St.

Paul City Council to order.

Roll call, please.

Johnson, Joast.

Kim.

Here.

Yang.

Here.

Bowie.

Coleman.

Here.

Council President Naker.

Here.

Five present, two absent, those being council members, Bowie and Johnson, and they are expected shortly.

Thank you to everyone for joining us for our city council meeting today.

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

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

Which fans, one nation under God, indivisible liberty and justice for all.

Is there anything to be taken for separate consideration?

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

All in favor say aye.

Hi.

All opposed?

Five in favor, none opposed.

The consent agenda is adopted.

Item number sixteen is resolution twenty-six-four sixty-one.

Recognizing Eid Alfatier and all Saint Paul residents who are celebrating the holiday.

Ms.

Kim.

Thank you.

Um, I'm very briefly going to read this into the record.

Um, and I just want to thank my LA Abdi Hamid for writing this for us.

Whereas the Muslim community of St.

Paul contributes to the civic and cultural fabric of our community, enriching our community through their entrepreneur entrepreneurship and service.

Whereas Ramadan is a time of heightened devotion and self-discipline in which Muslims abstain from food and drink from dawn until sunset, cultivate gratitude, deepen their connection to faith and family, and renew their commitment to service and generosity.

And whereas Eidal Fatur is one of the two most sacred celebrations in Islam, marking the end of Ramadan, the holy month of fasting, prayer, reflection, and community.

Whereas in 2026, Adel Fatur is observed on Friday, March 20th, by Muslims around the world and throughout the city of St.

Paul, gathering to give thanks, celebrate with our family, perform acts of charity known as Sakat Al-Fatur, and attend communal prayers.

Whereas the city of St.

Paul is committed to celebrating the diversity of its residents, affirming the dignity of all faiths and cultures, and fostering a city where every resident feels welcomed and valued.

And now therefore be it resolved.

So I just um I think my comments will be brief, but just to name, I think it's an incredibly difficult time to be um of many different faiths, but in particular for our Muslim community here in St.

Paul and across the country, the vitriol that's coming from our national narrative around the folks in our community that are loving and devoted, um, is incredibly dangerous.

And so I just expand extend my own heartfelt thanks to them and not just for the contributions, but for the way that they love St.

Paul as much as we love St.

Paul.

I often have to question why we choose to create like boogeyman and boogie people out of folks of faith.

And I believe in my bones that there are so many religions and particularly Islam that bumps up against a lot of the things that we fight here every day colonialism, white supremacy.

And so as we start to think about how we celebrate this year, I just ask myself and our folks that do not practice Islam to think about why it is necessary for the federal government and our president to have a boogeyman and why they choose folks of incredible faith and devotion.

So thank you to my um Ellie Abdi Hamid for this beautiful resolution, and I look forward to support on it.

Thank you so much, Ms.

Kim.

I really uh I support and really appreciate the spirit that is motivating this resolution and um completely share your sentiments.

Um I was honored to be able to attend an IFTAR that was organized by the Somali Community Action Coalition, and one of the things that one of the imams there talked about was how Ramadan is a time to remember that we are all connected and to do that reflection internally, but also to remember how we all need each other.

And I really appreciate all of the many um different Muslim groups that um really take advantage of the opportunity that Ramadan offers and the Iftar in particular to to extend themselves outwards and bring people in to build that understanding and that connection.

It's beautiful and it um it really strengthens our community.

So thank you.

Any other comments?

Ms.

Johnson.

Thank you.

I just want to say uh appreciative to Councilmember Kim's office for bringing forward this resolution.

Um I see it as a continuation to our council action in 2024.

We did honor Ramadan officially under under the record for the same reasons, you know, as a council member with three different mosques and my ward, and also just you know, I'm glad that uh council president was able to go over to Ward Seven's uh Islamic Center, and it was really great to see you at the Mastiq.

And I think in many ways, you know, we should have we should continue to normalize the efforts to celebrate and to honor uh you know religious holidays, but also religious periods of time and which people are practicing in our community because they're so important.

And so just want to say thank you for bringing that forward.

It was really great to see that come uh onto the agenda.

And I think that we should take a moment and pause on honoring it.

So I do appreciate that.

And uh for so many of my residents that are are um that are honoring Ramadan during this period.

I just think that it's important for them to continue to see themselves and the work that we do.

So thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Johnson.

Any other comments?

Seeing none, there's a motion on the table for approval from Ms.

Kim.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Seven in favor, non-opposed, the resolution is adopted.

Item number 17 is final adoption of ordinance 26-16 granting the application of XL Energy to rezone property at 325 Commercial Street from H1 residential to I-1 Light Industrial and amending chapter 60 of the legislative code pertaining to the zoning map.

Uh so for those of you who are uh tuning in for the first time or aren't super familiar with how we adopt ordinances in the city, all of our ordinances have three readings, um, and we sort of take them backward on our agenda.

So the first reading is usually accompanied by a staff report where we find out more about what's being proposed.

The next week at the second reading, we have a public hearing where we take testimony from the public on the proposal, and then the final week uh we we take a final vote and either adopt or don't adopt the ordinance.

Sometimes we need a couple more weeks than that if we have amendments, but that's the general process.

So the items that are before us for final adoption are um items that have been heard at least twice before.

Um, and then you'll also see items in front of us today for public hearing and for first reading.

So this item 17 is before us for final adoption.

Um, I'll take a motion for approval from Ms.

Johnson, look to my colleagues to see if there's any discussion of the motion.

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Seven in favor, non-opposed, the ordinance is adopted.

Item number 18 is final adoption of ordinance 26-18, amending section 193.04 of the legislative code to temporarily extend the pre-eviction notice period in section 193.04 from 30 days to 60 days.

Okay.

Um, so this we have an core graph.

So this item is uh also before us for final adoption.

Um, after last week's public hearing, and after having some time to speak specifically to folks from the St.

Paul Public Housing Agency, um, I am uh going to introduce an amendment that exempts the public housing agency and section 8 and 42 properties um from this ordinance.

Um I I'm doing this because I don't think they stand to benefit from the protections we're offering here, and also um they could be harmed by this ordinance.

The the goal of this ordinance, which I strongly support, is to give neighbors in our community more time to go back to work or to access the emergency rent assistance that's being provided by numerous different entities, including ourselves.

But in the case of the public housing agency, those properties, those rents are already adjusted downwards.

So if folks haven't been able to work their rent and have no income, then their rent is adjusted down to zero.

So they are protected in a way that other tenants and other properties are not already.

However, what we have heard from the public housing agency is that they do stand to be harmed by this because if we extend the pre-eviction notice to 60 days, then they will have a longer period of time and more unpaid rent that they're carrying on their balance sheets because folks will have more time to pay rent.

And apparently the federal government considers how much unpaid rent you have as a factor in deciding whether or not you're eligible for certain federal funding.

And so when the public housing agency went voluntarily from 14 days to 30 days pre-eviction notice, they were dinged by the federal government for that, and they're concerned about going from 30 to 60, having additional funding be withheld.

So I know we all support our public housing agency.

I don't want to do anything that would harm them or hurt their ability to house tenants.

And again, their tenants uniquely have this adjusted rents that other tenants don't.

So I think their request makes sense.

I did invite them here to see if there are questions.

And I think Ms.

Serrano is available.

So do folks have questions for the public housing agency?

Because we can invite Mr.

Anno up if they do.

Looks like people do either for me or for her.

Okay.

Mr.

Rano, come on up.

And then Council President.

Ms.

