The meeting of the St.

Paul City Council Policy Committee to Order roll call, please.

Councilmember Bowie.

Here.

Council President Naker.

Here.

Councilmember Jost.

Councilmember Coleman.

Here.

Councilmember Kim.

Here.

Council Vice President Yang.

Councilmember Johnson.

Here.

Seeing seven present.

Awesome.

Welcome everyone to our policy committee.

As I was just mentioning, we have three items on our agenda today.

They are all worthy of both robust presentation and robust conversation, but because we have an hour and a half, we're going to be very tight on our time and limiting each one to 30 minutes.

And I believe Jacket, you learned how to use the timer this morning, so apparently I'm already counting down into the first presentation's time.

So with that, I'm going to turn things over to Councilmember Coleman, who will introduce our first two items.

Excellent.

Thank you, Council President.

Morning, everybody.

Item number one is a continuation of a topic that the Council Vice President brought up in the fall around the youth minimum wage.

So that's it for my introduction.

I'm excited to turn it over to Stephanie Baymer from Hero.

Welcome up, Miss Baymer.

Good morning.

And you can just stand right in between the two microphones and the just fine.

Thank you.

I appreciate the instruction.

Yeah.

Welcome.

Good morning, Council President and Council members.

I'm Stephanie Baymer.

Excellent on the pronunciation.

I'm with the Human Rights and Equal Economic Opportunity Department with Hero.

And I'm here to present on to give some background about the labor standards enforcement and education division, and more specifically on the minimum wage and the youth rate exception within that.

Let's see.

And just to our folks in media services, if we can get the presentation on our central screen as well, that would be great.

Keep going, Ms.

Baymer.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um, so first the Labor Standards Enforcement Education Division certainly enforces three ordinances, city ordinances, wage theft, earn sick and save time, and the minimum wage ordinance.

And additionally, there's a resource for employers and employees to educate around those ordinances.gov backslash labor standards is where folks can go.

Advice and support around the ordinances for the labor standards division, but also for the city as a whole.

So it was part of this conversation.

Definitely want to mention that they're also a resource as things move forward.

So that also means even if an employer is based out of uh outside of the city of St.

Paul, headquarters, etc.

Any work that is being done within the city, um, the minimum wage applies.

Even if they're only working um part-time within the city, if they're working two hours a week or more, the city minimum wage would apply to the hours that are worked within the city.

And then you'll see the chart for the minimum wage rate for the city.

Um, and there's a bunch of numbers on there, but basically there's different rates that are calculated based on a business size.

So there's large, small, and micro.

And the business size is calculated based on the total number of employees for a business, both employees that work within the city of St.

Paul and outside of the city of St.

Paul.

The minimum wage does increase annually and is calculated by the commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry and reflects inflation.

And the reason why there is multiple numbers for across there, there is gradual movement to moving to one city rate, regardless of city uh the employer size, but it's intentional to have that gradual increase, understanding that for smaller businesses to maybe making that increase, it's um they might not have the capacity or ability to move at such a quick rate in increasing all right.

So there are two exceptions within the city or minimum wage ordinance that um in reference to youth workers.

The first I'll talk about is the 90-day youth wage.

Um and this applies to employees who are between the ages of 14 and 17.

Um they make 85 percent of the small business minimum wage rate.

So from that chart within the minimum um small business rate, they would be making 85% of that for the first 90 days after hire, and that's 90 consecutive days from higher, not um scheduled days, just to um clarify that.

And then after those 90 days, or if they turn 18 within those 90 days, they then are making the normal city rate at that point.

And just to provide kind of zooming out from St.

Paul um some additional information and comparison, the state has a very similar 90-day youth wage, structured very similarly with the um 90 days from hire.

Um, there's a lower rate that youth are making.

Um, one difference is is that it goes up until the age of 20 versus the smaller age range for this.

The city of Minneapolis does not have a similar um wage to this one.

And then the second category or exception within the ordinance is the youth focused training program exception or carve out, and that applies to um youth training programs, um, specifically ones that have local, state, or federal funding, and then for programs that don't necessarily have those funding sources, they would then need to meet certain criteria to fall into that category, which can include components like mentorship, um, opportunity to earn academic um credit, um, professional development opportunities.

So there's certain criteria we need to need to be able to fall into that category.

And for this this um exception, the state and Minneapolis have similarly structured exceptions for programs like those.

Um that's the end of the information that I had prepared for today, so I definitely welcome any questions.

Great.

Thanks so much, Ms.

Bammer.

I say a question from Ms.

Johnson.

Thank you so much, and uh thank you for being here.

I just wanted to hear.

So with Minneapolis's um 90 90-day youth wage, you said that they don't have a similar one, but what do they have?

So youth that would fall into that court if it's not a youth training program, and they're the youth, they would make the same uh minimum wage rate as any any other age.

There's so they don't have a differentiation where you don't have a rate.

Okay.

Different rate.

Okay, thank you.

So it's more that they just don't have one at all, not like a similar one that we do, just there isn't one.

Correct.

Okay, just and Ms.

Bamer, I should probably remember this because I was here when we raised our minimum wage and debated all of this, but um, can you just sort of for context provide some of the pros and cons of having a 90-day youth wage?

Yep, so um for the you know, having the wage, um, there's different arguments around that a youth worker comes in with little to no experience, so um having a lower rate because they're gonna need more training initially.

That's part of an argument that's made for that type of rate.

Additionally, um folks feel that um then it decreases the competition for youth and makes it easier for them to get a job because if the rate is the same, an employer might prefer to hire someone who's older that they're may have more experience.

So those are two of the primary um reasons that those types of kind of rates exist.

And then arguments against I assume are that it's just not equal to what someone is making who's older, and there's not necessarily any reason why someone who's below 18 who's 17 versus 18 should make a lower.

Whether or not yeah, those things are truly have an impact, or that a youth would necessarily yeah, yeah.

Whether or not yeah, those things are truly have an impact, or that a youth would necessarily great.

Thank you, Ms.

Kemp.

Um, I also remember that um as at the time I wasn't a council member, but being here when this was implemented, a lot of the conversation from the youth stemmed from the fact that so many of our youth um contribute to their household's income.

And so as we think about how we help stabilize families and using um zero exemptions for youth wages in our city, um, this is a huge asset to keep families afloat for them to be able to like continue to pay the rising costs of just like living.

Um the other thing that I just want to call attention to is one of the last amendments to the minimum wage policy at the time was a phased approach, and if you look effective July 2026, which is this summer, um, is when kind of one of our last micro employers will actually be within 75 cents of the 15 minimum wage for the city.

Um, and so in this policy, I'm also sort of interested, um, you know, what are if an exemption is taken out, what sort of phase in or no phase in does that look like, um, given the fact that some of our smaller employees are still not meeting the city's minimum wage, which as we know um did not trend with inflation, and now there are obviously you know, a lot of concerns over minimum wages trending with inflation given the cost of living.

Um, and the other one that I want to call attention to is um the other exemption that was made in this um policy was folks um with disabilities earning subminimum wage and it being allowed, which I as we've established at the state is incredibly discriminatory.

Um, and one of the facts around um some of the bills that were attempting to fix this at the state level um is that across the wage program for folks with disabilities earning less than subminimum wage, their average wage was four dollars and fifteen cents an hour.

So um I'm really interested in sort of like pairing if we're removing exemptions, what other exemptions that there could be interest in in partnership partnership on.

Um but yeah, really appreciate the really appreciate um this coming to council and so early in the year.

Thanks, Ms.

Kim.

And that actually leads to another question, and then I think I see Ms.

Bowie.

Um you said that the youth 90-day youth wage is 85% of the small business minimum wage rate.

Does that is that true if you are a micro business as well?

So in that case, could it be that you're you're you would actually be paying more to your youth workers, or would there be some adjustment?

It is correct that for the youth rate, it's um 85% of the small business rate, regardless of business size, how that works out in math in this moment.

I don't know entirely if that would then um equate to it being higher than the micro.

Sometimes you discover the quirks of the policies you passed many years later.

Um thank you, Ms.

Bayman.

Ms.

Bowie.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you so much for this presentation, and I just want to say I appreciate the the council members who have led on this policy.

Um I remember last year when this um item came up, or when we were voting about um the youth employment rates, I definitely was someone in support of uh removing this exemption and allowing rate youth to be uh you know paid at the same rate as our standard.

Um and I just want to piggyback off of um um council member Kim's uh statement, but just really I guess opposed a question uh particularly are there other like protected classes or community groups or um yeah, like individuals who also will be exempt from the minimum wage because I know what was mentioned was the uh people who are on disability.

I remember a time where you know when we had the Walmart and Ward One, um, there's a lot of conversations around um you know Walmart hiring majority people with disabilities as a business advantage to not pay them at that at the minimum wage or at the um rate as everyone other businesses.

Um so I'm just curious about that.

So that's one question.

And the other um uh statement I just wanted to make, particularly uh particularly around like youth who are in households uh who have who are on public assistance, you know, many of their their finances and in their employment uh is reported uh to the county or even report it to the state.

