered drones to make our communities safer here, and Skydio drones would not stop crime. They arrive to crime scenes after a crime has already happened, and we know that Flock and Skydio can incorrectly identify suspects and put innocent people in harm's way by the police. No St. Paul contracts for AI surveillance. Cut the contract with Skydio and use public taxpayer dollars for real solutions, not for more funding of police. Thank you.

Thank you. Make sure to sign it. Okay. Come on up to the mic if you're here to testify.

Hi. My name is Andrew Josephchak. I currently live in Minneapolis, but I'm a former St. Paul resident. And I really agree with the previous speaker in the points of addressing the root causes of these social problems and that the way we've addressed it with police farmers has not been effective. You know, I remember when we were told body cams would be the magic bullet to solving, uh, issues of police violence. Instead, of course, now we see the police departments have total control over body cam footage. It's used to, uh, uh, we don't see the footage when it shows police violence and we only do use it, see it when it's used to justify police violence. Um, You know, we've been told that facial recognition technology being used across our cities, like with flock cameras and so on, will make our communities safer. But then the only way I've really seen that used is by ICE to terrorize our communities. And so for that reason, I also oppose the contract with Skydio. It has contracts with the Israeli military. It's actively abetted the genocide in Gaza. It's contracted with ISIS-surveilled, not just immigrants, but just political opponents of the Trump regime in our cities. And while their salespeople will tell you that these are designed to aid in public safety, all we've seen them enable is genocide and police terror. It's the same thing we've seen over and over again. And for that reason, I also demand transparency of the contract and the cancellation of the contract. Thank you.

Thank you. If you're here to testify on this item, come on up to the front.

Council Vice President, I'd like to make a motion.

And approve. Yes. Thank you. We are getting there. I don't see anybody here, so I am comfortable with taking your motion. So motion from Council Member Johnson to close the public hearing, and then we'll do discussion. We'll do discussion. Yeah. So let me do the motion first. So all in favor of closing the public hearing? Aye. All opposed? Six in favor, none opposed. The public hearing is closed. Thank you. And Council Member Buoy, I did see your hand up. Thank you.

I do and I am in favor of people having their public comments heard and then using their voice everything that we do here is related to the budget everything that we do here is related to public safety so I do see that we can have an avenue in which that people can provide their public comment just not on these items I would like to motion and that's why I didn't want to close this and have this conversation on another item but I would like to motion to for us to suspend the rules and to provide a public comment for the people who are here just so they can have their public record because right now as we can see you know as we're reading the room you know people are here and they want to be heard i think we should create a structure for them to do that so if we can have emotions suspend the rules and allow for public comment i'll look for attorneys and city clerk to guide us in that process.

We're not allowed to have a public hearing that hasn't been publicly noticed and violate the open meeting laws, public notice laws. It's something that can be done for a subsequent meeting. You can have open public hearings and discussions, but we can't at the hearing allow to go forward that hasn't been publicly announced.

Is there, thank you so much for that, Attorney Stanley, is there, we do a motion to put a, I guess, a public input, which is not a public hearing, but for people to provide public comment on a, say, a resolution of a staff report, particularly around our safety investments.

I think after the hearing, we can close the meeting. It just can't be part of the meeting. It's already been noticed. I think if you want to listen to or talk with anybody here about any of these issues, if you're interested, after the hearing, that would be appropriate.

OK, I think that's fair. I just want to just conclude with I think it's really important for us to have these conversations. As elected officials, we're all available to take people's comments and concerns. We have heard this through the emails. This has been a widely known and discussed topic that as a public safety chair and also the vice chair of public safety here to my right, this is an issue that we anticipate on reviewing and also hearing from community. I just wanted to say for everyone here, there are people here to do business and have hearing items. And there's certain votes on this agenda that we really want to get to. I'm willing to stay longer to talk with people. But I also just would not want certain people who are using their precious time to make sure that their items are heard, not delayed. But also, Vice President Yang, if you can ensure that the public comments during the hearings is related to the items. We've heard already from the city attorneys that we don't have the ability to do that with the public hearings. I would love to find some type of avenue where we can, even if it's not a public hearing, that we can at least have something on the record. There's other avenues to do that like I shared with people we're talking with your council members or emailing or you know us having town halls and then still engaging in the process and

All right, thank you, Council Member Bui, for sharing your thoughts there. I want to say thank you for being somebody who is really attentive and aware of our audience and the chambers here. They're here with very real concerns that they're here to share with us about. And while I hear you on the questions that you're asking, my suggestion would be to do something really similar to what Council Member Kim and I did in the past during the Operation Metro Surge. I had initiated having us open up public hearings and having folks come and testify to us about Operation Metro Surge. We had it on the agenda for as long as we had supported it. And then even just recently, Council Member Kim put a public hearing on the agenda for folks to come and share their concerns about encampment closures. So if that's something that you are willing and interested in doing for next week and you have a specific topic that you want to have on the agenda, I would encourage you to connect with folks here to see what sort of topics they are here for. I know we heard some of it through the testimonies already. But I want you to know that I personally would be very supportive of that. OK, any other discussion or questions?