Kim, do you want to go over it?

Just really quick to clarify the language.

If that's okay.

Sure.

Yeah.

Just for the sake of clarity, it is in legislatar, it's adding a section E.

It says exception, the temporary increased notice period identified in section 93.04D does not apply to apply to residential units that are owned or managed by the public housing agency of St.

Paul.

Yeah, and to be thank you, Ms.

Kim, to be very clear, the temporary uh exempt the temporary period of 60 days does not apply, but the 30 days in the tenant protections ordinance will apply.

So it's just the 60 days that does not other questions about the language.

Sorry, before Ms.

Serrano testifies.

Okay.

Welcome.

Do you want to just um tell us your name and uh maybe your position and anything you'd like to say before we have questions?

Yes, thank you, Council President, members of the council.

My name's Karina Serrano.

I am the housing choice programs director with the St.

Paul Public Housing Agency.

Um, and I'm here today to answer any questions you have.

Um just some point of clarification.

The St.

Paul Public Housing Agency are publicly owned housing.

We already have a 30-day um pre-eviction notice for non-payment of rent.

So that is not new to us.

That's something we already do.

Um, and as President Necker mentioned, um when we implemented that, our um tenant accounts receivables almost quadrupled.

It went from, and we did that in 2021.

So the balance is changed from roughly 90,000 a month to almost 400,000 a month.

So we extend that to 60 days.

You can imagine that we would see an increase on that, and that impacts our capital fund from HUD.

Capital fund helps us maintain our properties.

We already don't get enough funding as it is to do what everything that needs to do.

We have we are the largest landlord in the city of St.

Paul.

We have over 4200 units that we maintain, and our maintenance crew is the best in the city, I would say, but you know, when you're not getting fully funded, there's only so many things you can do.

And so any um reduction in that funding is harmful to ultimately to our residents.

Um, so that's why we asked for the exemption.

Um we are also the nature of our funding, um, both in our publicly owned housing and in our section eight housing.

The nature of the funding source is allows us to change rents as families household situations change.

We have not noticed an uptick in those um requests.

It's just been the standard requests as we've had over as we do with the program.

Anytime a household has experienced any change in income, they notify us, we verify it, we process the change, and they pay roughly 30% of their income towards the rent.

And that's how that's the nature of the program.

Thanks very much.

I see a question from Ms.

Johnson, and I saw Ms.

Joseph and Ms.

Coleman.

Thank you, uh Council President, and I appreciate the discussion.

I honestly appreciated receiving, you know, just uh communication to our office as well.

And your uh the the housing author agencies like public uh, you know, and uh effort to respond to the questions that we had at times.

So it does leave me with just two questions.

Um, you know, one of the things that I really struggle with this amendment is in part because you are the largest land landlord in the city.

It seems a little counterintuitive and counterproductive to have tenant protections in place that apply to everyone else in the city except for our largest landlord and our largest current occupying you know place that renters interact with.

And so I did ask you know staff a little bit about uh the evictions, and I learned a lot and I appreciate about the um the fiscal year and just how it operates.

Um and I and I have a specific question just about the non-payment of rent still that warranted some of the evictions.

So in 2024, there was 271 eviction filings for non-payment of rent in that fiscal year, resulting in 48 evictions and an execution rate of about 18%.

In the fiscal year 2025, there were 393 filings for non-payment, resulting in 66 evictions for an execution of about 17%.

So, you know, the execution rate went down a percentage point, but the number of filings and the number of actual evictions resulting due to non-payment of rent increased, um, which leads us to the fiscal year currently, which there's 191 filings resulting in 43 evictions to date and an eviction rate of about 23 percent.

And so I'm I'm wondering in that scenario where we're talking about, which is if a resident is unable to pay their rent becomes zero, how we're still having evictions due to non-payment of rent.

And I just kind of wanted you to elaborate a little bit more on what you're seeing in that regard, because I think that's really helpful context to have because if we're making the argument that you need to be exempted as an agency because um you're able to work with tenants and maybe avoid evictions in the way around non-payment, but the non-payment evictions are still happening.

I'm wondering what is the cause.

What's what are you seeing?

Yeah, that's a great question, Councilman Marie Johnson.

Um, and I'll just start with the caveat that um that is not my program, so I'm gonna give you the best knowledge that I have with me at the moment.

Um so the increase in the number that you saw, we were coming out of the moratorium, uh eviction moratorium previously from the pandemic.

So we had a huge backlog.

Um, and so we are working, we were working through that as well, trying to settle as much as we can as you can imagine.

Staff were overwhelmed with trying to catch up with things as well, um, and trying to settle and make payment agreements as we can and keep up with those.

Um, and the courts were overwhelmed as well.

Um, so that is part of that increase from year over year.

Um, and then for the fact that some folks are still being evicted for non-payment rent, um, some folks are just still not paying their portion even after they've reported their um their change.

So sometimes their rent is $75 based on their income, and they're not paying it.

Um, we have supportive services and we have resident services tied um available to all our residents.

Um, and we try to address that.

We work directly with SMERLs a lot to try to set up settlement agreements before we have to go to eviction for non-payment.

Um, but ultimately a lot of times we don't know why folks aren't paying their portion if it's if that's the income that they have.

And as a follow-up to that, um, if I may, council president, thank you.

During the eviction moratorium, and I think it's really important for all of us to also understand just there seems to be concerns around the funding.

And I'm just wondering during the eviction moratorium at a time where evictions were essentially halted at the state level, and just overall um was there threats to your funding at that time?

There was what was the and I guess just as could you help me understand a little bit more about what that actually translated to, how the funding, like what were the impacts of the eviction moratorium, because we had a moment in time where evictions were halted statewide.

Great question, Councilmember Johnson, uh, members of the council.

Um so HUD also had a moratorium in place, so not immediately, but as um as I mentioned earlier, our tenant accounts receivables increased.

And so that is a performance measure standard for us.

And so when we have to report annually to HUD, this is um this is our performance standard.

Um, and we were carrying a large balance, they said, you know what, you're not eligible for that capital fund this time.

And that's detrimental.

That those are capital projects that are put on hold.

Those are HVAC systems that aren't getting upgraded.

Those are foundations that are not being fixed, those are um plumbing um stacks that aren't being addressed.

Those are plumbing stacks that aren't being addressed.

I mean, these are properties that were developed in the 60s, 70s, 80s that need significant work.

And it's not just our multifamily high-rises.

We have over 400 scattered sites, which takes a lot of work too.

Those are single family homes, those are twin um town homes and duplexes, which are a great asset, I think, to our community.

And I think that's a one of the best caveat best part of our public housing portfolio is that we have these scattered site units across the city.

That someone has a five-bedroom single family home with a yard and a great um like staircase and whatever, like nice home.

You're not in a high rise, but it takes a lot to maintain a five-bedroom home.

And we're not getting the full op of capital fund from HUD, and then for the HUD to dean you because you're carrying a balance larger than they want you to.

You know, it's it's a non-stop uh balancing act of trying to house as many people as we can, but also um maintain our standards so that we're not inadvertently hurting the families we are also housing.

Thank you.

I I will I'll I'll have some comments, but I'll yield to my colleagues as well.

Thank you, Ms.

Johnson.

I appreciate both of both of those questions.

I think we had Ms.

Jost, Ms.

Coleman, and then I saw Miss Kim, and then Ms.

Vice President Yang.

Oh thank you, Council President.

Um thank you so much for being here.

