City Council - Regular Meeting

¦ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Call the meeting of the St. Paul City Council to order. Roll call, please.

Bowie? Here. Coleman? Here. Johnson? Here. Jost?

Here.

Kim? Here. Yang?

Here.

Council President Nacre?

Here.

Seven present, none absent.

Welcome to everyone. Thank you so much for joining us for our city council meeting today. Just a quick point of business. We are holding our regular business meeting now. And immediately following this meeting, we will have a special meeting on the topic of the encampment closures. So if you're here for that topic, that will happen just following this meeting at 4.30 or as soon as this meeting is done. We invite everyone to join us in standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Consent agenda items 3 through 13 are before you for your consideration.

I know we will be pulling item 13 for separate consideration. Is there anything else to come off of consent? Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Vice President Yang for the balance of the consent agenda. All in favor, say aye. Aye.

All opposed? Seven in favor, none opposed. The consent agenda is adopted as amended. Item 13, resolution 26-1197, recognizing Community Health Workers Day in the city of St. Paul. Ms. Johnson.

All right, well, come on up, come on up, come on up. It's OK, I don't have to have all the spotlight to myself here. Well, colleagues, thank you so much for just taking up this time to recognize Community Health Workers Day. We are doing this in advance of Community Health Workers Day on the 28th, but because we don't have a council meeting next week, this is the time. So I just wanted to share that when we talk about healthier cities, it's important to talk about and focus on our hospitals, our clinics, and our policies. But so much of what we create and work towards is healthy communities that happens here around our kitchen tables, our neighborhood events, or our schools. This is the work of our community health workers. It's in our place of worship. It's in our community clinics. It's truly where you meet people. Even when people walk through the doors of the doctor's office, It's truly the thing that keeps them coming back, whether that's their compassion, their patience, or their understanding, in most cases, in an opportunity and time when none of us truly want to be there, or times in our lives where it can be really challenging It's the community health workers that really can make or break that experience and often even deter people from coming back or encouraging them to continue. And luckily here in St. Paul, we are proud to have a city that is of many cultures, languages, and traditions. Community health workers help ensure that every resident feels seen, heard, and connected to the support that they deserve. And so for me, I wanted to take the time to be able to have both I'm welcoming today Executive Director Sunny Ailey and Board Chair Bart Phillips with me, who will be sharing a little bit more about the bigger picture of the community health workers celebration that will be happening at the Capitol, but also just to share a little bit about what we're doing. So I've asked them to come in and just share a brief comment for both of them for about two minutes. So I'll defer my time. Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you so much. What an honor. Thank you, president, vice president, and council members. So the Minnesota Community Health Worker Alliance is a statewide alliance to support and uplift the community health worker field. And I got into community health workers and the concept of them about 20 years ago, and I saw that we were going through a health care crisis. It was a financial crisis. It was a social crisis. And seeing that community health workers were that bridge to the crises to bring those people who couldn't help themselves, who were lost, who weren't connected to the resources and the care. So it's been a passion of mine since then. We're holding a Community Health Worker Day celebration at the Capitol on the 28th between 1 and 4 PM. Bart has some spectacular low-cost signs to share with everybody. We hope that you can join us. It'll be a convening of our statewide partners, our stakeholders, our allies, and anybody who is supporting and could support the cause. I kind of had similar words to say that was so well articulated. So thank you so much about that. But I think what I would love to really kind of hone in on is it's about equity and it's about giving everybody an equitable chance to the same level of care support and resources. And so the community health workers help those who don't typically have that equitable access. And there's an enormous amount of barriers, so societal, economic, cultural, that individuals don't, that create the difficulty for them. So I just want to thank you guys from the city and your support for us at a city and statewide level and appreciate your support.

Yeah, I would like to echo my thanks for acknowledging the work of the community health workers. As board chair, one thing that I'm trying to bring forward that might resonate with all you is to make sure that community health workers can be empowered as much as possible by all the data and technology that exists in our society and make sure that really as we see these great innovations happening in all different industry sectors that the same innovation is powering these community health workers. So as a first time we created a technology advisory committee with representation across the state of Minnesota to join as a new committee within the alliance to help drive the development of the community health innovation platform. So this is going to be a technology platform that connects key data sources and other tools to empower the community health workers to do even more work. in the communities to uplift the folks that do need the most support. So I just wanted to share that in the event that it triggers some interest. We're just getting started with our work for CHIP, so the Community Health Innovation Platform. And again, thank you all for the time.

Thank you.

Well, thank you guys so much. I think if I could see the world from your purview, literally, I would be able to speak over in the mics. But no, just to be really honest, there's going to be a lot of celebration at the State Capitol on the 28th. So if you are able to attend, please do. Our office will be more formally presenting the resolution there, along with the governor, who I believe is also going to do a statewide proclamation. But just so you know that we have of the utmost support for it. I'll just read the therefore be it resolved clause of what we're doing today. So the St. Paul City Council will recognize July 28, 2026 as Community Health Workers Day in the city of St. Paul and encourages all residents to join in honoring the essential contributions of community health workers whose commitment, expertise, and trusted relationships help build a healthier, more equitable, and more connected St. Paul. This will be joined also by a proclamation with Mayor Kali Herr. So with that, I move approval.

