The St.

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

Council President Acre here.

Councilmember Bowie.

Here.

Councilmember Jost.

Here.

Councilmember Coleman.

Here.

Council Vice President Kim.

Councilmember Yang.

Here.

Councilmember Johnson.

Five present, two absent, and they are excused.

Thanks so much.

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to our policy committee meeting.

We have two items on our agenda today, and I believe we have roughly equal time allocated to each, so about 45 minutes for each.

And I'm looking to Mr.

Najelik.

Welcome up.

Good morning, Council President, Council members.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this morning on transportation network companies.

It's funny I I ran into Bill on the way over, and we were saying it wasn't too long ago that TNCs were this novel new technology.

Now nobody talks about it.

It's just like sort of just a run of the mail type thing.

But it was back in 2014, it was such a new thing and um really changed the market as we've all seen.

Well, it's been now going on 12 years, and so it's time to sort of re-look at that ordinance and do some what we consider tweaking and refining of the ordinance based on what we've learned, but also based on what we're seeing in the market right now.

So that's what we're gonna see before is just some what we see is small, but actually actually impactual um ordinance events we're looking at.

We don't have the very definitive language.

We're still working with the city attorney's office on that, but we're very close.

You'll get the ideas that we're it's just a matter of words tweaking and things like that.

So the content-wise, you'll know what we're shooting for, but the couple of words might change, as well as we'll do some final run with TNCs, but we've not gotten any pushback.

We've got concerns, all of which we think we can address in the language that we're looking at.

So let's go into transportation network companies means a person or entity affiliated with TNC drivers that arranges via arranges transportation services via unique internet-based transportation application system, connecting TNC endorsed drivers and passenger with passengers for the transport of passengers for compensation.

That is out of our our chapter 373 of which is where we're looking to do our ordinance amendments.

Purpose of the ordinance amendments, like I mentioned before, is to take what we've learned and what we're seeing in the market and do some tweaks to the original ordinance that was adopted in 2014.

Um, in particular, we want to refine our compliance enforcement model, and two is we want to recognize the growing number of businesses in the market.

So, first refining the compliance and enforcement model.

The way our enforcement model, compliance and enforcement model is built.

It's really about making sure people know who they're getting into a car with as well as what's the vehicle like that they're riding in.

So we really focus on vehicle inspections as well as criminal history checks on drivers.

So though two things that we want to look at.

One is we don't have the ability to do what's called a random unannounced inspection through the app.

The idea being one of our inspectors would call up and say, I want to get a ride.

They would arrange ride, the person would show up and we do inspection.

Couple things we'll be looking for.

Does the driver match who's supposed to be there?

Um is the vehicle in the condition that it's supposed to be, and do they have their insurance and the other documentation required?

So it's really making sure the person driving is actually the person who's supposed to be driving and the vehicles in the condition they expect.

Um there will be no internal inspections unless the driver consents.

It's really just a really quick show us who you are, show us your paperwork, do a walkaround, and then if they consent, we would do an internal just looking for the stuff that's um TNC related only, nothing else we'll be looking for.

If we see problems with the vehicle, then we would request that they bring their vehicle in within 48 hours to a uh designated location for a full vehicle inspection.

So the idea is these are really quick randomized inspections, and it allows us to do, I think, a better service for the drivers as well as a better service for our staff in terms of efficiency and effectiveness and getting us more information on what's actually happening on the street in regards to drivers and um trips being generated and received.

Mr.

Najelli, before you keep going, so just to make sure I understand, are our DSI and staff doing these inspections based on the list of drivers that you receive?

So, right now we do not do random inspections.

Right now, what we do is we get um names from the TNCs, and they basically tell us yes, we've done a criminal history check on this individual as required by ordinance.

We've also done a vehicle inspection because a requirement in ordinance is that each vehicle is receives a vehicle inspection on an annual basis.

And they have to have all those records.

So, what we're gonna be doing is sort of making sure what they've done is actually what is what we're seeing there.

So we don't inspect at all.

No.

Well, we we have through a certified inspector, yeah.

So we have entities who we certify, uh which is where they go, and we use the experts to look at breaks and things like that, make sure all the technical parts are actually what they need to be.

Okay, so random unannounced inspections through app is not happening.

Or is it not happening?

Okay, yep.

So yeah, so right now what we do is we're just looking at the documentation they have on criminal histories and the documentation they have on vehicle inspections, and then we can request a vehicle go to a shop to be inspected, a shop that's approved by ourselves.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Great.

Thanks for the clarification.

So right now we're really reliant on TNC businesses to provide us list of drivers.

So we don't know for sure.

Do we have a driver on the platform that they would not provide us a name?

And we have no method determining a list of attorney if the list includes all the drivers.

The second part is criminal history checks.

One of the requirements is that the platforms do a criminal history check before hire as well as on an annual basis, and there's set criteria by which they can either accept or reject that driver.

Right now they tell us that we do criminal history checks.

We can send over a request of X number of names, and they can then tell us yes, we've done a criminal history check.

We just want to make sure we have the best method to make sure that they've done the check, but also that it's been a thorough check and they've actually followed up on all the incidents that's a part of that criminal history check.

So just once again verifying the work that they're doing.

What we like to do at DSI is compliance and enforcement.

We don't want to manage somebody's entity.

We want to make sure they're managing their business properly and giving us some checks and balances, making sure the data they've done is what it is and they're following up on it and making sure what they tell us is actually happening.

So that's for refining our compliance enforcement model.

The next one is a growing number of businesses in the market.

As a number of you aware, we've had a dramatic increase, especially in the last three years of interest as well as players joining the market.

Um businesses vary in size.

Um in the beginning, there were the two big players, and now we're seeing a lot more players of varying sizes.

And businesses begin operating throughout the year.

In the beginning, we had two operators.

We said, okay, February 1st, everybody has to renew and they have to do their insurance dates accordingly, which becomes an obstacle over time.

So looking at that.

We want to miss this.

I'll go back.

So with that, so what we're looking at is for um that given the fact that now we have varying size entities, we're looking at what is the appropriate fee size.

Because we have more players, which means we have more revenue to pay for our enforcement because we cannot charge a licensing fee that isn't being used for the cost of enforcement.

We have more players, therefore we can reduce the fees that each entity plays pays.

But we also want to look at what is the impact of each entity on our enforcement efforts, and that's where size comes in.

Initially, we're just looking at a single fee model, which would have been about 12,500 a year, which is a drop from about $35,000 a year, which we currently have.

