Call the meeting of the St.

Paul City Council to order.

Roll call, please.

Coleman.

Here.

Johnson.

Joast.

Here.

Kim.

Here.

Yang.

Here.

Bowie?

Here.

Council President Acre.

Here.

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

Welcome everyone to our City Council meeting.

Thank you for joining us today.

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

Pledge allegiance to the flag.

Indivisible.

Liberty and Justice Raw.

And can we have item three right into the record, please?

Yes.

Item number three, AO twenty-six dash fifteen, establishing intent for one-time special funds budgeted for consulting services in OFS.

I believe we just wanted um some additional information about this from Director Laura Logston, who is here.

Come on up, welcome.

I'm the director of the Office of Financial Services.

This item is a change within OFS's budget to the intention of funds that were budgeted in this year's 2026 adopted budget.

So there's 100,000 of one-time funding that was allocated for OFS for consulting services.

And OFS has made a recommendation to continue to use the funds for consulting services in OFS's budget, but instead to support the city's annual comprehensive financial report or the ACFER.

A number of factors occurred kind of after the proposed budget and near the end of the year impacting our ACFR timeliness.

We fully expected to complete the ACFER in a more timely manner last year, and then the cyber incident impacted that timeline.

So OFS kind of looking at the current factors that we're dealing with this year, we would recommend reprioritizing that funding to support the ACFAR work.

Great.

Thanks, Director.

I'm looking to my colleagues to see if there are questions.

Ms.

Bowie.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you so much, Director Wakvin for providing that brief report.

I did have some questions, particularly because I know for the intended purposes for these dollars was to go towards our priority-based budgeting.

And I know on the during our budget committee meetings, and we have Chair Ying here, particularly where you know some of our priorities was to be like on the two-year biannual budgeting, and that's something that is still a strong priority for us as a council.

I'm particularly wondering with like knowing ASPR is like a mandatory annual reporting.

You know, was it just the timeliness of the issue because of the cybertact?

Or is are we is this like kind of like a larger question, particularly around you know what can help us with the timeliness?

Um, because I gotta imagine you know, outsourcing one-time funds for something that we know we have to do every year can actually you know uh raise a question around like is this a good use of our funds, right?

Um so I just I'm just trying to understand would it be the entire $100,000 that we'll be hiring it for a consultant to help solve for us to make our our deadline on time.

Yeah, thank you, Council President and Councilmember.

Um, great question.

Um OFS has had um basically several years where we have been late with our um ACFER report due to a number of factors.

Um there's been significant systems issues when we um transferred to our current ERP system, um, staff turnover, um just a whole host of issues we've been contending with.

Um we've made significant improvements in our um in-timeliness and in our process, the kind of process management.

We have a really stable team of experts that is working on it.

Um we think a one-time kind of infusion of support will make a really big impact this year and will gain us a considerable amount of time to then start working on next year's ACFER.

So kind of digging out of the hole is going to have a long-term impact.

Um, part of what we also want the consulting and temporary support to help with some uh some work that will help us with longer term solutions.

So not just helping with this year's um ACFER, but longer term.

So helping us with documentation of processes, helping us with citywide training.

Um, so you know, one-time solution that we think can make it being an impact this year, but also ongoing.

Um, and just to address um what you brought up related to biannual budgeting, um we fully understand that that's um something that this council is interested in.

Um, I think also that the new mayor is interested in.

Um, we're committed to exploring that this year and what options we can put on the table.

We think within OFS, we can start to explore some options for longer-term budget planning without consulting support.

Um, and so we think we can still get at some of the shared goals related to kind of updating our budgeting process and incorporating longer term planning, and we think we can do that without consulting support this year.

Good.

And one last just clarifying question.

So, is there are there staff within OFS that's already assigned to you know conduct this reporting and meet this reporting?

And are when you're saying like staff turn up or turnover, is it this one-time use of these funds is because of the shortage that we're having in staffing, or I guess sure.

So, Council President, Councilmember, um, we do have a team of staff that are dedicated to working on the city's ACFER, um, and they are really experts in governmental accounting.

Um, we have um really an ACFR team of five, I think five folks that work primarily on the ACFER, um, and then accounting staff across the city and all city departments also work on it.

Um, and then accounting staff across the city and all city departments also work on it.

Um, so it's a it's a huge citywide lift.

It's a huge report.

Um, and um our ACFRA team has been stable for the last year.

So we've been um fully staffed on that team, and really we're looking at kind of augmenting that staff because we've been in a hole for many years, and it's hard to get out of that um hole with our our current staff, even though they're excellent at what they do.

Um, it's hard to make progress without some outside support.

We're also working on systems changes, working with our partners in OTC to make some changes to our ERP system, which is in for um that can help um our ACFR be a lot more automated.

Um, right now we contend with a lot of manual processes.

Um, and so that's part of what's contributed to the timeliness issue.

Okay, and sorry, one last, and uh hopefully we can get a report in the future during the budget process because I do think this will be helpful, you know.

Um, you know, getting outside consulting support to you know, overall help us with the systems change that you mentioned.

So um, but yeah, again, thank you so much for providing this report.

I think is really important, you know, as we're looking at our budget process that this is catering to that.

Um, because you know, a hundred thousand dollars, especially now.

Like, we want to make sure that um we you know, our budget is going towards hiring, you know, qualified expertise um to actually do that work then so we can prevent outsourcing, you know, essentially what kind of our roles are, particularly here in the city.

So thank you.

Certainly, yeah, thank you.

I would just add these are one-time funds.

So we're not we would not be bringing in you know ongoing staff with those funds.

So it's really to just help us kind of dig in um and uh address the issue kind of this year.

Thank you.

Thanks, Ms.

Bowie.

I appreciate the questions, and I think it's um I had questions of a similar vein, so I'm glad that you raised them.

I think this plan to try to get ahead of this process, try to catch up.

Um, and this uh this backlog of ACFA reporting has been, I know, a concern for some time.

So appreciate the um department's innovative approach to getting this done and the and the questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Consent agenda items four through 13 are before you for your consideration.

Is there anything to be taken for separate consideration?

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

Yang for the balance of the consent agenda.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The consent agenda is adopted.

Item number 14 is ABZA 26-1.

Considering the appeal of the Minnesota Department of Administration to the Board of Zoning Appeals, lack of an approval of a zoning variance to permit a 10-foot tall fence between the service parking facility and Phalan Boulevard and Barclay Street.

The public hearing was closed, and this is laid over from February 11th.

Ms.

Yang.

Thank you, Council President.

Well, I appreciate the council, my council colleagues for your support on the one week layover.

Um, also grateful for the applicants who are here last week meeting us in person.

It's always great to be able to hear directly from the applicants, and so I appreciate that.

Um, I have a review of the applicant's appeal to the BCA's denial of its variance requests, the BCA packet, including the BCA staff report and the comments from BCA members, the district council and the public on this issue.

I agree with the BCA's denial of the appeal based on errors in the findings in the BCE report recommending approval of the variance request.

Specifically, findings one, two, and six contain errors and the appeal should not be denied.

Um, I like to share that in finding one, the variance is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code.

The applicant is proposing to construct a new fence around this property located in the T2 traditional neighborhood zoning district.

The zoning code limits the height of fences constructed between off-street parking facilities and the public right-of-way to four and a half feet, but they propose a 10-foot-tall fence along Phelan Boulevard and Barclay Street.