Great. Thank you so much, Ms. Johnson, for bringing this issue to light and excited for the opportunity to celebrate together on the 28th. Thank you both for coming. There's a motion for approval on the table. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye.

All opposed? Seven in favor, none opposed. The resolution is adopted. Item 14, ABZA 25-3, considering the appeal of Dominic Cardici to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals denying a variance request to establish a 24 resident supportive housing facility on the property at 418 Sherburn Avenue.

And I believe we have a staff report on this item.

Hello, David Eyde with the Department of Safety and Inspections. I was not sure if there would be a staff report, but I came ready. I just have up my slideshow from a year ago up on the camera.

We need the voice-activated projector. There we go.

All right, 418 Sherbourne Avenue.

So I was the BZA staff member at the time when this came in front of council. So there was a zoning variance that was denied, and then the applicant at the time appealed it, and it appeals that it come to city council. So in the ordinance, this council has the power to hear and decide appeals where there's an error in fact finding, where the appellant believes that there's an error. So this property is a four-unit apartment building with six bedrooms in each unit. And the applicant was operating it with six residents in each unit. But a sober house does not have services. So it was really just operating like an apartment building with six folks in each unit where they all want to live sober lives, but there aren't services there. And the applicant wanted to convert it into a supportive housing facility. I believe it was to provide food at the site, which would be considered something that's supportive in nature and it makes it, it's a different use category in the zoning code, so it'd be a higher intensity use. And there are some standards, supportive housing standards in the zoning code. Supportive housing facilities, they need to be at least 1,320 feet from other specified congregate living facilities in the zoning code that have more than six adult residents. And this property was within that distance of two other supportive housing facilities. And I have those up on the next page. So 470 Western, which is a seven-resident supportive housing facility, and 342 Fuller, which is an eight-resident supportive housing facility. So the Board of Zoning Appeals held their public hearing on May 27, 2025. Staff recommend denial of the requested variances based upon findings three, four, and six. So all six findings need to be true to grant a zoning variance, so the three would mean that it does not pass. And the board agreed with the staff recommendation. Frogtown, we didn't get a recommendation. No people spoke. We didn't get any letters. Well, sorry, no people spoke in support. We got two people that spoke in opposition and one letter in opposition. One letter with concerns. So the board did deny based upon findings three, four, and six. And five of the five members, the Board of Zoning Appeals members that were in attendance voted to deny. And then the applicant submitted an appeal application on June 6th, 2025. And I wrote in pen the revised 1599 date because there was a Bridge resolution, and I'm not completely involved in this, so I can't speak the most eloquently on everything that's happened since, but essentially 1599 was paused, and it continues after the moratorium, or I think it was the bridge resolution ends. So now the new 1599 date that we need to make our decision by is August 15th, 2026, or it'd be approved by 1599. So then this is just the six findings that need to be found true to grant a zoning variance, and the board and staff thought that there weren't any practical difficulties, and that there wasn't a plate due to some unique circumstance that had something to do physically with the property itself. The applicant noted the regulatory landscape changing, but that's not necessarily something that is unique to the property. And then the essential character aspect, I actually can get into these in the next pages, but essentially essential character, the zoning code is written this way to prevent a cluster from forming. So it's intended to spread these folks out into the community. So getting into that deeper, I kind of already stated, but for finding three, the board thought that the request was financially driven as their testimony primarily focused on the funding stream. There are a variety of possible viable uses that they could establish on this T2 zone property. So that finding was not met. Finding four. regarding the plight of the landowner. This operation requirement affects other properties within a quarter mile of the other supportive housing facilities in question, and the plight was not unique to this property, rather it's general to the surrounding area. And then finding six regarding neighborhood character, Granting the request would result in the establishment of two supportive housing facilities, so the one closest to this facility and this one, this proposed one, which would create a cluster and could undermine the goal of community integration and contribute to an institutional character that's not consistent with the surrounding area. So we kind of are back to where we were back last year where it's up to the city council to decide if there was an error in fact finding a procedure. to allow a supportive housing facility within a quarter mile of two other facilities, the closest of which is 513 feet. So if you grant the appeal and they could establish this 24 resident supportive housing facility, deny it, then they can continue to operate as they have been or find a different use that's allowed on the property. And like I said, August 15th is the deadline. Great.

Thank you, Mr. Wright. Are there questions for staff? And can our city attorney just give a quick synopsis of what has happened between last year and now? I know we created a moratorium. We've had some planning commission recommendations.

how we got to this point of seeing this again so there was a moratorium put in place to prevent all types of supportive housing facilities for a one-year period these two particular properties were part of a separate bridge resolution to include them in that one-year moratorium a study has been completed through the through staff that there were recommendations in it that are going through the Planning Commission now, but there was nothing in there that was related to this distance requirement. So I don't think there's anything new from the study that would change how we would analyze the appeal today. Thank you.

All right. Thanks, Mr. Ed. Thank you. Don't go too far. So this is an opportunity now for us to hear from the appellant. We'll have five minutes. So the appellant. The public hearing's been closed. Oh, I'm so sorry. The public hearing's closed. Never mind. It's been a year. I forgot. So I looked at Ms. Bowie.