So I would definitely uh will want to know just particularly around when we're thinking about youth wages.

Uh it's not exempt when it comes to a family receiving public assistance.

Uh so we shouldn't make it exempt when they are actually you know earning a wage taking care of their families.

So but um, but yeah, I'm just really curious around if there's other exemptions that we should be exploring.

So um as far as who doesn't fully, so within the ordinance and the definition of who is an employee, um that definition comes primarily from the state.

So there are certain folks who don't fall under that, which would and um outside of protected classes, so independent contractors, there's some really specific um uh folks who don't fall under that definition.

There is included in that state definition, the um exception for um persons with disabilities, specifically part of vocational programs.

So it's not all persons with disabilities, but there's a specific carve out for folks who are in those programs.

So um, and that's based on the state definition of an employee and refers to state statute.

I'm not aware of any other of the uh exceptions that would overlap with uh individuals in protected classes of under human rights ordinance.

Just one follow-up.

Thank you so much for that clarification because I also um lit a light bulb of that you know, it sounds like our vocational programs, like maybe there's some like workforce development programs that are um you know designed to actually help people with disabilities, our young people get access to jobs, and would you say is that the competitive advantage of that's designed by those programs to uh pay the youth and folks who are um who have a disability uh like that wage that is different or maybe under the minimum wage?

I'm not able to speak more in detail about um that, but it's something that I can follow up with and get more information.

Thank you.

Certainly.

Ms.

Coleman.

Thank you, and thank you so much for this presentation.

It's really helpful.

Um I just wanted to ask a couple of questions about the city approval process for the youth focused training programs, because I think I've had a number of conversations and just sort of to bring this out into the public in front of the council.

I think that there are a number of true youth job training programs that feels me very different than just hiring somebody a year younger to do the exact same job and paying them less.

But I I think it's also really important that if we do maintain a youth focused training program wage, that we're really clear that that is substantively different in experience for the young person.

And so I'm just you know, you talked a bit about the different ways that somebody might qualify or a program might qualify to pay that youth training to kind of fall under that wage category.

I'm wondering if you could talk about what the city approval process looks like.

Is that something where there's regular certification?

Does the city have um ongoing reports that are expected from those employers to ensure that the training is really substantive, or is it sort of a you check a box, you say that you've met this requirement, and then we'll approve you to pay it young people at that wage.

I'm not as familiar with how that process works, so it's again that would be something I can get more information and circle back to the online.

Awesome, thank you.

People often say I don't mean to put someone on the spot as they're putting someone on the spot.

But I noticed that Ms.

Abraham is here from our right track program.

Um I know Right Track was part of the conversation.

That's certainly our city approved focused training or apprenticeship program.

I would just say if you have anything you want to add to the conversation, you are absolutely welcome to do so, but do not have to.

Um you might have relevant information to share.

Oh, and Nardo, sorry, didn't see everybody.

Come welcome up.

Thank you.

Council President.

Uh, for those who don't know me, Shana Abraham.

Um rec services manager.

She or pronouns like tax supervisor.

Yeah.

So um for the training program, um, there are the things that um Stephanie mentioned around uh that you have to be either a federal or state um grantee to be qualified for the training program wage, right?

So we get a bunch of money from the state every year.

We go through uh uh an extensive grant process to get that money that demonstrates the things that we're doing in addition to um the job portion of the training program.

Uh I would add that the our that applied our YJ1 program, our youngest participants and our largest program, our 14 and 15-year-olds are our most engaged population right now.

Um our YJ1 experiences are substantially different than a traditional job.

Uh, we ensure that through uh continuous job coaching, we provide uh extensive support as throughout the uh job development processes as well.

Um so just to make that clear, we do offer additional training, uh consistent job coaching from our team at different sites.

Uh this summer alone, there'll be around 500 interns in that space.

Uh, and again, continues to be our most uh engaged program and our biggest need in the city right now.

Thank you both.

I appreciate you being here.

That as long as we had the experts in the room, I would want to call them up.

Thank you.

Um other questions.

I guess I I do have one question, but I see uh vice president, and then I'll yield.

Thank you, Council President.

Well, I want to first say thank you for the presentation here.

It's really helpful um info and also a refresher too, because I know this was um um this conversation we have within the council around the 90-day youth wage was sometime last year.

I really appreciate you, Council Member Coleman for bringing this up in the policy committee.

Um when I um uh brought up this question around you know, are we as a council supportive of eliminating the 90-day youth wage?

Um it was really because for me it's an opportunity to pay it forward.

I started working at the age of 14, and I have uh not stopped working at all since my first job was with tree trust, and I was working at a daycare in North Minneapolis.

We have had tree trust um uh hirees in front of us or tree trust members come in front of us talking many times about the work that they're doing, even in our city and replanting trees and doing a lot of important work at Parks and Bag.

And so I just remember, you know, for me, one of the things that motivated me motivated me most to work at such a young age was to really help out my family.

And so to Council Member Kim, what you said about our youths who are working at a very young age.

I mean, a lot of the time it is really so that they can support their family, and also because they are maybe a low-income family or struggling financially.

And so I remember I had a presentation with our hero uh deputy director at the time, and that's just really stuck out to me because of that.

Um, and also um I asked many questions around all right, like you know, what's the work ahead look like on this?

I can bring it forward.

Um, or you know, I just want to understand like how are we gonna how are we gonna be able to get this eliminated?

And I remember them saying that it was also something that our our mayor at the time was very committed to eliminating, and so if the council we didn't approve it, that that would happen eventually.

And so to me that was very reassuring.

And so I wanted to bring that up as a refresher.

I know we've had um a major transition in the mural office since then.

Um however, I do want to share that this is something that I still care deeply about, and um again, this is really an investment in our youth.

I know that this is a council that is incredible when it comes to being the first of many things.

Um for this particular change, if we were to move forward with it in Minneapolis, they already don't have a 90-day youth wage.

However, I believe we can follow suit and um again make a really deep investment in our youth and support them and their families economically.

Thanks, Vice President.

Um, Ms.

Johnson.

Okay.

Yeah, I appreciate the conversation coming back.

I know this is something that was identified somewhat of a council priority, and so I'm thankful that it's kind of uh resurfacing the conversation.

It did start I think even prior to last year, but last year's conversation with uh councilman bringing as well, and as a council member too at the time, I was also supportive and still am, in part because I appreciate hearing about the just some of the ways in which our training programs uh may, you know, we do pour into our young people and we are invested in young people, and as somebody who worked for the Right Track program before, I think it's really important that we have the ability to just talk about what our young people are facing right now, and um just want to uplift the fact that you know I've had two right track interns, uh each of them carried a heavy weight in their family um brought bread to the table, and so in some ways, you know, even with the training programs and even with some of the things I'm hearing today, my mind goes back into hey, there's a lot of young people that are literally having to fend for their families, provide for their families, both financially and I think just overall um in more ways than that.

But for sure, when it comes to just pay and um compensation for their time.

I I think we tend to, you know, as a state, there's a lot of ways of discrimination, but often age discrimination is talked about in the form of an elder or an older individual.

Um as a young person and you know, as somebody who's on the council now at 30, I think it's just really important to consider what our trade-offs are.

And so I I think when this conversation, if this conversation moves forward, one of the things that I'd really like to see, um, especially from our city folks is um what's the trade-off, right?

So if we are repealing the um youth wage, what does that mean as far as numbers and impact on the program, how many people can be hired.

Um, you know, I think that was some of that's some of the in the weeds conversation that I actually do think that's worth having.

I think it would be echoed through many small businesses and many micro businesses across the city.

And so just really understanding that um trade-off as it relates to it, because for me I do see value in ensuring that when individuals are doing work at all in our city that they're being paid for what they do, and I don't necessarily know if that is if it's equitable to say, well, because you're 14 or 15, 16 or 17, it doesn't necessarily apply to you.

Um and I don't think that like, you know, I think young people are doing a lot more.

Uh, and I think that they are there are a lot more young people starting to work earlier because the cost of living is continuing to increase.

And so as families continue to be impacted in our city, their kids are being impacted as well, and their young people are being impacted as well.

And so just something that I see as an opportunity as someone who also has had a job since she was 14 and was really, you know, trying my best to be able to afford the activities that I wanted to do in school, so I wouldn't be a burden to my mom.

Um, you know, having to really think about ways to cater economically and financially for myself at a very young age.

And so that's definitely from a lived experience piece of where I'm coming from and more of a values alignment.

Um as this conversation moves forward, yeah.

I just want to understand the difference between okay, if this is the move we have 500 jobs that we offer at the city, does that change it to 300 jobs?

Um, and just really understanding what that actually entails so that we we have that full information to make a decision on it.

Thanks, Ms.

Johnson.

And I would wholly agree with you.

I it sounds like there's a lot of interest and even support around this table already.

Um, as everyone you know knows we engage in these policy conversations in part to try to get as much information as we can, you know, regardless of where we're starting in the conversation.

