Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026/02/17 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study SessionOfficial minutes Special study session meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota Feb. 17, 2026 The meeting convened at 7:35 p.m. Council Members present: Mayor Nadia Mohamed, Daniel Bashore, Jim Engelking, Sue Budd, Tim Brausen, Yolanda Farris, Paul Baudhuin Council Members absent: none Staff present: city manager (Ms. Keller), city attorney (Mr. Mattick), administrative services director (Ms. Brodeen), community engagement coordinator (Mr. Coleman), finance director (Ms. Cruver), engineering director (Ms. Heiser), police chief (Mr. Kruelle), engineering project manager (Mr. Sullivan), racial equity and inclusion director (Ms. Yang) Guests: George Harris, Ellen Harvey, Hilda Mercedes and Nicole Osuna: Calyptus Consulting Group Inc. Discussion items 1. Consider Study Session Topic Proposal: Separation Ordinance Mayor Mohamed introduced the item and provided context, noting the topic arose from community concerns about immigration enforcement activity. She clarified that the purpose of the discussion was not to debate the merits of the proposal but to determine whether a majority of the council wished to place it on a future study session agenda. Ms. Keller added that staff provided a preliminary report and that the police chief and city attorney were present for any clarifying questions. Council Member Bashore presented the proposal, which he had advanced with Council Members Engelking and Baudhuin. He outlined three areas for potential study: formally limiting St. Louis Park Police Department cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, establishing formal reporting protocols for city employees encountering federal immigration agents and limiting the use of city resources and property by federal immigration authorities. Council Member Bashore noted that based on the staff report, the city was already performing well on the reporting protocol element. He acknowledged ongoing community concerns reflected in dozens of personal emails and calls he had received from residents and referenced a disconnect between official police communications and what some community members reported experiencing. Council Member Engelking supported the proposal as timely. He expressed concern about federal immigration enforcement operating outside the rule of law and framed the separation ordinance as a potential long-term protective tool for the community. Council Member Baudhuin stated that while he had much to say about the merits, the question before the council was simply whether to explore the topic. He noted he had received at least Docusign Envelope ID: CDCBCAE1-8A09-4E4D-8C34-C6A9AFE193F7 Special study session minutes - 2 - Feb. 17, 2026 56 emails from residents on the subject and expressed his belief that there was a resident mandate to study the issue thoroughly. Council Member Brausen expressed hesitation. He stated he wanted to take every available action to address immigration enforcement impacts in the community but questioned whether a separation ordinance would have meaningful practical effect. He referenced prior guidance from the city attorney about enforceability and concerns from the police chief about operational implications, including whether the city could legally prohibit a federal officer from utilizing city property for a lawful purpose. He was reluctant to commit significant staff time to the study when staff were already focused on responding to urgent community needs. Council Member Budd stated she believed the topic merited further discussion. She emphasized her confidence in the police department's policing culture and did not want her support for additional discussion interpreted as a lack of confidence in the department. She noted that a discussion would also provide the council with an opportunity to share the investments the city has made in officer training and de-escalation, which the public may not fully understand. Mayor Mohamed noted that at least four council members had expressed support for further discussion at a future study session. She cautioned that any ordinance would be a declaration of values with limited enforcement ability and that residents should not expect it to prevent a federal agent from being present in public spaces. She suggested a late-March or April 2026 timeline would be appropriate given the council's existing schedule. She expressed her own investment in establishing long-term parameters to prevent a recurrence of the circumstances experienced over the prior weeks. Council Member Baudhuin acknowledged that enforceability would need to be a central part of the study session discussion. He also noted that residents had expressed interest in the ordinance as a long-term measure regardless of current enforcement levels. Council Member Budd added that a study session would allow the public to learn more about the city's existing policing practices and training investments. Ms. Keller confirmed that the city attorney and police chief would need to participate in any study session and that staff would work to schedule the next discussion in the timeline suggested. Council Member Baudhuin asked that the Police Advisory Commission also be engaged and kept informed of the process. 