Thank you, Council President. I appreciate the inclusiveness of the public hearing. But yeah, thank you again from staff for the refresher on this, as well as our attorney, Dan. on just where we're at with the completion of the study. I look forward to adopt the staff recommendations just based off of the findings. I don't see any error. I do think it's really important to explain the nuance, particularly around the The rationale we've seen in terms of the appeal is really more so funding related and not in our jurisdiction, particularly to make decisions based off funding alone, that this decision is based solely on our zoning laws. And out of the study, we don't see any changes with those distance requirements. I know it was my office that took lead to request that zoning study, just because we know that sober housing, congregate living, this type of supportive housing style is pretty prominent and necessary when we think about the need, particularly in Frogtown and the Randall community. But just based off of our existing code today, I don't see any errors, so I will be moving forward to adopt the staff's recommendation.

Thank you, Ms. Bowie. So the motion is to adopt staff's recommendation. Is there further discussion of the motion?

To deny the appeal.

To deny the appeal. Thank you.

To deny the appeal.

All right, any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Seven in favor, none opposed. The staff recommendation is adopted to deny the appeal. Item 15, ABZA 25-5, considering the appeal of Stronger Sovereign House to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals denying a variance request to establish a 11-resident supportive housing facility on the property at 519 Farrington Street.

Welcome back.

Thank you. David Eyde again, camera operated. Projector. Voice activated. Voice activated.

Since it's actually not voice activated, it doesn't matter.

I'm here for 519 Farrington Avenue, which is similar. ABZA 25-5 David Iden. 61702, same as the last case. If someone believes that there was an error in fact finding a procedure, they can appeal a decision that the BZA makes to city council. So that's why we're here. In this instance, 519 Farrington, this one was, or it is a sober house, which is a dwelling unit occupied by more than six persons, all of whom are in recovery from chemical dependency. And then in this instance, residents, they leave the site for any services. So this one's approved for seven people and the point of a sober house is you're exceeding the occupancy limit Which would be six adults typically a household in st. Paul So that this applicant wanted to convert to a supportive housing facility with 11 residents, which is a higher intensity use so as we saw in the last case, there are some distance there's a distance requirement of 1,320 feet And in this instance, there is one too close to it, obviously. It's 736 feet away for a variance request of 584, and received that application on May 9th, 2025. And I have a map with the property.

Sherburn and Barrington.

And then here is a map, and this is in the Lodgestar information, so anyone can look this up. just showing where the three properties are that are within 1,320 feet for variances that we just look at the closest and that's what the number of the variance is from. Okay, so the Board of Zoning Appeals held the hearing on June 9th, 2025. Staff recommended denial of the variances based upon findings one, three, and four, and six. And there wasn't a recommendation from District 7 regarding people in support. We received one letter in support and one letter that was in support, but then they withdrew it. And then for opposition, one person spoke, and then we received a transcribed voicemail. And then the board denied, based upon findings one, three, four, and six, which is in alignment with the staff recommendation. And then five of five members in attendance voted to deny. and then the applicant, they submitted an appeal application on July 23rd, 2025, and similar to the last case, the 1599 was paused during that moratorium, and the new deadline, September 2nd, 2026. So in this instance, there were four findings that were found not to be true, that it was in harmony with the general purpose and intent, that there were not practical difficulties, that there was not a plight, and that it would alter the central character. So for finding one regarding the variance needing to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning code, contrary to the intent, this would create a cluster which could create an institutional environment. So that one was found not to be true, or not to be met. Regarding practical difficulties, the intent is that the hardship's not self-created and the landowner cannot utilize the property in a reasonable way. The request staff and the board found that the request was financially driven, as their testimony primarily focused on the funding stream. and the property is owned H2, which does permit multiple units, and it's a viable house. I think the applicant would state that the house has been improved in ways that a typical house does not typically see. And then finding four, that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstance unique to the property not created by the landowner. This finding requires that the request be due to a hardship related to the property itself. As we saw with the prior case, the requested variance arises not from unique circumstances related to the land, but the applicant's desire to establish an 11-resident supportive housing facility. Because this separation requirement's not unique to this property, it does affect everyone else within that area. And then finding six. was also found not to be met that it would alter the central character of the surrounding area as it could create a cluster. All right, we're back to the beginning where it's up to the council if there's an error in fact finding a procedure. And you could grant the appeal or deny the appeal and then the deadline is September 2nd.

Great, thank you so much. Questions for staff? Seeing none, thanks, Mr. Hyde. Thank you. I would look to Ms. Bluey for a motion.

Well, thank you. I felt like we rewind and like started again. But thank you again for giving us that deep dive. And I'm moving forward to deny the appeal.

Motion is to deny the appeal. I assume for similar reasons to the previous item. Is there discussion of the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye.

All opposed? Seven in favor, none opposed. This recommendation of staff is adopted. The appeal is denied. And do we suspend it?

Yes. Take a motion from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Jost, to suspend the rules. To consider?

Resolution 26-1158. Actually, that will be a motion from Ms. Johnson.

Sorry about that. All in favor of suspending the rules, say aye. Aye.

All opposed. Seven in favor, none opposed. The rules are suspended. Resolution 26-1158, authorizing the city to renew its lease with Metropolitan State University for the Dayton's Bluff Library. Ms. Johnson.

Yes. Council President, thank you so much. This is essentially just to ensure that Dayton's Bluff Library is able to lease its space at Metro State University and keep our library. So with that, I'd move approval of that motion.

