City Council - Regular Meeting

🎵 Thank you.

Wait, what am I doing?

Thank you. Thank you. Call the meeting of the St. Paul City Council to order. Roll call, please. Bowie, Coleman. Here.

Johnson.

Here.

Jost. Here. Kim.

Here.

Yang.

Here.

Council President Nacre. Here.

Six present, one absent, who is expected shortly. Thanks to everyone for joining us for our city council meeting today. We invite everyone to join us in standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Consent items seven through 30 are before you for your consideration. I know we are pulling item 30 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? Six in favor, none opposed. The consent agenda is adopted as amended. Item 30, resolution 26-1253, directing the city clerk to notify the county auditor to place a ballot question on the November 3, 2026 ballot regarding allowing tenants to make repairs to their building and approving the title and language for that ballot question.

And this is an item on which we recently received some advice from the city attorney's office regarding conflicts between the language of the ordinance and state law that could create some risk to the city. So I think it's important for us to have conversation about this item. I guess looking to you, Mr. Staley, if there's anything that you can add or confirm about that.

I'll just confirm that our office did recently send out a memorandum to council members coming to the conclusion that the ordinance

And the city attorney's memo also opined that if there's a case where there's that conflict, that the council is not required to put the item on the ballot and has the option to have discussion about that. So I wanted to open this up for conversation to my colleagues and also see if there's a motion. Vice President.

Thanks, Council President. I just want to say overall, at the end of my comments here, I'm going to move for an approval of the resolution here. I do want to first say thank you to our city attorneys for the work that you did in providing a memo to us. To me, being an elected official, it's really important for me to be making informed decisions. And that's inclusive of what I hear from you all, also from community members and advocates who are putting these sort of items in front of us for discussion and for a vote too. And the list goes on and on about who gets involved as part of that equation there. I do want to say overall I'm very supportive of this resolution here and wanted to just share that, you know, as I think about the past few years on the council here, we've had ballot initiatives come up in our city and overall for me, like no matter what the topic is, it's always been very exciting to see that level of engagement and like the organization and the connection in our communities and And most importantly, the organic conversations that happen as part of our democracy for a city that does have a ballot, this sort of system where folks can petition and put an item on the ballot. And I think a lot about family members, friends that I have who live in third world countries where they don't have this sort of option in front of them. And actually, if they were to voice their opinion at all about anything political, their lives could be put at risk. And so it's very grounding to me as I Anytime I take up a vote like this and just have a lot of deep gratitude for all of the folks involved in even putting this in front of the council here. And so I do want to give credit to Safe Homes St. Paul for the work that they have done, the incredible work they've done to really engage with community members. to make sure that they are having a sufficient number of petition signatures to even get this in front of us. And just the ways in which they've really connected with tenants, especially in our city, knowing that we are a city where more than half of our residents are renters. And so I wanted to share overall that In addition to the comments I made, while I understand that our city attorneys, they do have concerns, I also want to point out that in Duluth, this is the exact same language that was passed in their city. And Duluth Tenants Union was the group that had organized for the initiative in their city. They were successful. I also learned in conversations I've had with members and leaders of Safe Homes St. Paul that the lieutenants have been very content and pleased with their ordinance. And I want to take a very wild guess that it's probably because the ordinance is working the way that it was meant to. And so in also recognizing that Safe Home St. Paul has met the legal requirements to get this in front of us and put it on the ballot, just again, really justifies why I am very confident in a vote to support this. And wanted to just overall say to my colleagues too, I really urge you to leave it to our voters. I hold our St. Paul voters capable. of being able to cast a vote, letting us know where they stand on this initiative. And so looking forward to hearing thoughts from the rest of my colleagues here.

Thanks, Vice President. I'll take that as a motion for approval. I saw Ms. Johnson.

