Coleman.

Here.

Johnson.

Joast.

Him.

Here.

Yang.

Here.

Council President Naker.

Here.

Six present, one absent, that being Councilmember Johnson, and she is excused.

Thank you all so much for joining us for our city council meeting today, and welcome to our council chambers.

It's really exciting to see some very young civic engagers here with us today.

So welcome.

We invite everyone to join us in standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic, which is fans.

Liberty and Justice.

Consent agenda items two through fifteen are before you for your consideration.

And I know we are taking items thirteen and fifteen for separate consideration.

Is there anything else to be pulled from consent?

Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Vice President Kim to approve the balance of the consent agenda.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

Six in favor, none opposed.

The consent agenda is adopted as amended.

And you want to take fifteen first.

Oh, okay.

You don't okay.

So item 13 is resolution twenty-six-fifty-eight, amending appendix A two of the administrative code relating to city council committees.

And this uh on this resolution, I'm gonna move a layover till February eleventh.

It just needs a little bit more work.

Um, so that's my motion.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is laid over to February eleventh.

Item number fifteen is resolution twenty-six-one seventy-nine.

Approving the mayor's appointments of Internet Intergovernmental Relations Director, Director of the Office of Neighborhood Safety, Director of the Office of Financial Empowerment, and Interim Co-Directors of the Department of Human Resources.

So just because in a moment we're going to have uh our our officials come up and be sworn in all at the same time and all say their names at exactly the same time, which will make it difficult to hear their individual names.

Um, I will just clarify that we are approving the mayor's appointments of intergovernmental relations director, Jenna Rourke, uh, director of the Office of Neighborhood Safety, Cedric Baker, Director of the Office of Financial Empowerment, Marcus Owens, interim co-directors of the Department of Human Resources, Jason Schmidt and Abby Gedea.

Erica Schumacher, New Vang, and Nick Stumolanger.

We're really excited uh to do this.

We'll we'll take the vote, and then we will welcome you up uh for swearing in.

So I will make the motion for approval.

Is there any discussion of that motion?

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Welcome up, and please come up with your families.

All right.

You can make two.

This is really sort of a lot of things.

My gosh.

Are you kidding me right now?

So just have the baby sworn in.

That's all right.

So please raise your right hand, those students want to make repeat after me.

I state your name.

I next to us.

Do you solemnly swear?

You solemnly swear to support the Constitution.

So the Constitution of the United States, of the United States.

And of the state of Minnesota.

And the state of Minnesota.

And to discharge faithfully and to discharge faithfully the duties devolving upon me.

The duties evolving upon me.

As the state your title.

Of the city of St.

Paul.

To the best of my judgment and ability.

Congratulations.

Congratulations.

We're excited to continue working with you.

That might have been the cutest swearing in we've ever done.

I know it's there.

Item number 16 is final adoption of ordinance 26-2.

Changing references in the legislative and administrative codes from animal control to animal services and correcting typographical errors.

So for those of you who are joining us for the first time or are one of our uh first time millions of viewers at home, we have three readings for our ordinances.

So our first reading uh when it's first introduced, we have a staff report to tell everyone what we're considering.

Our second reading the next week is a public hearing when we can hear the public's comments on what we're proposing, and our third reading, the final week is final adoption.

Um sometimes we have a couple extra weeks in there if we need more time to work on an ordinance, but that's the minimum.

Um so you'll see here that we have some items today for final adoption.

Those have already had two readings at least before.

Um, some items for first reading and some ordinances are here today for public hearings, and we'll also have other items for public hearing.

Um so this item is before us for final adoption, and uh I will take a motion from Ms.

Bowie to approve.

Is there any discussion of that motion?

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed, the ordinance is adopted.

Take a motion from Vice President Kim to suspend the rules to consider ordinance 26-6.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

Six in favor, none opposed.

The rules are suspended.

Ordinance 26-6, adding chapters 268a to the legislative code to require law enforcement officers performing law enforcement duties to visibly display identification on the outermost layer of their uniform.

Vice President Kim.

I believe we have a staff report.

Welcome up, Mr.

Greenfield.

Thank you, Council President, uh, Council Vice President and members.

I'm just pulling out my slideshow quick.

Um as we discussed last week, the city council is taking a phased sequenced approach to uh our policies and ordinances in response to the enforcement action that our city is suffering the weight under.

Um the council committed itself to um will be brought on second reading regarding um access to city lots.

Uh but the item that I'm discussing today is ordinance um uh that is introduced 26-6, um, which requires law enforcement officers in the city of St.

Paul performing law enforcement duties to display visible identification.

I'm just gonna pause you for one second, Mr.

Greenfield.

Can our uh folks in media services make sure that we can see this also on the TV screen below, Mr.

Greenfield.

Thank you.

You can see of course.

Um so uh a brief overview of the of the ordinance.

It's relatively straightforward.

Um it adds a new chapter of um to our legislative code.

Um and the intent and recognition behind this language is that transparency and accountability and law enforcement operations are essential to maintaining the public trust, and that St.

Paul residents have the right to know uh and be aware of an officer's identity and agency affiliation to be able to discern the various law enforcement officers that have the capacity to detain and arrest an individual in the city.

Without knowledge of a law enforcement's agency, there is no way for a person to report or hold an officer accountable for unprofessional behavior or misconduct, even in instances of violence or illegal activity.

And with the rising in ubiquitous use of face coverings, visible lack of visible names, officer identification, identifying information of an officer's uniform, the failure to be clearly and conspicuously identifiable as law enforcement has raised significant concerns for public safety that are spelled out in the ordinance resolution, uh in the whereas clauses of the resolution, but also are part of a recognition that the council shares in bringing this forward that it serves both the public interest and public safety officials to require this display of insignia, as it makes clear to law enforcement itself who is legitimate and who is not.

So identification under the terms of the ordinance.

Um as I've described in the middle bullet point is the crux of the requirement that when a law enforcement officer is performing duties in the city, they are to visibly display their identification on the outermost layer of their uniform.

Identification includes both the name of the agency employing the officer and either a name or badge number or name and badge number that details the identifying information of the officer.

Some other terms that are defined in the ordinance include law enforcement agency.

So this is a definition to capture all forms of law enforcement that may um uh arrest uh with the authority to detect and apprehend persons for violating federal, state, or local laws, the definition of a law enforcement officer, and um of importance the definition of what constitutes law enforcement duties.

We want to make sure that this requirement applies in very specific uh circumstances, including proactive patrols on foot or on or in a vehicle.

Uh, when a officer is performing a detention or arrest of an individual or is deployed for crowd control purposes.

Um also the definition of visibly display is a classic lawyer's definition of reasonably visible to a member of the public with whom the law enforcement officer interacts.

Um there are some exemptions from the requirement that have been captured in uh when this idea has been brought forth in other areas um and other jurisdictions.

Um so they're uh an initial set of exemptions that um we're hoping to work through and clarify if there are any additional ones that have been brought forth by our law enforcement partners.

But um the existing uh language um in 26-6 um provides that a officer must display uh identification except under the following circumstances active undercover operations or investigative activities, exigent circumstances, um which has a lot more lengthy in the text of the ordinance, when there is a specific articulable and particularly reason to believe that displaying ID would be a significant danger to the officer itself, and uh when complying with applicable laws governing occupational health or reasonable accommodations.

So some of those again are legal terms of art that apply to specific situations, but I think in most situations that would apply where an officer would not display identification would likely be in uh in under the first circumstance or the second circumstance.

And then, of course, the criminal penalty that's attached pursuant to our legislative code is um provided by section 1.05 that any law enforcement officer who willfully and knowingly violates the ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor and maybe um sentenced to either an imprisonment, a fine, or both.

And this will be effective 30 days after passage, signature by the mayor, and publication in the city's newspaper.

Great.

Thanks so much, Mr.

Greenfield.

I would look to my colleagues to see if there are any questions before going back to the vice president.

Ms.

Bowie.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Mr.

Greenfield.

I do have a question about the exemption, um, just because you know it's really important that we just have our ordinance have as much enforcement and strength and teeth as as possible.

Um, for the one of the exemptions you had said, um, if particularly if there is a uh a threat or a danger of the officer, it was like two slides back.

Um, is that like is that exemption, is that backed by like a state statute, or is that just like what type of grounds do we have to actually include that as exemption?

Is this something that our city attorneys is recommending, or is this something that we've been seeing in other cities or maybe at other agencies to have that level of exemption included in our ordinance?

If we're talking about clauses two and three, I will say they're specific in paragraph B.

They are specific legal terms that have been brought forth in this draft from researching other jurisdictions, in particular California's legislation that was enacted and signed into law, um has a visible display of identification requirement that speaks to these exemptions.

So I believe that's the source of these.

Uh yeah, I want to um be specific.

So it is uh item number three or clause three where it says Pacific articulate reason to believe.

I'm sorry, saying that is language that's pulled from California.

I believe so, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks, Ms.

Bowie.

Any other questions?

Thanks so much, Mr.

Greenfield.

Thank you.

Don't go too far.

Um Vice President Kim.

Yeah, I really appreciate it.

So with the co-leadership of my colleagues, Councilman Brian, Councilman McColeman, we are aggressively pushing out a scheduled and sequential um ordinances.

Um, again, it's to remind folks that you know we put everything into the separation ordinance and realized that the parts that weren't ready were holding up the parts that were ready.

And so this is responsive to the concerns of our constituents.

We are utilizing our legislative power, and most importantly, we are bringing forward ordinances that can be enforceable.

And I think more now more than ever, I think our our citizens are asking not just for you know something that isn't enforceable and doesn't actually protect our residents.

Um please stay tuned.

We are going to be rolling out many of these in the next following weeks, and of course, um meeting with department heads and making sure that their concerns and their interactions with federal agents right now are also um built into either ordinance policy or procedure.

Um, on a personal this personal note, this one is both responsive to this moment in time, but also responsive to the egregious assassination of our speaker emeritus Hortman.

Um, a man mass pretending to be an agent arrived at our door, as we all know.

And so I think um for me personally, and I'm sure for a lot of folks here in the city of Minnesota, this is a great nod to our speaker emeritus and LFG.

Thanks, Vice President.

Ms.

Yang.

Thank you, Council President.

Well, um, Council Vice President, I echo everything that you shared there.

Um, it's really been an honor working with you and also Councilman Ruman on the important and life-saving policies that we have here.

I am um I wanted to express uh thank you to our wonderful city attorneys who've been putting in so much time, reviewing and supporting us with the language.

So, Dan to you and Teresa who have been in many meetings with us, thank you.

