City Council - Regular Meeting

🎵 🎵 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

City Council to order.

Roll call, please. Johnson. Jost.

Here.

Kim.

Here.

Yang.

Here.

Bowie.

Here.

Coleman.

Here.

Council President Nacre. Here. Six present, one absent, that being Council Member Johnson, who's expected shortly.

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to our St. Paul City Council meeting. We appreciate you being here, and we invite everyone to join us in standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag

Consent agenda items four through 35 are before you for your consideration.

And I know that we are pulling items 33, 34, and 35 for separate consideration. Is there anything else to come off of consent? Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Vice President Yang to approve 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 33, Resolution 26-1483, Recognizing the City's Participation in Welcoming Week 2026.

And I wanted to take this opportunity to welcome Mr. Liho up, to thank him so much for his work defending our neighbors, and to speak a little bit more about Welcoming Week, which could not be more important this year. So thank you, and turn over the mics to you.

Thank you, Council President. Council members, good afternoon. Thank you for entertaining this resolution, recognizing St. Paul's participation in Welcoming Week this year. Welcoming Week, sponsored nationally by Welcoming America, brings communities together to strengthen connections, across differences and affirm the contributions of immigrants, refugees, new Americans, and long-time residents. For the last seven years, St. Paul has celebrated Welcoming Week, and we have held events in partnership with the city of Minneapolis and have worked with Welcoming America to foster a sense of welcoming and belonging in our community. This year, the Saint Paul Immigrant and Refugee Program and the City of Minneapolis Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs have collaborated in developing this twin resolution to affirm our shared regional commitment to welcoming communities and to recognize that every resident benefits when our cities foster belonging, safety, connection, and opportunity for all. We have with us today two special guests who will like to speak briefly to this resolution. We have Michelle Rivero, the Director of the Minneapolis Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs. She's my counterpart in Minneapolis. And Brianna Broberg, Director of Welcoming America's Welcoming Network. With that, I turn it to Michelle.

Welcome. It's great to see the inner city collaboration going on here.

MICHELLE RIVERA. Thank you so much, council president, council members. My name is Michelle Rivera. I'm the director of the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs of the city of Minneapolis. I'm also a resident of the city of St. Paul, and so really exemplifies something that we talk about all the time, where our non-US-born communities may live in Minneapolis, but work in St. Paul, work And many of us live in St. Paul. So I'm very grateful to you all for advancing the resolution today. I am also incredibly grateful for the collaboration with the immigrant and refugee program in the city of St. Paul. There is so much that we do. together that could not be done by one of us alone. And also, I'm really grateful for the welcoming spirit that exists here in the city of St. Paul as exemplified by this resolution and the important work that you do. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you. My name is Brianna Broberg, and I am the director of the Welcoming Network of Welcoming America. Like Michelle, I'm also a resident of St. Paul, so really appreciative of the opportunity to be here with all of you today. Welcoming America is a national nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that leads a movement of inclusive communities becoming more prosperous by ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to belong and to thrive And we believe that all people, including immigrants, are valued contributors and vital to our success and our shared futures. Welcoming America has member communities and organizations all across the country, including here, the city of St. Paul, and right next door, the city of Minneapolis. And every year, our members and communities across the country and around the globe celebrate Welcoming Week. It's an annual celebration that brings together neighbors of all backgrounds to develop and strengthen connections to affirm the importance of building welcoming and inclusive communities for the mutual benefit of all residents. And so we take this time every year to celebrate the values that unite us as neighbors. This year's Welcoming Week theme is the stories we share, the courage to connect. And that theme invites community members to come together with curiosity and courage through events, proclamations, and messaging, all with the intention of building real connections among neighbors. We've seen how storytelling about who we are as individuals and the values that we share as a community continues to be a powerful tool for connection. What communities say about themselves has the ability to shape what they actually do and to inspire what those around them do as well. I've always been a proud Minnesotan, but seeing the way that community members across St. Paul and Minneapolis and all throughout the state showed courage to connect and to support one another over this past year has been incredibly inspiring to me and to others across the country. And I truly believe that communities and community members demonstrating welcome has never been more important. So I thank you for allowing me to speak with you all today. Thank you for what this community has done and will continue to do to create a welcoming environment for all residents. And happy Welcoming Week.

Thank you so much. And again, Mr. Leehoe, really appreciate your leadership, not just on Welcoming Week, but on all of the weeks throughout the year, which are also Welcoming Weeks in the city of St. Paul. I know this council is committed to continuing to invest in your work and in our immigration and naturalization legal support and everything that you do. So thank you. I know I'm probably speaking for my colleagues when I say, please let us know how we can spread the word about Welcoming Week in our platforms and make sure that we are amplifying your signal on this. I will move approval, and I would look to my colleagues to see if there's any discussion of the motion. I see Vice President Yang.

Thanks, Council President. I want to say thank you for bringing forward the resolution here. I also want to commend and say thank you to our wonderful speakers who are leaders in our communities who came and spoke earlier. I want to reaffirm everything in the resolution here, everything that you shared, too. It really is aligned with what I hear from even immigrant and refugee communities about why they choose St. Paul as their home, why they choose Minnesota as their home, too. And being a daughter of refugees myself, a Hmong American woman, I'm really proud that in St. Paul here, even our Hmong community has chosen this to be their home. We are the urban city with the densest population of Hmong folks, and that's something I'm very, very proud of. And just wanted to name, as I think about all the many meetings that we were a part of today, we have continue to make deep investments in our immigrant refugee communities, New Americans as well. We heard from many entrepreneurs or just even saw on our list of businesses that are receiving funding from our downtown vitality funds. Many of those are businesses owned by BIPOC folks who are also immigrant refugees too. So again, I continue to be really proud of the direction that we move into as a city. And again, thanks for the resolution here.

Thanks, Vice President. Other discussion? I thought I saw Ms. Pooey. No. All right. With that, all in favor, say aye.

Aye. All opposed? Seven in favor, none opposed. The resolution is adopted. Thank you again.

Thank you.

Item 34, Resolution 26-1502, amending Resolution 17-1065 and restoring the City of St. Paul's practice of honorary street co-naming. Ms. Pooey.

Thank you, Council President. First, I want to just say thank you for all my colleagues. I want to first just clarify to you all that there's two items that's on this agenda that's related, but they're separate actions taken today. The first one, I'm asking for us to restore St. Paul's historic practice of honorary street codenaming. And the following item is to adopt the resolution to actually establish an honorary street for Elder Mahmoud Okadi. Just giving some background around why we're doing this. So in 2017, the former council discontinued codenaming, and they put in their resolution until further notice. in part because of the concerns that honorary streets could create confusion during emergency responses. And before even bringing forth this resolution, I want to just be clear, I did check in directly with our police chief and fire chief, as well as the director of public works. And neither department was able to provide me any records or background identifying some of those emergency response incidents that led to the 2017 action. What I do understand and what I can actually attest to, especially being a council member for the past three years and having these type of requests come through my office, that we do need a better process. that the authority should not just only be on solely the council member to create that process or create that procedure. So what I am asking for us today is not to simply just go back to the old system or to our old process, but I'm asking for us to restore this practice and to modernize it and making a commitment to modernizing it. You also will see that I will be moving forward a version two. So that version two actually requires council to establish clear standards and procedures for future requests. That's including eligibility, community support, geographic connections, public safety considerations, in signage, and also importantly, funding. That is a consistent process that isn't just housed in the council's office, but housed with the department that has the capacity to actually implement this. So what is clear today is that we don't have a standardized process for handling these requests, and my amendment addresses that. And I'm also asking for your support on this resolution because I truly believe you know, in the efforts of preserving our history, that we can have good governance in a process in terms of preserving our legacy at the same time. I want to also just mention that I have Deputy Chief Hallstrom from SPPD here, also our Assistant City Engineer from Public Works, Randy Newton. There he goes. And also, we had the deputy chief, Jamie Smith, was going to be here, but he is at an all-staff leadership event taking place, but he did provide support for this vote via email and also open to any questions that any of my colleagues may have.