Thanks, Ms. Johnson. I believe it was due to a slight staff error in process that it didn't get into Lipscomb in time. So we're taking this under suspension. Any discussion of the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

Seven in favor, none opposed. The resolution is adopted. And now Councilmember Johnson will again move to suspend the rules. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Seven in favor, none opposed. The rules are suspended. Resolution 26-1223, authorizing the proper city officials to enter into a joint powers agreement with Ramsey County to exercise their common and cooperative powers to support the operation of emergency shelter facilities. Ms. Johnson.

Thank you, Council President. Earlier, we had a presentation with the Public Safety Committee and a discussion at length about the encampment response. In it, you heard County Manager Becker mention that Ramsey County had entered into a contract with Catholic Charities. You also heard her mention that there would be an application poll for emergency shelter providers. As such, the city would like to enter into a joint powers agreement. This comes pretty heightened and very sensitive in time, which is why I wanted to make a motion today to suspend those rules. And just for clarification, on the same council agenda as an administrative order already moving the financing, this is just establishing the agreement. And it's the resolution to approve the agreement itself. between the county and the city. And so with that, I also move a motion to approve the joint powers agreement.

Thank you, Ms. Johnson. And I will support the motion. And just high level, this is the city's attempt to further help the county in making sure that we are providing shelter to all of our neighbors. This is over $1 million in sort of emergency funding to help open up additional beds. And I'm glad that we're able to bring it forward quickly. I know we'll be talking more about that later today, and we've also talked about that more already today. Ms. Johnson.

Yeah, and just to clarify, the $880,000 that we have already reserved for emergency shelter providers, this resource was here at the city, and they've been working to try and get that out the door, and now the county feels that it can move that forward, and the application process is already open. And so the $880,000 is a part of that, and the additional $200,000 is going to go alongside the contract with Catholic Charities.

So there's a motion for approval of the Memorandum of Understanding. Is there any discussion of the motion? Ms. Bowie.

Thank you, Council President, and thank you so much, Chair Johnson. I just wanted to ensure that we have clarity, particularly around this. So you're saying this is the agreement, but the administrative order is for the budget amendment. If you could just disclose in terms of where the funding sources are. So we just kind of know. I know we just had our budget actuals with HRA meeting. I'm just wondering if that's the source of it.

Yeah. So the full amount in the contract that's in the agreement, the $1.8 million, is local affordable housing aid funding. So it's LAHA funding.

Thank you. Other discussion of the motion?

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Seven in favor, none opposed. The resolution is adopted. Item 16, Ordinance 26-32, Amending Appendix C of the Legislative Code Relating to Northern States Power, DBA, Xcel Energy, Electric Franchise.

So for those following along and our millions of viewers at home, we are now at the ordinance section of our agenda. You'll notice that there are items for final adoption, for first reading, and for public hearing. And that's because all of our ordinances, all of our laws in the city have to go through at least three readings. For the first reading, we have a staff report where we hear what the actual ordinance is about. The second reading the next week is a public hearing, where we hear testimony on that ordinance, and we get input from the public. And the third reading is final adoption. Sometimes we take more time. We might lay an item over longer. But at least three weeks in a row, an item has to be heard before it can be adopted. So you'll see here today the two items for final adoption have already had a staff report and a public hearing. So they'll be processed somewhat quickly here today, but they've already had a great deal of conversation. And then you'll see other items at the other stages. So with that, item 16 is before us for final adoption. I would look to Ms. Jost for a motion.

Thank you, Council President. I just want to thank all of our staff for their efforts on this item and the next one. And I'll move approval.

Thanks, Ms. Jost. And I do want to note that there was some questions raised in testimony last week about a need to update the tables that accompany this item. And we did follow up on that question with our city attorneys I believe the answer was that we did not need to update the tables.

That's that's my understanding, correct?

Okay.

Thank you for reminding us of that Yeah, no, I just wanted folks to know that we we followed up on that that question and we can share more Afterwards as well.

So the item is before us the motion is for approval any discussion of the motion.

I Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye. All opposed? Seven in favor, none opposed. The ordinance is adopted. Item 17, Ordinance 26-33, Amending Appendix B of the Legislative Code Relating to Northern States Power DBA Xcel Energy Gas Franchise.

Ms. Jost? I will make a motion for approval.

Motion is for approval. Is there any discussion of the motion?

Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed?

Seven in favor, none opposed. The ordinance is adopted. Item 18, Ordinance 26-27, Administrative Ordinance Placing the Classification Titled Deputy City Clerk in the Unclassified Service Pursuant to Section 12.03.2H of the City of St. Paul Charter. Then it must be approved by Civil Service Commission.

Great. So this is the first reading of this item, so we will have a staff report. Welcome up, Mr. Wilms.