So a significant drop.

Um looking at the tier system, and we should be making uh a final recommendation working with the administration in the next few days.

Um it would be a two-tier or three-tier.

Um, and in the lowest, the the one tier would be to be 6,000, and the highest, the highest tier would be about 17,500 or 18,000.

So that's where we're at the ballpark right now, but definitely we're looking at a significant decrease in license fees for short-term or for transportation network companies, and possibly a little bit more for the smaller companies that way.

So that's those are the details that we're working on.

So the result of the ordinance would be we could conduct random unannounced inspections.

We could verify drivers' criminal history checks and be confident that the information we have is accurate and that the um TNTs are actually um utilize that information to approve or to deny drivers.

We can significantly lower the license fees and then eliminate the need for February only insurance dates.

So if somebody starts in September, uh we want to give them the ability to have a September 1st to September 1st insurance and renewal.

It gets just more complicated when, oh no, you have to do six-month insurance, one-year insurance is a standard, so it's easier if people can do just do the one year.

So we would take away the February insurance requirement and make it a one-year requirement for insurance.

With that, I will stand for any questions.

Thanks.

Questions from Mr.

Nagelic.

Ms.

Yang.

Council President.

Well, Dan, I really appreciate your presentation.

And I want to say thank you for giving us such thorough information.

I was very interested in in moving this forward in front of the council as soon as possible because there have been TNCs reaching out to me about the need for us to write size our licensing fees.

And uh I um my first question is I know you mentioned the renewal date of February 1st, and so one of my concerns that I shared with the TNCs that reached out to me was um what happens if come February 1st there isn't any amendment to the fees at all, and they're having to pay that, and that it would mean that for those who aren't able to pay the hefty fees, they're probably gonna have to stop their operations pretty much throughout this date because many of their customers are wanting to go to and from St.

Paul.

Paul and so I was wondering if you would be able to talk to talk a bit about that is there a way for us to get around the February 1st deadline thank you Council President Councilmember Young thanks for the question right now we have a little opportunity for a little um fudge factor shall we say um right now we're moving all our licenses into poly all our new licenses are able to be secured through poly but not all our renewals one of those renewals that we don't have in poly yet is transportation network companies so we're sending out a message to our licensees that we are rolling out different license types we're already doing manually on sale liquor because of the need for liquor liability insurance in regards to TNCs they'll be coming in the in the near future we're gonna be sending out a notice to licensees to wait for their invoice and when they get their invoice they'll be able to go into poly.

So at this point in time if they don't renew on February 1st that is fine because it will be sending out an invoice for them and we won't penalize them until we actually send out an invoice and give them a timeframe to pay it it would be going through poly.

In addition to that any time that somebody fails to pay a renewal that is adverse licensing action as you all know and that you know lands before you for a final decision.

So if there is any concern about a delay or things like that that final decision on any fine or fee for a late renewal would come before yourselves.

The thing that we will make sure of is that all the transportation network companies have their liability insurance current so we will do checks on that just make that make sure that's current so as long as their insurance is current wait for the invoice that will be coming in in the near future thank you that's very reassuring I I appreciate you sharing about that in detail that resolves the concern that I had um you know that I also heard directly from the TNCs too.

I want to thank DSI for your hard work in engaging with the TNCs I know that um when I spoke with Director We see about it you all heard about these concerns not just from one company but many.

And so I'm just very grateful in which the ways in which you're taking that input and putting it into action bringing something forward in front of in front of the council I am very supportive of a tiered structure for the fees and I'm looking forward to what that will look like.

Now I do have a few more questions and I I'm wondering you mentioned right now DSI isn't currently doing the inspections but wants to can you talk a bit about how we'll be able to fill the staffing need for that so um we have um we have staffing well except where we lost staffing during the to cur the COVID situation so we will have to be building it in because we have staffing built in that's why we get the fee so it's a different way of what we're doing because in the past it was looking more at hard records and making sure by doing the random stuff we can gain some efficiency by what we'll see and then the record checkings way do we do it that way.

So it's a little bit different so we're changing some of the work we were doing this way and doing this way.

So we'll be dealing with the same staffing level that we had when we basically implemented the program.

Okay thank you and then can you just share with us generally like what are the different factors that you considered as you were thinking about like right sizing the fees and I I would love to hear a bit about that.

So right sizing the fees the first thing we have to look at is what is the cost of doing enforcement so that's sort of the target and then we look at what do we think the market share is going to be how many market players are we looking at in that and then from there we think okay based on that this is what we shoot for and then from there based on what our costs are it's really about the number of drivers the number of drivers is what generates our work.

So we have we got all the understanding that the number of drivers per that's going to result in you know X percentage of drivers being checked in a given year.

So that would be the proportionality that we'd be looking for so we'd be setting this group you know any um TNC with you know under you know 500 drivers uh TNC between 500 and 2000 2000 plus we can proportionally then make the fees because it's related to the work we're doing around enforcement and that would be the basis of the fees then.

Okay thank you and then my last question is I'm wondering about um well actually I I have to I have two more um the my the first one here is I'm wondering if you can lay out what does the penalty look like in terms of um a company not being in compliance and is that information or is are those penalties laid out in the in any sort of language you all are bringing forward to us.

Council President Councilmember Yang it's in through our administrative or adverse licensing matrix so it's similar to most of the license adverse that we do first penalty is 500 seconds a thousand third is two thousand and a 10 day suspension fourth is revocation so very similar to all our license types the only things are sort of differences for on sale liquor and tobacco but generally all our other licenses has the general matrix.

I know that this is a reduction in fees that DSI is proposing.

So can you talk about any sort of uh fiscal impacts that we are gonna uh see in front of us um upon approval of the the new propos of the what you're proposing?

Council President, Councilmember Yang, um we do not see this as a budget impact uh because uh by having additional players in the market, we are getting additional revenue, um, which is why we're saying it's time for us to reduce the fees to reflect that because we can only collect the fees associated with the work that we're doing, and so therefore we're not seeing this as a budget impact by the fact that what we're doing is just we want to marry it, but in a slightly different framework.

Okay, that's fantastic.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Thank you for your good questions, Ms.

Yang, and for your leadership in bringing this issue forward to policy committee as well.

Um, Mr.

Angelica, I just have one question which relates a little bit to what Ms.

Yang was just asking about in terms of um making sure that our license fees cover our costs.