Thanks, Ms. Bowie. So maybe what we should do first is move version 2, which is in Legistar. Yes. Is that right? OK. So motion to move version 2. So the motion is for version 2. So is there discussion of the motion?

Vice President.

Thanks, Council President. I am supportive of the motion. I have a question here and we can absolutely get a response like now or afterwards. I'm just wondering with this last text that was added, the be it for the resolve, which thank you Dan from our city attorney's office for your work on this. I would just want to get some clarification about the standard operating procedures. My understanding based on the language here is that what needs to be, I'd say like, you know, a part of the plan for this is, or considered would be eligibility, significance criteria, community support, geographic connection, application and review procedures, signage and public safety standards, costs and funding responsibilities, which during my time on the council here, it's very aligned with the the different, I guess, puzzle pieces that have had to come together in order for something like this to happen. And so I want a clarification. Are all of those different components a part of what needs to be figured out in that standard operating procedure? And then another question would be, who is holding this piece of work to? Is it going to live in the council office? Or we have somebody who has to oversee this? Or would it be a different department?

Well, that's a good question. So the standard of operations would be something that we will adopt. So working with the Department of Public Works, I also see this Living and Heritage Preservation, which is in PED, because they do some of that work with the street renaming. I know with the work for the Rondo renaming, we had to work through the Heritage Preservation Commission. So it still would be by way of resolution to actually adopt it, but what we're putting in place, or will be putting in place, is what is those benchmarks, what are those criteria that we want to agree to, that someone would have to meet that threshold to actually request a street name sign, a co-naming sign.

And just to further answer the question, Vice President, and Ms. Booty and I spoke about this earlier, and I'm grateful to you for agreeing to lead the work at Policy Committee to figure out what that policy would be going forward, because it is true that we need to figure out those details before we have a new policy in place. This one repeals the previous policy, but we don't have – those questions are not currently answered, and we do need to figure that out. Ms. Johnson. Oh, sorry, Vice President. I just have a follow-up question.

Yeah, I'm wondering, Council Member Bowie, do you have a timeline on when you would like to put together a finalized policy by?

Oh, the policy's already drafted. I mean, I would have loved to adopt a policy today, but I think just with our norms, we want to make sure that it goes through policy committee for us to have discussions on it. I'm totally willing to have internal conversations. If we feel like we're in a good place, we can bring it forth via resolution. But those conversations are kind of happening offline in terms of when we can get that scheduled and where we can get to a consensus with the council.

Thank you. Again, I'm supportive of the motion.

Thanks, Vice President. I saw Ms. Johnson and then Ms. Kim. And I just wanted to clarify. So in the version 2, it makes an exception for the resolution that's to come. And I was just wondering, does that mean that the resolution that is the next item, so item number 35, is explicitly stated in there as an exception. I'm just wondering if you could further elaborate on just what that means. Does that mean that if Resolution 26-1543 is to pass, that it doesn't go through the process of procedures, it doesn't go through that conversation? I'm just wondering.

Yeah, so the exception is related to agenda item 35, which is adopting the honorary street. Just consulting with the family members, they did not feel comfortable having a contingency on their father's name related to this. This was something, you know, that was kind of time sensitive. And we wanted to ensure that if we are repealing this practice, that this is an exception just for Elder Makhmud Okadi. but we are committed to creating a process moving forward. Also, I would just say, for someone who's leading on the designing of that criteria and working with the department on providing those procedures, I am very confident that Elder Mahmoud Okadi will meet those standards. So that's why we're bringing forth the exception, just because we didn't want the process of the implementation to be stalled if we were not able to reach a consensus. I think we could just all agree that we're married to creating a process, but we want to make sure that we can also provide a clear pathway for Elder Maknudokade.

OK.

Do you have a follow-up, Ms. Johnson?

I guess I was just wondering, I know that the amendments and the versions that were given, like the version two was a recommendation of the city attorney's office. Was that also the recommendation of the city attorney's office?

The recommendation was to put a pause on implementation until a procedure was brought forth. So that was a recommendation. I had took that recommendation because there was concerns from colleagues. And we had made that amendment to ensure that we can have a full consensus of this vote moving forward.

So the exception is the recommendation of the city attorney's office?

No, you're saying is the exception?

Yes.

No, the version two to ensure that there's a commitment for standards of procedures was the recommendation. The exception was led by my office, but also to ensure that there is no stagnation in terms of, or any discrepancies in terms of the following vote. We want to make sure it's a clean vote and that we have a clear pathway to make sure that we can have an honorary street name sign for Elder McMillan County.

Ms. Kamis.

I just had a clarifying question, and more so because I think I attempted to rename a street, and I'm wondering if it's because I wasn't doing it correctly, with a school, actually. But the co-naming isn't changing it is making an honorary name attached to an already existing Englehart. Like in your example for the next resolution, it's attaching an honorary name to Englehart. So it's not changing someone's legal address. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. I think that's what I was doing wrong. I really appreciate this. I don't have any personal concerns. I also believe the honoring... honoring our elder professor emeritus is a smart thing and reasonable thing to do. So I'll be supportive of this resolution and the next, and also would love to look at the policy that you're bringing forward. I don't question that the metrics and the scope that you're considering that your resolution would make it through. So I'm supportive given the current timeline and the work that you've put into it.

Thank you. Thanks, Ms. Kim. Any other discussion of them? Sorry, Ms. Jost.

Thanks, Council President. I think if I understand, we're voting on a version two and then voting on the resolution. I don't know if we're doing that all in one. But I will not be.

Twice. We're voting twice. That's right. Okay.

But I won't be voting in support of the resolution today. And it's not because of Professor Al-Khadi or any virtues of any person that my colleagues wish to honor currently. I think that's very important. But I just don't think that the work of co-naming and assigning this work to our departments or to our policy committee at this time is mission critical to the work of our city. And I know that this was previously discontinued by our council and there were a lot of reasons for that. I understand that there's been confusion around co-naming, there's confusion around kind of just sometimes what that means for emergency vehicles. I know we've got Deputy Chief Hallstrom here today and there isn't someone from Fire, but I think that even if there haven't been prior emergency incidents that doesn't mean that it doesn't result in near misses or just Safety concerns, so that's a concern for me just around how critical that this this work is I also just am you know frustrated by the version two that came through very recently to include this exception for the following resolution when that's different than the version that we received yesterday and I really care a lot about you know the way that we do our work and that it's in a timely and clear fashion, and it's difficult when information or changes come in last minute for me to be able to make an informed decision. But that has been mostly my position through a lot of this, and so I'll be voting no on this, and I'll be voting no on the resolution, and I'll be voting no on number 35.

Thanks, Ms. Jost.

Ms. Bui. Thank you, Council President. And also, I just want to respond to something that Council Member Jost had mentioned. I just want to clarify for the record the mischaracterization that this came in last minute. This is a resolution that has been shared with council members. For some time, we actually first brought forth the resolution that created a process, that created the procedures. And then I was advised that that was too prescriptive and that we needed to just simply restore it. that it is not on the council to create that process. So even this version two was simply because you had mentioned concerns. And based off of the city attorney's recommendations, it is OK for you to not support the version two. But I think it needs to be clarified that you also did not support version one. if we were asking for council members to do more work, just to be told that they didn't get it in in a timely fashion, I just think that needs to be very clarified and acknowledged. I appreciate everyone who has supported. If there isn't support for a version two, I would gladly go back to a version one, if that is the... the concerns. So I would like to actually remove my, I don't even know how to go about it, but I would like to take off version two and go back to a version one if that is okay.

