Four candidates file for Ward 4 seat on the St. Paul City Council
Four candidates have filed to run in the special election this August for the Ward 4 seat on the St. Paul City Council.
Ward 4 covers part or all of five neighborhoods — Hamline-Midway, Merriam Park, St. Anthony Park and parts of Macalester-Groveland and Como.
The candidates include Chauntyll Allen, a leader of Black Lives Matter Twin Cities who serves on the St. Paul Board of Education; Molly Coleman, the founder of the nonprofit People's Parity Project, which seeks progressive court reform; Cole Hanson, a statewide online education coordinator who teaches nutrition to recipients of federal food assistance, or SNAP; and Carolyn Will, founder of CW Marketing and Communications.
The non-partisan election will take place Aug. 12 by ranked choice, meaning voters will be allowed to rank their candidates in order of preference. There will not be a political primary.
The winner will fill the seat vacated in March by former Council Member Mitra Jalali and serve through the November 2028 election.
Matt Privratsky was recently appointed by the mayor to fill the Ward 4 seat on an interim basis, through the August election. Tuesday was the last day to file for the Aug. 12 election. Candidates may withdraw their names from the ballot through Thursday.
Climate action group schedules first Ward 4 candidate forum
St. Paul elections: 3 mayoral candidates, citations question, Ward 4 race
St. Paul Ward 4 race: School Board member Chauntyll Allen declares; Hamline-Midway Coalition disavows Cole Hanson campaign
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Mailbag: Fighting back against Huntington Beach City Council
It's hard to fight City Hall. Yet here we are again. The Huntington Beach City Council would have you believe two things. First, for 50 years, our city librarians have been secretly providing pornography to your kids, and nobody ever noticed it. Second, that a 0.02% savings on the city budget will somehow prevent a budget crisis. When put in this factual context, the arguments against Measures A and B are utter nonsense. To debate City Council on the facts is a losing strategy; they have unlimited time and resources and the public gets one minute. They will get the last word and that's often all that is heard or reported. It is not a fair fight. What you need to know is this — our city's libraries are no longer safe. The City Council's tactics have enabled and rallied their supporters to attack our citizens. Our neighbors. Your friends. Don't believe me? You've seen the signs put out by the City Council. But you probably don't know: This is what our city has become. The City Council is hurting real people — librarians, volunteers and kids — these are not images placed on a sign. What I do not understand is why we accept this — why do our citizens allow the City Council to do these things? How can we fight back? The City Council encourages these things to happen. In their malicious attempt to control the city they show no mercy to those innocent people who serve our community. Ask yourself — what's next? I am asking you for help. It's simple, really. You have your ballot; just check both boxes 'yes' and drop it in the mail. It takes two minutes but would mean so much to those who participate in this community. The City Council is counting on your apathy to allow their agenda to continue. Stop the lies. Stop the hate. Stop City Council. 'Yes' on Measures A and B. Larry HershHuntington Beach When I was a girl growing up in Brooklyn, my mother and I would visit our nearby library at least once a week. A special time, though, was when we went to the huge (in my child eyes at least!) Arlington branch of the Brooklyn Public Library near Highland Park or the New York Public Library. These libraries, with their imposing size and thousands of books, became almost sacred places to me, much like a church. If I wanted to find books about topics that interested me, a kind librarian could always point me in the right direction. This experience instilled in me a great love of libraries and I was so thrilled to move to Huntington Beach in 1973, where there was an award-winning city library system. This is why what is occurring with our wonderful libraries has touched me so very much and what is at stake is so much more than book banning. It is a matter of control, control over what we can read and taking that control from parents and giving it to an appointed committee. I was very disheartened to learn that Texas just passed Senate Bill 13, which gives public school boards or parent review groups control over banning books that contain 'harmful' or 'indecent' material according to 'community values.' Librarians would have no say in the matter. This could lead to broad censorship banning 'Romeo and Juliet' (citing premarital sex) or even the Bible (if you ask what could be considered 'indecent,' look no further than the story of how King David lusted after Bathsheba when he saw her bathing!). And this is just the beginning... That is why I urge you to vote 'yes' on Measures A and B to protect our beloved libraries from privatization and the appointment