Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025/09/15 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - RegularOfficial minutes City council meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota Sept. 15, 2025 1. Call to order. Mayor Mohamed called the meeting to order at 6:23 p.m. a. Roll call b. Pledge of Allegiance Council members present: Margaret Rog, Lynette Dumalag, Sue Budd, Tim Brausen, Yolanda Farris, Paul Baudhuin, Mayor Nadia Mohamed Council members absent: none Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), city attorney (Mr. Mattick), deputy city manager (Ms. Walsh), community development director, interim building and energy director (Ms. Barton), administrative services director (Ms. Brodeen), city assessor (Mr. Bultema), finance director (Ms. Cruver), accountant (Ms. Finkel), public works director (Mr. Hall), engineering director (Ms. Heiser), police chief Kruelle, appraiser III (Ms. Nathanson), communications and technology director (Ms. Smith), city clerk (Ms. Kennedy), financial analyst (Ms. Stephens), human resources director (Ms. Vorpahl), parks and recreation director (Mr. West), racial equity and inclusion director (Ms. Yang) Guests: Pamela Whitmore, outside counsel 2. Approve agenda. It was moved by Council Member Budd, seconded by Council Member Dumalag, to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed 7-0. 3. Presentations. a. Proclamation observing Latino Heritage Month Mayor Mohamed read the proclamation. Mayor Mohamed stated it is a difficult time to be an immigrant, and her heart goes out to folks in Minnesota and elsewhere who are having difficulties right now. 4. Minutes – none. 5. Consent items. a. Resolution No. 25-107 approving 2026 employer benefit contribution b. Resolution No. 25-108 authorizing contract with Symetra Life Insurance Docusign Envelope ID: A8D7E4D5-183F-4E5C-9A16-F29CE131475F City council meeting -2- Sept. 15, 2025 c. Second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 2696-25 adopting fees for 2026 d. Resolution No. 25-109 authorizing grant application for Hennepin County Youth Play Area grant and accepting grant funds if awarded e. Resolution No. 25-110 authorizing grant application for Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Conservation Partners Legacy grant and accepting grant funds if awarded f. Approve temporary extension of licensed premises - Yard House #8354 g. Resolution No. 25-111 appointing election workers for the November 4, 2025, municipal and school district general election Council Member Dumalag asked to comment on consent item 5d. She noted some residents have asked for an all-inclusive playground for children, and she is happy to see the play area moving forward. Council Member Brausen commented on item 5a. He complimented the city's human resources staff for locking in relatively affordable rates for benefits and stated it is important that staff are treated well, while also saving the city money in the process. Council Member Baudhuin commended on item 5g. He thanked everyone who has applied and added that the council is grateful for all those who are committed to working. He noted that early voting starts on Friday, Sept. 19, 2025, and he encouraged all to get out and vote. Council Member Rog added that there is a League of Women Voters School Board Candidate Forum on Sept. 16 and a city council candidate forum on Sept. 18, 2025; both at city hall. It was moved by Council Member Budd, seconded by Council Member Brausen, to approve the consent items as listed; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 7-0. 6. Public hearings. a. Resolution No. 25-112 levying assessment for delinquent utility accounts, tree removals, false alarms, mowing, and citations Ms. Finkel presented the staff report. Ms. Finkel explained that the city certifies delinquent balances to Hennepin County as a means to collect on these accounts. The city utilizes certifications as an alternative to shutting off water services for unpaid utility accounts. The certification is done via the special assessment process and becomes a lien on the individual properties, which is due over the next year or several years, depending on the type of charge. Ms. Finkel stated that delinquent accounts relate to unpaid charges for water, sewer, storm water, refuse, abatement of tree removals, tree pruning, false alarms, mowing and citations against the benefiting property. To help mitigate the number of accounts that are certified to the county, city staff work with residents and businesses to resolve their outstanding balances Docusign Envelope ID: A8D7E4D5-183F-4E5C-9A16-F29CE131475F City council meeting -3- Sept. 15, 2025 by sending notices, answering questions on outstanding account balances, and providing information on where property owners can find energy assistance payment programs to help reduce the balance of their delinquent accounts. The staff report pointed out that the collection of these charges is vital to the financial stability of the city’s utility systems and to reimburse the city for expenses incurred in services that have already been provided. Council Member Brausen asked if the additional special assessment, which is payable in 2026, will be subject to the 12% limit that allows for a property tax refund for residents who apply. Ms. Finkel stated that staff will look into that further. Council Member Dumalag asked for a breakdown as a reference to which properties may be struggling. Ms. Finkel stated the utility billing software does not