Bring a motion to withdraw the pending motion.

Thank you. So I would, unless there's more discussion about it. I think I'll just...

Ms. Jost and then Vice President.

I'll just add. I appreciate that, Council Member Bui. And I don't dispute that you brought this resolution. I heard about it last week. What I'm saying is that there was a version two that was being circulated yesterday that was different from the version two that was brought forth at 3 PM today. And that is what has been. That is what has been confusing. So I just want to clarify that. I do recognize that your office put effort into this prior to that. That's what I was expressing my general frustration around process about.

Thanks, Ms. Jost. I'm going to jump in line super quickly before the Vice President and Ms. Johnson to say that my understanding is that the version 2 that is being proposed in front of us is a version that was recommended by the city attorney's office.

And I want to clarify that.

No, it was the original version, too, was recommended by our office. The one that's currently in legislature has an extra, if the last few words are, creates an exception for Elder Al-Qadi.

Okay, thank you. Vice President and then Ms. Johnson.

Thanks, Council President. I just wanted to share a conservative way I would encourage you to follow through with the motion. I did need my support of that for you. And so I don't know where our other colleagues are on it. However, if you were to move forward with another, like I'd say an alternative motion after that, I would also be supportive of it too. So that's where I'm at.

Thanks, Vice President. Ms. Johnson, I think we might need to move to call a vote.

Yeah, I just wanted to be clear that the version two that's entered in is not the version two that the city attorney's office recommended. There is an additional language in the version two that specifically gives an exception to the next resolution, which is resolution 26-15-43. So it is not subject to the procedure that the city attorney's office recommended that we put in place before renaming or operating off of a co-naming. So the recommendation from the city attorney's office was to create the standard of procedures, which is included. They did not give an exception. There is an exception in the version 2 that's in front of us. And I just want to share that, like, It is a little frustrating. And I will share that I'm supportive of acknowledging Elder Mahmoud Al-Qadi because of the impact that he has and the legacy that he has. But it is extremely frustrating as a colleague to not have the full information until we're here to vote. And so I also did not see the version 2 that's entered in an exception language given to us before then. I actually was notified that we were changing the language After the city attorney's office had shared it and I just want to share that that it's just not a great practice And I hope that the standard of procedures it does not go that way I'll have really strong concerns about Establishing a procedure if I'm not able to be a part of that discussion especially because of something that's so important not only to The Rondo community but to all of the st. Paul folks I think honoring a legacy especially of our african-american black elders has to be done right and And I would just share that I have sincere concerns about saying that removing, going back to version one, I wouldn't be able to support. Version two, I'm only able to support because there is at least some acknowledgement of a standard of procedure. supporting the resolution because I think that we should be going against the advice of the city attorney's office. I'm supporting it because I hope that we are able to do a standard of procedures and I don't have an issue with the co-naming. But changing things last minute like that is just something that I've noticed as a is a thing that happens often in a way that I feel like also creates confusion. And then this is a primary example of that. And so I just want to be able to give that feedback, not necessarily related to an individual office, but for sure related to something so significant as potentially participating in a co-naming that has been Truly, that practice has been discontinued since 2017 for a reason. So if we're going to embark on that, I just want to note for the record that I have every intentions of being able to see the standard procedures before 3 p.m. on a Wednesday in front of the council.

Thank you, Ms. Johnson. I'm going to go to Ms. Bowie for the really last word on this, and then we are going to call for a vote. Ms. Bowie.

Yeah, I appreciate just the lively discussion about it. And I think it's really important to put forth what expectations are. I think it's also equally important and very genuine to ensure that where consent is actually built. and where also the spirit of collaboration can be misinterpreted as causing confusion. It's really important. I was going to bring forth this resolution, the first version, where I already had the support for it. The confusion was there was council members who I thought it was important to have their consents. I brought forth a recommendation that I can be comfortable with. I did not have to bring forth a recommendation. I did not have to bring forth a version two. That was done out of the spirit of wanting to earn collaboration. So I think it's really important, Chair Johnson, that if we are going to talk about patterns, that we also value that how we gain and build consent I do not need to be giving a TED Talk around how to actually honor our African-American leaders. Macbeth Okade is my not only mentor, but someone who I hold in high regard. I am taking a huge undertaking to actually bring forth a policy that was not a priority for me, but that was truly driven by community. It made sure that I worked with each of you as individuals in respect to whatever your needs are and your concerns. If you are interested in being a co-sponsor for this next standards of procedures, I will gladly welcome that. But what I will not welcome or would not accept is a criticism around a pattern that is not actually interpreting how this process actually went. This conversation is actually going way longer than it needs to. And it really is a simple fact of, I was carrying water that was not mine. And I think the big lesson I need to learn from this, if there is a council member who does not want to move forward with this type of a co-naming process, I should allow them to just have their no vote and let it stand that way. So I would want to, it sounds like we want, there is some consensus, we should keep the version two on there. Yes, to clarify, I did bring forth the exception on that because I was not comfortable bringing forth that version two with the other vote being stalled because of that type of clause. So I think that's clear. on the record right there. It doesn't seem like there's any concerns around safety. If there are concerns around safety, like I said, SPPD is here, Public Works is here. If there's concerns around the process, then that process should be taking place internally. And I think it's actually fair to say what the process is are not on the record.

Thank you to all of my colleagues. I appreciate the robust discussion. To clarify, what is in front of us is a motion for version two, the most up-to-date version of version two. And so we are going to take a roll call vote on version two, and then we will take another roll call vote on the entire thing. We can just do it once. No, we can just do it once. OK. So what's being moved is the updated version of version two. We're going to take one roll call vote on that version. Excuse me.

Like I said, I want to withdraw that, because it seems like that is causing a lot of confusion. I want to withdraw version 2. I want us to vote on version 1.

OK. So the motion is actually for version 1.

Correct.

OK. Is there?

We have to vote on the motion to withdraw.

OK. We're going to vote on the motion. First, we will see if there's discussion of the motion to withdraw. Well, we never voted on version 2. We never voted to even withdraw.

I thought we did.

No, we did not. We never took a vote. We've been having discussion. I want to withdraw version two and vote on version one, please.

OK, so the motion is for version one. OK. OK. The motion is for version one. The motion is for version one. Is there discussion? Ms. Coleman.

Yes, I guess mostly a procedural question, because I am far more inclined to support version two, since it had the city attorney's review, even though there was this piece added. Today, if we vote on version one and it doesn't pass, then do we have the opportunity to vote on version two, or is version two completely off the table?

I think you can still vote on a version two if you vote down a version one for different versions. Yeah, the motion's for version one, so you can vote that up or down.

OK, so I'm seeing that there is a motion for version one. And then if we vote version 1 down, there can be a motion for version 2. I will say that I do not support version 1. So it might be possible through discussion to ascertain whether or not we should have version 1 or version 2 moved. Is there any further discussion on the motion for version 1, Ms. Johnson?

Yeah, I just want to make sure. I want my community to also know why I'm voting no to version one. The city attorney's office did share with us that they recommend a standard operating procedure for being able to identify and to go through a process. in place for co-naming. That was a large reason why this was a practice that was not continued in 2017. We have to have a process, we have to have a procedure. This resolution literally has a be it resolved clause that shares that there will be a procedure identified. Going to version one removes that entirely. And so I'm not supportive of that.

All right, so any further discussion? Otherwise, we will do a roll call vote on version one. Roll call, please.