Thank you, council president and council members. My name is Jay Willems, director of council operations. And so today is the first reading of an ordinance that establishes the deputy city clerk classification in the unclassified service. Notably, this ordinance doesn't create a new role, which is kind of counterintuitive to what's before you today. But actually, the deputy city clerk or the assistant city clerk has existed and been conceived of for well over a century. And so one of the earliest versions of our city charter established this role, and the legislature formally authorized the deputy city clerk position in 1965, and then it was approved by the city and contained within our charter. So the question before the council is essentially how that statutory position should fit within the city's personnel system, and should we create a classification to be able to assign people an employee to that position and compensate them appropriately and give them you know the authority under the law so the charter of the city of st paul fourth edition in 1911 the first charter was 1900 but through amendments kind of a piecemeal approach it was essentially recodified and revised significantly in the 1911 charter And Section 7 of that, Section 6 identified the need for a city clerk, but it was actually an elected member of the council. And then the assistant clerk was identified as someone that would be appointed and serve at the pleasure of the clerk and assist the city clerk and have the same responsibilities and assignments that the clerk has. Fast forward to 1965, different conception of the charter, But essentially, the 1965 special law was passed, basically granting approval from the legislature that the council could hire a deputy city clerk and allow them to perform public officer-like statutory functions, so fulfill legal requirements that exist in state law. So essentially, it created the statutory deputy city clerk. It would be designated by the council upon the recommendation of the city clerk and exercise the clerk's legal authority. And so during the clerk's absence or if the clerk leaves the city, the deputy shall have the same powers and duties as the city clerk. So similar to other appointments, this is a confidence-based appointment and should serve at the pleasure of the city clerk. So why establish a city clerk position? And I think there's a few reasons as contained on the slide. And so essentially it formalizes the role that the city has recognized as being necessary, provides a dedicated appointment that can be recruited, selected, and compensated based on its statutory responsibilities. So as opposed to having one title or classification, an individual within it, and then have them working in the role, but perhaps not compensating them or having a container under which you can recruit a position. And notably, deputy city clerk positions are not unique and not unique to St. Paul. Many other cities around the metro and the country hire for this type of role. And notably, as in the case of absence through illness or retirements, it ensures uninterrupted legal authority when the city clerk is absent or unavailable. And then finally, as discussed, it aligns the authority, the accountability, and compensation within a single position. One of the questions that's come up is why unclassified? And I think the key thing is that the structure indicates and makes the case for an appointed position. And importantly, I think when the special law was passed, it didn't merely assign extra duties to the clerk, but it created a statutory deputy. And it gives the deputy the authority to act in the clerk's absence and fulfill express requirements under the law. So essentially, this aligns what we have in history with the position, with what's in that 1965 law, with our personnel structure. And also, one of the key benefits is that it's a consistent approach also within our organizational design A lot of our key executive positions within the council, such as the chief policy officer or the chief hearing officer, which was passed by the council previously, have roles beneath it that actually lead into those positions. So this is a similar approach to what has been done for policy analysts and also for our hearing officer series. So in short, in summary, it's an unclassified appointment consistent with charter authorization, provides the opportunity to have a separate compensation reflecting the duties and authority, allows for a seamless delegated legal authority for people to fulfill those requirements, and would be appointed by the council upon recommendation of the clerk. And I'll also close by saying this is just the initial step. There are additional steps in the process. This would need to pass the Civil Service Commission. and then be signed by the mayor. After that, we would need to post for the position, have a merit-based open screening process, select someone in partnership with the clerk who would recommend that, and then we would pass the resolution to hire.

Great. Thank you so much for the staff report. Are there any questions for Mr. Wilms? Ms. Coleman, and then I see Ms. Johnson.

Thanks, Council President. Thanks, Mr. Wilms. And I've shared some of these in our conversations. I am excited. It makes good sense to me to have a deputy city clerk. I'm concerned about the unclassified aspect of it. And I guess I'm just curious if you could say a little bit more. This also might be a question for Mr. Staley about if there are legal incompatibilities. I understand that there would be differences in the rule to some extent if we were to make it a union position. But I'm wondering if there would be sort of fundamental incompatibilities that would make the deputy city clerk no longer a viable position if it were to be a classified role.

Yeah, I think there's a couple people I think that could answer the question. I'll take the first shot at it, Council President and Council Member Coleman. I think one of the key things is under the classified service, it exists to have stable employment and really has certain protections and essentially it is not a like confidence appointment, as we call them. And I think, you know, what's reflected in the 1965 law indicates that, you know, it may serve at the pleasure of the clerk. And I think in some ways that's, you know, incompatible with, you know, classified service and how that's conceived of. But I'm not sure if...

I guess I would defer to our HR attorneys and stay beyond my expertise, but I can follow up and do that for you.

Thank you. Thanks, Ms. Coleman. And we do have time since we'll have public hearing, final adoption in a few weeks. So, Ms. Johnson.

Yes, I just had one question. Director Walms, and it was just around budgeting for the position once classified. So just, is that within the city council's operations budget at this time to hire on staff, or is this a fiscal year, 2017?

Yeah, Council President Naker and Council Member Johnson, we typically will have an amount of natural budget savings through attrition, vacancies, et cetera. We occasionally have people working out of title to fill certain roles. And in certain cases, when they're placed out of title, they can make additional salary. So we would have a posting for the position. And prior to that posting, we'd do an analysis of the budget to see if we could account for it within our current budget or make a request to hire for that. But oftentimes, it can either be done within year or more often at the start of the next fiscal year.

OK, thank you.

Thank you, are there any further questions of staff?

Ms. Johnson. Could you just share, is the clerk position classified?

The clerk is an unclassified position, and a lot of these key positions, such as mine, unclassified at city attorney, city clerk, a lot of these more executive roles have been consistently unclassified.