I'm also to our chief policy officer, Tim.

Um, thank you again for for the wonderful presentation there.

I am just very grateful too to the mayor's office for their collaboration with us.

I really appreciate their willingness to be so responsive to the very aggressive timeline that we want to work on, knowing that it's our constituents who are asking for these policies and for us to take action right away, and uh that's exactly what we're doing.

And so that when I just think about why this um this legislation is so important is because they we are seeing in real time the consequences of not having like the the um these sort of policies where you aren't actually sure like who is that agent that you're seeing.

Are they an officer?

Are they with ice?

Are they with the homeland security?

Um, the operations uh back in uh um November where um I and ICE operations took place on Rose Avenue.

There were many uh residents who came and testified in front of us asking us like, okay, you know, who are these officers?

We asked them for their batch number, but they didn't give it to us, and so we want accountability, we want transparency, and so that's you know a clear example.

I've been seeing so many videos and hearing so many stories about people just being living in fear, like wondering who are these people just hopping out of cars, taking somebody violently, putting them in the car, and it's driving off.

I mean, this is kidnapping.

This is terrible.

And so I um feel so strongly about this.

I'm I'm so grateful for the leadership of this council who is so clear about why this must be passed.

Um, looking forward to the final vote.

And just another thing I wanted to share too is I've also seen videos where like every agent that you see, like in a um in a group together, like they have they're wearing vests that say police on it, and like who we don't actually know what that means.

And so it's causing so much confusion to our city here where people are contacting us thinking, okay, like are these things called police officers?

And so it's really just um creating um that that confusion there is really uh a disservice and and really just pulls us away from actually like being able to do the work that we want to do in supporting residents and protecting them.

And so I think overall, this is just a very well-rounded policy that makes sense and will provide clarity to everybody.

So I'm very excited for that.

Thank you, Ms.

Yang.

Ms.

Coleman.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Mr.

Greenfield, for the excellent overview.

And I'll echo the thanks to Council Vice President Kim and Councilmember Yang um for their partnership on this work.

I just want to underscore one thing that came up when we introduced um ordinance 265 last week, and that came up several weeks back in our policy committee meeting from Deputy City Attorney Edmund Oliho about how the original separation ordinance, and I think the work that we are doing as kind of an extension of the original separation ordinance is really grounded in establishing public safety and public trust.

We are seeing in this moment a real dearth of public safety because of the actions of federal agents on our streets, but we are also seeing a fraying of public trust, and that doesn't just apply to federal uh to public trust in the federal government and federal law enforcement, but also to local government and local law enforcement.

And I think it is one of the incredible harms that we are experiencing in this moment.

So one thing that I just want to make very clear is that visible identification is already the policy for our St.

Paul police department.

Our law enforcement officers who work for the people of St.

Paul will always be identifiable when they are out in the community in any way.

They this is standard operating procedure in our department.

It is essential that it be how any law enforcement officer operate in our city for all the reasons that my colleagues and Mr.

Greenfield have shared.

It is essential for people to know who they are engaging with, what authority they have, what their jurisdiction is.

It is also essential for accountability after the fact when there is misconduct.

We have had numerous conversations in this room and out in community about how we don't have every tool that we want to have to hold ICE and other federal agents accountable in this moment, but we know that there will ultimately be accountability and there will be a reckoning for the harm that has been inflicted on our community.

In order for that to happen, we need to know who is causing the harm.

We need to know who these agents are, and we need to have this record both for now and in the future.

So I am, of course, very supportive of this and um looking forward to the public hearing on the matter next week.

Thanks so much, Ms.

Coleman.

And I want to echo the thanks to uh to all three of my colleagues as well as to all of us to the city attorneys to the staff.

We are moving at um breakneck speed to introduce these policies, and um, it's because of the hard work and the dedication and the sense of urgency that all of us are feeling from our constituents right now.

Um so thank you for um all the work that's gotten us to this point.

Um other comments, otherwise, this item will lay over till next week for public hearing.

We're gonna have a public hearing momentarily on uh legislation we introduced just last week related to uh federal agents in our public parking lots.

I see Ms.

Bowie.

Yep.

Thank you, Council President.

I do want to just echo everything that was said.

Um really appreciate the hard work of our staff, our attorneys, and our fearless um council members who've just really been leading in this work.

Um I look to support this ordinance.

I also look to strengthen it.

Um I do want to just share some of the things, particularly about like the devil and the details, right?

Um, and I I'm sharing this particularly around my values and how I want to approach um anything that we pass regarding how we can make our residents more safe and also clarify like the roles of our law enforcement.

Um I have a a high level of caution um of creating exemptions or even possible loopholes for uh any agencies, especially our own, to uh to not conceal or to to to conceal their identity.

Um we have seen, particularly in the recent tragedy of the killing of Alex Pritty that we you know a border patrol director and also the secretary have like just blantly shared lies about their officers being threatened.

I don't want uh ever a loophole or anything subjective to an officer being or feeling threatened, and that is a reason why they cannot actually identify or display um their their not only identity but like their badges.

So um that is something that you know, as we are looking at this ordinance and if it comes up in public hearing, I am I do feel real strongly of um removing that language.

Um I also look to our attorneys to just you know give some like legal backing, some more information around like how this actually like with Stan in California.

Um, you know, are these like le is this a legal framework to protect us from you know potential lawsuits?

I really want to know that information.

Um, but I think the spirit of this ordinance, I definitely support um just having more clarity and more trust, right?

Um, so we're able to identify like which level of police or which form of police um that are on our streets.

Um, but I also want to just, you know, as someone who has like advocated around public or police accountability, you know, whenever there are loopholes, we have seen agencies like weaponize that, and I just don't want to give any grounds for any type of loopholes or exemptions to take place that will further erode the trust between our our communities.

Thank you, Ms.

Bowie.

Um, and and just for so everyone is aware, um, this is one of those reasons why sometimes ordinances do take a little bit longer if, for example, um council members want to introduce amendments to those ordinances so that um to to refine what we've seen in first reading.

Um, if we have an amendment before the public hearing next week, um, then we will be able to hold the public hearing and um adopt it on schedule the next week.

If the amendment comes in after next week's public hearing, if it's substantive, we would likely have to have another public hearing in the next week.

Um so anyone who's interested in bringing amendments um and and wants to do so before the public hearing next week, I think that'll help us keep on track.

If it's afterwards, that's fine.

We'll just take a little bit longer.

So thanks everyone for the robust discussion and this item will lay over.

Yep.

The item is laid over to February 4th for second reading public hearing.

Item number 17 is ordinance 26-4, granting the application of by Lon Company to rezone 4 I-1 light industrial parcels to B5 Central Business Service.

So this brings us to the public hearing section of our agenda.

First two items are ordinances for public hearing, and they've had a first reading last week when we heard what they're about.

For any of the public hearings, when we get to your number, um, and I say this is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to testify on this item?

That'll be your cue to move up to the front, form a line.

If there's a lot of folks, you can form a line on both sides.

Um the two microphones right there don't need to be adjusted.

They will pick you up just fine, and you can stand up straight.

You don't need to worry about leaning over towards them.

Um and uh you'll have two minutes to testify.

Please start with your name and where you're coming from.

Two minutes do go by quickly, and I unfortunately do need to keep you to the two minutes.

Um, but there's lots of other ways to give us testimony, including online um and in person um in our offices.

So want to make sure that uh we keep everyone to the same amount of time, and you can uh after you're done, sign in on one of the two sign-in sheets on either side of the microphones.

So with that, uh this is a public hearing for item 17.

If you're here to testify, this is your public hearing.

Come on up.

Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms.

Coleman to close the public hearing and lay the matter over till February 4th for final adoption.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

Six in favor, none opposed.

The ordinate the public hearing is closed and the ordinance is laid over to February 4th for final adoption.

Item number 18 is ordinance 26-5, adding chapter 268 to the legislative code to prohibit law enforcement staging operations on city council-owned properties and limit access to non-public city spaces.

And before the public hearing, I'm actually gonna move a version uh two of this item.

Um, this is an example of amending it before the public hearing.

Um, and uh this is to actually add in some properties that are controlled by the city but may not be owned by the city.

So, for example, our housing and redevelopment authority, our library agency.

Um, in between last week and this week, we identified that we might want to include some more uh parking lots and public spaces.

So that's what that's what version two does.

Um so I'll move version two and let's take a vote on that, and then we'll hold the public hearing on version two.

So uh any discussion of the motion.

All in favor of version two say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The amendment is approved.

All right, so this is a public hearing.

Uh, if there's anyone here to speak on this item, please come on up.

Welcome up.

And if anyone else is here to speak on the item, you can just line up in the meantime.

Welcome.

Hello.

Uh my name is Silas.

I live in Frogtown.

Uh, and I just want to say I appreciate how quickly you guys are trying to get these ordinances through while um ensuring that they actually do the work that you want them to do.

Um I'm just here to say that I'm in support of the ordinance um so that ICE cannot use uh city controlled or owned properties uh to to um do their operations.

People shouldn't have to be afraid to use our parks and libraries.

Thank you very much for coming out to testify and thank you for signing in.

Is there anyone else here to speak on this item?

Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms.

Coleman to close the public hearing and lay the matter over till February 4th for final adoption.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The ordinance is laid over to February 4th for final adoption.

Item number 19 is resolution public hearing 26-6.

Final order approving the 2026 St.

Anthony Rondeau Arterial Mill and Overlay Project.

This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak to this item?

Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms.

Bowie to close the public hearing and approve.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Item number 20 is resolution public hearing 26-5.

Final order approving the Wheelot Grotto phase two area paving and lighting and mill and overlay project.

This is a public hearing.

Uh and it looks like we have a staff report.

Welcome up.

We'll then we'll then we'll get right to our public hearing.

Council President and Council, I'm Steve Dodge, the assistant city engineer for street engineering construction for public works.

And could you please may please use the voice activated?

Let's activate the voice activated projector.

And and y'all are welcome to take a seat while you're waiting, might just be a couple minutes.

Then we'll go right to the public hearing.

Sometimes the voice activation takes a minute.

While we're waiting for that, uh I'm filling in for project manager Barb Mandel, who and uh this was we were gonna uh just go over real briefly the um the wheel grotto phase two.

It's uh reconstruction project with some mill and overlay in it.

And now that we have the uh have it up on the screen, the uh it is east of Lake Como, uh bounded by Maryland Avenue, Dale, and Arlington.

Uh what is in uh black uh is the streets to be reconstructed, and what is in hashed is the mill and overlay areas, which are uh orange and grotto.

