Numerous community members expressed their support for the ordinance, emphasizing the urgency of climate action and the need for a sustainable funding mechanism. One speaker, affiliated with a local advocacy group, underscored the importance of securing revenue for weatherization and electrification programs, particularly for low-income households.

During the public hearing, concerns were raised about the financial burden of increased fees on residents. A speaker highlighted a discrepancy between expected and actual franchise fee charges, questioning the necessity of the increase given the city’s existing budget. The council members discussed comparisons with other cities, noting that St. Paul’s franchise fees are lower than those in Minneapolis, prompting discussions about equitable fee structures and their impact on different user classes. There was an expressed intention among some council members to explore targeted fee adjustments for larger commercial users.

A critical aspect of the discussion revolved around the allocation of funds generated from the increased fees. Council members emphasized the need for transparency and accountability, advocating for clear guidelines to ensure that any additional revenue directly supports community-focused climate action projects. The council acknowledged the importance of integrating these funds into the broader climate action and resilience plan.

In addition to the franchise fee debate, the council addressed a proposed ordinance regulating drive-thru and walk-up service windows. The ordinance is part of a long-term review process aiming to align zoning laws with the city’s urban development goals. Concerns about the impact of drive-thru facilities on pedestrian safety and transit-oriented development were discussed, with specific examples illustrating the challenges posed by traffic congestion and environmental implications.

The Planning Commission recommended prohibiting new drive-thrus for restaurants and coffee shops, though existing facilities would remain operational. The council’s discussion highlighted differing opinions on the strictness of these recommendations, with some members advocating for a balanced approach that considers both development opportunities and urban design challenges.

Another notable topic was the discussion of property management under the vacant building program. The council considered a motion to stay the vacant building fee for a property undergoing rehabilitation, allowing the owners to focus on compliance without incurring additional financial strain. Council members acknowledged the complexities involved in managing vacant properties, emphasizing the importance of supporting owners in their efforts to restore and utilize these spaces for community benefit.