Okay. And so this would be an appointed position as well under that. Okay. Thank you.

Great. Any other questions? All right. Thanks so much. Mr. Walms, and this item will... Yep, this item will be laid over.

Item 19, Ordinance 26-31, amending Section 224.05C of the Legislative Code to eliminate the city's provisional 90-day minimum wage rate in the city of St. Paul for workers between the ages of 14 and 17.

And this is also a first reading, so we will also have a staff report. Welcome up. Thank you.

Thank you, Council President, Council Members. My name is Stephanie Boehmer. I am the Human Rights and Labor Standards Manager within the City of St. Paul Human Rights and Equal Economic Opportunity Department. And so, let me just make sure this is...

I always mess this up.

There we go. So our Labor Standards Division enforces a number of ordinances for the city, including the city's minimum wage ordinance. And this ordinance sets a minimum wage rate specifically for individuals who are employees who are performing work within the city of St. Paul. And so I'll explain this chart. There's a lot on here, but essentially, You'll see in the top row, there is a city rate that is set for the employees that perform work in the city of St. Paul. Currently, it's at 1637. Since it was put in place in 2018, there's been a phased approach based on business size. So within the next two years, the city rate for all business sizes, regardless of number of employees, will reach that city rate, which currently is at 1637. So in those first three rows, that's why there's some differentiation there for the different phases that those sizes of employers are at. And then just to explain too, for the top right corner, the to be determined rate that will be effective January 1, 2027, the city minimum wage rate is adjusted annually for inflation. So that's what that reflects. And then specifically for today, to speak more about the repeal on the youth rate that's being proposed or brought forward, the bottom row in here is what indicates what the youth rate is, which I will expand upon. So there's two exceptions that apply to youth employees in regard to the minimum wage. The first is the 90-day youth wage. This applies to any employees who are between the ages of 14 and 17. Instead of receiving that city rate, they're receiving 85% of what the small business minimum wage rate is at. They're receiving that lower rate for the first 90 days after hire. And then after the 90 days, they are then receiving the full minimum wage rate based on the size of the employer. The second exception that is currently within the minimum wage ordinance is the youth-focused training program rates. That one is for any city-approved youth-focused training or apprenticeship program. So those are specific types of programs that usually have different, other than the employment itself, have different training, job preparedness, job readiness type aspects to those programs. Those would apply to any employees that are under the age of 20. And this rate applies throughout the participation in that program. It isn't just limited to the first 90 days. And again, it's the same rate as for the 90 days. So it's 85% of the small business minimum wage rate that those employees are receiving. Just for comparison or as a reference otherwise in the state of Minnesota, for the youth-focused training programs, for the state of Minnesota, they have a similar carve-out, as well as for the city of Minneapolis, they have a similar carve-out for those types of programs. When it comes to the 90-day youth rate wage exception, the state of Minnesota also has a similar 90-day youth wage. The city of Minneapolis does not.

Yeah, any questions for me?

Any questions for Ms. Behmer? Ms. Johnson?

I just would ask as a follow-up, I think it would be really helpful for this consideration for me to really understand the financial piece of it. So this gets eliminated when it is implemented. What's the estimated estimate? cost that would be for the wages that would be now back at the max, I guess, max of the max city level?

So if the, and again, my understanding, so the proposal is of these two just is the 90-day youth wage would be removed from the ordinance is what's being proposed. So going back to this chart here, so in the middle column right now, Any of the, for most employers at this point that have six employees or more, the city rate is $16.37. Micro employers with five or fewer employees right now are at $14.25. So those are what the rates would then be if we were to not have that youth rate. So anyone regardless of age, instead of that, the difference between that $13.95 and then for micro businesses, that difference between $13.95 and the $14.25 or and then for the other size of businesses between $13.95 and $16.37. And it would just be for the first 90 days after hire. But regardless, after 90 days from hire, even at this point, they go up to those regular rates.

OK, thank you.

And just to be clear, the proposal is to eliminate the youth minimum wage for the first 90 days. In other words, young people would make the same amount as older people from the get-go in the job. Yep. Thank you. Ms. Kim.

Yes, and with the exception if they're in a training program. But I have an engagement question. So we've got some really great youth groups that are connected to the city. It's like Spicy, Youth on Boards. We also have Right Track students that are in Right Track right now. I'm wondering what sort of outreach and engagement efforts have been made specifically to youth regarding the changes to the youth minimum wage ordinance?

Can you speak to that a little bit? Thanks for the question. It's a really good one. So our office has had conversations with individual young people who are employed. We have reached out to Youth on Boards as kind of an official organization, have also done outreach to the business community, small business community, just to make sure that we're not unduly having a negative impact on our city's small businesses, especially since we know so many of them are in a hard place this year in particular. So that's the outreach that we focused on. We've gotten all positive feedback at this point, including from the young folks we've connected with. But I think that's a great suggestion of potentially other folks who could bring in. And the other conversations that we've had that I think folks here are aware of, but I think that training wage, we've had a number of conversations with. We've had some conversations with folks in Right Track. There's a variety of perspectives on it. And I think consensus from the conversations we've had is that let's focus on youth minimum wage for now. but the training wage might be worth revisiting, particularly in a broader conversation around Right Track and sort of how we do training programs like that in the city.