Um I have a question for you about the you mentioned the capital fund, and that's what um there's a federal funding formula for that that's based on the the balances that are carried for non-payments.

Could you um talk about that fund?

How much do you typically get from that fund?

And do you have an estimate for how much that fund might be impacted with um uh if the PHA were subject to this change from 30 to 60 days?

Thank you, uh Councilman's Rose.

Unfortunately, I don't have that number.

Um, if you asked me about the sectioning program, I could give that to you.

It's not my program, I don't have it off the top of my head, but I could follow up and give you those figures, definitely.

Thank you.

And I I want to um I want to apologize on your behalf.

I think you were given maybe two hours' notice before this meeting and was able to adjust your schedule to be here.

So uh I I heard folks say, could we please have someone here from the PHA?

And I reached out and um you were available, so thank you for being here, and I apologize to my colleagues that um it was a last minute request and that you were able to accommodate.

Um I thought that director SIBA, when she had briefed us and in the email had mentioned something along the lines of 100,000 dollars.

That's a figure that's sticking in my mind for some reason, but we could get that, yeah.

That was my understanding.

I just was asking so that everyone, if they didn't know that information, wouldn't also know that too.

Thanks, Ms.

Jones.

Yeah, appreciate it.

Ms.

Coleman.

Thank you, Council President, and I will echo the thanks.

Thank you so much for being here.

I think it's really helpful to just get all these questions answered as we make this decision about this amendment.

Um I I think the questions that I have relate to whether or not if we were to add this exemption, we would still be able to achieve our goal of keeping people housed who have experienced short or medium-term economic crisis as a result of operation metro surge.

And I think you know, the reason that we are having this conversation is because PHA has systems in place to attempt to solve for that.

But I do I have some similar questions to I think uh councilmember Johnson's about why are we still seeing evictions for non-payment and understanding that things are going to happen.

Um, very much understand that, but I think it would be helpful to know a little bit more about the process.

And if you're not the right person to answer these questions, then we can definitely do them via follow-up.

But um, sort of my questions are around what it looks like when somebody comes to you and says I was not able to work for the last month.

If 75 is if they had zero income, would they be asked to pay 75?

If they, you know, if that was not an amount that was feasible and they were in communication and working with um your staff, would they be able to find a path forward that didn't involve incurring additional debt?

Um, yeah, I guess maybe I'll start there.

Yeah, councilmember McColman, that's a great question.

Um, members of the council.

So for example, today is March 18th.

If someone came and told us, you know what, I lost my job today, your rent will be changed for April 1st.

Um so April 1st would be based on whatever income is in your household, um, what we would anticipate on April 1st, if that's zero, that would be zero.

Um, I believe the multifamily program does have a minimum rent requirement of $50, but then there's also hardship that can be requested, which would be could be waived.

Can I ask Paul, please?

There's no there's minimal paperwork requirements, you know, it's something that should hopefully be very an accessible level of protection for folks.

Can you talk a little bit about you said that there would have to be verification that people had lost their job or hadn't been able to work for a certain period?

Can you talk about how onerous that might be?

Um, and sort of if you all have found that that reporting or documentation has been a barrier to people being able to access the hardship benefit or the reduced rent levels.

Yep, great question, councilwoman.

Um Coleman.

So the reporting is really what is the starting point.

So if you just report that to us, it's like, okay, we just need the verification.

If you want to, if your job laid you off, they give you the letter, um, or it we can send a verification to your employer, we have a third-party verif, and then we wait for it to get back to us, and then we'll change your rent.

But it's the reporting that is where we determine the date.

And so it's like, okay, started today, I quit my job, or I lost my job.

Um, okay, we've had that documented, it was March 18th.

Now let's get the documentation in line so that we have all our ducks in a row.

And this is a federal requirement.

We have to verify the information.

Um, that is not to just that's not just a unique PHA, a St.

Paul PHA role, that is a requirement by the federal government.

One part of you mentioned um, you know, if somebody has uh been fired versus quit, and you know, since I what we've been seeing over the last few months is people who weren't fired who very much still had a job available to them but didn't feel comfortable leaving their home.

Would that create any additional hurdles for people?

Uh council member Coleman, that's a great question.

So we have folks that have reduced hours or don't work for whatever reason.

We don't ask the reason why you're not working, we don't ask why you quit or what we just need the verification of the hours reduced or the non-work days, um, whatever it may be to show that that number has reduced for our auditing purposes, um, and then we'll adjust it according to what that shows.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have a follow-up question for that too, but Miss Kim, and then Ms.

Well, just super quickly.

I appreciate the line of question because I do think that was those were some questions that I had as well for Director Siba about just how how easy is it for folks to do this.

Um, is it it sounded like reporting on income is something that is sort of a standard part of the process if you are a tenant in a public housing agency home.

Is that right?

I mean, I guess I'm wondering how much is this sort of natural baked in folks know how to do this versus is this something that's unusual, difficult to do when President Necker, that's a great question.

It is the standard practice, it happens when you start the program, it happens annually.

Anytime you have a change, anytime you move units, you are required to uh report your income.

You're required to report your assets.

You're required um to report changes in your household.

Do you have a new baby?

Someone moves out.

Um, it's all information that we have to verify.

Um, if you are on a fixed income, that is more easily verified because we have access to federal systems that allow us to draw down that information.

Um, if you are on um in VIP, we can also access that information through Ramsey County directly, so that's easy for us to get.

It's more the employer information that sometimes is a little bit more difficult if they don't have their pay stubs ready.

Um, we do have some access to a service called the work number.

It is very, very costly though, so we usually try to only use that as a last ditch effort.

So if we can get pay steps, that would be easier, but um the work number is a very costly thing to utilize.

Okay, thank you.

So I'm as Kim is Yang and then Ms.

Johnson.

Thank you.

Um, this is great.

Also, hi.

Thank you for being here.

Um, yeah, I'm I'm interested in a follow-up on the total amount of outstanding that is like that you're holding on the ledger right now.

And I'm I'm really interested because there's so much mutual aid.

So while I understand that, like, you know, you don't want to be carrying balances, but families is your families are accessing mutual aid.

Like there are scenarios in my mind where I'm hearing you speak where someone is 150 dollars in rent for three months, that's it, right?

Um so I'm wondering about families accessing mutual aid and you not carrying a balance and the family still being able to maintain, like let's say they they've lost their job and they're utilizing mutual aid.

Um I'm really interested in how many families are if you can share, are current on their balances but still are showing like income loss.

Um, like how many families have reported that they aren't able to work and yet the balance remains to date.

Um but I think that this is kind of getting at like for me that there is so much opportunity for families to avoid falling behind, especially given how low some of these rents are and their ability to access mutual aid while still being able to work.

Um and it just makes me kind of not question the validity of the stance, but the validity of the current reality for the PHA.

So I would be really interested in what is the outstanding balance that remains on the ledger, and then what is sort of like the metric or score and what's sort of the corresponding amount that would cause a ding for you and the risk to receive additional funding.

I heard it's additional funding for capital projects, which I get you want to have like you have great units for your residents, but what is the ding and how does it correspond to your ability to continue to provide like how like subs subsidized housing?

So what does that metric look like?

Because in my conversation, it was there are multiple measurements of this risk, and so I'm really interested in like kind of digging into that point.

If this one metric is the thing that changes your ability to access funding for the PHA, what is the measuring stick within that like risk level compared to the balance that you have, both to date and what would it take for you to get that ding?

Councilmember Kim, then we just try to reiterate your questions.

