Website


October 26, 2019


Pedro Park/Police Annex email thread between Hosko and City Hall>

2-27-19 Email thread to date, between myself and Saint Paul elected officials and city staff at PED and Parks and Recreation, 8-22-16 through 2-27-19, concerning the Pedro Park and Police Annex developments.

To help keep this document somewhat condensed: 1. office identifying/city logo info that often appeared at the end of most city emails has been omitted, 2. at times shorter, separated sentences have been joined to form a short paragraph, 3. at the end of communications the names of senders have been moved up to fall behind their given Bests, Regards, etc.,  4. a number of the Attachments I sent with my emails have been omitted to keep this thread under 60 pages. They are available by request.  My communications are in green. (10-26-19 transfer of this doc to this blog eliminated color in text and important additional attachments, request original file via email to see original with color and attachments.  If you felt leadership had promised an expanded Park see P. 25 and ending pages.  While I had long supported re-purposing the Police Annex, I did not work against those who wanted Pedro Park to expand.  City Hall did.)

Thank you.

 

William (Bill) L. Hosko

151 East 7th St.                                                                                                                                                          Saint Paul, MN 55101                                                                                                                Billhosko@yahoo.com                                                                                                                                         

On Aug 22, 2016, at 11:40 AM,                                                                                                                                                  bill hosko <billhosko@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hello Rebecca,

I would like request time to meet with you in person regarding the downtown Saint Paul Police Annex building to learn about its status, including the timing of its planned demolition.  I would like to bring to your attention the benefits of the city retaining the building, from my perspective and others as well.  I do not recall there being a substantive effort by the city to include the public on the building's future other then it will be demolished and only comments about enlarging Pedro Park on the site were sought.  Thank you.

Best regards, Bill Hosko

On Monday, August 22, 2016 4:20 PM,                                                                                                                     "Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul)" <Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

Thanks Bill - I'd be happy to meet.                                                                                                                                                                ..

I'm cc'ing Katie who can help us find a time.

Best, Rebecca

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com To: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                              Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 10:29:32 AM CDT

Hello Rebecca,

Very good.  Best times for me are early - mid-mornings or mid-afternoons.  

Regards, Bill

P.1

Submitted to Councilmember Noecker by Bill Hosko on 9-9-16 along with photos of the property and surrounding neighborhood:

Repurposing the Police Annex Building                                         

Benefits: • Significantly - brings skyway system to north-central downtown where none exits

 • Significantly - nearby residents, workers and businesses/attractions benefit

 • Significantly - thousands of residents, workers, visitors can conveniently access the downtown skyway system from a street-level skyway portal here - much like the other street-level portals do: Union Depot, Wells Fargo (across from Walgreens), Alliance Bank Center

• The building goes back onto the tax rolls

• Provides options for unique condominium homes on floors 2-4 (skyway access, Lunds and other businesses steps away, good views for all units, very large rooftop patio/garden area, Pedro Park outside the door, historic building, underground parking) (possibility exists to add penthouse floor)

 • Provides a unique location for several small businesses on floors 1 and mezzanine level facing Pedro Park • Re-purposing the building is good for the environment

• Re-purposing the building can enhance the character of the neighborhood

• Expanding the skyway system is good for downtown and follows more recent skyway installations on the Metropolitan State University campus, Capital/hospital area across University Avenue, and the Police and County Sheriff campus (Minneapolis has expanded their system to the new Vikings Stadium

 • Increases value of two adjacent surface lots and likelihood of their being developed – developments which can be attached to the skyway system 

• Arguably, there is precedence for the city to successfully create and to later sell downtown housing and retail space (Farmer’s Market lofts, The Penfield and Lunds) (In this case gutting the building, upgrading elevators, installing rough-in electrical, plumbing and HVAC and adding balconies, etc and then selling the condo spaces raw could cover upfront costs and go far towards skyway installation expenses.  Also, the surrounding neighborhood is economically solid and has a unique intimate vibe, retail tenants could be located to cover the expense of building out several retail spaces.)

Drawbacks: • The position that the size of Pedro Park will grow to a quarter-block does not occur

 • May be in conflict with city plans to not expand downtown skyway system outside of ‘core’

Summary:   • It would be in the best interests of this neighborhood (residents and business community), downtown and this city for there to be an honest discussion about which can benefit more people: repurposing the building or taking it down.  Invite people to share design ideas and or comment on a palette of various design options, for the building and a permanent Pedro Park next to it.

On Friday, September 9, 2016 11:02 AM,                                                                                                                      To: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us>  bill hosko <billhosko@yahoo.com> wrote: 

Hello Rebecca,

I enjoyed our meeting.  Do let me know how far along the demo contract process is at your earliest convenience and when/if a contract has been/will be approved.                                                                                                                                                                                     Regarding Music Forest, I will send you/others an invitation later next week.  You are welcome to post that to Facebook,etc at that time... I have not set up a FB page yet, will do so, by the time I send out invitations.  Thank you. 

Regards, Bill Hosko

P.2

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 2:46 PM,                                                                                                       To: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us> bill hosko <billhosko@yahoo.com> wrote: 

Hello again, 

Update: there is a public meeting scheduled at Keys from 6-7:30 PM, 10-18 Tuesday, to discuss the pros and cons of keeping the building, with a skyway connection added.  Would you be able to come to host, be a guest or be an innocent bystander wishing to hear what is on people's minds?  Thank you.

Bill

From: bill hosko [mailto:billhosko@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 11:11 AM
To: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul)

Hello Rebecca, 

I wanted to confirm you received my previous email?  I am sure you many each week.

Good to see there is open discussion now about possibly re-purposing the Police Annex building.  Hope you will consider hosting the meeting mentioned below. It will have a good cross-section of downtown residents, from across downtown, and members of the business community present.    

Regards, Bill

On Friday, September 30, 2016 11:29 AM,                                                                                                             "Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul)" <Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

Thanks Bill.  I did get your e-mail and I apologize for the delayed response.  I’m not going to be able to attend on Oct. 18th but I’m checking with Taina to see if she can attend in my stead. 

Best, Rebecca

From: bill hosko [mailto:billhosko@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 10:21 AM
To: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) Cc: Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul)

Hello Rebecca and Taina,

Taina if you could attend that would be very good.  I am sure those in attendance would appreciate a representative from your office.  Thank you.

Bill

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 10:30 AM,                                                                                                                       "Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul)" <Taina.Maki@ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

Dear Bill,

I would be happy to attend if I’m able.  I’m waiting on scheduling of some surgery that may influence my availability, but I will let you know once I have that scheduled.  Thank you.

Taina

P.3

From: bill hosko [mailto:billhosko@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 11:51 AM
To: Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul); Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul)

Hello again.  

Taina, sounds good.  Thank you.  However, can there be a contingency plan where a city staff person with some knowledge on the Pedro Park/Police Annex building area can attend if you are not able?  Thank you.

Bill 

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 12:06 PM,                                                                                                                     "Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul)" <Taina.Maki@ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote: 

Certainly.  I will see who is available. 

Taina

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 9:04 AM,                                                                                                                          bill hosko <billhosko@yahoo.com> wrote: 

Hello Taina, 

How does your schedule look now for next Tuesday?  Have you found a city staff person up to date on the property who can come?  I would like to co-ordinate the meeting agenda with you or that person beforehand.  I earlier asked about the building's demo status, has your office learned anything about this subject?  Thank you. 

Bill 

From: bill hosko                                                                                                                                                                                                          Date: Thu, Oct 13, 2016 11:02 AM                                                                                                                                                                                                             To: Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul); Cc: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul);                                                                                                                                                                 

Hello Taina,  Just confirming you received my last email?  Thank you. Bill

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 11:55 AM,                                                                                                            "Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul)" <Taina.Maki@ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

Hello Bill,

What I've learned from PED is that nothing has changed in their plans for the building, from what has previously been publicly communicated. The plans are to demolish it after SPPD moves out, and as funding becomes available, consider expansions to Pedro/Fitzgerald Park.  

There have been inquiries about the building but nothing official has occurred. If the decision is made to make the building available for development, an RFP would go out.  But, again, there's really nothing to report and they don't have staff available next Tuesday.

I can come Tuesday, to hear community input on your ideas or to talk briefly about what we know. I could also see if a Parks staffperson could talk about the park designs that were previously developed, but I know there was already community feedback at the time. 

Please let me know how you're like to proceed. Thank you!

Taina

P.4

From: bill hosko [mailto:billhosko@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 1:46 PM
To: Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul)

Hello Taina, 

Thank you for the info... Yes, please ask Parks to come and go over what happened in the recent past and bring most recent park expansion plans.  I have heard two time-lines for Police to vacate the bldg, please bring info on that and the demo bid process please.  It's going to be a well-rounded it appears.  I will be there at 5, meeting starts at 6.  

Regards, Bill

On Friday, October 14, 2016 1:59 PM,                                                                                                                                                 "Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul)" <Taina.Maki@ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

Bill, 

I can certainly try to get that information and a representative from Parks by Tuesday, but it’s Friday afternoon, so I can’t promise anything. 

There hasn’t been anything new in terms of Park plans in the recent past.  The plans that exist are from several years ago (sorry, it was before my time and I’m not sure of the exact timing).  Thanks,

Taina

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com To: Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul) Taina.Maki@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                                                   Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 02:09:

I assumed last plans were from several years ago, they would of course be fine. TY.

Bill 

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com To: Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul) Taina.Maki@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                             Sent: Weds, Oct 19, 2016 01:49:30 PM Subject: Re: Meeting last night

Hello Taina,

It is all good.  It was good you came.  The video will be up Thurs or Fri, total sign-in was 28 I believe, will get you that info by Fri and a summary of meeting.  It was generally an objective group there to learn and share constructive opinion.  As I mentioned to Rebecca on 9/9, this situation is a great opportunity to stop and reassess the environment DT today versus 2006 and create a lot of good will by doing so.  Involving not only far more of the downtown community, but citizens across the city in the outcome of this property they own, will ensure the most people ultimately benefit.   Thank you again for your time.

Regards, Bill Hosko

On Wednesday, Oct 19, 2016 11:22 AM, <Taina.Maki@ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

Bill,

I just wanted to apologize again for having the time of the meeting incorrect last night.  I feel like I owe an apology to those who attended (on time!) as well!  Please let me know when you’ve pulled together the list of names and emails of those who attended, so our office can reach out. Thanks for the lively discussion!  I will be briefing Rebecca.

Thank you, Taina

P.5

(No further communication until February 2017)

P.6

On Wednesday, February 28, 12:04 PM,                                                                                                                                                               "Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul)" <Taina.Maki@ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

(Info below sent to Bill Hosko after it was requested)

“From: Aram, Ashley (CI-StPaul)
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 10:40 AM
To: #CI-StPaul_Council
Subject: City explores potential reuse for soon-to-be vacant police training facility

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 6, 2017 CONTACT: Ashley Aram  Ashley.Aram@ci.stpaul.mn.us 651-266-8571 (o) 

City explores potential reuse for soon-to-be vacant police training facility

Community meeting to discuss options and next steps will be held on Monday, February 13 

SAINT PAUL – Mayor Chris Coleman today announced that the City will look into the potential reuse of the downtown Saint Paul police training facility, located at 100 10th St. E.

“Due to increased interest in the redevelopment of older buildings for modern office space, we are pressing pause on the initial demolition plan to fully explore the possibility of reuse,” said Mayor Chris Coleman. "We would be remiss to not consider commercial redevelopment of this building to support immediate job growth in downtown.”

The police training facility, previously known as the Public Safety Annex building, is being vacated by the Saint Paul Police Department near the end of 2017, as they move to their new facility located at 600 Lafayette Road.

The downtown core has seen recent private sector job growth of about 3.3 percent from 2013 to mid-2016. The City plans to accelerate that growth, with its 2016-2018 Economic Development Strategy calling for an increase in the overall number of jobs in Saint Paul by 3,000.

“The community has long been engaged in planning for the future of this block and this part of downtown," said Councilmember Rebecca Noecker. "Because of that involvement, I thought it was especially important to engage again as the Public Safety Annex nears the end of its current use. While our plans to-date have called for demolishing the building, given all the changes in downtown and in the area immediately surrounding the Public Safety Annex, it makes sense for us to pause and consider the highest and best use of this public asset.”

Previous plans had called for the demolition of the building and possible development of a larger park space on the block, including improvements to the existing Urban Flower Field site. No work is currently underway, but green space remains a priority for the City in this area.

“Establishing green space in this area remains a central part of the plan,” said Mike Hahm, Director of Saint Paul Parks and Recreation. “We recognize the extensive work of City staff, the community taskforce and the foundation laid out in the Fitzgerald Park Precinct Plan, and look forward to discussions in the year ahead around what form the open space will take.”

The community meeting will take place Monday, February 13, at Tin Whiskers Brewing, located at 125th E 9th St. #127, from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.”

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 3:17 PM,                                                                                                                                                                      To: "Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul)" Taina.Maki@ci.stpaul.mn.us Fr: bill hosko <billhosko@yahoo.com> wrote:

Received.  Thank you.

BillP.7

P.8

To:Noecker Rebecca (CI-StPaul)  Cc:Maki Taina (CI-StPaul),*CI-StPaul_Mayor,Sage-Martinson Jonathan (CI-StPaul)                                                                                      Feb 17, 2017 at 10:50 AM

Hello Rebecca,

It was good to see the Monday evening meeting concerning the Police Annex and Pedro Park was well attended.  Near the meeting's end as you saw I had put up my hand to ask a question when Jonathan said he could take several more.  He looked at me several times over the next several minutes as he took questions from others, then lastly he took a question from a man he had previously taken a question from.  He refused to call upon me.  Appropriately enough however, the last question/comment was about the need for that area to have a skyway connection to the rest of downtown.

My question was, who specifically made the decision that the re-use of the Police Annex should be for office space?

I also thought a show of hands should have been asked as to how many lived within a block or two of this site.  Surely, it was most of those in attendance.  As one would travel further throughout downtown, it would be fair to say that the viewpoints on what should happen on this property would change considerably. 

When I met with you on this subject of the Police Annex early last September, you said it was your wish to see that the building become offices/creative work-space, et al. 

At your earliest convenience I would like to receive replies to the questions below concerning re-use of the Police Annex/Public Safety Annex building.  They are largely the same ones that I had given you before the meeting, which I had hoped you or city staff would have addressed at the meeting, but did not for the most part: 

1. Mayor Coleman 2/6/17 “Due to increased interest in the redevelopment of older buildings for modern office space, we are pressing pause on the initial demolition plan to fully explore the possibility of reuse.  We would be remiss to not consider commercial redevelopment of this building to support immediate job growth in downtown...  The downtown core has seen recent private sector job growth of about 3.3 percent from 2013 to mid-2016."