of a review committee. Let's vote to keep our libraries in the sacred place they hold in our hearts! Kathleen BungeHuntington Beach Municipal codes are laws that take priority over resolutions, which can be rescinded. Huntington Beach Resolution #2025-45, is more smoke and mirrors under the guise of 'protecting the children.' In the event a majority of the City Council votes to outsource any services provided by HBPL to a private contractor, or to sell the library, a 'yes' vote on Measure B requires a majority vote of H.B. residents before outsourcing or sale of the library can happen. If the city declares a fiscal emergency, a vote of H.B. residents will not be required. The resolution fails to state that library services will not be outsourced. The idea promoted by opponents of Measure A, that just one person will make procurement decisions, is a false narrative. Several individuals are, have been, and will continue to be involved in the procurement process if Measure A passes. There is a policy in place to request reconsideration or removal of library materials, and Municipal Code Section 2.66.110. gives the Book Review Board the authority to relocate existing books or reject purchase of children's books deemed inappropriate for children, based on 'community standards.' Seven 'inappropriate for children' books have been relocated to the adult section, and several others have been identified. It is curious that neither reconsideration policy was expedited to protect children from the additional 'inappropriate books identified by 'residents.'' Municipal Code Section 2.66.110 creates a Book Review Board consisting of no more than 21 political appointees with the authority to review and relocate any books children have access to, based on undefined 'community standards' to be defined by the board. Their decisions are unappealable and not limited to materials with sexual content. This is book banning. It is censorship. The resolution stating books shall not be banned fails to include the City Council's definition of book banning. 'Inappropriate' children's books can be removed and sold or donated to other city libraries. How does this protect children? 'Yes' on Measure A will allow parents, not politicians, to choose reading materials for their own children, and to protect children from being used as pawns to promote political extremist agendas. Judy MorrisHuntington Beach Huntington Beach Public Library will hold its annual all-ages Summer Reading Kickoff Carnival in front of the Central Library on June 24 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. There will be games, crafts, activities, shows and plenty of food. Participants can also register there for the 2025 Summer Reading Challenge. Last year, about 3,000 participants signed up for the reading challenge and about 15,000 people attended the events throughout the summer! This program would not be possible without support from a team of dedicated volunteers from the Friends of the Children's Library of Huntington Beach. If our public library is outsourced to a for-profit corporation, there's a good chance this long-standing program will end. Why? The library volunteers who donate time and money to support this program will not make similar contributions to a for-profit corporation with wealthy investors. If you want the Huntington Beach Public Library to be free from corporate outsourcing as it has been for over 100 years, vote 'yes' on Measure B. And if you want the Huntington Beach Public Library to be free from political interference regarding book selection, vote 'yes' on Measure A. Election Day is June 10. Carol DausHuntington Beach For several election cycles, Huntington Beach has been plastered with large political signs by both sides of the political spectrum. It is a political sign war aimed at low information voters. Thousands of residents are over it, especially the signs for the June 10 special election that included the word 'porn.' Those signs exposed more young children to porn than any book in our public libraries. Parents were forced to have unplanned and, for most adults, uncomfortable conversations with their children. Let's start a campaign to create a new political sign policy. It is time to limit political signs both in size and where they can be displayed. Other cities manage to hold successful elections without the sign blight that overtakes Huntington Beach for several weeks for each election. Let our elected officials know that you want a change to our current sign policy. Your vote shouldn't be based on a political sign. Read the ballot. Read the political statements. Make an informed vote. Most know my vote for the June 10 special election. It will be 'yes' and 'yes.' Cathey RyderHuntington Beach As a reproductive rights advocate and Orange County resident for more than 20 years, I want to thank my Congressman, Rep. Dave Min, for voting 'no' on the recent budget reconciliation bill. Rep. Min's vote, along with the votes of Orange County Representatives Linda T. Sanchez, Derek Tran, Lou Correa and Mike Levin, accurately represent their constituents' desire to maintain Medicaid funding and keep Planned