collect demographic information. She added that what they can see is that the properties are in line with the demographic of city properties; about 84% of the city's properties are single-family and about 80% of certifications are single-family. Council Member Dumalag asked what the most expensive utilities are. Ms. Finkle stated utility here refers to water, sewer, storm water and garbage services provided by the city. Mayor Mohamed opened the public hearing. Faith Riverstone stated that she is opposed to the proposed resolution and stated that one of her concerns is that St. Louis Park is not considering the poor. She added that there were no past due notices until August, and to qualify for the water program, a past due notice must be supplied. She asked the city to consider a 30-day past due notice with a number to call for the program. She stated the change would allow residents to get on top of this earlier and to alleviate issues at the county with too many past due notices. Austin Wilson stated he has received two past due notices and does not know about this process. He stated the notices came to a person who has since passed away and added he had not personally received a citation until the most recent one arrived. He has had no time to dispute the legitimacy of the citations. He disclosed that he is related to Councilmember Brausen in case the relationship is a conflict of interest. He added that after speaking with city staff about the issue, he is not sure what he should do next. Mayor Mohamed stated that staff will be able to assist with Mr. Wilson’s questions after the meeting. Mayor Mohamed closed the public hearing. Council Member Brausen recused himself from the discussion related to Mr. Wilson due to a conflict of interest. Docusign Envelope ID: A8D7E4D5-183F-4E5C-9A16-F29CE131475F City council meeting -4- Sept. 15, 2025 Council Member Rog asked if there is a process for disputing claims. Ms. Finkel stated that city staff works directly with residents to handle issues. Council Member Rog thanked Ms. Riverstone for her comments and suggestion. Council Member Baudhuin stated he also appreciated Ms. Riverstone’s comments, as she brought options to light that the city can consider in the future. It was moved by Council Member Rog, seconded by Council Member Farris, to adopt Resolution No. 25-112 levying assessment for delinquent utility accounts, tree removals, false alarms, mowing and citations. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Councilmember Brausen abstained). 7. Regular business. a. Resolutions No. 25-113, 25-114, 25-115 approving the 2026 preliminary property tax levy, authorizing the preliminary HRA levy for 2026, and authorizing a present intent to levy a tax for EDA purposes Ms. Cruver presented the staff report. Ms. Cruver stated the policy questions and asked if the council supports the proposed 2026 budget as drafted. The balanced budget consists of an all-inclusive preliminary levy increase of 8.02% based upon the following: 1. General levies (general fund, park improvement, and employee benefits) of $46,626,333 2. A Debt service levy of $5,792,684 3. A Housing Redeveloping Authority (HRA) levy of $1,194,133 to support the Affordable Housing Trust Fund 4. An Economic Development Authority (EDA) levy of $375,000 to support ongoing spending in the development fund, and 5. Planned use of fund balance in the general fund of $300,000 to support one-time items in the budget. After multiple discussions with the city council, staff presented a recommended budget and a corresponding all-inclusive levy increase of 7.92%. Staff received feedback from the council that was generally supportive of the new spending items but wanted to ensure that more was being done in 2026 to support the city’s climate action plan. At the direction of the council, an additional $50,000 of spending and levy revenue was added to support sustainability programs, bringing the levy increase to 8.02%. Council Member Dumalag asked if there have been any changes in the municipal building and infrastructure technology funds. Ms. Cruver stated that in those funds, spending has remained relatively stable but noted the city had not fully funded their spending in this area in years past. Council Member Rog asked how the police department's overtime expense of $200,000 was funded previously. Docusign Envelope ID: A8D7E4D5-183F-4E5C-9A16-F29CE131475F City council meeting -5- Sept. 15, 2025 Ms. Cruver stated the proposed increase to the police department budget for overtime expenses was based on historical spending that shows overtime was overspent. She stated overtime tends to increase when staffing is low. In previous years, lower staffing was enough to offset the overtime spending. However, in the last two years, the budget changed to include more programming and more overtime spending. She added that if a department is under budget, then the overage is absorbed. That scenario is the reason for the fund balance policy. Council Member Rog noted that concessions are very prominent in this year’s budget. She asked for clarification on how they are anticipated to be revenue-neutral. Ms. Cruver stated that for proposals that are revenue-generating, staff are also budgeting for that increased revenue in the budget. The calculation of what the general property tax levy needs to be offset with increased spending in non-property tax revenue. A similar calculation has been done with the concessions. Council Member Budd stated that taxable market value from the county