I just wanted to reiterate, Council Vice President, I did make a motion to approve. Oh, OK, thank you. I made a motion to close the public hearing and approve, and we have yet to vote on that item. So I just want to be able to bring us back to the motion was to close the public hearing and approve, but you chose to separate the public hearing from closing. So I'm just going to once again make a motion to approve to move us along.

Great. Thanks, Chair Johnson. I hear you on that. So motion from Chair Johnson to approve this agenda item. All in favor? Aye.

All opposed? Six in favor, none opposed. The resolution is adopted. Item 27, resolution public hearing 26-198, approving the application of Anderson Race Management on behalf of Minnesota Recovery Connection for a sound level variance in order to present amplified sound for the Walk for Recovery event on Saturday, September 12, 2006, at 75 Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Minnesota State Capitol Grounds.

This is a public hearing. If you're here to testify, come on up to the mic. OK, seeing no one, then I will take a motion from Council Member Coleman to close the public hearing and approve. All in favor? Aye. All opposed?

Six in favor, none opposed. The resolution is adopted. Item 28, resolution public hearing 26-200, approving the application of Nativity of Our Lord Catholic Church for a sound level variance in order to present amplified sound for Nativity County Fair event on Friday, September 18, Saturday, September 19, Sunday, September 20, at 1900 Stanford Avenue, Nativity of Our Lord Catholic School Grounds.

This is a public hearing. If you're here to testify, come on up to the mic. Welcome. Share your name, where you're coming from, and then sign in afterwards.

Good afternoon, council members. My name is Nick Stryos, and I'm here today in support of the sound level variance for the Nativity County Fair. The Nativity County Fair, which is celebrating its 52nd year, is an annual event open to everyone in the St. Paul community featuring great food, rides, games, and entertainment. The entertainment portion of the event features performances by the Nativity School Band, a talent show, bingo, musical acts, as well as performances from small businesses and nonprofits in the community, such as School of Rock, O'Shea Irish Dance, and Highland Friendship Club. The Nativity County Fair has a long history of compliance with sound level variances, And I respectfully ask that the council approve the variance and support this great community event, as well as provide a personal invitation to all of you to attend September 18th, 19th, and 20th. Thank you for consideration.

All right. Thank you so much for that invitation there. It's always great to see a face to the name of our event organizers. Anyone else here to testify? OK, seeing none, then I will take a motion from Council Member Jones to close the public hearing and approve. All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Six in favor, none opposed. The resolution is adopted. Item 29, resolution public hearing 26-209, ratifying the assessment for the mill and overlay for Front Avenue from Rice to Western as part of the 2024 mill and overlay program.

This is a public hearing. Anyone who is here to testify, come on up to the front. OK, seeing no one, then I will take a motion from Council Member Bui to continue the public hearing to October 7. All in favor? Aye. All opposed?

Six in favor, none opposed. The public hearing is continued.

Quick point of clarification. Did we formally close the public hearing on 26, or we just looked past it?

We did close it. We did close it, yeah. Legislative hearing consent agenda items 30 through 50 are before you for your consideration.

All right, Ms. Mormoran, is there anything to be taken for a separate consideration?

Yes, there are a handful of items here, and I will give you all of the agenda item numbers and then ask that the person come back into the record. It is item number 30.

Item 30, RLHTA 26-155, ratifying the appealed special tax assessment for property at 565 Aldine Street.

The assessment in this case is for boarding structure. The boarding happened, let me see, sorry about this. You have two in a row, these boarding situations. I want to make sure that I don't conflate them. Okay. In this case, we had a resident call in from the apartment building that they live in, indicating that they heard somebody trying to break into the building. The resident who was calling in did have English as a second language, and there were some translation issues going on. It was happening, but it wasn't the smoothest in the world. Police went to the property and found that the laundry room window had been broken in, and I wasn't clear if somebody had entered in or not, but it had been broken into. The owner, in their appeal, said that the police department should have tried harder to reach out to them to be able to do the boarding on the building. What the police department does in these cases is they will call for a boarding, and hopefully they are able to and have time to reach out to the owner to be able to have the owner come and do it. But these are considered emergency situations where they need to act quickly to secure the building to be able to move on to their next call of service. And that's what happened in this case. The building was secured, and they moved on. And the owner believes that they could have done it more quickly, more cheaply, and so on. The total amount of the assessment that's in front of you, by the way, is $479. The cost that the city was billed for was $250 for the emergency call-out service and simply $60 for the securement.

Thank you. Before we move on to the public hearing, I want to see if there's any questions for Ms. Moorman first. Council Member Coleman.

Thank you, Vice President. Thank you, Ms. Moorman. Just a quick question. In the record, the police department followed our standard policy. There's no allegation that they did not follow the policy?

No, the standard operating procedure was followed. Thank you.

All right, thank you. We'll hold the public hearing for this. If you're here to testify, come on up to the microphone, show your name, where you're coming from, and then sign in.

name is laura schroeder i'm the on-site manager for that property i got a copy of the police report and the police report does not state what phone number they dialed it just says they called they left a voicemail in my voicemail it specifically says if there's an after-hours emergency please dial this number there's no record that they dialed that i tried to get um Verification from the police department what number they did dial and they they never responded We would have we have an after-hours emergency Service that will come out and take care of all that stuff. We are absolutely not trying to be a nuisance we've got a homeless situation in the area, but that is why the owner is We didn't get the call and we would have responded and

That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else here to testify? If yes, come on up. Seeing none, then I will take a motion from Council Member Coleman to close the public hearing. All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Six in favor, none opposed. Public hearing is closed. Council Member Coleman.

