When the Breakaway Music Festival rolled into the lots just outside Allianz Field last year, window-rattling dance music and F-bombs from the mic followed, with noise carrying for miles away. Organizers called the event a commercial success, but ensuing noise complaints flooded St. Paul Police lines, as well as the phone lines of the city council.

Music festival organizers promised the touring electronic dance music series would return to Allianz Field this year with sound-shielding improvements. On Wednesday, following an hour-long city council discussion, their sound level variance requests for June 6 and June 7 won the support of the majority of the council with a 4-2 vote, over the objections of city staff.

Rather than turn down the volume, the council voted to allow the Breakaway Music Festival an even higher decibel limit than they were approved for a year ago.

To mitigate the noise, the music festival plans to reorient its speakers away from Cub Foods and toward Allianz Field, and use a different speaker system, as well as an online feedback portal so organizers can assess complaints in real-time and conduct sound testing in any problem areas as the event unfolds.

“We are going to dispatch a team physically to that location,” said festival president Jarrod Fucci, addressing the city council on Wednesday.

The Breakaway Music Festival drew thousands of fans of electronic dance music to the stage set up outside Allianz Field in St. Paul June 28 to June 29, 2024. It also drew plenty of noise complaints from as far away as Highland Park and even outside the city. The festival, which ended at 11 p.m. both nights, drew patrons to bars like the Midway Saloon for after-parties. (Frederick Melo / Pioneer Press)

Monitoring decibel levels

The city’s Department of Safety and Inspections will maintain a staffer at the event, and festival organizers will be required to monitor the decibel levels from an approved distance from each noise source and create a report that records the general operating levels within 15 minutes of the start of each act, as well as at intervals no greater than 60 minutes apart after that.

Fucci said the event might be canceled if organizers did not get their requested variances, and that they were looking for different concert venues within the capital city for future years.

“Candidly, honestly, it depends how this goes,” he told the council. “We want to stay within the city of St. Paul.”

“It is not lost on me that our event was disruptive,” Fucci added, emphasizing that the festival has been working with the Union Park District Council and city officials to consider any neighborhood impacts, including noise. “Dance music fans are really unique. They have a really high expectation for the execution of these events. … In order for this event to be sustainable, we want to continue to deliver an excellent audio experience.”

Two noise resolutions generate confusion

The council was presented Wednesday with two versions of a potential sound level variance resolution, each with different decibel limits and other conditions, generating some confusion and protracted discussion.

Council Member Anika Bowie, who represents the stadium area, attempted to fuse aspects of each version, drawing concerns from three fellow council members who urged her to hold off on a vote for a week. She chose to push forward anyway.

Bowie said the festival organizers had been “really transparent and honest” about past challenges and how they would mitigate those issues going forward. “I appreciate them promoting our city. … It seemed like the organizer really took into consideration all of our concerns.”

Last year, the festival asked to be allowed a sound level variance with a limit of 103 decibels at 125 feet from the main stage, but the council approved only 97 decibels at 50 feet. The festival likely operated at 103 decibels anyway, according to city staff. Festival organizers this year again requested — and were approved for — sound level variances for 103 decibels at 125 feet from the main stage, as well as a limit of 101 decibels at 100 feet from their secondary stage.

Both limits are above the noise levels associated with a typical outdoor concert, or even a construction site, DSI staff said.

The city’s Department of Safety and Inspections had recommended a 30-minute earlier end time — 10:30 p.m. — and that the festival compensate the city up to $640 for 10 hours of staff overtime to have a DSI inspector monitoring sound on-site throughout the event. The council and festival organizers agreed to both conditions.

The request for a higher decibel limit, however, was not supported by DSI, and drew probing questions from council members.

Last year, “community members literally had buildings shaking,” said Council Member Cheniqua Johnson, who voted against the sound level variance. “If the orientation of the stage has changed, but the sound level has not, and we’re recommending a higher sound level this year than what we allowed last year, is the hope that the staff presence would gain compliance? … I just want us to make sure we’re being consistent with festivals, no matter what the genre.”

DSI recommends lower limit

DSI had recommended a sound limit of 100 decibels at 100 feet from the main stage, and 99 decibels at 75 feet from the secondary stage.