Parenthood health centers open. Representative Young Kim's vote, however, does not. By voting 'yes,' Rep. Kim voted to gut Medicaid and cut access to vital healthcare for tens of thousands of people in Orange County. That's 130,000 people in our communities relying on Planned Parenthood for healthcare, and for many of them, Planned Parenthood is the only provider they see. Over half of Planned Parenthood patients use Medicaid to get services like birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing, regular checkups and abortion care. This bill puts 200 health centers nationwide at risk of closing and millions of Americans at risk of losing access to essential care. The attack on Medicaid and Planned Parenthood health centers is an attack on any Californian's ability to choose their own healthcare provider. Everyone deserves affordable, high quality care from providers they trust. Do you really want your elected officials to make that decision for you? There is still a chance to help protect Medicaid and access to Planned Parenthood. Call Young Kim and urge her to vote 'no' on any bill that cuts Medicaid or 'defunds' Planned Parenthood. Jenna RossIrvine Pardon me if this comes across strongly, but I am deeply concerned by the rationale offered for supporting Andrea McElroy's election as a Newport-Mesa Unified School District trustee — namely, the endorsement by the mayor of Newport Beach and the endorsement of the Newport Beach Police Department. As a former NMUSD board president, I can say with confidence that school resource officers (SROs) were never a point of contention during my time on the board. There was broad support from all trustees I served alongside, making this a non-issue. Equally irrelevant is Ms. McElroy's involvement in the high school drama program her daughter participated in. While community involvement is important, this alone does not qualify someone to serve on a school board responsible for decisions that impact all students. What's notably absent from her background is meaningful PTA leadership involvement or broader community service. The claim of being a 'businesswoman' also raises concerns, considering the outcomes of her association with several ventures. This appears to be a poor vetting decision by her backers, driven more by political influence than by genuine focus on student needs. It's disappointing to see a former trustee and others seemingly prioritize political alignment over educational leadership. Our students deserve board members committed to serving their best interests, not the mayor's agenda. Vicki Snell, former NMUSD trustee presidentCosta Mesa There's a tiny little local election on June 10 and it is costing the Newport-Mesa Unified School District more than $400,000!!!! You only have to check one box, and you don't have to think about national politics to do so, but because candidate Andrea McElroy forced a special election after she didn't earn a board appointment we all have to vote for that temporary seat, which will have to be contested all over again next year. That makes me mad. That is NOT fiscally conservative, and that's why I'm out canvassing for Kirstin Walsh, the candidate who was appointed by the board in the first place. I met Ms. McElroy and she's lovely, but when I asked her why she didn't just wait until next year to run, she said, 'It's not that expensive to run the special election.' What? More than $400,000 is not expensive? That money could have been spent on education, infrastructure, art supplies, books and much-needed equipment for our kids. I was blessed to raise my boy and girl twins here on Balboa Island where they attended Lincoln Elementary and Corona del Mar Middle and High School. They were provided with an amazing education. As a PTA volunteer, I can tell you it was always a privilege to help out, but always a battle to raise funds for our kids. With more than $400,000 coming out of the school budget for this election, it reminds me of how hard PTA members have to work for every single dollar. Speaking of PTA, the other reason I'm out talking with my community about Kirstin Walsh, is she is one of those special people that steps up to service. She comes from a long line of those who have served in the military and taught her that giving back matters. She is currently Newport Harbor PTA president, served that same high position at Ensign, and has spent years on Harbor Council. That experience matters. Please vote for Kirstin Walsh because she is a doer, a volunteer, a public servant and, on a personal note, a water polo mom like me. Summer BaileyBalboa Island As our community approaches the school board election, I urge voters to see through the desperate tactics of the Walsh campaign and support Andrea McElroy, the only candidate who stands for parents' rights and school safety. The Walsh campaign continues to claim that she's not partisan and won't get involved in statewide issues in our schools. That prompts a few questions though: Would a non-partisan candidate be backed by the progressive teachers union to the tune of nearly $10,000 and a progressive women's group to the tune of $5,000? Would a non-partisan