Um the general uh project had three open houses uh between October and January uh with the residents, and that included uh uh website updates, uh mailings uh and notices.

The uh in general, the streets in this area are poor.

Uh they're oil-based streets without curb in many cases.

Uh 1992 is the last time many of the any of these streets have been paved, and their uh pavement condition indexes are uh in a below 36 when the ratings are up to 100.

So that once we get down to below 33, um it's pretty much uh street in disrepair.

Um and the uh we're talking about two miles of new pavement, uh, and this will include new curb and gutter as we did in phase one last year.

Um 53,000 uh square feet of sidewalk replacement and infill.

And the utilities will be sanitary sewer and water main replacement.

Uh the some of the storm sewer main is in good shape, so we'll only be doing uh lateral storm sewer work and adding uh three infiltration basins to the project to meet water quality standards.

And for trees, there are 311 existing trees.

Uh we've worked very closely with forestry uh in the construction practices, and we're able to um keep the tree removal down to about 53 plus trees out of the 311.

Uh we feel that's a pretty significant um achievement.

Uh and we are doing uh we are moving sidewalks to go up along a curb line to save a significant tree.

We're doing mechanisms we can to uh make sure that green infrastructure is uh treated as importantly as our gray infrastructure like sewers.

And just a reminder that uh because we got other projects coming behind us uh for tonight, that all projects will have to remove trees by March 31st ahead of the project, and that is to meet the long-year endangered species act, so that when the bats start nesting, we're not in we're not distributing them.

And then uh as far as the cost, uh this is gonna be a 15.5 million dollar project.

Um, and three million dollars of that'll be sewer and water, uh, and the other 12,000 or 12 million five hundred is uh by street reconstruction bonds with a portion of that uh two million three hundred and fifty thousand will be for assessments for both the reconstruction and mill and overlay area.

Uh that is the general staff report I have.

And any questions before you take any questions from council.

Uh looking around to see if there are any questions.

Not seeing any.

Thank you so much for helping put things in context.

Um appreciate your reference to the green infrastructure in addition to the gray infrastructure.

I know our tree preservation ordinance isn't in effect yet, um, but glad to already see um us taking our trees um into account in that way.

So thank you.

Um all right, so with that, this is a public hearing.

So uh if you're here to speak on this item again, please come on up, line up, um, start with your name, where you're coming from, and you'll have two minutes.

Welcome.

Hello.

Um my name is Tom.

Uh I'm a first-time homeowner who just bought a home in the Wheelock Grotto neighborhood of St.

Paul.

Uh, several weeks ago, my wife and I were uh shocked and dismayed to be sent proposed special assessments related to the Wheelock Grotto Street Reconstruction Project, uh totaling uh nearly 14,200.

Uh this is a huge cost for us as new homeowners and for our neighbors.

Uh we do want to do our part, uh, but I'd also like to ask the council to consider sharing more of this cost for the of the large project with the entire community.

It benefits grotto street, especially is highly trafficked and not just used by uh residents of the street, uh, but also uh other streets that come through and overflow traffic uh and cost of those improvements should be shared more widely by the broader community.

Uh of particular concern to me is the fact that the components of this project have been assessed separately for the mill and overlay portion and the uh street replacement portion.

Uh the effect of this is that uh there are two streets adjacent to our house, uh, and despite being elements of the same overall project, we've been hit with two different assessments.

Um for the same overall roadway improvement project, and that means that the cost billed to us was nearly 50% more than the special benefit cap.

Uh as a state of Minnesota construction inspector, I understand that road maintenance uh needs to be done from time to time and that these are complex projects.

I agree that homeowners alone these roads should contribute uh to improvements done on streets adjacent to their homes.

But the $9,993 special benefit cap uh exists for a reason.

Uh and treating these two different aspects of the same roadway project as separate assessments, uh circumvents the special benefit cap amount, even though it is meant to limit uh assessments to the total possible value uh value improvements brought to the property.

Uh given this, I would ask that the council uh consider levying only one assessment uh in regards to the entire overall Wheelchak Grotto Roadway Improvement Project, not separate ones for different aspects of the same project that happened to occur on different streets.

Uh this practice unfairly disadvantages corner corner lot homeowners and forces them into total assessments that are artificially higher than the special benefit cap.

This is something that my wife and I, along with any other young families who are looking to become first-time homeowner homeowners and establish routes in this wonderful neighborhood, cannot afford.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much.

Make sure to sign in.

Welcome up.

My name is Nathan Emerson from the Como area and Ward 5.

Um I kind of had a bit of shock getting a $10,000 bill, which is about three times our annual um real estate taxes.

And at that level, um to do a refinancing to roll it into a mortgage.

It's gonna cost as much as five to ten thousand dollars just to refinance to roll it in.

Um it's just a lot of money to come up without other options.

Um, I'm just curious, given the bond rating of a triple A or a uh A plus with St.

Paul, if there isn't a reason that St.

Paul couldn't take a higher percentage um in the bond offering, and then it could just be rolled into property taxes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in.

Welcome up.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Molly Evans, and I'm a homeowner in the North Como neighborhood, being impacted by the Wheel Old Grotto Phase 2 assessments.

So I stand before you today as a disabled combat veteran and as a resident of the North Como neighborhood.

My home is in the Como of the Coleman subdivision, and it is being impacted by both of the assessments, the paving and the lighting and the mill overlay.

When I came home from my military service, I was thrilled to be able to purchase a home with my VA home loan.

My military service taught me the importance of working in service, and so today I work for the veterans of foreign war, and I'm also a service disowned veteran-owned business, small business owner, providing creative arts-based health and wellness services, the justice impacted youth, incarcerated adults, and end-of-life dualist services to those experiencing grief and loss at end of life.

As a single parent and disabled veteran, the proposed assessments to my subdivision would be a complete hardship for me.

And so today I'm asking you to cap the amount of payment responsible by homeowners and taxpayers and to consider offering a scholarship or financial assistance for these assessments for low-income families.

Adding the assessment to the property payable at a future date or at time of sale for individuals or families is not an acceptable solution, especially for veterans like myself who have spent years pledging our life to defend our country against enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Home ownership is an investment and builds our community in very positive ways.

It lowers crime rates.

And so I'm respectfully requesting you to consider my request so that we can keep homeowners in their homes and improve the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in and welcome up.

Good afternoon.

My name is Aaron.

Yeah, I've been a resident of the city for 37 years.

I run a bike shop on Grand Avenue.

Um that being said, I spend more time traveling our streets, uh, probably than most people and kind of on a more intimate level.

Um, you know, on top of the costs that we've talked about here, um, I see a lot of need throughout the city for uh replacement of our roads.

Uh I appreciate what the city has done for um road infrastructure and cycling infrastructure.

I was uh in favor of the tax increase uh in 24 to help pay for those things.

Um I wish we didn't have two inches of snow and ice on a road so that I could present to you what our our streets look like in that neighborhood.

Uh and while there is a need um certainly on Maryland and Grotto, um, some of the artery streets, uh orange uh in particular is the one for my um assessment.

Um it's in remarkably good shape uh contrary to what um was being said here.

Um there's no potholes or no large cracks.

Um you know in the bike world uh we like to fix things when we can uh versus replacing them.

Um and I think there's opportunities here to bring down costs for myself and our neighbors to look at what options are there uh to possibly repair these roads instead of completely replacing them uh when it's uh appropriate.

Uh also point out too uh Orange Street doesn't have a sidewalk, and it's um we have Como high school nearby, the elementary school.

It's a high traffic area for pedestrians going to the lake.

Um, and there really isn't a safe way.

My kids walk down the street every day, so um that isn't a part of this project, but I would much rather see my tax dollar scored towards um pedestrian safety and infrastructure for them.

Thank you very much, and make sure to sign in.

Is there anyone else here to speak on this item?

Seeing none, I'm gonna take a motion for Ms.

Kim to close the public hearing, and then we will have some conversation.

So uh motion for Ms.

Kim to close the public hearing.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

Six in favor, none opposed, the public hearing is closed.

Vice President Kim.

Yeah, thank you.

Um I'm wondering if I can ask staff some questions.

Yeah, perfect.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you for the assessment staff to be present.

Welcome up, Ms.

Roll.

Good afternoon.

I'm Rolf Office of Financial Services.

And just I wanted to let you know we're early in the process.

The final order before you today is for the construction.

We're still working on the assessment piece.

That's why it's uh an estimated assessment.

So what will happen is if you had a project, you're on a corner and a project went through on your other street.

We do reduce your assessment by the amount you're paying on that one if it is less than the current assessment.

So if you paid $500 for a mill and overlay here, and now we're doing street reconstruction.

Your assessment will be reduced by $500.

We're just working on that now.

That's why this is an estimated assessment.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

Uh follow-up question, because I I believe I heard some folks that might have like qualifying factors for a different type of repayment plan.

Can you talk about some of the options that residents can um hear about to reach out to the assessment office?

Sure.

What we have available is a hardship deferral program, but there are certain criteria.

So it's over 65 homestead the property, permanently disabled, active military.

They can defer the assessment.

It doesn't forgive it, it just delays it so we don't send anything over to be collected with property taxes.

Then when it's no longer eligible, then it needs to be paid, made current or paid off at that time.

Great.

And then at this point, then um being here when we applied sort of that special special benefits assessment um like process.

Um, has that been applied so far?

Like at this point in the process for folks receiving the thing in the mail.

Um, has the special benefits uh process and policy been applied to the estimates?

And maybe and maybe say something about what that what that is, just because this is an opportunity, I think, to raise the and I'm just gonna read my little formal thing that I say each time.

So the assessments were calculated following our approved special assessment policy.

We begin with the city cost at 75% and the accessible cost at 25%.

Once the assessment amount is calculated, that amount is compared to the special benefit assessment, and then um the final assessment is the lower of those two.

So if you can see my screen here, I don't know if I can zoom in at all.

But for each of the projects, I give you um our 25% that we start with.

And then on the far week.

Oh so you can't see it yet?

Not yet.

Oh okay, I'll read it to you.

How's that?

So um, for example, on the Wheelak Grotto, the amount we're actually assessing is 18.67%.

On Wheel Lock Grotto, the mill and overlay, it is 21.6%.

Earl is 6.32% is the actual assessment, and Pellham is 10.4%.

And that's based on the special benefit cap.

So just to make sure I'm clear, because folks were asking about sort of how much is paid for by everyone's property taxes, which is the general fund versus how much is assessed to the individual property owners adjacent to the street in question, the maximum that would be assessed to the individual property owners is 25% of the cost.

