City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

🎵 🎵

Thank you. ¶¶ . . . . . Thank you. Thank you.

What?

It's all over.

OK.

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

Bowie. Coleman. Here. Johnson. Jost. Here. Kim. Here. Yang. Council President Naker. I'm so sorry. I just skipped right past you. Yang. Here. And Council President Naker. Here. Five present, two absent, who are expected shortly.

Welcome to our St. Paul City Council meeting, and thanks to everyone for taking time to be with us today. We invite you to join us in standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. I 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 agenda items 2 through 16 are before you for your consideration.

Is there anything to be taken for separate consideration? 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?

Five in favor, none opposed. The consent agenda is adopted. Item 17, Ordinance 26-27, Administrative Ordinance Placing the Classification Titled Deputy City Clerk in the Unclassified Service Pursuant to Section 12.03.2 of the St. Paul City Charter. This item has been withdrawn. Item 18, Ordinance 26-31, Amending Section 224.05 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 we quite quickly reached the ordinance section of our agenda today. For those of you joining us for the first time or not familiar with this practice, each ordinance in the city has three separate readings, at least. First, it has a first reading with a staff report where we learn what the ordinance is all about. The second reading is a public hearing where we hear from the public about that ordinance. And then the third reading is final adoption when we actually vote that ordinance into effect. Sometimes we take more weeks if we have amendments or other discussion we want to have about the ordinance. So everything in this section is before us for final adoption. That means that it's had at least two readings beforehand. In this case, I'm going to turn things over to our lead author, Ms. Coleman.

Thank you, Council President. I am excited that this vote is here. This is something we have been considering and talking about since Council Member Yang raised it a long time ago, December of last year, November. It's been on our radar for a very long time and obviously was something that has been of interest significant concern in the city ever since it was adopted in 2018. I also want to say a note of appreciation to our chief policy officer, Tim Greenfield, who helped us bring this to the policy committee back in April so that we had a chance to really dive in and understand the different wages that are set in the city and how the youth minimum wage operates. Thanks also to our HERO department for really being a partner in this and making sure that we are very clear on what we are doing today. Just a couple of quick thoughts on this. I think it is really critical that we take opportunities when we have them to eliminate discrimination within our city ordinances and to move forward the cause of equality. I think this is a really clear example of a place where we can have better policies than we have had. It does not seem right to me that somebody who is 17 and somebody who is 18 could be standing next to each other doing the exact same job, but one of them could be paid less simply because they have not yet turned 18. I think that this change is important. It is necessary. It is overdue. It's also something where we have been able to have conversations with partners, with the business community. I was very pleased that when we look at the record of this ordinance, there is no opposition. We didn't have people coming out to the public hearing saying that this would harm their business, because we've really been able to work through those concerns, answer questions, and make sure that this is something that everybody felt really good about going forward with. So, and maybe final thought is just, you know, we talk a lot about the affordability crisis in this country and the affordability crisis in this city, and I think it is really important to talk about how young people are making critical contributions to their family's income. Young people, 14, 15, 16, 17-year-olds, are earning money that their family depends on, really an essential part of the economic framework of their communities. And I think that this is an important step forward to making sure that they are able to make those meaningful contributions while still being mindful of how we work with our small businesses and other business partners in the city. That's all I've got.

Thank you, Ms. Goldman. I'll take that as a motion for approval. And I want to thank you for your leadership on this issue and Vice President Yang for bringing this up, as you mentioned a while ago. I will be supporting the motion, and I'm grateful for the way that you've brought various partners together to make sure that folks felt good about the final outcome. I also think this really reflects our values as a city. One of the things I'm proudest of to be in St. Paul is that we empower young people, and we respect their opinions and their feedback and their experiences. And we do that in a number of ways through our youth and boards process, through our Right Track program, through our Sprockets program. And this, to me, just seems like the natural next step in aligning our policies with our values. So I'm really excited to be passing this today. Other discussion of the motion? Vice President.