I appreciate what you're saying about if we have more players, we we have a fixed cost to some extent, each of them can pay less, and I I also support the idea of having a tiered structure.

Um I uh I I guess I'm just wondering the kind of enforcement you're talking about, the random unannounced inspections, the additional enforcement does seem like it would come potentially with additional costs to the department, potentially additional staffing.

So I just want to make sure that as you're doing the math on what we need from each of the companies, we're also taking into account the additional costs that some of these enforcement um elements might incur.

Council president, um very good question.

I appreciate people who are diligent about budget and staffing.

Um but yeah, I would.

The job and our pleasure.

Um as I look at um this, we are basically replicating um staff requirements pre post, same.

So the idea is not to change what the expectation was when we created the program in 2014 in terms of work and staff requirements, and so therefore the budget would go accordingly.

Um I will note that licensing has seen a budget cut during COVID, and we have not returned to that staffing level.

So we do need to manage within that.

That is one thing that we are conscious of.

So when you ask about budget, that is something we're very conscious of, the staffing level we had pre-COVID is is more than we have currently, and so we manage within that level.

But in terms of the program that we're creating for TNC, it's the same staffing expectation.

We just have to balance it given the staffing level we have overall for the division.

Okay.

That makes sense.

Yeah, it does.

Um, and I think I I speak for many of us here.

You know, the ordinances that we pass are only as good as the enforcement that ultimately often your department is able to provide.

So um, I do support the department thinking broadly about what kind of staffing you need, especially again if something like this is going to create additional work, um, it it likely won't be possible for the same amount of staff who, as you mentioned, have already been reduced.

So just a just an encouragement to make sure you're building that into your calculations.

And we really appreciate the support.

That's one thing I just want to thank from the Department of Safety Inspections the support we get from the council.

Um, it's something we do appreciate the value placed in our work and support you have for our department.

So thank you for that question and making sure that's question stays front and center because we really do appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr.

Nanjali.

Beforehand, go ahead.

Other questions or comments on this.

I think we have uh does our is move point to present as well.

Okay, we have another presenter on this topic, but any other questions for Mr.

Nagellic.

I'm not seeing any.

Okay, so thank you so much.

Do you have a sense as to when I know that the after policy committee, usually the uh sponsor of the item in this case, Ms.

Yang would um confer with the department, figure out whether or not ordinances are moving forward.

In this case, it seems like one is, and it sounds like soon.

Yep.

Council President, um, I just want to um end with one thanking also the city attorney's office, our partner in doing this.

Uh they make sure we um walk in the right path and don't get ourselves in trouble, which you know we tend to journey sometimes one way or the other, but they've been great partners and will be down the road.

Um, we're expecting to meet with them hopefully to finalize language and then talk to council member Yang about the final language we have as well as talking to the administration just to make sure that everything, all the I's are dotted, T's are crossed.

But I'm expecting uh by the end of next week, we should have everything wrapped up package-wise to be able to bring to Councilmember Yang and then bring to yourselves for consideration.

Um, like I mentioned, we've already sent a letter out to the transportation network companies so they know some of the general language we're looking at.

Um, got some feedback generally favorable.

They're really looking for more of the specific so because one of the things and I should have mentioned, I apologize, um, with the random unannounced visits, um, the TNCs would be required to compensate the driver for each one that we would get.

So, in the sense that it's not taking a driver off the clock and losing money, they would still be compensated that way.

We'd be looking at the state model, which is if it's a canceled ride, the TNCs are responsible for 80% payment of that particular ride.

So given the fact that our checks are gonna be designed to be very short, it's gonna be shorter than the ride that they would have had otherwise.

We'll be working with the TNTs to make sure what's a reasonable ride cost and things like that.

Um therefore the one their concerns is well, how many of these are you gonna do a year?

What's the cost to us?

Well, we're seeing a fee reduction, but we're also they're gonna be picking up some of the costs associated with that then.

So those are a couple things, details that we'll work with them, but we're not seeing any major pushback at this particular time.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Thank you all for your time.

Appreciate it.

All right, and um, I believe we have a representative from one of our TNCs, Move, who is here to talk to us briefly.

Come on up.

Welcome.

I'm sorry, I don't have your name handy, but if you would just start with introducing yourself and then the floor is yours, and we're getting your presentation loaded up, it looks like technology.

Hi, welcome.

Uh council president, um, thank you for having me.

Um, uh, my name is Marie Domini.

I'm the founder and CEO of Move.

Um we are Minnesota's first locally founded rideshare.

Um before I jump into the details, I did want to thank Councilmember Yang for representing us in this um request.

We've been bugging our office for a while.

Also wanna thank Sarah Plua and Sonia for supporting us as well.

Um a little bit about Move.

I started working on Move at the end of 2023 when I wanted to solve a community problem.

Um, and so um built the apps, got them in the app store, applied for licensing, and um by coincidence, around the time that we're ready to launch, all of the ride share kind of um ordinance changes happened at early 2024.

Um and so we quickly gained, I want to say about 8,000, 900 drivers and a backlog of about 3,000 customers who wanted to start using our service.

Um, unfortunately, one of the issues we ran into is uh licensing fees for both city of Minneapolis and City of St.

Paul.

Currently for St.

Paul licensing fee is listed at 41,115.

And for a startup, that's a pretty large amount, in addition to the 100,000 dollar insurance policy that we have to buy per state um statute.

Um and so we're really in support of um changes to move this licensing structure to a uh tiered structure for fees.

Um and the reason is that you know, while we want to do our best to operate at you know the size of like an Uber or Lyft, we are a startup.

And so we look for when the city and the state says that they want to support small businesses, we look for that to come through in these types of policies.

Um I'll be honest, uh, through 2024 and 2025 licensing fees um and state management insurance is taking about 90% of our funding.

And so while we want to grow and bring this amazing service to the community, we continue to have to dump all our dollars in overhead just to exist, and we have no ability to actually get the word out so people can use Move.

We do have 0% safety incident rate, and so we're a much safer ride share.

Um we make sure that we adhere to every policy.

Um we also pay drivers the highest.

So we pay drivers currently 90% of the ride fare, and we're operating at currently at a loss, but in ride, we operate at almost nonprofit rates.

Um so again, you know, the the goal of MOVE is to really focus on community needs.

Um, and so we're founded by U of M St.

Thomas and McAllister students and alumni, um, and we are currently the most um driver preferred ride share in the state.