candidate proudly accept endorsements from state and local progressive elected officials? I'd like to know what the Walsh campaign is afraid of. Are they afraid to admit that she's an agent of a liberal agenda in a voting area with a decades-long history of electing conservative school board members? In contrast, Andrea McElroy has been clear from the start. She is a conservative, determined to stop the leftist majority on our school board. She is not afraid to say it because it reflects her values and the values of our community. Andrea McElroy is endorsed by our police and fire associations because they trust her commitment to school safety. Community leaders have endorsed Andrea McElroy because they trust her commitment to stand up to the leftist majority on the school board. If you value school safety, parental trust and fearless leadership, vote for Andrea. Let's protect our schools and reject the tactics of a desperate campaign. Mary Sue PediciniNewport Beach
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Honolulu City Council adopts $5.19B budget package
Two late votes by the Hono lulu City Council Wednesday evening finalized approval of a $5.19 billion budget package for the city's 2026 fiscal year, which begins July 1. The Council unanimously adopted a $3.91 billion executive operating budget, which in general will fund city salaries, police and fire services and street and parks maintenance. The panel also fully passed a $1.28 billion capital improvement program budget meant to pay for infrastructure improvements. The Council-approved budget is a 10.4 % increase over Honolulu's current $4.7 billion budget, which expires June 30. Mayor Rick Blangiardi has within 10 days to sign the budget bills into law. The latest budget includes $1.5 million toward new ambulances and six full-time equivalent positions to improve emergency response times on Oahu, particularly in Maunawili, Ko Olina, and Koolaupoko. Council additions also include $500, 000 in traffic safety upgrades near school zones, and $400, 000 in community policing support for all eight Honolulu Police Department districts, among other funding. And under the finalized CIP budget, Council member Andria Tupola successfully added $1.7 million to pay for the long-awaited improvements to an unfinished Waianae Police Station at 85-939 Farrington Highway. 'So we can finish the project, ' she added. But of note on the Council's latest budget vote was the hours-long delay toward its approval. Following back-and-forth discussions inside Honolulu Hale's Council Chambers Wednesday, the panel took a meeting recess after 5 p.m. The Council's final votes cast came after 9 p.m., in a meeting that began over 12 hours earlier. 'The extended recesses were required to carefully review and reconcile the Council member's changes in the draft legislation on the floor, ' a Council spokesperson told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser Thursday. On Wednesday, changes arose after Council Chair Tommy Waters' introduced a new floor draft of Bill 22—the executive operating budget—that morning. In that bill, Waters looked to redirect up to $19.1 million in previously appropriated but unused, or 'lapsed, ' city departmental funds to bolster the city's sewer fund, as a way to defray the cost of anticipated multiyear sewer fee rate increases expected to start July 1. 'We have established a provisional account with the general fund to allow the sewer fund to access it as a contingency when needed, ' Waters said. 'If the funds go unused for sewer activities they will lapse back into the general fund.' But city staff balked. 'We were kind of confused and surprised this morning when we saw the posted (floor draft ) by yourself, Chair Waters, ' city Department of Budget and Fiscal Services Director Andy Kawano said at the meeting. He added, 'It doesn't make sense to take funding out of departments for salaries and current expenses and set aside in a provisional for sewer activities when we, in fact, should not use it.' Kawano stated such an action could harm the city's AA + bond rating—the city's creditworthiness that impacts its ability to do bond financing—as the city tackles federally mandated, multibillion-dollar upgrades to its sewer treatment infrastructure and related utilities. Waters' floor draft—opposed by city staffers and questioned by Council members—later evaporated. Waters' attempt to add general funds mirrored his introduction of Bill 43 last month—a measure which was ultimately postponed during a recent meeting of the Council's Executive Management committee. On May 5, Waters advanced Bill 43, meant to redirect a portion of the 3 % visitor-generated Oahu transient accommodations tax, which in part is earmarked for Honolulu's rail project, to the city's sewer fund. But the chief critic of Waters' measure—BFS Director Kawano—asserted such an action was not a feasible option for the city to pursue. 