And I agree with you that that question about trade-offs um is really important for us to just have in hand and for us to share with the public as we continue to discuss this issue.

Um, and I it strikes me that the fact that Minneapolis does not have the 90-day youth wage um gives us a great point of comparison.

We're not talking about this in the dark.

We could look to our um city across the river to see, you know, have they seen any negative impact on youth employment?

Have they seen any negative impacts to um economic development?

Have they seen positive impact?

Right, so it would be it would be great to be able to learn from a place that is doing it differently to see um if you know the sky is following that we sometimes hear about policy changes has any basis or not.

So that would be information I would appreciate, and then also the trade-offs for um uh youth focused training programs and apprenticeship programs.

I I will just say, you know, I think if we go down the road of including youth focused training programs, I think the concern there is just that we would need to find the money to fill the gap because right now um we are applying to the state and the feds as we heard.

Um I was at the uh career day watching the thousands of YJ1 folks walk into Roy Wilkins.

It was really exciting.

And as I walked around with Shayna and others and Nardos, we were talking about how we have way more kids, young people than we do jobs, and the reason for that is that we don't have enough money because we are paying those salaries, not the employers.

Um, so if we were to raise the wage, I would not want to do that in a way that would then make fewer jobs available because our amount of money stays the same.

I think we would need to come up with the the gap.

Um so it's just something that for us to consider, I think, as we decide whether how far we we want to expand this.

Um we have three minutes and thirty-four seconds left.

Someone can see if there are any final comments around the table, I saw Miss Boozy and then Ms.

Ken.

I just want to just on the record, um, again, thank you so much, Council uh President Naker, just on the record, just two follow-up questions, and you hit it right on the head in terms of I want to get a um a follow up follow-up on the budgetary implications.

Um, if we were to eliminate this exemption, how much would that cost us over um the the course of three years?

Uh and then also the second follow-up I would like to have is just what is the timeline for our right track program.

Uh you know, going into my what second or not third year, interested in having the right track worker, I know the time goes so fast.

Um, it seems like right when I'm greeting them is when I'm like also sending them off um to school.

So um I'm just interested to know just the timeline in comparison to the 90-day training, just so make sure it's substantive enough, you know, for them.

Um, so those are the two follow-ups, and then but yeah, I know we have um some other items on the agenda, but again, thank you so much for bringing this up.

I um I my spirit is more so around you know, eliminating this exemption, but to the point that you made in terms of like can we actually finance it?

You know, do we have philanthropy partners that can help us?

Um, just because this it seems like what we're um what we're focusing on is more so on the the training aspect um of getting the experience of young people, and I do think you know, we don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water, we still could have you know support our youth programs, um, even if it's not at that at the standard or at the rate that we will want it to be.

So thanks, Ms.

Blee.

Yeah, final one minute 57 seconds are yours, Miss Kim.

Thank you.

Yeah, I I think you nailed it on the head for me, Councilmember Blee.

I think uh philanthropy that also private partnerships, we are like the state of like Fortune 500 and 300 and 200 companies that absolutely can spend 2500 on a single youth like worker over the summer, the ask is actually not that big.

Um, so I and I know that that is something that staff have been working incredibly hard on is making sure that there is a budget um for youth at specific places where they do pay, um, but heard across the board, right?

If we do this, we need to make sure that we're following it up with our budget, and similarly, where the ways that we can continue to recruit um both philanthropy and private businesses to make sure that we we offer more opportunities because I think across the board what you're hearing is what an incredible program, and we want to make sure that we are lifting wages to ensure that every family and every student can continue to afford um the rising costs of of living right now.

Thanks, Ms.

Kim.

Well, with that, uh, hopefully, thanks again to the Workforce office for bringing this forward.

Ms.

Coleman, hopefully that helps give your office some helpful data for deciding how to proceed.

Ms.

Baymer, thank you so much.

Thank you.

And we'll now turn back to Ms.

Coleman for item number two.

Excellent.

Thank you all again.

Really, really appreciate it.

Um, and just to everybody here, I know we have a number of follow-up items.

I also think that we're going to get some more detailed follow-up from HexumRec on the right track program specifically.

So our office will coordinate kind of distributing all that information and having these follow-up conversations.

And to OTC, if we could get our Teams link back up on the main TV.

That's who that person was.

While we are hopefully doing that.

Oh, there we are.

Um welcome, Chris.

Hopefully, you can hear me.

If you can, we'd welcome you to join us back on camera.

Griffin, okay.

I feel like that's a good sign that you can hear me.

So really excited about this next topic.

Um, Chris Hicks is joining us from uh uh Protect Borrowers, I'm also student borrower protection center.

Uh Protect Borrowers does amazing work across the country to move us to a country where people aren't burdened by all forms of debt.

Um they do a ton of amazing work, and many here might know them from their work around student debt.

But I've also had the opportunity to work with Chris and others around employer-driven debt and ways that people get jobs and end up being trapped in those jobs for a variety of reasons, including the fact that they would literally have to pay in order to leave that job.

So as I think everybody here knows, Minnesota has taken some really critical action on freeing workers from coercive contracts in the last couple of years, including through banning non-compete at the state level.

It's a really great and important step.

Um, although we always have questions about enforcement capacity, and particularly, you know, if we had an attorney general who was not Keith Ellison and not as committed to economic justice, what that might mean for the enforcement of our non-compute ban.

But as we have seen in state after state, when people ban non-competes, um, the state will move or employers, corporate entities will often move very quickly to find other ways to restrain workers.

And so one of the things that we wanted to talk about today is one of those forms of restraint, uh, training repayment agreement provisions or traps.

So I've not to step on or take your thunder too much, Chris.

But that is our next topic.

I will stop talking and turn it over to Chris.

Welcome, Chris.

Whose last name I already forgot.

Chris Hicks.

Sorry.

Welcome, Mr.

Hick.

Mr.

Hicks.

I thank you, Council President, Council members, for the chance to present today.

Uh I just to quickly go off script.

I've received three incident reports from my child's daycare in like the last five minutes.

So I'm sorry if I like have to turn and look at my phone.

Uh nothing bad has happened.

I think something is wrong with the software, but I keep getting these very alarming words where they're like, right now your child is in trouble.

It's like they're sending messages being like, please disregard.

So if I look at my phone, I'm sorry, that is why.

Uh but to pull it back to this.

Uh my name is Chris Six.

Uh, I'm based in Kansas City, Missouri.

I wish I was able to be there with you today.

My mother-in-law's uh resides in St.

Paul, my brother-in-law is in Minneapolis.

So uh we're in the city a lot, uh, particularly for the one and a half year old I just mentioned.

I'm a senior policy advisor at Protect Borrowers.

We are a DC-based nonprofit policy organization focused on household and consumer debt.

Uh we investigate financial abuses, take predatory companies to court and push for policies to protect working people from debt traps.

Uh our organization spent nearly five years studying the effects of employer-driven debt on workers, honest businesses, and the broader economy.

And we believe what we found shocking.

Uh firms ranging from hospitals to roofing contractors are harnessing risky and likely regulated credit products to stifle competition for workers and trap these workers in low-paying substandard working conditions.

Increasingly, employers are requiring workers, especially entry-level workers and low-wage workers, to sign contracts with what's called stay or pay provisions, which require these workers to pay a few if they have the audacity to quit their job.

The most common example are what Molly uh council member Coleman brought up training repayment agreement provisions better known as traps.

These agreements require workers to receive on the job training, which is often a dubious quality or necessity to pay back the supposed cost of this training to their employer if they leave the job before a fixed period of time.

Traps let these businesses use the threat of debt collection or litigation to lock workers in place, both limiting their mobility and bargaining power by leveraging crushing financial penalties if a worker actually does dare to leave.

If the scheme sounds reminiscent of endangered servitude to you, that's because it is.

Both federal and state agencies have argued that traps and other stair pay contracts are simply a 21st century form of indentured servitude.

Traps gained national attention three years ago when a former PetSmart groomer, whose name is Brianne Scaly, sued the company for their use of these contract clauses.

Brianne was excited about the prospect of getting to work with the company full-time when she applied for the position at Petsmart, but she immediately began noticing problems.

Her manager was too busy to provide her the mentorship the company advertised when they said they provided free training.

The training was much shorter than promised by weeks and more.

After struggling to get by on her $15 minimum wage, Brianne decided she needed to pursue a better opportunity and gave the company her notice.

Petsmart responded by referring her $5,000 trap as well as $500 in equipment debt for grooming tools to a debt collector, which wrecked her credit score and made it harder for her to secure future employment, housing, and other forms of loans.

Despite the growing attention, companies have continued to impose traps on their employees.

HCA Healthcare, the largest for-profit healthcare system in the country, was found to have pressured new nurses into traps that could require them to pay up to 10,000 if they left the hospital within two years.

Frontier Airlines, which flies into Minneapolis St.

Paul Airport, began using traps just two years ago or a year and a half ago, charging new pilots nearly $60,000 if they left the company in the first two years.