The one thing I'll add is that um we're really supportive of some of the policy changes here made aside from the fee structure.

Um we have seen, especially when the ride share kind of noise started, 12 other companies that popped up.

I met with seven of their founders, and none of them had a plan to get insurance.

They were like, Oh, I have an app that I hired somebody in another country to build, and I'm just gonna start operating.

And so we've seen throughout the community, um, and not all of it's nefarious, some of it's like really entrepreneurial students who like want to do something for class, but they operate without insurance protections, they operate without you know background checks, um, and this just creates unnecessary risk and ultimately you know devalues the um community's perception towards startup rideshares.

So uh I want to thank the DSI for taking the opportunity to kind of uh look at this and help enforce the process and put uh you know some updated um requirements around it.

Um, and we're also happy to support this process um in any way so that there's a sense of safety um both on the driver, customer, and community side.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Do you have one more picture in your presentation?

I do, yeah.

I just had a this is just a no, I forget it.

Um this is just something from one of our pitch decks.

Um I really do want to emphasize that startups like MOVE are all about bringing the community together.

Um, every one of our interns, every one of our paid staff.

I don't even pay myself, but I do pay staff from local universities.

And so um allowing us to have like a reduced fee really frees up budget so that we can continue to do this type of work, right?

To bring um careers to local students, local graduates, um, to bring that entrepreneurial experience to them.

Um and it wouldn't be possible at you know, paying 40,000 for St.

Paul and last year in Minneapolis is like 30 something thousand.

And so um, I really want to thank the council for considering moving this to a fee structure that makes more sense.

Um, and frankly, is in line with what a lot larger cities are doing.

Great.

Thank you so much for the presentation.

Thank you for investing in St.

Paul and beyond.

Um, love the local roots.

Um questions or comments.

Ms.

Yang.

Thanks, Council President.

I don't have any questions, but I want to say thank you, Marie, for coming and presenting today.

I uh just remember when we first met and you shared about the vision and the mission of MOOC.

I was very moved and blown away by it.

And I'm just um you know, very grateful to you and and your team for choosing to do business here in St.

Paul and especially centering your work around college students, especially.

Like I remember my days in college, and it was always pretty hard to get around.

Um I was always waiting for the bus system, and for you know, uh during that time, like it's a time where many students are trying to figure out how do I find the most affordable way and convenient way to get around.

And I'm very glad that our college students here in St.

Paul have you all as an alternative option that is rooted in community, rooted in dignity and respect for your drivers, for your customers, and really uh ensuring that you're providing top notch quality to everybody.

And so I'm very again grateful to you for your advocacy and to many other TNCs too because um that work is really what has um led us to be where we are today.

So thank you.

Yeah, no, thank you.

Again, the community thing is a huge part of what we do.

Um currently we offer a couple of programs.

Like if students show us an A on their report card or exam score, we give them a free ride credit because we just want to encourage you know education.

Um for any uh members of the community that have been taken to the WIPO building.

We offer free rides back home.

So you just pop it right in the app, it says let's get you home and and you get a free ride.

So community is is one of our biggest pillars.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

Um, and thank you also, um council member Yang for just bringing this topic on.

I am very excited.

I actually just downloaded the app just to learn more about it.

So I think um the engagement that you're doing is is admirable.

Um I also just wanted to just say, like being an entrepreneur from to an entrepreneur, like we understand like the cost that we pay to actually make sure we have like a public good, right?

And I'm just curious just to know um all that that you have mentioned earlier.

Um, do you have plans on like branching out of Minnesota or have there already been, you know, have you seen um better strides in other states?

We uh currently only operate in Minnesota, however, we are looking to branch out to um communities that face um similar issues.

Uh bunch of different states constantly have lawsuits against our competitors, so those are probably where we'd expand to, starting with the Midwest.

Uh, most likely Detroit and Chicago RB are next to expansion areas.

That's where we hear the most of feedback from drivers and riders.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you for the questions and comments.

Anything else for my colleagues?

Doesn't look like it.

Thank you very much again for being here at their service.

Uh with that, we will shift gears.

No pun intended for both.

Wow, this was like a triple pun to our drive-thru zoning study.

We've only had two cups of coffee.

Um so we will welcome up Mr.

Bill Dermany.

Thank you, Council President.

Let me uh give the presentation up here.

Just take your time.

While Mr.

Germany is doing this, just to reminder my colleagues, and I think he will also be giving us this time frame, but just to jog our memories because I know it's felt like a thousand years just since two weeks ago.

Um, this is a topic that we've heard about a couple of different times now.

We laid it over to February 18th.

It'll be coming back to us then.

Um but in part we did that because we were in the midst of a T district zoning study that we thought might have some implications for this ordinance change.

Um, and we wanted to wait for that to be done.

We wanted to have a chance to hear from Mr.

Dermony about that.

We wanted to have a chance to talk uh together about the impact, the consequences of that one way or another.

Um, and then we wanted to take up the ordinance.

So probably that was what Mr.

Dermoty is about to say in his first slide, but welcome Mr.

Dermotty.

One slide down.

Council members.

Are you able to see my presentation slides yet?

Now, yes.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

So yes, I'd like to give a little background and then talk about what happened with the T study and how it impacts this, and lay out a few, I think four policy questions for the council to consider.

So yes, this uh there were public hearings in 2024, uh, a couple layovers at council, and this will be on your February 18th agenda for continuation of the second reading.

To give you an idea of the scale, these are the drive-throughs in St.

Paul as of uh a couple years ago.

Um there's been minimal change since then.

The the coffee shops, we had only two of them, uh both on West 7th.

Um, a third one has been approved, but I don't think built yet at 35E in Larpender, so north end of the city.

Umks are scattered uh throughout the city pretty pretty widespread.

Fast food restaurants, uh, there's definitely a pattern where there are a lot on University Avenue, West 7th, Rice Street, and then uh along I-94 on the east side.

Uh and pharmacies, we've got a few of those as well, although the CVS's a couple of CVS's have closed since this map was made.

There are problems with drive-throughs.

I just want to give a uh cursory overview of that.

Uh, what problems are we trying to solve here?

They potentially conflict with our comprehensive plan policies, most especially these uh that are listed that we promote high quality urban design that supports pedestrian friendly friendliness, um, that we have active streetscapes with active first floor uses, and that we're shifting mode share towards walking and reducing the need for car ownership.

There is a particular site that was a particular problem, which may seem like ancient history, but it was uh certainly a big deal when it happened in 2016.