So you want to know what we're carrying today on our balance, yeah, and then what it would take us to get ding.

Um so I don't know offhand what it would take us to get ding business a percentage, um, and it changes year over year.

So I'd have to figure out what the current fiscal federal year um level is.

Um, but if you want to give me a couple minutes, I could look up what it's on our ledger right now.

Um we get that um from our finance team every month of what we're carrying um of outstanding balances.

Um and then was there one more?

The question was, and it wasn't it was it was being decided or not decided, it was being thought through as I was asking it, but surely there are scenarios where families have lost both incomes, let's say are one, and they're not able to pay the rent, but they are current.

To me, that's like an illustration of our mutual aid.

And so I'm also really interested in um, you know, what does that look like for then for you, the PHA, if the family is still claiming that they have income loss and yet they're they're able to maintain rent, their ability to that doesn't change their ability to maintain like the at job loss level of rent payment, is that correct?

Like they'd have to like bring in certification saying I got a job and not just their ability to pay it.

So council member Kim, so if they've lost their job and then they had an income change, they would have to send that verification in, and then we would change their income to their portion to reflect whatever their income would be projected.

Yeah, but if they don't and they're still current, there's no question about how they're receiving money to stay current on their rent.

Correct.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Um, yeah, and if are folks willing to have her look up that number so we can get the percent, I'd really appreciate it.

We could play prices right because the young cause from our own talking.

Thank you, Karina.

I know you're like on the spot about it, but it's it is the question of the day for some of us.

No, I understand.

And and just just while you're doing that, perhaps maybe I can check my own understanding because when you mentioned the to what I understood the PHA to be saying was that whenever the amount of time available to pay rent increases.

So when you went from 14 days to 30 days, and now potentially going from 30 days to 60 days, your unpaid rent amounts increased, not necessarily from folks who had had income changes, but from folks who had rent due, whatever the amount was, but now had just more time to pay.

And there's nothing wrong with that per se.

They're they're taking the time that they now have to pay, but then you have more unpaid rent accruing on your balance sheet that you get evaluated for by the federal government.

So the people not the unpaid rent amounts are not necessarily from folks who have lost a job or lost income.

They might be from people who were paying last month but now have more time to pay and just wait a little bit longer, so for a longer period of time, you carry more of that unpaid rent.

Am I saying that right?

Councilmember Nicker, that it that it is an possibility.

Um, and that we did see that anecdote happen.

I couldn't tell you how many of those families, but what we did see is just there is an increase um over time.

People knew they had more time or knew that they um like during the eviction moratorium that they wouldn't be evicted, so they just stopped paying or really delayed their payments.

Did you did you find the I believe I did?

Oh, you did okay.

And I believe this is as of February.

I love the ability to just pull up a ledger.

I know, right?

Okay.

We did ask the right person.

Sorry, they give us a lot of data points.

I'm just trying to get the summary.

So for February, um we had 360,000 on the books.

Okay.

And so in the email that was sent, it talked about how that change went from in 2021, that change went from 90,000 to just under 400,000, which sounds like that number has essentially remained pretty stagnant.

Um so the follow-up question that I had to that then, I really appreciate this, is that was my understanding that is that it was a federal rule that changed from 14 days to 30.

So I'm just sort of like interested in sort of how ironic that is for them to have changed that rule themselves and then ding you for it.

And I I think that rule actually ends this month.

If I'm not sure.

Kim, um actually it's in court right now.

So it's on pause.

Okay, so can you say two more things?

Are you saying then that can you say two more things about that?

Um, so the 30-day um pre pre-eviction rule from HUD is um they the current administration attempted to rescind it.

Um it's been challenged right now.

Okay.

So it's not going to be rescinded anytime soon.

Okay, but it is just, I think the point that I'm trying to make is then I just find it interesting for them to ding you on a metric that they then like they created a problem and then are dinging you on it.

Councilmember Kim, welcome to dealing with HUD.

Yeah, okay.

I appreciate that validation.

Um but it is to say then that like that essentially the balance has remained fairly stagnant so far.

Okay.

I just appreciate that.

So then, and that looks like it happened in 2021.

And so over from 2021 to 2022 to 23, 24, 25, have you received a ding?

Like how is that balance carried over then impacted or increased your risk to access federal federal dollars?

Uh Councilmember Kim, I don't know how many and how much uh we were dinged.

Um I believe it was in calendar year 24 that we were, but I would have to verify that with our finance team.

Yeah, and that was for did you say it was capital projects?

Did I hear it correctly?

The capital fund, yeah.

Okay.

And one of the things that we can do, especially knowing that you have very little time to prepare for this, is we we can, if there's these sorts of questions and folks want to wait before we you know vote on the amendment, we can always lay this over and ask for this follow-up information to happen between now and next week.

So don't feel like you have to give us information that you're not prepared to on the spot on the dias here as well.

Um I thought some Yang and then Ms.

Johnson.

Thank you.

And then Ms.

Bowie.

Thanks, Council President.

Why really appreciate you coming here and taking all of our questions?

I um just wanted to share some context that the the amendment, the temporary amendment we're wanting to move, which is the 60-day pre-eviction notice period.

We wanted to do that at the same time as Minneapolis.

Um the majority of their council members uh did approve of their amendment, but it got vetoed by the mayor.

I was very disappointed by that decision by Mayor Fry.

But I do want to name that um in that what the council members of Minneapolis experienced.

Um it was that the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority, which is the Minneapolis PHE, they didn't lobby for an uh an exemption, and so there is that discrepancy there.

I was wondering if you have any sort of insights on why is there that discrepancy, and then like why why should you all like just specifically your entity get the exemption?

Thank you, Councilmember Ying.

Um I can't speak to Minneapolis Public Public Housing Authority, but they are um they do have moving to work um authority, so their funding streams differ significantly than ours, and they are able to utilize different funds and funds differently than we are.

We are much more rigid in how we are awarded and how we are monitored.

Umson and I guess uh so I guess just to the piece of that then, could you talk a little bit about the piece around uh I saw two versions that actually came to my office from the housing agency.

One of them was specific to the St.

Paul Public Housing Agency.

And then the other one was around whether any entity that was any rental property that received that receives federal funding.

And that was interesting to me because I wanted to know just it's a you know the first version was around whether they it should, you know, the exemption should not the exception should not be applied to residential units or tenancies that are subject to federal, state, or local income-based housing programs, or there was one that was specific, which is the one that we're looking at today.

And so I am just wondering and curious to council vice president's question, why the St.

Paul Public Housing Agency receiving its own separate exemption.

Thank you, Member Councilmember Johnson for that question.

So are the landlords that receive that our partners in the housing choice voucher program.

Um essentially the families that we serve with that um also have the same um benefits as our families that are in our publicly owned units.

So if they have a change in their income, change in their household, they reported to us, we'll change their rent portions.

Um so it is based on their income as well.

Um the difference with the Housing Trace Voucher Program is that the only way the housing choice voucher program is successful is we need landlords to participate.

Um we saw a decline in participation during the last moratorium.

They will landlords really felt like um government agents kind of left them out to dry.

They um didn't have any um they weren't receiving their rent payments, they didn't get enough funding, um, and they still had mortgages to pay.

Um we currently work with about 900 owners, and most of them are small business owners.

Um so it can have a significant impact on them as well.

Um, and so we uh want we need the partners essentially to make this work.

Um we are um are trying to maintain all the families that we are, as you can imagine, the federal funding and federal um uncertainty is already um causing concern with landlords.