And other types of stay-pay contracts, employers have demanded that departing employees pay them for the cost of their replacement salary, liquidated damages, costs related to immigration, or even lost profits.

Immigration and visa fees used by third party healthcare staffing agencies and hospitals have come under the rate of scrutiny in particular.

Consider the story of Jane Engen.

She started working as a nurse at a skilled nursing facility in 2022.

She was assigned 20 to 25 patients at a time and spent each shift printing that she wouldn't make mistakes.

After five months, she decided that the toll of chronic understaffing was taking on her mental health was too great, and she gave her notice.

One week after her final shift, the company sued her for 100,000, claiming a breach of contract, fraud, expenses related to immigration visas, and other costs.

Thankfully, her and her coworkers fought back.

They recently reached a $6 million settlement to address allegations of human trafficking, wage theft, and racketeering brought by the former nurses over the hospitals, the staffing agencies' enforcement of traps.

A Filipino nurse, whose last name is Vidal, found himself in a similar situation when he accepted a job with advanced care staffing.

I'm just going to refer to them as ACS.

Vidal had left a job to work for ACS, so when he was asked to sign the stay-or-pay contract during his onboarding, he felt like he had no choice.

It was presented as a take it or leave it contract.

Once he signed the stay-or-pay contract, his employment contract required him to work for the nursing agency for at least three years, were paid $20,000, plus the nurse's future profits, attorneys' fees, and arbitration costs.

After four months of ACS failing to address his concerns, which included being assigned more patients than he felt he could responsibly care for and working under grueling conditions, he resigned.

The company sued him for more than $24,000, including $9,000 for future profits.

This was more than he had ever been paid by the company during the period of his employment.

Traps and other stay-pay contracts have been have spread across numerous industries.

We've seen them in education with preschool and daycare staff.

We found them in nursing, we have found them in retail, we have found them in financial services, we have found them in aviation, we found them in trucking.

And while it's difficult to estimate how common traps are across the workforce, a 2024 study by Cornell Survey Research Institute found that one in 12 workers in the U.S.

are subject to a trap, with the percentage growing from 4.1% in 2014 to 8.7% in 2020.

My Oregon organization estimates that major employers rely upon traps in segments of the U.S.

labor market that collectively employ more than one in three private sector workers.

In a survey of registered nurses conducted by the National Nurses United, NNU, shows a dramatic increase in their use within hospital settings.

More than 44% of nurses who have been working five years or less, and 45% who have been working between six and ten years, reported being subject to a trap, as compared to fewer than a quarter of those who have been working between 11 and 20 years, and fewer than 10% who have been working for 20 plus years.

So what we see is that there's been a dramatic rise in recent years when it comes to the use of traps in other forms of state-or-paid contracts.

And employers don't hide the fact that they're using traps primarily to keep workers from leaving their jobs rather than recovering the cost for providing useful training.

In fact, employers and trade groups have openly recommended that employers in states that have banned non-compete use traps as a workaround, knowing that they're going to accomplish the same goal of force employee retention, but through a mechanism that will face less scrutiny than a traditional non-compete.

And while they accomplish the same goal, traps may be even more effective at limiting or blocking workers from leaving their jobs than traditional non-competes, particularly in those low wage worker settings, because those workers can't afford to pay their employer a substantial sum to quit.

And while traditional non-competes aim to limit workers from departing for a competitor or starting a competing business, traps can be enforced against a departing worker no matter what they do after the job.

Even if the worker leaves to take care of a sick family member, retire, changes careers, or industries completely.

They still have to pay.

The increasing use of traps has raised concern among state regulators.

In 2025 alone, a half dozen state attorneys general brought enforcement actions in lawsuits against companies in numerous industries to combat the growing use of traps to harm workers, including here in Minnesota.

In the last year, employers nationwide were required to pay nearly 1.5 million in restitution to workers in these cases, in addition to more than $3 million in penalties to those states.

It's a pay contracts are just one type of employer driven debt.

Employer driven debt also affects the immigrant cleaning workers who complained that they were sold a sub-minimum wage job, dressed up as a cleaning company franchise and told they could finance startup cost and franchise fees through a purported franchiser who has trapped them in a vicious cycle of debt.

Employer driven debt affects countless retail and service workers whose work schedules are unpredictable and variable, making it harder for them to make ends meet.

But instead of a fair schedule or consistent living wage, their employer offers them a short-term loan to bridge the gap known as earned wage access, whose true costs are often not disclosed.

Employer driven debt affects thousands and thousands of workers, and these workers cannot address the harms of employer-driven debt on their own.

They're deterred by pervasive misclassification, forced arbitration clauses, and the threat that an employer will punish them through aggressive debt collection, whether or not the contractual provision permitting debt collection would ever be enforced by a court.

Cities like St.

Paul play a crucial, crucial role in safeguarding the rights and well-being of workers within their jurisdictions and have an array of potential tools that they can employ.

This includes passing and enforcing laws, leveraging contracting and permitting power, and through community education and outreach with the business community.

One example that I would point to is the Seattle Office of Labor Standards has recently begun providing guidance to employers on how stay-re-pay contracts and other types of employer debt may violate their wage and hour laws.

St.

Paul could similar similarly raise awareness with employers and offer clear actual guidance on how traps violate labor and consumer protections.

And already, St.

Paul has established ordinances that could be enforced against employers abusing traps.

The St.

Paul wage theft ordinance defines employer clawbacks as wage theft twice.

In section 24a.02 in definitions, it's defined wage theft is defined as taking place when an employer directly or indirectly demands or receives from any employee any rebate or refund from the wages owed the employee under the contract with the employment under contract of employment with the employer.

In section 224A.04, where wage theft is prohibited, provides that no employer may directly or indirectly demand or receive from any employee any rebate or refund from wages owed to the employee when doing so would deprive an employee of wages that have been earned.

This language echoes the federal regulation that prohibits certain kickbacks from employee wages, including wages from uh including wages for trap debt.

That regulation, 29 CFR, section 531.35 provides that there is a Fair Labor Standards Act violation where the employee kicks back directly or indirectly to the employer or to another person for the employer's benefit the whole or part of the wage delivered to the employee.

Courts have widely interpreted this regulation to prohibit employers from requiring employees to repay purported debts for on-the-job training.

The St.

Paul wage theft ordinance is broader than the standard, the Fair Labor Standards Act standard in two notable ways.

First, because the Fair Labor Standards Act only regulates the minimum wage, 53135 only prohibits kickbacks and refunds that bring an employees' wages below the minimum wage in any given pay period.

And the wage theft ordinance contains no such limitation.

And second, 531.35 prohibits only kickbacks that are for the employer's benefit.

The wage theft ordinance, on the other hand, appears to broadly prohibit all demands from an employer to an employee to pay the employer money, with the sole enumerated exception of overpayment of wages.

The inclusion of that specific exception suggests that all other rebates and refunds are prohibited, regardless of whether they seek repayment of an expense that was primarily for the benefit of employer or the employee.

Mr.

Hicks, it seems like you might be coming towards an end.

I'm not sure.

I want to make sure we have plenty of time for questions that I'm sure your remarks are generating.

So maybe in the next minute or so you could come to a conclusion and let us have time to ask you questions.

Absolutely.

So in addition to enforcing these existing protections when traps are discovered, the city council could consider establishing an ordinance specifically focused on state-paid contracts.

This would allow the city to provide clear plain language protections to ensure that both employers and employees understand the rules of the road when it comes to these kinds of contracts.

What we know is that if left unchecked, traps and other state of pay contracts can leave workers buried in debt just for escaping in tolerable working conditions, taking a better opportunity or having to quit a job to navigate personal hardships.

Stay-pay contracts, much like non-competes, suppress wages across local economies at a time where when we're already facing an affordability crisis.

Members of this committee can and must play a role in bringing awareness of this form of worker coercion and exploitation and holding employers accountable when necessary.

Great.

Thank you so much for your comments.

And it looks like there are some questions.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Councilmember Coleman, and Chris for being here.

I have like a comment and then I have a question.

I think that, you know, I I worked in the private sector for 15 years now, and um, you know, that's not how you retain employees.

And it seems like these corporations are wanting to do use these tactics instead of doing what it actually takes to retain employees, which is you know, paying folks what they deserve, valuing their employees, um, providing a healthy and positive working environment that will foster the growth of their employees and also encourage them to, you know, to improve their performance and and be able to uh hopefully advance their careers.

So I just strongly disagree with everything that you describe that our corporations are doing, and I'm you know, generally supportive of whatever we can do at the city to ban I do agree that it's a violation of our wage theft ordinance.

Um, so I really appreciate you sharing that.

My question for you is um I know you mentioned that the uh you've seen these types of um non-compete and traps uh in a lot of different industries, and you describe them.

Have you seen where it's it's something within an industry that has become like an industry-wide standard?

So, for example, like you mentioned in healthcare, like with nurses, it's been increasing, but is it to the point where like there are specific industries or professions where if I were to go to try to find a job, I wouldn't be able to find one that didn't have this type of um this type of language in like their contracts.

Uh thank you, council member.

