Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026/04/06 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study SessionOfficial minutes Special study session meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota April 6, 2026 The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. Council Members present: Daniel Bashore, Jim Engelking, 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), police chief (Mr. Kruelle), deputy police chief (Mr. Nadem), lieutenant (Mr. Hagen), city assessor (Mr. Bultema), appraiser III (Ms. Nathanson), deputy city manager (Ms. Walsh) Police Advisory Commission chair: Karl Gamradt Police Multi-cultural Advisory Committee member: Ron Berg Discussion Items 1. Separation Ordinance Discussion Ms. Keller opened by framing the evening's discussions around the concept of trust — trust that city systems would not be used to harm community members, that data would be used appropriately, and that current policies would not quietly change. She described the core challenge as ensuring residents' privacy and civil liberties are upheld while also ensuring the police department can operate with effective tools and sound governance. She outlined existing transparency mechanisms including publicly posted policing policies, an annual Citizens Academy, an online complaint portal, and ongoing engagement with the Police Advisory Commission (PAC) and Police Multicultural Advisory Committee (PMAC). She noted that internal checks include ongoing officer training, supervisory review and attorney oversight of cases. Mayor Mohamed added that a clear distinction exists between policy direction set by the council and operational decisions made by staff, and that those two domains can become entangled in discussions such as this one. Mr. Kruelle and Mr. Nadem presented the staff report and noted three policy questions presented by council for the separation ordinance discussion. Mr. Kruelle provided background on the timeline: several members of the council proposed a study session topic for consideration by council and additional staff analysis in January 2026. An initial discussion with the council took place at the study session on Feb. 17, 2026, and further discussions had taken place with both PAC and PMAC. Neither advisory group reached a definitive conclusion on how to balance the relevant priorities, though both agreed that the department should not interfere with lawful activity but should be prepared to address unlawful behavior. Police presence was generally viewed as beneficial. PAC additionally recommended protecting First Amendment rights, improving public understanding of Docusign Envelope ID: 5C069E1C-9161-8B87-8299-49600EEDE374 Special study session minutes - 2 - April 6, 2026 department policies on civil unrest, ensuring thorough documentation, and exploring a role separate from the police department that could assist in receiving complaints about federal actions. Mr. Kruelle addressed the first policy question: a separation ordinance limiting police cooperation with immigration enforcement or employing crowd control measures. He affirmed that the department has not enforced federal immigration law, asked about immigration status, or retained such data since 2015. Officers may provide limited public-safety-related assistance such as traffic or crowd control, but not in furtherance of immigration enforcement. He cautioned that attempts to prohibit any level of interaction could compromise the department's ability to respond effectively in volatile situations. He noted that officer training, community knowledge and experience are central to achieving safe outcomes. Mr. Kruelle cited an incident where immigration enforcement agents traveled out of Hopkins and into the Knollwood shopping area, noting the incident is an example where police officers de-escalated a high risk situation successfully without damage or injury. Mr. Nadem addressed the second policy question regarding formal reporting protocols. He stated that protocols were already in place that require city employees to notify department heads of any interactions with federal immigration agents and to involve the police department if agents appear on city property. These protocols were implemented in late 2025 and refined in early 2026, including supervisor training. Mr. Nadem shared his personal perspective and identified as a refugee and immigrant, noting that the harm caused by immigration enforcement activity in the community was felt by staff as well as residents. Mr. Kruelle addressed the third policy question regarding limiting the use of city resources and property. He noted that some cities had adopted such provisions but that federal authorities have not demonstrated a history of complying with local ordinances, and that reasonable enforcement mechanisms do not exist. He characterized the practical gap between public expectation and what could realistically be enforced as an important consideration for public trust. Mayor Mohamed expressed concern about the effectiveness of ordinances that lack enforcement mechanisms. She summarized that what residents are seeking is reassurance that officers stand with them, and that the department's 20-plus-year history of community policing already reflects that value. She indicated she would not support limiting officer presence at incidents involving immigration enforcement, citing the danger of leaving immigration enforcement agents to operate without local oversight. She expressed skepticism about both the crowd control limitation and the city resources provision, characterizing the latter as unenforceable and potentially a source of frustration for residents. Mayor Mohamed acknowledged that local government is being asked to address problems rooted at the federal level and expressed support for continuing