The city council appeared poised to approve the second version of the resolution until Bowie realized that it included the lower limits recommended by DSI. She then asked for amendments joining the two versions, incorporating the higher decibel limits, the earlier end time and compensation for the DSI staffer in one resolution.

Council Member Nelsie Yang joined Council President Rebecca Noecker and Johnson in urging Bowie to delay a vote for another week, which would give the council more time to consider her suggested amendments.

“It just seems like there’s just a lot of back and forth right now, and I would motion for a layover,” Johnson said.

Added Yang later, “This is just an example, for me, of something that could have been done behind the scenes. It sounds like there’s room for negotiation and compromise.”

Bowie, after receiving reassurance from staff that a “no” vote would still allow her to introduce the original version of the resolution if need be, pushed forward.

“It just seems like it makes sense to give them a threshold they can work with, and they’re not going to be at the max of 103 (decibels) the entire time,” she said. “I think the proper adjustments have been made.”

The vote

Bowie, Yang, Saura Jost and Matt Privratsky then voted to support the amended noise variance at the 103 decibel limit, and Noecker and Johnson voted against it. Council Vice President HwaJeong Kim was absent.

Fucci told the council performers will include the American DJ John Summit, Dutch DJ Tiesto, Australian DJ Alison Wonderland, and about 20 national and 60 St. Paul-area performers. Some 12,000 visitors arrived each day of the two-day festival last year, for 24,000 in total, bringing with them $2 million in ticket sales and as much as $6 million in economic impact for the area.

Privratsky, who lives just north of the site, said, “I firmly believe having more events and more things going on in the city is better for the community, and also at this site, where we put significant public dollars into building out the Allianz Field district.”

Related Articles

Steeple fire at historic St. Paul church likely sparked by lightning

Letters: Seasons rule. We need permanent standard time, not DST

Bremer Bank CEO to step down after merger with Old National

St. Thomas wins fight on Goodrich Avenue loading drive near Binz Refectory

Maria Toso: Downtown’s in bad shape. But we can make it really good

By MICHELLE L. PRICE and MARY CLARE JALONICK, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A new U.S. intelligence assessment found no coordination between Tren de Aragua and the Venezuelan government, contradicting statements that Trump administration officials have made to justify their invocation of the Alien Enemies Act and deporting Venezuelan migrants, according to U.S. officials.

The classified assessment from the National Intelligence Council, released this month, is more comprehensive and authoritative than an earlier intelligence product released Feb. 26 and reported last month by The New York Times, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the assessment. They were not authorized to address the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Related Articles

Trump’s attacks on Powell threaten the Fed’s independence. Here’s why it matters

Federal judge in Baltimore temporarily limits DOGE access to Social Security data

Trump administration seeks explosive expansion of nation’s immigration detention system

Other voices: The federal financial cop is off the beat

Noah Feldman: Here is Harvard’s best argument against funding cuts

The new assessment draws input from the 18 agencies that comprise the intelligence community. It repeatedly stated that Tren de Aragua, a gang that originated in a prison in Venezuela, is not coordinated with or supported by the country’s president, Nicolás Maduro, or senior officials in the Venezuelan government. While the assessment found minimal contact between some members of the gang and low-level members of the Venezuelan government, there was a consensus that there was no coordination or directive role between gang and government.

The assessment provided support and extensive sourcing for those assertions, according to the officials. Of the 18 organizations that make up the U.S. government’s intelligence community, only one — the FBI — did not agree with the findings.

It is not uncommon for intelligence agencies to differ in their assessments on matters of great public interest. But the latest assessment was significant for its near unanimity.

Several years ago, under former Director Christopher Wray, the FBI assessed that the COVID-19 pandemic most likely originated from a lab leak, though that was hardly the uniform consensus. The position got recent support from a CIA assessment declassified in January.

Asked for comment, the White House shared a statement on Friday from the office of the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.

“President Trump took necessary and historic action to safeguard our nation when he deported these violent Tren de Aragua terrorists,” the statement said. “Now that America is safer without these terrorists in our cities, deep state actors have resorted to using their propaganda arm to attack the President’s successful policies.”