was presented on Sept. 5, 2025. She noted the percentage change would increase significantly for a single-family home. She asked when this factor would be discussed. Ms. Cruver explained that the council sets the overall tax levy, which is a dollar amount collected from property taxpayers in the city. She added that commercial properties, residential properties, and residential homestead property are part of the city’s market value and are all taxed at slightly different rates. Staff analyzes these values and after the total levy amount is set, the total taxable market value is calculated and finalized by Hennepin County. The final maximum levy amount is proposed in early September. Ms. Cruver noted that on Sept. 5, 2025, staff found out that the increase was going to be approximately double the property tax levy percentage. While the property tax levy will only increase by 7%, staff estimates that a median value home may increase by 15-18%. This is because there is an underlying shift in the market on taxable market values in the city; commercial properties are also decreasing in value. To collect that property tax levy, more funds will need to be collected from the residential sector to cover the losses on commercial properties. More information can be found in the staff report from Sept. 8, 2025. Council Member Budd thanked staff for the information, noting the shift will change the lens that the council uses related to increases because the council can see how the change will impact residents. She wants the process to be transparent and thanked Ms. Cruver for the explanation. Council Member Rog stated she has concerns about a potential 18% levy increase. She sees an opportunity to reduce the tax burden on taxpayers for 2026, without any impact to staffing or programs, taking a closer look at the EDA and potentially, the HRA levies. She stated the EDA fund was implemented with the caveat that we look at it every year, and she feels this is a good year to consider pausing until conditions improve both for developers and taxpayers. Docusign Envelope ID: A8D7E4D5-183F-4E5C-9A16-F29CE131475F City council meeting -6- Sept. 15, 2025 She stated she also feels there may be wiggle room to reduce, not eliminate, the HRA levy temporarily in 2026 as well, if it did not impact receiving matching funds from the state for housing. Council Member Rog reiterated that in her view, reducing the EDA and potentially HRA levies could provide relief that would be palatable for staff and residents and not result in staff layoffs or program cuts. Council Member Rog stated the HRA levy is very robust and takes in $1.2 million every year. She noted the fund could be reduced in 2026 and then returned the following year when the reduction makes more sense in terms of tax impacts. Staff will need to make sure the city is not missing out on any state matching funds currently. Council Member Rog noted that there may be an opportunity to reduce the amount that is in the Housing Trust Fund. In looking at both the EDA and HRA levies, there may be an opportunity to provide relief without staff layoffs, programs cut, or big impacts to residents. Council Member Rog stated that she does not have a particular amount in mind as to what the levies should be reduced by and would like to hear from the rest of the council as well. Council Member Brausen stated the council had a robust discussion on this last week. He stated that even if all the levies remained flat for next year with no increase in spending, residents would still experience an average increase of 9.1% in their residential property tax due to the shift in market values, which is significant. Council Member Brausen pointed out that the Minnesota State property tax refund program provides a rebate for residents who experience a 12% tax increase or more, with a $1000 maximum. The average increase for a median single-family home in St. Louis Park is going to be $324.00 with the proposed levy. If residents do not have an increase above that 12% threshold, they cannot apply for the rebate. Council Member Brausen stated for either one of the levies, reductions would be symbolic, adding that it may be important to do this. However, he noted that the question before the city council today is to set the maximum levy. He supports staff recommendations; the council and staff will then work together to make adjustments. Council Member Baudhuin stated he appreciates Council Member Rog’s comments, but noted they are a bit late, in light of the staff report and the numbers presented. He would prefer to have a deeper discussion on making changes to the EDA and HRA levies, though the time for this discussion is not during the present meeting. Council Member Budd agreed but noted that the council has until Sept. 30, 2025, to make a final decision. She has concerns about the increases and has heard from many residents. She stated that with the potential of 18%, the council now needs to look at where cuts can be made for both the city and residents. Without this process, the council is asking residents to take on the burden. Many federal programs are being cut, especially in energy programs, which have been helpful to residents. She suggested the city council hold off on a decision. Docusign Envelope ID: A8D7E4D5-183F-4E5C-9A16-F29CE131475F City council meeting -7- Sept. 15, 2025 Council Member Dumalag stated that while we are working to be very thoughtful about the city budget, the changes are largely being fueled by the depressed commercial district