What we have seen is that when the largest employers within a certain industry adopt these practices, they quickly proliferate the amongst other actors in them.

So healthcare would be an example where uh in something like 20 regions of our country, each healthcare is the largest employer and have a monopoly status.

When they adopt that within the places where the regions where they have monopoly, other hospitals begin to adopt it.

Uh that has also begun to spread in industries like trucking.

So we are always concerned when we first see these sorts of contracts surface in an industry because they can quickly become the norm, at least within those regions.

I would say healthcare trucking are the ones where it seems that amongst non-union employers, they've you would have a difficult time in many regions finding employers that aren't using them.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mr.

Hicks.

Thanks, Ms.

Justice Thomas Coleman.

Thank you.

I just wanted to build on Mr.

Hex's point briefly.

Um I think the other thing that we see is how contract provisions like this become kind of default or standard for really small employers where you wouldn't expect to see it.

Things that start at the level of large corporations that have sophisticated lawyers that are working to think about work around to something like a state-level non-compete ban, then become like the standard language that you can download off of the internet when you're looking for an employment contract, or you know, if you do like your chat GPT contract, what should I put in there?

You'll often see this type of language included.

Where and I think one of the things, one of the reasons why I feel like this is so important is um that often employers don't even realize that they are, you know, potentially whether it's legal or illegal, restricting the employee mobility because they just it's par for the course, they put it in a contract, they've done they haven't thought much about it, and then employees sign it and they've read it, they don't question the legality, they assume that they're bound by it.

And so you just have this situation where people truly are trapped without in some instances, and not to let every employer off the hook, but I think in some instances, really nobody even intending that outcome.

But once we hit the sort of certain level of saturation, you just really proliferate quickly in all sorts of industries and at all levels of employer size.

Thanks.

Thanks, Ms.

Coleman.

Mr.

Hicks, I also really appreciate, first of all, this is totally eye-opening to me.

So thank you, Ms.

Coleman, for bringing this forward.

I did not know about traps.

Uh, I did not know about stare, like this is this is really, really helpful information.

Um I'm curious, you know, you mentioned that our wage theft ordinance likely covers this already.

I imagine there's an advantage just from an education standpoint, perhaps in adopting another ordinance that specifically calls out these actions, but I'm I'm curious what you would say about that.

And then I'm also wondering, you mentioned states have looked at this issue.

This does seem like something that um would be something our attorney general would be very interested in, and our our state legislature.

So you may not know this being in Missouri, but whether or not there's been any discussion of state action on this in Minnesota.

Or maybe you know Ms.

Coleman.

I'll let Chris take up the happy to jump in.

Uh thank you for the question.

So, yes, the Attorney General Keith Ellison brought the first case in Minnesota last year against an employer for their use of traps.

Uh it was DECA lashes, and that they had that settlement September 26th in 2025.

DECALASHES like an eyelash company like ethicians uh operated in Eden Prairie and Woodbury, Minnesota, so in the surrounding areas of St.

Paul, uh, where the employer would delete where the employer was withholding final paychecks to cover the cost of training.

The training itself, these eyelash technicians would perform the job, like they had a paying customer, they would apply the eyelashes, then they were to instructed to take a photo and text it to someone in New Jersey who would respond with an up or down thumbs emoji.

And if you didn't receive enough up thumb emojis, you would fail the training.

Uh for workers that departed within the first year, they were required to pay $3,000 for that training.

If they departed after six months, they were required to pay $1,500 for that training.

Yep, training very loosely defined there, like you're taking a photo and getting a thumbs up or down.

Uh and then they would withhold from the final paycheck, which violates the law.

Uh so that settlement occurred last September.

I think attorney general Keith Ellison and his office are very interested in this issue.

Uh there's also been legislation introduced in both the Minnesota House and Senate.

Thank you very much.

And Ms.

Pullman, did you want to add?

Yeah, just to add quickly on that.

Um, so Chris and I and former Hero Deputy Director Beth Commerce were up at the state capitol in the fall, I think that was, having this conversation with a larger group of stakeholders because I do think that there is some interest, and especially I think there's a lot of interest in making sure a non-compete ban actually achieves what it was intended to achieve.

So there's interest in broadening some of the language.

And I I think what we see with Attorney General Ellison is you know, lawyers can get creative, and and sort of to what Chris was saying about our wage theft ordinance.

We can we can get there with our wage theft ordinance.

We can get there with some of the laws currently on the books at the state level, but that there also might be, and sort of council president, what you were suggesting is that there can be benefit in being really explicit, both for the public education purpose and just not leaving it up to the discretion of any individual actor in a prosecutor's office about if this is something that we allow or don't allow or if the language can be read broadly enough to cover something like a trap.

Thank you.

Ms.

Bowie, thank you, Council President, and also thank you so much, Councilmember Coleman, for bringing this up.

Um, I actually I was not aware of the legalities around um traps, but I'm definitely aware of this practice that um really extracts um um our our residents and many of the employees who are in this like gig um gig-like economy.

I also just wanted to share, you know, I definitely see this as an unethical way of retaining employees, and I also share the sentiments of Councilmember Coleman that I do think as a business practice or even as an entrepreneur when you're launching a business, you may think that this is a way to retain employees, but you know, hearing from people who've been impacted and who wants to, you know, um go to a different industry or go to a different um position, they really feel trapped.

Um so uh I the question that I have particularly um I I'm just wondering, like, you know, because we were talking about is this like an industry type of practice.

Um when I'm hearing you give examples and even some of the circumstances, many of the businesses kind of um trap some of their workers, you know.

I think about like this network marketing business where it's literally the business model is you have to pay in, right?

And you have to um you have to engage other people to pay in.

I think um, you know, growing up in St.

Paul, we all have been, you know, receive those cut co, you know, um emails are where you know, right when you turn 18 or you're graduating from high school, you're excited that you you know um have this potential job, and then you find out you have to pay in, right?

And you gotta get your other friends in in networks um bought in.

Is that like like in examples like Cutco and I mean there's other marketing examples as well, and I don't want to just list all of them.

Um, but I'm just curious if um and you're in Missouri, so you probably don't know what cut code means, but if um one of the council members can also weigh in on it, but we just see like does the network marketing business model fit this type of um you know uh practice, this unethical practice with traps.

So it would I would need to look at a example of a contract to fully respond.

In some circumstances, we've seen like employers within the gig economy, not necessarily multi-level marketing or anything like that, but within gig economies sell people their incomes in advance.

And based on how they put together those cash advances, which are loans, uh, we've seen them violate usury laws, we've seen them violate uh maximum APRs, we've seen uh fraud and deceptive practices and how much people are going to get, how quickly they're gonna get it, which can put them in a bind with rent and other things.

Uh so if you or your office have an example, I'm happy to review it and get back to you.

Or if any other council members in the room know, uh I'm happy to refer to people here.

Thank you.

But it ultimately comes down to the framework and you know the fine print.

All right.

Well, um, if there are no other burning questions, I believe um hopefully we'll have access to Miss Mr.

Hicks uh through Ms.

Coleman's office if we have other follow-ups.

Um thank you so much for your time and presentation.

And again, Miss Coleman, thank you for bringing this to our uh attention.

Um with that, um, I hope everything's okay and that it's just an auto issue with your son's daycare.

Um here fell and bumped his head on a chair, but it's totally fine.

Oh shoot.

Oh got a lot of moms around this table.

Everyone's very concerned.

Uh, thank you again, Mr.

Hicks.

Take care.

And hope he feels better.

Um, with that, we are going to uh hard pivot to um uh another a totally different topic.

Um, and now for something totally different.

Um so I'm really pleased to welcome a number of different speakers here to talk about um the issues with our current city sign ordinance.

And uh, you know, like I said, it's a hard pivot.

Uh this is something that has been concerning to I know not just me but many others for a long time.

We have a very complicated sign code.

I'm gonna let our speakers tell you the details.

But I um I'm bringing this today to help kind of shine light on the issue, hopefully get some good discussion, and then um I am hoping that we can look at this issue this year.

Um and it's it's mostly an issue of economic development and supporting um especially our small businesses in our city.

So with that, um, I'm gonna first call up the lines.

The St.

Pelia Chamber and the Downtown Alliance who together have 10 minutes on the clock uh to present to us, and the 10 minutes include QA, and I'm sorry that we're being very uh controlling about that.

Welcome.

Ready, set, go.

Thank you, uh Chair and members of the council.

I'm Joe Spencer with the St.

Paul Downtown Alliance, and I'm really grateful uh for the opportunity to talk about this uh particular issue.

Uh I I know in a world where there's a lot going on, especially in a downtown where there's a lot going on.

This may sound trivial or unimportant.

Um, but actually, we have identified this as a need and an opportunity for downtown.

Really, since our very first year in 2018, we put out a kind of a policy paper that identified this as one of three issues we really thought could help and believe still that could uh really help our downtown.

There's a number of different perspectives we can take on who and why this will help.