Yeah, thank you. And thank you so much for being here to testify. I also want to, I guess, make space if other people have questions for Ms. Mormond. I will say I will move to approve our legislative hearing officer's recommendation in this case. This has come up a couple of times in the last few months where people have felt frustrated by our emergency boarding procedures, and I completely understand that. And unfortunately, the at the moment of a legislative hearing is not the moment to revise those policies and to think through how long do we want a police officer to spend making calls or kind of following the thread to get to somebody. I understand that these situations can be very frustrating when there's a sense that they could have been addressed differently. But as long as standard operating procedure was followed, I feel comfortable motioning to approve.

Thank you. Any other discussion on this item? If not, I will take that motion from Council Member Coleman for approval. All in favor? Aye. All opposed?

Six in favor, none opposed. The resolution is adopted. Item number 33. Item 33, RLHTA 26-152, ratifying the appealed special tax assessment for property at 99 California Avenue West.

Vice President, Council Members. 99 California is very similar to the previous case. In this situation, we had... Disorderly person who was at the building, and as it's relayed in the police report, was pounding on an apartment door and did break glass, and the police were deployed. They made sure that the door was secured. In this particular situation, we have the same kind of... about calling the landlord or not calling the landlord. We don't have a deeper police report. This is a thing that's under investigation right now, so we have one of those brief two-sentence statements as it proceeds. So what I can say is there was a break-in, the police went, made sure the door was secure, and this is the bill. It is in the same amount as the previous assessment that you just heard.

Thank you for that staff report. Any questions for Ms. Moorman before we go to the public hearing?

If I may, what is the legislative hearing officer's recommendation?

My recommendation is to approve the assessment.

I may have a few questions afterwards, but I appreciate it. Yep.

This is a public hearing. Come on up if you're here to testify. You get two minutes, so show your name, where you're coming from, and then sign in afterwards.

Hello, my name is Zach. I'm the facilities manager for HRM, and McCarran's Village is one of the buildings that I work at. So the service people did install a piece of plywood on the broken portion of the glass, but the latch to the door was broken, and so the building was left completely unsecured for anybody to get in, including the person that previously had gone in, even though that they were gone by the time the police had arrived. They left a pile of glass in the entryway and also shards of glass all in the hallway and up and down the stairs, which are important pathways for the residents and their pets, which we want to keep safe. The office number and the emergency number are posted in the entryway where the incident had occurred. The police report does not specify whether or not a call was made to us. However, we do not have any record of calls. The property manager was working at that time, and the emergency line is monitored 24-7. If they had contacted us, a technician was on site when this happened. A technician would have been able to head to that location immediately and resolve the issue much more quickly and thoroughly. But since we weren't given that opportunity, we believe that the course of action that was taken was unnecessary and it was unsafe for the residents. And so we would ask that the assessment be removed.

Thank you for coming here to testify. Make sure you sign in. Anybody else here to testify? Seeing none, I will take a motion from Council Member Kim to close the public hearing. All in favor? Aye. All opposed?

Six in favor, none opposed. The public hearing is closed.

Any discussion or questions?

Yeah, has there been any conversation around a payment plan? I don't personally see how or why. I mean, record of a police call is entirely pertinent. I understand that there are people on call, but also the work was completed. So I'm just wondering, has the company reached out on a payment plan for the $479 that they owe for the work?

There was no request in the hearing process for payments to be divided over time. Certainly that's something the council can do. It is not usual for a management company or landlord to be making that request, especially with an amount in this low of an amount.

Yeah. I appreciate that. Yeah, at this point I just don't feel the need to have a police, like validation that the police were or were not called at this point. I think the fee is fairly nominal given the broken glass and the safety for the building, so I'm going to approve the recommendation of the legislative hearing officer.

There is a motion on the table. Is there any discussion or questions about that? Seeing none, I will take that motion for approval of the recommendation. All in favor? Aye.

All opposed? Six in favor, none opposed. The resolution is adopted.

Any other items, Ms. Moorman?

Item number 39, please.

39. RLHRR 26-16, amending second making finding on the appealed substantial abatement ordered for 947 Fremont Avenue in council file RLHRR 25-34.

Vice President, council members, 947 Fremont was originally in front of the council last May. seeking a grant of time for rehabilitation of this nuisance building. The council made a grant of time of 180 days with all of the conditions having been met, the performance deposit, the inspection, work plan financing, et cetera. At the conclusion of the 180 days when we conducted a hearing, to see where the abatement was at. There had been zero progress on the abatement. At that point, which was in December, my recommendation to the council was to grant an additional 80 days, because we had updated plans and financing and so on, to continue the $5,000 performance deposit. So not ask that it be forfeit, but to continue it, but to have an additional $10,000 performance deposit be posted. We just did a follow-up on this last month, so that would be a 12-month follow-up, so your second 180-day follow-up, and there was little to no progress, according to our inspectors. At that juncture, I came back and recommended to the council that with updated plans and financing and so on, that i would recommend an additional 180 days but that the council forfeit five thousand dollars of the post at fifteen thousand dollars and continue to forfeit on a monthly basis twenty five hundred dollars for each month that it continues to be in incomplete rehabilitation This went in front of you and was voted on, and what you're looking at now is the first $2,500 forfeiture that would result from an incomplete project. The council certainly has the latitude to be able to modify that timing-wise or amount-wise, but I wanted to flag that this is because of long-term noncompliance, and this is an owner who we have had similar problems lengthy rehabilitations with in the past.

Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for Ms. Moorman before we open up the public hearing? Council Member Bowie?

Thank you. Vice President Yang, I have just a question out of just clarity, because I, again, I just wanted to say out loud that I plan to support the recommendation from the council member, Johnson, which this represents. But this is the first time as a council member I've heard of a motley abatement or a monthly, I don't know how to call it, like assessment on it. give some context particularly? I'm familiar with just like our vacancy building fee for $5,000 each year that they have to post, right? But can you just give some context around why on the monthly and if that monthly fee is what we're using to get them into compliance and what actually constitutes the cost for $250,000? $250, $100 on a monthly basis, thank you. Yeah, happy to do that.

First question is the annual vacant building registration fee. That is AHERA over $5,000. That is for anybody who is a Category 2 in their second year, so significant repairs needed, or a Category 3, which this is. So yes, that's an annual fee. Whether or not it's in front of council for an order to remove, you have to pay that fee. So setting that aside, if it comes in front of you as a proposed order to remove or repair because of dangerous and or nuisance conditions, then the code provides that you have a $5,000 performance deposit posted. And it is just that. It's a performance deposit. Performance being the key word there. Had there been 50% or more completed when you checked it at the six-month mark, The code provides that it automatically renews. We don't have to talk about it at all. If there's less than 50% progress, it's the council's discretion about how they would handle that. What the choice of the council was was to continue the 5,000, didn't forfeit anything, and added an additional 10. When there hasn't been performance, you have that latitude. Here we are at the one year plus a few months juncture. and I am recommending the forfeiture plus the periodic forfeiture. We have used this once before in recent memory for me, and that was for a Ward 4 property, I want to say North Snelling. And in that case, it was a $5,000 performance deposit, and I think that was in $1,000 increments that it was forfeited. It is an unusual tool to deploy, and the only times I have recommended it is when we have long-term noncompliance. And it's a gentler tool and more encouraging than forfeiting an entire amount all at once. So hopefully it provides for a more... timely completion of the rehabilitation. So yes, there was not additional performance deposit that I requested the council put in place. Thank you.

Thank you. I just want to clarify, we don't have a motion on the table yet for this item. Anybody else have questions before we go into the public hearing? OK, if not, we'll open up the public hearing. If you're here to testify, come on up to the microphone. You get two minutes, so show your name, where you're coming from, and then sign in afterwards.

Hello, my name is Jay Mitchell. I'm here in regards to 947 Fremont. Just to give you a little context about this whole, the property. So the property was taken back in a foreclosure and in that process time where I think it transferred from a category two to a category three when the lender got the property back. So then it was a category three. This is in the first increment of I think when myself and Ms. Moorman met on the... performance bond, which was $5,000, and granting the first 180 days, if I'm correct. During that period of time, this is not, I'm just giving you history, right? During that period of time, the city went through the city hack of when the issue of permits and stuff like that for Pauley, well, then what's newly implemented was Pauley. At that time, we were trying to get it from a single-family house. to a multifamily dwelling. It just took too long, so by that time, we got to the second period of time. During that time, I was before Ms. Moorman, and she recommended a larger performance bond, which we did post, and we're trying to work through that portion of it to revitalize the home into a single-family home because the duplex would take too long or multifamily. In that period of time, again, this is just kind of a history thing, then we had MetroSearch, right? So during this time, a lot of workforces, it just took on a life of its own. It was very, very, very difficult. It's why there wasn't a lot of work completed, candidly. Also, a point I'm sure Ms. Mormon's aware of, because I made her aware of, but during that time of the winter to spring, because all this time happens to fall between like November, I mean late October, November, December and such, it's the winter, one of the foundation walls collapsed in. We went to repair it. We did have an inspection and the inspector asked for a, I'm sorry, I'm drawing a blank. Instructional engineers report on that. During that time, you guys were about to have the meeting.

That is time. I just want to make sure we hear what ask you have.

Is there anything you want to wrap up with? I'm not contesting the $5,000 performance bond first forfeiture. I'm just asking to continue the 180 days it was already granted instead of a $2,500 per month because it's unrealistic. to be able to get it done every 30 days. That would only take four months at $2,500 a piece. That's all I'm asking for.

Thank you. Thank you so much for clarifying that. OK, this is public hearing on item number 39. Is anybody else here to testify on this? Seeing none, I will take a motion from Council Member Johnson to close the public hearing. All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Six in favor, none opposed. Public hearing is closed. OK, any discussion or questions? Council Member Johnson?

Yes, thank you. Yeah, I have a couple questions for Ms. Moorman. And I just want to go back to I had a chance to review the record, had a chance to review the matter, and just some of the things that have been submitted. And I wanted to get clarity. The latest communication I have in the record From mr. Mitchell included a time frame. I think it was back in July of just that There would be within a one month a structural engineer report and completed recommended repairs have we received that here in the city and

the structural engineers report? I don't know. I could look into that, but I don't know.

