Policy Council Policy Committee Meeting – June 3, 2026: Rooming House Definition and Ramsey County Economic Development Initiatives
Policy Council Policy Committee Meeting – June 3, 2026
[Introductory paragraph summarizing the overall meeting.] The Policy Council Policy Committee met on June 3, 2026, for two main presentations: (1) a review of the city's rooming house definition and potential updates, and (2) updates from Ramsey County on the new Economic Development Authority (EDA) and the "Building Stronger Together" initiative for downtown investment and county land disposition. No formal votes were taken; discussions indicated broad support for further work on both topics.
Discussion Items
-
Rooming House Definition Update: Katie Dadless, city planner, presented the current zoning definition of rooming houses and related definitions. The definition includes criteria such as rental by the room, individual locks, separate kitchen facilities, individual phone numbers, intercoms, and mailboxes. Discussion arose from recent housing developments enabled by the one-to-four and one-to-six unit zoning study amendments. Councilmembers expressed interest in updating the definition to reflect modern living arrangements (e.g., cell phones instead of landlines, co-living) and to remove outdated or potentially discriminatory provisions. Councilmember Coleman questioned the public benefit of regulation, suggesting a focus on density rather than form of occupancy. Councilmember Johnson asked about the difference between rooming houses and shared apartments with a single lease. Councilmember Joost emphasized inclusivity and student housing needs. Councilmember Yang supported updating language to be gender-neutral and modern. The Planning Director noted the zoning code is a living document and that staff will check capacity to undertake updates. The consensus was to move forward with examining the definition.
-
Ramsey County Economic Development Authority (EDA): Josh Olson (Director of Community Economic Development) presented on the EDA created by state legislation in 2025. The EDA cannot levy taxes; funding comes from a portion of the county’s existing HRA levy (approximately $1.5–2 million annually). Cities must opt in by June 1 via resolution; St. Paul requires resolutions from both the City Council and the HRA. As of the meeting, 14 of 19 jurisdictions had opted in or placed the item on their agendas. The EDA will support five core areas: business support organizations, technical assistance, cohort-based learning (e.g., CEO Next, CEO Now, Emerging Diverse Developers), data and research, and direct business support. Councilmember Bowie, a graduate of the Emerging Diverse Developers cohort, praised the program and urged stronger city-county collaboration on zoning and HRA site availability. Councilmember Vice President supported opting in but requested clarity on funding allocation. Councilmember Johnson emphasized the need for smooth intergovernmental funding transfers and inclusion of existing city programs.
-
Building Stronger Together Framework: County Manager Becker and Deputy County Manager Collins presented a multi-year investment framework (up to $250 million) to support a dynamic downtown and sell county-owned land. The initiative responds to fiscal pressures: Ramsey County has only 5.5% of metro land, high tax-exempt property (49% in downtown), and redevelopment challenges. Key projects include: Park at River’s Edge (connecting downtown to the Mississippi River), office-to-residential conversions, public realm enhancements, and transit improvements. Funding sources include county bonds, state bonding requests, and the county’s transit and transportation investment plan ($150 million). The county also plans to dispose of underutilized land (e.g., Rice Creek Commons, now over 1,900 units with affordability requirements) using an equitable development framework. Councilmember Joost asked about the capital stack; Olson explained that most funding is secured except the state bonding request and a future HRA bond for downtown housing. Councilmember President Naker inquired about the private developer (AECOM) departure and the connection to transportation funding; Olson clarified that AECOM completed 30% design for the park infrastructure and that a solicitation for residential developers will follow once the capital stack is firmer. Councilmember Bowie raised public safety as a concern for downtown investment; County Manager Becker acknowledged and noted ongoing work with the city on quality-of-life issues.
Key Outcomes
- Rooming House Definition: The committee broadly supported updating the definition. Planning and Economic Development staff will explore capacity and bring recommendations. No formal action taken.