Um, certainly from the perspective of the business owners, we hear from them and you'll hear from JP some direct feedback, but it's it's a constant theme we hear, not only from uh business owners who are trying to get a sign that they want, um, but more so from the the folks we we don't hear from or or who were interested and they consulted with the sign company only to be told like it's just not uh it's a non-starter in St.

Paul or in downtown St.

Paul, and so they don't even try.

Um I think from my perspective at the downtown alliance, when we compare our downtown to our peer downtowns, um we see in our peers those that have gone through some kind of reform work where they liberalize the the restrictions on signage, they see a tremendous amount of growth.

And when we compare our downtown and the signage environment to those other downtowns, there's a really stark difference.

And when we even compare our downtown today to the downtown of previous decades, you see a really dramatic change in the environment.

If you were to just step out onto Wabashaw and look down the street, you'd have no awareness that there are bars and restaurants and music venues and stores and retailers that are ready to uh you know sell their wares and experiences to you.

What instead you'd you'd look down the street and you you probably don't see much of anything.

And so if you're a visitor uh or you're thinking about taking a job here, you're thinking about an apartment in downtown, that image has a big impact.

And I think it has a big impact on our demand, has a big impact on our reputation, and again, just visually, the kind of vitality we want.

Now I hear time and again how we don't want to become Times Square, we don't want to become the Las Vegas strip.

And I can assure you, we're in no jeopardy of becoming one of those places.

Um I've never been to Las Vegas, but like I, you know, I think Times Square is kind of fun, right?

I think when I go to other places that have that vibrant dynamic signage environment to tell me what's available on each corner on each block, that's an exciting place.

It lures you down the street.

It's the place that you want to be in, place you want to walk down, the place you want to spend time in.

And once you do that, it's easy to invite a friend along, and they they can have that same kind of experience as well.

So uh while I definitely care about the perspective of the individual businesses and building owners whose finances are undergoing a lot of stress right now, I think it's also important to think about uh this issue from the perspective of uh of a St.

Paul resident, a visitor, somebody who works downtown.

What's their impression?

What's the message we're giving them about what kind of place we are and what kind of great offerings we have if we don't allow people to communicate that through signage.

So I'm really grateful for this.

I think this would probably be a process, and I know there's some phases laid out.

Um appreciate uh your leadership, Council President Naker, and um really happy to dig in on this.

Thanks so much, Joe.

Don't go too far because you might have questions for you.

Welcome up, JP.

Good morning, Council President Naker and Council members.

Uh thank you for the opportunity to be here.

Joe, thanks for your leadership on this issue, and thank you for your leadership, Council President.

Uh my name is John Pertlich, Vice President of Government Affairs at the St.

Paul Area Chamber.

Uh we represent more than 1,600 employers, nonprofits, and civic partners committed to the future of St.

Paul.

The chamber and myself, we're not here as signage policy experts.

I am not a technocrat.

Uh that expertise rightly belongs to others in this process.

We're here as the voice of our members.

And what we have consistently heard from our members is that the current signage code is creating real barriers to business vitality and downtown vitality.

That is the basis of our call for signage reform.

The process for even simple signage has become a significant burden.

One member had to submit separate permanent applications for over a dozen window decals, each requiring full supporting documentation.

Another was asked to produce site plans from decades ago they no longer had.

Fees of three dollars per square foot compound that frustration, particularly when layered onto a process members describe as unpredictable and time consuming.

The conclusion many of them reach is straightforward.

It's not worth it.

While the chilling effect doesn't show up in permit data, it is real and it has real consequences.

Our members are also frustrated by inconsistent processes.

Approvals for downtown signage vary, and there is no clear or consistent procedure for how proposals are reviewed or acted upon.

Several members received positive feedback on their signage proposals, yet no action followed.

Another business has been waiting years for a resolution after initially being told the city was working on it.

These missed opportunities add up.

Creative signage proposals intended to promote events and drive downtown activity have stalled.

Our members report that limited signage options make it harder for St.

Paul and St.

Paul businesses to compete with other cities that use vibrant signage to engage their commercial corridors.

Signage barriers are foot traffic barriers.

Foot traffic barriers are a downtown vitality problem.

Our members are not asking St.

Paul to abandon its design values.

They're asking to be findable.

They're asking for a process that treats a window decal like a window decal.

And they're asking for a code that works for businesses that make this city vibrant.

We believe that's achievable, and we're committed to working with the city and stakeholders to get there.

Thank you.

Thanks so much to you both for your leadership and advocacy on this for a number of years.

Appreciate you being here.

We have a couple of minutes for any questions for either of our first two speakers.

Doesn't look like it.

All right, thanks again.

Also don't go too far.

There may be questions for you after our next speakers.

So I'd now like to welcome up uh I think it's Lynn Pingle.

Oh, from our business review council.

Um maybe just tell us a little bit about the business review council as well.

It's a great opportunity for a public service announcement in front of our millions of viewers.

Um one of the things that our business review council exists to do is to give us um policy guidance um before we develop policy, not just review it once we've come up with it.

So really grateful that you're here.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um, Council President and uh all the council members.

So my name is Lynn Pingle.

I'm the CEO of Mackey Company, but I also serve as the chair for the business review council for the city.

And I'm here sort of in two separate hats because um when conversation around signage and and wayfinding came about, it brought me back to the cultural destination area study that I did for the city as as MACI company a couple of years ago.

And one of the factors that was brought up in there, specifically called out by the cultural destination areas and the commercial corridors that we interviewed was signage and wayfinding.

So I wanted to take this opportunity.

Here's a mouse, um, to really uh just at high level share with the findings of that study and perhaps take another opportunity later on to really do a deep dive of this study.

But um, just to give a highlight of what the stakeholders involved in this study, you can see, I guess you guys can see on the screen.

Um, there's several factors, including uh several uh organizations, including downtown alliance um and other cultural destination areas like Rondeau and Eastside that were interviewed along and along with the associations, the chambers, uh, and things of that nature.

So the study was really expansive and representative of the need of signage and wayfinding in all areas of St.

Paul, not just you know, one particular area.

And it's really quite interesting in terms of what specific challenges the cultural destination area and these commercial corridors founded, and that is signage barriers and wayfinding issues, as you can see here.

So existing ordinances, um, I think as as Joe and and John have uh uh alluded to has been a restriction, right?

And there's various districts within our within our city that addresses um the challenges, and we as a body need to do something about it, and I think this is uh awesome opportunity to do that.

Um, with the signage, yes, we don't want to be like Las Vegas or New York, but could we get a little bit of that signage uh in in St.

Paul, right?

Especially in the downtown and commercial corridor areas, just to get our visitors, right?

Because we we as a city have the opportunity to become a place to visit, and that's really um highlighted within this cultural destination area setting.

So I geeked out a little bit in studying what the University of Minnesota science signage and wayfinding barrier study came about, and then comparing that to what we discovered in the cultural destination areas.

And it's important.

Why?

Because visitors miss destinations if there's no signage, the skyway usage and and um legibly visibly be able to be seen if they were open eventually, different topic.

And then really how do we protect public purposes, right, with our signage and things like that.

And when we looked at the barriers in terms of wayfinding found in both studies, and again, I'm looking at both studies from a consulting perspective, and and how can we move the city forward and and such.

And so there needs to be coordinated effort.

And the theme that we discovered in both studies are listed here insufficient and consistent signage, skyway confusion, complex, if not restrictive sign rules, right?

We we can't even put banners up to welcome somebody in a particular corridor, right, without having to mess with the polls and and all of the lighting structures that's attached to that.

And then again, we look at inclusion and what does that look like in our signage, um, especially since you know St.

Paul is so diverse in in all of its areas.

And then last but not least, how do we create a digital and and a physical layer to directing our community and not just our residents but our visitors?

And so some of the commonalities in terms of the recommendations do align with the study that the University of Minnesota did for Downtown Alliance, as well as the Cultural Destination Area study.

And so now I've pivot to the hat of the BRC chair, and that is this is something that our council is uh actively engaged in and looking to pursue because we've heard signage issues is a thing for our businesses.

We've heard it last year in 2025, and it is one of our focus areas as a council in 2026.

And so, in aligning what our charter does, and some of the recommendations based on the University of Minnesota study and the CA CDA study, we um we as a council can envision ourselves, and by no means is this something that the council has our council has done anything with.

This is where alignment is happening, and this is where I see uh as a body, we can contribute to the policy changes or the policy amendments around signage ordinance can happen, right?

So, reviewing regulations, obviously that's in our charter as BRC.

Uh, any proposed proposed legislative um changes, any approvals, any implementation processes that need to happen, how can we increase interagency conversations, right?

We work with DSI, we work with PED as a council, they're in our council meetings every single month.

How can we tie that together and help shape what we do moving forward?

Um we have a donut shop committee, right?

It's a task force within our business development committee that we focus on how do we roll, how do we locate and how do we find these businesses?

And it is uh again, like I said, a BRC focus, primarily because it's something that our businesses have also asked us to do.

And last but not least, procedural changes.