OK. And then also, I would say that just from the timeline that was dated in July, so just looking at us now being here in mid-August, some of the things that were outlined at the schedule that were given was within a six-month time period. I will share that just for history and for my colleagues who are looking at this matter, we took that action as a council December 10th to give 180 days of 2025. So, Mr. Mitchell, that would have been after our cyber attack incident, but also during that timeframe in December when we would have issued that 180 days that would have been, you know, you're gonna go through my quick map of space, which is why you started to receive some of the notifications in June. With this matter being in front of us and I think just overall like I have a couple questions about whether or not this just some of the things you've already shared like the timeline you outlined by now if that was true based off of the Record we should have received destruction engineer report and there should be recommended repairs being completed. I just I'm curious as to just based off of the letter that is in the record, if that progress has been made, I think that'll be really informative to me on the final recommendation. So I'm going to ask my colleagues for a one-week layover at this time just to get the updates on that, only because I appreciate the recommendation. I want to be able to rule on that. I just also want to know if there's progress on the property itself.

Ms. Moorman.

Council, Vice President, Council Member, when asking for this kind of progress, that would mean that a building inspector and possibly trades inspectors as well would need to be deployed to be able to go to the property and make this kind of an assessment. Usually those assessments take place as a part of an inspection with completed work. And I don't know how the schedule for building inspectors look to be able to go out and do this kind of follow-up. We could ask them. I don't know what the schedule will look like, and I will definitely do that. I would ask for a two-week layover in that case, especially given that there's a holiday in between now and then, so that we can see if there's progress. Ultimately, though, and I would want to say, ultimately, the only measure that matters is whether or not the city has issued a code compliance certificate. That's the finish line. You know, progress on the rehab is great, wish we were seeing more than zero, but it's that certificate and finishing there. So I will ask the Department of Safety inspections.

Okay, and just for clarification, the total amount, right, is $15,000?

The total amount was $15,000, yes, and the council in July forfeited $5,000.

OK, I actually would withdraw that previous motion and just simply share that I would be amenable to the two-week layover and that matter for that. So I'll make a motion for a two-week layover of this item. And Ms. Moorman, I would appreciate being able to be updated on the schedule of whether realistically I'd like to have the inspector be able to go back out to the property. And so just want to make sure that that's a realistic timeline. OK, thank you.

Thank you both. There's a motion on the table for a two-week layover from Council Member Johnson. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed?

Six in favor, none opposed. The item is laid over for two weeks.

Ms. Moorman, any other items?

The most recent item was number 36 that we just did?

No, we did 39.

If the agenda could be scanned, trying to go down to the Wyoming address. And we have a Chatsworth case as well. So either one, my apologies. Streets are in alpha order on the agenda. I think 44 is Wyoming.

44, okay.

Item 44, RLHSAO 26-50, making finding on the appeal of Gary Grimes to a nuisance abatement ordered for 314 Wyoming Street East in Council File RLHSAO 26-46.

Councilor, Vice President, Council Members, this was a vehicle abatement order for the property on Wyoming here. The original orders were issued to the property owner at the beginning of May of this year. My recommendation at that time when it came to council was to grant to June 5th. There was a follow-up resolution coming back to the council in the beginning of July, or mid-July, I heard it, beginning of July. The vehicles were not all gone at that time. This is a rental property, and I know that Mr. Grimes, the owner of the property, had been working to get the tenant to remove the vehicles, and when you had that follow-up on July 22nd, An additional one month was granted by the council in order for the abatement to be completed. And so I don't know what the additional ask is at this point, but my recommendation would be to find that the nuisance is not abated and authorize the Department of Safety and Inspections to abate the nuisance. There's been several extensions granted in this case.

Thank you. Are there any questions before we go into the public hearing? Ms. Malmreich, I do have a quick question. Can you let us know what is the proposed date on when the abatement has to occur by then?

My recommendation would simply be that the deadline has passed, and therefore the department is authorized to move now.

OK, thank you. All right, this is a public hearing, so go ahead and testify. You get two minutes. Share your name, where you're coming from, and then sign in afterwards.

My name is Gary Grimes, coming from Cottage Grove. The problem I had with this last vehicle was it didn't have a title on it. And the gentleman that this vehicle did belong to lives in London, England. So I finally got a title sent from over there. I just got this just the other day from his sister. It was supposed to be sent to my address, but I had to go out to the shop to pick the darn thing up. So in order to get rid of it, most places that you call, they want a title with it in order to get any money out of the darn thing. Because I'm already going to lose already by just getting rid of the thing in order to fix it up for somebody I was going to sell it to.

And all I'm asking is...

I've already called a couple places to come pick it up. And they're like, one says Monday. If I call him back today, I don't know if he'll still be there. If not, it looks like Tuesday is as soon as they'll pick it up. I just hate to have it told before then. That's all.

Thank you. Thank you for coming and testifying. Anybody else here to testify? If yes, come on up to the mic. Okay, seeing none, then I will move to close the public hearing. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed?

Six in favor, none opposed.

Public hearing is closed. Okay. Oh, gosh, I'm sorry.

I actually had a question I wanted to get for clarification.

Yeah, the testifier. Can you just clarify, like, how it sounds like you're wanting more time. How much time are you asking for?