Johnson. No. Jost. No. Kim.

Yes.

Yang.

Aye.

Bowie. Aye. Coleman.

No.

And Council President Nacre. No. Three in favor, four opposed. The motion fails.

Ms. Bowie, I would entertain a motion for version two, if you want to make that motion.

Bring forth version two.

Motion is for version two. Roll call vote. Johnson.

Aye.

Jost.

No.

Kim.

Aye.

Giang. Aye. Bowie. Aye. Coleman. Yes. Council President Naker. Aye. Six in favor, one opposed. Motion passes. Version two is moved. Passes.

OK. All right. Now we'll take a motion on the motion for approval from Ms. Bowie.

Is there? Yes. Motion for approval for the agenda. Do you want me to read it? Are we on the next? Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were on the next one. I think we're done with three. Yeah, we just finished that already.

Thank you. I thought we were done, too, and then I was wondering. Okay. Item 35, Resolution 26-1-1543, Honoring Elder Professor Emeritus of History Mahmoud El-Kadi through co-naming Milton Street and Iglehart Avenue.

Ms. Bui. Thank you. So this second action, like I mentioned, is our opportunity to actually put a principle into practice by honoring Elder and Professor Maknulo Okadi. For more than six decades, Elder Maknulo Okadi has been an educator, historian, author, mentor, and intellectual force in Minnesota. he helped lay the foundation for African American studies in Minnesota, taught generations of students at Macalester, contributed to development of African American studies, not only at the U of M, but also across the globe. and helped shape generations of black civic and intellectual leadership. But for me, I just wanted to share with you all, as you have heard, this is very personal. I grew up listening to Elder Mahmoud El-Khadi, not only on KMOJ, but listening to many of his lectures. He actually was the reason why I decided to be a Hamlin student. He gave a lecture there, and I also had an opportunity when I was a Hamlin student Go Pipers, had the opportunity to co-host a conversation with him on KMOJ, specifically around dismantling school-to-prison pipeline and looking at ways that we can help further invest in our youth, our African-American youth. And his reach as an elder just goes beyond Twin Cities and Minnesota. And he is someone whose teachings has moved from generation to generation And I think it's really important that we have an opportunity to honor him while he is still here and to give our elders their flowers when they can hear them, see them, and feel them. And he also has been someone who chosen to have the heart of the historic Rondo as his home. He chose Rondo to raise his kids. And where the location of where the street names or the co-namings will be is actually on Milton and Igahart. And that was a request from his children because his biological government name, his first name, is Milton. So on Milton and Eigerhart is also within the jurisdiction of where the newly established African-American cultural district. And I want to also make note that in this pursuit, this request, that the community that requested this also committed to bearing the cost that was associated to this honorary signage. It was really important for them that this was something that they wanted to contribute to and not have as a burden or expense to taxpayers. Because of his contribution goes beyond just a day, there's a lot of questions around why is a proclamation not enough? And it's important that we help shape the intellectual and the cultural identity of not only the individual, who he is, but also the community and the Rondo community that he helped shape. And future generations should be able to walk through Rondo and see his name and ask who is and learn about our leaders. So I'm just asking a motion for us to adopt this establishment of our honorary streets, understanding the gravity around this vote that we haven't took this level of action in nearly a decade. And if you can also not only support this vote, but also just support a pathway moving forward in terms of how we use legacy, place, and memory to really create a responsible process here in St. Paul and how we do that honoring. So thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bowie. We'll take that as a motion for approval. is their discussion of the motion. Ms. Johnson, and then Ms. Kim.

I will say that I think sometimes process overshadows what should be a really big moment. And so for the family and for the community members, for Senator Bobby Joe Champion, and for all the leaders that really made this request to my understanding, well before Black Music Month, and have been in community asking for this recognition for a long time to Professor Imetris Mahmoud Elkadi, the first time I ever heard him speak. There's only a few. There's many black elders in our community, but there are a few that when they speak, the whole room listens, and it captivates the room, shifts the pulse of it, shifts the narrative, and that can speak to multiple generations. I think I was like 20 maybe when I first heard him speak. And I just remember recognizing and realizing how privileged and how much of an honor it was for folks to be able to still hear him speak. And not just in what he says, but how he says it and the weight of his words truly gravitate through any space that he's in. And so I personally really am excited about the fact that we get to honor him in this way before. Before, we've had multiple different requests about this, but I would argue that so many of them fall pale in comparison. And I'm excited about being able to give this honor to him while he's still with us, something that so many families don't get to always see is their loved ones honored while they're still here. And so I'm excited about that. I think that's the main focus of it. When Senator Bobby Jo Champin reached out to give an update on this, you know, it was very clear that there's a request in from the family. And I think that's also really important to be responsive to community, too. Yeah. And thank you, Council Member Bowie, for bringing this forward. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Ms. Kenney.

Yeah, I'll just drop a ditto. I just really appreciate the way that you're bringing this forward and honoring Professor Al-Qadi during his life. And I'm looking forward to the ribbon cutting and maybe walking a food box out to get some ice cream. But I just appreciate the way that you honor not just your community, but our community's elders. And I couldn't agree more. I do feel like sometimes we get really caught up in process, and we make things a lot more complicated. for the sake of process. And for me personally, when we're talking about honoring our community's elders and the wisdom that they pass on to us, it's a no-brainer for me. But I just really appreciate the way that this came to the table and the thoughtfulness that you put into it, and I'm looking forward to celebrating.

Any further discussion of the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed?

No. Six in favor, one opposed. The resolution is adopted. Resolution item 36, resolution 26-1399, authorizing the police department to apply to the fiscal year 2026 CPD microgrants program from the US Department of Justice laid over from September 2nd, 2026. This item is being withdrawn.

And this is an item that was laid over for further consideration last week. It's being withdrawn because this council does not support an expansion of our drone program until a number of questions and concerns are addressed. And we will not be authorizing this grant application.

Item 37, ordinance 26-39, amending chapter 63 of the legislative code pertaining to salt storage regulations.

For those of you who are just joining us and are not some of our millions of YouTube viewers at home on a regular basis, we have three readings for all of our ordinances. The first reading is a introduction to the ordinance. We have a staff report, so we hear what is being proposed. Our second reading is a public hearing, when we hear from the public about their thoughts on what's being proposed. And then our third reading is when we take a final vote. Sometimes we need a few more weeks to propose and consider amendments, but at least three readings. So anything you see here for first reading, we'll have a staff report. We'll then have a public hearing on items that are coming up for their second reading, and then some items are sometimes here for final adoption, although we don't have any of those this week. So we will now have a staff report on item 37, and I'm not exactly sure who's coming, but I would encourage you to come on up and introduce yourselves. Oh, sorry. You know some people are coming. Don't know everybody.

Welcome. Hi. Council President, Council Members, Josh Williams. I'm with... with the Department of Planning and Economic Development. My colleague.

And I am Andrew Hogg. I'm with DSI Zoning. I'm the Water Resource Coordinator.