Um so anything to um steer them away from the program um we would uh we don't like essentially and and as a as a follow-up, I guess to that.

Um can you share with me if you know how how much money does when we talk about the federal funding that we were referring to, how much funding is received from HUD through the capital projects funding?

Uh Councilmember Johnson, I don't have the exact number for the capital fund for the publicly owned housing.

Um for the section eight side, we are basically a pass through to our landlords in St.

Paul annually, about um now it's almost 70 million a year.

Okay, so and would you estimate I guess would you say that potentially if that's housed in the Section 8 program that the capital funding would be around the same or lower Council Member Johnson?

It's probably more because the capital projects are like your bricks and mortar, so you're having to maintain property versus this as a subsidy.

Okay.

And I and I don't mean to sound like a hundred thousand dollars is insignificant.

I I want to know that amount because I think when we're talking about this, you know, we're talking about the threat of funding.

But I also kind of heard that at the hundred thousand dollar number floating around, but when it's in the context of multiple millions, I'm not exactly sure what that impact poses.

Um, but I would just um you know share that some of the things and and I'm sure that some of your team members also know just I've been pretty vocal around tenant protections and bringing tenant protections back to the city of St.

Paul.

I've also been really intentional about advocating for emergency rental assistance.

And during our public hearing, we heard from several uh, you know, entities that also landlords included, small landlords, but also um, you know, some of our affordable housing developers and builders and landlords and overseers mentioned targeted emergency rental assistance.

Um I I will just share for you while you're here and for the team, you know, one of the things in 2024 that was concerning to me was seeing the eviction docket and the amount of money that people were being evicted for in the city of St.

Paul.

I used several examples, but one of them that stuck out to me was the $50 example.

Um we have people in our city that were getting evicted over $50, $75.

Things that I would personally pay out of pocket to keep someone in their homes and prevent that instance of homelessness.

And so I know we're talking about rent, and I and I just want to share that with you know with your team, and I will be, you know, pretty transparent with anyone who asks.

We are, I think capital funding, I think capital projects, and I think the funding that we receive from HUD is vital and crucial, as much as I see, if not more, than um keeping individuals in their homes and ensuring that we do not continue to see residents evicted over 50 bucks, 75 dollars, 150 dollars.

And so I hope, you know, and I will just say separately from the amendment that we're looking at today.

I hope that the cities of St.

Paul's emergency rental assistance as it returns can be in communication with you and your team as well.

And part because I really do see scenarios where $50, $75, $150 evictions, whether it's a 30-day notice or a 60-day notice being something that you know your residents most likely qualify for the program that we have.

And so ensuring that we have that activeness, you know, that's what I'll be working on this year.

Um, because I think we, you know, it's more than just HUD funding.

We we are talking about 30 to 60 days notice to try and give individuals who are would be at risk of being evicted, whether it's 50 or 5,000, under, you know, time to make arrangements, time to prepare, and not have to deal with walking around with really a scarlet letter of rental housing, you know, with the eviction filing that's permanent, whether it's executed or not.

You know, those are that's 191 units this year whose families now have an eviction on the record, and it is gonna be a barrier whether it was executed or not to other housing opportunities.

And so to me, that's kind of what we're talking about here, and it really puts me in a bind considering an exemption to that notice, even with some of the valid reasons, the valid um risks that we have that you've raised and the team has raised.

Um, you know, and it's just it's challenging because I think that when we began to have ordinances in place, and then we create we do create exemptions, we set the tone for future exemptions.

And that's what I've seen from our rent stabilization ordinance.

That's what I've seen from our tenant protections ordinance.

Like that has nothing to do directly with you today and being here.

It's more of like context to give of right of what happens when we start to have stances as a council, but also create policies that are carve-outs, and especially in this particular situation, we have 4200 units that would be exempted with this change.

And so I'm happy to give it more time and I'm happy to have for the discussions.

Uh, Council President, I would not be able to support this today.

Thanks, Ms.

Johnson.

Um, I think I saw Ms.

Bowie.

That might be it for now.

Okay, Ms.

Bowie.

Yeah, thank you, Council President.

Thank you so much for being here.

Part of um going uh last or going a little later is all my questions were already asked.

But um, I uh I did want to just make uh a couple points, and I did have a question particularly uh I think what I'm hearing today, especially as we're you know, learning a lot about not only HUD and Section 8 and the difference between like Section 8 and Section 42, which I found um really insightful around how we approach uh not only eviction moratorium, but how we approach our rental stabilization ordinance for like deeply affordable um housing and how we define and how we codify um deeply affordable housing.

Um I am compelled to at least review and have interest in in this um learning more about this um exemption, not for as a in uh in the spirit of a carve out, but more so to learn more about the impacts, right?

Um, because I I understand like all housing is not equal.

And uh in Ward One, we probably have the most public housing per capita um in St.

Paul.

There's literally in like a four or five black radius, about two or three public housings.

Um that's not even including some of like the scattered housing um that exists.

So this is really impactful to my constituents, and I think it's really important, and I appreciate everything that was said earlier, but I do think it's really important to name the problem.

Um, and the problem that we're trying to solve is uh the high evictions.

We I think you know, the spirit around um this extension is to lower the amount of evictions that our residents have to um have to face.

Also to increase access to resources and rental assistance and supportive services.

Um I'm more so reviewing um this question from a a lens of systems change and a desire to see systems change.

I don't see this exemption, you know, doing that, but I do see the the spirit around the ordinance itself really um creating those protections for people uh and and really at this point we may have to codify, right?

Um some of the requirements, not only from the landlord, but what are we also expecting from the tenant um when we do have this um extension?

You know, what are some supportive services or some strategic partnerships that needs to be in ingrained into public housing, which I would love to see?

Uh so just in short, I guess my question particularly, because it it really uh seems like we're having conversations around accounting policy and finance policy when we like the heart and breadth of what we're trying to do is uh um ensure people stay in their homes.

Uh so that my question particularly is around like the reporting timeline.

Uh when you talk about like carrying over a balance and that potentially harming um um the institution and your ability to actually um receive um those subsidies, how often is that reporting?

Because I I'm just wondering, because we are having this extension, this temporary extension to December.

Um and I'm just wondering if our timelines are in alignment to where when you as a as a institution as an agency have to report this to the federal government, and is that in alignment with this extension?

Councilmember Bowie, um we have to report that annually, and so it's with every I believe it's calendar year, and if it's not calendar, it's federal fiscal year, which would be September 30th.

So and then if it's calendar year, that would be 1231.

So it would be within this year.

And then last two questions, if you don't mind, uh for the income verification, is that applied to the entire household or just the head of the household?

Councilmember that would be the entire household.

Okay.

And then my um final question for understanding public housing is not the same as supportive housing, but can you speak to especially for like St.

Paul?

Are there integrated services?

Um I just try and understand if someone is struggling, if we heard today, if someone's struggling with $50 of paying rent, like is there integrated resources or services from the county, city, or the state that's like housed inside of these policy or public housings are you know, what is the uh the the staffing makeup, are there navigators, what type of resources do the tenants have?

Yeah, council member um Bowie, so all our high-rises have offices on site.

So your property manager is there.

Um additionally, we have a very robust resident initiatives team.

That is a whole department um that we have, and we have oh I'm probably understating it, over a hundred uh partners.

Um so, and it's for youth to adults.

Um, and so our property managers are well aware of all the resources that we all can offer, um, especially if you're in a high rise, there's a lot of resources on site.

Some of them are even uh partners with our city.