How do we get it so that it's an easy transmit uh transaction for our small businesses to apply for a permit and get it installed in a matter of days, right?

Um, or a week or so, right, depending on on that.

So this is sort of the alignment that we're looking at as we help shape um what our 2026 goals are for BRC, and again the focus on signage and other economic and business development that that our uh council members in our community are focused on.

So, with that, I'll open the floor to questions, if any, and otherwise, yeah.

Thank you so much, Ms.

Pingle, first of all, for your leadership on the BRC and also for your help with our cultural destination corridors.

I think that um one thing I'm taking away is that the council should definitely create a where's the donut shop committee.

Um the best committee ever.

Um I think I saw a question from the vice president.

Yes, thank you, Council President.

Uh can you remind me the study this was done last year?

Is that right?

I'm sorry, the the study it was done last year.

Yeah, it was completed last year, yes, and it was actually presented to the mayor's office.

We just didn't get around to presenting it here just yet.

So it's just it's really opportunistic to for this particular issue to come up and then others to emerge from all of the conversations.

So thank you so much for your hard work in the study.

I do want to share that.

I'm very um pleased and excited to see that there were so many different stakeholders involved across the city because this is a I know in my ward um with Isaba, the East Side Area Area Business Association, they've shared about concerns and just hopes and dreams they have around changes to our signage ordinance, and I'm very supportive of making sure that we update and modernize it.

So I'm looking forward to digging more into the results here.

I'm wondering just in terms of like generally recommendations that you have on slides here, does it differ at all based on do those recommendations differ based on what business corridor it is that we're looking at, or um are you thinking like this would be a city, these would be citywide changes?

And I asked because I would really like to see us implement a change that that impacts and benefits all of our business corridors throughout the city.

Absolutely, and and that's really where I think our council as a council, I'll put my council hat on before I pivot.

As a council, I think it's important that we address all of the city needs, just as not just one particular area.

Um and again, the resounding um solution is that if you fix one signage in one area, it's it's a blanket rule for all.

And so I think the approach is is for us to really fine-tune.

And again, we're not policymakers, policy engineers.

We can only bring as a council the concerns and the challenges faced by the business corridors, um, but even citywide as it relates to that.

Um, there needs to be a shift in how we look at businesses and promoting businesses and really wayfinding.

And you know, I I I lived in Europe, I lived in Asia, and I I can give you all the cultural destination areas there that have all of these directions.

Um, and and one of the the findings in the study is can we concentrate um a centralized location that will direct everybody to the different business corridors, not just the cultural corridors of the city.

And in our conversation with Vidis Visit St.

Paul as well as uh Joe at Downtown Alliance, how could we make because the port is right there, right?

People get off the ships and to touring and everything.

How could we um align with Visit St.

Paul and Downtown Alliance and let them be the epicenter that distributes and and such, and that requires wayfinding, right?

And in any historical city that that you visit in Europe or in Asia, and then in any big city, it's it it they have a kiosk of sort or a central source like the chamber that redirects.

So I think the approach for our council um would be to look and see what is being proposed and to understand how can we really be um streamlined for processes to really get to getting our signage up, right?

And I mean, there's sizes, there's limitations and things like that.

And I think Downtown Alliance presented a very astute, you know, hyper focus on what can we do in terms of that.

And there's alignment, it's already spelled out between the cultural destination area study, the study that University of Minnesota did, and what we can do as a business review council in supporting the amendments or the ordinance change.

Thank you.

Thanks so much, Ms.

Pingle.

That was almost perfectly timed.

Um that is all the time we have for Ms.

Pingle, but there's one quest quick question we can take it.

Otherwise, I would also suggest can we get an email uh get the study emailed to us as well, the full study, because I think it would be helpful to the vice president's question.

Is it a question?

It's not a question, it's just a quick statement.

I just wanted to reiterate um thank you so much, Council President.

Thank you so much, Pingo, for your for your expertise and your clear recommendations.

I just wanted to just um emphasize I would love to just re-invite um uh Mrs.

Pringle back, pingle, excuse me, back to whether the counts are even the HRA.

I do see this as uh economic vitality plan, um, not just only for you know segmented for signage, but really just looking at our cultural destination areas as a whole.

Um, also as we're thinking, we just voted on the commercial um districts uh uh last Wednesday, and I I definitely will want to you know explore this conversation and look at ways we can invest in our cultural areas as well.

Absolutely happy to have that conversation.

Thank you so much.

Thanks, Ms.

Bowie.

Thanks so much, Ms.

Pingle.

We'll welcome up our director of safety inspections, uh Angie Weesey, as well as um a couple of staff, um Mr.

Johnson, Mr.

Jervey from Planning and Economic Development, both of which are sharing 10 minutes on both the problem and a potential solution from PED.

Welcome again.

The one with mine is not on here.

Yeah, this is one of the nice speaker.

Okay, there you go.

Thank you for the technical assist.

Good morning, Angie BC, Director of Safety and Inspections.

Thank you for having me.

And really do thank Lynn for her leadership on the business review council, and uh also want to highlight the presentation that is in the agenda from the downtown alliance and the chamber because there's some really good then and now photos in there, which I think highlight this, and I think it's funny that they um both mentioned uh New York City and Las Vegas because I did put pictures of New York City and Las Vegas in the presentation.

Um but uh I did want to put so mine is more kind of the nuts and bolts of what the zoning ordinances, and I think you know, I've I've really encouraged us to think about all signage, not just on private property signage, but the wayfinding signage and uh these are all of the intent and purpose, and I won't read all of them, but safety is definitely a highlight in here, but there's also um to reduce the number of uh non conforming signs.

So in in past leadership through the city, reducing the number of billboards in the city was a priority to promote traffic safety so that there's not kind of conflicting signs on where you're supposed to be, where you're supposed to go, uh deter crime is a big piece of where signs are and are not, so that they're not creating hiding places that we're having illumination.

Um there's a there's a bunch of areas where I think these are all still good things to include in our purpose and intent.

It's the how that really is uh I think what we're talking about.

So these are kind of our our stats.

Uh I wish we had more time because I would do a prices right style.

How many pages is the St.

Paul zoning code on signs?

And so we don't have time for that, but it's 40 pages.

Could you ever imagine that you need 40 pages of code text to tell you how you are to do a sign on your on private property to promote your business or even just to announce your business in the city of St.

Paul.

That's a lot of regulation to meddle through.

Um, and what this shows is that we have at least 50 people who touch at some way, shape, or form sign regulation in DSI alone, and one full-time FTE that is dedicated to sign uh review and enforcement.

That is that's a lot of resources dedicated to signs, and I would argue not in balance with uh maybe the priorities of the city necessarily.

Uh so last year uh we had 13 sign-related complaints.

This is pre-cyber attack from the data that I can uh uh muster through in our pre and post-cyber attack world we live in.

Uh about 15% of current BZA cases, not current basically, but BZA cases are related to signs, meaning that there's a fair uh number of people who are requesting some sort of variance uh to the code through the 40 pages of code to have their sign be approved.

Uh we have about 44 licensed signed contractors.

The big piece of that is to have an $8,000 surety bond.

We issue about 250 permits per year on signs.

That's um there's a zoning review for that for those 40 pages.

There can be like structural um like footing type uh considerations to make sure it stands up and doesn't tip over, uh, but also securing it to the building properly.

There might be a historical review that happens with PED staff.

If it's illuminated, there can be an electrical permit that's added, and then of course, if you need to block the street or sidewalk off, you would need an obstruction permit for that.

There are 17 sign districts in our 54 square miles of the city, 17 sign districts, which is an awful lot.

Um there are also skyway requirements as kind of an extension of the right-of-way.

Uh, there are uh interior window requirements, and this is more of a septead crime prevention through environmental design issue to make sure that cashiers in your kind of retail market area can have visibility so people can see in and out if there's an issue in the market uh advertising signs are prohibited.

I won't need that long, but thank you.

For both of you.

Uh there's a section on real estate signs and how they're regulated on parkways, there's courtesy bench and news racks.

Can you believe there's still news racks?

Uh, and signs regulated on those.

Um there is some signage required for public information and welfare.

I just gave the example of like where to find your towed vehicle if it got towed from a lot, so there's a lot of the code that actually requires signs to be put up for public awareness.

Uh, and then finally, election signs are regulated.

Uh so here's my pictures of Times Square in Las Vegas.

Uh you're right, I don't think we're in any danger of being either of these uh cities.

I was just in Las Vegas, and there's you know, even with nothing going on, if there was not a single patron in Las Vegas, it would still look like there were patrons and in Las Vegas.

Um the one in the bottom right is more of like kind of what it can look like when when our signs go a little out of control, where there's just too much noise for your business to actually get the attention that you're looking for.

So there really does need to be a balance.

But I put in here just kind of bigger goals of what we would be looking for in a change in particular the chapter 64 zoning code is just incorporate more plain language into the regulations, make it easier to follow.

Allow most common sign types by right.

Allow other licensed contractors to pull sign permits.