So what is in front of you actually stems from something called an MS4 permit. It stands for Municipal Separated Storm and Sanitary Sewer. That itself stems from the Clean Water Act. The City of St. Paul does participate. For those who remember in the 90s when a lot of sewer work was done, that was part of that as well, overall program. This does require a permit. It gets issued about every 10 years by the... Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and our current permit, they have added a requirement that we have regulations adopted in ordinance to essentially put some rules around how bulk salt is stored. So we're not talking about a bucket of salt that you might have or grit that you might throw down on your sidewalk. This is large amounts, primarily affects city operations. There may be some larger campuses for example, that might have salt as well. The language is pretty straightforward, and the whole point of it is to prevent further degradation of surface waters. So if you look at the recommended language, we got that largely from the FECA. And it essentially just has some requirements. Cover the salt if you can. Keep it so that when it rains or snows, you're not getting that water running off into the storm sewers. But it is something that we do have to adopt pursuant to that permit. So that is what is in front of you. And then the recommendation is to adopt it. We'll go into Chapter 63 of the zoning code. Great. And we're happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Williams. And just to be full transparency for my colleagues, Mr. Greenfield did advise that given that this was a statutory requirement for cities and it was relatively straightforward, this did not need to come to policy committee first. And so just to clarify, this applies. This isn't just applicable to our own city storage. This would be any entity that stores salt at a certain quantity, which isn't a lot, but is some besides us.

Yeah, so it's referring to bulk storage. So bulk in the definitions is a ton of salt or greater. And so yes, it would apply to private landscapers who might do salting of driveways in the winter, or city operations, or like Josh had mentioned, the campus or campus maintenance crew, just as long as those larger quantities of salt are stored in a way that will prevent degradation of our waters.

Thank you. Are there any other questions for staff? Seeing none, thank you so much.

And the ordinance is laid over for a second reading. Public hearing, item 38, ordinance 26-40, amending Appendix B of the legislative code relating to Northern States Power DBA Xcel Energy Gas Franchise.

And for this one, we will also have a staff report from Ms. Boyer. Just Ms. Boyer. Mr. Dermody stood up, but he's not coming up for this. Welcome, Ms. Boyer.

Thank you very much, council president, council members. I don't think that my staff report is going to be as quick as theirs. I apologize for that. Oh, thank you. We're not here for quick. We're here for substance. 100%, right? OK, I am here to talk about the Excel franchise agreements. There are actually four. These are the next four agenda items. I'm going to give a staff report for all of them, and also the MOU that was on the consent agenda earlier today. OK, so first of all, Liz Boyer, Climate Action Coordinator. I sit in the Office of Financial Services. I am only here giving the presentation because I drew the short straw. I want you to know that this is the work before you is the result of a very dedicated team. And here are some of those folks listed here. You may recognize some of the names here. Also just want to say that this includes their predecessors in these positions because this negotiation has gone on for, what, a year and a half-ish? So we've spanned administrations as well. So just want to say this has definitely been a team effort. I'm going to start out with just a little bit of background about the franchise agreements. Our city charter actually requires us to charge a fee for any utility that is operating in the city. Our charter requires that that fee be at least 5% of that utility's gross earnings. In 2025, the city collected just under $26.5 million from Xcel gas and electric franchise fees. For 2026, we budgeted just over $25.5 million. Reminder that the actual revenue is variable. This is because it's a percentage of the energy that that customer consumes in a month is what the fee is calculated on. So if we have a warm winter or a cold winter, The amounts vary somewhat. Our current agreements are extremely complex. We're negotiated more than 20 years ago, by far the most complex in the state. Both Excel and the city were very interested in simplifying. um which actually was one of our primary goals set collectively between the administration between council members offices between staff these were the the goals that we established early on in the process to simplify the overall agreement specifically the rate schedule to maintain or increase the revenues to reduce the burden on residential ratepayers with a special emphasis on energy burdened households, and finally to disincentivize natural gas use to the extent that we can through this little tiny lever that we have. OK, so some of the highlights from the new agreements. First of all, I'm exceedingly proud of the work that all of us did. It was a lot. It was a lot. And so I'm happy to be here to share the highlights. Overall, we were able to decrease residential rates. which, for reasons nobody who currently is involved understands, were disproportionately high in the current agreements. And to increase commercial and industrial rates, which were disproportionately low. I have tables of the actual rates coming up later that we can show, too. So we were able to balance out those two. Also able to implement consistent rates for every month of the year. One of the complexities of our almost expired agreements was that we weren't able to charge franchise fees. for every month of the year. So that led to some variability and confusion and complication. So with this new agreement, we're able to implement consistent rates across the entire year. We do have slightly higher natural gas rates than electricity rates to incentivize that conversion to electrification. And these last two are really really the highlights of the new agreements. We were able to identify a mechanism and negotiate with Excel to be able to implement this mechanism to provide a rebate of 50% of the fee paid by households that are participating in a program called Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. LIHEAP for short. And I have a little more detail on that coming up next. And then we also were able to add the ability to modify the franchise fee itself annually within the context of the current agreement. That is why you are seeing the rate table as separate from the agreements, because that is a separate piece that can be amended once within any 12-month period is how the language is written. OK, so a little bit more about the LIHEAP bill credit. LIHEAP is an income qualified program serving those at or below 80% of the area median income, which for 2026 is just over $105,000. There are currently 9,821 households that participate in this program in St. Paul. So these households would get how we would think of it as a 50% discount on their franchise fee. But because of the way that it had to be implemented through Excel's regulatory requirements, it basically is going to function as a rebate. So for example, you will pay the full franchise fee in January. 50% of that fee will be rebated in February. You will pay the full fee in February. 50% will be rebated in March, and so on and so forth. One other note, too, is that it will apply to any household that qualifies within a 12-month period. They will get the rebate then for that entire year. This is a table just showing the distribution of LIHEAP households across the city. So you can see that these discounts will reach folks in every ward.

Pause for question for Ms. Johnson, please.

Thank you, Council President, and thank you, Ms. Boyer. I just wanted to get a quick clarity on this particular bill credit. Is that like annually it will be the same households or the same criteria annually in the agreement? Will it be those same households year after year?

So you have to apply. So they have to apply within a 12-month period. And my understanding is they get that program for that 12 months. So I don't know exactly how the program requirements work. Would be happy to get more detail on that. But for the rebate, it's if you qualify any time in that 12-month period, you will get our rebate.

It doesn't change month by month.

OK, and then one other addition that we were able to add to the franchise agreements is the addition of a completely new document, a memorandum of understanding. We haven't had this before with Excel. This is an additional agreement that outlines our shared partnership on programs and initiatives that improve energy efficiency, reduce emissions, and lower costs. Some of these initiatives and programs we have always done with Excel, at least in recent memory. But this is kind of the first time that it's all been collectively put in one place and written down. So examples include targeted outreach for existing programs. A couple of joint events. We were able to secure a stated intention for collaboration on pilot projects and innovative approaches. Of course, nothing is guaranteed. And then also stating that we will both continue to participate in the Partners in Energy program. We got our joint emissions reduction goals, our goals that were in the recently adopted Climate Action and Resilience Plan. And Excel stated they're also publicly adopted goals as well, kind of all in one place. And this last one may seem a little bit wonky, but it actually is pretty big. The city itself has a couple hundred Excel accounts. They're all on different billing cycles. They all have different requirements, different rates. So if we were able to get some kind of consolidated invoicing, consolidated data format, making sure that if we were able to qualify for a reduced rate for a large consumer, that we would be able to get that. To be able to have all that in one place would be remarkable. Happy to have it all written down here in one place and happy to have had the opportunity to discuss it with them. Okay, that's all for the overview. And now I have a bunch of data tables with a lot of numbers that I'm not going to read out loud, really. But I want to just draw your attention to a couple things on a couple tables. I mean, if you want me to.

We are actually very comfortable with numbers. I bet. I bet. One of the main things we do. One thing I admire about all of you.