Three quarters of it would be covered by everyone.

In this case, you you you always do a special benefit assessment to make sure that that's justifiable.

And in this case, um it's lower than 25% of the cost for all of these streets that we'll be considering today.

Correct, council member or council president Naker.

So the cap is based on the estimated market value.

So what the special benefit does is if your property value is say 500,000, then if the special benefit says that the estimated increase in market value is 2.25%, then that's the maximum that we can assess based on your estimated market value.

So for example, in the Earl project, every property was capped by the benefit.

And so this amount represents the estimate that they've received.

Correct.

All right, this sounds good.

Um I don't know if I have any other questions, but I think just to reiterate to the uh constituents that came out to testify that this is an estimate and a starting point.

The special benefit has already been applied, but it sounds like um there's a lot of options reaching out to the assessments office, and so you know, reach out to our office, we're happy to connect.

Um, but this is very early on, so we have the good that's sort of the good news, and then we have time to figure out sort of what's the best option for all of you moving forward and what assistance the city can further provide in terms of repayment plans or qualifying um factors.

Thanks, Vice President.

And just to be clear, what's in front of us today is the final order approving the work.

There will later on, once those once the work has been done, bid out, once we actually know the cost more specifically, we will then have a final order approving the assessment roll.

So property owners will receive a public hearing notice in the fall when work is complete or near completion, and that will be to ratify the assessments.

So then that's where they will get what their final assessment would be.

We'll have another public hearing, and then after that is when we would send an invoice, and then the first installment, which it's a 20-year assessment for um street reconstruction, 10 years for mill and overlay, that would be on property taxes beginning in 2027.

So a $10,000 bill is not due in the fall, it's 10,000 over 20 years.

Over 20 years, correct.

Okay.

Um, and thank you so much, Ms.

Rolf.

Thank you, Vice President.

I think these are really important questions, and I will just say to the folks who came today, we've had a lot of conversations about our street reconstruction and assessment policy.

And um, I think one of the um, and there's basically two options.

Um, well, there's a lot of options, but the options that we've talked about have included um putting everything on property taxes, so essentially all of us paying for all of the streets that we do in the city all the time, um, which would basically mean that instead of a large bill when your street is done, you're receiving a bill every year for whatever street is being done, but it's much smaller.

Um, the difference is, and the reason why I've supported this policy over time is that when we do this kind of assessment, we can actually assess properties that normally wouldn't pay property taxes.

So all of those tax exempt properties in the city of St.

Paul, if we put everything on property taxes, wouldn't be paying in.

So our cost actually would be higher individually over time.

So there's no fun way to do this, and there's no um joy for any of us in getting these kinds of bills, but I do want to just take a moment while you're here to thank you for being here and explain that that's some of the reasoning that's gone into this process to date.

We are a policy-making body, and so we are always able to reconsider policies and have discussions about that at our policy committee.

So afterwards, if you contact you know your council members' office and want us to think that through a little bit more, there are opportunities to do that, but that's how we've landed where we're at now.

I see Ms.

Joseph.

I just wanted to council president Naker, um, thank you so much for for uh kind of explaining the policymaking and thank you to you too and your staff.

I think I'll also add that if we did um require everyone to share the the cost of repairing the streets through property taxes, that that wouldn't be equitable because there are properties, you know, there's an increase in your property value when your street is um is being repaired, and there are a wide range of property values of our homes in the city, and so um that that wouldn't be as evenly distributed in terms of how much people are paying if you live, you know, in an area where the housing values aren't as high.

You're you're paying a larger proportion for values of homes that are larger.

So there's a lot of factors, I think to that point that go into this policy that we've created.

Um, you know, it's not necessarily perfect, but it's our best shot.

But like the council president said, we're you know open to um you know suggestions and considerations.

Thank you, Ms.

Joast.

Um anything, any further discussion, otherwise take a motion from the vice president to approve the final order for the street reconstruction, and then assessments will be considered in the fall.

Uh all in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

Six in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Item number 21 is resolution public hearing 26-4.

Final order approving the 2026 Earl Street Maryland Mini Ha Street Paving and Lighting Project.

And I believe we have a staff report from Mr.

Graveline.

Did I get that right?

Gravlin.

Gravlin.

Okay.

Sorry about that.

I have a last name that's impossible too, so I'm gonna try.

Welcome up.

Maybe just move it a little bit to the or yes.

But I've got a map here too.

Can we zoom in?

Maybe they can zoom to the voice activated zoom out.

Yeah.

There we go.

Hello, Council President Naker and Council members.

Uh, my name is Brian Gravlin.

I'm the transportation planning lead for the Earl Street Reconstruction Project.

Today I'm gonna briefly tell you about the purpose of the project, its design, and its timeline both uh before today and moving forward.

Uh the project is a full street reconstruction of Earl from Maryland on the north side down to Mini Haha.

You can see that in dark red in the image here.

Next year we plan to reconstruct Earl from Mini Hahaha down to Burns as part of a separate but related project.

And the project is funded by our common sense sales tax and assessments.

So the primary purpose of the project is to improve the pavement condition of the street.

That said, a full res full street reconstruction also gives us the opportunity to make improvements to things like traffic safety, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian mobility.

So with that in mind, the project includes in-street bike lanes in line with the adopted city bike plan, uh ADA curb ramp upgrades and median islands at locations with lots of bike and pedestrian crossings to try to make those safer for people on foot and on bike.

We've also chosen a design that limits tree impacts as much as possible.

As we heard at the open house that that was a strong value for the community.

Uh open houses plural, I should say.

Um we did planning and design on this project throughout 2025 and early 26, uh, including hosting five community meetings between August and just recently in early January.

Uh we'll start construction this spring, and uh I and my colleagues are happy to answer any questions you have about the project.

Great.

Thanks so much, Mr.

Gravlin.

Um any questions from anybody, including Ms.

Yang.

No.

Thanks so much.

Uh all right, this is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak to this item?

Come on up.

The long walk.

Welcome.

Hi.

I've never done this before.

So you're gonna be great.

Hi, my name is Hannah.

I live on the east side.

Um I've lived here for 14 years.

We've been a strong presence.

Uh, we worked with the inner city nonprofit for about 10 years that closed during COVID, and I'm just come voicing concerns regarding the assessment.

Um I would consider the east side a lower income neighborhood.

Um, my husband and I uh both have full-time jobs, and I feel like the taxes since we've lived in that neighborhood have gone up a lot.

I only pulled up from 2021 to 2025 for the house that we're in right now was three about uh three thousand six hundred dollars in 2021, and now it's five thousand three hundred dollars.

So that's pretty significant.

Um as someone who's very familiar with the neighborhood.

I have family who live in like Egan and Bloomington and like what I would call very ritzy neighborhoods, and my taxes are as much as theirs are right now, and it's a low-income neighborhood.

So I totally understand that work needs to be done, and I won't pretend to understand how to pay for things.

I'm a pediatric nurse.

I'm not a professional with road work or taxes or things like that, but I just know that it's a lot of money.

It's already up a couple thousand dollars, even if you spread it out over 20 years, that's $500 more per year, plus whatever increases are gonna be on top of that.

And I just don't feel like it's sustainable.

I know that my income is more stable stick much more stable than the majority of my neighbors.

I know neighbors who um I would say I'm a bit more of a minority on my street.

I know they can't fix their the outsides of their homes, like with different things that have happened.

I see that they can't afford to fix that.

And so even though it's not a lump sum, I find even the 500 plus per year is gonna be an extreme hardship for the east siders.

And that is that is a little over two minutes.

I'm gonna have to have you.

Okay, well, if you're closing there, you go.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

You did great.

Um, and thank you for signing in.

Is there anyone else here to speak to this item?

All right, seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms.

Yang to close the public hearing.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

Six in favor, none opposed.

The public hearing is closed.

Um thank you, Council President.

Well, first I want to say thank you to our wonderful Eastside resident for coming and testifying.

It really means a lot having you here, and and I know um that you're here speaking up on behalf of neighbors who are being impacted too, and really feel that those tax burden impacts.

And um I do want to share with everybody that this is a council who uh I have been so proud to just be able to work with and and who really understands those financial burdens that many of our families are living through, whether it's the east side or in other wards, like we all are hearing that over and over, and that's why this is a council that has been very committed to making sure that we um do keep our levy as low as possible because we do know that many families are hurting.

And I I really appreciate the presentation just from earlier um in your award, Council Vice President, because it's a really helpful refresher for me when it comes to just the breakdown of the assessments, uh the monthly installments over 20 years.

This is a reconstruction project.

I'm I want to give a shout out to the public works team who has done a phenomenal job, keeping in touch with me and also Councilmember Johnson's office.

She represents Ward 7 where the next phase of this project will be taking place.

Also, the the incredible work that they've been doing to engage our residents because we have heard from our east side residents like many questions around well, is this a project that should happen in the first place?

There's been a mill and overlay on Earl Street in recent years.

So why is this happening now?

And um, how can we make sure we have the the least impact on our trees, especially our mature trees?

If we're gonna be removing any trees, will we make sure that there's any new trees that are planted?

And just again, like you know the most important thing, it comes really back down to uh back to the financial impact of our residents.

And one thing I want to uplift that I've learned from our public works team is that this is such a grand opportunity for this reconstruction project to take place, and it is happening because of the 1% sales tax that was passed by voters back in 2023.

And so without that uh revenue coming in, there would be such huge delays in the road infrastructure and improvements that we actually want to see happen all across our city here.

I'm very grateful and excited about the opportunity for us to just even expand our bike network in the east side here, knowing that it is an area where we do um want to be able to support more families in getting to wherever they need to, whether it's walking or biking.

Um, so that's a huge plus.

And then also um I I'm just grateful to our staff being so attentive to the tree um interest to just preserving our trees.

And um, in the the presentation, I I did get a chance to, or there's a website where folks can look at the entire project over if you want to get more details and the number of trees being proposed for removal is actually less than um well, there will be some removals, but in terms of trees that are replanted, there will be more of that.

It exceeds the number of trees getting removed, and so I do think that the proposal um recommended by our staff, it really is um a great resolve to the different concerns and just questions and interests that people want to see for the future of our um east side community here, and I just want to name too like one of the things that I learned in the presentation is that there's gonna be another opportunity for us to even expand the bike uh bike lanes onto Frank.

And so while there were some folks who are interested in the off the separated bike lanes on Earl, um there's a lot of great work that's gonna be coming in the future for Frank, which I think is also another really great big win for our community in the east side.