2. Title VI and Language Access Plan update Ms. Yang presented the staff report. She noted that the council had approved a Title VI plan in 2022, which was primarily focused on the engineering department's compliance with Federal Highway Administration and Department of Transportation requirements. Following a review at the September 2025 Race Equity and Inclusion System study session, the city decided to expand the plan and hired Calyptus Consulting Group Inc. to assist. Docusign Envelope ID: CDCBCAE1-8A09-4E4D-8C34-C6A9AFE193F7 Special study session minutes - 3 - Feb. 17, 2026 Mr. Harris provided background on his firm, noting it had operated since 1992 with extensive Title VI and civil rights experience, including work with the Department of Justice, Minneapolis Housing Authority, Met Council and various transit agencies and state governments. Mr. Harris summarized the key elements of Title VI compliance, including assurances of compliance, organizational structure, public notices, complaint procedures, language access, staff training, public participation, data collection, contractor compliance and program review. He noted the city's 2022 plan was a reasonable starting point but required updates for consistency and expansion. Mr. Harris described the work completed since November 2025, including a review of all federal grant obligations, interviews with all city departments, benchmarking against 18 other Minnesota cities and an assessment of the current plan. He noted that city staff expressed enthusiasm for the work and were eager for training. Mr. Harris outlined nine key areas of recommended change: • Updating the plan to reflect current executive orders on language assistance • Equity analysis and disparate impact • Ensuring federal regulatory references were current • Developing a citywide Title VI notice and posting strategy • Improving complaint procedures including the city managing its own complaints • Updating the language access plan to identify priority languages and client-facing materials requiring translation • Standardizing assurance clauses in service contracts • Establishing performance measures • Expanding staff training including onboarding and refresher formats • Updating the public participation section to incorporate existing city tools such as the Engage platform Mr. Harris noted that the city's public outreach efforts were among the best he had encountered and complimented the police department for already having a Title VI policy and training course in place. Ms. Yang noted the next step would be a final report to council at the end of March 2026. Council Member Brausen thanked the consulting team and noted the city was already doing many of the important things required under a Title VI plan. He asked how the city could enforce Title VI protections against the federal government given the current political environment. Mr. Harris acknowledged the challenge. He explained that his team had adopted strategic language adjustments, such as using the term "language assistance" rather than "limited English proficiency" because the current federal administration had removed that terminology from federal websites and guidance. He explained this approach was intended to avoid drawing unwanted scrutiny while still achieving compliance goals. Docusign Envelope ID: CDCBCAE1-8A09-4E4D-8C34-C6A9AFE193F7 Special study session minutes - 4 - Feb. 17, 2026 Ms. Osuna added that cities needed to be strategic under the current administration, finding ways to remain in compliance while continuing to serve the community, and that the same work could continue under different framing. Council Member Brausen acknowledged that and clarified that his question was directed at a separate opportunity: the formal Title VI complaint procedure available through the Office of Rights and Civil Liberties at the Department of Homeland Security, which allows anyone to file civil rights violation complaints against DHS. He noted similar complaint mechanisms existed through the Departments of Education, Labor and Transportation and suggested this could be a vehicle for community members to report ICE-related civil rights violations. Mayor Mohamed thanked the consulting team and staff, noting the work reflected the city's ongoing effort to remain in compliance while staying true to its values. She observed that the item was informational and that she looked forward to the final report. 3. Neighborhood grant program discussion Mr. Coleman presented a mid-program update on the neighborhood funding program. He noted two motivating factors: a November 2025 study session conversation about program implementation and the fact that the council had a similar conversation almost exactly one year prior. Mr. Coleman identified two policy considerations for discussion: 1. Does the council support the strategies outlined in the report to: a. Increase the number of active neighborhood groups in the city; and b. Increase overall program spending so that the appropriated funds are fully utilized and whether there were any changes to the program the council wanted to see. Results and Learnings Mr. Coleman reported that the most effective action taken to increase neighborhood participation was leveraging council member connections, which led to two neighborhoods reorganizing. He noted that tabling at events, while useful, has proven less effective for recruiting new leaders than identifying those already in volunteer leadership positions such as block captains. He reported that the city has been working with the police department, which manages the block captain program, to use that network for outreach. He described the neighborhood networking meetings as beneficial but noted care was needed to ensure that the conversations remained productive. Mr. Coleman noted that overall program participation and dollars spent declined in 2025 compared to prior years due to fewer registered neighborhoods. However, he highlighted that the utilization rate of funds actually allocated to neighborhoods remained consistent at 43%, compared to a historical average of 45% since 2019. Strategies Going Forward Mr. Coleman outlined strategies for increasing active neighborhoods including one-on-one outreach through block captains and council member connections, promotion at city events, Docusign Envelope ID: CDCBCAE1-8A09-4E4D-8C34-C6A9AFE193F7 Special study session minutes - 5 - Feb. 17, 2026 introduction of a mentorship model suggested by a neighborhood leader at a networking meeting and providing additional support to emerging groups. For increasing program spending, he described exploring uses for unused funds, offering capacity-building workshops for leaders, supporting interpretation and translation services and providing additional funding for community organizing opportunities relevant to current federal administration activity. He noted that unused funds would