OK, so this is the electric franchise fee rate table that's in the agreement before you right now. What you can see in the top line, so this is listed out by customer class. So the top line here is residential. The equivalent current rate, again, because our current agreement was so complicated, the data, there was a lot of math. There was a lot of math. So when we got through all the math, what we realized is that residents were paying an equivalent rate of about 7%. So we're proposing reducing that to 5.5% consistently across the year. Some of our CNI is commercial and industrial. So some small retailers, we're paying as little as 2.5%. So we're proposing bringing that up. Yeah, essentially increasing the commercial and industrial rates. The last three categories, we're not entirely sure also why they were included originally, but in the new agreement, government accounts will be exempt. Okay. This is all based on median use. So this just gives you a little bit of a snapshot for what this might mean for the average residential user. So you can see in the total column here, this is, again, a median portion of just the electric consumption of their Excel bill. So their current franchise fee for July of 2024 would have been $7.28. With this new proposed fee, it would go down to $3.26. You can see how we weren't able to charge in some months. So the upshot is that residential users will see about a decrease of $11. The median user would see a decrease of $11 for the electric portion and would be, on average, an increase for commercial and industrial users. I also should say we're required to have separate franchise agreements. Can't remember if I said that at the beginning. So we have one for electricity and one for natural gas. OK, so that's that. Let me go to the gas one. Again, it's a lot of information here on this table. You can see the residential ones. Currently, the equivalent rate is about 5 and 1 half percent. We're proposing bringing that up just a little bit and then making consistent the rates across other customer classes. And here, again, the impact of what it might be on a monthly bill for a median residential customer in the city. which results in about $11 more for the gas portion of that median users bill. You might remember that for electricity we were projecting an $11 decrease, so it'll be about a wash for residential users. And an increase in general for commercial and industrial users who have been paying a disproportionately low rate over the last couple of decades. So here, we just wanted to pull out the residential impacts all in one table here, again, where you can see that the median user would have no impact. This then is the total what is proposed for both franchises, the electric and gas. You can see what we budgeted for 2026, what we are projecting for 2026, reducing the LIHEAP discount portion, and then our projected going forward for calendar year 2027. And that's all I have. Happy to go back to any of those or take any questions that you might have.

Thank you, Ms. Boyer. I actually think that compared to the amount of work and time and sweat and love that has gone into this franchise agreement, that is actually a very short presentation. So thank you to you, to Mr. Sitta, to the entire team that has worked on this. I just want to, we'll have more conversation about this. We'll have a public hearing next week. I want to encourage folks to please let us know your feedback either next week in person, via email, via phone, But I just want to double down on what we are uniquely getting out of this agreement in terms of the equitable charging. And I think it goes to show how important it is to put our values down on paper and shoot for the moon, even if it's unrealistic. When we said as a council that we want to have equitable pricing, that's unheard of still. This is, I believe, a novel approach that we are pioneering in St. Paul. And it was highly unlikely that we would get to it, but those were our values and we stuck to them. What we're seeing today is this 50% rebate for low-income households that you found a way to make happen. And I'm hoping that this will be a model for so many other cities to follow in our footsteps. So just really want to hammer home how impressive that is, how much it aligns with our values as a city, and how important it is to really set those goals and then try to meet them. So thank you. Looking to my colleagues for other comments, questions. Ms. Jost.

Thanks, Council President. I'll have more to say when we get to adopt these, but I just want to also echo what Council President Aker said, and this has been a process that's been going on for a long time. Chief Resilience Officer Russ Stark was a big part of this, and I often heard our staff say that some of the feedback we were getting is, you know, no other city has a franchise fee agreement as complicated or just as – thorough as this one and i think that that just tells me that you know like council president naker said we have so many values and so many things that we care about this franchise fee agreement is a big deal it's going to be in place for a long time um it's a it's a major revenue source for our city i think it's second or third or something like that okay thank you And so it's very important and it's also an opportunity for us to look at the agreement as a whole and look at gas versus electric and also weigh that with our climate action goals. So I just really appreciate all the effort that was put into this, the attention to detail, the negotiations, and being able to come up with something that aligns with our values. So thank you so much. And I agree, there's probably dozens more pages in time of presentation behind this very short presentation that you gave. So thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Jost. Other questions or comments for now? Doesn't look like it. Thank you so much, Ms. Boyer. We will, I know, have more discussion about this. Thank you. And this will lay over for a second reading public hearing.

Item 39, Ordinance 26-41, Amending Appendix C of the Legislative Code Relating to Northern States Power DBA Xcel Energy Electric Franchise.

And I think rather than having Ms. Boyer come up and say ditto three times in a row Your staff report applies to this one and the next few items as well.

This ordinance is laid over for a second reading public hearing. Item 40, ordinance 26-43, amending the legislative code by adding a new appendix B2 relating to Northern States Power DBA electric energy gas franchise fee. This item is laid over for a second reading public hearing. Item 41, ordinance 26-44, amending the legislative code by adding a new appendix C2 relating to Northern States Power DBA Xcel energy electric franchise fee. This item is laid over for second reading public hearing. Item 42, resolution public hearing 26-239, approving the application of Blood Cancer United, Inc. for a sound level variance in order to present amplified sound for Light the Night event on Saturday, September 26th at 200 Dr. Justice O'Hage Boulevard, Harriet Island Regional Park.

This brings us to the public hearing section of our agenda. If you are here to testify on an item on our public hearing agenda, when your item is called and when we call for the public hearing, Please come on up. Stand in between the two microphones right there. You don't need to adjust them. You can stand up straight. They'll pick you up just fine. You'll have two minutes to testify. We ask that you start with your name and where you're coming from, and then sign in on either sign and sheet when you're done. So with that, this is a public hearing on item 42. If you're here to speak on this item, please come on up. 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 43, resolution public hearing 26-246, amending the Parks and Recreation 2026 grant and aid fund for a $160,000 donation from Como Friends, a nonprofit to promote, support, preserve, and enhance the Como Zoo and the 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 44, ABZA 26-4, considering the appeal of a decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals denying a variance request to allow a curb cut located within 60 feet of a residentially zoned property to remain.

So a slight exception to the rule for this public hearing, we will actually first have a staff report because it is an appeal of a previous body's decision. So I will welcome up our staff and then the app Pellant will actually have five minutes to testify on this one. Welcome up. And let us know if you need tech help.

Council Member President and Council Members. 649 Stanley Avenue North, Domino's.

Sorry, can you just start with introducing yourself?

I'm sorry. I am paying gain time for Department of Safety Inspections. And I have Yaya Villara, who is the zoning manager with me today.

Thank you.

Kind of nervous, sorry. You're good. So 649 Domino's, had applied for a variance and that decision was denied by Board of Zoning. Zoning code citation section 65.616 for restaurant and fast food. Points of either ingress and egress shall be located at least 60 feet from the intersection of any two streets and at least 60 feet from any abutting residential zone property. 649 Snelly Avenue North is zoning T2, a traditional neighborhood. The lot size is approximately 0.2204 acres. The corner lot of Snelly Avenue North and Blair Avenue is an existing commercial building and property. And it's proposed to be used by Domino's as a takeout restaurant. On this slide, this is the existing conditions. You can see from Snelling Avenue, that curb cut is to be remained. From Blair, they are removing the intersection closest to, the curb cut closest to the intersection of Blair and Snelling, and the one closest to the alley on Blair Avenue is to be remained. The variance request was to allow the curb cut located within 60 feet of the residential zone property to remain. Public hearing held was on August 8, 2026. Motion to deny based on findings one and three. Voted four to zero in favor of denial. Finding one, the board found that keeping a non-conforming curb cut was not consistent with the intent of section 65.616, which is intended to reduce the conflicts between vehicles and surrounding properties. Staff positions recommend approval because the applicant is removing the Blair Avenue curb cut closest to the intersection. This addresses the primary safety concerns and reduces the site from three curb cuts to two, resulting in fewer potential vehicle and pedestrian conflict points. Finding three, the board found that the applicant did not demonstrate practical difficulties unique to the property. They felt that the restaurant could reasonably operate without keeping the non-conforming curb cut Staff found that the practical difficulties come from the physical configuration of the specific corner lock. A blurred avenue curb cut were removed. All customers, employees, and delivery trucks would have to use a single snowing avenue entrance that could create maneuvering problems, particularly for large delivery trucks, including backups, tight maneuvering, and vehicles potentially backing into traffic. And we're here to have any questions, to answer any questions you guys might have. Great. Thank you so much.