'This measure will negatively impact the city's general fund and deviate from the intended purpose of the TAT, which is to provide general fund capacity to fund city services ; mitigate the strain visitors place on public facilities, emergency serv ices, and natural resources ; and provide additional funding for rail (i.e., 'Skyline') construction, ' Kawano wrote in a May 12 letter to Council. In related business Wednesday, the Council on a split vote adopted its version of city-initiated Bill 60, which deals with anticipated increases to the city's sewer fee rates. As part of the budget process, the Blangiardi administration proposed a 10-year, 115 % sewer fee rate increase that's expected to begin this summer. City officials say sewer fee hikes are necessary to support the city Department of Environmental Services' ongoing wastewater operations and maintenance efforts, as well as a $10.1 billion capital improvement program for Oahu's wastewater collection and treatment system that's planned through 2040. And they assert the work includes a $2.5 billion upgrade to the Sand Island Wastewater Treatment Plant as required under a 2010 federal consent decree. On Wednesday, the Council voted 5-4—with Esther Kia 'aina, Scott Nishimoto, Tupola and Waters dissenting—on Budget Committee Chair Tyler Dos Santos-Tam's draft of Bill 60, which shaves the city's decade-long span for increased rates down to about six years. That plan would start Jan. 1, 2026, and run through 2031. As approved, Bill 60's sewer fee increases for a household that uses about 6, 000 gallons of water per month—deemed 50 % of all single-family households in Honolulu—equates to a 6 % increase in sewer fees in fiscal year 2026, 7.5 % in fiscal year 2027, 8.5 % in fiscal year 2028, followed by 9 % over the remaining three fiscal years. After the year 2031, sewer rates would increase 3 % annually. As proposed, a household that uses 6, 000 gallons a month is currently charged $99.77 on average. By year 2031, that average bill would rise to $160.85, a more than 61 % increase, ENV data indicates. Under Dos Santos-Tam's Bill 60, ENV will have authority to set up a program called Customer Assistance for Residential Environmental Services, or CARES, to help with 'affordability and equity ' of increased sewer fee rates. Sewer customers who qualify based on household income of less than 80 % area median income will be eligible for a $20 to $25 credit on their monthly base fee. The program will be funded at $10 million per year. Customers will have to apply for the program to prove eligibility and then be re-verified every six months, ENV states. Still, not all were happy with Bill 60's approval. 'Really listen to your constituents because we're going to feel the effects, ' Oahu resident Tara Rojas said with disappointment, during remote public testimony to the Council. 'And this is only sewer (fees ), not even including anything else.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Senate GOP Sorts Out Which Poison Pills It Can Swallow To Pass House's ‘Big Beautiful' Bill
Senate Republicans began the work this week of deciphering what exactly House Republicans' have stuffed into President Trump's massive spending package — and what elements of it they can live with. One thing is clear: Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and Republican leadership have their work cut out for them. And in a few key cases, senators might soon find themselves caught between what Trump demands of them, and what's good for their reelection prospects. Similar to the competing pain points that surfaced among members of the House Republican conference, several Senate Republicans have gone on the record to object in various ways to either the bill's extensive gutting of social safety net programs or — on the other end of the spectrum — the extent to which it will add to the deficit, a Republican sin many in the party have built their brands opposing. At this point, it looks almost inevitable that senators will make changes to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which House Republicans drafted after weeks of intraparty quarrels. That means the House will have to vote on the bill again. Any major shifts could backfire, breaking the delicate balance on which House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) built the bill. Thune can only lose three votes from his caucus and still pass the legislation. Here are four places in which Republicans are likely to have to cut a deal, potentially tweaking just how destructive the final bill is. Several Senate Republicans have been publicly declaring that they are opposed to the ways in which the bill currently cuts social safety net programs, while, in most cases, still suggesting there are some cuts they'd support. Several Republican senators, including Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Josh Hawley (R-MO), have already indicated they won't get behind certain kinds of cuts to Medicaid and other programs, which are widely utilized by their constituents. 'I am not going to vote for Medicaid benefit cuts,' Hawley told reporters in the Senate basement in March. 