With all due respect regarding '3.3% job growth', it appears downtown is about to lose hundreds more jobs, on top of the thousands already lost in the last twenty years, which resulted in using vacant office buildings for the creation of much of downtown's new housing stock.  For a fact, without those conversions our office vacancy rate would be very high.  This in sharp contrast to downtown Minneapolis which has seen tremendous growth, in both office and housing during the same time - the vast majority of which did not include city financing.  

My question, with the imminent departure of Cray Research to Bloomington, Degree of Honor Insurance to Wisconsin, the likely departure of Gander Mountain as they file bankruptcy, coupled with both the Woolworth building and Pioneer Press building (on Cedar St) being on the market now and the Port Authority creating office space within Macy's and having Ecolab vacating two towers for one - after Travelers downsized from two buildings to one - plus a list of other vacancies in other properties, doesn't this illustrate clearly that downtown will have an abundance of vacant office space for the foreseeable future?

2. Also, isn't there ample office space available in warehouse/loft type buildings downtown as well, without the city directly competing with them and creating more in the Police Annex?  (Sadly, city and county leaders are just finishing the destruction of the West complex, for $15 million, overlooking the riverfront, because there was no interest in it. Structurally, it was very similar to Police Annex. The building could have been a fantastic center for business, housing and other uses.)

3. Why would the city be competing with private commercial property owners for any potential new office tenants to downtown, or more troubling, for those already here?  

4. Who specifically has the city met with to date regarding redevelopment of the Police Annex building?   

5. Has it been fair to others that the city has already been meeting with a developer?

6. Specifically, why won't there be an open RFP invitation to developers?  

P.9

7. Who specifically made the decision to not have an RFP? 

8. It appears the city is precluding developing the property for residential use when there has been no condo development for years, again, as opposed to downtown Minneapolis which has seen condo growth at the same time.  Why?

9. The great majority of downtown residents, business and property owners, workers and visitors support our skyway system, will you encourage the construction a skyway link to this property via the Robert Street ramp?  

10. Minimally, would you require a developer too create a corridor within the building that would allow for a future skyway connection? (As we know, there are other skyways as long or longer in and near downtow - two of which were created relatively recently.  As well, there are two others that are newer which are not as long - one spanning University Ave east of the Capitol and a mini one downtown to the Minnesota building.  Much of a longer skyway bridge to the Police Annex could of course be absorbed by future development of the surface parking below it - the manner in which the block-long skyway near the Central :LRT station was designed.)

11. What is the fair market value of the property now - I believe I heard Monday evening that it contains 73,000 sf? 

12. The meeting was videotaped.  Do you know by whom and is it public?

13. This building is owned by the citizens of Saint Paul, including all residents of downtown, are they being excluded from an open, distinct say in what would be best for the city and downtown regarding its re-use? 

Overall, my summary of the meeting is that you, Mayor Coleman and other city staff gave for the most part, non-succinct answers to the people in attendance.  Many left feeling used and as disconnected as ever from important decisions - a long-standing pattern in Saint Paul.  I hope you can help correct this please.  

Let me know about how long you anticipate it will be to give a reply to the questions.  Thank you.

Regards, Bill Hosko

Fr:bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com  To:Noecker Rebecca (CI-StPaul) Cc:Maki Taina (CI-StPaul),*CI-StPaul_Mayor,Sage-Martinson Jonathan (CI-StPaul)                                                                                                                                                                        Feb 20, 2017 at 2:45 PM

Hello again Rebecca,

Checking in to see if you received my email from last week?  I have several other additional questions I should have included last week:

1.  I understand that early on during its plans to create Fitzgerald Park - a full-block park.  The city approached the Pedro family and the owners of the two surface lots on this block with its intention to rezone their properties from commercial to park use if necessary in order to acquire them - thereby taking a significant block of taxable land off the tax rolls and opportunities to create many new jobs on the block.  I understand the surface lots owners fought against the City's plan and won in court.  Can you confirm this?  

2.  It has been state, by Mayor Coleman and city staff, that 'the Pedro family generously donated their property for the park'.  Wasn't this only after the city approached them, with its full-block plan, including the need to rezone their building/property in order to make it happen?  

3. Was it the City's idea that if the Pedro family donated their land, they would receive a large tax deduction and the park could be renamed Pedro Park? 

4. Can you agree that the contract the City subsequently created with the Pedro Family did not include language that required the City to enlarge the park past their property's footprint?

5. Is it your intention and or position, to still only pursue office/business use for the Police Annex, or does there remain the possibility that there will be an RFP after all, that does not limit developer proposals?  Thank you.

Regards, Bill Hosko

P.10

From: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us To: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com                                                                                                                                                                   Cc: Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul) <Taina.Maki@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; *CI-StPaul_Mayor <Mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Sage-Martinson, Jonathan (CI-StPaul) jonathan.sage-martinson@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                                Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 08:28:44 AM CST                                                                                                                                   Subject: RE: Follow-up: Meeting re: downtown Saint Paul police training facility, located at 100 10th St. E.

Hi Bill,

Thanks for these questions and for attending last week.  Most of the questions you raised are ones that would be better answered by Jonathan Sage Martinson or others in his department.  I’m not familiar with the specifics of the contract with the Pedro family, for example.

I’ve replied to the questions I’m able to answer in red below.  Let me know if you have any follow-ups.

Best, Rebecca  

“From: bill hosko [mailto:billhosko@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 1:46 PM
To: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul)
Cc: Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul); *CI-StPaul_Mayor; Sage-Martinson, Jonathan (CI-StPaul)
Subject: Re: Follow-up: Meeting re: downtown Saint Paul police training facility, located at 100 10th St. E.

Hello again Rebecca,

Checking in to see if you received my email from last week?  

I have several other additional questions I should have included last week:

1.  I understand that early on during its plans to create Fitzgerald Park - a full-block park.  The city approached the Pedro family and the owners of the two surface lots on this block with its intention to rezone their properties from commercial to park use if necessary in order to acquire them - thereby taking a significant block of taxable land off the tax roles and opportunities to create many new jobs on the block.  I understand the surface lots owners fought against the City's plan and won in court.  Can you confirm this?  

2.  It has been state, by Mayor Coleman and city staff, that 'the Pedro family generously donated their property for the park'.  Wasn't this only after the city approached them, with its full-block plan, including the need to rezone their building/property in order to make it happen?  

3. Was it the City's idea that if the Pedro family donated their land, they would receive a large tax deduction and the park could be renamed Pedro Park? 

4. Can you agree that the contract the City subsequently created with the Pedro Family did not include language that required the City to enlarge the park past their property's footprint?

5. Is it your intention and or position, to still only pursue office/business use for the Police Annex, or does there remain the possibility that there will be an RFP after all, that does not limit developer proposals?   

Thank you.

Regards, Bill Hosko

 

400 N Robert St, Ste 250 Saint Paul, MN 55101

651-222-4767

 

P.11

On Friday, February 17, 2017 9:50 AM, bill hosko <billhosko@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hello Rebecca,

It was good to see the Monday evening meeting concerning the Police Annex and Pedro Park was well attended.  Near the meeting's end as you saw I had put up my hand to ask a question when Jonathan said he could take several more.  He looked at me several times over the next several minutes as he took questions from others, than lastly he took a question from a man he had previously taken a question from.  He refused to call upon me.  Appropriately enough however, the last question/comment was about the need for that area to have a skyway connection to the rest of downtown.

My question was, who specifically made the decision that the re-use of the Police Annex should be for office space?  No final decision has been made regarding the end use of the PSA.  We’re marketing it as commercial space because experience has shown that we need additional creative office space in downtown St. Paul and that with the proposed conversions to housing on the horizon, we are at risk of tipping the scales toward becoming more residential than we want to be if we don’t take steps to preserve office space of all kinds.

I also thought a show of hands should have been asked as to how many lived within a block or two of this site.  Surely, it was most of those in attendance.  As one would travel further throughout downtown, it would be fair to say that the viewpoints on what should happen on this property would change considerably. 

When I met with you on this subject of the Police Annex early last September, you said it was your wish to see that the building become offices/creative work-space, et al. 

At your earliest convenience I would like to receive replies to the questions below concerning re-use of the Police Annex/Public Safety Annex building.  They are largely the same ones that I had given you before the meeting, which I had hoped you or city staff would have addressed at the meeting, but did not for the most part: 

1. Mayor Coleman 2/6/17 “Due to increased interest in the redevelopment of older buildings for modern office space, we are pressing pause on the initial demolition plan to fully explore the possibility of reuse.  We would be remiss to not consider commercial redevelopment of this building to support immediate job growth in downtown...  The downtown core has seen recent private sector job growth of about 3.3 percent from 2013 to mid-2016."

With all due respect regarding '3.3% job growth', it appears downtown is about to lose hundreds more jobs, on top of the thousands already lost in the last twenty years, which resulted in using vacant office buildings for the creation of much of downtown's new housing stock.  For a fact, without those conversions our office vacancy rate would be very high.  This in sharp contrast to downtown Minneapolis which has seen tremendous growth, in both office and housing during the same time - the vast majority of which did not include city financing.  

My question, with the imminent departure of Cray Research to Bloomington, Degree of Honor Insurance to Wisconsin, the likely departure of Gander Mountain as they file bankruptcy, coupled with both the Woolworth building and Pioneer Press building (on Cedar St) being on the market now and the Port Authority creating office space within Macy's and having Ecolab vacating two towers for one - after Travelers downsized from two buildings to one - plus a list of other vacancies in other properties, doesn't this illustrate clearly that downtown will have an abundance of vacant office space for the foreseeable future?

As mentioned at the meeting, there is a difference between traditional office space and creative office space and we have heard repeatedly that there are many potential downtown tenants who are unable to find the space they need for their creative industries, and aren’t able to afford the cost of retrofitting a more traditional office space to fit their needs. 

2. Also, isn't there ample office space available in warehouse/loft type buildings downtown as well, without the city directly competing with them and creating more in the Police Annex?  (Sadly, city and county leaders are just finishing the destruction of the West complex, for $15 million, overlooking the riverfront, because there was no interest in it. Structurally, it was very similar to Police Annex. The building could have been a fantastic center for business, housing and other uses.)

See above.

 

P. 12

3. Why would the city be competing with private commercial property owners for any potential new office tenants to downtown, or more troubling, for those already here?  

4. Who specifically has the city met with to date regarding redevelopment of the Police Annex building?    

5. Has it been fair to others that the city has already been meeting with a developer?

6. Specifically, why won't there be an open RFP invitation to developers?   

7. Who specifically made the decision to not have an RFP? 

8. It appears the city is precluding developing the property for residential use when there has been no condo development for years, again, as opposed to downtown Minneapolis which has seen condo growth at the same time.  Why? 

9. The great majority of downtown residents, business and property owners, workers and visitors support our skyway system, will you encourage the construction a skyway link to this property via the Robert Street ramp?  

I don’t think constructing additional skyways is the best use of city resources.  That said, I’d need to know a lot more before answering this question.  It will depend on what the end use is, how much of a demand that use will have for a skyway connection, what the private sector could contribute to the construction of a skyway, etc.

10. Minimally, would you require a developer to create a corridor within the building that would allow for a future skyway connection?  

(As we know, there are other skyways as long or longer in and near downtown - two of which were created relatively recently.  As well, there are two others that are newer which are not as long - one spanning University Ave east of the Capitol and a mini one downtown to the Minnesota building.  Much of a longer skyway bridge to the Police Annex could of course be absorbed by future development of the surface parking below it - the manner in which the block-long skyway near the Central :LRT station was designed.) 

11. What is the fair market value of the property now - I believe I heard Monday evening that it contains 73,000 sf? 

12. The meeting was videotaped.  Do you know by whom and is it public?

13. This building is owned by the citizens of Saint Paul, including all residents of downtown, are they being excluded from an open, distinct say in what would be best for the city and downtown regarding its re-use? 

As I mentioned at the meeting, the public will have a say in the reuse of the building by being able to give input before a decision is made and by holding the elected officials accountable. 

Overall, my summary of the meeting is that you, Mayor Coleman and other city staff gave for the most part, non-succinct answers to the people in attendance.  Many left feeling used and as disconnected as ever from important decisions - a long-standing pattern in Saint Paul.  I hope you can help correct this please.  

Let me know about how long you anticipate it will be to give a reply to the questions. 

Thank you.

 

Regards, Bill Hosko”

 

 

 

 

P.13

From: Sage-Martinson, Jonathan (CI-StPaul) jonathan.sage-martinson@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                        To: bill hosko <billhosko@yahoo.com>; Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                           Cc: Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul) <Taina.Maki@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; *CI-StPaul_Mayor <Mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                                                                                              Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 10:57:29 PM CST                                                                                                                                       Subject: RE: Follow-up: Meeting re: downtown Saint Paul police training facility, located at 100 10th St. E.

Bill, 

Thanks for attending the community meeting on the Public Safety Annex last week.

Attached are answers to the questions you posed in the emails below. Also attached is the donation agreement between the Pedro family and the City of Saint Paul.

Jonathan Sage-Martinson
Director
Planning and Economic Development

Questions Regarding the Public Safety Annex (from Bill Hosko)

 

Who made the decision that the re-use of the Police Annex should be for office space?

No decision has been made whether to reuse or demolish the Public Safety Annex. However, given the feedback we have heard about a shortage of creative, modern office space in older, industrial buildings, the Mayor and Council Member Noecker have directed City staff to explore the potential reuse of the building specifically for reuse as office space.

 

Doesn’t downtown already have enough vacant commercial space?

The vacancy rate for downtown office space in the competitive market is 16.6%, the lowest it has been in a decade. Very little of this vacancy is for creative, modern office space in older buildings, however, and we understand from the business community and real estate communities professionals there is a specific shortage of this kind of office space.

 

Isn't there ample office space available in warehouse/loft type buildings downtown as well, without creating more in the Police Annex?

There are several projects underway that will provide this type of office space in downtown Saint Paul.  A portion of the former Macy’s building is leasing up well for office space, and the Woolworth’s building is being converted to office space. By putting the Public Safety Annex on the market, we will learn whether developers believe there is additional demand for this type of space.

 

Why would the city be competing with private commercial property owners for any potential new office tenants to downtown, or more troubling, for those already here?  

The City is exploring selling the building to a private developer.  The City is not planning to compete with the private market.

 

Who specifically has the city met with to date regarding redevelopment of the Police Annex building?   

Over the past few months, City staff and elected officials have heard informally from several private developers, tenants, and brokers about the building.  The City does not have any formal offers for the building and does not expect to until the building is formally for sale.

 

Has it been fair to others that the city has already been meeting with a developer?

City staff and elected officials regularly meet with members of the development community to promote Saint Paul and respond to inquiries. We have gotten increased inquiries about the building since the meeting at Tin Whiskers on February 13. We plan to continue to talk with interested developers to gauge interest and gauge the feasibility of redeveloping the building. No decisions will be made until the building has been officially on the market for at least two months to allow exposure to as many developers as possible.

 

 

 

P. 14

Why won't there be an open RFP invitation to developers?  