The Starbucks of Snelling and Marshall was approved, it met all of the city regulations.

And those city regulations are the same as they were then.

So potentially the same issue could happen again.

The uh the queuing was way more than could be supported on site.

Uh, this photograph shows 14 vehicles in the few in the queue.

Uh anecdotally, it was sometimes more and backed out on the snelling.

Uh, caused traffic safety issues, uh blocked the bike lane, sometimes blocked the sidewalk.

Um, it was kind of a mess, and they voluntarily closed it.

The city uh had some requirements for a while regarding traffic management, having off off-duty police officers to help manage that at certain hours.

Uh and but ultimately they closed that uh part of the business.

Um traffic studies elsewhere have shown a need for between five and twenty-six vehicle stacking spaces, and those are referenced in the in the memo that's among the package that uh is with the ordinance.

Highest numbers are for coffee and fast food.

Some other problems, just listing them here, unsafe pedestrian access, having to walk across drive aisles where people are distracted.

Um pedestrian-oriented streetscape, just not Pisserin-friendly.

If you look at a couple of these examples here in the picture, these are good examples.

It's hard to get to to the building.

Uh, that's true for customers or employees.

Noise, litter, behavior around these places, the health impact and pollution have all been cited with pollution.

I would caution that the direct impact of pollution is relatively small.

Uh it's very visible but small with people idling while they're in line.

The greater impact is indirect, where uh we're encouraging more car use and car ownership if we have more drive-throughs in the city.

So the the T district study came through recently, and it has one change that impacts the drive-thru study, and that is uh it fixed safe pedestrian access to the building.

So there is a recommendation from the planning commission that pedestrians be able to access drive-through buildings with drive-throughs without crossing a drive-thru or any other drive lane.

Um that actually will now apply citywide, thanks to the T study, um, not only in T districts, but all zoning districts and all buildings except for industrial buildings and those that are very far set back from the street.

So it would already apply.

So we will need a version two with this, and then the question is what else should change with the version two.

Here are the main so sorry, before we keep going.

So hearing you say that in the previous slide, the problems with drive-throughs, the first one, unsafe pedestrian access, has been changed by the T district study, which now requires safe pedestrian access in all zoning districts.

Um and therefore we would need a version two of the drive-thru study to get rid of that standard since we don't need it there as well.

Is the plan on February 18th, no matter what, for that version two to be authored and introduced?

Yes.

That's currently the plan.

Okay.

Yes.

And also council members may wish to consider introducing a version two that makes other changes per these policy.

But if we do nothing, that will be part of it.

That would be the minimum.

Okay, yeah.

Okay.

The minimum change.

So I'll go into more depth on each of these four questions in the following slides.

But here they are.

Should drive-throughs be prohibited for residents for restaurants and coffee shops, and only allowed for pharmacies and banks.

Should indoor walk-up service be required during all hours of the drive-thru is open.

So those on foot can access the same services as those in the vehicle.

Which zoning districts should allow drive-throughs?

And if drive-throughs are expanded to the T3 and T4 districts, is it desirable to require them to be in a four-story plus building?

As opposed to just single stories, they often are.

So the first question here should a restaurant should we ban restaurant and coffee drive-throughs going forward?

Of course, existing ones could continue, potentially even be expanded under uh conditional use permit process.

But should we ban new ones?

And I put it up this example of Starbucks on West 7th is because it has been cited by Highland Park District Council and others as a really good example.

Like if we are going to do drive-throughs for food and beverage uses in the city, this is about as good as as good as you can get.

Building is up near the street, very accessible by pedestrians.

Plenty of room for queuing on the site, so there won't be any backup into the street, so you would have to have 30 some vehicles, which is very uncommon for that to become a problem.

This is about as good of a setting as you can get.

The planning commission is recommending that we do not allow these going forward, with the uh logic stated that we have enough of these, we have locations for these, we don't need to bend over backwards to allow these uses that are generally in conflict with our policies.

So that's one policy question for the council to think about.

Another one is should we require indoor walk-up service?

Uh this could be accomplished through you know, for a bank through an ATM that's accessible during all hours or at least the hours that the uh drive-thru is open.

Um I showed this Taco Bell, this is in Minnesota, but not St.

Paul.

It has a window where those people are eating where people can walk up just like drive-thru customers, two ways to serve from the outside.

Uh this was an idea that actually came initially from the Union Park District Council, and the planning commission like this idea and recommended it to the city council.

Um, we've heard some testimony about this in particular, some concerns about safety of workers if this if people were required into the restaurants during the same hours as drive-throughs.

Um, there's a uh a concern about late-night service for the employees and their safety.

Mr.

Germany, do we have any sense right now as to how many drive-throughs currently because this would this change would apply to existing drive-throughs, right?

Um, do we have a sense as to how many currently have longer drive-thru service than they have walk up service?

Most I I haven't done a count, but it's pretty common.

Uh, for late night hours, it's you know the restaurants will often close their interiors at an hour of like nine or ten o'clock, and then the drive-throughs will be open a little longer.

Yes.

So today, the zoning districts that allow uh drive-throughs are up here on the screen.

What planning commission is recommending is to uh prohibit them going forward in B4 and B5, essentially downtown, and the smallest business districts, OS and B1, but to add them as a conditional use in T3 and T4.

And that uh so there's a question of which districts to allow it in, and then a related question of if it's allowed in T3 and T4, planning commission is recommending that it only be through uh in combination with a four-story plus building, such as this building across the street from the soccer stadium.

There is actually a drive-thru in there.

There had been a single-story bank.

This is zone T3.

Um there was a non-conforming use permit approved by the planning commission that allowed this to happen in conjunction with this apartment building.

But the idea there is we're if we had this requirement, we'd still be getting the form and the density that we want to see in T3 and T4 districts as long as the drive-thru is integrated into the building.

And this particular one is another one that was cited as a drive-thru that works very well.

It avoids many of the problems that other drive-throughs uh present in the city.

So again, these are the four main policy questions.

I will say there are other changes in the code that are less controversial that I'm not calling too much attention to.

Uh including that the queuing length, the uh minimum queuing length be greater than it is currently.

We only require four or six vehicles stacking, four vehicles, I think stacking for most uses in the code today, and that would expand to a greater amount.

And also uh to make that easier to do on more sites.

Most uses have to be a single lane drive-thru to avoid having a lot of asphalt, but that would be changed to allow multiple lanes.