Thank you, Council President. I am enthusiastically supporting this today, and I want to say thank you, Council Member Coleman, for working with our staff and partners to bring it to the finish line. I had brought this up maybe over a year ago. It was something that I had only realized last minute we still had. And so there was a lot of interest from colleagues at the table here to have more engagement on it. And I think that Council Member Coleman, you did a really great job just making sure that that engagement was done in a really meaningful way. I was very supportive of this from the start because it is really personal to me. I started working when I was 14, and I have never stopped working since. And the reason why I started working at a really young age was because during that time was the recession. My family, I just remember my parents, they were really struggling to keep up with the bills. We were on the verge of home foreclosure, which a few years later, we did lose our home in Brooklyn Park, and that was what brought my family to St. Paul. And to me, work is work, no matter how old you are. And I know that for our young folks who are 14 or 17, deciding to take on a job, it's really because they want to be there as a way to support their families and, most importantly, to not be a financial burden for whoever is caring for them. And that really speaks volumes to me about their leadership, their commitment, and just the ways in which they continue building the economy in our city here. And this is a way for us to make sure that we are also carrying forward our values and making sure that they can do work that is rooted in dignity and respect and also getting paid the wages that they deserve. And I just don't see a reason to, for me, the 90 days where they are getting less than minimum wage, it just doesn't serve our purpose at all. And so I'm very excited and comfortable moving forward with this. And so again, I hope we can, all of us, get this to the finish line.

Thanks, Vice President. Any further discussion of the motion?

See none. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed. Seven in favor, none opposed. The ordinance is adopted. Item 19, Ordinance 26-38, Administrative Ordinance Establishing a Qualifications and Examining Committee for the Position of Fire Chief Pursuant to the Provisions of Section 9.01A of the Administrative Code and Section 12.12.1 of the St. Paul City Charter.

I believe, Vice President, there's a version two in Legistar, which is, does that need to take a separate motion, or can we just say that's the one we'll be... We can move that.

Yeah, we can just move to version two.

All right, take a motion from the vice president for version two. All in favor, say aye.

Aye. All opposed? Seven in favor, none opposed. The ordinance is laid over. Item 20, resolution public hearing 26-148, ratifying the assessments for sanitary sewer replacement within the street right-of-way from the public sewer to the property line done with the Metro Transit 10-mile gold line bus rapid transit project.

This brings us to the public hearing section of our agenda. So if you're here to speak on any one of the items in the public hearing section, when your item is called and when we call the public hearing, we'll ask for you to come to the front, stand in between the two microphones. You don't need to adjust them or lean over to them at all. They should pick you up just fine. And then you'll have two minutes to testify. We ask that you start with your name and where you're coming from. And when you're done, please sign in on either of the two sign-in sheets. So this is a public hearing on item 20. Is there anyone here to speak on 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 21, Resolution Public Hearing 26-177, approving the petition of Scott Ramsey on behalf of Buck Valley Developers LLC, property owner at 779 Lexington Parkway South, to vacate the alley right-of-way abutting Lot 1, Block 19, West End Addition. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak to this item?

Come on up. Welcome.

Thank you very much, Council President and Council Members. My name is David Lundy. I'm one of the sponsors of this, along with my partner, Scott Ramsey. I just wanted to say thank you for taking this under consideration. This is an alley vacation, an alley that's never going to be used, and it's just going to add some additional property to our property, increase the tax base, and we're looking to improve density and bring affordable housing to St. Paul, which we both live in. Thank you for your question.

Thanks so much for taking time to tell us more about the project. We appreciate it. Make sure to sign in. Is there anyone else here to speak on this item? Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms. Joes 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 22, resolution public hearing 26-188, amending the city's operating budget to reflect the final sales details resulting from the issuance of judgment bonds series 2026A, judgment payment, and transfer of proceeds from a special revenue fund.

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 23, resolution public hearing 26-184, authorizing the city on behalf of the Public Works Department to accept a donation of one Big Belly brand garbage and recycling collection station with a value of $6,951.60 from the Highland District Council to support public garbage and recycling operations. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak to this item?