The City will place the Public Safety Annex on the market in the next several weeks.  It will stay on the market for at least two months and City staff will use a variety of methods to market the building to as many developers as possible.  We have chosen to not utilize a formal Request for Proposal in this case, because doing so limits our ability to talk with developers as they develop their ideas and offers.  The age, condition, and preferred future use of the building make conversations with a variety of developers the best way to proceed.

 

Who specifically made the decision to not have an RFP? 

The Department of Planning and Economic Development chose the use of an extended, open sales period as the preferred method for testing the market for the building.

 

It appears the city is precluding developing the property for residential use when there has been no condo development for years, again, as opposed to downtown Minneapolis which has seen condo growth at the same time.  Why?

Downtown Saint Paul has seen considerable residential growth in recent years and we expect this to continue, including further conversion of larger, older buildings into apartments.  We have heard there is a specific need for creative, modern office space in older, industrial buildings. We have also heard the design of this building may make it a unique opportunity to create this kind of office space. 

 

Liability laws in Minnesota have made many developers wary of developing new condo projects (with most favoring apartment projects instead).  Very few condo projects have been developed in Minnesota since the recession, though we are just now starting to see a few condo projects proposed for Minneapolis.

 

The great majority of downtown residents, business and property owners, workers and visitors support our skyway system, will you encourage the construction a skyway link to this property via the Robert Street ramp?  

The City will not require connection to the skyway system via the Robert Street ramp.  Given that such a connection would have to be built over surface parking lots, potential future park space or potential future buildings, it is unlikely that the timing would work out for an extension of the system at this time or in the near future. 

 

Minimally, would you require a developer to create a corridor within the building that would allow for a future skyway connection?  

The City will not make this a requirement.

 

What is the fair market value of the property now - I believe I heard Monday evening that it contains 73,000 sf? 

An appraisal in May of 2016 valued the property at $1.14 million. The building has 73,000 square feet on four levels and a basement that is partially below grade.

 

The meeting was videotaped.  Do you know by whom and is it public?

A videographer from KSTP news attended the meeting. We do not have access to their footage.

 

This building is owned by the citizens of Saint Paul, including all residents of downtown, are they being excluded from an open, distinct say in what would be best for the city and downtown regarding its re-use? 

The City issued a press release and held last week’s meeting at Tin Whiskers to ensure that city residents, developers, and business owners knew about our intention to test the market for redevelopment the Public Safety Annex. The building will be marketed broadly for at least two months through multiple real estate channels.  If the City’s Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) were to acquire and propose a sale of the building, the HRA would hold a public hearing on the proposed sale.

 

Did the City previously approach the land owners on this block to rezone the properties from commercial to park use?

The City never approached the Pedro family with a request to rezone their parcel.  In fact, the City does not have a specific park district in its Zoning Code. 

 

 

 

P.15

Did the Pedro family donate their land only after the city approached them, with its full-block plan?

The terms and conditions of the donation are laid out in the donation agreement (attached).

 

Was it the City's idea that if the Pedro family donated their land, they would receive a large tax deduction and the park could be renamed Pedro Park? 

The terms and conditions of the donation are laid out in the donation agreement (attached).

 

Did the City’s agreement with the Pedro family require the City to enlarge the park beyond the Pedro property’s footprint?

No, the City’s agreement with the Pedro family does not require the City to enlarge the park.

 

Will the City consider other uses, beyond office space, for the Public Safety Annex?

City staff will market the building for reuse as creative, modern office space.  We will talk with developers with ideas for a variety of uses, including mixed use. However, we believe there are plenty of opportunities to repurpose other older buildings into residential uses, and we do not see that as a priority for the Public Safety Annex.

 

City’s Donation Agreement with Pedro Family, Nov 24, 2009 (4 pages):

 

 

 

 

P.16

 

Wednesday, March 1, 2017 3:35 PM,                                                                                                                                                                       bill hosko <billhosko@yahoo.com> wrote:  To: Ward Two Councilmember Noecker, Jonathan Martinson - Dept. of Planning and Economic Development  Re: Redevelopment of Police Annex/Public Safety Building

March 3, 2017

Hello Rebecca,

I appreciate your and Jonathan’s responses to my previous questions.  They, headed by your name and PED, are underlined below.  When the city sends out its public notice concerning the Police Annex/Public Safety Building seeking developer interest, may I receive one? 

Below, after our initial email thread, I have added additional questions and comments, in red, in order to better understand what is occurring.  I would appreciate your responses at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

Regards,                                                                                                                                                                                                          Bill Hosko

“Feb 23, 2017 at 8:28 AM Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us>                                                                             To bill hosko CC Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul) *CI-StPaul_Mayor Sage-Martinson, Jonathan (CI-StPaul) (Continued)                                                     

 

P.17

Hi Bill,

Thanks for these questions and for attending last week.  Most of the questions you raised are ones that would be better answered by Jonathan Sage Martinson or others in his department.  I’m not familiar with the specifics of the contract with the Pedro family, for example. I’ve replied to the questions I’m able to answer in red (underlined) below.  Let me know if you have any follow-ups.

Best,                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Rebecca Noecker - Saint Paul City Councilmember, Ward 2   

 

Thursday, February 23, 2017 10:57 PM, "Sage-Martinson, Jonathan (CI-StPaul)" <jonathan.sage-martinson@ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

Bill,

Thanks for attending the community meeting on the Public Safety Annex last week.  Attached are answers to the questions you posed in the emails below. Also attached is the donation agreement between the Pedro family and the City of Saint Paul.

Jonathan Sage-Martinson Director Planning and Economic Development

From: bill hosko [mailto:billhosko@yahoo.com]   Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 1:46 PM To: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) Cc: Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul); *CI-StPaul_Mayor; Sage-Martinson, Jonathan (CI-StPaul) Subject: Re: Follow-up: Meeting re: downtown Saint Paul police training facility, located at 100 10th St. E. 

Hello again Rebecca,

Checking in to see if you received my email from last week?  I have several other additional questions I should have included last week:  

1.  I understand that early on during its plans to create Fitzgerald Park - a full-block park.  The city approached the Pedro family and the owners of the two surface lots on this block with its intention to rezone their properties from commercial to park use if necessary, in order to acquire them - thereby taking a significant block of taxable land off the tax rolls and opportunities to create many new jobs on the block.  I understand the surface lots owners fought against the City's plan and won in court.  Can you confirm this?  

PED: The City never approached the Pedro family with a request to rezone their parcel.  In fact, the City does not have a specific park district in its Zoning Code. 

Jonathan, for clarification, did the city attempt to acquire the surface parking lots by force, I understand there was a court hearing which sided with the owners?  Did the city have to rename Fitzgerald Park to Pedro Park in order to acquire their land?   

2.  It has been stated, by Mayor Coleman and city staff, that 'the Pedro family generously donated their property for the park'.  Wasn't this only after the city approached them, with its full-block plan, including the need to rezone their building/property in order to make it happen?  

PED: The terms and conditions of the donation are laid out in the donation agreement (attached). 

3. Was it the City's idea that if the Pedro family donated their land, they would receive a large tax deduction and the park could be renamed Pedro Park? 

PED: The terms and conditions of the donation are laid out in the donation agreement (attached).

4. Can you agree that the contract the City subsequently created with the Pedro Family did not include language that required the City to enlarge the park past their property's footprint?

PED: re-wrote the question as follows:  Did the City’s agreement with the Pedro family require the City to enlarge the park beyond the Pedro property’s footprint?  Answer: No, the City’s agreement with the Pedro family does not require the City to enlarge the park.

P.18

5. Is it your intention and or position, to still only pursue office/business use for the Police Annex, or does there remain the possibility that there will be an RFP after all, that does not limit developer proposals?  

PED: rewrote the question:  Will the City consider other uses, beyond office space, for the Public Safety Annex? Answer: City staff will market the building for reuse as creative, modern office space.  We will talk with developers with ideas for a variety of uses, including mixed use. However, we believe there are plenty of opportunities to repurpose other older buildings into residential uses, and we do not see that as a priority for the Public Safety Annex.

Rebecca, at your public meeting on February 13, Mollie Scozzari, PED, stated “We’re entering an exploration period with the private development market to see what interest is there.  We’ll probably be putting it on the market officially in the next couple of weeks.”  Then why are you limiting proposals to commercial use only, did she misspeak?

Jonathan stated above in answer to my earlier question to you, “We believe there are plenty of opportunities to re-purpose other older buildings into residential uses, and we do not see that as a priority for the Public Safety Annex”.  

Rebecca, last September when we met, you specifically stated “it is my wish” to have this building re-used for ‘creative office space’.  If this is an open-process, then why wasn’t the public at large, or from downtown, and even from the immediate neighborhood consulted, before you and city staff began having your first discussion with a developer last summer? 

Conversely, with respect to Jonathan’s and your positions against housing, above, there are also ‘plenty of opportunities’ to re-purpose an abundance of vacant office space into ‘creative, modern office space’ as well, and more to come on the market soon.                               

Thank you.                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Regards, Bill Hosko”

On Friday, February 17, 2017 9:50 AM, bill hosko <billhosko@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hello Rebecca,

It was good to see the Monday evening meeting concerning the Police Annex and Pedro Park was well attended.  Near the meeting's end as you saw I had put up my hand to ask a question when Jonathan said he could take several more.  He looked at me several times over the next several minutes as he took questions from others, then lastly he took a question from a man he had previously taken a question from.  He refused to call upon me.  Appropriately enough however, the last question/comment was about the need for that area to have a skyway connection to the rest of downtown.

My question was, who specifically made the decision that the re-use of the Police Annex should be for office space? 

PED: No decision has been made whether to reuse or demolish the Public Safety Annex. However, given the feedback we have heard about a shortage of creative, modern office space in older, industrial buildings, the Mayor and Council Member Noecker have directed City staff to explore the potential reuse of the building specifically for reuse as office space.

Rebecca: No final decision has been made regarding the end use of the PSA.  We’re marketing it as commercial space because experience has shown that we need additional creative office space in downtown St. Paul and that with the proposed conversions to housing on the horizon, we are at risk of tipping the scales toward becoming more residential than we want to be if we don’t take steps to preserve office space of all kinds.

Rebecca, these statements are confusing.  Both you and the city have indeed spoken to developers about re-use, since last summer, and now you are about to encourage more commercial space developers to come forward.  Important decisions have in fact been made already.  The public’s “feedback” concerning the building’s re-use and what would best serve downtown and that neighborhood, was not sought until February 13, at least a half year after you began meeting with an ‘office’ developer, last summer.   

 

 

 

P.19

I also thought a show of hands should have been asked as to how many lived within a block or two of this site.  Surely, it was most of those in attendance.  As one would travel further throughout downtown, it would be fair to say that the viewpoints on what should happen on this property would change considerably. 

When I met with you on this subject of the Police Annex early last September, you said it was your wish to see that the building become offices/creative work-space, et al. 

At your earliest convenience, I would like to receive replies to the questions below concerning re-use of the Police Annex/Public Safety Annex building.  They are largely the same ones that I had given you before the meeting, which I had hoped you or city staff would have addressed at the meeting, but did not for the most part: 

1. Mayor Coleman 2/6/17 “Due to increased interest in the redevelopment of older buildings for modern office space, we are pressing pause on the initial demolition plan to fully explore the possibility of reuse.  We would be remiss to not consider commercial redevelopment of this building to support immediate job growth in downtown...  The downtown core has seen recent private sector job growth of about 3.3 percent from 2013 to mid-2016."

With all due respect regarding '3.3% job growth', it appears downtown is about to lose hundreds more jobs, on top of the thousands already lost in the last twenty years, which resulted in using vacant office buildings for the creation of much of downtown's new housing stock.  For a fact, without those conversions our office vacancy rate would be very high.  This in sharp contrast to downtown Minneapolis which has seen tremendous growth, in both office and housing during the same time - the vast majority of which did not include city financing.  

My question, with the imminent departure of Cray Research to Bloomington, Degree of Honor Insurance to Wisconsin, the likely departure of Gander Mountain as they file bankruptcy, coupled with both the Woolworth building and Pioneer Press building (on Cedar St) being on the market now and the Port Authority creating office space within Macy's and having Ecolab vacating two towers for one - after Travelers downsized from two buildings to one - plus a list of other vacancies in other properties, doesn't this illustrate clearly that downtown will have an abundance of vacant office space for the foreseeable future?

Rebecca: As mentioned at the meeting, there is a difference between traditional office space and creative office space and we have heard repeatedly that there are many potential downtown tenants who are unable to find the space they need for their creative industries, and aren’t able to afford the cost of retrofitting a more traditional office space to fit their needs.  

PED: The vacancy rate for downtown office space in the competitive market is 16.6%, the lowest it has been in a decade. Very little of this vacancy is for creative, modern office space in older buildings, however, and we understand from the business community and real estate communities’ professionals there is a specific shortage of this kind of office space.

Rebecca, again, why were you “hearing” from commercial space developers before, you went back to citizens and told them demolition plans have changed?  For many months, and years even, many people have been mis-lead then.  As mentioned above, downtown is about to see more commercial space vacancy.   

1.       There is an abundance of vacant office space that can be used for, or created for, ‘creative’ office space.  

2.       Build-out of ‘creative space, is less than traditional office space.   

3.       As planned, the re-purposing of this building will be subsidized by the city, directly, or indirectly.

4.       Those costs will, undercut what private building owners can offer.  

5.       Overall, office rates downtown are already depressed – and are the best value in the Twin Cities.

2. Also, isn't there ample office space available in warehouse/loft type buildings downtown as well, without the city directly competing with them and creating more in the Police Annex?  (Sadly, city and county leaders are just finishing the destruction of the West complex, for $15 million, overlooking the riverfront, because there was no interest in it. Structurally, it was very similar to Police Annex. The building could have been a fantastic center for business, housing and other uses.)

P.20

Rebecca: See above. 

PED: There are several projects underway that will provide this type of office space in downtown Saint Paul.  A portion of the former Macy’s building is leasing up well for office space, and the Woolworth’s building is being converted to office space. By putting the Public Safety Annex on the market, we will learn whether developers believe there is additional demand for this type of space.

PED’s answer above is confusing, “we will learn whether developers believe there is additional demand for this type of space”.  Above, you and PED have already said there IS commercial space developer interest and you have encouraged it by meeting with developers, before, issuing an open RFP or seeking public opinion.  

3. Why would the city be competing with private commercial property owners for any potential new office tenants to downtown, or more troubling, for those already here?                                                                                                                       

PED: The City is exploring selling the building to a private developer.  The City is not planning to compete with the private market.

Having the building limited to commercial use is competing with the private office market.  

4. Who specifically has the city met with to date regarding redevelopment of the Police Annex building?   

PED: Over the past few months, City staff and elected officials have heard informally from several private developers, tenants, and brokers about the building.  The City does not have any formal offers for the building and does not expect to until the building is formally for sale.

This was not an answer to my question, who specifically has the city met with to date regarding redevelopment of the Police Annex building?   