return to the city's fund balance. Council Member Engelking disclosed that dissatisfaction with the 2025 changes to the neighborhood program was among his motivations for running for office. He challenged the characterization of the previous grant model as competitive, arguing that since neighborhoods never requested all available funds, it was not truly competitive. He also questioned the utility of the utilization rate statistic, arguing that the more meaningful figure was the total dollars reaching communities, which dropped from over $11,000 to approximately $6,300 in 2025. He noted that neighborhoods routinely built slack into budget requests to avoid coming up short, which explained part of the apparent underutilization. He proposed setting a minimum grant of $2,000 for all neighborhoods regardless of tier. Council Member Budd agreed with Council Member Engelking's concerns about the statistics. She stated that neighborhood associations represented one of the city's most strategic initiatives for public safety, noting that residents she spoke with during her campaign felt safer when they knew their neighbors. She reported that in Ward 3, active neighborhood groups had declined from five of seven to one of seven during her time in office. She proposed raising the floor to $3,000 for the lowest tier given the surplus in the program budget. She also called for an analysis of record to establish a clear public purpose framework, which she believed would expand eligible spending options for neighborhood groups. She supported continuing the neighborhood networking meetings and suggested that demonstrating responsiveness to challenges identified in those sessions would build trust with neighborhood leaders. Council Member Budd asked Mr. Mattick to comment on the concept of establishing a clear public purpose framework. Mr. Mattick explained that the neighborhood funding program lacked explicit statutory authorization, meaning the city's authority to operate it derives from general police powers rather than a specific statute. He noted this made the public purpose analysis especially important. He described the three-part legal test applied by the courts: whether spending benefits the community as a whole, whether it is directly related to the functions of government and whether the expense primarily benefits a private interest. Mr. Mattick emphasized the question of food expenditures, noting the Office of the State Auditor has a number of opinions and guidance around the topic of when purchasing food satisfies a legitimate public purpose. Generally, food for council meetings was prohibited, food for employee recognition was allowed with limitations, and hosting events around a mealtime simply to justify food reimbursement was not permitted. He acknowledged that staff had worked with neighborhoods in 2025 to structure event submissions in ways that could accommodate food where appropriate and that the answer had not been a flat “no” but required case-by-case review. He cautioned against repackaging social events under a different label solely to satisfy criteria. Docusign Envelope ID: CDCBCAE1-8A09-4E4D-8C34-C6A9AFE193F7 Special study session minutes - 6 - Feb. 17, 2026 Ms. Keller confirmed that staff had been able to work with neighborhood associations in 2025 to accommodate food in eligible contexts and referenced page 4 of the report on that point. Council Member Baudhuin questioned the framing around statutory authorization, asking whether the absence of explicit authorization was the same as prohibition. Mr. Mattick clarified that cities, as creatures of the state, are permitted to do only what they are authorized to do, and the absence of authorization functions as a prohibition. He added that the cleanest legal basis is a specific statutory reference and that relying on general police powers or public health and safety requires a more detailed justification. Council Member Baudhuin asked about the National Day of Racial Healing event where food was provided. Mr. Coleman clarified that the food at that event had been donated, not purchased with public funds. Council Member Baudhuin stated he understood the legal framework but remained frustrated by the restrictions on food given his belief, informed by academic study, that sharing food is a powerful community-building act. He noted there was language in the report suggesting that if an event itself serves a public purpose, food can be considered a permissible expense, and asked Mr. Mattick to clarify. Mr. Mattick confirmed that an event serving a public purpose does not automatically make all associated expenses permissible and cited alcohol as an example of something the state auditor had categorically excluded regardless of event purpose. Council Member Brausen expressed appreciation for the discussion. He suggested that incorporating a structured public safety education component into every neighborhood event could satisfy the public purpose requirement in a way that would also justify food as an attendance incentive. He proposed that staff develop a menu of educational topics that could be offered at neighborhood events, such as responses to federal actions, available resources, crime prevention or land use processes. He stated he believed food necessary to attract attendance to a public safety education event could be justified to the state auditor on that basis. Council Member Brausen expressed support for giving the tiered system more time to work. He noted that the decline in participation among lower-income neighborhoods reflected socioeconomic pressures and urged council members to take a direct role in identifying future leaders. He suggested simplifying the reimbursement process and raised the issue of a former Blackstone neighborhood leader who had been required to provide his social security number to be reimbursed. He offered to personally act as a fiscal agent for any neighborhood association to facilitate pass-through funding, acknowledging his willingness to accept the associated IRS exposure. Mayor Mohamed spoke at length and acknowledged her position as less popular. She