Yeah, I really appreciate just being able to talk about this as a council member who is leading on tenant protections. Tenant protections is honestly truly at the core value of one of the reasons why I honestly really got involved in local politics and local work overall. There was rent stabilization and tenant protections, two issues that I hold pretty near and dear both personally and also in my role as a council member in one of the wards where I would argue that a right to repair ordinance in place would be very, very helpful from my constituents. And I just want to be clear that it wasn't just a legal memo or conversations that came through that brought in on the final hour with legal concerns. For community members that are wondering about this, the right to repair ordinance was deemed unlawful. actually was seen as a conflict of state law. It was seen to potentially violate the United States Constitution in different areas. And it also was deemed to unconstitutionally avoid for vagueness in the ordinance written as is. As a council member, one of the things that's really important to me, if we do put a ballot initiative or something on the ballot that voters in St. Paul fully understand and know exactly what they're voting on. And this ordinance doesn't, this wouldn't actually allow council members to retroactively fix, alter, change language at all. And even if something will seem to hold up as a consequence or a question, we wouldn't be able to do anything for at least a year in that regard. It would go into effect right away. There are There are differences between Duluth Municipality and St. Paul Municipality, which is why you can't necessarily copy and paste an ordinance from another city and expect it to work the same in the other city. That's also why you would work with the elected officials as well in those steps. You don't have to. But it is always great and advantageous to do so, especially when you have a council that unanimously approved tenant protections the second time around. i was really disappointed in just how late i will say as a tenant protections author who brought it back i was engaged in the issue and it honestly was brought to us as really like a take it or leave it that type of both like mentality but also just unwillingness to negotiate or even talk through a way to not make it lawful to not you know to not negotiate terms to make sure that we are abiding by the constitution To also bring something here at the city that we can enforce if passed, to me, would be disingenuous if I voted yesterday. So I'll be voting against the motion. But I just wanted to share that for folks who are looking outside, because it's not just a matter of putting a ballot initiative on the ballot. It's a matter of making sure that what you're putting on the ballot, if passes, can be actually enforceable as you intended, so we aren't setting voters up for failure. I can't confidently say that this does that, especially with the legal advice that was given.

Thanks, Ms. Johnson. Is there further discussion? Ms. Jost?

Thanks, Council President. I also won't be supporting the motion. And for me, it's not about the topic of the petition before us. You know, when we have petitions come before us and that they meet the requirements for the number of signatures. Every time I've been here, we've supported those. But for me, this is about the concerns around the legalities of the language that's coming before us and could potentially go to the voters. Because if the voters, when they vote on it, and you're voting yes, you're voting no, if it passes, the voters expect it to be implemented. And if we have a petition where we have language that's conflicting with other laws and we cannot meet what is expected when folks are going to be voting on it, then that doesn't serve the purpose and it doesn't serve the job that we do. And so I will be voting no. Thanks, Ms. Just.

Is there other discussion? Ms. Kim.

Yeah, I'm going to be supportive of the motion. I agree. I feel like ushering in ballot initiatives and allowing the electorate to point the direction of our legislation is the foundation of our democracy. I hear the concerns. Personally, we're a pretty big fish in the city. I think there are ways that on the front end, we think the sky is going to fall, and in the end, it ends up being okay. So for me, this is a risk that I'm willing to take on behalf of tenants in the city, and I'm looking forward to supporting the motion.

Thanks, Ms. Kim.

Vice President. Thanks, Council President. I'll just share some of my final thoughts as I was listening to my colleagues speak, which is, I mean, if this doesn't get approved today, I'm very interested in seeing basically what does it look how does that play out for us? During my time on the council, I don't believe we have voted down an item like this before. And while I understand that there are concerns from colleagues, I mean, we weren't at the table in Duluth. We don't know what sort of information, legal advice they have received as they were considering an item very similar to this in their city. And so that being said, for me, And knowing that they have approved this and it's been passed by their voters, I'm concerned about the sort of precedence that this would set. And knowing that Safe Homes St. Paul has met the legal requirements to get this on the ballot too, I'm also concerned what that would mean for us if we were to vote down this item. Yeah. Thanks. Thanks, Vice President.