So um, that being said, like I I am very supportive of the recommendation um from the staff here and would like to move forward with it.

And if folks continue to have questions about the assessments, then I would encourage them to continue connecting with our staff about that.

Thanks.

Thanks so much, Ms.

Yang.

Um just would would echo what you said and thank our testifiers so much for taking the time to come out and for your work in your day job.

I think that question about affordability is huge, and we're hearing it a lot.

And while there isn't much we can do to affect the cost of road repair, um there is a lot that we can and have been doing to try to bring down our costs and our taxes in other ways.

And um, if you've watched any of our our budget processes throughout the years, we are always pushing to try to find efficiencies, try to bring down costs and try to bring down taxes.

Um and I will just say to everyone who's here, one of the things that is a big driver of tax increases in the city of St.

Paul is the fact that we don't get we get the lowest share compared to how much we should get of local government aid from the state of Minnesota year over year.

So we all pay taxes to the state.

There's a formula that says how much we should be getting back as a city to support us.

No city gets what it should be getting.

St.

Paul gets the least of what it should be getting.

So we're about to embark on another legislative session.

Um, and I would just encourage anybody who feels strongly about this to help help us bring in more local government aid by advocating to your legislators because that does help us bring down taxes overall.

Um I also was asked by count Councilmember Johnson, who is one of the four council members who represent the east side, um, but is on maternity leave to read a brief statement, so I'm just gonna do that now.

Councilmember Johnson, who represents Ward 7 says, I want to begin by thanking public work staff, Director Kershaw assessments, our community members, district councils, and community partners, especially those who participated in the open houses and those here today to speak to this project.

There was a concerted effort to ensure that this work reflected an intentional collaboration between the city and the community.

Our office began working with the project team early last year, even before formal engagement started to emphasize the importance of centering east side voices, particularly residents and businesses along Earl Street in shaping the design.

Although this project will not be in my ward until 2027, the design process and engagement timeline were shared, and it was important to me that the same care and intention be applied throughout.

I greatly appreciate the project team's responsiveness to community-centered engagement strategies, including partnering with district councils, prioritizing door knocking and face-to-face conversations with Earl Street residents, ensuring materials were accessible in multiple languages, and working to reduce barriers to participation.

These efforts made a real difference.

Through this process, Eastside community members were clear about their priorities.

Project costs, preserving parking, improving safety for people biking, and protecting the mature trees along Earl Street.

As with any reconstruction project, there's no single design that can fully address every concern.

What mattered most, however, was the team's willingness to listen, adapt, and adjust recommendations while continuing to support residents throughout the process.

For these reasons, I support the approval of the Earl Street Paving and Lighting Project.

I also look forward to the project team continuing to stay connected, communicative, and responsive to the broader community, especially Earl Street residents and businesses throughout construction and beyond.

Thank you, Council President.

I have a comment.

I just wanted to add, uh you mentioned that there isn't anything that we can do to impact the cost of road reconstruction.

Um I do think that uh there are a few things we could do.

I mean, you mentioned local government aid.

Um that would certainly help.

Uh additionally, you know, the the longer time it takes to get to a project that needs to be done, the more it's gonna cost.

Um, and the worse condition or the poorer condition that the street is in, uh, especially for a street reconstruction project, the more it's gonna cost.

So, you know, the more that we can prioritize our infrastructure and try to get more funding for these projects, that is something that we can do.

I stand corrected by our structural engineer on the city council.

Uh think that is those are excellent points.

All right, Ms.

Yang.

Thank you.

I just have a couple of um points I wanted to um make.

I I um one of the things I said earlier is that one of the main concerns we heard from our residents is that they were wondering is this a project that has to happen?

There was already a mill and overlay.

And so what I learned from our public work staff is that I mean sooner or later we're gonna have to have a have a conversation again about Earl Street if we actually don't do the reconstruction just because those millen overlays, they just do not last very long and are not as sustainable.

And so um thank you, uh Director Kershaw for for correcting me.

It's actually forestry, um, where we will see the expansion for the bike network and and not Frank.

And so um thanks to the public works team.

I know you all are in the back, and just again, really grateful for your work and and leadership and the east side.

Thank you again, Ms.

Yang.

Um just to staff, this is the final order again, approving the project.

Assessments will be later with this one as well.

Yes, okay.

All right, so with that, I will take a motion from Ms.

Yang to close to uh approve.

Any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Hi, all opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Item number 22 is resolution public hearing 26-3.

Final order approving the 2026 Pelham, Franklin and Mississippi River Boulevard Street Paving and Lighting Project.

And we have a staff report.

Welcome up.

Thank you, Council President Baker and the council members.

My name is Jerry Lee.

I am the project manager for the Pellem Boulevard Reconstruction Project.

I would like to use the voice activated projector.

See if that works.

For some reason, they left it on for you in advance.

Oh, nice.

All right.

So uh good job saying it.

There's a project uh that begins at Mississippi River Boulevard uh towards the west end of the city here.

And it uh runs for about a mile uh to the north, ending at Franklin Avenue.

Uh the project uh the street uh was constructed in many segments in the 60s and 80s with the last project from uh 1987 since there and since then there has not been any significant uh pavement repair.

Um so as you can imagine the pavement condition is very poor out there, and so we are proposing a full reconstruction from begin to end with the exception of the bridge over 94.

Uh with that, we will bring new pet and bike infrastructures, lighting, utility, and stormwater treatment.

Another uh driver for this project is the Grand Round implementation plans.

Uh recent projects to have completed that are Wheelhock, Johnson Parkway, and Como.

We are proposing a design that is consistent with these recent projects uh that calls for uh reducing the street down to 24 feet wide uh and relocating the on-street bike uh lane that uh is currently there today to an off-street trail.

We will also be making traffic control and safety improvements, uh namely uh the addition of all way uh stop at St.

Anthony and another one at Beverly, due to these intersections being more appropriate for this type of traffic material based on their volume and their connection to the network.

Uh that does call for the removal of an existing always stop at DONE.

We acknowledge that Done is an important crossing to the park, uh Denoyer Park at the corner of Pelham and Done.

Uh with that, we are prepared to add a full median refuge island, uh, provide safer crossing across Pelham.

Another feature of this project is we are planning to meander the road to calm traffic and reduce uh speed.

Uh and that also allows us to shift the road to uh not impact significant trees.

Uh so tree preservation is uh a big goal of this project.

We've been working closely with our parks department uh to date.

We estimate that we can save about 75% of the existing canopy with the current design.

And then for uh community engagement, we had two large meetings, one in September of 24 and our open house uh last July with uh heavily attendance.

We had over a hundred participants.

Aside from that, we had smaller meetings that we hosted with uh neighbors and stakeholders alike.

I'll take the time to thank the Denoyer Park Approvement Association for their involvement on this project and helping us organize these events and getting the word out.

So, all said and done, we are looking at a project estimate of 18.5 million dollars, 90 percent of which is funded by the city.

Uh 10 percent is funded in assessment.

So we asked the city council to approve this hearing so we can bid the project this spring.

Thank you.

Great.

Thanks so much, Mr.

Lee.

Are there any questions?

Doesn't look like it.

All right, thanks so much.

Don't go far.

This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak to this item?

Please come on up and maybe form two lines, one on either side.

Just as a reminder, you don't need to adjust the mics and just start with your name and where you're coming from.

You'll have two minutes.

Welcome up.

Thank you, Council President, Council members.

My name is Jacob Steen with Larkin Hoffman, and we represent two related entities that own the properties at the southeast corner of Pelham and University Avenue.

Uh at this time we do oppose this project under its current design.

Uh, but we more uh specifically oppose the proposed combined uh special assessments of 115,000 uh to our properties.

This project would eliminate on-street parking and and be detrimental to our tenants.

As this council knows, a special assessment must confer a special benefit to a property, uh, and the assessment cannot exceed that benefit, which means at 115,000 special assessment, uh, we would need to see at least 115,000 in improvements uh to our property values.

That's just simply not the case here.

Uh and in part it's due to the fact that the uh on-street parking on the eastern side adjacent to our properties will be eliminated.

Uh, and again, that is detrimental uh to our our tenants and to our property.

And while this project may absolutely have public benefits uh and and general benefits to the the public, they are exactly that.

They are public benefits uh and they are general in nature and they do not confer an actual increase in value to our property.

For so for those reasons, we uh object to the project as it's currently proposed, and unfortunately, if it maintains uh this current projected uh assessment, we will uh have to appeal those moving forward.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in.

Welcome up.

Hi.

Um, before I start my two minutes, I want to um the assessments over 20 years also includes interest every year.

So we so we need you to actually just start your testimony.

So start with your own.

Okay, I'll start my test and say whatever you like to say.

That wasn't clear.

Adding all that interest is just way too much.

Um good evening.

My name is Brene Vera Cruz.

I live at 309 Pelham Boulevard, and I have lived there my entire life, 66 years.

I've raised my family there.

This is not just property to me, it's my home, my history, and my neighborhood.

I'm here because the project takes something away from residents and then asks us to pay for that loss.

Under Minnesota statutes chapter 429, and the city's special assessment policies, an assessment is lawful only if the property receives a special benefit.

The assessment does not exceed the benefit, and it's uniform by property class.

If any one of those fails, the assessment is unlawful.

The project fails, the first requirement, special benefit.

A special benefit means an increase in market value.

The design does the opposite, it removes approximately 14 feet of the boulevard in front of my home, which they called meandering from my next door neighbor.

There it's not meandering there.

It moves the roadway closer, increases noise and visual exposure, and brings pedestrians closer to traffic.

These are recognized negative factors in residential valuation.

So my question is simple: how does moving a road 14 feet closer to a home increase its value?

Parking was already removed in 2017 for the bike lane.

The project restores nothing and instead compounds that loss by removing buffering and increasing exposure.

The assessment also violates city policy.

It does not reflect a special benefit, it exceeds any reasonable benefit and is not uniform because some properties lose boulevards and buffering while others do not.

I also receive no benefit from utilities hookup as my utilities come from Otis, not Pelham.

Finally, Pelham Boulevard is also a state-funded street.

Yet those funds are being used for other projects, not this project.

The Grand Round Bike Trail has no funding.

I do need to.

And the cost is being shifted into an adjacent homeowners, creating an undue hardship.

That's your two minutes.

Thank you so much.

Make sure to sign in.

If anyone runs out of time and has emails or something printed out that they want to share, you can definitely leave that with us.

Um I know two minutes is short.

Welcome up.

Hi.

My name is Teresa, and I own and reside at the 528 Pellem Boulevard property.

I've lived here since around 2003.