Probably Tuesday now, but he said Monday he'd be able to pick it up.

I'm sorry, can you say that again?

The gentleman that was going to pick this vehicle up for me from the salvage yard, he told me earlier today, Monday, but now it sounds like Tuesday is going to be the earliest. By the time I call him back, I have scheduled until Tuesday. I can't believe all these places are so darn busy. They say, oh, we can pick it up right away. Thank you.

Thank you. I did get the answer for that, so I appreciate you sharing that. OK, any discussion or questions at all at this point? OK, well, I will make a couple of comments. I know typically we lean onto the council member in the ward here to weigh in on this. I haven't gotten a judge. Sometimes these items, they come up. We don't know who comes and testifies. But I do want to share that, based on the testimony today, I feel comfortable with doing a one-week layover for this. And it sounds like Tuesday is the day that the you're you're hoping to have that car be removed from the property And so that would be my my motion and then if it comes that day I mean the council president will be here So she will be here to make a different to make a decision if by that time that doesn't happen And so that would be my motion. It's for a one-week layover, and I I'll move that motion is there any discussion on the motion at the moment I All in favor then? Aye.

All opposed? Six in favor, none opposed. The item is laid over for one week.

All right. Any other items, Ms. Moorman?

Yes, Council President. Number 36. My apologies. It's out of order. Okay.

Number 36. Item 36, RLHVO 26-33, appeal of Bambi Barclay to the correction notice, which includes vacate order at 1103 Chesterworth Street North.

Every so often I have really, really difficult cases to come in front of you, and this is one of those. Ms. Barclay will explain her circumstances, but I'm going to summarize so that she can focus on a few specific kinds of things. It was six or seven years ago that Ms. Barclay's furnace failed, and getting the money together to do a furnace replacement was not something she could handle within her budget. What she did to keep her house warm was to buy space heaters. and to use space heaters to warm all winter long. So we're looking at a very large Excel bill to pay for the electricity to run the space heaters for that many years. So we're coming up on a lot right now. Excel has turned off the electric to the property, and it is summertime. What my recommendation to you is, because this is condemned and ordered vacated based on lack of utilities, is to grant to October 1st to have the electric restored or the property vacated. October 1st is a day I picked because that's when the cold weather rule kicks in with the state of Minnesota and it seemed like a decent benchmark. for when your heat should be up and running. And this is, again, an electrical shutoff, so not natural gas, because the furnace doesn't work. We did do a referral for as many agencies as we could come up with, and I understand that they have not been resourced to be able to handle the situation.

Thank you. Are there any questions at this time for Ms. Mormont? OK, seeing none, we will hold the public hearing for item number 36. So come on up and testify. You get two minutes. Share your name, where you're coming from, and please sign in afterwards.

Hi, my name is Bambi Barclay. I am the homeowner, and I live at the property in question. I've lived in St. Paul for over, I lived at that house for over 20 years. Yes, my electricity is shut off. The bill is in the name of an ex-long-term partner of mine who is not with us anymore. And because of the unique set of circumstances, I am both 100% responsible for the bill and 100% unable to access any of the heat assistance because the bill is not in my name. And I'm just asking for help in accessing any resources that could help me so that I don't get pushed into the ever-growing homeless population.

Thank you. Thank you for testifying. Is there anybody else here to testify? All right, seeing none, I will take a motion from you, Council Member Kim, to close the public hearing. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Six in favor, none opposed.

Public hearing is closed. Council Member Kim?

Yeah, I just really appreciate you coming down to speak. I know it's hard to come downtown and juggle all the things, and so your time and attention means a lot to me. I've been briefed on this with the legislative hearing officer. It is an incredibly difficult case. I am interested in the recommendation, but the thing that I'm a little nervous about, to be honest, is I don't know how strict or how proactive the cold weather rule kicks in. So I'm actually inclined to extend that a little bit to make sure that if there's anything that we would need to do to assist Bambi, that we'd be able to do that. Can you speak a little bit about, like, yes, that the cold weather rule kicks in 10-1, but is it, like, how proactive is Xcel Energy with making sure that they are following that rule? And would a little bit more of a buffer be, you know, be safe than sorry?

To... things I would want to bring up. First thing is that October 1st is the date that it kicks in. And so I thought that that would be a good day for determining, you know, is your heat on for the coming winter? Is your heat not on for the coming winter? In terms of the cold weather rule itself, that speaks to the laws that Excel follows about when it can and cannot shut off utilities. In this particular case, and with all cases really, you have to come to an arrangement with Excel on payments. What Ms. Barclay has been told by Excel is she needs to pay 10% of this bill and then continue making payments every single month. And they're substantial payments. And she is not financially able to make that initial And so unless that bridge can be crossed, it's going to be almost impossible to get that payment in place and to use the official cold weather rule to keep the power on. I would say also you should be aware that heating a home with space heaters is extremely dangerous. Do we do it overnight when our furnaces break? Of course we do. In Minnesota, that's what happens. For entire winters, for years on end, there's just an incredible risk to the house, the neighboring houses, and so on by heating in this way. So that is my concern moving into the winter season.

So just to follow up, can you clarify that the cold weather protection period does start October 1st through ExxonRG? That's the start date?

It does. Okay.