5. Has it been fair to others that the city has already been meeting with a developer?

PED: City staff and elected officials regularly meet with members of the development community to promote Saint Paul and respond to inquiries. We have gotten increased inquiries about the building since the meeting at Tin Whiskers on February 13. We plan to continue to talk with interested developers to gauge interest and gauge the feasibility of redeveloping the building. No decisions will be made until the building has been officially on the market for at least two months to allow exposure to as many developers as possible. 

6. Specifically, why won't there be an open RFP invitation to developers?  

PED: The City will place the Public Safety Annex on the market in the next several weeks.  It will stay on the market for at least two months and City staff will use a variety of methods to market the building to as many developers as possible.  We have chosen to not utilize a formal Request for Proposal in this case, because doing so limits our ability to talk with developers as they develop their ideas and offers.  The age, condition, and preferred future use of the building make conversations with a variety of developers the best way to proceed. 

The Department of Planning and Economic Development chose the use of an extended, open sales period as the preferred method for testing the market for the building.

Compared with other statements, these answers are confusing.  Specifically, how would an RFP:

1.       Limit your “ability to talk with developers as they develop their ideas and offers”?  

2.       Be precluded by the building’s “age, condition”?

3.       Limit “the use of an extended, open sales period as the preferred method for testing the market for the building”?

 

 

 

 

P.21

8. It appears the city is precluding developing the property for residential use when there has been no condo development for years, again, as opposed to downtown Minneapolis which has seen condo growth at the same time.  Why?

PED: Downtown Saint Paul has seen considerable residential growth in recent years and we expect this to continue, including further conversion of larger, older buildings into apartments.  We have heard there is a specific need for creative, modern office space in older, industrial buildings. We have also heard the design of this building may make it a unique opportunity to create this kind of office space. 

Liability laws in Minnesota have made many developers wary of developing new condo projects (with most favoring apartment projects instead).  Very few condo projects have been developed in Minnesota since the recession, though we are just now starting to see a few condo projects proposed for Minneapolis.

Condo projects in Minneapolis have been, built since the recession and are being, built currently.  There are no condo projects in the works here and the hasn't been for many years.     

9. The great majority of downtown residents, business and property owners, workers and visitors support our skyway system, will you encourage the construction a skyway link to this property via the Robert Street ramp?  

Rebecca: I don’t think constructing additional skyways is the best use of city resources.  That said, I’d need to know a lot more before answering this question.  It will depend on what the end use is, how much of a demand that use will have for a skyway connection, what the private sector could contribute to the construction of a skyway, etc.

PED: The City will not require connection to the skyway system via the Robert Street ramp.  Given that such a connection would have to be built over surface parking lots, potential future park space or potential future buildings, it is unlikely that the timing would work out for an extension of the system at this time or in the near future. 

1.       For years, many people were given assurances that the park would be expanded. 

2.       They were not told before, the city began meeting with developers last summer, that the City’s plans had changed.

3.       Regarding a skyway not being a ‘best uses of city resources’, substantively, many would disagree.  Also, one can point out many, examples of questionable City spending that benefited few.   

4.       This building has significant equity.  Neither it, nor further subsidy, should be given to any developer without conditions that would quantitatively benefit the community.   

5.       A skyway link, or a building designed with a corridor to accept one, which has occurred in both downtowns, is a prudent plan and an ongoing one in downtown Minneapolis. 

6.       Temporary Skyways, over a parking lot and designed to be incorporated into new development, is not a new concept.    

7.       This concept could at least be a tangible larger-scale, net gain for downtown’s residents, business community and visitors.   

10. Minimally, would you require a developer to create a corridor within the building that would allow for a future skyway connection?  (As we know, there are other skyways as long or longer in and near downtown - two of which were created relatively recently.  As well, there are two others that are newer which are not as long - one spanning University Ave east of the Capitol and a mini one downtown to the Minnesota building.  Much of a longer skyway bridge to the Police Annex could of course be absorbed by future development of the surface parking below it - the manner in which the block-long skyway near the Central LRT station was designed.)

PED: The City will not make this a requirement.

11. What is the fair market value of the property - I believe I heard Monday evening that it contains 73,000 SF?   

PED: An appraisal in May of 2016 valued the property at $1.14 million. The building has 73,000 square feet on four levels and a basement that is partially below grade. 

This value number illustrates how depressed the commercial building market is downtown. 

P. 22

12. The meeting was videotaped.  Do you know by whom and is it public?                                                                                             

PED: A videographer from KSTP news attended the meeting. We do not have access to their footage.

13. This building is owned by the citizens of Saint Paul, including all residents of downtown, are they being excluded from an open, distinct say in what would be best for the city and downtown regarding its re-use? 

Rebecca: As I mentioned at the meeting, the public will have a say in the reuse of the building by being able to give input before a decision is made and by holding the elected officials accountable.

PED: The City issued a press release and held last week’s meeting at Tin Whiskers to ensure that city residents, developers, and business owners knew about our intention to test the market for redevelopment the Public Safety Annex. The building will be marketed broadly for at least two months through multiple real estate channels.  If the City’s Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) were to acquire and propose a sale of the building, the HRA would hold a public hearing on the proposed sale.

Respectfully, the facts show that the public did not, have a say in the building’s re-use.  In-put should have been sought before, the first meeting with a developer occurred last summer. 

Last August I asked for a meeting with you to discuss the changing landscape.  When we met in September you did say that it was your wish, to have this building re-used for ‘creative office space’.  I felt condominiums above, with retail at street-level and a coffee/tea shop below off a reborn park, coupled with a skyway connection and a green roof was a better path (I also mentioned the building could support another story on the roof) could benefit the most people.  I left concept illustrations with you. 

I then held a public meeting in October to make people aware the situation was changing and to seek input.  28 in all were there.  It was helpful that your assistant Taina was present in your stead. 

In your subsequent invitation to your February 13 meeting you wrote, “The community has long been engaged in planning for the future of this block and this part of downtown. Because of that involvement, I thought it was especially important to engage again as the Public Safety Annex nears the end of its current use. While our plans to-date have called for demolishing the building, given all the changes in downtown and in the area immediately surrounding the Public Safety Annex, it makes sense for us to pause and consider the highest and best use of this public asset.”

I agree wholeheartedly.  In my opinion, the highest and best way to proceed and to correct this situation:

1.       An open RFP process, with no re-use limitations to housing or retail, should occur.

2.       The outcome should be taxable property.

3.       Concept plans should encourage acceptance of a future skyway link,

4.       and, a mostly green-roof (At least then for people looking down on the site they would receive the green space they were encouraged to envision).

5.       The public should have the final say in what they consider the best and highest use of the building, via a broad, objective format.     

My close in my previous letter:

“Overall, my summary of the meeting is that you, Mayor Coleman and other city staff gave for the most part, non-succinct answers to the people in attendance.  Many left feeling used and as disconnected as ever from important decisions - a long-standing pattern in Saint Paul.  I hope you can help correct this please.”

Please understand that I am not being intentionally hard on you with this follow-up communication.  I hope you can yet agree that the current situation is not what anyone should want and that it was not intended. Thank you for your consideration and prompt replies.  They will be shared with others.  For review, the information I left with you last September 9 is attached. 

Regards,                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Bill Hosko”

P.23

From: bill hosko [mailto:billhosko@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2017 2:03 PM
To: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul)
Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us Cc: Sage-Martinson, Jonathan (CI-StPaul) jonathan.sage-martinson@ci.stpaul.mn.us Subject: Inquiries about Police Annex building...

Hello Rebecca, 

Did you receive my email from last week with follow-up questions about Police Annex?   How long will be before you and Jonathan can answer the additional questions it contained?  Thank you.

Bill

On Thursday, March 9, 2017 10:05 PM,                                                                                                                                                   "Sage-Martinson, Jonathan (CI-StPaul)" <jonathan.sage-martinson@ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

Bill,

I reviewed the email you sent last week and did not see any new questions. Council Member Noecker and I provided thorough answers to the questions you raised the first time in your first two emails.

Jonathan Sage-Martinson
Director
Planning and Economic Development

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com  To: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                          Cc: Maki Taina (CI-StPaul) taina.maki@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                                                      Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 09:41:37 PM CDT                                                                                                                                       Subject: Follow up: Re: Inquiries about Police Annex building...

Hello Rebecca,

With all due respect, you are my council representative, not Jonathan.  I am sorry that he could not see the eight reasonable questions.  Would you please answer them being he won't?  Thank you.

Bill

(No further contact with Jonathon.  Additionally, he left his position with the City in January, 2018)

Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                                   To:bill hosko  Cc:Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul)                                                                                                                                                                                        Mar 16, 2017 at 5:45 PM

Hi Bill,

Thanks for your message.  My answers are in black (Underlined) below.  If you have further questions, I think it would be more productive to find time to meet in person, as I don’t find e-mail to be the most effective mechanism for a back-and-forth dialogue.

 

 

 

 

P.24

“Bill: Rebecca, at your public meeting on February 13, Mollie Scozzari, PED, stated “We’re entering an exploration period with the private development market to see what interest is there.  We’ll probably be putting it on the market officially in the next couple of weeks.”  Then why are you limiting proposals to commercial use only, did she misspeak? 

Rebecca: As Jonathan replied in his earlier message, “City staff will market the building for reuse as creative, modern office space.  We will talk with developers with ideas for a variety of uses, including mixed use. However, we believe there are plenty of opportunities to repurpose other older buildings into residential uses, and we do not see that as a priority for the Public Safety Annex.”  This doesn’t conflict with what Mollie said at the meeting; we are putting the building on the market and we are specifying what type of reuses we believe are most appropriate for the space.  Determining what type of use is appropriate in a given area (i.e., land use, small-area planning) is a legitimate role of city government. 

Bill: Jonathan stated above in answer to my earlier question to you, “We believe there are plenty of opportunities to re-purpose other older buildings into residential uses, and we do not see that as a priority for the Public Safety Annex”.  

Rebecca, last September when we met, you specifically stated “it is my wish” to have this building re-used for ‘creative office space’.  If this is an open-process, then why wasn’t the public at large, or from downtown, and even from the immediate neighborhood consulted, before you and city staff began having your first discussion with a developer last summer? 

Rebecca: A developer contacted the city to express interest in the property last summer and I asked that once we had any evidence that there was actual potential for redevelopment that we engage the public to let them know what we were considering and what our next steps would be.  That led to the Feb. 13th meeting.  I will be coming back to my constituents to share what we learn from this exploration process and to get their input prior to any decision being made on how to proceed.

Bill: Conversely, with respect to Jonathan’s and your positions against housing, above, there are also ‘plenty of opportunities’ to re-purpose an abundance of vacant office space into ‘creative, modern office space’ as well, and more to come on the market soon.”  

Best, Rebecca

From: bill hosko [mailto:billhosko@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 12:50 PM
To: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) Cc: Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul) Subject: Re: Follow up: Re: Inquiries about Police Annex building...

Hello Rebecca,

I made time last evening to respond to your last email.  I do not think there is a need for me to take up more of your time than to ask you to read the reply.  It is attached.  This building is a small project, in a very unique and important location.  Do what benefits the most people. Thank you.

Bill

“March 22, 2017                                                                                                                                                                                                        To: Saint Paul Councilmember Rebecca Noecker                                                                                                                                                   Re: Redevelopment of Police Annex/Public Safety building

Hello Rebecca,

Thank you for your recent reply regarding the city’s planned re-use of the Police Annex (PA) /Public Safety building.  Our past email thread is below.  Here is what I understand at this point:

1....  Originally, the city proposed a Fitzgerald Park in 1998, for the building and surrounding lot formerly occupied by the Science Museum (across from the Fitzgerald Theater on Exchange Street, between Wabasha and Cedar Streets).                                                                            - At that time, the Science Museum was vacating both this, its east-building, and its skyway connected west-building across Wabasha Street, for their new facility on Kellogg Blvd.                                                                                                                                                       - The Church of Scientology purchased their west-building                                                                                                                                             - McNally Smith College of Music purchased their east building (the proposed Fitzgerald Park site).

 

P.25

2.       In 2002, the Fitzgerald Park concept was moved two blocks east (as a full-block concept now bounded by Robert and Minnesota streets and Ninth and Tenth streets). 

3.       In 2005, on its north side, the Penfield Condominium tower project was proposed (later it became low-rise).

4.       In 2009, the Fitzgerald Park name was changed to Pedro Park as a condition by the Pedro family for the city acquiring and demolishing their 1/8th block building (From that time forward, the city has never clearly informed the public that this contract did not require the city to enlarge the park further than this parcel).  

5.       In 2012, after the condo project failed to materialize, the city became developer of the Penfield Apartments and Lunds.

6.       On this site was the solid, reusable Saint Paul Police and Fire Department headquarters (designed by America’s first African American civil architect).  It was demolished at great expense to taxpayers, except for its façade facing Tenth and Minnesota streets (additionally, the skyway here to the PA building across Tenth street was also demolished).  The headquarters structure could have been incorporated into the Penfield development (the concept of building a new building around or attached to an existing structure is not new). 

7.       At the time, public opinion that the skyway should remain, in order to later add this area to the entire system was dismissed.

8.       At the time, public sentiment for re-using the PA building and the adjoining Pedro Building, and connecting them to the full skyway system and installing pocket parks or a greenway on the block rather than an unlikely full, 3/4 or even 1/2 block park was dismissed. 

9.       Soon after, Union Gospel Mission’s daycare said they were not moving from their ¼ block location here.  The city then produced illustrations showing a ¾ block park even though the city could not gain legal control of surface parking lots on the rest of the block. 

10.     In 2014, after the Pedro building was demolished, the city installed a temporary, lower-budget Pedro Park here.  

11.     In the summer of 2016, the city met with a developer who expressed interest in the PA building. 

12.     I requested a meeting with you in August 2016.  When we met in early September 2016, I urged you to inform the public that plans for at least a ¼ block park (the demolition of the 1/8th block PA building, next to the 1/8th block Pedro Park) were being revisited:                                                                                                                                                        

- You expressed at the time that it was your wish to see the building re-used for creative office space.                                       

- I urged you to also look at possible housing and retail uses, as well as a skyway connection from its south façade to the skyway connected Robert Street ramp, a plan that would benefit many.                                                                                       

- Since that time, the city are has met with other developers interested in using the building for non-residential purposes only.  

13.    In late September 2016, the city broke ground on a new, reported $18 million police training facility and gun range on the near east side (this move took acreage off the tax-rolls and demolished the large, more recently vacated JH Larson Supply Co structure here.  No reasons have been reported why the recently vacated sound building could not have been re-purposed and expanded upon for police needs. The police training unit will remain in the PA until later this year when their new facility opens.                                                            

14.    In October 2016, I hosted a community meeting to inform people that plans for the PA and expansion of Pedro Park were changing.  Your aide, Taina Maki, was your representative.                                                                                                                          

15.    In early February 2017, Mayor Coleman, yourself and city staff, hosted a community meeting about the PA building and Pedro Park (at least seven months after first meeting with a developer, who remains nameless). 