values. She wants to reassure the public that the city is not increasing the levy due to large spending and pointed out that when the truth in taxation statements come out, the 8% will look much higher due to these issues with the commercial districts. She asked staff for some estimates if the levy was reduced. Ms. Cruver stated that making reductions to the HRA and EDA levy is straightforward. She also cautioned that whatever might be saved with a reduction this year will need to be made up for in future years. Making any changes to the general fund levy would be more complex, and she would not be comfortable doing those calculations in real time at this meeting. If the council directs staff on what programs and services should not be prioritized, staff can come back in November 2025 with recommendations to lower the general levy. Ms. Cruver stated that with the EDA and HRA levies being more straightforward, she can say that if the overall levy were reduced to 7% from 8%, that would mean a median 17% increase for residents, while a reduction to the overall levy to 6% would be a median increase to 16%. She stated the largest impact continues to shift in the property tax market, noting the numbers are estimates. Mayor Mohamed thanked Council Member Rog for her ideas. Mayor Mohamed shared that she also has concerns about the increases and is looking at where these reductions can be made. She asked staff to provide information about the impacts of any reduction of the HRA and EDA levies. Ms. Barton stated that, depending on what the council is looking at, cutting levy amounts to the EDA and HRA levies will be impactful, however, there is enough fund balance to cover city expenses for the 2026 budgeted amounts for both the development fund and affordable housing trust fund. Mayor Mohamed stated she is fine approving the maximum levy of 8% this evening but is not comfortable with that number as the final levy. The maximum levy will also not sit right with the majority of council members. She would like to explore a reduction of the HRA and EDA funds but does not have a number in mind for the goal. She asked whether decertification of some of the city’s Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts provide any flexibility or opportunity. Ms. Cruver stated that decertifying TIF districts after November 2025 will have an impact in 2027, but not in 2026. If there is a decision made to reduce the HRA or EDA levy with the intention to bring them back up in 2027, then it is relevant to discuss the impact of the TIF on the tax base in 2027. Council Member Rog stated it seemed possible to suspend the EDA levy for a year, amounting to $375,000. Additionally, we have about $1.2 million that comes in each year through the HRA levy, a third of that is $400,000. The city has new funding sources from the state. Her understanding is that one levy point is approximately $500,000. She noted that a possible reduction of $750,000, which could come from both the EDA levy and the Affordable Housing Trust fund, is a potential means to lower the levy by 1.5%. Barring any state match, Council Docusign Envelope ID: A8D7E4D5-183F-4E5C-9A16-F29CE131475F City council meeting -8- Sept. 15, 2025 Member Rog does not see temporary pauses on collecting these levies impacting the city in a significant way in 2026. Ms. Cruver stated that reducing the development EDA levy to $0 would be a $375,000 reduction from the proposal. If there was also a $400,000 reduction from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, the result would still be a 6.47% final levy increase. She added the overall reduction would be approximately $775,000. This amount would need to be added back in the future, either all at once or over a series of years. Ms. Cruver added that she is not sure of the allowable amount of money that can be reduced from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, as it relates to regulations, so that would be an issue. Ms. Keller added she would have concerns about losing $800,000 in funding to save $400,000. She asked if this conversation could be scheduled for later in the fall when more is known about the Affordable Housing Trust Fund regulations and a more informed decision can be made. Council Member Brausen stated that he is not in favor of raising anyone’s property taxes. The proposal is a sizable increase, but there is a budget in front of the council right now that does not require a long-term commitment. The council will look for ways to reduce the maximum tax levy but stated that making a decision from a position of fear as to how residents will perceive the news that their taxes are going up seems ill-advised. He would like to discuss how to reduce the levies, and if the council has to consider some reductions in service, that can be a consideration. He does not want to delay today’s decision as it is recommended to pass the preliminary levy. Mayor Mohamed agreed and stated she will want to continue these robust conversations. She pointed out that the preliminary levy is the maximum number that can be set. In the future, the levy can be reduced but not increased. She will support the preliminary levy as proposed. Council Member Baudhuin thanked Council Member Rog for her comments. He will support the preliminary levy and would like to see more adjustments implemented before the final approval. He stated the council will need to do its due diligence to bring the levy down, and he would like to explore Council Member Rog’s ideas further. Mayor Mohamed