This is a substantial variance request for an additional five and a half feet in height, which is more than twice the height than what is currently permitted under the code.

It would not promote or protect the aesthetics of the surrounding community or promote economic viability and general welfare of the neighborhood.

And finding two, the variance is not consistent with the 2040 comprehensive plan.

The proposed fence would be inconsistent with land use policy nine under the comprehensive plan, which calls for high quality urban design that supports pedestrian friendliness and a healthy environment and enhances the public realm.

This fencing will not achieve that goal.

On the contrary, the fence would create an imposing fortress-like presence that detracts from these intended intended goals.

The fence would also be inconsistent with land use policy 24, which calls for the prioritization of public and private investments and infrastructure that maintains and improves the public realm to encourage street-level pedestrian activity and supports parks, green space, and recreation.

Putting up an imposing fence in this neighborhood will have the opposite effect on these investments.

It is not welcoming and does not encourage development, promote the walkability of the neighborhood or support parks, green space, and recreation.

In finding six, the variants will alter the essential character of the surrounding area.

The fence that the applicant wants to install is 10 feet tall with trident-shaped blades curving out towards the community.

It is not decorative.

It is threatening.

It is intended to send a message that this is not a welcoming location, despite it being public property in a residential neighborhood.

The BCA should explore these other options.

And so council president, with that, I move to deny the appeal.

Great.

Thanks, Ms.

Yang.

So the motion on the table is to is for denial.

Is there any discussion of the motion?

Well, I will say, Ms.

Yang, I I really appreciate your reasoning on this.

Um I listened to the um the discussion at the BZA, and um I I have a different view of their discussion.

I think that there were um errors in finding and in procedure in the way that they considered this matter.

Um, as we know if we're going to uphold or deny an appeal, we have to find errors in fact finding or procedure of the body that we are of the previous body.

Um and in listening to the discussion, um, I never heard a clear argument as to how a higher fence would fundamentally alter the essential character of the neighborhood, especially if it's screened by the landscaping that is depicted in all of the applicants' uh pictures.

Instead, the discussion at the BZA seemed to veer off of land use completely and into questioning the security study that the BCA presented with really no basis for the questions about the security needs and really speculation on the part of the commissioners, including at one point a question about whether or not a bubble should be built over the parking lot to prevent 9-11 style attacks.

So, really not um rationally grounded arguments um against the need for this fence.

It also appears that the BZA commissioner who made the motion already had all of his reasoning and his comments written down in advance, and so it calls into question whether or not this commissioner was truly engaging in the public hearing that was happening at that commission, making his decision based on what was being heard at the hearing.

Um it seems like with proper landscaping, this could meet all six standards, which is what staff had determined.

And it seemed to me, listening to the discussion that the BZA instead applied their own opinions about security needs and preconceived notions prior to the public hearing to reach their decision.

So because of those errors in the findings in the procedure, um, I will be voting against the motion.

Is there further discussion?

I'm just trying to get it.

Okay, thank you, Council President.

And um, thank you so much, um, Councilmember Yang for giving your reasons.

I just want to procedurally, so voting against it would just basically deny the variance.

And um the appellant will have to be within our standards or in terms of like the height of the fence.

I'm just trying to get the So Ms.

Yang is moved to deny their appeal.

So voting in favor of denial would mean that the applicant would not be allowed to build the higher fence.

A vote and a vote I is against the appellant being able to do that.

Okay.

Um, and a vote against is allowed to does not right.

I think we would need another motion to grant the appeal.

So a vote against actually is just a vote against denial.

There would need to be another motion made to approve.

Okay.

Um further discussion.

I think we'll do a roll call vote.

All right, so the motion on the table again is to deny the appeal.

Uh roll call, please.

Coleman.

Aye.

Jost?

Yes.

Kim?

Aye.

Yang.

Aye.

Bowie?

Aye.

Council President Acre.

No.

Five in favor, one opposed, that being Council President Naker.

The motion of intent is the appeal is denied.

Suspension.

Take a motion for Ms.

Jose to suspend the rules to consider item 26-320.

Resolution 26-320.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The rules are suspended.

Resolution 26-320 authorizing the fire department to conduct various fire training exercises at the property located at 753 Front Avenue.

Uh, and this item is being brought under suspension due to the fact that this training exercise is actually happening on February 24th prior to our next council meeting.

Um, I did reiterate with the department our legislator deadlines and our desire to not have items brought under suspension since that isn't a transparent way of doing things, but given the the urgency of this need, um, wanted to bring this matter under suspension.

Since that isn't a transparent way of doing things, but given the the urgency of this need, um, wanted to bring this matter under suspension.

So I will move approval.

Is there a discussion of the motion?

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Item number 15 is final adoption of ordinance 26-7, amending chapter 8 to adding chapter 268 B to the legislative code to require law enforcement officers to conduct law enforcement operations without a mask or facial covering, unless certain exceptions apply.

This brings us to the ordinance section of our agenda.

Um for those of you who are just tuning in for the first time.

We have three separate stages of ordinance adoption.

Um ordinances all have three readings.

So the first reading is a first reading and a staff report.

The next reading is a public hearing, and the final adoption is the third reading.

So this item has already been before us twice, sometimes more than twice.

Um, and it has been discussed uh extensively, and now it's before us for a final vote.

So I will look to Vice President Kim for the first comments.

Yeah, I'm just every single week we talk about how grateful we are for partnerships, and this is I think just as um councilmember Bowie talks about it, um, like legislating for love and it's a labor of love.

So I just really appreciate the commitment to my colleagues, Councilmember Coleman and Councilmember Yang for really putting in the time and energy to make sure that we lay on the plan on these items and that we stick to sort of that really aggressive schedule that we had initially set for ourselves.

So really appreciative of the partnership for my colleagues and the support of my colleagues.

Um I think you know this is as much as the city talks about what we don't want.

We also need to figure out what we what we do want in our cities, and I think everyone wants our residents to feel safe, to feel protected, and to be able to move around freely without uh without fear of mass secret agents in our city.

So I'm very grateful for what appears to be the passage of this ordinance and um looking forward to the comments of my colleagues.

Thanks, Ms.

President.

Other discussion.

Ms.

Yang.

Thanks, Council President.

I will adjust to that.

This really is a push for accountability and transparency.

We've heard from many of our residents and community members, their fear that they feel when they see agents massed out in the community.

Um, in addition to that, there it's hard hard to know who those agents are with too, and so that's why we also um move to um make sure that they are we're requiring identification.

And so again, this is about accountability and transparency that our community deserves.

So I'm very proud to um co-sponsor this.

Thanks, Ms.

Yang.

Ms.

Bowie.

Um, you know, I'll just share too.

Thank you so much for all of the the work that put into it and getting us here.

Um I'm just thinking about you know, yesterday was the first day of session, and we saw a lot of our our colleagues at the um at the house and also in the Senate, you know, um recognizing and remembering, you know, Speaker Hortman.

And I just think about just you know how this law is you know a point of accountability to make sure that we are able to not only identify um who the officer is but also be able to see that officer's face.

And I think about just in that case scenario, it was someone impersonating off an officer, and we need to just ensure that we have clear guidelines around if you are um you know operating law enforcement in the city of St.

Paul, you need to be able to show your face.

Um, and it also that helps us with building trust that helps us with um you know making sure people feel safe.

So I'm happy to make this goal today.

Thank you, Ms.

Bowie.

Ms.

Coleman.