- Details about what is going on and answers given to questions taken were not succinct.                                                          

- The fact that this solid building’s interior structure is basically all concrete and not brick or timber was not made clear, it therefore offers no more character than any number of other vacant spaces downtown.

- Many left as confused as ever as to what was actually going on.

 

P.26

16.    In mid-February 2017, it was announced the police investigative unit (also in the PA) would be moving to the Saint Paul Port Authority’s Macy’s redevelopment at a reported cost of $6.2 million to taxpayers for a fifteen-year lease:    

- Macy’s redevelopment moved forward in spite of Mayor Colemans’ early request to the port authority to demolish it in order to create a hole in the ground here for a total bill of $15 million to taxpayers,

- this, after he already approved demolition of the Wabasha Court building across the street in the late 90s while on the city council, without, there being a redevelopment plan in place.

- Doing so has to date, cost taxpayers great, lost taxable value on the property, which remains a parking lot.  It also destroyed a key skyway route. 

- additionally, the port authority has poached two more of its only lead tenants from two other private properties.

17.    The police investigative unit might have been incorporated into the new police training facility, thereby saving taxpayers much of the $6.2 million cost to taxpayers for moving them to Macy’s.  With these savings, the city could have re-developed then sold the PA building itself (i.e. The Penfield and Farmer’s Market Flats), and included a skyway connection here to the entire skyway system.                                                                                                                                                                    

In summary, the city’s position to exclude housing from this building’s re-use is questionable, as is the city:

- not properly informing the public for years, on the true nature of the Fitzgerald/Pedro park plan,

- being prepared to in fact unfairly economically compete with private commercial property owners and their abundance of vacant commercial space,

- not wanting to endorse a future skyway connection here out right or a plan to incorporate a skyway connection here at a later date - thereby clearly denying a benefit to many citizens and all downtown, 

- not sharing the identity of the developer who first approached the city, their political ties to city hall and why they were able to change plans for an expanded park to plans that only embraced commercial, non-residential use for the PA building,

- why the city waited over half a year to inform the public about this change of plans.   

Councilmember Noecker, I urge you and Mayor Coleman and city staff under his direction, to do what is best for this small building - on a very important site.  Ensure there is indeed an unfettered search for developer interest in this property.  An unfettered search that encourages:

1. housing as a possibility, here in the center of a downtown neighborhood,                                                                                                           2. a retail component at street level,                                                                                                                                                                                 3. a unique coffee/tea shop retail component at its lower level facing Pedro Park,                                                                                                          4. the creation of a fourth level to bring additional value to the property (a regular practice with building’s such as this),                                                   5. a substantial portion of the final roof area be green/landscaped (so residents may see green semi-promised space),                                                     6.  the building’s second level to accept a future skyway link (the grade change here would bring a skyway to street-level).

Then, when in deed you later come back to citizens to seek their views on developer submissions as promised, those submissions should be wide and varied.  Allow the public to help you select the highest and best re-use for this high-profile property they own. 

Sincerely,                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Bill Hosko”

 

 

 

 

P.27

Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us  To:bill hosko  Cc:Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul)                                                                                                                                                                                           Mar 23, 2017 at 10:16 AM

Thank you, Bill.  I just finished reading your attached response.  I appreciate your perspective and will keep it in mind as we move forward.  You know how to reach me at any time, and I look forward to staying in touch.

Best, Rebecca

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com  To: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                              Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 10:19:40 AM CDT                                                                                                                                        Subject: Re: Follow up: Re: Inquiries about Police Annex building...

Endeavor to do your true best Rebecca, and make many, many people excited.

Bill

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com To: *CI-StPaul_Mayor mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                                                                         Cc: Noecker Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <rebecca.noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Naomi (CI-StPaul) Naomi.Alemseged@ci.stpaul.mn.us                         Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018, 9:55:50 AM CDT                                                                                                                                                Subject: Re: RE: Form submission from: Contact the Mayor

Good morning Mayor Carter and staff,

….. On another matter regarding city parks, I understand that Pedro Park, in its current form, was never given official park status immediately after the Pedro Family donated their property to the City, expressly for a 'City Park'?  

Certainly now, under your over-site, it should be designated a City Park without further delay.  Are you working to see that this occurs, and that there be no further consideration of any possibility that the land be given to the likely developer of the Police Annex building?  I have long encouraged community involvement in Pedro Park's 'permanent' design and I understand that this is now occurring.  If so, can you please ensure soon that their efforts are indeed going towards the creation of a permanent City Park?  Thank you.

Sincerely yours, Bill Hosko

(No reply received)

bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com  To:Noecker Rebecca (CI-StPaul)   Cc:Maki Taina (CI-StPaul)                                                                                                                                                                                         Monday, May 14 at 11:04 AM

Hello Rebecca,

As a follow-up to the email I sent to Mayor Carter minutes ago, can you provide encouragement that you are working on designating Pedro Park a City Park and that any further consideration of handing the property over to the Police Annex's potential developer has been stopped? I will forward your reply to others would appreciate your assurance. Thank you.

Bill

 

 

 

 

P.28

On Tuesday, May 15, 2018, 9:56:33 AM CDT,                                                                                                                                                 Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

Hi Bill,

Thanks for getting in touch about this.

Pedro Park is already designated parkland in the City of Saint Paul.  Ackerberg has offered to contribute financially to improve the park and to provide 20 years’ worth of maintenance costs.  They will not be designing the park, providing maintenance for the park, or have ownership over the park.

Let me know if you have further questions.

Best, Rebecca

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com  To: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                               Cc: Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul) <Taina.Maki@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Cloyd, Clare (CI-StPaul) clare.cloyd@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                            Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018, 12:39:46 PM CDT                                                                                                                                        Subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Form submission from: Contact the Mayor

Hello Rebecca,

Lovely.  The rumors/misinformation have not been addressed well with the general public it seems. 

Also, this bears repeating: 

1. The Community group you have helped assemble to work on a final Pedro Park design - should be directed to come up with several final design options - for the residents of that area to select the final design from.  With all due respect, many remain rightfully disappointed in this entire process and they deserve nothing less.  

2. The Police Annex building is of course the public's property.  Subsequently, if a redevelopment agreement is indeed reached with the Ackerberg Group or another party, it should, in order to provide the greatest return on this public property and for it to benefit the most people (particularly the downtown residential community), include nothing less than an easement to accept a future skyway through it (which, because of the grade-change here, would end at street-level on 10th Street) and a largely green roof (so those who will be looking down upon it can still see a semblance of the park they understand they were promised).  Both requirements can only, if the building is indeed re-purposed, increase its sale and post development value.  Please see attached from 2-2017.  

I will share this email with others.  Thank you.  

Sincerely yours, Bill Hosko

(No further communication until 10-25-18)

From: bill hosko [mailto:billhosko@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 10:15 AM
To: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) Subject: Police Annex building closing...

Hello Rebecca,

Has a date been set for the Police Annex closing with Ackerberg?  If so when will it be? Thank you.

Regards, Bill

 

P.29

On Thursday, October 25, 2018 12:27:59 PM CDT,                                                                                                                                   Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote: 

Hi Bill,

I don’t believe a date has been set for the closing.  Andy Hestness in PED will continue to be the point person on this so I’d check in with him for the latest.

Best, Rebecca

From: bill hosko [mailto:billhosko@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 2:53 PM
To: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) Cc: #CI-StPaul_Council; *CI-StPaul_Mayor; Capitolrivercouncil Info; Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul); Rod Halvorson; The Penfield Property Manager; lynda.hay@lfhi.com; The Point Mgr Subject: Police Annex sale closing, Pedro Park 'Final' design

Hello Rebecca,

Thank you for your reply (below), happy to hear that the closing is not yet scheduled...  

Now that the City Council has voted 5-2 in favor of renovating and re-purposing the Police Annex, I respect your and Council Member Prince's opposition to it, as I have mentioned previously, the public now deserves the best realistic outcome and benefits from the sale of 'their' building:

1. An easement to allow a skyway thru the building (along its west wall, from its second floor in rear - which becomes first floor in front on 10th St.) to accommodate a future skyway connection must be a part of the negotiated sale agreement:  

- This easement, a small part of the building's square footage, would certainly add value to the property overall and be offset by the higher rental rates the Ackerberg Group could charge tenants. 

- The approximate $1.5 million cost to connect the building to the Robert Street ramp - and subsequently the entire skyway system, is a relatively small investment that many would concur, would benefit countless people annually.  

- It would be good for our residential, business and hospitality community.  

- The north-central area of downtown would at last have a missing skyway portal.  

- It would add redevelopment value to the adjoining two surface parking lots, which many in the neighborhood would like to see developed - if they cannot in fact become park space.

- It is understood that permission would need to be granted by the south parking lot owner for a skyway link to pass over the west edge of their lot (also, room for two support piers would likely cause the loss of two-three parking spaces).  

- While public funds may not be available for the connection at this time, it would be a sound plan for the city to ensure a skyway easement is set aside for the time being (a corridor which Ackerberg could use initially for tenants) as has been prudently done in Minneapolis in the past.

- Before the city's negotiations with Ackerberg began, the concept of a skyway easement was present (see attached packet I gave you in Sept 2016).  

2. The rooftop should become a 'green-roof' as much as possible:

- It appears this may be a part of the Ackerberg proposal we have seen to date?  

 

P.30

- Also, as mentioned before, this would give surrounding residents in buildings which look down upon it, a semblance of park space - which some understand they were promised.

3. It appears the city's process for seeking public in-put on a permanent Pedro Park, in its current size, was not an honest one.  It appears too little true public input was accepted in the actual designing of the new park.  Additionally: 

- It is the critical, constructive opinion of some, that the "final" design we are now seeing still caters to the Police Annex building's polka dot façade overlooking Pedro Park - Ackerberg's building concept plan maintains them.  The dots have long looked silly to some, and they show no relationship to the building's arguably handsome art-deco front façade.  

- The current sunken, mostly level, center-focused and more natural nature of the current temporary park is discarded in the more pedestrian "final" park design we are now seeing.  This new design will have the entire park sloping, in part in tiers, down towards the alley and the featureless back wall of the Union Gospel daycare. 

- Also, many downtown citizens are concerned with the numbers of growing homeless people who are not law-abiding (Shoplifting is now a significant problem for Lunds across the street from Pedro Park - they do lease their space and can certainly leave downtown if the cost of doing business here becomes too high).  Citizens have a real concern that the proposed park, as now designed, will become a perfect gathering place for mis-behavior and staging ground for shoplifters targeting Lunds (A similar situation occurred with the planning of the light-rail route through downtown.  Prudence and commonsense went out the window with the placement and design of the Central Station stop, next to the highest crime-rate/Police call bus stops in the ENTIRE metro - and predictably, ever since its completion, it has daily, become a costly situation for law enforcement to patrol and to maintain order - in the heart of an already declining business sector.      

In conclusion, 

- The city's website says the new Pedro Park design is "final" as of Oct 8-2018.  It shouldn't be.  The process that created it was broken from the beginning.  What we are being told to accept is pedestrian/mundane and possibly a perfect scenario to escalate misconduct in the neighborhood.  Also, because as planned the Ackerberg building will be used largely for office space, instead of residential - it will offer few eyes upon the park in the evenings, nights and on weekends. Please reset the clock and allow a much broader, uncoerced park input process to start from scratch.  Surely with results the Ackerberg Group can find agreeable.

- Ensure a skyway easement is part of the purchase agreement with the Ackerberg Group.

- Ensure the rooftop offers as much permanent greenery and or lawn as possible. 

Thank you for your continued time and attention.  I welcome receiving your most current opinions if different from those sent previously, and the opinions from others you are in contact with at City Hall on these smaller, but important matters. 

Please forward to Andy Hestness at PED.

Sincerely, Bill Hosko

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com To: andrew.hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us andrew.hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                         Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 11:41:45 AM CDT                                                                                                                                    Subject: Fw: Police Annex sale closing, Pedro Park 'Final' design

Hello Andrew,

At your earliest convenience, can you tell me:                                                                                                                                                  Do you have a closing date set for the Police Annex?                                                                                                                   

Is the purchase agreement available to the public prior to the signing?  If so, please send me a copy. Thank you.

Regards, Bill Hosko

P.31

From: bill hosko [mailto:billhosko@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 10:59 AM
To: Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul) Cc: Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul); Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul)
Subject: Fw: Police Annex sale closing, Pedro Park 'Final' design 

Hello Bruce,

Can you take a few minutes and find out when the closing is scheduled for the Police Annex building?  Also, is the agreement available for public review prior to the closing?  I have not yet heard back from Andrew. Thank you.

Regards, Bill Hosko

On Friday, November 2, 2018 04:56:59 PM CDT,                                                                                                                                      Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) <Andrew.Hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

Bill,

The current draft of the development agreement is attached. The development agreement shows a closing date of 1/31/2019.

Thanks,

Andy Hestness
Principal Project Manager Planning and Economic Development

From: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us  To: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com                                                                                                                                                                        Cc: #CI-StPaul_Council <Council@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; *CI-StPaul_Mayor <Mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Capitolrivercouncil Info <info@capitolrivercouncil.org>; Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) <michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Rod Halvorson <halvorrod@yahoo.com>; The Penfield Property Manager <pfdpropmgr@villagegreen.com>; lynda.hay@lfhi.com <lynda.hay@lfhi.com>; The Point Mgr <tess@paradisemn.com>; Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) Andrew.Hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                                                                                   Sent: Monday, November 5, 2018 04:07:00 PM CST                                                                                                                                       Subject: RE: Police Annex sale closing, Pedro Park 'Final' design

Hi Bill,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me on the next steps with regard to the Public Safety Annex redevelopment and the development of Pedro Park.  I am cc’ing Andy Hestness here so he can take your thoughts into consideration as PED negotiates the terms of a development agreement.   

Best, Rebecca

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com To: Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) <Andrew.Hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) rebecca.noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                                                                                        Cc: Schieckel, Martin (CI-StPaul) <martin.schieckel@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Bruce (CI-StPaul) <Bruce.Corrie@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hahm Michael (CI-StPaul) <michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; St. Paul City Council <council@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; *CI-StPaul_Mayor <mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; The Point Mgr <tess@paradisemn.com>; The Penfield Property Manager <pfdpropmgr@villagegreen.com>; lynda.hay@lfhi.com lynda.hay@lfhi.com                                                                                                                                                           Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 09:14:11 AM CST                                                                                                                                    Subject: Re: Police Annex sale closing, Pedro Park 'Final' design

 

 

P.32

Hello Rebecca and Andrew,

Thank you for the copy of the draft Police Annex purchase agreement.  I will be in touch again later this morning with some brief comments and questions on several areas within it.  Thank you.

Regards, Bill Hosko

From: bill hosko <billhosko@yahoo.com> To: Hestness Andrew (CI-StPaul) <andrew.hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us>                                                                                                                 Cc: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <rebecca.noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Corrie Bruce (CI-StPaul) <bruce.corrie@ci.stpaul.mn.us>                   Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 09:21:50 AM CST                                                                                                                                   Subject: Design Drawings...