stated she would like to see the impacts of the give and take when the levy reduction scenarios are presented. Council Member Budd stated she is not in support of the preliminary levy. She added she would like to see a decision made by Sept. 30, 2025, versus a conversation in November, and she cannot support the levy in its present form. Council Member Dumalag stated she will also support the preliminary levy. She does not want to miss out on any local aid. If the city makes budgetary cuts without seeing the impacts, she is concerned about losing funding. Everything needs to be on the table to review. She requested that staff make the study session discussion dynamic so the council can see the budget impacts and potential levy numbers in order to help them make decisions. Docusign Envelope ID: A8D7E4D5-183F-4E5C-9A16-F29CE131475F City council meeting -9- Sept. 15, 2025 Council Member Farris stated that if she can see all the options, it will be easier for her to make a decision. She stated she will support the preliminary levy. Council Member Rog thanked the council for their comments and the staff for their work. She stated she understands the concerns of the council and that while they would like to see a lower percentage, they are not ready to commit to something lower. While this is understandable, it is frustrating. Council Member Rog added by raising her concerns, she is not maligning the budget process. She stated she supports what the budget represents and believes that the budget represents the shared community priorities. The decision is about residents and making sure we are mindful of the impacts of the tax levy, especially on the city’s income-challenged residents. She will also vote against the 8.02% preliminary levy and will look forward to additional discussions. Mayor Mohamed opened the meeting to public comment. Ms. Riverstone thanked the council for their work and encouraged all to vote no on the motion. She stated that many residents have financial struggles, and it is getting difficult for residents to stay in the city. She stated that people are just holding on and trying to make it. She stated we do not need any more road increases, no new projects, and hold off on any new development to show we care about the homeowners. Mayor Mohamed closed the public comments. Ms. Cruver stated that staff will return to the council with recommendations about lowering the tax increase by 1.5%. The more feedback finance staff can receive the more helpful. Council Member Rog noted that pausing the HRA levy for 2026 would save $1.5 million and 3 percentage points on the tax increase and was possibly something to look at more closely. Ms. Cruver pointed out that although operations in 2026 would not be impacted, those funds would need to be made up for over time, putting pressure on future levies. If funds are paused and then used for programming, the fund is depleted, and then it will take time to get back to full funding. Ms. Keller stated that staff will return in October and November 2025 for further discussions related to the budget and noted that she will reach out to council members for their thoughts on budget reductions. It was moved by Council Member Brausen, seconded by Mayor Mohamed, to adopt Resolutions No. 25- 113, 25-114 and 25-115 approving the 2026 preliminary property tax levy, authorizing the preliminary HRA levy for 2026, and authorizing a present intent to levy a tax for EDA purposes. The motion passed 5-2 (Council Members Budd and Rog opposed). b. Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Docusign Envelope ID: A8D7E4D5-183F-4E5C-9A16-F29CE131475F City council meeting -10- Sept. 15, 2025 Mayor Mohamed introduced the item and asked the city attorney, Mr. Mattick to provide a brief overview of the item. Mr. Mattick stated that a complaint was filed by Fred Ramos on July 8, 2025, alleging that Council Member Dumalag had violated the city charter under three different rationales. The complaint was filed with Ms. Keller. Mr. Mattick and Ms. Keller reviewed the complaint, and the charter contemplates that it is up to the city council to decide whether the complaint should be sustained or not. The city chose to bring in outside legal counsel to objectively review the complaint, conduct an investigation, and prepare a report for the council’s consideration. Mayor Mohamed noted that this item is different than most other items that come before the council, and therefore, there is no staff recommendation and there will be no public comment period because the item is entirely under the purview of the council. Mayor Mohamed stated that the council will be voting on the item at this meeting. Council Member Dumalag recused herself from the discussion. Mr. Mattick stated that Council Member Dumalag’s recusal was sufficient action and she did not need to step away from the dais during the council’s consideration or deliberation of the item. Mayor Mohamed introduced Ms. Whitmore, who presented the investigation report. Ms. Whitmore stated that on July 8, 2025, the city manager received a written complaint alleging that Council Member Dumalag violated multiple sections of the city charter. The complaint alleges specific violations of three city charter provisions, including Sections 2.09, 12.20 and 12.21. Ms. Whitmore stated that upon receipt of the complaint, the city engaged her services as an external consultant to investigate the matter. She noted that as the investigator, she is attending the meeting to present her findings to the