Um so we have rec centers in our um in our high rises in our multifamily buildings as well.

Um, and then as I mentioned earlier, we work very closely uh with Smurls um to try to settle before we get to any court eviction action.

Um SMERLs works with a lot of our families as well when there's um non-payment of rent or other uh concerns.

Um we also are members with um the continuum of care, the heading home Ramsey's, so we're always at that table sharing resources and information and those partners come to us when they know of a concern or their concerns about families.

Um and also our state representatives and your offices as well reach out to us as uh when there's a concern.

Um so we try to um address issues as much as we can and head off any of those.

Our goal is to provide safe and stable housing.

Um and I apologize if this came off as more of an accounting issue, but ultimately the accounting issue impacts our families, and that's why.

Great.

Um, I want to oh, sorry, I just go ahead.

I had one quick comment.

Um I think um the the amount of the capital fund, I know that you didn't know how much is in it.

I was looking on your website.

It looks like from 2022 we're talking potentially tens of millions of dollars, is my understanding.

And so um the hundred thousand dollar number that Council President Naker and I were talking, I don't think that that's the amount in the fund, and I also don't think that's the amount um that that fund would be impacted by if we were to make this change.

I don't know where that number is, but um it would be good to know that, but I'll just also say council president maker and everyone here that I'm supportive of the of the amendment um from my discussions, it seemed like it would make a big impact, but I also understand and appreciate we are trying to weigh um how much does this impact the PHA and at the same time how much does this impact people you know being able to stay in their homes and uh the PHA's ability to provide housing to people and what that looks like long term.

Um and it's uh you know, there's pros and cons to each decision, but I think that the with the concerns about federal funding and just generally how much the PHA relies on HUD and federal funding.

I'm concerned about that with with this change, and so that's why I'll be supporting the amendment if we vote on it today.

Thanks, Ms.

Jost.

Um any other discussion, otherwise, I was gonna try to move towards a potential motion.

Okay.

Um, well, first of all, thank you again uh for being here on extremely short notice um and answering our questions.

Um the you know, when the public housing agency reached out, I know many of us were um we're really interested in hearing from you because you're a trusted partner and you provide, as Ms.

Johnson pointed out, um, the bulk of the affordable housing in our city, and that's really important to us.

Um, and we don't want to do anything to jeopardize that.

I think the nature of the conversation that you're hearing here today is as Ms.

Joes mentioned, an attempt to try to understand the pros and cons, right?

What's the potential impact?

I think Ding has now entered the official vocabulary as of today.

Uh what's the size of the ding uh possible from the federal government um and HUD and how does that compare to the size of the capital fund overall?

Um, numbers we don't have right now.

Um, and then the process, as Ms.

Coleman was asking about, I thought very astutely as to how one actually reports income loss to make sure that that's not overly onerous on um residents.

So I I am moving this.

I'm prepared to move this amendment today, but I'm also very prepared if folks would like a week um to allow the public housing agency to provide us with the answers to those questions and or for all of us to do additional research and digging with the public housing agency.

Um I'm happy to make that motion.

So I'm not gonna make any motion yet and look to others to see where they're at.

Ms.

Kim.

I I mean I would I would still really like to understand that the question of risk, right?

Like if you've been carrying a 300, like a consistent balance and that hasn't changed sort of your risk level to access federal funding, I'd be interested to see like what is that threshold look like.

And while also recognizing in the email, I saw that you're also reducing in money, so that percentage inherently does go up just by the virtue of you having I think I saw it was like maybe five percent less.

Um I would like a little time to me, that's like the crux of what I'm I'm personally after.

So I would appreciate a little more little more time to get that information.

But um, you know, if folks are ready to vote, um, I'm also prepared to vote today, but I'd appreciate a little extra time.

Ms.

Coleman sorry.

Um that was so dramatic.

Um I echo that.

I think it'd be helpful to have an extra week.

I'm also uh, you know, given I guess mostly I'm just naming this out loud that we do have a little bit of time here since the temporary extension, if and when it is passed with or without the amendment won't go into into effect until May 14th.

So for anybody watching at home, by doing this one week extension, we are in no way shrinking the timeline or delaying the protections that would be available to tenants, given that I feel very comfortable with one week later and would appreciate the time.

Thank you, Ms.

Coleman, and thank you for naming that.

Yes, this would not be actually delaying anything about when this would become in effect.

Okay, well, seeing general head nodding and um no massive head shaking around the table.

I'm going to move a one-week layover.

I really appreciate again the robust conversation.

This is the kind of thoughtful policy making that makes me proud to be part of this council.

So um thank you again.

Um hopefully watching the video of this will help with some of those specific questions, and then um please feel free to reach out to us directly if you need clarification on any of the things that we were asking today.

Yeah.

Um, so thank you.

With that, I will move a one-week oh, Ms.

Johnson, sorry.

I just want to add one question then as a follow-up.

Um I'm thankful for the lee over because it gives me a little bit more time to also dig in and to have my meeting as well.

So um separately we have been talking about this particular exemption in regards to Operation Metro Search.

Um, but I actually would love to see the the data that we are able to see regarding demographic of the folks that have either received evictions or you know are currently there.

So if you have like a broad overview of the of the demographic of the residents that you have and that can be shared, I'd love to see that data.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

It's gonna be a busy week.

Um all right, so thank you so much again.

Uh I will move a one-week layover.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Seven in favor, none opposed.

The ordinance is laid over to March 25th.

Item number item number 19 is second reading public hearing of ordinance 26-17 administrative ordinance establishing the minimum qualifications for the vacancy for the position of fire chief pursuant to the provisions of section 12.12.1 of the city charter.

And even though this is technically our public hearing and our second reading, we did not have staff available to join us last week for staff reports.

So we would welcome up staff from our uh department of TER to give us an update on this ordinance.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Good afternoon.

My name is Chrissy Hauge.

I am the HR Consulting Services Manager.

I wanted to just kind of go over the changes that we have proposed, um, put forth and any questions that you all may have with that.

Um prior to doing that, this is part of um the city charter process for hiring our next fire chief.

And so the first thing we need to do is establish the minimum requirements for the fire chief in order for us to be able to post the job.

Um so this is a key um feature in us just being able to get the process going.

And is this will this display for everyone?

Yeah.

Okay, perfect.

Um, so I just have two slides for you.

Really simple.

Um, the first one is gonna be the um changes that we are proposing, and then the next slide is just gonna be the things that we've carried over.

Um the first one, um the first bullet you'll see here is a bachelor's degree or higher, um, along with some preferred degrees that we've um kept over from the previous uh requirements.

Um, and then the biggest change here is gonna be the no substitution for education.

So previously we've allowed for experience to substitute for education with this position, um, with the overall um leadership that we uh feel that folks learn from higher education, um fire service management, um, like I said, leadership skills will really strengthen the professional standards beyond what was listed for just experience only.

So that's where the no substitution for education is coming from.

Um the second bullet here is really just a cleanup of language.

Um previously we had it listed as just three years of command experience in a full-time paid fire department.

The second um part of that being at a district or battalion chief, and then looking at what that command experience looks like.

This is just our way of modernizing the language and cleaning that up.

The only other change from the previous requirements to the current ones that we are proposing is an out of title um caveat that was in there before that if someone served in an out of title position um for six months or more, we could use that towards the them meeting the minimum requirements.

We are eliminating that, or we're proposing to eliminate that um for a few things.

Number one, the first is really with an out of title um appointment that somebody has.