Hello Andrew,

Have Ackerberg's Design Drawings been submitted for your review?  If so, when where they submitted and may I have a copy today?  Thank you.

Regards, Bill

From: bill hosko <billhosko@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 11:55 AM
To: Angela Richter
angelarichter@Ackerberg.com Subject: Fw: Design Drawings...

Hello Angela, 

Would you be the best person to include in my newest emails to Saint Paul officials and staff with regards to your acquisition of the Police Annex building?  If not, could you please send me this person's email address at your earliest convenience?  In the past, I included info@ackerberg.com, but have never been sure these emails were received being no one from Ackerberg acknowledged them(?).  As a courtesy, I will also include you in the earlier email I sent to Saint Paul officials and staff.  

Thank you.

Regards, Bill Hosko

From: Angela Richter angelarichter@Ackerberg.com To: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com                                                                                                                                                                      Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 12:26:56 PM CST                                                                                                                                       Subject: RE: Design Drawings...

I am not the correct person but I have forwarded your info on to our corporate office. 

From: bill hosko [mailto:billhosko@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 11:25 AM
To: Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) Cc: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul); Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul) Subject: Ackerberg design plans for Police Annex...

Hello Andrew or Bruce,

Any way to get a copy of Ackerberg's design plans for the Police Annex today? Thank you. 

Bill  

 

 

P.33

From: Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) Andrew.Hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us  To: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com                                                                                                                                                                        Cc: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul) Bruce.Corrie@ci.stpaul.mn.us                        Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 02:13:36 PM CST                                                                                                                                  Subject: RE: Ackerberg design plans for Police Annex...

Bill, 

The current design drawings for the Public Safety Annex project are attached. Let me know if you have other questions.

Sincerely, Andy Hestness

From: bill hosko [mailto:billhosko@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 8:57 AM
To: Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) <
michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us Cc: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) <Andrew.Hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Subject: Pedro Park 'Final' design...

Hello Mike,

Others and myself remain hopeful city leaders and parks will reopen a truer community input process on Pedro Park's final design.  How did the attached 10-2-18 'Final' park plan posted on the city's website plan get the name Final attached to it?  Thank you.

Regards, Bill

On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 04:46:08 PM CST,                                                                                                                                    Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) <michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:  

Thanks Bill, I appreciate the communication.  I have expanded this group to include Alice and Ellen for some specific follow up.

Looking back, the plan that we are proceeding with was an outcome of the community design process earlier this year.  During that process, and during each step of the public review and approval process at the CIB committee, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the City Council HRA action, staff made specific effort to be clear that this is the design that would be pursued for this project if approved, and it was specifically linked to the budget and development agreement actions. In addition to the design process over the summer, the design was informed by the variety of needs identified by the community over time.  Asking Alice or Ellen to link the design web site with all of the information gathered and applied. 

At present, following the approval of the project, the City has retained an engineer to advance the plan and take the next steps.  In short, the concept needs to be finalized in detail, construction documents established and bid.

Looking forward, there will be 1-2 public sessions as these next steps occur.  To be clear these actions will be more on the adjustment and decisions for finishes rather than re-opening the design process.  It would be great if you would participate in this work.  Asking Alice/Ellen to provide notice on how to do just that.

My Thanks 

Mike H

 

 

 

 

P.34

From: bill hosko [mailto:billhosko@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 9:53 AM
To: Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) <
michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Cc: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) <Andrew.Hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Messer, Alice (CI-StPaul) <alice.messer@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Stewart, Ellen (CI-StPaul) <ellen.stewart@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Subject: Re: Pedro Park 'Final' design...

Thank you for the reply Mike,

Can you please explain what you mean by "the City Council HRA action"?  Do you mean their recent Oct 24 vote to sell the building, or was there another specific HRA action concerning the "final" Oct. 2 park design shown on the city's website? Thank you.

Regards, Bill

On Thursday, November 15, 2018 10:00:00 AM CST,                                                                                                                                   Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) <michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

Yes, I am refereeing to the actions on 10/24, the transfer if the PSA land, the advancement of the Ackerberg DA, and the establishment of the budget for the park.

From: bill hosko [mailto:billhosko@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 11:30 AM
To: Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) <
michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Cc: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) <Andrew.Hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Messer, Alice (CI-StPaul) <alice.messer@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Stewart, Ellen (CI-StPaul) <ellen.stewart@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Subject: Re: Pedro Park 'Final' design...

Thank you again Mike, 

So I am to understand, that until the Purchase Agreement between the City and The Ackerberg Group is actually signed, currently scheduled for 1/31/19, the "Final" 10-2-18 Pedro Park plan currently shown on the city's website is not truly final? 

Andrew,  

Can you confirm that the closing is still scheduled for 1-31-19? Thank you.

Regards, Bill

On Thursday, November 15, 2018 12:01:06 PM CST,                                                                                                                                       Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) <michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

The park design is final and we are working on it as such to implement in 2019 to match the PSA development timeline.

If for some reason the DA is not executed, we would have an associated budget shortfall

Mike H

On Thursday, November 15, 2018 12:20:50 PM CST,                                                                                                                                             bill hosko <billhosko@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thank you Mike, I understand your position.  Andrew, Can you confirm the closing is still scheduled for 1-31-19?

Regards, Bill

P.35

From: bill hosko [mailto:billhosko@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 12:49 PM
To: Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) <
michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Cc: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) <Andrew.Hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Messer, Alice (CI-StPaul) <alice.messer@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Stewart, Ellen (CI-StPaul) <ellen.stewart@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Subject: Re: Pedro Park 'Final' design...

Hello again Mike,

Just several more basic questions please...

I would like to also confirm that the following information (below) posted on the city's website is correct - there were three meetings total and that of the 15 listed committee members three were residents of downtown?

How many committee members were there originally; how many resigned after the first meeting?

Lastly, can you/staff also please provide an attendance record of how many meetings the listed committee members attended?  Thank you.

Regards, Bill

"DATES AND DRAFT MEETING AGENDAS ARE BELOW:
Thursday, May 3, 2018  -  81 on Seventh Building, 81 E 7th St, St Paul, MN 55101 from 6:30 to 8:00 pm. 
Meeting will focus on committee roles and expectations, analysis of the site and input from the previous process, and programming options for the park considering location, size, and context.  Meeting outcomes will include a list of potential park amenities.

Thursday, May 24, 2018 – 81 on Seventh Building, 81 E 7th St, St Paul, MN 55101 from 6:30 to 8:00 pm
Meeting will focus on conceptual designs based on input received, preliminary costs, precedent images, and prioritization of amenities.

Thursday, June 21, 2018 – 81 on Seventh Building, 81 E 7th St, St Paul, MN 55101 from 6:30 to 8:00 pm
Meeting will include presentation of final concept plan based on input to-date. Opportunity to provide input and comments before plan goes to HRA for consideration.

2018 CONFIRMED DESIGN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

CapitolRiver Council - Chris Trost
Commercial Real Estate Services - Pat Wolf / Bob Spratt
Donerly Inc. - Don Keefe / Bertin Dakouo
Lunds & Byerlys - Lynda Hay
Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) - John Kavanaugh
Renodis - Colleen Kranz / Jennifer Snyder
Rossmor Business Association - Bill Collins
The Ackerberg Group - Frank Clark / Parker Evans
The Penfield - Steven Vargas / Anna Olson
The Pointe - Jonathan Flory"

From: Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul)
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 1:04 PM
To: bill hosko
billhosko@yahoo.com Cc: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) <Andrew.Hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Messer, Alice (CI-StPaul) <alice.messer@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Stewart, Ellen (CI-StPaul) ellen.stewart@ci.stpaul.mn.us Subject: RE: Pedro Park 'Final' design...

Alice or Ellen will provide this information

P.36

On Thursday, Nov 15, 2018 4:50‎‎ PM Stewart, Ellen (CI-StPaul) <ellen.stewart@ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

Thank you for your inquiry.  I have attached a summary of the design process which should answer your questions about participation.

Sincerely,                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Ellen Stewart

On Friday, November 16, 2018 12:46:18 PM CST, bill hosko <billhosko@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hello Rebecca,

I have read the latest information sent yesterday by city staff. 

Regarding Pedro Park: 

Respectfully, 

1. It remains apparent its redesign had little actual 'citizen' participation, 

2. After the 'community' process was complete a handful of city staff/planners and The Ackerberg Group came up with a design they desired - behind closed doors.

3. I understand from others present at the 10-24-18 HRA meeting, that particular city staff and HRA/Councilmembers were allowed to treat those who understood they were promised a larger park in a disrespectful manner.

Regarding the Police Annex building:

Respectfully,

1. Did you advocate for a serious discussion on the possibility that its re-use includes a skyway connection 'easement' through the building and a green-roof as you said you would after our September 2016 meeting, in the event the building would be saved?  

2. I remain aware that particular city staff/planners have a personal bias against skyways (even though they use them) and that they have a personal vision for downtown - even though they have little or no personal investment here.  

3. Have you, in your responsibility to oversee PED's negotiations with The Ackerberg Group, ensured a fair discussion has occurred relating to both subjects (which previously I outlined the benefits both could provide to our community)?

4. Additionally, I have shared my earlier information with The Ackerberg Group about the benefits the green-roof and skyway connection would bring to the community and their building.  They have not responded.  

On Tuesday, November 27 at 6:30, I will host a community meeting at Key's Café in order that there yet be a fair, open and constructive discussion about where we are at with:

1. the sale of the public's Police Annex building to the Ackerberg Group, 

2. the redesign of the public's Pedro Park.  

Can you confirm that the Police Annex's scheduled closing remains 1-31-19?  I have not yet received a reply from PED. 

I cordially invite you, and any city staff you can bring and representatives of The Ackerberg Group to attend.  Your leadership is needed here.  Surely you desire to ensure that these smaller, yet still important development proposals for the heart of downtown, are indeed the best they can be.  By next Tuesday, I will send you a draft meeting agenda.  I would be happy to adjust it to accommodate your attendance and or input you may have on it before I send it out.  If you cannot attend I hope that you can send a representative(s) to give clarity on events. Thank you.

Regards, Bill Hosko

P.37

From: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us  To: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com                                                                                                                                                                     Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 12:46:27 PM CST                                                                                                                                   Subject: Automatic reply: Pedro Park 'Final' design...

Thanks for your message.  I'm out of the office without access to phone or e-mail on Nov. 16-20.  If you need assistance before then, please call my office at 651-266-8620.
Otherwise, I'll get back to you as soon as I can after I return.

Best, Rebecca

From: bill hosko [mailto:billhosko@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 10:29 AM
To: Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) Cc: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) Subject: Police Annex closing, Purchase Agreement 

Hello Andrew, 

Is the closing sale of the Police Annex to The Ackerberg Group still scheduled for the end of January?  

Has the Purchase Agreement Draft been updated since Version 9 - Oct 31, 2018?  If so, please send me a copy at your earliest convenience.  

Is a copy of the proposed Construction Plans - specifically the proposed floor plans, available for the public too see?  If so, please send me a copy of the proposed floor plans at your earliest convenience. 

Thank you.

Regards, Bill 

On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 11:28:48 AM CST,                                                                                                                                   Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) <Andrew.Hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

Bill, 

There has not been an update to the dates. The Development Agreement Version 9 - 10/31/2018 is the most current version of the document. There are no additional construction plans available at this time.

Thanks, Andy Hestness

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com To: Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) Andrew.Hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us Cc: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                                                 Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 01:08:43 PM CST                                                                                                                                  Subject: Re: Police Annex closing, Purchase Agreement

Thank you for the additional information Andrew, Bill

On Monday, November 26, 2018 01:13:26 PM CST,                                                                                                                                       Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

Hi Bill,

I checked in with Taina this morning and unfortunately, she also has a prior commitment for tomorrow evening, so our office won’t be represented at the meeting.  I’m sorry that this is the case, but I look forward to hearing the results of the conversation. 

Best, Rebecca

P.38

From: bill hosko [mailto:billhosko@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 2:51 PM
To: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) Cc: Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul) Subject: Re: Tomorrow's Meeting 

Hello Rebecca, 

I understand.  Not sure if it will be three people or 30.  Please ask that Parks and PED provide a rep and please respond to my questions prior to the meeting if you can.  Thank you.

Regards, Bill 

On Monday, November 26, 2018 03:56:23 PM CST,                                                                                                                                      Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

Thanks Bill.  I’ve nudged both Parks and PED.  Hope it’s a successful gathering no matter the turn-out.

Best, Rebecca 

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com  To: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                                Cc: Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul) Taina.Maki@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                                                     Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 03:59:37 PM CST                                                                                                                                                     Subject: Re: Tomorrow's Meeting

Thank you.  Look forward to your answers to the questions I have posed to you.  I will include them in the meeting packet and follow-up email.  Rebecca, there is still an opportunity here for you to pick up this mess and give the public some remarkable benefits.  

Regards, Bill  

From: bill hosko [mailto:billhosko@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 1:08 PM
To: Hestness, Andrew Cc: Noecker, Rebecca); Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul) Subject: Fw: Ackerberg design plans for Police Annex...

Hello Andrew, or Bruce if Andrew is not available this afternoon, 

Can you tell me the approximate date the city received the attached Ackerberg plans?  Thank you.

Regards, Bill 

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com To: *CI-StPaul_Mayor mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                                                                         Cc: St. Paul City Council <council@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Ackerberg Info info@ackerberg.com                                                                               Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 10:12:40 AM CST                                                                                                                               Subject: 11-27-18 Police Annex - Pedro Park Community Meeting

Dear Mayor Carter,

The community meeting last evening at Key's Café was by most measures very successful.  Its notice is attached. 

The two-plus hours discussion was unbridled, honest and frank.  Much information was shared.  A letter of the meeting's summary and subsequent requests made of you from the group is being drafted.  Your will receive it this Thursday or Friday.  Our city council membership and The Ackerberg Group will be included in its delivery.  Thank you.

Best regards,

Bill Hosko

P.39

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com To: Angela Richter angelarichter@ackerberg.com                                                                                                                                                Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 10:25:26 AM CST                                                                                                                                  Subject: Fw: 11-27-18 Police Annex - Pedro Park Community Meeting

Hello Angela,

Below is a brief note I sent to Saint Paul Mayor Carter.  As a courtesy I am including you.  

Recently I left you a voicemail requesting a brief meeting with members of your organization overseeing your interest in the Police Annex building.  Did you receive it?  May I have a short meeting with your representatives?  I am confident they will appreciate the time allowance. Thank you.

Regards, Bill Hosko

651-222-4767

Dear Mayor Carter,

The community meeting last evening at Key's Café was by most measures very successful.  It's notice is attached. 

The two-plus hours discussion was unbridled, honest and frank.  Much information was shared.  A letter of the meeting's summary and subsequent requests made of you from the group is being drafted.  Your will receive it this Thursday or Friday.  Our city council membership and The Ackerberg Group will be included in its delivery.   Thank you.