to advocate through the coalition of mayors (Cities for Safe and Stable Communities Minnesota) as well as state and federal legislators. Docusign Envelope ID: 5C069E1C-9161-8B87-8299-49600EEDE374 Special study session minutes - 3 - April 6, 2026 Council Member Farris expressed strong support for the police department and pushed back against the notion that this ordinance discussion was a reflection of the department's shortcomings. She stated that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity had divided the community and disrespected police officers. She did not support adopting an ordinance modeled on other cities and called for a community-centered approach tailored to St. Louis Park. Council Member Budd expressed support for codifying the city's existing non-cooperation policy as an ordinance. She observed that trust in government systems had been fundamentally shaken and noted that an elected body placing a policy into law provides a stronger accountability mechanism than an administrative policy alone. She did not support restricting crowd control measures and agreed the existing reporting protocols were sufficient. Council Member Budd expressed interest in a provision limiting the use of city resources modeled on nuisance violation procedures — including public reporting of violations and an annual council review. Mayor Mohamed asked what a nuisance violation mechanism would look like in practice. Mr. Mattick explained that codified ordinances can be made misdemeanor violations under Minnesota law, but that real-time enforcement against federal officers is legally complex and practically unclear. He described documentation and referral to prosecutors as the most realistic outcome and noted that cities must be cautious to avoid putting employees and police officers in legally precarious situations. He acknowledged the accountability rationale for codification but saw it as operationally equivalent to a strong staff directive. Council Member Baudhuin asked Council Member Budd to clarify whether she was proposing to codify the existing policy language as an ordinance; Council Member Budd confirmed this was her intention. Council Member Baudhuin stated he did not believe the community's desire for an ordinance was a criticism of the police department and characterized the movement for an ordinance as an expression of residents wanting to protect their neighbors. He acknowledged the difficulty of codifying something inherently unclear and nuanced into law. He expressed concern that the three specific provisions as written might create more problems than they solve. He stated he was not currently in favor of moving forward with the ordinance but wanted to hear more from his colleagues. Council Member Engelking stated that while he personally found the existing policy sufficient, his constituents viewed an ordinance as more durable and a direct statement made by their elected representatives. He supported the existing internal reporting protocol for employees as adequate. He proposed that the city create an administrative reporting mechanism for residents who have adverse interactions with ICE agents, noting that one of his constituents had been uncomfortable filing a report with the Department of Homeland Security. He expressed support for a provision limiting use of city property, acknowledging enforceability limitations, and raised the specific concern of ICE agents appearing at polling locations on election day as a scenario where having something in place would be important. Docusign Envelope ID: 5C069E1C-9161-8B87-8299-49600EEDE374 Special study session minutes - 4 - April 6, 2026 Mr. Kruelle asked for clarification on whether the standard practice was to codify operational policy in an ordinance. Mr. Mattick confirmed it was unusual and noted that operational law enforcement policies may need to adapt to legislative changes faster than an ordinance amendment process allows. He suggested that a standing staff directive — requiring the city manager to notify council of any changes to the immigration policy or reporting protocols and to maintain online transparency — could achieve the same accountability goal as an ordinance without the procedural constraints. Ms. Keller offered to make those commitments directly: to alert the council to any changes to the police department's immigration policy, to flag changes to the reporting protocols, and to ensure department policies remain publicly posted online. Council Member Brausen affirmed that the problem lies at the federal level and commended the police department for its work during a stressful period. He stated he did not support adopting a specific ordinance, characterizing it as potentially performative and a distraction from the department's core work. He expressed concern about the cost to staff and attorneys and stated he believed current direction to staff and the checks and balances in place were sufficient. Ms. Keller summarized the council's direction. The majority of council members did not support moving forward with a separation ordinance, nor did they support changes to the formal reporting protocols currently in place. The majority of council members did not support codifying the police department’s operational policies by ordinance. They expressed hesitation due to enforcement challenges, legal constraints and operational flexibility concerns. Instead, staff direction was favored—staff should be clearly directed to uphold the existing policies with accountability mechanisms within existing governance frameworks. Council members emphasized the importance of staff maintaining community trust through their actions and communication rather than solely relying on ordinance enactment. On behalf of staff, Ms. Keller committed to notifying the council of any changes to the department's immigration-related policy, notifying the council of any meaningful changes to reporting protocols, and maintaining public transparency by keeping department policies posted online. Mayor Mohamed asked Mr. Kruelle to carry the council's expressed values forward in conversations with officers and in operational decisions going forward. 