We are raising a family in this neighborhood and have engaged in discussions regarding the improvements to the boulevard since 2013.

We object to the proposed design for Pellem Boulevard reconstruction and to the proposed special assessment of 10,008 dollars against our property.

When you're um developing the bike lanes and off-street, on street, some places have both connected to the ground round or any other bike ways plan that you start to look at how do we add funding to that?

Because in some ways these bike plans come without funding.

Um the addition of bike lanes and and making uh our making room for more uh ways to to traverse the city.

I think when you when you do that on certain places, we haven't figured out a funding stream for that.

And I think in this case, I'd like to see it removed from the homeowner assessment.

In this case, we have less than 35 homeowners, small homeowners that are being assessed for something that the entire city is going to take part in, which is the Grand Ron.

It just happens to be a street that's on you know documents from long ago that say a bike lane will go here.

So I think it it's something to look at policy-wise.

How do you pay for the bike lanes?

We know roads, we know sewers, we know those are all part of normal reconstruction projects.

Bike lanes, can we figure out how to pay for them?

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in.

Welcome up.

Madam President, members of the council.

I'm Jerry Goetz.

My wife and I have lived at 295 Pelham Boulevard for about 51 years now.

Uh our house bases on the intersection.

And I'm here to speak against the proposal as part of the reconstruction project to move the lower part of Pelham Boulevard over about 15 feet to the west.

I'm going to talk about the negative impacts of that proposal.

And then talk about the proposal itself if I have time.

The negative impacts of the proposal are several.

Of course, we've talked about expense and environmental impacts.

I'm not going to talk about that.

And we talk about the impact to our property.

It's unique.

Our house faces on the intersection.

And our access to the house is dependent on the driveway.

It may even be wiped out.

I can't really tell.

So there's that.

And this is another proposal.

I'm going to also talk about negative impacts to the safety of the intersection as well.

Focusing on our particular unique problem.

So the when the Pelham is moved over, if it is mover, it's going to go right in the direction of our driveway.

It'll go about to where the stop sign is there now.

So for us to drive out of the driveway and make a right turn to get into the intersection, which is 95% of what we do.

We don't get down Otis the other way.

As it stands right now, we're so close to the intersection that I can't even turn the car completely until I'm a couple feet beyond the stop sign.

So if they move the intersection back to the stop sign, which is, I think, about where it's going to be.

Making right turns and getting into the intersection.

And also there's a radius, and uh it's going to make it almost impossible.

Uh and they move the stop sign back even beyond the driveway.

That is two minutes, sir, so I do need you to stop there.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Make sure to sign in.

Welcome up.

Good afternoon.

My name is Marita Bougeau, and I live on Pelham Boulevard for 40 years.

Uh City of Staff, St.

Paul City staff members met with Denoyer Park residents on January 12th to answer questions about this design.

In that meeting, staff member Randy Newton stated that reducing cut-through traffic on Pelham was not a goal of the project or the project designers.

This statement is significant for several reasons.

It was the first time after more than a decade of engaging the neighborhood in discussions about this proposed project that the project leaders provided, excuse me, provided this vital information about the project's purpose.

From the earliest conversations, neighborhood residents identified safety concerns and conditions generated by the combination of presence of trucks, the high volume of traffic due to cut through traffic, the inability to safely cross and access Pelham from intersections and driveways, the noise and air pollution, and the absence of traffic regulation to counter these problems.

Today, every one of these concerns remain.

The neighborhood engaged in good faith.

We were denied vital information, which placed us at a disadvantage.

Now to add insult to injury, the city has just issued special assessments to homeowners on Pelham to pay for for this cut-through road and a bike lane and sidewalk of questionable value.

So where does that leave the neighborhood and the city council?

I think we can agree that it is inconceivable that this council would agree to take a vote after learning that the city failed from the outset to provide crucial information.

Neighbors are just learning about this failure.

It is an uncomfortable truth that planners, the city council, the city, and the neighborhood must reckon with.

We need to take account of our circumstances.

Here's what's clear.

The plans for reconstructing Pelham have been driven by the plan to install the off-street bike lane and sidewalk as part of the grand round.

The design is two minutes, so I'm gonna need you to stop there.

Feel free to submit your testimony if you have it written down so we can read the rest of it.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in.

Welcome up.

Whoever's next, don't all jump at once.

Council President and Council members, my name is Joshua Hodak.

I'm representing the Sierra Club, uh, Minnesota North Star chapter, our office is uh happens to be about two blocks off of Pelham.

Pelham Boulevard is part of, as you well know, the St.

Paul Grand Round.

It is a local road, and in which uh its residents um use it to access their homes.

It's also along green space.

I happen to drive or bike this road multiple times a week uh on my way to work.

As you have heard from residents speeding on this road and local streets across the city is rampant, dangerous, and unchecked.

A major part of the problem is that we are overbuilding our streets, and we're gonna do it again.

Uh the the design that you saw earlier didn't go into the detail, but uh I'm gonna get into the weeds for you.

Um the lanes on this route is uh the same width as the traffic lanes on Interstate I-94.

They're 12 feet wide.

You're hearing from residents uh in your in the neighborhood of the assessments.

If we shrink the street widths, the the traffic widths uh to 10 feet, which would be much safer, calm street calm traffic, uh, and is more adequate for a local neighborhood.

Uh we'd save money.

Uh that's a lot of asphalt.

The reason we're doing this is Pelham is an MSA route.

It's a municipal state aid route, meaning that it's bound by state design standards that are intended for roads like interstate highways like I-94 for vehicles traveling at 55, 65 or faster miles per hour.

So the vehicle lanes uh on Pelham being 12 foot wide, just like R94 is problematic.

Why?

Because MSA standards are mandated.

Pellem is a perfect example of why you need to advocate for local control.

So I'm asking you to write this number down.

It's Senate file 2162.

Uh Council President brought up a legislative session coming up.

I just encourage you to advocate for local control of state aid engineering and dying standards so um we can build our streets at a uh a neighborhood level and not an interstate level.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Make sure to sign in.

Welcome up.

And if there's anyone else here to testify on this item, this is uh sort of last call, so please line up.

Hi, thank you.

Nice to see all of you.

I am here today.

My name is Rebecca.

I'm a resident of Denwyer Park.

I'm here today to voice my concerns about the Pelham Boulevard redesign plan.

I also speak for my sister who was lupus and cannot be here today due to her ongoing health struggles.

My sister is one of the people whose health will be jeopardized by the current Pelham Boulevard redesign plan.

To vote for the current plan is to vote for the street to be moved 14 feet closer to houses.

We know, due to extensive data, that respiratory disease, cancer, cognitive function problems, preterm birth, blood pressure and hypertension, diabetes, allergies and sensitization, coronary heart disease, dementia, and stroke are all associated with the exposure to traffic-related air pollution.

In the meeting that we had with planners in December of 2025, uh, we were told that the reason for moving the street 14 feet closer to houses is to accommodate the addition of a second sidewalk on the east side of Pellum Boulevard for the span of little more than one block.

Also for snow removal.

There is no need for a second sidewalk, especially if the existing sidewalk on the west side of the street is properly maintained so that it can be used as intended.

The addition of a second unnecessary sidewalk is not worth knowingly creating health problems for residents of St.

Paul.

These residents include children, the elderly, and people with pre-existing medical issues.

These residents include my sister, her family, my parents, and neighbors who I care about.

Please look and listen deeply when you consider the Pelham Boulevard redesign.

The current redesign plan contains elements that are not healthy for our planet, environment, or human health.

The redesign of our Pelham Boulevard is a long-awaited opportunity for something wonderful for the city, which we all need right now.

And it should be safe and healthy for our community.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in.

Hi.

All opposed.

Fix in favor, none opposed.

The public hearing is closed.

Ms.

Coleman.

I have a couple of assessment-specific questions, if that's okay.

Welcome back.

Thank you.

And thank you.

Um, like Councilwoman Yang said, having uh Council Vice President Kim's questions, I think helped and was very clarifying around much of this.

I just a couple of the early speakers spoke about the determination of a special benefit and sort of how I'm curious if you could say a little bit more about how public works thinks about what constitutes a special benefit, how kind of what that language means in application when we're thinking about assessments and sorry, public works in the city as a whole, and sort of those that legality question, if you could touch on that a little bit.

I can try to do that.

Um, the special benefit analysis that's done by the third party appraiser.

I wouldn't even venture to figure out how they do that.

Um the report was with the preliminary order, and um he does provide a summary, and I did bring enough copies if you needed a fresh copy of that, but he he does go into details about what he's looking at when he he prepares that.

And it's different for each area within the city.

So a single family property in one area of the city could have a maximum supportable benefit of 2.25%, and on another area in the neighbor in St.

Paul, it could be three percent.

So it's not it's based on the area.

Thank you.

That's helpful.

Does that answer yes?

Yeah, and I think helpful knowing that the city uses a third uh third party assessor in order to determine that is quite helpful.

Thank you.

Okay.

One of the questions.

Oh, okay.

Um, I would I appreciate the question as well.

And then again, I sorry I keep asking questions after you sit down, but these assessments will also be later on, the actual assessments, and there's a way for folks to appeal the special benefit when they get that later on.

I think your nodding is good.

I'm seeing nodding equals yes.

Okay.

Um, and one of the things that I will say to my colleagues as well and to those who are here, if we would like to, um, I think it would be an option for us to have that third party or who someone who knows more about this to come in and actually talk to us about how that assessment is done.

Um, I would certainly benefit from learning about that.

That would be something that would be you know on the record evergreen for folks to look at because we do get questions about this a lot, and I think it's important for all of us to be on the same page about it.

Um Ms.

Coleman, do you have a motion on this item?

Yeah, I'll move to approve um the final order and have a few comments to make along with that.

Um first I just want to extend my appreciation and gratitude to the public works team.

As I was saying to a couple of folks earlier today, this is one of the first topics that I was briefed on when I came into this role in late August, and the ongoing communication with our public works director, Sean Kershaw, with Jimmy, with Jerry, with Randy, with Nick, with a whole host of people who have been thinking about this project for far longer than I have been in this building.

It is incredibly appreciated, and I know that an immense amount of thought has gone into this work.

I also want to extend a significant amount of um gratitude to the community and the neighbors who have taken the time either to be here today or to be in earlier conversations about this project.

Um we've had you know some of those were mentioned by Mr.

Lee, our pri our the meetings in over kind of the last couple of months that I have been a part of, but also the smaller group meetings, the emails, the extensive conversation that has gone back and forth.