Best regards, Bill Hosko

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 10:29:41 AM CST,                                                                                                                                    Angela Richter <angelarichter@Ackerberg.com> wrote:

Bill,

I’m sorry but I am not connected with that project. I have forwarded all your messages onto our corporate Ackerberg office.

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com  To: Angela Richter angelarichter@Ackerberg.com                                                                                                                                            Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 10:35:36 AM CST                                                                                                                                Subject: Re: 11-27-18 Police Annex - Pedro Park Community Meeting

Hello Angela,

I do understand that from your previous message.  Can you then please request that whomever is overseeing this project return my message?  Thank you.

Regards, Bill Hosko 

651-222-4767

(No reply received)

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 11:30:47 AM CST,                                                                                                                                   Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) <Andrew.Hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

Bill,

The images were received on October 16th, 2018.

Sincerely, Andy Hestness

P.40

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com To: Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) <Andrew.Hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us Cc: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul) <Bruce.Corrie@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; St. Paul City Council <council@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; *CI-StPaul_Mayor mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                                                                                                       Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 08:12:43 AM CST                                                                                                                                  Subject: Police Annex Purchase Agreement: "The Park Agreement"

Thank you Andrew.

Can you or Mike, included in this email, send me a copy of the Park Agreement?  Has it been signed and by whom and when? Thank you.

Regards, Bill Hosko  

On Friday, November 30, 2018 09:47:33 AM CST,                                                                                                                                                bill hosko <billhosko@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hello again all, 

Can one of you today please forward to me a copy of the 'Park Agreement' mentioned in the Draft Purchase Agreement the city has with Ackerberg?  Has it been signed and by whom and when? Thank you.

Regards, Bill Hosko

From: bill hosko [mailto:billhosko@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 1:49 PM
To: Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul); Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul); Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul); Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul); *CI-StPaul_Mayor Cc: #CI-StPaul_Council Subject: Re: Police Annex Purchase Agreement: "The Park Agreement" 

Hello again all: Mayor Carter, Councilmember Noecker, Mike Hahm, Bruce Corrie, Andrew Hestness,

Perhaps the third time may be a charm.   

Again, will you please send me a copy of the "Park Agreement" as mentioned in the Police Annex - 'Draft Purchase Agreement'?  

Has this Park Agreement been signed?  If so when and by whom?  If it has not been signed, when is its signing scheduled?  

This request was first made yesterday morning.  No reply has since been given.  

If it can not be sent to me and others for review today, can you please explain why? Thank you. 

Regards, Bill Hosko

On Friday, November 30, 2018 01:55:49 PM CST,                                                                                                                                        Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) <Andrew.Hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

Bill,

The Parks Agreement has not been drafted. The timing on this document is that it needs to be executed before the property can be transferred from the HRA to the developer.

Sincerely, Andy Hestness
Principal Project Manager
Planning and Economic Development

P.41

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com To: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) rebecca.noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                           Cc: Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) <michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul) <bruce.corrie@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) <andrew.hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Maki Taina (CI-StPaul) taina.maki@ci.stpaul.mn.us                       Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 01:00:12 PM CST                                                                                                                                               Subject: Pedro Park funding...

Hello Rebecca,

Can you confirm that there will be a public hearing on funding for Pedro Park's rebuild this Weds?  I do not see these details on the council's online agenda.  The Villager reported the hearing will be this Weds. Thank you.

Regards, Bill Hosko

From: bill hosko <billhosko@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 1:14:51 PM
To: Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) Cc: #CI-StPaul_Council; Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul); Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul); *CI-StPaul_Mayor; Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul) Subject: Re: Police Annex Purchase Agreement: "The Park Agreement"

Hello Andrew,

At your earliest convenience today or Tuesday, please tell me when it will be drafted?  When will it be signed, this week, next week?  Is there an outline at this point?  If so, please send me a copy.  Is there a requirement that it be signed before, or after, our city council approves its funding? Thank you.

Regards, Bill

From: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul)                                                                                                                                                            Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 1:18 PM
To: bill hosko
billhosko@yahoo.com Cc: Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) <michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul) <Bruce.Corrie@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) <Andrew.Hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul) Taina.Maki@ci.stpaul.mn.us Subject: RE: Pedro Park funding...

Hi Bill,

I would assume The Villager is referring to our public hearing on the budget as a whole, as I don’t see Pedro specifically on our agenda.  Mike or Bruce, do you have further information on this?

Best, Rebecca

On Monday, December 3, 2018 01:24:45 PM CST,                                                                                                                                              Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) <michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

I am aware of no specific hearing.  Your speculation regarding the budget hearing makes sense.

Mike H

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com  To: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us Cc: Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul) <Bruce.Corrie@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) <Andrew.Hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul) <Taina.Maki@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Messer, Alice (CI-StPaul) alice.messer@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                                                                                          Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 02:18:13 PM CST                                                                                                                                       Subject: Re: Pedro Park funding...

P.42

Rebecca and Mike, 

Cool.  The 11-21-18 Villager, "The $2.23 million development of Pedro Park downtown... are among the projects included in the 2019 CIB that is expected to be approved by the City Council 12-12-18. The council will hold a public hearing on the CIB at 5:30 pm, Dec 5". 

On the city's website, where does one specifically find the proposed funding for Pedro Park? And at the public hearing on the budget as a whole, one may speak about Pedro Park's funding? Thank you.

Bill

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com To: *CI-StPaul_Mayor mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                                                                       Cc: St. Paul City Council <council@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Angela Richter <angelarichter@ackerberg.com>; Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul) <bruce.corrie@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) <michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) andrew.hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                                                                                                                Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 12:01:07 PM CST                                                                                                                                          Subject: Letter to Mayor Carter from attendees at Pedro Park-Police Annex community meeting 11-27-18

December 3, 2018    

To: Saint Paul Mayor Carter                                                                                                                                                                                    Saint Paul City Council                                                                                                                                                                                        Ackerberg Development

Re: Pedro Park, Police Annex-Public Safety building 

Dear Mayor Carter:

Attached, please find a letter submitted to you from a number of individuals who attended a community meeting at Key's Café on 11-27-18.  It concerns the City's plans for Pedro Park and the Police Annex building.  Please respond to it this week at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Sincerely, Bill Hosko

“December 3, 2018    

To: Saint Paul Mayor Melvin Carter                                                                                                                                                                       Saint Paul City Council                                                                                                                                                                                    Ackerberg Development

Re: Pedro Park, Police Annex-Public Safety building

Dear Mayor Carter:

A public meeting was held last Tuesday evening at Key’s café to discuss the city’s planned re-design and reconstruction of Pedro Park and the city’s planned sale of the Police Annex-Public Safety building to Ackerberg on January 31, 2019 - scheduled after the HRA’s 5-2 vote on October 24, 2018.

All fifteen in attendance were downtown residents, from nine different downtown addresses.  Most were condominium owners. A number were business owners.  Downtown is our neighborhood and our home.  We have invested much to be here and desire that it be as successful as possible.

At the conclusion of our in-depth, two-plus hour meeting, the general consensus was that there needs to be a public meeting at this time concerning the city’s specific plans for the park and the building.  One in which Ackerberg is invited to participate.

 

P.43

Because time is of the essence, we request that you schedule this meeting in two weeks’ time to discuss the following:

Regarding Pedro Park:

  • Should there be a follow-up Pedro Park Design Survey in follow-up to the City’s may 2018 Survey? 
  • Should this survey include more specific ‘rate on a scale of 1-10’ questions such as:

- How strongly would you prefer that the park’s sunken topography remain over the City’s design which fills it in? 

- How strongly would you prefer to see the late 19th century stone foundation wall, which serves as the backdrop for the park against the Police Annex building, to remain a part of a final park design?

- How strongly do you support the City’s current park plan which grants a permanent egress across the park to Ackerberg so that customers can access their proposed first-floor retail spaces, which will be located facing the park?

- The May 2018 Pedro Park Design Committee held three meetings: May 3, May 24, June 21.  It had 24 members; 8 residents and 16 non-residents representing business and community organization interests (By the third meeting 14 members remained.  Only one resident attended all three meetings).  How strongly do you feel that if the committee was renewed for three additional meetings that it should contain 50% residents?  75% residents? 

- The previous Pedro Park Design Committee was given two conceptual park designs to select from at its second meeting.  How strongly would you prefer that a renewed committee be given more designs to choose from?  If so, how many would be preferable? 

- How strongly do you feel that a park design competition would be beneficial to help select the final design?  Should Saint Paul citizens be allowed to help select a final design?

Regarding the Police Annex-Public Safety building:

Approximately 10,000 people call downtown home.  Several thousand are senior citizens.  Hundreds, of all ages, have limited mobility or physical disabilities.  We believe our famous skyway system is an amenity for all of downtown and that senior citizens and those with limited mobility or physical disabilities benefit very much from its existence.

  • Should consideration be given to expand the downtown skyway system into this north-central area of downtown, from the skyway connected Robert Street ramp one block south?
  • Should research be conducted on the following basic information:                                                                                                   its feasibility?                                                                                                                                                                                            estimated costs?                                                                                                                                                                                     other similar skyway scenarios?                                                                                                                                                             cost-benefit analysis to the City and to downtown’s residential, business and hospitality community?                                                                                                            cost-benefit analysis to Ackerberg for agreeing to allow a skyway easement through the Police Annex building?

Many people believe the City promised to demolish this building and expand Pedro Park.  A court case filed on behalf of the citizen’s group ‘Friends of Pedro Park’ seeking to reverse its planned re-use in favor of demolition has been scheduled for December 20, 2018.  

  • Should the City prevail, would the installation of green roofs atop the building’s tiered roof be a partial substitute for those living nearby who understood they would be able to look down upon the greenery of an expanded city park here?
  • Should research be conducted on the following basic information:                                                                                                               its feasibility?                                                                                                                                                                                                     estimated costs?                                                                                                                                                                                      other metro area Green Roof installations?                                                                                                                                                    cost-benefit analysis to the City and to Ackerberg?

P.44

Thank you for your time and consideration.  Please reply at your earliest convenience.  Our consensus is that your reply be sent to billhosko@yahoo.com.  From there it will be forwarded to all in our group and other interested parties.

Respectfully yours,

Geruth Buetow, Sandra and Tom Erickson, Bill Hosko, Angela and Paul Spencer, Karen and David Trudeau, Musa Vadnais

Cc: Bruce Corrine - Director Saint Paul Department of Planning and Economic Development                                                                            Mike Hahm - Director Saint Paul Parks and Recreation                                                                                                              

Attachments: Pedro Park Design Committee meeting dates-original Pedro Park Survey Questions, City’s (2) conceptual park plans submitted to Pedro Park Design Committee, City’s ‘Final’ Pedro Park design, Ackerberg’s building concept, Alt park and building concepts submitted for discussion by Hosko at Community meeting.” (bottom two b&w illustrations grant Ackerberg a limited egress while keeping the existing topography of the park versus filling it in)

P.45

P.46

On Monday, December 3, 2018 02:36:03 PM CST,                                                                                                                                                      bill hosko <billhosko@yahoo.com> wrote: 

Hello Rebecca,

Previously, I have twice posed questions to you concerning your oversite of the Pedro Park redesign and Police Annex negotiations (highlighted below In Yellow).  Can you please answer them directly? 

Thank you.   

Regards, Bill 

From: Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) Andrew.Hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                              To: bill hosko <billhosko@yahoo.com>; Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                                                                                           Cc: Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul) <Bruce.Corrie@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Maki, Taina (CI-StPaul) <Taina.Maki@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Messer, Alice (CI-StPaul) alice.messer@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                                                                                 Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 10:47:06 AM CST                                                                                                                                       Subject: RE: Pedro Park funding...

Bill,

In response to your questions:

On the city's website, where does one specifically find the proposed funding for Pedro Park?

-          There will be an agenda item on the 12/12/18 Council agenda to adopt the 2019 budget. Once posted, that agenda item will include a line item for the 2019 Pedro Park budget. The proposed Pedro budget was referenced in slides 4 and 5 of the CIB budget overview for the City Council, available here:

http://stpaul.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=dac07604-7531-414f-9704-de44ea4feda3.pdf

-          The 2018 Pedro Park budget was established via RES PH 18-281 and is available here:

http://stpaul.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?m=l&id=/matter.aspx?key=28403  

And at the public hearing on the budget as a whole, one may speak about Pedro Park's funding?

-          The public hearing on the entire 2019 budget is at 6:30 p.m. on 12/5/18, and the public may comment on any aspect of the city budget – including Pedro Park.

Information about the design and future construction process is available on the Pedro Park project website:

https://www.stpaul.gov/departments/parks-recreation/design-construction/current-projects/pedro-park-0

Andy Hestness

 

 

 

 

 

P.47

From: Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) Andrew.Hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us  To: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com                                                                                                                                                                    Cc: #CI-StPaul_Council <Council@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) <michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; *CI-StPaul_Mayor <Mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul) Bruce.Corrie@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                                                                               Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 09:34:34 PM CST                                                                                                                                Subject: Re: Police Annex Purchase Agreement: "The Park Agreement"

Bill,

Answers to your questions are below in red. 

Direction on the content of the Parks Agreement was in the text of City Council RES PH 18-327 and Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Commission Resolution (Res) 18-19, which was an attachment to the City Council action:

https://stpaul.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3704191&GUID=81335EEA-FFD9-4242-910A-CB33960C8E57&Options=&Search=&FullText=1

Sincerely, Andy Hestness Principal Project Manager
Planning and Economic Development

From: bill hosko [mailto:billhosko@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2018 1:15 PM
To: Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul)
Cc: #CI-StPaul_Council; Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul); Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul); *CI-StPaul_Mayor; Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul)
Subject: Re: Police Annex Purchase Agreement: "The Park Agreement"

Hello Andrew,

At your earliest convenience today or Tuesday, please tell me when it will be drafted?  We are currently negotiating and nothing has been drafted.  We do not have a final timeline. When will it be signed, this week, next week? Timing is uncertain as parties are still negotiating. Is there an outline at this point? No there is no outline at this point.  If so, please send me a copy.  Is there a requirement that it be signed before, or after, our city council approves its funding? There is no requirement on the timing of these two items relative to one another. Thank you.

Regards, Bill

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com  To: Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) Andrew.Hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                                   Cc: #CI-StPaul_Council <Council@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) <michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; *CI-StPaul_Mayor <Mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul) Bruce.Corrie@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                                                                          Wednesday, December 5, 2018 01:16‎‎PM                                                                                                                                      Subject: Additional question concerning Ackerberg's Police Annex exterior concept design...

Hello again Andrew,

Referring to our previous emails… (see 11-28-18) for additional clarity: 

Can you please tell me when the City first saw Ackerberg's exterior concept designs for the Police Annex building that illustrated an egress thru a new Pedro Park - in order for customers to reach their proposed retail spaces which would face the park?  Surely, it was well before this October 16th?  