I think just to follow up, I know Council President was just at Youth On Boards and presenting. It's just they're kind of there right now. And I think they would obviously really love to provide input and probably a lot of support for the ordinance. So I think it would be just a great opportunity. So I'm happy to make some connections. But I can only imagine them wanting to lift their voice in support of this. So that would be fantastic. We have a whole two weeks to let them know before the public hearing.

Any further questions before we lay this matter over until public hearing?

Don't see any. Thank you so much, Ms. Boehmer. Thank you.

The ordinance is laid over. Item 20, Ordinance 26-35, amending Chapter 65 of the Legislative Code pertaining to golf courses.

So this brings us to the public hearing section of our agenda. I just want to, once again, for those who weren't here at the very beginning, recognize that I know a number of folks are here to speak about the encampment closures. We are having a special meeting and public hearing about that starting as soon as this meeting is over, hopefully as close to 430 as possible. So That is when we will be speaking about that issue. For the next few items, we'll ask folks to come up only if you're speaking on this item. And there are two minutes to testify. We ask that you start with your name, where you're coming from, You'll have two minutes, and then please sign in on either of the two sign-in sheets when you're done. So this is a public hearing on, oh, I'm so sorry, before we hold this public hearing, we promise not to forget, there's a motion from Ms. Jost.

Thank you, Council President. I'd like to make a motion to move version two for this item. There's a recommendation to clarify some of the language from the city attorney's office, basically to specify, it says golf courses that are equipped with lighting for night use, She'll not operate such outdoor lighting after 10 o'clock. So to make sure it's specific to the lighting and not to any other operations at the golf course. And so I wanted to make sure I move version two before the public hearing. Great.

Thank you so much. So this is a public hearing. If you're here on item 20, please come on up. Do I have to move it? Oh, I'm so sorry. We should probably vote on it first. We will take a motion from Ms. Jost to move version two, and then we'll hold the public hearing. All in favor of version two, please say aye. Aye. All opposed?

Seven in favor, none opposed. Version two will be considered.

So this is now a public hearing on the recently amended item 20. If you're here on that item, this is your public hearing.

All right. All good.

Yes, there's plenty of room on this side. I meant to say that earlier as well, so feel free if you need to space out. Seeing none, I will take a motion from Ms. Jost to close the public hearing, and this matter will lay over until final adoption on August 5th. All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

Seven in favor, none opposed. The ordinance is laid over for final adoption. Item 21, ordinance 26-36, adding chapter 86.13 to the administrative code to require city council approval of mixed municipal solid waste contracts.

This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak to this item? Welcome up.

Thank you, Council President, Council Members. John Purdy from St. Paul Westside. Just having read this, I had a few questions. And the first one, if we can turn that on, maybe you can see it better. Here we go.

Yep, it'll be on in a second.

All right, just give me a few seconds off my time clock.

We need the voice-activated projector.

There we go. It's there. Okay. So just where you can see my pen, that screen doesn't show me what I want to see, but I'll assume it's visible to you. Yep, we can see it. It's saying elective legislative body. So that's you all. And the previous couple of items on the agenda were quasi-judicial having to do with some – ABCA hearings. And so we go down further, and why I'm confused is because further down in the Section 2 of the ordinance, it's talking about quasi-judicial as being applicable to your decisions over a garbage hauling bill, a garbage hauling contract. So I'm trying to figure out what your authority actually is getting at here. That's my question. Just moving to the actual contract that's in effect today. It reads a lot like the bill you've got. Whereas the city has found and determined that the public health and safety of the city will be promoted and preserved by establishing an arrangement for the collection, transportation, and disposal of municipal solid waste, That's the way the contract reads today. The contract wasn't signed by the city council. The city council didn't have a lot of input into it. The most important part of that would come before the actual signing of the contract. It would come where you read letter B, whereas the city released a request for proposals, RFP. That's where the decision-making process comes in. You have to get into it on the front end. You can't just be given a contract that's already been out for quote, and now it's ready to sign. You've got to have your input ahead of that. A lot of things... Am I done with my time already? No, there was a lot of time that got used up earlier. Just let me conclude. A couple of seconds, thank you. Yeah, but you didn't get me right away. Here is your 443.18. That's your authority that allows you to take this... this authority for yourselves, and it's yours to take. But it reads that the city council has the authority, and you have to have a three-quarter vote to determine these things. Now, this all came up a year ago, and it came up again before this meeting, so I'm just here because I didn't get a good answer. If the city attorney wants to give it, I'd be glad to hear it.

I didn't mean to stop you there. I really appreciate it. I did get that question via email, and I will make sure to respond before we consider this further. So thank you so much. Thank you. And thank you for articulating it in front of my colleagues as well. Is there anyone else here to testify on this item? Seeing none, I will move to close the public hearing. And this matter will lay over till August 5th. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed?

Seven in favor, none opposed. The ordinance is laid over for final adoption. Item 22, resolution public hearing 26-150, amending the financing and spending plans in the Department of Public Works capital budget to transfer municipal state aid funding into the Wabasha Bridge rehabilitation project.

This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak on this item? Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms. Coleman to close the public hearing and approve. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed.

Seven in favor, none opposed. The resolution is adopted. Item 23, resolution public hearing 26-151, amending the financing and spending plans in the Department of Public Works capital budget for the University Avenue Street Reconstruction Project.