noted she had grown up in St. Louis Park and had never participated in a neighborhood gathering, reflecting her view that the program had historically not reached all parts of the community. She stated that neighborhood associations had often operated in selective ways and that the Docusign Envelope ID: CDCBCAE1-8A09-4E4D-8C34-C6A9AFE193F7 Special study session minutes - 7 - Feb. 17, 2026 tiered model was designed to begin addressing equity gaps, even if those goals had not yet been achieved in one year. She argued it was unreasonable to expect a quick turnaround on something that had been struggling for decades and cautioned against arguing over public purpose restrictions when the city has legal obligations to steward taxpayer dollars responsibly. Mayor Mohamed supported the current framework requiring events to meet public purpose criteria and opposed using public funds for what she characterized as private backyard gatherings, regardless of how such spending might be reclassified. She stated that money not being spent was not lost and could potentially be redirected toward intentional city-led community gatherings that met the required legal standards. She acknowledged that the food restrictions have personal impacts, citing a mayor's gathering she had hosted where she paid $300 out of pocket because city funds could not be used. She expressed a desire to invest more in the program but not at the cost of legal compliance. Council Member Farris commented that in her 13 years of living in St. Louis Park, she had never heard of neighborhood associations, nor had she been invited to participate and did not know who her block captain was. Mayor Mohamed redirected the audience to refrain from side conversations and noted the discussion was a council conversation. Council Member Bashore thanked Mr. Coleman for the presentation. He agreed that reaching unorganized neighborhoods should be a priority and stated that the 2025 changes to the funding structure without a corresponding intentional effort to engage those communities was a missed opportunity. He expressed support for more strategies to increase outreach. He acknowledged the legal constraints around public purpose and stated he was willing to accept more risk than the mayor on that question. He suggested exploring a dynamic funding model where tiered limits applied at certain points in the year but remaining funds could be made available to any neighborhood later in the year if still unspent. Council Member Engelking proposed maintaining the tiered structure but raising the floor so that tier 3 neighborhoods received a minimum of $2,000, with staff determining appropriate escalators for tiers 1 and 2. He observed that the current structure had resource-starved active neighborhoods and noted that tier 1 neighborhoods actually had less access to funds under the new model than under the previous $3,000 maximum. Ms. Keller suggested that if a majority of council wished to raise funding levels, staff could prepare a budget proposal for consideration in the 2027 budget cycle. For 2026, she noted some possibilities might exist within the already-allocated $50,000 budget but that analysis would be needed in consultation with finance and program staff. Mayor Mohamed asked why the council would allocate more money if current allocations were not being fully spent. Ms. Keller clarified that the concern was ensuring sufficient funds would be available if outreach efforts were successful and additional neighborhoods organized throughout the year. Docusign Envelope ID: CDCBCAE1-8A09-4E4D-8C34-C6A9AFE193F7 Special study session minutes - 8 - Feb. 17, 2026 Council Member Engelking offered to personally make a donation to the city to cover any overage above $50,000 if the new floor resulted in higher spending, framing it as a way to eliminate budgetary concern as an obstacle. Council Member Baudhuin stated he supported raising the floor but emphasized that money was not the core reason the program was struggling and that larger structural questions needed to be addressed. Mayor Mohamed asked whether there was council interest in directing staff to conduct the funding analysis. A majority expressed interest. Council Member Budd asked about changing the eligibility guidelines to allow more flexibility. Council Member Bashore supported changing the guidelines, noting they were too stringent and questioning whether staff had consistently worked with neighborhoods on making food expenses eligible. Mr. Mattick noted that while the public purpose framework allowed some flexibility on educational programming, the IRS paperwork requirements were not negotiable and could not be waived regardless of council preference. Mr. Coleman noted that staff would take the feedback provided and work to incorporate it moving forward. He also noted that the annual neighborhood program training is set for March 5, 2026. Lastly, he stated that staff would continue to refine the program for equity, accessibility and impact. Written reports 4. Development update - Q1 5. Advisory commissions communications to city council - workplan updates Council Member Budd asked about the process for submitting comments on the written work plan reports included in the agenda. Ms. Keller indicated council members should send comments to her and to Mr. Coleman and staff would determine the appropriate next step. Council Member Bashore noted that one work plan item referenced participation in the Vision 4.0 process with a timeline of Q3 2025 and asked whether it was still current. Mr. Coleman clarified that the item was carried over and that the advisory communication form identified specific new items the commission was seeking approval to add to the work plan. The meeting adjourned at 9:36 p.m. Docusign Envelope ID: CDCBCAE1-8A09-4E4D-8C34-C6A9AFE193F7 Special study session minutes - 9 - Feb. 17, 2026 ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor These minutes were created with the assistance of a generative AI transcript service, then edited and finalized by a city staff person. Docusign Envelope ID: CDCBCAE1-8A09-4E4D-8C34-C6A9AFE193F7