Are there questions for staff before we hold the public hearing? Doesn't look like it. Don't go too far. Thank you so much. So as I said, this will be a public hearing. And in this case, we will actually give, since there's an appellant in this case, we'll give the appellant five minutes to testify. So welcome up if you are here to speak on this item. You're welcome to tag team and share your five minutes. But it's five minutes total.

Welcome. Good afternoon, all. My name is Eric Staudter. I'm the construction and facilities director for Domino's Pizza. I'm here seeking reconsideration of the zoning board's ruling on not allowing us to keep that second curb cut on Blair Avenue there. I believe there was a misunderstanding during the previous meeting that made it unclear of why we were seeking to keep this open. We are planning on rehabbing the tired and, to be honest, rundown Hamlin Cleaner at 649 Selling Avenue North into a Domino's Pizza. The property is zoned for residential, and we are planning on moving forward with the project regardless of appeal to be approved or not. So there is gonna be a restaurant there regardless. We're just trying to make it as safe as possible. The purpose for requesting the variance originally on Blair Avenue was to help us control traffic a lot better on the property and make the entire property a lot safer for the surrounding neighborhoods, our customers, and also our team members as well. With us being able to have that curb cut, It allowed us to keep 100% of our team members on the back side of the building and 100% of the customers on the front side of the building, allowing us to create a traffic pattern that would be a lot more safe than having basically everything coming in and out of Snelling Avenue. With us being able to keep all of our team members on the backside of the property, then we have control over how they exit or ingress and egress out of this property by preventing them from going west on Blair Avenue. And as they're leaving the property and then as they're coming back into the property, prevent them from coming from the west through the neighborhoods and stuff to get onto the property. If we were allowed to keep the existing curb cut, our plan is to modify that existing curb cut and allow only traffic to flow towards Snelling Avenue. So basically, we're just going to take up the 100 feet of Blair Avenue from the intersection of Snelling Avenue to that curb cut. by putting in a curved wedge basically on the egress there and it would push everything over there and it would prevent all of our drivers from going west as they're leaving the property and it would prevent obviously anyone from coming from the west to turn into the backside of that property as well. There'll also be signage on both leaving the property of right turn only and also signage on the public side of saying team members only or dominoes employees only With denying the variance originally, what it did is it actually, denying the variance originally and forcing all the traffic now onto Snelling Avenue actually is causing what I believe that all of us want to keep is basically keep as much traffic out of the neighborhoods as possible. By pushing everything onto Snelling, now there's really only one access or there is literally one access onto this property so not allowing that curb cut basically all the traffic from the south would actually have to go either through the neighborhoods to get onto blair avenue or north of blair avenue to turn around and come back to this come back south on snelling avenue which is going to increase of traffic on Blair and in the neighborhoods, which is not safe for anybody. I mean, our main goal and the main purpose for this design from day one is to keep it as safe as possible for the neighborhoods, our customers, the team members, everybody all around. Because I mean, to be honest, the neighborhoods, the customers, are in that neighborhood this this location serves the neighborhood it sits in it doesn't go outside you know a big distance area so we want to have a good collaboration with our neighborhood and keep everybody happy Thank you for your time. We've got about 40 seconds left.

I don't know if your other speaker is going to speak or not.

What's that? We've got about 40 seconds left. I don't know if your other speaker is going to speak. No, I said thank you for your time, and I'm open to any questions unless Chris has some.

No, Chris Thune from Thune & Green, Atlanta Lakes, Minnesota. Just to add to that, we did. To coincide with what Eric said, we did provide an updated exhibit, I believe, per the submittal that basically shows that alternate modified curb cut on the west side to help basically kick out the traffic towards the east to help prevent it and as a compromise to help mitigate that traffic going into the neighborhood.

Great. Thank you both very much. With that, I will take a motion from Ms. Coleman to close the public hearing and we'll discuss. Oh, I'm so sorry. We have more public hearings. Sorry. Thank you so much. Yep, sorry. If there's anyone else here to testify, we'll have two minutes per person now since the appellants are done. Welcome up.

My name is Bonita Stepa. I live at 1600 Blair Avenue, two doors just west of the property in question. I would like to address and clarify the assertion stated in the grounds for appeal by Domino's. The appeal uses the generic term vehicle when, in fact, the appeal concerns access on Blair Avenue only for their delivery drivers and employees. Domino's plan itself calls for their customers in the northbound lane on Snelling Avenue to reverse direction to access the entrance on Snelling Avenue. The traffic and the medians on Snelling are a fact of life for all businesses on Snelling Avenue. Why, then, should an exception be granted for delivery drivers and employees? Functioning implementation of code 65-616 can be seen three blocks south on Snelling at the Taco Bell. All traffic enters and exits on Snelling Avenue. Northbound traffic uses the turn arrow at Thomas and Snelling to reverse direction. The appeal's assertion that maintaining the Blair Avenue curb cut provides a direct and logical route and reduces unnecessary circulation speaks more to expediting delivery drivers than improving safety. A directive to delivery drivers to reverse direction only at a traffic signal would be a safer solution. The flair to encourage right turns by drivers at that curb cut, as they're suggesting, is not as effective at enforcing design standards I'm sorry, I'm going to start again. The flair to encourage right turns by drivers is not as effective at enforcing design standards that do...

Thank you very much. I do need you to stop your testimony there. You're over the two minutes, but feel free to leave us if you have written comments. I do have that. We can take those in writing. Thank you so much. Make sure to sign in. Welcome up.

Thank you. I'm glad we didn't miss our chance. Sorry about that. My bad. No, no. I'm Julie Hellwick. I live on Fry and Blair. I would like to note that this is a permit correction report from DSI that says that the applicants need to get variances for both d and e of 65616 so they were aware that they needed variances for both six for both d and e however they only applied for d which is the curb cut which he discussed and i'm they applied for e which is the curb cut and that variance was denied they had the opportunity at the time of um of applying for variances to apply for both. And indeed, they mentioned when they sent a letter to the city council for their first variance requesting support for variance E, the curb cut, they state the requested variance does not comply with D, which D is actually of a higher level. D is access to Blair et al. So without having a variance for D, you can't implement E. And I request that it gets denied because in their application for a variance of the curb cut, they cite code citation 65616 condition D. They don't cite E, which is what the variance was denied for. And so I don't know how you can approve an appeal for something they didn't. that was never asked for nor denied. And they didn't include E in this, which is what the variance was denied about. Another concern, and this is just from coming to speak publicly at these hearings and thinking that our voices matter, is that sometimes our voices do matter and we appreciate that, but sometimes it seems like they don't. And a resolution was handed out at the August 3rd meeting before there was even a meeting before there was a hearing that notes that the resolution was approved, and it lists the reasons, and it says based on the minutes. Well, we know it wasn't approved, so how can you have a resolution based on the minutes? Thank you. I do need you to wrap up right there. And MnDOT also has asked for a city report.

Thank you so much. Make sure to sign in. Thank you. Appreciate it. Is there anyone else here to speak on this item? And also, feel free if you'd like to leave your written comments as well. I know two minutes go by quickly. All right, with that, I am going to take a motion from Ms. Coleman to close the public hearing. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed?