I appreciate the thoughtful discussion. I will just say I agree with a lot that has been said. I just want to add a couple things that came to mind while my colleagues were speaking. I think one of them is just that I think I hear around this table a lot of shared values in terms of concern for tenants and their ability to have the right to remedy actions, to take action in their homes if their landlords are not doing that. I think the question isn't so much about that. that right and that value as much as it is about the specific language in the ordinance that has been drafted and put in front of us. And I think there are, to your point, Vice President, there are options to move forward with different pieces of legislation, different ways of remedying those actions, working with the folks who brought this to us, even if we don't put the specific language on the ballot. The other thing that I'm thinking about is, as someone who's been part of a ballot campaign, it is a ton of work to go through that process. It's a ton of work to campaign. And I would hate to have all of that happen and get to the point where something is adopted that truly cannot be implemented. From the organizer's perspective, but also from tenants' perspective, I don't want, as Councilmember Johnson said I think really well, for tenants to believe that something is the case that actually we can't implement or enforce, not to mention the legal risks that it sounds like we open ourselves up to. So I will also be voting against the motion. It sounds like at this point we have all spoken, so I think at this point I would call for a roll call vote.

Bowie? Coleman? No. Johnson?

No.

Jost? No. Kim? Yes. Yang? Aye. Council President Nacre? No. Would you like to vote? No. No. So that is two in favor, five opposed. The resolution fails. Item 31, Ordinance 26-35, amending Chapter 65 of the Legislative Code pertaining to golf courses.

And for those of you who are not our regular millions of viewers on YouTube, this brings us to the ordinance section of our agenda. All ordinances before the council have to have three readings. At the first reading, a staff report is given to tell us what's in the ordinance. At the second reading, we have a public hearing where we take public testimony on the ordinance. And then at our third reading or later, if we need time for amendments, is final adoption. So you'll see that we're in the section right now of final adoption. All of these two items have both had at least two previous readings in conversation. So at this point, I would look to Council Member Jost for a motion on item 31.

Thanks, Council President. Well, I really appreciate all of the effort that has been put in for this ordinance. I know we've got folks from Parks here today, and we've been working on this for quite some time. So I will make a motion to approve this item. And just for those tuning in today, it's basically modifying the language in our code around golf courses where there was language that You could not have miniature golf and also that golf courses could not be lighted for night use and now we're changing that language To remove the part where you can't have miniature golf courses and also that golf courses that are equipped for lighting Which in this case right now would apply to the Highland National Driving Range They can operate until 10 p.m. And so I'm really excited to see this come forth this is going to be expanding programming at the golf course and so that more folks can come out and use it, and also adding to the revenue that we'll be receiving as a city for that additional programming. And so I'm really excited to open up the golf course even more to our entire community.

Thanks so much, Ms. Jost. Thanks for your leadership on this. So that's a motion for approval. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

All opposed? Seven in favor, none opposed. The ordinance is adopted. Item 32, Ordinance 26-36, adding Chapter 86.13 to the Administrative Code to require City Council approval of mixed municipal solid waste contracts.

And I will move approval of this item with great thanks to my legislative aide, Megan Jeckett, and to the City Attorney's Office and the West 7th Fort Road Federation for their comments. 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 33, 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. Must be approved by the Civil Service Commission after adoption by City Council but prior to Mayor's signature.

This brings us to the public hearing section of our agenda. So if you're here to testify on an item, when your item is called, we ask you to please come up to the front, stand in between those two microphones. You don't need to adjust them at all. And actually, we ask that you not adjust them at all. You don't need to bend over towards them. Just stand up straight. They'll pick you up just fine. You'll have two minutes, which go by quickly. There is a timer right in front of you. So help me help you help us stay on the two minutes. And at the end, please make sure to sign in, or beforehand, on either of the two sign-in sheets. So with that, this is a public hearing on item 33. Whoever is first, welcome up.