I feel I feel like kind of by the time we get to final adoption, almost everything that needs to be said has been said.

So not much to add to my colleagues said um, although I will echo the gratitude uh to council members Yang and Council Vice President Kim and to our city staff team, particularly our chief policy officer Tim Greenfield for getting us to this point on such an important uh piece of legislation.

I I will also just add that we know that our work is not anywhere close to done when it comes to addressing the presence of ICE and border patrol agents in our city when it comes to cleaning up the wreckage that they have left in our city when it comes to rebuilding, restoring public trust, faith and government, and so much work that is ahead of us.

So this is an important moment.

We've passed several pieces of important legislation in the last several weeks.

That is good.

It remains just a start.

I know that everybody here is deeply deeply committed to this work for days, weeks, months, years to come, um, as long as it takes to make sure that everybody knows that they are truly welcome in the city.

Thanks, Ms.

Coleman.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, I will just once again extend my gratitude to uh the those who've worked so hard to make this happen to get us to this point.

Um and you know, the work is not done, and this is just part of this larger package that we are continuing to advance.

All right, so with that, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The ordinance is adopted.

Item number sixteen is ordinance 26-8, amending section 86.01A of the St.

Paul Administrative Code to authorize up to three assistants to the mayor to execute certain contracts made in the name of the city and authorized by the city and further amending 86.01A to increase the dollar value amount for contracts executed by designees.

This is before us for final adoption.

Uh look to Ms.

Bowie for a motion in to sub in approval to support.

All in any discussion of that motion.

All in favor say aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The ordinance is adopted.

Item number 17 is first reading of ordinance 26-9, adopting the geothermal energy franchise by the Heights Community Energy Inc.

And since this is a first reading, I believe we have a staff report.

A report.

Come on up.

And when you come up, please just start by saying your name, where you're coming from, and then uh fill us in.

Sure.

Thank you, Council President.

Um Steve Raghurst.

Um, as well as some light industrial and mixed use uh facilities.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Um the utility itself will be a networked uh geothermal uh system that will heat and cool uh the entire entire network using the Earth's thermal energy uh to do that instead of fossil fuels.

The the geothermal network itself is part of the larger vision for the site of sustainability.

Um it's not just an eco-friendly development, it's a work model working model of how the sustainable infrastructure really can drive and reduce cost in those systems.

Uh I mentioned this.

Um the fossil fuel-based technology is going to be replaced with that network geothermal system uh in that energy system.

Uh we're really looking to eliminate the carbon emissions related to energy transportation, solid waste and wastewater within that network.

Uh the utility itself, the Heights Community Energy, is a nonprofit 501c3 uh Minnesota Corporation organized to design, develop, construct, and operate the geothermal heating and cooling system.

Uh and the operations of it will be under the direction of District Energy St.

Paul with participation from the St.

Paul Port Authority, uh, who are was the owner uh and master developer of the Heights.

I touched on the customers, sorry, this is uh different order.

Um the 850 multifamily residential units on several light industrial buildings.

The uh technology that we're utilizing is uh groundwater-based technology using the Darcy solutions, uh which is already being uh commissioned with Excel Energy at a different site on the Heights um property.

Uh the system utilizes in ground heat exchanger to tap the different shell temperatures within the groundwater and utilizes that to generate a constant temperature to utilize it with heat pumps that are delivering energy to the customers through a closed loop system throw out and uh to closed loop piping system from the heat exchangers and the Darcy systems to the different customer buildings.

Oops.

Uh the project status, we've completed the distribution construction, which started in August of 24.

Uh we've installed approximately 12,000 feet of piping, supply and return piping on the site.

Uh that we're currently uh working with Darcy Solutions and engineers to finalize the design of the well systems and uh plan construction then to start this summer fall of 26 and being completed likely in 28 to reach the first customers in uh 2028.

Uh the franchise, like all other utilities in St.

Paul uh are non-exclusive franchise agreements, and this system will have an approximately 20-year geothermal uh energy franchise, which will be effective 30 days after the ordinance and extend to September 2024.

Uh the franchise rate is five percent.

Uh there are different rates for all different systems.

District energy St.

Paul is at 8%, uh energy parks at 6.8%, uh district cooling systems at 3.4%.

So there's a range and it depends on the alternative fuels and um the type of energy utilized for each system.

Uh the fees are approximately $5,000 a year, uh regulatory fees to the city to manage the rate um review each each year.

And we filed a schedule A for the first fiscal year for our system starts in October of 27 to extend through September of 28.

So the first schedule is already in place, and then for future um rate changes, we would file additional schedules.

Just one question on this slide.

It looks like the franchise terms go through September 30th, 2045.

Yes.

Is that the 20 years?

Is that the typical franchise term?

Yes.

Okay.

That uh we received that for energy park uh for this district energy St.

Paul 20-year franchises.

We a district heating system originally had a 30-year franchise, but all extensions are now 20 years or less.

Thank you.

Oh, that was the last one.

I was looking at the slides waiting for them to change.

Uh, thank you so much.

Usually there's a question slide at the end, and we've already asked all of our questions, so that was actually even better designed than what we normally see.

Uh, any questions for um our presenters?

Ms.

Yang.

Thank you, Council President.

I don't have any questions, but I want to say thank you all, um, including the incredible folks over at the port and also our city staff who helped um put this um agreement together.

It seemed like ages ago when we talked about first talked about the geothermal energy system here.

Um, and I really want to say thank you to the many community leaders who helped um really push for that vision, even when sometimes we ran into some barriers and we were wondering can we do this?

They continue to advocate for it.

And so um I I am really excited to see this all come together.

And uh yeah, I know it was a huge overhaul, you know, and so um I look forward to the forward to the public hearing next week.

And yeah, I look forward to the continued partnership too.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Yang.

Yes, and I want to commend uh you, Councilmember Yang, um, for your leadership on this work and the port authority as well.

I know that to get to the point where we um are authorizing a franchise for geothermal.

There was so much work that went into that, and I remember celebrating when we were able to get the um the funding for that and push for that to happen, and that's because of your leadership.

So it's very exciting to be at this point.

I also want to thank District Energy generally for all of the good work that you do.

Um, excited for expansions of potentially removing heat from wastewater to uh also help power downtown and other neighborhoods I know that we're working on together.

So thank you for for all of the work that you do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions?

Otherwise, I'll take a motion from Ms.

Yang to lay this matter over till February 25th for public hearing.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The ordinance is laid over to February 25th for second reading public hearing.

Item number 18 is ordinance 26-11.

Granting authority to the port authority to issue and sell bonds to the principal to uh amount of amount of approximately six million dollars in any bonds to refund such bonds to secure such bonds with a pledge of the full faith credit and resources of the city to use the proceeds derived from the sale of such bonds to pay for the cost and expense necessary be incurred by the port authority for a portion of the cost of the redevelopment of part of the St.

Joseph's hospital site.

Hopefully, it will only get clearer from here.

Uh welcome, Mr.

Solomon.

Apologies for the title.

Uh Council President Aker, Council members Mike Solomon.

I'm the chief financial officer for the St.

Paul Port Authority.

We've got a couple items on today's agenda, um, but the item before you now is the first reading of an ordinance authorizing the Port Authority to issue up to six million dollars in general obligation or geobonds for the St.

Joseph's hospital site.

Uh the Port Authority issues geobonds from patent of time to fund site acquisition and preparation, including demolition and environmental remediation.