Thank you for the big belly. 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 24, Resolution Public Hearing 26-185, approving the application of the Department of Parks and Recreation for a sound level variance in order to present amplified sound for the St. Paul Get Down event on Saturday, August 29th at 2 Wabasha Street, Raspberry Island Regional Park.

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

Come on up.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, council. My name is Isaac. I'm 17 years old, and I'm a resident of St. Paul. I'm also the youth program manager for the St. Paul Get Down. I've been with the Get Down for two years through the Right Track program as an intern. And I'm here today because I hope you vote yes on the sound variance application submitted by Parks and Rec for the St. Paul Get Down event on August 29th. Sorry. The St. Paul Get Down means so much to the music community in St. Paul. We support up and coming youth artists with workshops taught by professional artists, mentors, give them the free studio time with professional sound engineers, and performing opportunities throughout the city, including the opportunity to perform on the same bill with local artists that made it in the industry at this August 29th event. We've built a really strong community in the St. Paul Get Down, and community is one of the things that I feel makes St. Paul special. Throughout the summer, I've been lucky to be a part of revitalizing downtown parks with music from local artists. Almost every day, I have someone come up to me and thank me for what we're doing. It's clear to me that people want things to be happening in our parks. With all that said, I ask that you please vote yes on the St. Paul Get Down sound variance application. Thank you for your time.

Thanks so much for your testimony. Make sure to sign in.

Thank you.

Welcome up. We're just here for support. Oh, support. OK. Got a backup course. Is there anyone else here to speak to this item? Seeing none, before we close the public hearing, I just want to say thank you so much for taking time to be here, for your testimony. I had the opportunity to come to the Get Down last year. It's amazing. And your taking the time to share more about it and to make it happen is really so appreciated. So thank you to you and all the staff and young people who are part of it. We're very lucky. With that, I will 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 25, resolution public hearing 26-186, approving the application of the University of St. Thomas for a sound level variance in order to present amplified sound for the 2026 back to school pep rally event on Thursday, September 3 at 2115 Summit Avenue, O'Shaughnessy Stadium. This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak to this item?

Pep rally.

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 26, resolution public hearing 26-187, approving the application of Selby Avenue Jazz Fest for a sound level variance in order to present amplified sound for the Selby Avenue Jazz Fest event on Saturday, September 12, at the intersection of Selby and Milton Street North.

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. Resolution is adopted. Item 27, resolution public hearing 26-189, approving the application of the University of St. Thomas for a sound level variance in order to present amplified sound for a UST versus Winona State football game event Thursday, August 27th at 2115 Summit Avenue, West Shaughnessy Stadium.

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. Legislative hearing consent agenda items 28 through 33 are before you for your consideration.

Ms. Moorman is doing double duty today as our interim council director, or temporary council, anyway, and our legislative hearing director. So I gave you extra time by not saying that well. Welcome up.

Thank you, Council President. Item number 29, please, to read into the record.

Item 29, RLHSAO 26-62, appeal of Lucky Tiger Jack Rosenblum to a summary abatement order at 369 Dale Street North.

Ms. Marmond. Council President, I'm hoping that we got the paper. Yes. Okay. So just to summarize verbally the situation. It appears that a vehicle hit the fence surrounding 369 Dale. You're probably all familiar with the property. This is the old Tiger Jack's lot. The fence is seven or eight feet tall, I believe, and the car hit... the corner post and there's some other damage on the fence. In the appeal process, the owner indicated that he believed the fence was structurally sound, if unsightly, and that bending the poles back up into an upright position would stabilize it. I can show you a couple of pictures here. if the agenda cooperates with me, honestly. OK, on screen right now is a picture that was taken before the public or the legislative hearing. So you can see the dent there that the top is bent more so the fabric of the fence, the chain link fabric, if you will, isn't attached firmly. And there's another photo further along down St. Anthony. and you can see there's breaks now there has been some repair work that's been undertaken by mr rosenblum so it's not in this state but it's not in a maintained state either we i had asked if the department of safety and inspections would send a building inspector by to determine the soundness of the fence because in spite of the fact that a fence like this doesn't require a permit, it is actually a structure. It needs to be maintained in a professional manner. The deputy director went by, rather than just a regular building inspector. It was his determination that the damage to the fence put it in an unsound condition, and therefore it would need to be replaced in all likelihood, but that it wasn't sound as it stands now, and that the poles in particular can't be adjusted in a way that will bring it back to that state. As I understand it, the owner of the property would like a little bit of time to be able to consult with an engineer, develop plans, and get work crews in place. My recommendation in front of you now is to grant an extension to September 25th to bring it into compliance. Should the council wish to grant a further extension beyond that, I would strongly suggest that the extension be within the current construction season so that the soil doesn't freeze for sinking the fence posts.