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

Ms. Coleman?

Quick question, maybe for our DSI team. If there's any clarification or additional information that you all want to provide, is that? Yep, come on back up. Can I get you all back up?

Thank you for not going far. It was for this exact moment.

Council Member President and Council Members, can I ask a question?

Well, Ms. Coleman, do you have a specific question for DSI or something you want them to speak to?

I think they have the same question about just sort of what that bit of clarification there around the exception D versus E and if there are any paperwork errors that it sounds like might have been alluded to that we need to clear up. Excuse me.

So, Council Member Price and Council Members, typically when we write our staff reports and we write our resolutions, it's – We do write it in whatever decision that we make. So the resolution that's provided with the packet is not the final resolution. It's a draft that we provide for all of our board members to kind of look at. It doesn't get finalized until after the decision is made. So that was a conflicting or confusion on her end where the packet was provided to her.

Thank you. I don't think I have any other questions.

And just to further that note from my long ago planning commission days, the resolution that you put forward as a draft aligns with the staff recommendation, right? So in this case, your recommendation was for approval of the variance. So the draft resolution would have said that. But when the board votes differently, obviously you change the resolution to what they voted for.

So the one that was provided on the legislature was the final denied resolution.

That is really helpful, and I appreciate the testimony about that, because I think it's really important to ask and answer that question, that we're not predetermining the outcome before a vote happens. OK, thank you so much. Ms. Coleman.

Yeah, thank you, and thank you to our GSI team and also to the neighbors who came today and folks who testified when this was at the BZA. I would make a motion to grant the appeal in this instance. I think that it is... This is super important. Managing traffic, particularly around Snelling, is something that we should all take really seriously. We've talked, even in the time that I've been in this body, about car bucks and what happens when we don't have careful traffic management plans that are really responsive to the unique aspects of an individual property and the use that it is intended for. And I heard our neighbors and residents speaking about Why here but not elsewhere? I can't speak to decisions that were made about other properties, but we have this property in front of us. And given that, I take very seriously the recommendations from our DSI team about how best to manage traffic flow there, recognizing that it is sort of at the intersection of a residential neighborhood and a commercial corridor. Also knowing that this is likely to be a popular Domino's location, given its proximity to Hamlin and other college students, I think that it's really critical that we are being really mindful about that and making decisions that are in the best interest of true public safety. So again, in this instance, I think that the conditions were met to grant the variance. And so I would move to grant the appeal.

Thank you, Ms. Coleman. Is there discussion of the motion, which is to grant the appeal? I will just say I'll be supporting the motion. I really appreciate your thoughtful approach to this. I think that it's also, I do agree with the difficulty of having different properties that seem to be inconsistent, but we have to make these decisions one property at a time and apply the standards individually. I also think even if it is the case that this is primarily to alleviate traffic for delivery, trucks and vehicles, I still think it is safer and reduces congestion and pollution to have those delivery trucks and vehicles be able to enter and exit more efficiently than to have them also piled up on smelling along with customers. So to me, any traffic that can move more efficiently is a benefit environmentally and from a traffic flow perspective and from a safety perspective. Is there other discussion of the motion? Doesn't look like it. Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed.

Seven in favor, none opposed. The appeal is granted. Legislative hearing consent agenda items 45 through 50 are before you for your consideration.

This brings us to the legislative hearing section of our agenda. I would welcome up Ms. Zimney. It's hard not to say Ms. Mormont, but I did it.

Good afternoon, Council President, Council Members. I am not aware of anyone here to testify on the legislative hearing item.

All right, so if you are here for any of our legislative hearing items 45 through 50, this is your public hearing. And so we would welcome you up at this time, 45 through 50. Seeing none, I will take a motion from Ms. Jost to close the public hearings and approve the items with the recommendations and amendations 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.

That brings us to the end of our agenda and the opportunity to share any news from the wards. Vice President.

Thanks, Council President. I am sharing about St. Paul Parks and Rec's fall event happening in my ward. Can you believe it? Already fall. It's Autumn Glow Night. So it's a family outdoor fall event where there will be light snacks, games, and crafts. It's tomorrow, September 10, from 5.30 PM to 7 PM at the Hazel Park Rec Center.

Great. I think it's only meteorological fall, and I'm going to keep clinging to that, despite what all the events are telling us. Thanks, Vice President. Ms. Kim.

Urban Roots is having a Rivoli Bluff Bash this Saturday, September 12, 10 to 2 p.m. There'll be food and gardens and resources. So come between 10 and 2 to Rivoli Bluff at Urban Roots.

Sounds like fun.

Which I think Dr. Lee's going to want to do.

It's all one city.

It's shared.

It's Johnson, and then it's Joseph, and then it's Louie.

The Ward 7's office is hosting a discussion on September 24th at 6 p.m. at Metro State University in the Ecolab room. So it's on the third floor of the Dean's Buff Library. We'll be talking about the Dean's Buff Library closure. I expect to see quite a few community folks there. So I extend that invitation to my council colleagues and to anyone in the public that would like to come. So it'll be at 6 p.m. on the 24th of September. Thanks so much, Ms. Johnson.

Ms. Jost. Thank you. So there's, I got a couple of events. There is Mac Girl Fest, which is by the McAllister-Groveland District Council, which is going to be this Saturday from 11 to 3 at Edgecom Recreation Center. There will be lots of different exhibits for local businesses and community organizations, food and performances. So it should be a lot of fun. There's also the Sisters of St. Joseph of Crown Valley have a September Fest that they do every fall that's going to be... This Thursday from 5 o'clock to 8 o'clock at, now I don't know the exact address, but it's basically at St. Kate's where the Sisters of St. Joseph are on Randolph Avenue. And it's a really great event. There's going to be food and just activities for the family. And, yes, that is all the events that I have. A lot happening with fall now upon us.

A lot happening. Any other news from the board? Oh, sorry, Ms. Bowie. No problem, no problem.

We have the Selby Avenue Jazz Fest this year, or this Saturday, and it's going to start between 11 and it goes to 8 p.m. The announcement, the official announcement for the Honorary Street will be at the Jazz Fest. We still are looking at a time in terms of making that announcement. Mahmoud Okadi's son is Stokely, who is the former mint condition artist, will be the headliner there. Day two of the festival will be Sunday, September 13th at 3 PM at the Walker West Music Academy. It's going to be a free master class with Stokely at the Harmony Hall. And this year marks the 25th year anniversary of the Selby Jazz Festival. to invite you all to join. It's going to be really fun. And then I have another event I want to share. Well, it's a series, but there is this youth-led, black-led space created for healing in my ward called the Black Youth Healing Arts Center. And they are hosting several free yoga, free gardening, free journaling. They have a book club. They even have a new pop-up vintage store. So if you like vintage clothes, they have a swap. So it's free. If you bring some clothes, you get to swap out with some new clothes. and free sewing and quilting lessons as well. So they are located right on, well, I'll follow up. I don't have the, I just had the address, excuse me. They're located 643 Virginia Street. So this Sunday, they have free yoga and free Sunday self-care classes for us.

Thanks, Ms. Bowie. Well, since Ms. Kim took one that was in my ward, I'm going to give one that actually isn't in anybody's ward, but I am going to it. There is a Monarcha democracy defense training that my synagogue is hosting, Beth Jacob and Mendota Heights, next Tuesday, September 15, from 6.30 to 8.30. There are lots of these going on all over, but this is a great opportunity, open to all, for folks to make sure that they know how to keep our elections free, fair, and safe for everybody this fall. So all are invited.

Any other news from any of the wards?

Seeing none, it's been a productive day. Thanks to everyone. We are adjourned.