So that uh I guess the uh it's a recognition that it is a lesser problem to have more pavement than the problem of cars backing up out on the street.

That seems to be the bigger problem that we want to address.

So uh with these four main policy questions in front of you, I'd be glad to take any questions that you have or comments.

Okay, thanks, Mr.

Germany.

I do have a few questions, but I want to look to my colleagues first to see what questions others might have.

Ms.

Yang.

Thank you, Council President.

I am wondering, Bill, um, and first off, I want to say thank you for your presentation.

This is a really great refresher as well for me, since it does seem like a while uh it's been a while since we've had this um in front of us.

I'm wondering if you can share um uh again about just say a bit more about the planning commission's decision.

I know you said earlier they um believe that we have um enough of the drive-throughs, and can you clarify if they're saying no to new drive-throughs or well?

I think that's what I heard, right?

They don't want any new drive-throughs in the CD of St.

Paul.

No new restaurant or coffee shop drive-throughs.

Okay, okay, gotcha.

But no problem with new pharmacy or bank drive-throughs.

Okay, that's really helpful to know.

And then can you um can you just share a bit about in terms of like drive-throughs?

Are we seeing that it's more like um large chain stores or restaurants that are having them or I mean I know I I know of some small businesses that have drive-throughs too, so do you have any data around that?

Yes, uh Council President, Councilmember.

It is certainly more common with chains to have drive-throughs, but it is not exclusive.

We do have a few fast-food restaurants uh on the order of maybe three or four that have drive-throughs that are not chains that are not national chains.

Uh, same is true with pharmacies.

Uh, I think all of our pharmacies with drive-throughs are Walgreens or CBS, and the local pharmacies don't have drive-throughs.

Okay.

And then just a question about um about any sort of financial support the city would be providing, like if we were to um let's say approve any sort of changes where it's that where I heard you earlier say that changes that we do approve, like they're gonna impact existing drive-throughs too.

So let's say a small business, for example, they have to uh maybe you know reconfigure their uh the the pathway for the drive-thru, or just do some sort of like you know, capital uh make some sort of capital improvement to their their um business.

Is there any sort of funding that we're that we're planning on sharing with them, like hey, you should tap into this.

I mean, I'm thinking neighborhood star, but I'm I'm not really sure too.

I I would love to hear your thoughts just because I think that that would probably be a question that we get a lot um as we consider more of these.

Council President, Council Member uh Yang, I'm glad you raised this question.

It's a common issue of confusion, and it gives me a chance to clarify.

Um existing businesses may uh would be legal non-conforming if we made any changes to code.

Um, and so they could continue in their current situation.

So if uh if they do not meet the standards that are being proposed, or or that standard that got approved by the T study, they could continue operating.

Um it applies to new and expanded drive-throughs.

So if they wanted to come in and uh expand their operation, or if it were a new drive-thru altogether, then the regulations would apply.

Okay, thank you.

That's helpful to know.

Those are all the questions I have for now.

Thanks, Ms.

Yang.

I see Ms.

Coleman and then Ms.

Bowie.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you for this presentation.

It's been very helpful.

Um asking you to do a comprehensive 50 state survey on the spot.

I'm just curious what we're seeing in terms of other cities moving on sort of similar policy changes.

I know I I think Minneapolis took similar action as to what's proposed here.

I'm curious if PD has been tracking any other cities' movement on this and if there are any lessons that you all think we should be learning from those examples.

Thank you.

Council President, Councilmember Coleman.

Good question.

I did check in with Minneapolis who prohibited new drive-throughs several years ago.

I want to say 2019 or somewhere in that ballpark.

They have anecdotally not heard a lot of complaints.

People seem to have moved on or perhaps they're complaining elsewhere, but uh not very loudly about it.

Um business continues in Minneapolis.

Um that's what we've heard anecdotally.

Just a quick follow-up question.

Did you hear any positive impacts?

I mean, do they feel like this has contributed to more sort of pedestrian friendly built business development?

Um no uh feedback either way that I heard um about their change.

Thank you.

Thanks, Ms.

Coleman.

Ms.

Bowie.

Thank you.

Um thank you, Council President.

I had a similar question, but I want to just uh really frame it more so around uh if you could speak to like how this is like activating retail business, uh, particularly, you know, in the midway in a series and also downtown.

Um, you know, we we're we're really you know looking for the city to um be a champion uh with activating our retail and preserving our businesses, um, but at least in Ward 1, it's really more so attracting and um being a welcoming um place for businesses.

Do you see like with this change, um, particularly with having uh a ban on drive-throughs, particularly around restaurants and and um um you mentioned you didn't mention pharmacies, but restaurants and coffee shops, um you know how this have bolstered up you know businesses, or are we going to start seeing some negative impacts uh particularly around the investment community that you know really you know in this place don't want to see restrictions, right?

So um understanding that this is more so like a environmental policy and bolstering up pedestrian friendly, but how do you see this really taking um effect in some of those areas that um are vacant, right?

And we need to attract our businesses.

Good question, Council President, Councilmember Bowie.

Um the I mean this is somewhat speculative, but we would hope that it sends a signal about whatever you pass, it sends a signal about the type of development you want, which would attract developers who want to do that sort of development.

Um there is a uh there are voices we've heard through the public hearing who say that we can accommodate drive-throughs and get that sort of development if the design standards are good.

Uh there are others who have said you can't really do that any time you have a drive-thru, you are encouraging so many cars to be in a specific area that it makes it unpedestrian friendly and it cannot support the type of development that we want.

So we've heard both both voices.

Um the the proof will be in the future for us.

Um, you know, Minneapolis has had an experience where uh nobody's done a study about how it's helped or hurt businesses there, but it sends the signal and then they get the type of development that they asked for.

Um it's hard hard to say.

You can only speculate whether it's uh cause less development than it otherwise would.

So I hope that answers your question.

Thank you.

Thanks, Ms.

Williams.

Coleman.

Thank you.

Um this might have been answered already, so apologies if I missed it.

But what is the rate of applications to build new buildings with drive-throughs in the city currently?

Couple a year would be my estimate.

Um Thanks to everyone for the great questions.

Um a couple of others.

What one just to make sure, Mr.

Dermoty, I know you said there were some other changes you didn't talk about that are in the proposed language that are less controversial, but but one, for example, I just want to make sure of this.

The the carbucks situation that you referred to earlier with cars lining up on the street because they ran out of room.