Thank you, Ms. Moorman. Any questions for Ms. Moorman before we open up the public hearing? Ms. Bowie.

Thank you, Council President. Thank you, Ms. Moorman. I do have a quick question, just knowing that this is incident took place out of a car accident. Was there any evidence around if that owner of the vehicle's insurance will be covering these damages? I don't know if the owner would have to address that. OK. Thank you.

Great. Thank you so much. Don't go too far. This is a public hearing. If you're here to testify, please come on up. You'll have two minutes.

And make sure to focus on what your ask is for the city council. Thank you. Two minutes is fine because what I'm about to say is not going to be adulpated. It's not going to be confusing. Just start with your name and where you're coming from. Lucky Rosenblum, Tiger Jack Rosenblum. This corner is hit by cars at least every two years. Within the last 10 years, I'm not exaggerating, we paid over $10,000 on this fence. I, too, have hired a special engineer who has come out and said, if you do A, B, and C, I would tell you that this fence will be structurally sound. So I believe what I want to do is just get through this hearing. so I can get this matter in front of a judge. Because at some point, we have to say to our community what is reasonable when it comes to making repairs. When the inspector came out the first time, I said, if I do A, B, and C, is that OK? He said on the phone, yes. Then he comes back out and he says something else after I've done A, B. So we have to get to a point. Okay, well, I've got my special engineer who will testify. You've got yours. Let's take it to court. Let's have a judge make a decision, you all, because as a senior citizen on a, what do you call that word you call when you're a senior citizen?

Elder?

Elder, but you know when you have a certain amount of money that you have to spend. What is it called?

Fixed income?

Yeah, fixed. Thank you. Fixed income. When you're on a fixed income, you know, You do the best that you can, and I understand the ordinance, but I believe at this time we've cemented it. We've done some things the structural engineer asked me to do. It's structurally sound. I think the ordinance has been satisfied. Is it perfect? No. Is the ordinance satisfied? I believe so. We cemented the ground. The poles are attached. The engineer came out. He couldn't shake the fence. He's willing to come to court and write something to say, this is fine. There's no need for me to put all of this up. When it's in there and it's cemented, it's attached, it's strong. You can't move it unless you want to send someone up there to damage my property and kick the doggone thing down. So I'm just here to say let's get through this so I can get this to a judge so a judge can make a decision on what is reasonable when I've satisfied what I believe the ordinance has been satisfied.

Thank you, sir. And that is two minutes. So I just want to clarify, because it sounds like you're asking for something slightly different than what we heard from Ms. Mormond. Are you saying that you don't want more time to have an engineer look at the property and have it inspected again? You would like this matter decided today one way or another so that if it doesn't go your way, you can appeal it to district court? I just want to make sure I understand.

I'm saying do what you need to do. If you want to send your inspector out there to look at it again, now that we're making some repairs, it's fine with me. But we've got our engineer, and we are ready to do what we need to do to have the court make a decision. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I'm going to take a motion from Ms. Bui to close the public hearing, and then we'll have some discussion. All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

Seven in favor, nine opposed. Public hearing is closed.