The assessment comes amid a court ruling on the Alien Enemies Act

The intelligence assessment’s findings come as the Supreme Court ruled last week that the Trump administration can use the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 wartime law, to deport Venezuelan migrants — but that the migrants must get court hearings before they’re taken from the United States.

Tren de Aragua has been linked to a series of kidnappings, extortion and other crimes throughout the Western Hemisphere. Those activities are tied to a mass exodus of millions of Venezuelans as their country’s economy unraveled over the past decade.

The Alien Enemies Act was created to give the president wide powers to imprison and deport noncitizens in time of war. Until now, it has been used just three times, most recently eight decades ago during World War II to justify the detention of Japanese-American civilians.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which has filed legal challenges to the Trump administration’s use of the law, contends that Trump does not have the authority to use the Alien Enemies Act against a criminal gang rather than a recognized state.

Trump says Tren de Aragua ‘infiltrated’ Maduro government

President Donald Trump invoked the act in March, declaring in a proclamation that Tren de Aragua “is closely aligned with, and indeed has infiltrated, the Maduro regime, including its military and law enforcement apparatus.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi repeated that assertion Monday night in an interview on Fox News Channel. Bondi defended the invocation of the wartime law and called Tren de Aragua “a foreign arm of the Venezuelan government.”

“They are organized. They have a command structure. And they have invaded our country,” she said.

Last month, the Trump administration used the Alien Enemies Act to fly more than 130 men accused of being members of the gang to El Salvador, where the U.S. has paid for the men to be held in a notorious prison. The Venezuelans deported under the act received no opportunity to challenge the orders, and attorneys for many of the men have said there is no evidence they are gang members.

The Trump administration has argued that the gang has become an invading force and designated it, along with seven other crime groups, as “foreign terrorist organizations.”

The latest intelligence assessment was first reported Thursday by The Washington Post.

Associated Press writers David Klepper and Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

Funding for adult workforce programs has fallen — despite clear evidence that investments in adult upskilling, credentialing and job placement deliver faster returns in wages, productivity and tax revenue.

A workforce development training held at an NYCETC member site (Grayson Dantzic Photography)

New York City spends over half a billion dollars a year on workforce development. But if you’re an adult trying to upskill, change careers or get ahead, you’re largely on your own.

Our new report at the New York City Employment and Training Coalition (NYCETC), Putting Our Dollars to Work, shows that only 16 percent of the city’s $640 million workforce budget reaches prime-age adults who fall outside traditional safety net programs. Despite constituting the majority of the city’s unemployed, underemployed and low-wage workers, this group is excluded from a workforce development system that claims to offer New Yorkers a pathway to post-pandemic labor market success. 

While middle-wage jobs have declined and high-income earners continue to see their wages rise, the city’s most relied-upon occupations — from health care and child care to building services, retail, food service and delivery — are stuck or falling farther behind in the affordability crisis. These workers face stagnant wages, limited mobility and no clear or coordinated commitment from the city’s workforce system to support their advancement. 

Simply put, when New Yorkers try to position themselves and their families for better pay, stronger benefits and access to growing industries — or seek out the coaching, credentials or flexible scheduling necessary to advance, they find themselves shut out. It’s the exact opposite of what our city promises: not only a betrayal of our ethos as a place “where dreams are made of,” but a failure of our vision for shared economic success.

The city’s approach to workforce investment has shifted dramatically in recent years, with youth-focused programs seeing unprecedented growth, accounting for nearly half of all allocated workforce dollars in FY24. The Summer Youth Employment Program alone receives more than $240 million, a 627 percent increase since 2013. That may sound like an investment in the future, but more critically it highlights a serious disinvestment in the current workforce, especially for adults who are ready to fill today’s jobs, meet current labor market demands, and lift their families out of poverty. 

Funding for adult workforce programs at the Department of Social Services and the Department of Small Business Services has dropped by 43 percent and 28 percent, respectively — despite clear evidence that investments in adult upskilling, credentialing and job placement deliver faster returns in wages, productivity and tax revenue than longer-term youth pipelines. That’s a systemic neglect of working adults.