- EDA Opt-In: The City Council and HRA must adopt resolutions by June 1 to opt into the EDA. Note: The meeting occurred on June 3, two days after the stated deadline, indicating urgency or a discrepancy in deadlines. County board will take action on the EDA area of operation by June 15.
- Building Stronger Together: Further community engagement and board workshops are planned. The county intends to authorize bonding in fall 2026 to activate residential opportunities. County staff committed to regular briefings and partnership with the city.
- Public Safety: County manager highlighted ongoing efforts to improve quality of life and safety downtown, with plans to re-engage with city leadership.
Meeting Transcript
Policy Council Policy Committee to order. Roll call, please. Councilmember Bowie. Council President Naker. Councilmember Joost here. Councilmember Coleman. Here. Councilmember Kim. Councilmember Yang. Councilmember Johnson. Here. Seeing four present, three absent. And Councilmember Yang is or Kim is excused. Alright, we have two items on our agenda this morning. First one is our definition of rooming house presentation. Welcome up Katie Dadless from Planning and Economic Development to tell us more. Can I hand these to you? Thanks. Morning, Council members. Katie Dadley is city planner in the Department of Planning and Economic Development. So I'm here to talk about the rooming house definition. And it's something I think that has arisen in the past few months because of some recent and some proposed housing developments. And these developments likely are stemming from some of the amendments to our zoning code related to the one to four one to six housing study a few years ago. I don't have like a big presentation for you today. What I have is the handout that's being passed around right now. What it includes is the zoning code definition of rooming house, as well as some related definitions that are kind of tucked within the rooming house definition itself, and then the housing code definition of rooming house as well, just so that we're covering all of our bases there. So I think I'm gonna just review that definition and we can kind of have a conversation from there and see what kind of questions council members might have. So in looking at the definition, there's two parts to the definition. And the first part says a residential structure that provides single room occupancy housing as defined in Code of Federal Regulations, and then to more than six adults. And if you want to know what the definition of that is, it's on the very next page, a unit that contains no sanitary facilities or food preparation facilities, or contains either but not both types of facilities. So that's what uh SRO definition is. The second part of the rooming house definition is basically a building housing more than six adults that has any of the following characteristics, and then there are six characteristics listed A through F in the definition, and it's there I think where we can spend a little bit of time and see that maybe in some ways the definition is could maybe use some updating. And so the first criteria, and I should say maybe from the outset that a rooming house is a land use that is permitted in multifamily residential zoning districts, so RM zoning districts, it's not a use that's permitted in RH districts. So um so it if a if a if a a building has any of the following characteristics, it would be considered a rooming house. Um the first is rental arrangements are by the rooming unit rather than dwelling unit. The second that rooming unit doors are equipped with outer locks or chains which require different keys to gain entrance. The next kitchen facilities may be provided for joint or common use by the occupants of no more than one rooming unit. The next rooming units are equipped with telephones having exclusive phone numbers. The next rooming units are equipped with individual intercom security devices, and finally, each rooming unit has a separate assigned mailbox or mailbox compartment for receipt of mail, different from one mailbox for uh an entire dwelling unit as opposed to one for an individual person. Um, and then finally, the definition also does include um standards and conditions for the use, and um in that case um there's a minimum lot area requirement for a rooming house. You can see that it's 5,000 square feet, and then plus 1,000 square feet. So it's 5,000 square feet for um six for six adults, and then 1,000 square feet for each additional adult. So it that's the way that rooming houses are regulated. Um, and so that's the definition. As I noted on the next page, so there's single room occupancy definition. I pointed out. Because the rooming house definition uses the term rooming unit, dwelling unit, and guest room. I've included those on the next page as well, just in case you want or need to reference those. And then also on that second page, there's a definition of shareable housing. It's a definition we have in our zoning code, but it's a and it says a residential structure designed for collaborative living in which individuals share common facilities and amenities.
openpublica.com