I'm inclined to give just a little more flexibility of time, but also because I think I'd like my office, mainly me, to engage a little bit more. I think there are resources and people that would be interested. So just for the sake of both my involvement and capacity, but also I think there's interest. I'm going to give myself and you a little extra time, so I'll make it to October 15th, and let's see what we can't pull together for a plan. So I will... I'm trying to think of what my motion is. I move to amend the recommendation of the hearing officer to extend the notice... What are the words I'm looking for?

The deadline for restoration of the utilities. I can simply cross out October 1st and... Underlying October 15th as a new I would appreciate that. Yeah, we'll do.

Thank you. That would so that Thank You legislative Harris officer. That is my motion. I appreciate the support from my colleagues Thank You councilmember Kim.

There's a motion on the table Is there any discussion or questions from council members? I

Council Member Bowie? I just want to have a comment. Thank you so much. I really appreciate you, Council Member Kim, for just making that motion. I really also appreciate you being vulnerable and being courageous to share that story for someone who definitely has been impacted by some of these orders and have had my constituents and live in a neighborhood with really old homes and old furnaces and have seen some of my own relatives navigate this. I just want to just amend that. I also just wanted to share, as well, there are resources. And like Councilmember Kim had mentioned, You know, Energy since coalition through Xcel, Energy has a home squad. There are financial, you know, guidelines for that. But I just want to say I appreciate you showing up and testifying and really hope you get some of those resources to help you in your situation.

I also want to echo the gratitude from both my colleagues. Thank you for coming to City Hall and testifying. You shared some very vulnerable experiences here and I'm sure it's very hard. I just really commend you for continuing to be resilient and it sounds like you're going through a lot so take care of yourself too. I'm really glad you're here and letting us know what sort of support you need from the city. I encourage you to stay in close communication with Council Member Kim. I want to speak to how stellar and caring she is, and that she's really well connected with community organizations and knowing what safety nets are out there for residents. And so I'm wishing you all the best. Yeah, thanks. All right, so in terms of the motion, I will take that. All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Six in favor, nine opposed. The resolution is adopted as amended.

There are no other people here to testify that I'm aware of for the legislative hearing agenda.

Thank you, Ms. Moorman. We will hold a public hearing on the remaining items on the legislative hearing consent agenda. If you are here to speak, come on up to the microphone. Councilor Buoy?

Yeah, I would like to pull item 35. I don't think anyone's here to speak, but I just want to get a point of clarification from Ms. Norman.

Okay, Councilor Buoy is requesting that we pull number 35 from the consent agenda, from the legislative hearing consent agenda.

Tell me to read it into the record. Item 35, RLH, RR26-14, ordering the rehabilitation or raising and removal of the structures at 914 Central Avenue West within 15 days after the August 19, 2026 City Council public hearing.

Would you like a staff report?

Yes. A staff report. And just my question, I just wanted to confirm, it has referred to September 15th in a recommendation if it has met those conditions.

Yes. Yeah. This property is in front of you. It's in order to remove or repair the structure, so you'd be looking at the standards and the conditions that you always do. The person who came to testify at the legislative hearing, Valerie Adams, came up from Chicago. She's a member of the family. There are several siblings who are a part of this. The property has yet to be probated from the two deceased owners of the property. It has been a rental property until it became a vacant building, and that has been for, I mean, I want to say a couple of decades, is what was reported by Ms. Adams. At this juncture, it is still in title by the deceased owners. And it would need to be probated. The first thing that needs to happen is the family would come into agreement about how all of that would work and to get sign-offs and everything. So that needs to happen. In the meantime, I said, if we can get the performance deposit posted and you order your code compliance inspection, then I will recommend that the council give additional time for us to start sorting out these other matters. The code compliance inspection application We got confirmation today that the application had been received, so that was processed, and that's why it's easy for me to recommend to mid-September. The fault with it not having been applied for is not clear that it was a mistake on the part of Ms. Adams or on the part of the Department of Safety and Inspections. She indicated that she had gone to the department, and when she posted the performance deposit, she had also applied for the inspection. There's no record of that, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. And she did today, or I believe yesterday maybe, send by priority mail the application with a cashier's charge. Cashier's check. And oh, I apologize. I need to go backwards. The reason that that wasn't posted or done is it was with a credit card, and the department couldn't take credit cards. And so it's one of those things. There's even credit card acceptance information on the form you would fill out, but it doesn't work. So it is kind of on, you know.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for that clarity, Ms. Moorman. Yeah, I just wanted to adopt the recommendation from the hearing officer. I just wanted to make sure that we had that record that she did post those deposits.

Yep. Thank you. Great. There's a motion for approval from Council Member Bui. Any discussion? Probably should, yeah. Okay, we'll open up the public hearing for this item. If you're here to testify, please come on up to the microphone. All right, seeing none, then a motion from Council Member Bowie to continue the public hearing to September 15th.

Excuse me, that would be refer the matter to legislative hearing. Is there a date in there for that?

Yes, September 15th. Thank you. Continuing the public hearing to September 15th. All in favor?

I think it was refer, but refer the matter to .

So six in favor, none opposed. The item will be referred back to the legislative hearing team.