So if you're a big uh developer contractor and you have, you know, let's say a million dollar surety bond, you actually still have to apply to be a licensed sign contractor in the city of St.

Paul before you can install a sign.

Director, I'm so sorry, we have two minutes left for Tony's whole presentation as well.

Um, it's for it's for both of you.

Sorry.

So I'm wondering if you could.

I mean, she she uh we kind of similar stuff, so I think we've got it written down here.

I think you can close to your last one.

So I just want to point out two things.

Branding is important for businesses, and I put this up here because I think you can probably you probably know what the majority of these brands are without even a single name on this uh on these.

And then that bottom left, I Googled Ghost Town Business District, business district.

And that is uh a city in downtown or a street in downtown Boston.

So a city that you would consider a vibrant city, and that is the image that comes up.

Signage does make a difference to how people see our community.

Uh and with that, I will give Tony the room reader.

Thank you, Director.

Tony Tony, you can talk fast.

Yeah, yeah.

Uh so here to talk about a little bit about what we're gonna do about uh the issues that have been brought up today.

Um one of the big things that we can do to address a lot of the concerns that have been raised here is initiate a zoning study and then make subsequent amendments to the zoning code.

Um so, as part of the background uh for the study, uh we received letters from uh downtown and the alliance and chamber of commerce uh with pretty specific asks and kind of pointing out some of the things that they've talked about as issues with our code.

Uh we were then asked to kind of take a bigger look at the sign code uh to Lynn's point that sign is issue everywhere uh to see if we can do kind of a broader update of the sign code.

Um and this is uh really important for us to do because over the years we've made periodic updates to our sign chapter to allow like specific signs.

So, for example, we did amendments to allow like stadium signs, but we haven't looked at the code comprehensively in a very long time.

Um, and so this will give us opportunity to do that.

Um because we haven't made uh done like a comprehensive look, uh, as has been pointed out, many of our provisions may be out of date or more restrictive than our peer cities, uh, particularly in our downtown.

Um so I'm not gonna go through all these, but the point I want to make with this slide is that a lot of the things that have been talked about can be addressed with zoning changes, but there's other things outside of the zoning code that would need to change.

So, for example, Skyway signs are not something that's regulated by the zoning code, so you'd need to make amendments other places, and so that's not something that uh we'll be doing with the study.

Um so, in addition to the things that have been um suggested in letters that we've received, uh there's a lot of other things I think we can do to make our sign code better.

Uh, a big thing is just simplification of our code.

Um, so Angie mentioned our 17 special sign districts.

I think those could all go away.

That'd make our code a lot easier to use.

Uh, we can consolidate a lot of standards, um both for permanent signs and temporary signs.

Um we can uh fix a lot of our definitions and kind of complexity of our code, uh, fix contradictory language, which we have because again, we've done piecemeal stuff, and sometimes we've contradicted ourselves over the years.

Uh we can provide more flexibility throughout the code.

Um, and then we can reduce the amount of prohibited signs.

Um, in this picture, I'm showing probably our most iconic sign in St.

Paul, first national bank.

Uh, you couldn't build that today because of the way our code is set up.

Uh, we prohibited roof signs, and so we can look at uh things like that to make it so you can do more creative signage uh throughout St.

Paul.

Uh so here is a general process and schedule.

Uh next week we'll have a resolution before you to initiate a study.

Uh we're hoping to move quickly with this, so hopefully be back uh to the commission in May and then have a recommendation for you all this summer, um, and then be back to you guys in the fall with some uh recommended changes.

Wow.

Um, Mr.

Johnson um and Dr.

We see, thank you both so much.

That was very impressive.

Um I wanna I want to give us a few time a few minutes for questions, even though we're technically at time, but that was a lot of information, very short time from all of our speakers.

I also want to acknowledge, I know we um have talked in the past about how we are trying to have these conversations about problems and not have solutions ready-made.

Um, in this case, um, because this conversation is something that I know many of us have engaged in for a while, and because it took a while to get on the um policy committee calendar, um, it is my hope to bring this resolution initiating the study next week.

That said, if folks around this table have concerns about doing that, um this is not until next week, and I will absolutely, you know, I want to hear your thoughts.

So if folks do not want to move forward on that timeline or do not want to move forward with the study at all, um, this is the proposal, it's not set in stone.

I don't want anyone to feel like you know, there's already heart before the horse.

So um with that, I look to my colleagues for questions.

I see vice president and then Ms.

Coleman.

Thank you.

I just wanted to share we don't have a council meeting.

Oh my gosh, we don't.

You're right.

Well, that's we have two whole weeks to consider whether or not we want to bring this resolution.

Yeah.

Thanks, Vice President.

We are off for spring break next week.

St.

Paul's school spring break.

Um, Ms.

Coleman.

Thank you.

I just wanted to say I'm really excited about this.

I will definitely be supportive of the resolution whenever it comes before the council.

I just sitting in this presentation, I'm thinking about how many places, including like our entire city are so often described as like a hidden gem or the best kept secret.

And I've never talked to a small business owner who's like, our goal is to be a secret business that nobody knows about.

So I'm really excited about this and think it is long overdue and really appreciate all the work that's gone into kind of getting us to this point and look forward to this fall when we get to adopt the recommended changes.

Thank you, Ms.

Coleman.

I think that that is such a great point and a microcosm of sort of St.

Paul in general, where sometimes we have have really great things happen, and our our goal is to have no one ever know about it.

Um I think I saw Miss Bowie and then Ms.

Johnson.

Yes, thank you so much, Council President.

Thank you so much for the presentation.

I also am support of this uh ordinance amendment to our signed policy.

I hear it all the time, especially uh with some of the businesses on Selby Avenue.

I just was at a ribbon cutting at the Rondo Exchange, and that was one of the top things that they mentioned that they want to see um their council member really lead on.

But thank you so much for bringing this forward.

Um I also share the same type of sentiments around you know, some of our businesses and our signage, you know, creates this culture of like if you know, you know.

And you know, uh, and that you know is not as helpful uh for our business who really depend on that foot traffic.

We want to make sure that uh it isn't a hidden gym, but there is that vibration, that iconic um cultural destination uh that St.

Paul provides.

Uh and I just have a quick question, and this is just uh it's more of like a candid question in terms of like um not policy, but more so the historical context around um you know how our sign policy became very complicated.

Um I mean, I don't know if there's a historical reference around which administration just like came in and forced it.

I'm just really curious to understand.

So yeah, so way before my time, but uh as I understand it, uh a lot of it came about because people didn't like billboards, and we started getting stricter and stricter, and the neighborhoods started doing kind of their own sign regulations, so that's how we got to 17 districts, and they all were kind of doing the same thing.

Like we want to restrict billboards, we want to get rid of billboards.

Um, and then it just kind of ballooned into the whole code and got really complicated and convoluted.

So thank you.

Great question, yes.

Um, Ms.

Johnson.

And I think we'll wrap, unless there's any other questions.

Yeah, no, I was looking at the before and after pictures on Wabasha Street and St.

Peter's Street in the 20s and in the 50s.

Uh it's just 40 pages is a lot.

Um, but I also just wanted to verify too, and I think one super important, very important.

I we're hearing about it a lot in our community as well.

And the zoning study scope covers citywide.

Yep.

And we'll take an individual approach to maybe the does it go deeper into the corridor specifically, or will it do like a broad recommendation overall?

Yeah, so we're trying to do uh kind of broad changes, but there is so one of the things we do with the sign code is we regulate signs differently by district.

So like downtown will have different regulations than like uh neighborhood signs.

I'm trying to we're gonna try to consolidate a lot of that to make it simpler.

Um but there will be yeah, changes for the whole city.

We're trying to make it easier to put up a sign and easier to start a business and easier to get through our process and improvement.

So that's great.

Because I just can't stress enough how much how important it'll be if we're touching this to ensure that everyone can see and have some of their concerns brought up citywide, and so really do appreciate that attention and appreciate the presentation.

Have a lot more questions, I think.

Um, but I also I'm just like, hey, we weren't here during the time.

I don't think any of us were here when this came through.

And so it just seems like an opportunity nonetheless.

Thanks, Ms.

Hudson.

We are not guilty, but we are responsible.

Um sorry, Ms.

Joseph.

I just have a I just have a quick comment, Council President.

Um this is very interesting.

Um as an engineer who has designed many signs, I think it's likely that I don't have to flip through 40 pages of code to figure out how to design a sign.

So I'm supportive of making sure that, you know, I don't think our design process for something should be um our permitting process for something should not be more complicated than the design process.

And I'm all in for making this simpler um because I do think that I I also really enjoyed looking at the photos that the chamber provided.

Um I do think that signs are a really important part of our like our vibrancy, and when we think about our commercial corridors and what really makes a neighborhood a neighborhood.

And if we had to take down that first national bank side, like I that would be awful.

I know that's not what we're doing, but it's just such an iconic part of our city, and I think those these things are really important.

Thanks, Ms.

Joast.

Thank you all for your time for being willing to go to over time.

Thank you again to all of our speakers.

And with that, we are adjourned.

Thank you.