Good afternoon. My name is Chelsea Berry. I am the treasurer from AFSCME Clerical to Local 2508. I'm an executive assistant in Parks, and I live in Ward 5. Today, I am reading an abridged version of a letter you received this week signed by all three arms of AFSCME and PEA. I urge you to read the full letter and review the employment history attached to it. AFSCME Local 2508 St. Paul Clerical strongly urges you to reject making the deputy city clerk an appointed position. This ordinance is harmful and disrespectful to union employees. There is no clear need for this role to be nonrepresented. We urge you to recreate the role of deputy city clerk in a certified capacity entitled to representation either within AFSCME or one of our multiple sibling unions. The reasons for our opposition are this position would do work that is currently done by a union employee. This will result in the loss of a union job. And the deputy clerk role should remain as a civil service position to allow for greater continuity of service in the clerk's office. The statement that this position needs to be appointed to allow for signing authority is simply untrue. Many official legally binding documents are signed by union represented staff on behalf of the city every day. Our city's history of previous deputy city clerks with union representation further disproves this stated need. It is understood that a deputy city clerk is needed. Since early November, one of our AFSCME 2508 members has carried out the majority of these responsibilities while working out of title. This underscores the need for the job and also the fact that it aligns with the work of union represented employees. It is not understood why this position should go without a contract or collective bargaining. Union representation is not a barrier to professional compensation or operational efficiency. Employees should not have to choose between promotions and labor rights. There are multiple paths that would allow the deputy city clerk to remain in a union. We look forward to discussing those options with you. Please oppose this ordinance and affirm that the deputy city clerk position deserves union representation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Make sure to sign in. Welcome up. And anyone who's here to speak, I would just ask if you wouldn't mind lining up for this, for any item, just so we can get a sense of who's here. Welcome.

Hello. Hi, council members. My name is Kristen Kojal. I am a 13-year employee of the city of St. Paul and a Ward 5 resident. You will all know me because I work in your offices. I'm not making my comments today as a city council employee. but instead in my capacity as a board member of AFSCME Clerical Local 2508. Our local represents over 500 city employees within basically every department. What you are being asked to consider today is the creation of a non-union position within your office. What isn't said in the text of this ordinance is that this title will remove one of the 11 union positions within your office. I'd ask that you consider whether a reduction of union jobs in any city department is acceptable. Asking union employees to compromise their values and leave a union job at the promise of more pay is at its most charitable, a textbook example of union busting, and more bluntly should be considered elitist and classist. St. Paul has strong union roots, as does the state of Minnesota. In a federal landscape that is stripping workers of rights and union protections, you have the opportunity to stand firm in your values and stand with union workers.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Make sure to sign in. Welcome up.

Hello, Paul Tischler. I live in the North End and serve on Local 2508's e-board and wanted to share some quick thoughts regarding the deputy clerk position. The materials online reference the city charter and statute as one of the reasons for the deputy clerk to be in an appointed position. However, that was not the most recent practice just 10 years ago, as our locals shared with council in our letter. I don't know how council squares that with the previous practice. What this seems to be about is control and removing an employee's ability to collectively bargain, as was afforded to the previous employees who served in this role. A higher level position with the appropriate authority, compensation, and accountability can still be a union position as seen by the various of various high-level manager positions within the St. Paul Supervisors Organization. I find it concerning to hear it insinuated that no employee in a union representative position has the authority, compensation, or accountability that they need to do their job on behalf of the communities that we serve. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Make sure to sign in. Welcome up.

Hello, Council. I'm Tom Bashan from Highland Park and your colleague. I just wanted to say that this position would be great as a union job. It's been done as a union job, and I think we should keep on that line. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Make sure to sign in. Is anyone else here to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will make a motion to close the public hearing. This matter will lay over until August 12th. for final adoption. All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed. Seven in favor, none opposed. The public hearing is closed. The ordinance is laid over. Item 34, 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.

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. This matter will lay over till August 12th. All in favor, say aye.

Aye. All opposed? Seven in favor, none opposed. The ordinance is laid over. Item 35, resolution public hearing 26-167, amending the STAR budget to include a one-time transfer in the amount of $400,000 from the Housing and Redevelopment Authority Enterprise Fund for the commercial corridors program citywide.

This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak to this item? Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms. Johnson 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 36, resolution public hearing 26-132, authorizing the Department of Parks and Recreation to amend the financing and spending plan in the amount of $250,000 to accept local trail connections grant program funds from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for improving trail connections into and within the parkland adjacent to the mounds maintenance facility and to enter into an agreement with the DNR, which includes an indemnification clause.