Uh the approval today occurs uh via ordinance as the geo bonds are a pledge of the port authority's tax levy and the city's general obligation uh pledge.

Uh this is part of a larger financing plan that I'm gonna present in more detail and have slides for item 27, uh, but it authorizes the port to issue geo-tax increment bonds.

These are issued in the form of temporary debt for the first six years or until there is a development that generates tax increments to repay the debt.

Permanent financing will need to occur in year seven.

Uniquely in this situation, we don't plan to issue the bonds for another year or more.

And as part of our partnership, the owner of the site is going to pay the debt service on the bonds until the site is sold for redevelopment or for up to 10 years, whichever comes first.

We're really optimistic about our ability to have a redeveloped site in that roughly 12 year period, meaning there's very little risk of property tax use or even the geo credit enhancement being needed in the long term when compared to typical port geo bonds.

So I'll talk more about the site and the opportunity in item number 27, but happy to take any questions about the bonds and the ordinance at this time.

Thanks, Mr.

Solomon.

I will save my questions and comments for item 27.

But are there any questions or comments at this point?

Seeing none, thank you.

I'll make a motion to lay this matter over till February 25th for public hearing.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

Six in favor, none opposed.

The item is laid over to February 25th for second reading public hearing.

Item number 19 is ordinance 26 12, amending section 310.01 of the St.

Paul Legislative Code to create a new fee category and associated fee license fees for transportation network companies.

Welcome, Mr.

Nadalik.

Thank you, Council President and Council members.

Good afternoon.

Dan Najellick, Department of Safety Inspections.

Thanks for your consideration today for the first of two ordinance amendments in regards to transportation network companies.

So we'll have one today and another one will be probably in about three weeks.

So the first one today.

So once again, as we know, transportation network companies means a person or entity affiliated with TNC drivers that arranges transportation services via unique internet-based transportation application system, connecting TNC endorsed drivers with passengers for the transport of passengers for compensation.

Uber lift and the like, and we have many new players in the business.

The purpose of our ordinance amendments one is we've had a lot new players in the market, different size and sort of different user focus.

And two is we want to refine our enforcement in that.

So part one today deals with the new entities in the environment.

We have a lot more, as well as different user groups they're serving.

So before you today is the uh change in uh license fees.

Currently, a license fee is 41,000, 115.

Um, we are proposing going to a three-tier system.

Um, after speaking to yourselves at the policy work meeting, as well as talking to the administration, the focus was let's create a tier system, um, which makes a lot of sense from what we're looking at.

So, our tiered four um system that we're looking at is based on the number of drivers by the TNC.

Um, and that plays directly into our enforcement is how we basically are creating the TNC model for tier enforcement.

So, going to that, uh, the way we're gonna work it is the fact that we're gonna break it down into three tiers.

First tier is for those TMCs that have 300 or less drivers.

The second tier is from 300 to 1,000, and the third tier is greater than a thousand drivers.

Um the reason that makes sense is when we look at our enforcement, we're going to uh basically do compliance checks on a proportion of drivers and vehicles based on the number of drivers.

And so you can see proportionally we're increasing the number of drivers for criminal background checks we're gonna verify, as well as the fact we're gonna do more um vehicle inspections based on the number of drivers they have per TNC.

So, therefore, having a tiered system, which is basically 5,000 for the lowest tier, 11,000 for the middle, and 18,000 plays into our model, which must be cost recovery.

Uh, we are a cost recovery model.

Um, we will not do full cost recovery, even with what we're proposing here, uh, but we are doing substantial cost recovery based on what we are proposing for staffing, based on the expected work that's gonna happen and the fees that we are collecting.

So that is what's before you today is a three-tier licensed fee proposal.

Um, coming back to you in a couple weeks, we'll be dealing with the enforcement part in terms of the new compliance checks we want to do.

We want to make sure that one is the criminal background checks are actually being done well, and then two is also doing the vehicle checks from more of a random perspective where we actually request a ride.

In the past, we would um ask the TNCs for give us a list of your drivers and we'd pick randoms.

This way, we're actually gonna go on to the platform request a ride and make sure that person is actually on the platform, make sure it is who they say they are, and their vehicle is what it says it's supposed to be.

So, by doing that, we're gonna be doing random checks, and we need an ordinance change to allow us to do that.

Um, making sure one is that we're uh fully compensating the drivers.

Um, we are not inconveniencing the TNCs, and we're making for efficient and effective compliance, which we find this is gonna be better for a number of reasons.

Uh one of which is it's going to take the driver out of offline shorter because one of the things we could do right now is request that they actually take their car into a shop to be inspected by doing a random check.

It's shorter, and if we see the vehicles generally looking good and they have their annual check, we don't need to send them to a shop that could take an hour or two hours to get them through that.

So it's going to be better for the driver, uh, less impact we believe for TMCs, but giving us better information just to really once again what we really look to do is to verify the management of licensed businesses, not how they run, but make sure they're managing their business as well.

This is going to give us a better ability to do that.

So, with that, before you is the license fee changes in chapter 310.10.

And I would stand for questions.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mr.

Ninjalik.

Just one quick one.

Um, how do our three tiers and the associated fees align with surrounding jurisdictions?

Thank you, Council President.

Good question, and we makes me think of another question I need to get to that Councilmember Yang had asked about.

So thank you for that pause for me.

Um, one is um our top fee is gonna be greater than like City of Minneapolis, but our lower field is going to be lower.

So they went with a single tier, we're going with three tiers.

Um so theirs is you know more uniform, so it's gonna be sort of the middle of ours.

I think theirs is about 13.

So we'll have at 18 and a five.

So providing the tier, I think reflects the type of entities we're working with as well as where the work is going to and who owns the cost for that work.

Um, the one thing that Councilmember Yang asked me to speak to was the the fees.

Um, February is the annual renewal that we've had in the past, and so a lot of businesses, you know, 41,000 is not a small check.

Um, with the slower data migration that we anticipated for Pauli, we have not been able to send out renewal invoices.

So the TMCs have had not have not had to pay the February renewals, given the fact that this process has started.

Um, going through hearings and things like that, unless we see a bump in the next week or two, we will proceed with our renewals probably in a couple weeks, and they will reflect, provided you approve the new fees.

So at this point in time, those subsidies are not being expected to pay the 41,000 until we can actually send out renewal notices based on your timing and our timing.

The new fees could go in alignment with that.

Great.

Thank you.

Other questions?

Ms.

Yang.

Thank you, Council President.

Well, no questions from me.

I just want to say, Dan, thank you for your very wonderful and thorough presentation.

I know you already presented to us during the policy committee, but it was great to get a refresher and then to see the final numbers for the the tiered schedule that you have here for fees.

And I I just want to emphasize that like I I just really appreciate the work of DSI because this directly addresses concerns that we heard from many, many TNCs.

Um we got to hear one of them speak during our policy committee, and without changes, um, that you know, the sort of changes that we want to make here that some of those companies are gonna have to consider stopping their operations completely, which I know we don't want.

And so this is a very a very important step forward.

So I appreciate you and your work and the departments, and look forward to the public hearing.

That's great.

Council President, Councilmember Yang, thank you so much for the compliment.

But yeah, that's part we really enjoy is being able to work with the industry and with yourselves and the administration around the fact is how do we make sure we have a vibrant economy and understanding who's all a part of that.

So thank you for the comments.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

And again, thank you, Ms.