This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak to this item? Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms. Bui to close the public hearing and approve. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed?

Seven in favor, none opposed. The resolution is adopted. Item 24, resolution public hearing 26-155, approving the application of the Department of Parks and Rec for a sound level variance in order to present amplified sound for a national night out event Tuesday, August 4th at 271 McEwen Street, Martin Luther King Rec Center.

This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak to this item? Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms. Bui to close the public hearing and approve. All in favor, say aye. Aye.

All opposed? Six in favor, none opposed. The resolution is adopted. Item 25, resolution public hearing approving the application of Dual Citizen Brewing Company for a sound level variance in order to present amplified sound for a Backyard Blues Fest event on Friday, August 7th, Saturday, August 8th at 725 Raymond, Dual Citizen Brewing.

This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak to this item? Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms. Coleman to close the public hearing and approve. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed?

Six in favor, none opposed. The resolution is adopted. Item 26, RLHTA 26-125, ratifying the appealed special tax assessment for property at 720 Cottage Avenue East.

Ms. Moorman. Council President, this is an item that was continued from last week to make sure that the council's vote is recorded. You did receive a staff report, and the public hearing was closed.

Look to Ms. Kim for a motion.

Move.

Moving the legislative hearing officer's recommendation. Is there a discussion of the motion? All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed. The resolution is adopted. Legislative hearing consent agenda items 30 through 36 are before you for your consideration.

Ms. Mormont. Council President, item number 34, we have the owner here to testify.

Item 34, RLH-SAO 26-50, making finding on the appeal of Gary Grimes to a nuisance abatement ordered for 314 Wyoming Street East and counseled by RLH-SOA 26-46. Ms. Mormont.

Good afternoon, Council President. What we have in this case is a vehicle abatement order. The orders were originally issued in early May for the removal of, we had two vehicles and a trailer. We are down to having one vehicle at this time that is left, and Mr. Grimes would like a further extension because we are past the early July extension, and this is a follow-up from that. Council gives an extension. You follow up and find out if it's done or not. It isn't done yet. And so the recommendation in front of you is to make a finding that it is not done and authorize the department to take action to complete the abatement.

Thank you, Ms. Mormont. Are there any questions for staff? Seeing none, we'll now hold a public hearing on this item. Please come on up, sir. You'll have two minutes. Make sure to start with your name and where you're coming from. And make sure to focus on your ask for the counsel, because two minutes do go by quickly.

Yep. My name is Gary Grimes. I'm from Cottage Grove, Minnesota. This is on the matter of 314 Wyoming Street. I just need a little bit more time on that particular car. I had worked on the other vehicle and got it out of there. And this one here, I'm doing it for my ex here, which I've been, like I said, it's kind of hard getting it done because I'm at her house a lot helping her because she's got scoliosis, so she's got such a bad back. So I'm trying to get this car done so she's got a vehicle. I mean, I got pictures of it too.

How much more time do you need?

I like to have at least three more weeks at least. If that's possible.

Three more weeks.

If not, I'm going to try it. Hopefully within the next two weeks, just get it to my house so I can finish working on it. There are more. This makes it easier for me.

Thank you. Do you have any other testimony?

No, that's it.

Thank you, sir. Make sure to sign in.

Okay.

Is there anyone else here to testify on this item? Seeing none, I will move to close the public hearing. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed?

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

Ms. Moorman, I would like to move to grant an additional three weeks for the vehicle to be removed. So that would take us to August 12th.

Yes. Can I ask for the council to continue the public hearing then to August 19th, and we can have a finding about whether or not the deadline was met for you at that time?

Yes. I will revise my motion accordingly. And will you please make sure to communicate with Mr. Grimes about the plan? All right, so that's my motion. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed?

Seven in favor, none opposed. The public hearing is continued to August 19.

That brings us to, is there anything else for separate consideration? Not that I'm aware of. Right, then we will hold a public hearing on all the remaining legislative hearing items. If there's anyone here to speak to any of these legislative hearing items, this is your public hearing. Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Vice President Yang to close the public hearing and approve the recommendations and amendations of the legislative hearing officer on all the items. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed?

Seven in favor, none opposed. The legislative hearing consent agenda is adopted as amended.

OK, so we are going to adjourn in just a moment. And then we are going to reconvene our special meeting. We're going to give folks just a minute, if they were only here for this meeting, to be able to exit. And we're going to give folks a minute, if they're still in the hallway and they're here for the next meeting, to come in. And then we will get started. So we are adjourned.

is safer. St. Paul has lowered speed limits on all city streets. Many busy streets are now posted at a slower speed limit of 25 miles per hour. Residential side streets are now 20 miles per hour. If there are no speed signs on the street it is a 20 mile per hour street. Let's make our streets safer for every one of us. Keep our neighbors safe. Drive slower and with caution in St. Paul.

Thank you.

St. Paul has lowered speed limits on all city streets. Many busy streets are now posted at a slower speed limit of 25 miles per hour. Residential side streets are now 20 miles per hour. If there are no speed signs on the street, it is a 20 mile per hour street. Let's make our streets safer for every one of us. Keep our neighbors safe. Drive slower and with caution in St. Paul.

Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back.