council. Ms. Whitmore added that following the presentation, the city council will have an opportunity to ask questions and then will be asked to deliberate and vote on the issue. The city charter provides that the council is responsible for determining whether a violation of the charter has occurred. Ms. Whitmore stated that in her investigation, her work is to substantiate the facts and does not present any recommendations. The charter provision at the focus of the complaint is Section 2.09, Interference with administration. Quoting city charter Section 2.09. Interference with administration, the staff report notes: “The determination whether any violation of the provisions of this section has occurred shall be made by the council upon its own inquiry and by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of all of the councilmembers except the councilmember or members being charged with the violation”. Docusign Envelope ID: A8D7E4D5-183F-4E5C-9A16-F29CE131475F City council meeting -11- Sept. 15, 2025 Ms. Whitmore outlined the process of her investigation. The scope of her investigation focused on content of emails between Council Member Dumalag, staff and additional individuals. In addition to reviewing the email chains, Ms. Whitmore interviewed multiple people, including Council Member Dumalag. A substantial amount of time was spent in interviews. Ms. Whitmore noted the council’s norms and procedures and how the city’s operational system is built around appropriate communication between city staff and city council members. All staff interviewed provided statements that communication between Council Member Dumalag and themselves did not substantiate the claims of the complainant. Nothing that could be considered direction or orders to staff was present in communications. All communications were phrased as inquiries; staff confirmed inquiries were appropriate questions for an elected official to ask in the course of representing their ward. Ms. Whitmore stated she found no substantiation of the allegations from the emails she reviewed, nor any type of favoritism – all processes were followed in all email conversations. She found no substantiated facts regarding favoritism, gifts or favors. There was no personal use of city staff and Council Member Dumalag did not have any personal interest in gaining the information within the content of the emails. Ms. Whitmore reiterated that there was no substantiation of the facts upon which the charter complaints were based. She stated that she was available for any questions from the city council regarding her findings. Council Member Brausen stated the investigation by Ms. Whitmore was very thorough and asked Ms. Whitmore if she had stated there were no findings that the charter had been violated. Ms. Whitmore stated that it is correct. Council Members Budd and Baudhuin both noted their appreciation for the report from Ms. Whitmore. Council Member Rog stated that the council all read the report, and they all take their work seriously. Mayor Mohamed stated that this item marks the second time that the Ramos family have brought their grievances before the St. Louis Park City Council. The Ramos family first appeared before the council to dispute staff interpretation of the zoning ordinance, as well as making allegations that their neighbors' children were coming onto their property and creating disturbances. When the council did not agree with the Ramos’ interpretation of the events, the Ramos family chose to escalate the situation by filing lawsuits against their neighbors and the City of St. Louis Park, and those claims were fully heard and ultimately dismissed. Mayor Mohamed stated Mr. Ramos then filed a complaint against a sitting council member. Mayor Mohamed explained she finds the complaint to be unfounded per the investigation report, which shows no supporting evidence to substantiate the claim. She stated the complaint feels more like an attack on the council member than a sincere concern for the city's charter, which is unacceptable. Docusign Envelope ID: A8D7E4D5-183F-4E5C-9A16-F29CE131475F City council meeting -12- Sept. 15, 2025 Mayor Mohamed stated the council takes every complaint seriously, but there comes a time when persistence without merit crosses into abuse of process, and that time has arrived. The council will not allow their time or the time of the city staff or residents to be wasted any further. Mayor Mohamed stated that she considers this matter closed, adding that she hopes that one day, the Ramos family comes to understand the values of the City of St. Louis Park. Mayor Mohamed thanked Ms. Whitmore for going through the investigation process and bringing the matter to the attention of the city council. Council Member Baudhuin thanked Mayor Mohamed for her comments. It was moved by Council Member Brausen, seconded by Council Member Farris, to adopt the findings as presented by the independent investigator and find that no violation of the St. Louis Park City Charter has occurred. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Councilmember Dumalag abstained). 8. Communications and announcements. a. Race, Equity, and Inclusion system wrap-up b. Vision 4.0 community engagement update Ms. Keller noted there is no city council meeting next week in recognition of Rosh Hashanah, and she wished the city’s Jewish neighbors a good and sweet New Year. 9. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Paul Baudhuin, mayor pro tem Docusign Envelope ID: A8D7E4D5-183F-4E5C-9A16-F29CE131475F