Yang for bringing this to policy committee and for really taking the ball and running with it to make sure we made those changes.

Your leadership is appreciated.

All right, I'll take a motion for Ms.

Yang to lay this matter over till February 25th for a public hearing.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The item is laid over to February 25th for second reading public hearing.

Item number 20 is second reading public hearing of ordinance 24-26.

Amending chapters 65 and 66 of the legislative code pertaining to drive-through sales and services and walk-up service windows.

Public hearing was continued from September 3rd, 2025.

Ms.

Jost.

Thank you.

So this item, as you heard, was laid over from last year.

And so what uh I'm gonna do today is move a version two, and we're gonna hold the public hearing today, and then we're gonna keep the public hearing open to next week.

So there's a lot of updates in this new version.

Um, this item on drive-throughs has been a very long time coming, and uh a lot of folks' perspectives have even evolved, you know, since the first introduction of this item in 2024.

And so we move forward with this version two that we think is more appropriate for 2026.

And it's it's notably different from that first iteration.

So this second version does not ban any type of drive-thru.

Um, it also doesn't require walk-up window service to be available.

Um, those were some notes that we took from uh folks in the in the business community.

And additionally, it um raises the bar significantly regarding the quality of life for people that are living around these drive-throughs.

Uh, it increases buffer zones around residential and high frequency transit.

It updates the stacking requirements, which are being increased to prevent blocking of traffic, um, and defining and accommodating walk-up window service for um these restaurants.

And so that really helps us, you know, with some of the some of the situations we've seen in our community where the drive-throughs have been really um problematic for stacking and and um kind of overflowing into traffic and creating safety issues and pedestrian safety issues, and so um that's the reason for for those updates.

And so I just want to express my appreciation of our community members and organizations who have been in touch with our office on this item, and Mr.

Dermady, who's been working on this item for uh over two years now.

And your input um uh from all those folks is directly informed by the ordinance that you see before us today.

So with that, I'd like to move version two.

Great.

Uh the motion on the table is for version two.

We'll take a vote on that motion and then we will hold the public hearing.

Uh, all in favor of version two being put onto the table, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

Six in favor, non opposed.

The amendment is approved.

All right, and this is the public hearing section of our agenda.

So when we call uh your items public hearing, we'll just ask anyone who's here to testify on that item to come right up, uh, line up on both sides of the podium.

When it's your turn, come and stand right in between the two microphones.

You don't need to adjust them at all or lean over towards them.

They should pick you up just fine.

Um, you have two minutes to testify, which do go by quickly, and my unfortunate job is to keep you to two minutes.

Um, there is a timer right in front of you, so please pay attention to that so that I don't have to cut you off.

Um, and there's always other ways to share testimony with us, whether via email by calling, um, by submitting written testimony today if it's in front of you, so there's other options if you run out of time.

We do ask that you start with your name and where you're coming from when you begin your testimony, and that you sign in on either of the two sign-in sheets when you are done.

Uh, so with that, this is a public hearing on uh item 20.

If you are here for this public hearing, please come on up.

Welcome.

Thank you.

All right, thanks, council members, for hearing me out on this.

Uh, first off, I think this ordinance is a good step in the right direction.

Sorry, would you just say your name and where you're coming from?

Yeah.

Steve Jurdigan, 698 Sherwood Avenue.

Thank you.

Um, this ordinance is good, but it doesn't do enough, and I don't think it should be passed the way it's currently worded.

I'm not a fan of revision two of this.

Uh I will go over what I think is good, the 300 foot limit for light rail.

That's great.

Um, but it's still not enough because you have places like in the midway, Taco Bell Hardy's, these are outside of that perimeter.

They would be allowed to be put there today if we're just looking at distance from the light rail line.

Uh, we should really be having TOD in this area, transit-oriented development, because that's the vision for this corridor.

Another critique I have with this process is the stacking car spaces idea.

This idea is like building your way out of congestion.

It just doesn't work.

You just wind up with more cars in the parking lot, and more demand will increase.

Um, and then as far as the litter, I live a couple miles from the Taco Bell at Rice and Larpender, and it's disgusting there.

There's trash everywhere.

And what happens is you have people who can't go into the lot because it's nighttime.

So they go with the drive-thru, they get their order, and then they just throw the trash outside because they they ate it out in the parking lot or they drove away and dumped it out the window.

So if you aren't going to ban drive-throughs, you should find some other way to deal with the litter problem for passing this ordinance.

Then one final but very critical point is uh the section 65.513i, the part about equal equal pedestrian access to driver access at all hours.

I think you need to add that back into the ordinance.

Without this provision, um, I'm assuming that uh yeah, they'd have no options in such an act, so not you know, a lot of that business is uh it's discriminating towards pedestrians, and um it's discourages any kind of good development in that area and discourages active transportation in St.

Paul.

Um I think we should require businesses not to discriminate against customers based on their transportation choices.

Uh many businesses close their lobbies as early as 6 p.m.

but keep their drive-throughs open 24-7, setting safety concerns.

Um, but they really aren't doing anything to improve the safety of the area by having these kind of businesses.

So let's try to encourage the right businesses to move into St.

Paul.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in.

Uh, is anyone else here to speak on this item?

Welcome up.

Oh, we do.

We have the voice activated projector.

Um just put it right down on that square and then give it a um yeah, the white square right next to you.

Yep, and then there we go.

Okay, and we just need to zoom in.

We'll get to that.

Okay, thank you, council.

My name is Meg Dore.

I serve as the board president of District Council 9, the West 7th Fort Road Federation.

West 7th is already heavily burdened by decades of car-centric city planning, and we're working to advance city goals for a dense walkable and transit-oriented neighborhood.

Our position from 2024 remains unchanged.

We need a moratorium with any new drive-thru businesses requiring a conditional use permit.

I want to touch on some of the economic arguments against a ban.

It's been said that this would intensify the perception that St.

Paul is unfriendly to business.

Most businesses that rely on drive-throughs and nearly all food service businesses are regional or global chains.

Very little of that money generated at these enterprises goes back into the local economy.

And here I think a comparison with Minneapolis, which banned new drive-throughs in 2019 would be helpful.

Most people acknowledge that Minneapolis has attracted far more new housing and business development in recent years.

And restaurant-specific news coverage helps backs this up.

This is the Star Tribune's periodic restaurant roundup.

It's a long list of all known openings and closings of any food service or brewery in the recent past and near future.

I went through this entire list and created this short tally.

Clearly, it doesn't seem like the drive-thru ban is stifling restaurant growth in Minneapolis.

And it doesn't seem like our current permissive approach is supporting development either.

Then there's the argument about the struggling tax base.

Analysis shared with us by Sustained St.

Paul.

Um suggests that these businesses with significant land dedicated to car storage are actually more of a drain on our tax base, yielding dramatically less taxable mark value market value per acre.

This is an example from my community.

Um comparing the McDonald's on Jefferson to Shamrocks.

Shamrocks has half the land base, over twice the taxable market value, and it supports walkable community scale destination compared to an expanse of asphalt and long lines of idling cars.

The moratorium is a moderate, is a moderate compromising position, we believe.

If we're going to announce loo developments whose business model entirely contradicts our city's pedestrian plan, the bicycle plan, the climate action resilience plan, the complete streets plan, and a minimum of six comp plan policies.

At the very least, they should have to apply for a conditional use permit.

Giving communities and city chance to chance to weigh in on new developments that could harm communities.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Make sure to sign in.