This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak to this item? Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms. Johnson 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 37, resolution public hearing 26-160, amending the Parks and Recreation 2026 grant and aid fund for a $2,285,000 donation from Como Friends, a nonprofit to promote, support, preserve, and enhance the Como Zoo and Marjorie McNeely Conservatory.

This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak to this item? Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms. Kim 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 38, resolution public hearing 26-162, authorizing the police department to accept the donation from the St. Paul Police Foundation in the amount of $35,000 and amending the 2026 grant budget and adding activity budget.

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 39, resolution public hearing 26-164, authorizing the police department to amend the 2026 grant and activity budget in the amount of $25,000 for the 2025 port security grant.

This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak to this item? Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Vice President Yang 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 40, Resolution Public Hearing 26-163, Amending the Budget for the City Council Office Renovation Project and Approving the Internal Loan Document for the Project.

This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak to this item? Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms. Jost 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 41, resolution public hearing 26-170, authorizing the acceptance of $50,000 in total grant funding from the Rocky Mountain Institute, which requires no match for the purchase of two curbside EV charges and the associated site work required, and authorizing the execution of a grant agreement and amending the financing and spending in the public works grant budget in the amount of $50,000. 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? Seven in favor, none opposed. The resolution is adopted. Item 42, resolution public hearing 26-157, amending the financing and spending plans in the fire department in the amount of $202.88 for the donation from the St. Paul Fire Foundation to support the Fire Explorers Program.

This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak to this item? Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms. Kim 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 43, Resolution Public Hearing 26-165, authorizing the city through its fire department to amend a joint powers agreement with the state of Minnesota through its state fire marshal division to provide a hazardous materials response learn and amend response team and amend the 2026 financing and spending plans for the fire department in the amount of $360,000.

This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak to this item? Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms. Bowie 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 44, resolution public hearing 26-168, authorizing the fire department to amend the financing and spending plans in the fire department in the amount of $500,000 to pay for training and equipment for the Minnesota Air Rescue Team.

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. Seven in favor, none opposed. The resolution is adopted. Item 45, resolution public hearing 26-173, amending the financing and spending plans in the fire department in the amount of $21,131.47 for the Minnesota Task Force 1 reimbursement from the city of Edina.

And in the words of the great Council President Brent Mowen, it's always a good day when you take money from the city of Edina. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak to this item? Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms. Jost 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 46, resolution public hearing 26-161, approving the application of one simple plan for a sound level variance in order to present amplified sound for an India Fest 2026 event on Saturday, August 15th at 75 Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Minnesota State Capitol Grounds.

This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak to this item? Seeing none, I'll make a motion 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 47, resolution public hearing 26-172, approving the application of Wabasha Brewing Company for a sound level variance in order to present amplified sound for music at Wabasha event series on Saturdays in August, September, October at 429 Wabasha Street South, the patio of Wabasha Brewing Company.

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

Aye. All opposed? Seven in favor, none opposed. The resolution is adopted. Legislative hearing consent agenda items 48 through 58 are before you for your consideration.

Welcome, Ms. Mormont. Thank you, Council President. If item number 48 could be read into the record.

Item 48, RLH VBR 26-14, Appeal of Deegan Goytum, ACM, and ACMN Properties LLC to a vacant building registration renewal requirement at 1047 Arcade Street.

Ms. Moorman. Council President, this is a case of an appeal of a renewal of a vacant building fee. This property has been in the vacant building program since 2022. As a renewal, and having been in the program for this long, this should be a Category 2 registered vacant building. Indeed, it entered the program as such. I think in the confusion in switching to poly and so forth, it was inadvertently changed to a category one. Benefit to the property owner is that is half the vacant building registration fee that we would normally be looking at. In the legislative hearing prior to this, property owner representative of ACMN Properties indicated that the work that was done prior to them taking over was done without permit by some big local companies. And so what they need to do is to go back and pull the permits to make sure the work was done correctly, get the inspections and sign off. So it sounds like they're pretty close to being done. My understanding is that they would like to be removed from the vacant building program at this time, being so close to being complete. My recommendation to the council is to give a three-month waiver on the vacant building fee in which if they've completed getting their code compliance certificate, there would be no vacant building fee for the 26-27 cycle. If they fail to... complete the work, then there would be a vacant building fee forthcoming. The bright line, the finish line for getting out of the vacant building program, of course, is getting the certificate of occupancy in your pocket. So my recommendation is to deny the appeal, but grant a waiver for 90 days.