I know that this is a community that cares very deeply about roads, about infrastructure, about cohesiveness, about access to their beautiful public park.

Um, and it is appreciated and heard, and I think that there has been, I have seen the way in which community feedback has shaped how the public works team is thinking about this, how it's been accounted or taken into consideration.

Um, you know, I think that there are a couple of points of strong agreement here, and one of these was mentioned in our staff report, but this is a road that does need to be reconstructed.

It's a project that people have known was coming for quite some time.

I do think that that has led to some of the frustration of feeling like this is something that we've talked about for years and years and years, and now things are moving and sort of the the rubber is hitting the road in a very real real way.

But I think that that shared need for our understanding of the need for reconstruction is important to note.

I also have heard repeatedly from both our city staff and our neighbors about the need to prioritize safety for folks who are in the neighborhood, for folks who are passing through the neighborhood, that street safety, pedestrian safety, safety for the children in the neighborhood is paramount.

And I will just echo, I think something that Nick said at a Denari Park Improvement Association meeting a couple of weeks ago, last month, sometime in the last couple of months, um, is that that is a priority that is shared and felt very, very deeply by every single person who is looking at this, whether from the neighborhood perspective or the city perspective.

We all want safer streets.

It is the conversation that I have more often than any other conversation in this role is that people want their streets to be safe, they want their sidewalks to be safe, they want their bike lanes to be safe for every single person.

Um and then finally, I will just note that the the work to complete the grand round is something that is a priority that I know is shared across Ward 4, and that sort of when we get into the block-by-block decision making is when it can get incredibly challenging, but that the importance of having this connected cohesive, safe accessible bike route is something that is a largely shared priority for many people in the community.

I uh I recognize that there are ongoing conversations that will be had as we kind of complete the design process and work towards actually implementing implementing the project.

Um I trust that the public works team will continue to work with our office and that we will continue to be in communication with the neighborhood about what exactly that will look like, timelines, etc.

Um, I appreciate the conversations that have gone into this thus far.

And I think that is everything I had to say.

All right.

Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments, Ms.

Coleman.

Um, so it sounds like the motions for approval.

Any further discussion?

Ms.

Yang.

Thank you, Council President.

Um Council Murder Coleman, it's really helpful to hear your thoughts on this, and because I'm not familiar with this neighborhood since it is it isn't in my ward.

I was just curious about um just some of the things that I heard from the testimony and was wondering if our public work staff they can just come and like make some of their the plans a bit more explicit, like in terms of the logic behind it.

Like I'm we're having back-to-back reconstruction projects here, so I'm still you know, just processing even like the things I heard from council vice presidents, um, the the project in her ward, and then also mine and this one too.

And so um, I'm I'm just there's just one thing I'm I'm um wondering if our staff they can talk a bit about a bit more.

So just the what I heard from a few of the residents is that this piece around after the project, then the streets gonna be 14 feet closer to the houses.

And can you just reiterate like why is it that that that is why that's a part of the the plan?

Welcome back, Mr.

Lee.

It's it's definitely different.

I would say that like from the project in my ward and also the council price presidents, because we I mean the biggest concern was around like, hey, why is this happening or trees and everything?

So I'm very curious about that.

Sure.

Council president, council member.

Uh we heard a lot from uh those in the room here today, and I think their time for uh coming here.

Uh I'll start off with the first question being uh why are we shifting the road 14 feet?

Um that was part of the uh meandering of the roadway to calm traffic and also to save trees that are uh deemed as significant by our forestry staff.

Um I want to make clear that even though we are shifting the road 14 feet, Pelham is a parkway with 120 feet right-of-way, uh, which is wider than any road, most roads in the city here.

And we are still, even after the shift, able to maintain a boulevard that's 20 feet or more in width, uh after that shift, which is a lot more than a street like Urrow that we saw today that only has six feet of boulevard.

So uh this 14 feet should be taken into context of the overall right-of-way width.

And then there was another question about MSA fundings not being used on this road.

Uh it's true that uh Cullum is a state-funded road uh or uh classified as a municipal state aid road.

Um the funding that we get for MSA is very little, and it's uh not enough for us to uh meet our MSA systems, uh, make improvement on the entire system.

Um without the common cent funding, uh we would not have this project, and so Pelham would just be in the queue for if we were to use MSA funds.

Um another question is uh uh why not uh propose 10 foot lanes.

Uh we did look at that.

Um we are proposing 12-foot lane for driving lane, which includes uh 11 feet of pavement plus one feet of gutter.

Um the reason for that is uh because it's consistent with the rest of Grand Round on Como, Johnson, and Wheelhock, they all have uh that same typical section.

Um we looked at what reducing the road would do, and uh even by reducing it to 10 feet, uh we're not seeing a whole lot of gain in terms of preserving uh the trees that are on this corridor.

Most of the trees that are impacted is uh mainly because of the shift uh in the roadway, but then to do the shift, we are saving uh more significant trees that we would otherwise be impacting.

And then lastly, uh uh another thing I heard was uh the amount of cut through traffic on Pelham.

Uh Pelham is a major collector.

It provides connections to uh regional destination.

Um we acknowledge that there is um um uh higher volume, not higher volume, but the volumes that we are seeing on Pelham is uh equivalent to streets of this uh same classification, and we think uh some of that can uh is uh from the uh lack of connection from highway 280 down to across the river.

And so we are working with Mendon on this on the rethinking 94 project.

Um I think that was about everything I heard.

Thank you.

I I have uh just another follow-up question because the I heard uh concerns around uh basically health impacts with the streets being closer to the homes, and so I'm wondering is that something that you all typically look into whenever you do have these sort of projects and and there's you're proposing the streets to be closer to to homes, you know, basically like where maybe kids are playing out in the in the yard.

And it's not something I have heard about, but I'm very curious um where our department's at on that.

Council president, council member.

I think the concern with the uh the the public health with this project with the uh sweet shift mainly comes from the presence of the golf course on this project.

Uh we are not changing how the uh the stormwater runoff uh pattern on this project will uh impact uh adjacent properties.

Um believe there was a request uh uh or uh uh a question if there was if there is uh EIS environmental statement for this project.

Um we have not done EIS because we are not required to uh the what last project that we had at EIS was probably when we studied I'd mill road connection to 94, resulting in permanent um uh uh destruction of neighborhoods.

Uh I know a few years ago there was a request to have an EAW on Summit uh Avenue that was also turned down by the environmental quality board because it did not meet those requirements.

So we don't see us in a position having to do a environmental study for uh the uh proposal of Pelham here.

Thank you.

I appreciate the responses and um I do want to share the council member Coleman.

I I'm very supportive of your of your motion.

I uh I just want to name that the the testimonies today have been super thought provoking for me, where it really pushes me to think about just the history of where like we as a city have been in terms of like who we build our streets and roads for, where it used to be very car-centric, and then now you know our biggest priority is around how can we make sure that our our streets are safe for pedestrians and bikers and putting them first, and then just I'm interested in how things would be different too if we were to really um cater our like center even like health impacts and public health overall um into the conversation as well.

And so that's just something that I'm I'm thinking about and would love to connect more with our um with director Kershaw about that.

And so I appreciate the all of the information and uh you know for me personally, I'm really digging into this because I'm thinking like, well, what if one day this is a project in my ward as well?

You know, that that's likely to it's possible that that could happen, and so just um appreciate the insights that you're sharing to us.

Thanks, Ms.

Yang, and thanks, Mr.

Lee.

And these are projects that take place throughout throughout all of our wards, and so I think the digging in is really important.

All right, with that, we have a motion on the table for approval.

All in favor say aye.

Hi.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Item number 23 is resolution public hearing 26-15, amending the financing and spending plan in the department of safety and inspections in the amount of 75,000 dollars for the 2026 building official training from the Minnesota Department of Labor.

This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak to this item?

Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms.

Joe's to close the public hearing and approve.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Item number 24 is resolution public hearing 26-19 authorizing the police department to accept the 2025 community policing development microgrant from the U.S.

Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services authorizing the execution of the grant agreement and amending the 2026 grant budget and ad activity budget.

This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak to this item?

Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms.

Bowie to close the public hearing and approve.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Item number 25 is resolution public hearing 26-27.

Accepting funds and amending the Department of Safety and Inspections operating budget for the administration of legislative code chapter 193.

This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak to this item?

Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms.

Yang to close the public hearing and approve.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

Six in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Item number 26 is public hearing 26-4.

Public hearing on grievances about federal immigration operations.

And this is a standing public hearing that we have put on the agenda to uh hear general grievances or thoughts about federal immigration operations.

If you're here for that item, this is your public hearing.

Please come on up.

And again, just remember those two minutes.

I hate cutting people off.

There is a clock right in front of you.

Um, so um help me help you help us.

And uh start with your name and where you're coming from.

Welcome up.

Good morning or good afternoon, I guess.

My name's Sarah Gartner.

Uh, I'm here again before you.

I live in Ward 7.

And I do want to acknowledge the council for actions you've already taken with regards to enhancing the city separation ordinance ordinance.

A special thank you to Councilmember Yang for continuing to show up with powerful and infectious enthusiasm, not only in Ward 6, but also in Ward 7 in Councilmember Johnson's um leave.

Recent events in the Twin Cities, including the fatal shooting by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis over the weekend have continued to deepen community concern about how federal enforcement activity is occurring in our state and the degree to which it affects public safety and public trust.

That's why I'm continuing to ask for clear public clarification of St.

Paul's separation ordinance and how St.

Paul Police Department engages with federal agents.

Residents deserve to understand exactly what cooperation does and does not look like, so that the trust in our public safety institutions can be preserved.

I want to ask for clarity on an urgent concern.

If a St.

Paul resident calls St.

Paul Police Department for help at a scene where federal immigration agents are present, how is that handled?

People need to know that when they seek emergency assistance from the local police.

What transparency and reporting requirements govern contact between city departments and federal immigration agents?

Timely public discourse and clear council oversight are critical, especially in serious incidents like this.

And if there are violations of the separation ordinance, what is the process for reporting and review and what consequences exist to ensure these policies are meaningfully enforced rather than just symbolic?

Finally, I want to acknowledge the real economic impact these operations are continuing to have in our city.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in.

Welcome up.

Greetings, council.

I'm Lizzie, a ward one resident, a parent, and a neighbor doing her darndest to stabilize an entire community.

Regarding right now, the ICE occupation in Minnesota is creating conditions of fear that are displacing daily life, that are disrupting daily life.

People are afraid to go to work, to travel, to show up, and that instability very quickly becomes a housing crisis.