All right.

Uh is there anyone else here to speak on this item?

All right.

Seeing none, uh, we are going to keep the public hearing open till February 25th.

So I'll take a motion from Ms.

Jose to uh continue the public hearing till February 25th.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The public hearing continued to February 25th for final adoption.

Item number 21 is resolution public hearing 26-7, ratifying the assessment for repair of sanitary sewer line on private properties.

This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak on this item?

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

Coleman to close the public hearing and approve.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Item number 22 is resolution public hearing 26-39, authorizing the Department of Parks and Recreation to amend the financing and spending plan in the amount of 250,000 to enter into a grant agreement with the Minnesota Historical Society to accept commemorative statues, memorials, and historic preservation grant funds.

This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak on this item?

Ms.

Bowie.

I'm so sorry, but there was a another item that a constituent had.

Oh, okay.

Uh there was the path item.

I just wanted to just have something on the record because one of my um one of the public comments on there was requesting information for the um um um was it payment plans, but I'll just I'll wait towards the end, just have something on the record.

Oh, for the for 21.

There was someone here to give a staff report on it.

Yep.

And I think they just left.

Yeah, so okay.

Oh my I'm sorry.

I yeah, I think you had a note to call her up, but uh since there was no one here for the public hearing.

Do you want to have them come back and do a staff report or um no?

We'll just make sure we can connect with them after.

Sorry.

Okay, all right.

Um this is item 22.

This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak on this item?

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

Coleman to close the public hearing and uh Ms.

Yang to close the public hearing and approve.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Item number twenty-three is resolution public hearing twenty-six-40, amending the financing and spending plan of the Department of Parks and Recreation and the amount of two million five hundred thousand dollars to reflect funds awarded from the Department of Employment and Economic Development for a state bonding pass-through grant of two million five hundred thousand dollars for the Conway Recreation Center project and authorizing the city to enter into a grant agreement, which includes an indemnification clause.

This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak on this item?

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

All in favor say aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Item number 24 is resolution public hearing 26-44, approving the application of pro-life action ministries for a sound level variance in order to present amplified sound for the Good Friday Solemn Prayer Vigil on April 3rd, 2026 at 671 Vendalia Street on Charles Avenue between Pillsbury and Vendalia Street.

This is a public hearing.

Welcome up.

Hi, good evening.

My name is Brian Walker, Program Director of Pro Life Action Ministries.

I don't know, or not so much as my comment, but if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

And um, this is a picture of the sound system.

I know in previous years there was concerns about the size of it.

This as obviously you can see this on the end of a conference table.

It's a battery-powered um non-uh combusted uh powered generator.

Any questions?

I'll be happy to answer.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Um questions.

All right, thank you very much.

Is there anyone else here to testify on this item?

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

Coleman to close the public hearing and approve.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

Six in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Item number twenty-five is resolution public hearing twenty six-45.

Amending the financing and spending plans of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the amount of five hundred and fifty-one thousand two hundred and five dollars and ninety-seven cents to reflect additional two thousand twenty twenty-six funding expected from Como Friends.

This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak on this item?

See none.

We'll say thank you to the Coma Friends and take a motion from Vice President Kim 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 twenty-six is resolution public hearing twenty-six-46.

Amending the financing and spending plans in the fire department in the amount of six hundred and seventy-nine five hundred and forty-three thousand dollars.

Six hundred and seventy-nine thousand five hundred and forty-three dollars and sixty-three cents to accept the twenty twenty-four assistance to firefighter grant to provide firefighter physicals, paramedic training, art of smoke training, incident safety officer training, and sleep matter training.

This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak on this item?

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

Bowie to close the public hearing and approve.

All in favor say aye.

Okay.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Item number 27 is resolution public hearing 26-50.

Approving the establishment of the Fairview St.

Joe's tax increment financing district in the downtown St.

Paul Industrial Development District and adopting a tax increment financing plan thereof and a modification to the redevelopment plan for the downtown St.

Paul Industrial Development District.

It's a good thing you guys do economic development and not writing of resolution titles.

For this one, we do have a brief report first from uh Mr.

Solomon with the Port Authority, and then we'll hold the public hearing.

Welcome up.

Thank you, Council President Naker, Council members.

I will ask for assistance with the computer.

I do have slides this time.

I will try to move through quickly.

Assistance is on its way.

Perfect.

And one of them is an intro slide, so I'll just start if that's all right with you all.

Um so Mike Solomon, Chief Financial Officer for the St.

Paul Port Authority.

Um I'm here today to talk to you about the opportunity to prepare and position a portion of the former St.

Joseph's hospital site for redevelopment.

Our first slide is a little bit of our mission, and I know some most of you are familiar, but the Port Authority is an economic engine for St.

Paul and the entire state of Minnesota, and one of our main purposes is to redevelop underused land into thriving business centers to bring jobs and tax base to St.

Paul.

Oh, and I have animation.

Love it.

Thank you, Greg.

We have a great track record of doing just that.

So you can see the map in front of you.

We've built out business centers all across the city, redeveloping more than a thousand underutilized acres uh to make homes for 500 businesses, thousands of jobs, 40 million plus in annual tax revenue.

We're here today to talk about another opportunity to create jobs, tax base, and vibrancy right here in downtown St.

Paul at the former St.

Joe's hospital campus.

Uh 5.5 acres in downtown St.

Paul, highlighted here on the slide in front of you.

Uh a portion of this site has been vacant since 2020.

Uh, the other portion, the Fairview Wellness Hub is currently operating, providing crucial community health services to residents.

Um the Port Authority began working with Fairview, who currently owns the larger campus in 2020 to help find a buyer for vacant properties just steps away from the downtown's vibrant entertainment district.

But it was made clear that obsolete and vacant buildings on the site could not be reused and presented a barrier to redevelopment.

This past December, we entered into a unique partnership with Fairview to prepare the site for redevelopment, as we've discussed with each of you throughout the process.

This is going to include decoupling the existing wellness hub from vacant structures, demolishing the vacant obsolete buildings on the site, and doing environmental remediation to uh remove any soil contamination with the goal of any type of development being possible on this site.

The buildings slated for demolition are shown here in green, red, blue, and orange, and they're currently vacant.

The wellness hub and its associated parking in pink and yellow will remain fully operational, and the 276 space parking ramp in purple will remain on the site, be acquired by the port authority, and be an asset for future developers.

The site currently generates zero dollars in annual property taxes, and the work to prepare the site is going to unlock major development opportunities.

We've modeled a redevelopment with potential market value of estimated at 60 million dollars, generating a million and a half dollars in annual property taxes.

More than sufficient to recruit any recoup public investment in the site.

Some details on our project roles and responsibilities.

Fairview will retain ownership of the site during the project.

All contracts for managing the project work will run through them along with some of our compliance requirements.

Fairview will cover all the costs of the project up front and then be reimbursed for eligible portions of just the demolition and remediation on the site.

Fairview will cover all the costs related to decoupling their operating building from the vacant ones.

We're leveraging the Port Authority team's extensive knowledge of demolition and remediation by providing oversight and review of the design, demolition and remediation plans.

The Port Authority will acquire the site from Fairview when the project is complete for one dollar, and we'll work with the city to market the site for redevelopment.

The financing plan for this project is very similar to how we funded previous projects to prepare sites for redevelopment.

We're pursuing a tax increment financing or TIFF district here today, and temporary general obligation bonds for up to six million dollars in demolition and remediation costs at St.