That is one of the changes that is already in the proposed in the language, correct?

That is correct, yes.

Um, just trying to keep us connected to you know original problems that are trying to be solved here.

Um, another question I have relates to the changes to the zoning districts, because it occurs to me, I think you know, I I have some questions about sort of which new drive-throughs we would allow or not allow and what the reasons for that those are, but one thing that does seem very important to me to your point is to figure out where we want drive-throughs to be in the city, and that relates to which zoning districts they're allowed in.

Um I'm curious, it makes sense to me to not allow downtown because we're trying to make a very dense urban pedestrian-friendly environment downtown.

Um, the decision to make them conditional in T3 and T4 were before they weren't allowed at all.

And pair that with requiring them to be in a really tall building.

Can you say more about what the discussion was or the rationale was for that choice?

Sure, yes.

Um that was it was helpful that we had a very good example across um across from the soccer stadium that people think is working well.

And uh potentially a user like that could financially support a development on a large site, such as um you know, in the midway uh South Side University Avenue or the Heights or some location like that where they don't quite have enough funding for the residential component, but a drive-thru user could make that development happen.

Uh that sort of situation is what the planning commission had in mind when they recommended this.

Okay, so allowing drive-throughs to be in T3 and T4, which are some of our highest density districts, but the reason was to allow a higher density development to move forward that might need that revenue and couldn't do it without it, and that's why there's also that requirement that then the drive-thru only be in one of those tall buildings.

You got it, yes.

Interesting.

Okay, and then lastly, um, we you had talked about design standards, and I can't remember if this is in the language, and this is one of the things you didn't refer to or not, but um this problem of not having a pedestrian-oriented streetscape, which is different from unsafe pedestrian access.

That one is already handled by the team zoning study.

But I I feel this concern about pedestrian-oriented streetscape very much.

I mean, you walk down the street, you see tons of driveways, you see tons of cars pulling in the front.

That is not that feels very different from when the drive-thru is in the back.

Um the you know, announcement system is happening in the back, it's screened by vegetation.

The picture of the Starbucks that you showed, for example, compared to the Starbucks on Snelling.

Um, so are those design, some of those design standards in the existing language?

Yes, thank you for calling attention to that, Council President.

Uh it's at least partially addressed through the design standards.

So uh to some extent, any time you have a drive-thru, you will have more need to accommodate vehicles.

So to that to that degree, you can't quite always solve for that.

But the design standards require the uh the drive-thru to be to the side or rear of the building and be uh separated from residential by a certain distance, I think it's 300 feet.

Um it's uh and then in combination with the pedestrian safety requirements, which essentially require the building to be up near the street, combination of all those would improve the streetscape compared to what's in code currently.

Okay, and those are new proposed changes.

Yes.

Those are new.

Not particularly controversial through the planning commission level, but yes, newly proposed.

Great.

Ms.

Bowie, yeah, thank you so much.

Um on the lines around the design standards.

I'm just curious um, as we're thinking about just how retail is evolving, particularly moving towards um these app-based pickups, like I'm thinking of Target and and even um Starbucks, where you like order and you pick up, you're not going through a drive-thru, but you're um at least going into a parking spot where uh employee will bring out some of the um the services.

So I'm just wondering is that is there our pickup um at base pickup, you know, um I guess laws or standards, is that codified in this existing policy, or is that something treated separately?

Uh great question, Council President Councilmember Bowie.

Um this was uh matter of a lot of discussion at Planning Commission level.

It is not regulated in our code.

Um pick up uh spaces within a parking lot are are just like any other parking spaces.

Um if the proprietor wants to designate certain spaces for for pickup, they can do so.

Uh they could even work with the city potentially for on-street spaces to be dedicated to the business for this purpose.

Um that was actually part of the planning commission's rationale for prohibiting new drive-throughs for restaurant and coffee shops, that there is this other option where they can offer the the takeout service.

Thank you.

Other questions, Ms.

Yang.

Thank you, Council President.

Well, I um just want to share my general thoughts about this.

I know that there's uh going to be language in front of us and also a public hearing, but I do want to initially share the tensions that I have around um specifically the the no new drive-throughs for restaurants or like coffees, anything like you know, anything related to beverages, and I'm just thinking a lot about like clear examples of businesses and in my ward that maybe in the future might even consider uh having drive-throughs.

I'm thinking about the Walmart on Maryland and prosperity that has uh had a Walgreens that was vacant for quite some time and then now has turned into a grocery store, and the business owners want to open up a deli, and it's a Walgreens, so they have a drive-thru already there.

And they may be, you know, they um probably maybe in the future maybe want to have a drive-thru available for the deli so that their customers can um you know get food and beverages.

I'm I know that the you know, for me personally, I'm very supportive of the environmental benefits that there could be, you know, what that there would be um when we do um ban more drive new drive-throughs from from happening.

I'm also really holding, like I would say like centering the social benefits that I've seen drive-throughs bring into my life as a mom who has three kids who are three and under.

Like, thank goodness we have drive-throughs so that I don't have to bring my three kids into um you know, wherever we're going to grab a snack or a beverage.

And I'm also really centering community members who have disabilities and have to utilize drive-throughs and and how much of a convenience that brings to them.

And I've heard about that directly.

Also, that's an there's another point that I wanted to make, but I I just wanted to name overall that um anyway, if it's gonna, if it comes, I'll I'll share it in a bit.

But I I just oh, okay, I remember now.

Um the benefit of the drive-throughs during the pandemic.

Like that was huge.

And uh I don't ever want us to be in a moment like that again where you know, like we everyone we have to um we're going living through a pandemic, um, but I also am not certain about what the future holds for that.

And so we all still have to figure out how we can be ready for for these types of crises that we've lived through before.

And uh I just know how beneficial drive-throughs were to many people, not just in our city, but really all across the country during that um really horrific crisis that we lived through.

And so those are the things that I'm thinking of, you know, and I I do want to name I think it it it's gonna be very hard for me to get behind like the new no new drive-throughs for restaurants, coffees, uh, anything related to beverage use.

But I'm very invested in figuring out what it could look like for us to accomplish resolving the the many problems that we see with drive-throughs.

Um there's you know, a list here, like the non-pedestrian-oriented streetscape, noise litter, behavior, health.

I uh the last thing I'll note is that the Maryland that exists um on uh Maryland and sorry, the the McDonald's that exists on Maryland and clearance right now.