Perhaps before the Pedro Park Design Committee began meeting in May of this year? Thank you

Regards, Bill

P.48

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com To: St. Paul City Council council@ci.stpaul.mn.us Cc: *CI-StPaul_Mayor mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                                                                                                Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 02:21:37 PM CST                                                                                                                               Subject: 8-2016 - 12-2018 Hosko-City email thread - Pedro Park, Police Annex Developments

Dear Saint Paul City Council Members,

Attached for the record, as part of the Public Hearing process regarding Mayor Carter's proposed 2019 budget, please find my email thread with the City concerning the Pedro Park-Police Annex discussion.  (8-2016 – 12-2018)  

Best Regards, Bill Hosko

On Monday, December 10, 2018 09:59:27 AM CST,                                                                                                                                              bill hosko <billhosko@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hello Andrew, 

Has the (Pedro) Parks Agreement been drafted at this time?  If so, please send me a copy at your earliest convenience.  If not, can you tell me when it might be drafted?  Thank you. 

Regards, Bill

Fr:bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com  To:Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul)                                                                                                                                                                     Cc:#CI-StPaul_Council,Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul),Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul),*CI-StPaul_Mayor,Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul)   Sent: Dec 10, 2018 at 10:03 AM

Hello again Andrew,

Perhaps I missed your answers to my previous email from last Wednesday?  If you sent them I am sorry if I missed the email.  If not, can you please answer my previous questions from 12-5?  Thank you.

Regards, Bill

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com To: Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) andrew.hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us Cc: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <rebecca.noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; *CI-StPaul_Mayor <mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) <michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul) bruce.corrie@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                      Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 10:14:17 AM CST                                                                                                                                   Subject: Re: Pedro Park funding...

Hello Andrew,

In response to your previous message, I visited the City's website and reviewed the, " Summary of Ackerberg Proposal for PSA.pdf  " under the link you sent me, https://www.stpaul.gov/departments/parks-recreation/design-construction/current-projects/pedro-park-0.  Their letter to the city is not dated?  When was this letter received?  

Thank you.

Regards, Bill

 

 

P.49

On Monday, December 10, 2018 10:23:08 AM CST,                                                                                                                                                bill hosko <billhosko@yahoo.com> wrote: 

Hello Rebecca,

On December 3, I requested that you answer my questions sent to you on two prior occasions.  Will you please answer these simple questions?  If not, can you please explain?  Thank you.

Regards, Bill  

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com To: *CI-StPaul_Mayor mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us Cc: St. Paul City Council <council@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) <michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul) <bruce.corrie@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) <andrew.hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Angela Richter angelarichter@ackerberg.com Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 10:43:05 AM CST                                                                                                                                      Subject: Re: Letter to Mayor Carter from attendees at Pedro Park-Police Annex community meeting 11-27-18

Dear Mayor Carter,

Last Monday, I contacted you on behalf of those in attendance at a 11-27-18 community meeting regarding the Police Annex and Pedro Park developments.  Have you received this email?  Please reply to it and its attached letter.  Thank you.

Sincerely, Bill Hosko

From: bill hosko [mailto:billhosko@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 9:47 AM
To: Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul) Cc: *CI-StPaul_Mayor; Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul); Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul); Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) Subject: Re: Police Annex Purchase Agreement: "The Park Agreement"

Hello Bruce, 

Nine days ago, below, I asked Andrew if the (Pedro) Parks Agreement had been drafted.  I have not received a reply.  Can you give me its status?  Has it been drafted?  If so, can please send me a copy and tell when it is scheduled to be signed?  Thank you. 

Regards, Bill 

From: Burchill, Hannah (CI-StPaul) Hannah.Burchill@ci.stpaul.mn.us  To: billhosko@yahoo.com billhosko@yahoo.com                                                                                                                                                Cc: Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) <Andrew.Hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul) Bruce.Corrie@ci.stpaul.mn.us                               Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 10:18:31 AM CST                                                                                                                           Subject: FW: Police Annex Purchase Agreement: "The Park Agreement"

Good morning, Bill –

I was forwarded two questions from you regarding the future of the Public Safety Annex and Pedro Park. 

The Pedro Park agreement has not been drafted at this time.

Regarding the letter from Ackerberg with no date, I’m unable to locate one on the website provided (https://www.stpaul.gov/departments/parks-recreation/design-construction/current-projects/pedro-park-0). Could you provide a specific location where this letter was found? 

I’m happy to take any additional questions via email or by phone (in my signature) regarding these projects. As the departments designated Public Information Officer, I’m happy to coordinate responses from our staff members.

Thanks, Hannah

P.50

From: bill hosko [mailto:billhosko@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 10:48 AM
To: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) Cc: Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul); *CI-StPaul_Mayor; Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul); Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) Subject: Re: Reminder about questions sent previoulsy - Fw: Pedro Park 'Final' design and negotiating Purchase Agreement for Police Annex...

Hello Rebecca,

I hope all is well.  Perhaps the fourth time may be the charm.  Will you please acknowledge receipt of my past emails and please answer the simple questions which I and others have a right to know the answers to. 

Thankyou.

Regards, Bill

On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 11:36:54 AM CST,                                                                                                                             Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

Hi Bill,

I’m sorry for not responding to your previous messages and I appreciate your persistence.

To be honest, I’m having trouble understanding from your messages exactly what you’re trying to learn or achieve.  I’ve been following your e-mail exchanges with staff and it appears they’ve been very thorough in answering the questions you’re also asking of me. 

I’m also (as you’ve pointed out) not able to keep up with the pace at which your e-mails have been arriving, and it seems like the kind of questions you’re asking would be more productive to discuss in a meeting rather than through exchanging e-mails.  I’d also suggest inviting PED and Parks staff to join us so that we can have one conversation and ideally resolve all the issues at one time.

Please let me know if you’d be up for getting together and I’ll ask my staff to find a good time.  Best, Rebecca

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com To: Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) andrew.hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us Cc: Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul) <Bruce.Corrie@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <rebecca.noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; *CI-StPaul_Mayor <mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                             Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 02:55:31 PM CST                                                                                                                                       Subject: Re: Police Annex Purchase Agreement: "The Park Agreement"

Hello Andrew,

A belated Happy New Year to you!  

I received Hannah's email on Dec 19, 2018.  I prefer to stay in contact with you, with all due respect to all parties, rather than another layer of city staff.  Also, Councilmember Noecker requested early on that you be the point person here.  

- Has a Pedro Park agreement now been drafted at this point?  If so, has it been signed?  

- I understand the Police Annex closing has been rescheduled?  If so, do you have a new closing date?

- Previously: 

On 11-13-18, I requested a copy of Ackerberg's design plans for the Police Annex.  

That afternoon, on 11-13-18, you sent me a copy of their 'current design drawings'.  You also submitted to me their letter of interest in the property, but this letter did not have a date stamp on it? (Continued)

P.51

On 11-27-18, I asked for the approximate date the city received those plans.  (Continued)

On 11-28-18, you replied the drawings were received on 10-16-18.  

On 12-5-18, I asked when did the City, first see, these Ackerberg's exterior concept designs for the Police Annex building (plans which illustrated an egress thru a new Pedro Park - in order for customers to reach their proposed retail spaces which would face the park)?  I did not receive a reply. 

Please let me know that you have received this email.  When will you be able to answer the questions submitted?  

Thank you. 

Regards, Bill

(No reply received as of 2-27-19)

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com To: *CI-StPaul_Mayor mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us Cc: St. Paul City Council <council@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul) <bruce.corrie@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) <michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) <andrew.hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Angela Richter angelarichter@ackerberg.com                                                                                                                                                                  Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 09:23:13 AM CST                                                                                                                                 Subject: Receipt of: Letter to Mayor Carter from attendees at Pedro Park-Police Annex community meeting 11-27-18

Dear Mayor Carter,

I hope the new year is being well to you.  Here it is mid-February now, time is passing so quickly.  

Last December 3, I sent you a letter on behalf of attendees at the Pedro Park-Police Annex community meeting held on 11-27-18 (see below and attached).  We did not receive a reply.  I sent a follow-up communication on Dec 10.  We did not receive a reply.  People are disappointed.  Can you please respond to your constituent's letter? 

Thank you.

Sincerely, Bill Hosko  

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com To: *CI-StPaul_Mayor mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us Cc: St. Paul City Council <council@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Angela Richter <angelarichter@ackerberg.com>; Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul) <bruce.corrie@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) <michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) andrew.hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us  Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 12:01:07 PM  Subject: Letter to Mayor Carter from attendees at Pedro Park-Police Annex community meeting 11-27-18

December 3, 2018    

To: Saint Paul Mayor Carter,                                                                                                                                                                              Re: Pedro Park, Police Annex-Public Safety building 

Dear Mayor Carter:

Attached, please find a letter submitted to you from a number of individuals who attended a community meeting at Key's Café on 11-27-18.  It concerns the City's plans for Pedro Park and the Police Annex building.  Please respond to it this week at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Sincerely, Bill Hosko

 

P.52

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com To: *CI-StPaul_Mayor mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us Cc: St. Paul City Council <council@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) <michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul) <bruce.corrie@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) <andrew.hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Angela Richter angelarichter@ackerberg.com Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 10:43:05 AM CST Subject: Re: Letter to Mayor Carter from attendees at Pedro Park-Police Annex community meeting 11-27-18

Dear Mayor Carter,

Last Monday, I contacted you on behalf of those in attendance at a 11-27-18 community meeting regarding the Police Annex and Pedro Park developments.  Have you received this email?  Please reply to it and its attached letter.  Thank you.

Sincerely, Bill Hosko

(No reply received as of 2-27-19)

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com To: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) Rebecca.Noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us Cc: Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) <Andrew.Hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; *CI-StPaul_Mayor <Mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul) <Bruce.Corrie@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                            Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 01:48:55 PM Subject: Discussion: Police Annex/Pedro Park

Hello Rebecca,

I hope the new year is going well for you.  As a courtesy, I included you in my email to Andrew yesterday and Mayor Carter's office this AM.  

Please accept my apologies for not getting back to your 12-19-18 email until today.  With the holidays and a variety of work projects since, I frankly did not want to think about this Pedro Park/Police Annex project until this week...

My past emails to you have been concise and clear in the basic questions they posed.  Also, your office and city staff had the opportunity to attend an important late November community meeting at Keys.  None of you attended.  Suggesting a meeting with me afterwards seemed disingenuous. You remain welcome to reply to the concise statements and clear questions I posed to you on 11-12-18 (below in green).

A community member had this to say in December after seeing my email thread with city hall, "I read through all your email communications.  I'm glad to understand your full position more clearly.  They ran over all of us - advocates to save the building and to demolish it.  I see PED told you too that there would be public input sought on the Public Annex...  Never happened".   

Additionally, with the old-fashioned winter we are having, it remains another lost opportunity for downtown, and this city, that you have now long refused to initiate a public discussion on the benefits of extending the skyway system into the north-central area of downtown - an opportunity any sale of the Police Annex building to a developer would arguably make easy to implement.  Particularly, as compared to other city development initiatives over the years which have cost taxpayers far more, for far less benefit.  

I am also left to suspect that Ackerberg has been regressively muzzled by city hall on this subject.  A skyway easement in the Police Annex could only bring additional value to the property, and great benefit to the downtown community. 

Thank you.

Regards, Bill Hosko

(No reply received as of 2-27-19)

 

 

 

P.53

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com To: Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul) bruce.corrie@ci.stpaul.mn.us Cc: Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) <andrew.hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <rebecca.noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; *CI-StPaul_Mayor <mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                  Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 03:00:50 PM CST                                                                                                                                       Subject: Fw: Police Annex Purchase Agreement: "The Park Agreement"

Hello Bruce,

Can you please respond to the email I sent to Andrew earlier this week being he has not replied?  

1. When did the city first see the Ackerberg designs sent to me on 11-13-18?  Was it on 10-16-18 as Andrew eluded to or was it earlier?  Why are these plans not dated? 

2. Also, on the city's website, under 'Summary of Ackerberg Proposal for PSA': https://www.stpaul.gov/sites/default/files/Media%20Root/Planning%20%26%20Economic%20Development/Summary%20of%20Ackerberg%20Proposal%20for%20PSA.pdf when did the city first see these Ackerberg designs and intro letter - neither are dated?  Why are they not dated?  If they are not their first communication with the city may I see a copy their first letter/proposal to the city?  

Thank you.

Regards, Bill

(No reply received as of 2-27-19)

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com To: Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul) bruce.corrie@ci.stpaul.mn.us Cc: *CI-StPaul_Mayor <mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <rebecca.noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us                                                                                                                                                                              Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 09:50:47 AM CST                                                                                                                                      Subject: Fw: Police Annex Purchase Agreement: "The Park Agreement"

Hello again Bruce,

Additionally, being Andrew has not replied to my email from last Tuesday, can you please answer: 

"- Has a Pedro Park agreement now been drafted at this point?  If so, has it been signed?                                                             

- I understand the Police Annex closing has been rescheduled?  If so, do you have a new closing date?"

Additionally, please forward to me a copy of the Pedro Park Agreement in its draft, if one now exists, or in its final form, if one now exists. 

Thank you.

Regards, Bill

(No reply received as of 2-27-19)

 

 

 

 

 

 

P.54

From: bill hosko billhosko@yahoo.com                                                                                                                                                              To: *CI-StPaul_Mayor mayor@ci.stpaul.mn.us Cc: Noecker, Rebecca (CI-StPaul) <rebecca.noecker@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Corrie, Bruce (CI-StPaul) <bruce.corrie@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hahm, Michael (CI-StPaul) <michael.hahm@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; St. Paul City Council <council@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Hestness, Andrew (CI-StPaul) <andrew.hestness@ci.stpaul.mn.us>; Angela Richter angelarichter@ackerberg.com                                                                                                                                                                      Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 09:04:24 AM CST                                                                                                                                Subject: Your leadership overseeing Police Annex/Public Safety building and Pedro Park developments...

Dear Mayor Carter,

I am sorry that you and your office have continued to ignore the emails I have sent regarding the redevelopment of the Police Annex/Public Safety building and Pedro Park.  I feel embarrassed and sad for all of you, and for Councilmember Noecker and city staff who pre-date your administration on these matters - persons who have also ignored constructive communications and questions.  The collective email threads between all of you and myself here show that you have not acted in good faith, nor as public servants should.  

You do not have the right to withhold public information, nor the right to have secret meetings.  You did not have the right, repeatedly, to misuse, mislead and misinform many, many people along your pre-determined path to redevelop these publicly-owned properties.  

You discarded integrity and wonderful opportunities to truly bring the public into the city's planning and decision making process here and replaced it with subterfuge, collusion and costly narrow-minded planning.  In the end, you only embraced mediocrity.  History repeats itself. 

Saint Paul deserves better. 

 

Sincerely,

Bill Hosko  

 

(No reply received as of 2-27-19, 5 PM)

End

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P.55