Joe's.

Fairview uniquely is going to pay those temporary and any future bonds through 10 years after issuance or until sale of the property.

So that really reduces the amount of TIFF that's going to be needed to repay the debt.

Additionally, Fairview is paying site holding costs for a 10-year period, further reducing the amount of public resources necessary to support the redevelopment.

And once this is sold, you know, the land proceeds could repay the debt, allowing for early closure of a district.

And if not uh sufficient, then we'll use TIFF from vertical development to support the remaining debt, likely without a general obligation, really highlighting the uniqueness of the significant investment by Fairview here.

Um, doing the decoupling, taking on costs above six million dollars, 10 years of site holding costs and death service on the bonds.

It's a it's a big um investment by them.

I won't do the Jenny Wolf presentation, but a quick reminder on TIFF.

Um, you know, this is a tool that's authorized under state law.

Uh it allows us to capture increased local property taxes from a redevelopment that would not have occurred but for this public subsidy.

Um, the TIFF district is capturing the difference between the current taxes on the site, right now, zero dollars, and the future taxes that would be paid.

Again, our uh development scenario is a $60 million taxable value on this site.

Um, the TIFF is used to repay eligible costs.

Once those eligible costs are repaid, the TIFF district must be closed, returning that tax base uh to the city and other taxing jurisdictions.

So the TIFF district must be closed 25 years after certification.

Uh whether or not the obligations are repaid, we're really uh optimistic about the potential to close this one early.

And we have recent um example of doing that.

Um, our Westminster junction uh uh TIFF district.

Uh the port met its obligations here and was able to decertify that district five years early.

Uh the district was created, the site was home to 50 jobs, contributing 100 and 38,000 in annual property taxes.

Uh today there's more than 15 companies there, 900 jobs and more than 2.5 in annual property taxes.

We're hoping for a similar outcome on the St.

Joe's site.

So looking back at the site, we've got the proposed TIFF district on the slide in front of you.

Uh we've gone through the steps of completing the blight analysis, determining that the existing buildings are substandard and represent blight and a barrier to the redevelopment here.

Uh, but for the public investment, uh private redevelopment would not occur on this site, and our TIFF plan models um those future development scenarios, show those gaps and establish a not-to-exceed budget for these public resources.

Pretty high-level timeline uh at our December board meeting.

Uh, commissioners, including Council President Naker, Councilmember Yang approved this action, allowing us to move forward here to City Council today.

Uh, pending the approval of the TIFF district and adoption of the geobond ordinance for the site.

The project would commence this spring with the issuance of demolition permits.

Uh, we anticipate the project take about two years to complete uh with the port authority potentially acquiring the um site in the spring of 2028.

In the meantime, we're gonna be working to market the site for redevelopment as soon as 2027.

Um, and our agreement with Fairview has a partnership with Fairview staff as well as city planning and economic development staff uh to really see the uh marketing of this site meet all of our goals.

So happy to take any questions you might have at this time, and thank you for your support.

Thank you, Mr.

Solomon.

Are there questions for Mr.

Solomon?

Vice President Kim.

I don't have any questions, more just comments.

First of all, no one can repeat a Jenny Wolf TIFF presentation.

So I appreciate you even naming that.

That is a tall order.

I had an opportunity to tour the St.

Joe's Fairview Hospital a while ago, and it was so incredible around the like the types of services they offer the work that they do.

And so this expansion is going to be just an incredible opportunity for us to continue to serve more families with services.

And so I'm looking forward to supporting it.

And also just like naming for the folks, you know, the Kmart site is in the ports ownership right now.

And I'm really looking forward to like seeing this process makes me excited for the potential of what the Port Authority is going to do in my ward.

So looking forward to supporting this project.

Thanks for the presentation.

Thanks, Vice President.

Other questions or comments.

Ms.

Bowie.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you so much, Mike.

I just have a um, well, one, I just want to say I do appreciate the uh the Vance briefing on this.

I think under uh former PED director Newton, we had a chance to learn about this site and uh the Port Authority's attention to um acquire this site.

If you can just share, um, are there I know um um VPCM had shared, you know, the KMAR, but are there other existing um sites that the Port Authority currently owns and you know has this same um or similar model in terms of wanting to redevelop across the city of St.

Paul?

Uh yeah, thank you, Council President Naker, Councilmember Bowie.

Um the Port Authority's big projects right now are the Heights.

Um we're pretty much done with the infrastructure out there and looking to market those parcels for redevelopment.

The community energy uh franchise you just uh heard uh will be a big part of that.

Um we've got the Kmart project, um, and then this one.

Uh we're always on the lookout for uh potential opportunities, but the port is also kind of a developer of last resort.

And so um when we see those properties that are out there uh not taken on the private market won't take on for five plus years, those are the ones we're kind of looking at.

But um really always keeping an eye out for industrial opportunities again with our mission of jobs and tax base.

Thank you.

And then one last question too.

Um, is there already uh a plan, particularly our development plan around, you know, once this is acquired of um, you know, I've heard that this is supposed to be expansion, but I also heard that there's opportunities for you know, you put in your presentation to mix use.

Um is there any opportunities for retail?

Um, knowing that you know it is just blocks away from an entertainment district and people you know wanting to have more of a attraction.

I'm just wondering if that's included in this development process process as well.

Yep, thank you, Council President Acker, Councilmember Bowie.

Um, so the port's uh participation here is really to kind of uh uh put this forward as a greenfield redevelopment site.

And so we've modeled a redevelopment here for purposes of our TIFF plan that includes 170 units of residential as well as some uh commercial so that could be typical uh standard office or some new kind of office retail model.

Um however, with the really long timeline we have here to redevelop the site, we're gonna be looking for those more ambitious opportunities, especially um in partnership with Fairview and City PED to leverage the entertainment district, leverage the existing uh wellness hub on the site, and really tie into the dense downtown field that we're looking for here.

Thank you.

Thanks, Ms.

Bowie.

Any other questions before we hold the public hearing?

All right, thanks, Mr.

Solomon.

Thank you so much.

This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak on this item?

Oh right, seeing none, uh I will make a motion to close the public hearing um and then I will just make some brief comments.

So all in favor of closing the public hearing, say aye.

Aye, aye.

All opposed?

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

Uh, I just want to say a huge thank you to the port authority um for advancing this project.

I think it is clear that this is going to be a major uh opportunity, an exciting opportunity to add vibrancy in downtown.

Um, and it's and it's a good fair deal, which I think is most important that the Port Authority negotiated with Fairview with minor uh public cost, major public benefit.

The up to six million dollars public uh investment, which again could be could be significantly lower than that, um, yields sixty million dollars in taxable value and one and a half million dollars every single year uh in tax revenue to the city of St.

Paul, plus the opportunity to add that that housing, those jobs that Mr.

Solomon was talking about.

So um I'm we're really grateful to have a partner like the Port Authority with a track record of success like you do, and again to have had this uh this great deal for the city and for downtown negotiated by you.

So um I will move approval.

Any discussion of that motion.

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye, all opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Item number 28 is public hearing 26-4.

Public hearing on grievances about federal immigration operations.

This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak on this item?

If you are, come on up.

Welcome.

Hi, a lot less crowded today.

Uh my name is Peter Sentner, and I'm a Ward II resident and a member of the St.

Paul neighborhood organization, Neighbors Protecting Neighbors.