This isn’t about pitting youth against adults. Investments in young people are critical. But we can’t ignore the fact that our current approach is wildly out of balance. More than 900,000 working-age adults in New York City, mostly Black, Latino, immigrant and outer-borough residents, remain siloed in precarious jobs, disconnected from the infrastructure that could support long-term growth and stability. This failure weakens our economy, our tax base and our collective future.

Workforce development needs to be central to the city’s economic development strategy. That means rebalancing our investments, modernizing our training systems and creating real on-ramps to sustainable jobs for the adults who are trying to stay afloat. The good news is that we know what works. Across NYCETC’s more than 220 member organizations, we see local, dynamic and innovative job training and career development programs helping adults build the skills and social capital required to connect with employers, and we facilitate access to the services and supports necessary to retrain and retain talent. But these programs can’t scale without sustained, equitable funding and a commitment from City Hall and the City Council to prioritize working New Yorkers. 

Every New Yorker deserves a fair shot at economic security, no matter their starting point. In a year with City Council and mayoral elections and with financial insecurity at the top of voters’ minds, we have an opportunity to rebalance priorities. It’s easy to point to any number of broken or imbalanced city systems and ask where public dollars could have the greatest impact. But when it comes to workforce development, continuing to underinvest in adult workers is economically self-defeating and short-sighted.

We need a workforce system built for the realities of today’s New York — one that meets workers where they are and invests in the people who keep this city running. If we matched the level of investment we make in one season — like the Summer Youth Employment Program — across the full year and extended that same access to training, opportunity and support to adult workers, we could unlock economic mobility at scale. This isn’t just about equity — it’s about staying competitive, strengthening our business climate and generating a multiplier effect that supports entire families, fuels local economies and builds a stronger, more resilient city. 

With more than 25 years of experience in education and workforce development, Gregory J. Morris currently serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the New York City Employment and Training Coalition, the largest city-based workforce development association in the United States, representing over 200 member organizations. 

The post Opinion: NYC Is Spending Millions on Workforce Development — But Not on the Workers Who Need It Most appeared first on City Limits.

By CHRISTOPHER RUGABER, Associated Press Economics Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump has stepped up his attacks on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell at the same time that the Supreme Court is considering a case that could make it easier for the president to fire him.

The developments are occurring against a backdrop of wider turmoil in the economy and financial markets, brought on by Trump’s sweeping taxes on imports. Most economists worry that an assault on the Fed’s longstanding independence from politics would further disrupt markets and add to the uncertainty enveloping the economy.

In comments at the White House Thursday, Trump suggested he has the power to remove Powell and criticized him for not aggressively cutting interest rates.

“If I want him out, he’ll be out of there real fast, believe me,” Trump said. “I’m not happy with him.”

All the scrutiny threatens the Fed’s venerated independence, which has long been supported by most economists and Wall Street investors. Here are some questions and answers about the Fed.

Why does the Fed’s independence matter?

The Fed wields extensive power over the U.S. economy. By cutting the short-term interest rate it controls — which it typically does when the economy falters — the Fed can make borrowing cheaper and encourage more spending, accelerating growth and hiring. When it raises the rate — which it does to cool the economy and combat inflation — it can weaken the economy and cause job losses.

Related Articles

Federal judge in Baltimore temporarily limits DOGE access to Social Security data

Trump administration seeks explosive expansion of nation’s immigration detention system

Other voices: The federal financial cop is off the beat

Noah Feldman: Here is Harvard’s best argument against funding cuts

Raj Tawney: The Smithsonian is not a ‘distorter.’ It’s a mirror

Economists have long preferred independent central banks because they can more easily take unpopular steps to fight inflation, such as raise interest rates, which makes borrowing to buy a home, car, or appliance more expensive.

The importance of an independent Fed was cemented for most economists after the extended inflation spike of the 1970s and early 1980s. Former Fed Chair Arthur Burns has been widely blamed for allowing the painful inflation of that era to accelerate by succumbing to pressure from President Richard Nixon to keep rates low heading into the 1972 election. Nixon feared higher rates would cost him the election, which he won in a landslide.