We're going to, I already opened up the, should I do it again? Yeah, okay. We'll hold a public hearing on the remaining balance of the legislative hearing consent agenda. Anybody here to testify? If yes, come on up to the microphone. Okay, seeing none, then I will take a motion from Council Member Jones to approve the balance of the legislative hearing consent agenda. All in favor?

So moved.

and close the public hearings. All in favor?

Aye. All opposed? Six in favor, none opposed. The legislative hearing consent agenda is adopted as amended.

Well, I think it's been a while since we've had that many items pulled off of the agenda. legislative hearing consent agenda item. So I did just want to commend you, Ms. Moorman, for being able to do a staff reports on the fly. That was really great. So that brings us to the end of our agenda. I'm wondering if council members have any good news to share from their ward. Council Member Johnson.

Thank you. I just wanted to share a little bit about our, we had a budget event this past week and it went really well with folks that are coming out. I know that with the city council budget that's coming up, there'll be a lot of discussions and a lot of opportunities for those that I look forward to doing at the budget committee. I would invite, just from the previous conversation, you know, and just to share my bit at the end, I do appreciate when folks are able to come out to our council meetings and to i would encourage for the dialogue especially around some of the topics that were given i would implore and encourage our chair and vice chair of the public safety committee to you know if there's interest in doing a public hearing on items that are not on the city council agenda that they would potentially utilize their space and opportunity within the public safety committee to do so because i think just when we're going through some of the discussions and some of the partnerships like Over the last few weeks, there's times where there's topics for discussion, and it takes away from folks who are here to testify or even to speak to their items every time that we do that, including today where we've had probably the most legislative hearing item folks in attendance. So I would just encourage folks, if there's interest in doing public hearings as well, next week is a public safety committee and public safety meeting that's happening on the 26th. where if folks are interested in doing a topic for discussion and bringing those items up, they absolutely can do that because we set that agenda for the committee. And there aren't as strong of limitations as there are here at the council meeting, where often not only does items that are not, where we're allowing testimony that's not speaking to the item at hand, does that potentially open us up to rules? But doing things like opening a public hearing, it's not just... legally not recommended, but actually could open us up to several things that we don't want to have to participate in, so that's often why that gets cut off. And I think if next week that happens where there's not a public hearing on the agenda, I just wanted to explain for folks who are here who may be wondering how to get their voices heard, there's always an opportunity, and especially for people who are watching at home, I've had several emails. I've had several phone calls, several public committee members, both from my ward and external, that talk to me about topics at any time. And you're welcome to do that in any space. Coming into the council meetings without an agenda item and causing that disruption is something that I think has happened in the past. And I would just implore my colleagues to utilize the space and opportunity like we do in any other committee that we have to provide that opportunity for anything that you want to hear about, including matters that could come above, like flock security cameras, contracts that we have. Because I know that at length, one of the things that I heard was something for comments around the water boards, item that has been talked about at great length, I think, through the issues on to the topic of flat cameras. I know the council president isn't here, but has already shared an interest in doing that. And so I want to make sure we're informing the public, too, about how and what they can ask for. You can totally ask for a public hearing or for a public conversation at any point in time, but you can also do it at the Public Safety Committee meeting. And so, you know, I know with the chair and vice chair who set the agendas, you know, Council Member Bowie, I heard your comments today, and I hope that folks reach out to you about having a public safety comment opportunity at the next public safety meeting next week.

Thank you. Councilor Bui?

Yeah, I was going to respond to that. I think it's really important and genuine to share with people what we have reviewed. As public safety chair for the committee, we have had conversations. We've had this as an item, agenda item. We have also invited SPPD to present. We have also invited our Ramsey County Sheriff's to present. I think, you know, with the limited time that we have for a public safety committee, there's always opportunities to have an agenda item or if people want to lend their voice there and have a public hearing. But I do think, you know, what I've heard in testimony is it's more not just a public safety matter, but like how we... are entering into contracts and how we are using public dollars, taxpayer dollars, is more of like a broader conversation that could exist in any committee. But for the committee that we have next week, it's the part two discussion for our encampment response post-review. So that is also a very pressing issue. I don't want to say that we can't have a public hearing when we don't actually have the time. Now, if we had two hours and we can adjust the time, we can do that. And also just being transparent as well, how we actually post the agenda has to be a week in advance. So it would be today when we have to decide which council members who would want to sponsor a public hearing. I do think during our council meetings is probably the best time, just because we have very pressing issues that we're gonna be reviewing during the public safety meeting next week. But in the future, if obviously people, we have heard from people who wanted us to review flat cameras, we did that, and Vice Chair Coleman had chaired that meeting, and we asked those questions. If there's any further questions that anybody wants, They can ask any council member. There's not one main council member that's responsible to ensure that we have transparency. I would also want to just say, too, outside of just this governing body or inside these chambers, as council members, we have the opportunity to host town halls and have more informal conversations and also have some commitments or utilize other areas, whether it's a petition around you know how we want to take policy action so i implore all of those ideas but i do appreciate you raising that i also wanted to make make sure people are aware that we have reviewed this topic this is not the first time we're hearing this we have seen what other cities have done and we'll explore those opportunities for what we want to do here and during the council all right any other board news to share

If not, then that brings us to the end of our meeting here. I'll take a motion from Council Member Bowie to adjourn. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Six in favor, none opposed.

Meeting is adjourned.

Thanks, everybody.

Have a good evening.