'Work requirements, I'm totally fine with. But 21% of Missourians either get Medicaid or CHIP so I am not going to vote for benefit cuts for people who I think are qualified.' Sen. Jim Justice (R-WV) has made similar statements, telling reporters on Wednesday that he is ok with freezing the provider taxes House Republicans took up in their bill but not cutting them back. Meanwhile Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), who recently announced a gubernatorial bid in his state, has said he is opposed to the way in which the legislation cuts Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The House bill includes deep cuts to that program, including a cost-sharing plan that would require states to cover a portion of SNAP benefit costs; the benefits are currently completely covered by the federal government. 'Everybody that's going to be in state government is going to be concerned about it,' Tuberville said, according to Politico. 'I don't know whether we can afford it or not.' In recent days, some Senate Republicans have also indicated that they are exploring ideas to slash what they claim is 'waste, fraud and abuse' in Medicare —- despite President Donald Trump's previous vows to 'love and cherish' the program and promises not to touch it. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) on Thursday said that Republicans are looking at changes to Medicare, telling The Hill there are 'a number' of reforms he'd like to see to programs maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 'I think anything that can be — that's waste, fraud and abuse are open to, obviously, discussions,' Thune also told reporters of Medicare. Meanwhile Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) took a stronger stance, saying Republicans shouldn't be afraid of cutting waste from the program. 'Why don't we go after that? I think we should,' Cramer told NBC. 'Some people are afraid of the topics; I'm not,' he added, noting that they would focus on waste, fraud and abuse. That phrase — 'waste, fraud and abuse' — has, of course, become the go-to terminology for Republicans who want to justify their cuts to largely popular programs, despite the fact that rooting out supposed 'waste, fraud and abuse' roughly translates to hidden, hard-for-the-public-to-understand cuts. This new proposal, too, is already stirring some pushback. 'What a terrible idea. We should not be touching Medicare,' Hawley told NBC. Sens. John Curtis (R-UT), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Tillis and Murkowski have warned leadership about provisions of the bill that would gut Biden-era clean energy tax credits passed in the Inflation Reduction Act. The House bill's cuts were largely added to the House bill at the last minute in order to appease House Freedom Caucus members who were threatening to sink the bill on the House floor unless leadership made more cuts. They include plans to repeal residential energy-focused credits and several electric vehicle-related credits — both used by individual taxpayers — as well as almost immediately phasing out the clean electricity production and investment tax credit that aims to boost zero-emission electricity production from industry, utilities and manufacturing. 'I want to make sure that we are making good on the investments that we have made with those tax credits,' Murkowski told reporters in the Senate basement on Wednesday when asked about the tax credits. Meanwhile, Tillis — one of the most vulnerable Republicans in 2026 — on Wednesday indicated he wanted to see negotiations around the requirements and duration for the programs in question. He also specifically called out the foreign entity restrictions House Republicans put in the bill, which experts described to TPM as a 'bad faith' and 'unworkable' provision that Republicans say will prevent nations like China, Iran, North Korea and Russia from having access to the tax subsidies. Tillis described them as 'a big problem.' 'As I understand it, the level of granularity proposed by the House renders the programs inoperative,' Tillis told reporters on his way up to a floor vote. While several Senate Republicans are opposing cuts to programs that are crucial for their states, others, on the other end of the spectrum, are calling for more spending cuts than what are included in the House Republican package. (These Republicans have, lately, found a surprising ally in the president's erstwhile advisor, Elon Musk.) Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) are loudly asking for deeper cuts, saying they are worried about the impact of the megabill on the deficit. 'I refuse to accept $2 trillion-plus deficits as far as the eye can see as the new normal. We have to address that problem, and unfortunately this bill doesn't do so,' Johnson, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, said Wednesday during an ABC News interview. Paul has made a career of libertarian budget hawkery, and is objecting, in particular, to a provision of the bill that raises the debt ceiling, something that must happen this summer in order for the U.S. to avoid default. He has previously indicated he does not believe 'expanding the debt ceiling more than we've ever done it before' is fiscally conservative. 'This will be the greatest increase in the debt ceiling ever, and the GOP owns this now,' Paul told reporters after the House passed their version of the bill.