Paul Volcker was eventually appointed chair of the Fed in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter, and he pushed the Fed’s short-term rate to the stunningly high level of nearly 20%. (It is currently 4.3%). The eye-popping rates triggered a sharp recession, pushed unemployment to nearly 11%, and spurred widespread protests.

Yet Volcker didn’t flinch. By the mid-1980s, inflation had fallen back into the low single digits. Volcker’s willingness to inflict pain on the economy to throttle inflation is seen by most economists as a key example of the value of an independent Fed.

What do Wall Street investors think?

An effort to fire Powell would almost certainly cause stock prices to fall and bond yields to spike higher, pushing up interest rates on government debt and raising borrowing costs for mortgages, auto loans, and credit card debt.

Most investors prefer an independent Fed, partly because it typically manages inflation better without being influenced by politics but also because its decisions are more predictable. Fed officials often publicly discuss how they would alter interest rate policies if economic conditions changed.

If the Fed was more swayed by politics, it would be harder for financial markets to anticipate — or understand — its decisions.

So does that mean the Fed is completely unaccountable?

Well, no. Fed chairs like Powell are appointed by the president to serve four-year terms, and have to be confirmed by the Senate. The president also appoints the six other members of the Fed’s governing board, who can serve staggered terms of up to 14 years, though most governors leave before the end of their terms.

Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Jerome Powell speaks during an event hosted by the Economic Club of Chicago, Wednesday, April 16, 2025, in Chicago. (AP Photo/Erin Hooley)

Those appointments can allow a president over time to significantly alter the Fed’s policies. Former president Joe Biden appointed five of the current seven members: Powell, Lisa Cook, Philip Jefferson, Adriana Kugler, and Michael Barr. As a result, Trump will have fewer opportunities to make appointments. He will be able to replace Kugler, who filled an unexpired term ending Jan. 31, 2026.

Congress, meanwhile, can set the Fed’s goals through legislation. In 1977, for example, Congress gave the Fed a “dual mandate” to keep prices stable and seek maximum employment. The Fed defines stable prices as inflation at 2%.

The 1977 law also requires the Fed chair to testify before the House and Senate twice every year about the economy and interest rate policy.

But can the president fire Powell?

Powell says the law establishing the Fed does not allow a president to fire a chair except for cause. There is some complication in that Powell was separately appointed as a member of the Fed’s board of governors, and then elevated to the position of chair — by Trump, in 2017.

Most legal scholars agree that Trump can’t fire Powell from the Fed’s board of governors, but there is less agreement over whether a president can remove him as chair. In January, Michael Barr, who was vice chair for supervision, stepped down from that post but remained on the board to avoid a potential legal clash over whether Trump could fire him.

Should Trump try to fire Powell anyway, the ensuing fight would almost certainly end up at the Supreme Court.

What could the Supreme Court do?

We may get an early sign of how the Supreme Court would decide it this summer. There is already a case before the court on the issue of whether the president can fire top officials at independent agencies.

The case stems from Trump’s firings of two officials, one from the National Labor Relations Board and the other from an agency that protects workers from political interference. The Supreme Court last week let the firings stand while it considers the case. It could rule this summer that the president, as the head of the executive branch, could fire officials at any federal agency even if Congress had intended it to be independent.

The case would overturn a 90-year old precedent known as Humphrey’s Executor, in which the court ruled that the president couldn’t fire such officials.

Powell said Wednesday he is watching the case closely, adding that it might not apply to the Fed. Lawyers for the Trump administration, seeking to narrow the focus of the case, have argued that it doesn’t involve the Fed.

Both the Trump administration and the Supreme Court justices have carved out exemptions for the Fed before. In February, the White House issued an executive order that placed several financial regulatory agencies, including the Fed and the Securities and Exchange Commission, more directly under the president’s control. Yet the order specifically exempted the Fed’s ability to set interest rates from that order.

And in a case in 2023, Justice Samuel Alito said in a footnote that the Fed is a “unique institution with a unique historical background” that made it different than other independent bodies. If the court does give presidents more power over the heads of independent agencies, it could potentially exempt the Fed.