Ms. Warmond? Yeah. One comment is that we did not have, at this time, any letter or statement from an engineer indicating that it is sound or providing a plan that would get it from where it is at to a sound place. It's common practice at the Department of Safety and Inspections for us in a situation like this or where some kind of engineer would need to be involved that that engineer would draft a plan or make a statement that this is sound and that would go to the department their engineer would review it and these things can often be handled offline if the council wants to give a little grace in terms of that study coming forward so that the department would need to look at i'm sure that the city attorney's office, were they in court, would have wanted this to have happened. Just background-wise, it's the same people involved. But that would be the first step. I don't think the discussion of an actual statement from the engineer came forward. So happy to look at that. And if it takes more time. Thank you, Ms. Marmon. Ms. Boobie?

Thank you. I just have a clarifying question. I really appreciate you, Ms. Moorman, for bringing that recommendation or suggestion around this unique matter. I think from the appellant, what he mentioned in terms of this being a frequent place that there is car accidents, the Dale and St. Anthony intersection has been very unsafe. I would want to know, just from your expertise, like, How much time would you think that if we were to have our staff or city employees do an engineering plan or even a safety review of that intersection? I understand solving traffic calming, that's a different aspect than what is being considered in this hearing item. But I'm just curious to know if we can also, upon sending an inspector, can also send someone to do a traffic analysis around that intersection? I think one of the things that I want to assess for is not just are you in compliant with fixing a fence, but there might be some structural things that we may need to put forth to actually ensure that this incident doesn't happen again. Right.

I don't know if there's any ensuring that this incident doesn't happen again, it being a corner and all. I brought up a picture on the screen here, and you'll see that the fence post on the corner sits exactly at the corner of where the north-south sidewalk and east-west sidewalk meet. It could be that a different design would put it in a much better position, for example, if it were dropped back and perhaps there were a bollard put in there to stabilize the area. The city does have the pedestrian crossing button right there as well, and that should inform whatever design comes forward. But I would say that most definitely could be looked at. And a similar kind of a thing is installed by gas meters near driveways, you know, so big cement. But that's the thing I think of, but I would definitely defer to an engineer looking at this kind of situation.

Okay, so I would, unless there's any other discussion, I would like to adopt the hearing officer's recommendation upon the two things that you had mentioned. If you just could clarify, it looks like it was a request for inspector and also a request for a statement from an engineer. If we can also have that request or the recommendation clarify exactly what is structurally sound, because I could imagine if you're coming out of pocket frequently for these type of fixes, being very specific would be helpful in terms of what type of engineering or what type of structural sound fencing would help with Mr. Rosenblum's.

If I may, very quickly, two things. One is I would recommend an extension if there's going to be a wait of a couple of weeks for an engineer's letter to come out. So it makes sense to me to move from the third week in September to the third week in October, and we can find a date. Second thing is the purpose for involving the engineer who is employed by The owner is that that is a proposal, and the city has not designed the solution that should be put into place. The city has not said, here's what you have to do. It's going to cost this amount of money. There's flexibility for the owner to work with the engineer who He would be their client and be able to come up with a solution that they find appropriate for this and propose it. So the reasoning is really it's on you to come up with what you want to do, and then they'll look at it according to the codes. I know it seems like we should say exactly, but this is really... If you're not going to take it down and go the way you went before, you are asking for an alternative means to comply with the ordinance. The alternative needs to be designed by the owner. So that's kind of where I'm at with it. Ms. Jost.

I can just clarify what I think Ms. Morrow was saying. Council Member Bowie, if an engineer is involved in designs or signs off on a letter, then it would be, they are complying with all related codes and requirements, and it would thus be structurally sound. So, like, they would be detailing what that looks like, whether it looks like a new design or whether it looks like a modification to an existing, that's in this case. So that would be, that would inherently be in there.

It wouldn't be on the city, it would be on the owner. The owner's engineer. And the engineer. And I think what I'm trying to solve for is that Mr. Rosenblum has shared that he, from his purview, that this fence is structurally sound. I think we need to have, what is the standard in which that is, what makes it structurally sound and done in a professional manner, I think needs to be explained.

That would be something that the engineer that he hires would tell him. And that could be reduced to writing. And they would explain in that how this is a structurally sound structure, as it were. I defer to the engineer to do it.