Thank you, Ms. Moorman. Are there questions for Ms. Moorman before we open up the hearing? Ms. Vice President Yang.

Thanks, Council President. I was just wondering if you can clarify, when does the 90-day waiver take effect?

What we do in legislative hearings is to, count day one as the day at the beginning of the year. So if it went in the vacant building program on July 1st, then a 90-day waiver would take you August, September, October 1st. So it's always consistently counted rather than when it's in front of council. It's always three months from the beginning of that year.

OK.

Thank you.

Other questions? All right. This is a public hearing. The appellant is here. This is your opportunity. Come on up. And just like before, if you'll just start with your name and where you're coming from, and then you'll have two minutes, which go by fast. So make sure to focus on your ask for us, if you would. We have all your information in front of us.

Absolutely. Good afternoon, Council President and Council. My name is Angela Dawson. I'm a licensed realtor, and I am also representing ACMN Properties. Dejan Goitam is my son-in-law, is the property manager. And I am actually planning on renting this property for a licensed cannabis grow that i am a licensed cannabis farmer i've been farming hemp and cannabis for the past seven years in northern minnesota bringing the operation to the city's been working with the city offices on this project for quite a while the issues that she mentioned about the vacant building process has been pretty complicated for us for a while It costs a lot of money. And so I'm pretty much in agreement with the recommendation. And I just wanted to mention to the city council that we really appreciate the way that the staff has been trying to be helpful in us resolving this. But I will say the issues with poly and the, I'm not sure exactly what happened with the poly system last year, but has cost us a lot of returning to the same question over and over again, cost us a lot in permit and fees. and contractors being able to take advantage of that system with Polly. And so we would really like to get this off the vacant building list. We're not really sure why it had been put on there in the first place, because there's always been permits open and work going on in the building. And we'd like to get it in operation as soon as possible. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Make sure to sign in. Is there anyone else here testifying this? All right. I'll take a motion from Vice President Ng to close the public hearing. All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

Seven in favor, none opposed. Public hearing is closed.

Vice President. Well, I want to say thank you for coming and testifying. It's really great to hear your future plans for the property hearing. I can definitely hear the commitment you have to getting the property fixed up. I am very grateful to you for coming here, just affirming your support for the recommendation from the legislative hearing officer. I hear your concerns about poly. It's very consistent with what I've heard from other folks too, not just even related to legislative hearing items, other things as well. And so I will be sure to have a conversation with our director in our Department of Safety and Inspections about that, because there are definitely areas of improvement for poly overall. And so with that, I will move approval of the recommendation from the legislative hearing officer.

Thank you, Vice President. So there's a motion for approval. I also want to echo the thanks for the comments about Polly, which I think a number of us have heard concerns. And so we appreciate you raising those. And we'll be continuing to elevate those with the department. Any discussion of the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye.

All opposed? Seven in favor, none opposed. So the legislative hearings recommendation is adopted. Hearing officer, excuse me.

Is there anything else for separate consideration this moment?

I'm not aware of anyone else here to testify in the hearing item.

In that case, we will hold a public hearing on all of the remaining legislative hearing consent agenda items. So if you are here for any item from 48 to 58, this is your public hearing. Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms. Johnson to close the public hearing and approve all of the items with the amendations and recommendations of the legislative hearing officer. All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

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

All right, this brings us to the end of our agenda and to an opportunity to share news from the wards. I'll look to my colleagues to see if there is any news. Seeing any, thanks so much, everyone, for a productive meeting. We are adjourned.