They used to have dine-in service and then now have um you know just the drive-thru option.

And they have had to make that huge shift because of many different social factors that were beyond their control.

Like, for example, um, not too far from there, there um have been many encampments that that um uh that we've seen, especially during the pandemic.

Um, the also like it's you know, you all have heard me talk about Maryland clearance a lot.

Like it's an area where we have seen well now it's um the hot spot for crime and violence in my ward, and one of the biggest priorities I have on my plate when it comes to how we can create community safety um in my in my ward at that intersection.

Also when I spoke to the um the owner of that McDonald's, they shared about how their staff members had to call the paramedics like almost every day because of customers who um were coming in, or even just people who came in when they had the dine-in service and um were um experiencing overdose, and that's really traumatic for many of these employees who are young and having to figure out how do I respond to a crisis like this and having to live through that um a lot during their at their place of employment.

And so there's you know, just a lot that that I'm thinking of as I um as I consider this and and really holding close to heart as I think about the input I've received from from community members from entrepreneurs directly in my ward too.

So that's where I'm at, and I would love to hear everyone's thoughts as um you know throughout the next few weeks as we continue talking about this.

Thanks so much, Ms.

Yang.

Um Mr.

Germany, I'm gonna invite you to sit next to Mr.

Greenfield if you'd like, since the presentation portion is over.

That way you don't have to stand there while we discuss amongst ourselves.

Um but you're still there if we have questions.

So um striking a balance.

Uh other comments, Ms.

Jost.

Thank you, Council President.

I just uh want to reflect a lot of what I'm hearing.

I think that um, you know, there isn't like a simple one-size-fits-all for this policy.

You know, the the challenges that Councilmember Yang just mentioned that she's experiencing in her ward, um, you know, are are unique to her to her ward, and each of our wards are kind of having our own challenges with this.

You know, one of the photos um of the Starbucks drive-thru was in ward three, and that particular situation actually really helped boost development in that area of my ward.

Um, and so there's just uh, you know, a lot to think about um as we're thinking about this policy that you know will will play out differently in in different parts of the city.

Thanks, Mr.

Ms.

Coleman.

I really want to appreciate um both Councilmember Joseph and Councilmember Yang's comments and echo a lot of what has already been said.

And you know, I will just add add that I share the the need to get this right and am grappling with some of the tensions that others have identified.

I think that building I think that a very serious mistake that cities made in the 20th century was building for cars, and it is something that we deal with all the time on this council is how do we rectify the problem of having built a city for cars when we sit through conversations with residents who are dealing with the problems created by traffic speaking through their neighborhoods, through you know the car buck situation, through a whole host of problems that have been created because we did not build for people to walk, we did not build for people to take public transit, and I think it is incumbent upon us to not repeat the mistakes of the past when it comes to thinking about how we build our city forward.

And so much of what Councilmember Yang said, uh so many of those concerns are ones that I share thinking about who are the people who are living in our city now and what do they need and how do we support them?

One of the uh uh a related issue that's come up when this has been discussed in Ward 4, is around late-night food options and how there are very, very few late night food options for people who are working, you know, hours beyond a traditional nine to five, people who need to who get off a shift at 11, 12, 1 in the morning.

What are they what are their food options?

Those are often going to be drive-through only for some of the safety reasons and just I think practicality reasons.

You're you're not going to get a lot of foot traffic.

Even like I'm thinking the Taco Bell on selling, it's near Hamlin.

Maybe there are a few college students who would walk over there at one in the morning.

I don't think that they have a huge need to keep the establishment open in its entirety, but but that is something that a lot of people depend on.

So I I don't have the answer yet.

I don't know if any of us will by February 18th, but I do think that this is something where we're gonna have to be very intentional and thoughtful and think about how do we how do we incentivize the type of development that we want to see as has been discussed today while also making sure that we are being honest about some of the equity and other considerations at play here.

Thanks, Ms.

Coleman.

And I would agree.

I I really appreciate the fact that we have policy committee and can have these conversations because honestly, it's it's so helpful to hear what colleagues think and be able to talk about these things openly.

I I have some of the same um concerns.

I I think it is so helpful that Mr.

Dermoty gave us these initial problems again, because I I feel like sometimes we get so far away from the problem we forget what we were trying to solve in the first place.

And I'm really glad we waited for the T District zoning study to be done because the biggest problem to me was the first one, unsafe pedestrian access.

Safety to me is a critical concern, um, especially to your point, Ms.

Yang is a mom with you know who's watched my kids bike in front of me, past a driveway and had some near misses, and I mean those are scary situations.

So this uh is a big deal.

Um, and then the non-pedestrian oriented streetscape was sort of my second concern as well, and that that is in um the design standards that are being proposed, they're not controversial.

I think where I get more um that but after that, I think there is this need to balance both the convenience, the needs for all kinds of residents to access these services, and then also the economic impacts.

Um I think actually, Mr.

Dermotty, when you first presented, we were talking about the environmental benefit, and I think you said there actually isn't a lot of impact on vehicle miles traveled from reducing drive-throughs because um folks often will end up driving farther to another drive-thru where they can access the drive-thru, and or we just we don't see a huge impact there.

Um, and I'm thinking about our our small businesses, I'm thinking about um all the pressures that they're under right now.

Um, and sort of to the point you were making, Ms.

Coleman, about indoor walk-up service.

I it strikes me that if we were to require that you have a walkup service at all the times your drive-thru is open.

Um I I think it's highly unlikely that um people would be hired to work at those times because no one is gonna walk into a restaurant at one in the morning.

Um, I think it's more likely that the drive-thru hours would be shortened to align with the in-store hours, and then that would take away those late night options, even in a drive-thru that we now see.

So those are some things that I am thinking about as well.

I will say I am hoping that we have a plan by the 18th, because as you probably noticed from the timeline, this is coming to us now uh almost two years uh since this started.

So I I do want to get to a decision.

But um I am hopeful that this conversation helps folks think about where you're at on this issue, and if anyone in particular feels passionately about introducing amendments, um, let us know that you're planning to do that, just so folks we know who's on first.

Um, other conversation for now.

All right, I'm not seeing any.

Thanks so much again to Mr.

Dermoty.

Thanks so much to Mr.

Greenfield.

Any final thoughts, Mr.

Dermoty?

Closing comments?

Just I'd be glad to work with anyone who wanted to introduce amendments to make sure.

Great.

All right.

Thanks so much.

We are adjourned.