Thank you. And I'm so happy we have an engineer on our council to guide us on this. But my last question, because I do feel like we got to a place to where we understand. I just want to make sure just that there is clarity. And within this recommendation, is it required that his engineer provides that statement? Or is that this?

the statement is which what he has is what he should be following i'm just one i just want to make sure that he's able to comply with what we're instructing him to do the order that's in front of you that's under appeal is an abatement order that says if this is not repaired let me just yeah if this is not repaired to a sound state or removed the city will go and remove it so you don't want it removed and you don't want to repair it to a new state, replace it, then what's your idea for how you want to comply? And they're answering, here's our idea. We've got a structural engineer that says this is sound the way it is. If we do one, two, three, then it's sound and we don't have to do removal of it. Does that explain it? Yeah, yeah, that does.

OK. And I think there's a clarifying, so there was a, on the resolution it says September 25th, but you're saying if we do plan to grant extension in the third week of October. October 25th makes sense to me. OK.

So I just want to clarify the motion is to grant until October 25th? Yeah.

Yeah, I just wanted to make sure the motion was clear as well, just because it sounds like the only thing that we're changing is just a date.

So grant until October 25th for compliance, which could include the engineer's letter and an inspection that certifies that that letter works and the structure is structurally sound, or actual compliance according to the way we've currently instructed.

Compliance, and there's three ways to get there. Right, which we've talked about. OK, that's the motion.

The 25th is a Sunday.

Do we care?

I was going to ask about the dates that we're throwing out, just because I'm assuming that's an amendment based off of what's written being in September moving to October. Do you care if it's a weekend?

No, the inspector would just come after the deadline. I'm not sure what you mean.

OK, so yeah, it's fine. I personally am pretty indifferent. It's just the dates just seem to, if there was any interest in the dates, but it sounds like it doesn't matter if it's a Sunday.

How about to come into compliance by October 26, which is then a Monday, and then it's a wait time. That's fine.

I'm just like, no one's going to come out.

Thank you. Teamwork makes sense.

If you'll accept that as a friendly amendment.

All right, so the motion on the table, there's a motion on the table, which we've said multiple times. Is there any further discussion of the motion?

Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. Seven in favor, none opposed. The resolution is adopted as amended. One is opposed.

I'm so sorry.

Do you want me to do a roll call? I think we got it. Got it? OK. Six in favor, one opposed. The resolution is adopted as amended.

Is there anything else for separate consideration, Ms. Mormont? I'm not aware of anyone else here to testify on a legislative hearing item. In that case, we will hold a public hearing on the balance of the legislative hearing agenda items. If you're here for item 28 through 33, now is your public hearing.

Please come on up.

Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Vice President Yang to close the public hearings and approve 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.

I don't think we've even done this in a while, so it feels fresh. This brings us to the end of our agenda, and good news or news from the warts. Ms. Johnson, then Ms. Coleman.

Just reminding folks that tomorrow is all things budget. So we'll be starting our morning off at the budget address, the mayor's first budget address under her administration at Allianz Field. And afterwards in the evening, I'm inviting my work one over to the library board's budget address at Hamlin Midway at 2, I believe, and then following through at 5.30 to 7. I'm inviting my constituents to join me at the Ward 7's budget engagement event at Battle Creek Rec Center. Folks that maybe didn't get a chance to attend Council Member Yang's or maybe did and want to come over to the Ward 7 conversation are invited and open. The mayor's office will be there. We have several department directors folks from the district councils and some of our organizations and the neighborhood that will also be in attendance. And so it should be a great time. Thank you. Ms. Coleman.

Thank you. I'm really excited to share that we are getting a new playground at Newell Park. So there is a design event happening tonight. It is 6 o'clock to 7.30 at the Newell Park building, which is 900 Fairview Avenue. I don't really know what a playground design event is, but I'm very excited to go and draw some slides and see if somebody will build them. So encourage folks to join us. Dream wild.

Any other news from the wards? Seeing none, thanks everyone for a productive day. We are adjourned.