Minnesota has faced this kind of emergency before.

During COVID, the state paused evictions because people could not work or move freely, and because displacement would have compounded an already serious public crisis.

That moratorium was not charity.

It was a public safety measure.

The cause today is different, but the conditions are the same.

Federal occupation is leading directly to local housing fallout.

When evictions are forced under these circumstances, it is Minnesota communities that absorb the harm.

So fear and disruption do not spiral into mass displacement.

I am also asking that XL Energy forgive past due resident energy balances during this period.

Neighbors are losing work, limiting movement out of fear, and relying on one another to keep households and entire communities stable.

While Minnesota's cold weather rule prevents shutoffs, it does not forgive debt.

Right now, these accumulated balances are not just delayed bills, they are long-term financial harm that will follow families well beyond this crisis.

XL has both the capacity and precedent to forgive arrears.

We are asking for leadership to prioritize community stability over penalties.

Because history will remember who acted and who did not.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in and welcome up.

Hello, Council members.

My name is Alex, and I am a Frogtown resident.

Um Frogtown has had a constant ICE presence with agents often staking out the same spots on the same streets day after day with no clear goal or plan besides drumming up fear and paranoia.

We have vehicles full of armed agents staking out some of our bus stops on sometimes a nearly daily basis.

Local community centers and churches are delivering hundreds of grocery boxes every single day.

Really speaking to like the magnitude of the scale of what people are in need of.

I'm going to echo a lot of points that were just made.

I think that the eviction moratorium resolution was a great start, but it is an urgent need.

So that families are not trying to navigate longstanding debt after this crisis has come to pass.

Individuals unable to live their lives normally should not be expected to keep up economically while ICE maintains their presence in the city.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in and welcome up.

And I do just want to do kind of a last call.

If anyone else is here to speak on this item, please line up just so we have a sense of who else is here to speak.

Welcome.

Hi, good afternoon.

I'm here today.

Like many others, I'm sickened by what our communities are experiencing under Operation Metro Surge.

According to reporting, there are 3,000 federal agents now on our streets, and we are already seeing serious allegations of rights violations every day.

It is the urgent responsibility of the city and this council to do everything in their in its power to deter this targeting of vulnerable populations.

I'm aware of efforts that have been made to have phased changes to the city separation ordinance, and I applaud them.

I would also ask you to explore if we can reduce DHS and ICE's ability to leverage local booking systems specifically.

I wish for you to examine if we can blunt the impacts of DHS's secure communities program.

Secure communities is a federal biometric pipeline.

When someone is booked and fingerprinted, those fingerprints are then routed through federal systems and are checked against DHS.

Because it's a federal system, I'm aware that we can't opt out, but we can reduce how often it's triggered by minimizing custodial arrests and jail bookings for low-level offenses.

This might involve expanding site and release and other alternatives where public safety allows.

Because no booking means no fingerprints and fewer opportunities for this pipeline to be leveraged and weaponized against our community.

Even before the current administration, the ACLU warrants secure communities has disastrous and widespread impacts on civil liberties because it targets people not at the time of arrest, not conviction.

Sweeping in people that are never that have never been charged, including victims, witnesses, and those that have been wrongly arrested.

The ACLU also warned it drives a wedge between law enforcement and the communities they serve, deterring reporting and undermining community safety.

I hope you will consider these steps as part of your broader efforts to protect our communities.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in and welcome up.

Last but not least.

Hello again.

I was here last week.

I'm Nancy, a 38-year resident of the city of St.

Paul.

Been in several of your wards.

Forgive me my naivety.

I'm coming up to speed on how things work.

I realize a city attorney is charged with reviewing that.

Would like Godspeed on continuing to move that forward quickly.

What I want to say a little more deeply is personal experience.

Lucky to have a lot of immigrant friends, former clients of mine and friends, and they have been asking me.

This is true.

Nancy, what do we do if I shows up at our door?

I know I have to ask them to show a warrant, so they know a little bit.

Nancy, if we get harassed by ICE on our way to and from work, so on, in and around the Twin Cities, not just St.

Paul.

Can I call 911?

And will this the police come to help us?

And at first I said, yeah, I think so.

I know they are mandated to do so, but there's so much confusion around this.

And I didn't know in good faith and good conscience, could I say, yeah, you call 911 and the city, at least of St.

Paul, they live in St.

Paul will come.

So please, Godspeed on getting that ordinance tightened.

Thank you for all of your work on this.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in.

Thank you to everyone who came today to testify.

I will make a motion to close the public hearing and then you want to continue.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

I'm gonna make a motion to continue the public hearing until next week, February 4th.

Uh, and then we can have some comments.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The public hearing is continued to February 4th.

Um, I just want to thank everyone for being here.

I do want to say that to the point about our phased approach, one of the benefits of having you come out and share these ideas with us is it gives us ideas.

Um and there are many folks around this table who are listening, I know avidly to what you're saying and are interested in pursuing the the ideas that you're raising here.

So um you can do it by email, you can do it by phone, but you can also do it here, and we appreciate that.

Um just one quick note.

I do want to make sure I I address this.

Um, and our our police chief has been really clear about this.

I know it's difficult to be clear because some of this does depend a bit on the on the context, but um, if anyone in our community is feeling unsafe or afraid, call 911.

Our police officers will respond.

If there's something that is urgent and emergent and they have to go to that first, they might go to that first.

They always triage, um, but they will respond.

They're not able to keep federal agents from performing their lawful duties.

Um, and that's where sometimes in the moment they need to make that call when they arrive.

But they will come, they will interact with federal agents on your behalf if you're afraid to do that.

They will they will turn on their body worn cameras.

Um so I think the main message, and again, there's this is an unprecedented situation, and there's a lot of complexity here, but we want people to know that they should call 911 if they feel afraid or threatened.

Um so please take that back with you and and please um continue to share these great ideas with us.

You can see that this council is dedicated to taking action.

Um, any other comments from my colleagues before we move to legislative hearings.

All right, thank you all again.

Um, I'm so sorry, Miss Bowie.

Sorry, uh just real brief comments.

I just want to say um some of my award one residents came out, just thank you so much.

Um, one of the things I do want to just touch on briefly, um, is just like the economic impact that we're starting to see in like the damages, um, not even economically, but just even damages around like certain people's staff members aren't feeling safe to come out.

Um, just earlier this morning, um, a volunteer from Highley Q Brown Community Center, um, a volunteer that helps with their food shelf.

It was detained by ICE, and I just think about just how ICE is really impacting the fabric of our community, and these are the people who show up who volunteer, who are our teachers, who are nurses, and you know, how that's like impacting our organizations.

And I really am very compelled and thankful for these public hearings because I think like as we are looking at you know, rapid response and showing up for community and creating a network of care.

I also think it will be really beneficial for us to also assess what damages look like because that's going to also impact our budgeting process and how we're looking at remaining a resilient city.

So just want to say thank you for everyone, but also just like the person the type of perspective and framework that and approach.

Um, you know, uh, we should be looking into going to the future.

Thank you, Ms.

Bowie.

All right, with that, uh that brings us to the legislative hearing section of our agenda.

Welcome up, Ms.

Mormon.

Council President, Council members.

If we could read item number 28 into the record.

28.

Item number 28 is R L H T A 25-392 ratifying the appealed special tax assessment at 586 Burgess Street.

Ms.

Mormon.

Uh in the uh previously circulated list with uh suggested amendments.

I forgot to put in this one.

I this is listed as needing amendment, the actual one it needs is to approve.

So simple.

No one is here to testify.

This was resolved already.

So we just amend to approve the assessment.

I meant to approve the assessment.

Okay.

Um I'll take a motion from Ms.

Bowie to do just that.

Public hearing first.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

First, we'll hold a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to testify on item 28?

Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms.

Bowie to close the public hearing and approve with the amendation of the legislative hearing officer.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Ms.

Mormon.

I don't believe there's anyone else here to testify.

All right.

So if you are here for any of the legislative hearing items, items 27 through 34.

This is your public hearing.

Please come on up if you are here to testify on any of those items.

Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms.

Coleman to close the public hearings and approve the items as amended by the legislative hearing officer.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The legislative hearing consent agenda is adopted as amended.

Thank you, Ms.

Mormon.

That brings us to the end of our agenda.

So any news from around the wards.

Good or otherwise.

Vice President.

Yeah.

Um the sorry, I'm ready.

Uh this Friday there's going to be a national general strike that's happening.

And um there are organizations here in the Twin Cities that are leading it and asking for this to happen.

Some of those include um the Black Student Associations and the Minnesota Somalian Black Student Groups.

So they're calling for a nationwide general strike this Friday, January 30th.

Thanks, Vice President.

Ms.

Yang.

Thank you, Council President.

I just wanted to make a big ask for people to continue supporting our local restaurants and small businesses.

They are truly hurting right now, but also still sowing, still showing up so strong with big hearts and uh being the ones to organize food drives, doing mutual aid, um, taking donations that they have gotten from their patrons to to donate to immigrant defense networks.

And it's just it's so incredible.

The community um that that we have there and their leadership, and so wanted to um continue having urging folks to go and support our local businesses.

Thank you, Ms.

Yang.

Here, here.

Ms.

Bowie.

Thank you, Council President.

I just have a really fun event to share.

Um, the winter carnivals, Rondo Night is open for everyone.

You don't have to be from Rondo or Living Rondo, but it's just um uh a display of our artists and businesses and organizations.

Um it's gonna be at the landmark center tomorrow, 5 30 to 8 30.

And also Metro Transit is offering free rides, a free passes all day, or excuse me, um, tomorrow from 2 p.m.

to midnight.

So if you want to get a free ride um and use our public transportation to get there, you can do so.

So again, thank you.

I'll be there as well too, and also former council member Russell Ballinger.

Thank you, Ms.

Bowie.

Um, Ms.

Trust.

Um, uh just a reminder.

This is uh sorry, Councilmember Coleman, technically in Ward 4, but the McAlstreet Rowland Community.

Every week.

Um it's yellow shamelessly.

It's the McAllister Roman Community Council that puts it on, which is Ward 3 and 4.

Um in St.

Paul Parks and Rec and Grollin Tap, which is in my ward, but it's uh the Frostfest at the Grovel and Ice Rink is re was rescheduled for this weekend from two to four.

There'll be um ice skating, of course, and hot chocolate, and I think there's food from the Grove and Tap.

Um but it's a great ice rink.

They have tons of um skates for rental if you don't have them, and it's free.

And so come come on out.

Thank you.

Uh anyone else seeing none.

Thank you all for a very productive meeting, and we are charged.