Um, the accountability scope of work um and just really expectations around that can vary widely.

And so we want to make sure that folks are really um prepared to be the fire chief, um, prepared to meet these requirements as we've set forth.

And then the so those are the main changes.

Um, and then the last, like I said, these changes are not um, or these are no changes.

Um so 13 years of experience working in a full-time paid fire department, and then looking um for folks who have worked in a unionized environment with the Atlant advanced life support services, being that that is a huge majority of the calls that the fire department takes.

Great, thank you so much for the presentation.

Um, just one quick question.

Can you give an example just in layman's terms?

What would working out of title mean?

What would be an example of doing that?

Absolutely.

So if someone is maybe a fire captain and we have a vacancy at a district chief level, someone can be put into that position without necessarily qualifying for it for a short-term basis to just fill in as the department had a need for that.

And so, with that, um, there is no real guidelines that the department needs to use in order to determine who they're gonna pick for that.

And so for us, we really want it to be a consistent approach for these requirements being met.

Thank you.

I saw Ms.

Coleman and then Ms.

Bowie.

Thank you.

Um, thank you for all this.

I think a lot of it almost all of it makes good sense.

Um I always think that we should be very careful about adding higher education requirements as non-negotiables and not letting people substitute that for experience.

So I would just love to hear a little bit more about how you all came to that recommendation, um, how it compares to other departments potentially or other jurisdictions.

Yeah, just anything more might be helpful there.

Yeah, one quick uh friendly amendment add question to that, please.

Um, how along those same lines, if you have any sense of how many candidates, applicants we had in the previous round who used commensurate experience instead of one of those degrees.

I would say it's very minimal because there has been a narrative around these senior level leadership positions that um a higher education, a secondary education is part of the um development process um for professional um and leadership with that.

And to the question that Ms.

Coleman asked about.

Yeah, just so is that primarily why you all made the change then?

Is that you just weren't getting many of these applicants or um yeah, so with that, um what we're really looking for is that executive level leadership ability, and so um based on conversations with um department leaders um in fire, um, as well as where we have kind of established executive letter level leadership within the city that does align with that.

Ums Blue.

Thank you, Council President.

Yeah, I really appreciate this brief overview.

I just have a question around the 13 year requirement.

Um what's the reasoning behind just the 13 years because it seems like a it's an odd number.

I'm just trying to understand, like in the profession, if it's a 13-year-old some type of threshold of qualification.

Seems unlucky.

It does seem unlucky.

Um, but it is fire, so I um I can't speak specifically to the 13 years, but I can say that throughout the way these requirements are written, they build upon um experience, right?

That we that we would believe someone to gain throughout their tenure.

So um currently within the fire department, um, as you're hired on for a firefighter, you have to wait three years to become a fire equipment operator.

Um, you have to wait a few more years to become a fire captain, a few more years to become a district chief.

And so um, I believe based on the district chief level requirements as well, that does require 10 years of experience, and so adding these three years um allows someone to meet based on you know that district level or higher um for them to qualify for the position.

Does that help?

Okay, great.

Thanks for the question.

Uh, Ms.

Kim.

Um, who is typically on the hiring panel for our fire sheath?

And I only ask because on April 11th, we have the fire ops day.

And um, we should extend them an invitation to come do fire ops with us that day.

But can you tell us a little bit about who's on that hiring panel?

Yeah, so that actually is a separate ordinance um that we'll be putting forth um here shortly, probably for next week.

Um, but with the selection panel, we typically um will look for a variety of folks, right?

Because we know that diversity of thought um and experience really does bode well for us to help with decision making.

So we will have um former um high-level ranking um individuals from the St.

Paul Fire Department.

Um we are looking to add in folks at an administrative level because there is a lot of business type things that um go along with this position.

Um because of our heavy involvement or because of the um basic life support that the department um does provide, being like 85% of calls, um, we will also ask for members of the um from Regions Hospital who serve as our medical directive to have them help support and provide.

Um there are um in the past we've asked members of the HERO Commission, um, folks from the state fire marshal's office.

So we try and get a variety of folks in addition to them not only with their professional experience or knowledge of that, but then community members as well to weigh in.

But to that point, it is an ordinance, and so we do get to decide who is on that selection committee.

It's one of our great responsibilities as a council.

So my office will be spearheading that in a collaboration with our council director, but I will definitely be reaching out to everyone's offices because I want this to be a collaborative process to determine who's on that, and of course, we will gratefully welcome uh T years recommendations as to the sort of people who should be on that.

Second and third of them coming to ops day.

Um I think I saw Ms.

Johnson.

Yeah, I was just um, you know, our office has had some chance to review just some of the practices that they did under Councilmember Stark when they brought the examining committee, so we're really interested as well in um on what that process includes, and I appreciate just kind of learning about that next phase.

Um, and then just so I understand too the changes uh related to the previous year was primarily the first slide is different from correct okay.

Yep.

And just for my awareness as well, um we can easily go back through and review the ordinances, but if you know um to can you speak to the so this is not changing the first slide, these are recommendations, and could you just again speak to the the rationale like for both of them?

Could you go back to the previous slide?

Yeah, yeah, thank you.

Um so the biggest change um for the updated um around education is the no substitution for education, and then um we have had previously a bachelor's or higher degree in um these preferred um degree studies, so fire science business administration, public administration.

Um we have taken that to just really have it read as a preferred, knowing that um somebody with a degree, right?

It teaches what we look at in um TURHR as we assess requirements of positions is that what you gain from the higher level um education, right?

So we're looking for things like decision making, problem solving, critical thinking.

And so we didn't want to eliminate anyone who may not have that traditional path in the education piece, but still having those other um qualities that you will obtain through that education.

So that's gonna be the biggest thing for that change.

And then, like I said, for that second bullet, it really was just a combination of two bullets from the previous requirements to um clarify the language and clean it up a little bit.

So um the language was written more for um internal candidates to understand.

Um so we don't use uh battalion chief in the city of St.

Paul, we use district chief, and so we wanted to make sure that it was clear to folks um outside of the city of St.

Paul as well.

Okay, thank you so much.

Yep.

And and to that point, I think just to name it, our responsibility as we look at these minimum qualifications and in particular the changes is to make sure that there are no changes that are being made that will particularly advantage or disadvantage a particular candidate.

I think that that's one of our responsibilities here.

So as we look at these changes, just making sure that they're above board, that they're objective, that they have good rationale behind them, not that they are being tweaked this time, so that somebody who's potentially in the pool this time is going to be advantaged or disadvantaged.

Um this is an ordinance, so we can amend it.

Um, if folks, and sounds like again, the main the big substantive change is not allowing substitution for education, requiring that education.

Correct.

Okay, yeah.

Any other questions before we hold the public hearing?

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

This uh so this brings us to the public hearing section of our agenda.

So when we call your public hearing, if you're here to testify, you'll just come to the front, stand between the two microphones.

You don't need to adjust them at all or bend over, just stand up straight, they'll pick you up just fine.

You'll have two minutes to testify.

Please start with your name and where you're coming from, and when you're done, please make sure to sign in.

Um, and I have the job of keeping you to two minutes, but there's also a timer right in front of you, so help me help you help us.

This is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak on this item?

Welcome up.

Thank you for being patient.

Hello, my name is Sarah Gartner, and I live in Ward 7.

Um, I'm here to tell you to talk about the degree requirement.

Um thank you for asking the question about it, but I do believe that requiring a formal degree requirement for the St.