Uh I'm speaking today because I'm very concerned about the state of housing and income insecurity in my neighborhood and in our city.

I know from ongoing conversation with this council uh that many of you are sympathetic to this issue, and I appreciate your continued attention, uh, the work that's been done so far, and the opportunity to continue to speak to each of you directly as I've done the last two city council meetings.

So thank you for that.

Um however, I feel that the pain that our city's residents are feeling is growing more acute.

And St.

Paul, uh, under this city council and Mayor Hurst's leadership is still not providing sufficient information and tangible resources to meet those needs.

Uh last month, 1,365 families in the Twin Cities metro area had notices of eviction filed against them.

That's up 44% from the average baseline from previous years.

Recently, uh on the call that my organization had with uh some of you, not not all of you, but uh a few of you there.

Um you mentioned that there would be uh rental assistance and that funding would be provided.

Um, but uh after some investigation, uh looking at the website here, you can see that if you go to the emergency rental assistance page for the city of St.

Paul, the first three things that you're gonna see are number one, uh it was last updated December 8th, 2025.

That was 72 days ago.

Number two, the program applications are temporarily closed.

And the two links that are supposed to take you through through the guidelines and the program flyer just redirect you to the city's homepage.

Uh after seeing those things, I'm wondering why would you even continue reading or seek some sort of assistance?

So my ask from this council is to please follow up with my organization.

I've sent you an email.

Uh we want to know what the assistance will be.

Is it an increase year over year?

And how will it be provided and distributed so we can make sure that people get the help they need?

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And make sure to sign in.

Is there anyone else here to speak on this item?

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

Jose to close to continue the public hearing till February 25th.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

Six in favor, none opposed.

The public hearing is continued to February 25th.

And I'm sorry, I forgot to ask if there's any discussion of the motion, but if there's any comments, Vice President Kim.

Yeah, um, I really appreciate you lifting this concern up.

We are at the highest trends of evictions right now.

Um, like historically in the last like snapshot of the last seven years, even during the pandemic.

We know why, because we had executive action that helps support our neighbors.

But the the need for um rental assistance and and assistance across the board is astronomical right now for our families.

There was an estimated pre pre-January um across the state, it was seven percent of renters was at least one month behind across the state, and that equated to like millions and millions and millions of dollars.

And now there are families that are multiple months behind because they're too, they've been too afraid to leave their home.

And it's not just rental assistance.

I also want to lift up there's um uh I don't want to name them, but there was uh a nonprofit that focuses on law assistance, and they have spent two million dollars of legal assistance for families to obtain representation because there are just aren't like nonprofit lawyers are overwhelmed, and um private lawyers are now like we just we can't create new lawyers in this moment, but it's just to name that this need is across the board.

So I really appreciate you coming.

Um housing um is obviously really really important for us to even allow our neighbors to shelter in place, which is something that's still incredibly important, even though they said metro surge is over.

We know from being out in our neighborhoods that it's it's not even remotely close to being over.

So I appreciate you coming and testifying and um looking forward to the the conversation with my colleagues.

The last thought is last week I provided um a very brief update from our chair Johnson, um, where she is looking to move additional money into our rental assistance program.

So we will make sure that that um we follow up on that, but that is the intention of the HRA um chair to ensure that there are more assistance dollars going out the door.

And I think that's even an option opportunity for us as a council as we look into what the the 20s the 27 budget could look like as well.

So thank you so much for your testimony.

I I really appreciate it.

Yeah, thank you.

We just love some more details on that, and yeah, returns just need to be updated, so people know that that's not great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll absolutely do that.

Uh any other discussion.

Ms.

Just.

Yeah, I was just gonna say thanks, Council Vice President Kim, for bringing bringing up the um update from from Chair Johnson.

Cheers to the HRA.

She will be here next week, I believe.

Oh, that's why I've heard great.

I should so I believe she'll be she'll be we have some um presentations through at the HRE and I believe she um was gonna also be here for the council meeting potentially that day.

Um and so looking forward to to the work ahead on that.

And I think we also have some upcoming um I believe we have upcoming presentations about it too at the HRE.

Great.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Just um any further discussion.

All right, thank you.

That brings us to uh and thank you.

Thank you for coming out.

Thank you for continuing to come out and thank you for your work um with the uh with the organization as well.

I know we've had numerous conversations and we're gonna continue to um that brings us to the legislative hearing section of our agenda.

Welcome up, Ms.

Mormons.

Legislative hearing consent agenda items 29 through 49 are before you for your consideration.

Is there anything to be taken for separate consideration?

Council President, I'm not aware of anyone here to testify on the hearing item.

Okay, so this we'll hold a public hearing on all of the items.

29 through 49.

If you're here for any of these legislative hearing items, this is your public hearing.

Come on up.

Not seeing anyone, I'll take a motion from Ms.

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

All in favor say aye.

Aye, aye.

All opposed.

Six in favor, none opposed.

The legislative hearing consent agenda is adopted as amended.

That brings us to the end of our agenda and the opportunity for some news from the wards.

Any news, Ms.

Yang.

Thank you.

The Phaelin Freeze Fest is happening this Saturday.

That's February 21st from 1 p.m.

to 4 p.m.

It's at the Phaeylan Lakeside Activities Center.

Depending on the weather, the annual festival will go on in May have one or all or a combination of the following.

Ice fishing, fire building, arts and crafts, orienteering, some wars and beverages, snowshoeing, nature activities, boot hockey, and outdoor games.

You can find more information about this at the St.

Paul Parks and Rack website.

Sounds great.

Thanks, Ms.

Yang.

Ms.

Coleman.

Um as everybody knows, after one of today's public hearings, Ward 4 is very proud to be the home to Planned Parenthood.

We are very fortunate that they are serving our community, providing essential medical services to people in St.

Paul and really throughout the region.

It's not in Ward 4, it's technically at first Avenue, which is in a different city.

But we are nonetheless very excited to be celebrating them and supporting them in their essential work that they are doing for our community here in St.

Paul.

Thanks, Ms.

Coleman.

Um I will share that actually just in a very little bit.

Um Mancini's uh neighborhood anchor institution is hosting a community dinner to support those in need.

Um all are welcome to join the Mancini family.

There will be an Italian buffet and music, um, and all donations which are accepted on a pay what you can basis are gonna go to the community sharing fund and the rapid response fund uh at the St.

Paul Minnesota Foundation.

So opportunity to come out to a wonderful local restaurant, see your neighbors, and support our neighbors in need from 6 to 8 p.m.

tonight.

Any other news?

Ms.

Bowie.

Yes, thank you.

So city related news.

Um, our uh St.

Paul uh fire department is ha hosting their local 21 annual installation party.

There's gonna be a happy hour in a program there at the A-Side Public House.

I believe that's ward three.

Or two.

Um so that's gonna take place between 5:30 to 8:30, and then uh tomorrow as well, between 7 to 8:30 at Harding High School is the St.

Paul Police Um Department's uh Academy, graduation academy.

Um, so they'll be uh graduating their next set of um officers.

So um I'm trying to figure out how to be at two places at once.

But um, but for those who are interested in um just welcoming in celebrating our fire departments, our firefighters, or uh welcoming our new um police officers.

That's an opportunity for them.

Great.

Thanks, Ms.

Bowie.

When you figure out how to be in two places at once, let us all know.

All right.

Uh if there's no other news from the wards, thanks everyone for a great meeting.

We are journal.