Paul fire chief position may sound like a move towards professionalism, but in practice it risks being exclusionary and inequitable.

Leadership can be built through years of hands-on experience, internal training, and community knowledge, not just academic credentials.

Adding a degree requirement can disproportionately filter out highly qualified candidates who've risen through the ranks, particularly those from working class backgrounds or communities that have faced systemic barriers to higher education.

It narrows the pathway for diverse leadership, and if we know that access to higher education is not equitable across race, income, gender, and age, then making a degree gatekeeping requirement reinforces those disparities rather than correcting them.

St.

Paul should be expanding access to leadership opportunities by removing the paper ceiling and not limiting it to those who have had the time, money, or opportunity to obtain a degree.

If the goal is strong leadership, then we should value lived experience, proven service, and community trust just as much as a formal education and not treat a degree as the only sign of capability.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Make sure to sign in.

Is there anyone else here to speak on this item?

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

Bowie to close the public hearing and the matter will lay over till March 25th for final adoption and/or discussion.

Uh all in favor say aye.

All opposed.

So everyone in favor, non-opposed, the public hearing is closed, and the ordinance is laid over to March 25th for final adoption.

Item number 20 is resolution public hearing 26-66, approving the application of Allianz Field for sound level variants in order to present amplified sound for the Great Lawn Concert Series event on Fridays, May 29, July 24, July 31, and August 14, and September 18, 2026 at 400 Snelling Avenue North outside Alley Anne's Field.

And just because a point of personal privilege, every time I see a sound level variance for multiple consecutive dates, um, it makes me think of two people, Elisa Diaz at Elbrito Marcado, and Eric Hudak and our Department of Safety and Inspections for coming together to discuss the desire of Elburdo Mercado to have multiple Friday night concerts throughout the summer on their brand new patio and uh the DSI is requirement that every single one of those receive a sound level variance.

We were able to meet, we were able to talk about it, and we were able to come up with this notion of a series sound level variants.

And so I it's a long title, um, but it represents improvement and being willing to accommodate and be uh a yes city.

So thank you.

With that, this is a public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak on this item?

Come here.

Oh, welcome.

Come on up.

Thank you, Council.

Um Zachariah Lutzel Swob, uh, senior director of event operations for Minnesota United and Alliance Field.

Um I've probably submitted uh quite a few sound level variances, so thank you for all of the review over the years.

Uh it's obviously a new one.

Um so just wanted to present ourselves.

Um obviously many soccer games at Alliance Field over the years, some big concerts in the past.

Um, this is hopefully uh one of many steps towards providing entertainment uh in and around Allianz Field in the midway at a little bit of a smaller scale, but one that's still um really engaging for the community around us.

I'm so excited to present this summer series and happy to answer any questions.

Great.

Thanks so much.

Are there any questions?

All right, thanks so much for coming out.

Anyone else here to speak on this item?

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

Bowie to close the public hearing and approve.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

Seven in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Item number 21 is resolution public hearing 26-67, authorizing the police department to accept the 2026 intensive comprehensive peace officer education and training 2026 uh from the state of Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs authorizing the execution of the grant agreement and amending the 2026 grant budget and adding 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.

Coleman to close the public hearing and approve.

All in favor say aye.

Aye, aye.

All opposed.

Seven in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Item number 22 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?

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

Kim uh from Vice President Yang to close the public hearing.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Seven in favor, none opposed.

The public hearing is closed.

And Ms.

Yeah.

Thanks, Council President.

Um, but just wanted to reiterate my comments from last week.

I'm very grateful to the council here for your support in keeping the public hearing open for many weeks.

It's um been key to our council hearing getting input from community members as we responded to the to Operation Metro Surge.

And so I'm also very grateful to everybody who came and testified and want to encourage people to continue emailing and calling and interacting with our council offices for um for any initiatives or grievances that you continue to have.

And thank you again, Vice President, for your leadership on creating this.

Um, and as we said last week, the the work is not done, um, and neither is the opportunity to reach us in many, many ways.

So thank you.

Uh that brings us to the any other comments that before we that brings us to the legislative hearing section of our agenda.

Ms.

Mormond.

Council President.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Sorry, Greg has this part.

Legislative hearing consent agenda items 23 through 31 are before you for your consideration.

We did.

Oh, we just that was the vote earlier, right?

We voted on it, right?

Yeah, the public hearing got closed.

Okay, just goes away.

You don't have to do anything else.

Yeah, okay.

I just wanted to make sure.

Yep.

But I said you did your part.

Ms.

Mormon.

Council President.

I'm not aware of anyone here to testify on a legislative hearing item.

All right.

In that case, we will hold a public hearing on all of our legislative hearing items items at once.

That's number 23 through 31.

If you're here for an item between 23 and 31, now is your public hearing.

Please come on up.

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

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

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Seven in favor, none opposed.

The legislative hearing consent agenda is adopted as amended.

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

Any news from the wards.

I heard there was some news about somebody being here today who I haven't seen yet.

But Ms.

But as Johnson, I was gonna say that if folks want to come and meet my son, he's in our office.

He is here today as an official an honorary council member in training.

So uh if you feel the need to come over to visit, you are welcome to do so.

He got a chance to hang out with council member Kim earlier today.

So come on over.

I feel the I can tell you I feel the need, so I other news from the wards or the word offices.

Thank you.

Let me just get this together here.

So I have some good news to share.

We are okay, pulling it up.

Uh so the St.

Paul and the YCP is hosting a meeting greet with the mayor at Halle Hugh Brown Community Center tomorrow.

Um gets an opportunity tomorrow at uh 5:30 to 6:30.

Uh also news for my ward, there's gonna be a coffee and conversations about the Rondo renovation plan.

Uh so there's gonna be some input, community input.

If people are interested in library design, um please feel free to join us.

We're gonna be there from 10:30 to 12:30.

Uh and there's one last thing here.

Oh, this Saturday, uh, we've been to the Rondo Community Land Trust.

They've had uh a launch party some some years ago.

They're gonna be launching their small business incubator.

Uh so opening up their Rondo Exchange right on the in the heart of Selby Avenue, 856 Selby at the Golden Time Cafe.

So not the restaurant and bar, but the cafe.

I believe it's right on there, Selby and Victoria.

But that's taking place 12:30 to 3:30.

So I'll be there to speak, I believe.

Mayor her will be there, and also you can join us for a ribbon cutting.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Exciting.

Ms.

Coleman.

What I hope is the final time I ever see these two letters in combination at this table.

The CVS is down.

Very good midway.

Maybe not entirely.

I haven't checked the progress in like the last few hours, but it's like it's really, really coming down today.

So thank you all for letting me talk about this three weeks in a row.

Um, and to everybody in Midway who fought really hard for many years in a row to get this building down.

It is finally done.

Thank you, Ms.

Coleman.

That is great news.

Uh other good news.

I I can share, this is sort of Ward 2, but it's really citywide.

Um, it's happening in Ward 2, but on Monday from 3:30 to 7 at Roy Wilkins Auditorium, because they needed more room because this event is getting so popular.

Um, right track, which is our city's youth internship program, is having their career exploration day.

And so it's a chance for the new YJ1 interns to meet all the different possible employer hosts for the summer, ask them questions, learn about that job.

Um, it's a really cool opportunity to meet lots and lots of motivated, excited young people.

Um, share something maybe about your career path.

So if you want to step by 3:30 to 7 on Monday at Roy Wilkins.

Anything else from the warts?

Seeing none, thank you all so much for a great meeting.

We are George.

Oh, yeah.