2. Automated License Plate Reader Cameras Discussion Mr. Kruelle and Mr. Hagen presented the staff report. Mr. Kruelle stated that the Flock Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) system has been in use in St. Louis Park since August 2023 for stationary cameras, with mobile use in patrol vehicles dating to 2018. The system Docusign Envelope ID: 5C069E1C-9161-8B87-8299-49600EEDE374 Special study session minutes - 5 - April 6, 2026 captures rear license plate images along with time, date and GPS data, which are then checked against a list provided by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, known as a “hot list”. The system does not use facial recognition, does not collect personal identifying information, and automatically deletes all data after 30 days — this is more restrictive than the 60-day window permitted by state law. Data is classified as private under Minnesota law; access requires selection of a valid law enforcement purpose code and data sharing is limited to agencies that have signed formal agreements with the department. The system cannot be used for immigration enforcement purposes. Mr. Kruelle cited the system's public safety outcomes since implementation with 188 stolen vehicles identified, 159 stolen license plates tracked, 488 warrants flagged, 18 missing persons located, and 183 driver's license violations identified. He highlighted four specific recent cases including the location of a child believed to be kidnapped in November 2025 and the arrest of a criminal sexual conduct suspect at Knollwood Mall in January 2026. Both PAC and PMAC reviewed the program and were supportive, with PAC making three specific recommendations — all of which had already been implemented or are in the process of being implemented. Those recommendations were: removing data access for any agency whose ALPR program is suspended by the state, increasing the frequency of internal audits, and ensuring data sharing agreements with partner agencies include strong legal protections aligned with state law. The first policy consideration for ALPR camera use was deployment. Mr. Hagen described camera placement as driven by crime data and operational needs. All stationary cameras are configured to capture the rear license plate only, reducing the likelihood of capturing driver images. He noted that reducing or discontinuing the program would shift operations from proactive to reactive, increasing strain on limited staffing. Mr. Kruelle outlined the layered data protections in place for the second policy question. The system does not connect to motor vehicle records or personal identity databases. Any agency selecting an immigration purpose code is automatically blocked from receiving St. Louis Park data — a technical control built into the system. Misuse of data carries legal, financial and employment consequences under state law. Mr. Hagen clarified that in the quarterly internal audits, staff can review agency purpose codes for external searches of St. Louis Park data and any misuse would result in removal from the system. Council Member Engelking noted that Flock is developing a proactive audit tool to detect anomalous search behavior across the platform, such as a sudden spike in query volume from a given agency. The third policy question for the use of ALPR cameras was auditing and oversight. Mr. Kruelle described a biannual independent audit requirement, with the most recent audit completed in July 2025. Quarterly internal audits compare officer searches to associated case files to confirm appropriate use. Docusign Envelope ID: 5C069E1C-9161-8B87-8299-49600EEDE374 Special study session minutes - 6 - April 6, 2026 Council Member Budd asked whether council reviews the independent audit reports. Mr. Kruelle confirmed the reports go to the police department and are also submitted to the Minnesota State Administration Department. Mr. Hagen noted he had suggested the state publish them on their website. Mr. Mattick indicated the audit itself is likely public but would need to confirm. Council Member Baudhuin suggested the audits be forwarded to the city manager as an additional accountability layer outside the police department, with the ability to share with council as needed. Ms. Keller confirmed she could receive them and, if council desired, share them as appropriate once the public data classification was confirmed. Council Member Engelking raised the question of whether the department would be willing to sever data sharing agreements with any agency that has a 287(g) agreement with the federal government — a program through which local law enforcement agencies cooperate with ICE. He identified Itasca County Sheriff's Office as the one remaining Minnesota agency with such an agreement. Mr. Kruelle confirmed the department would be amenable to terminating that agreement. Mr. Hagen also noted that Sherburne County had already been removed from access because they did not return the required signed agreement. Council Member Engelking stated that he had engaged in extensive due diligence on the issue of ALPR camera use. He shared that he had participated in a direct call with Flock’s technical and public affairs staff as facilitated by the police department for interested council members. He described having entered the discussion skeptically but coming away reassured by the depth of data protections in place. He expressed full support for maintaining the program with the addition of severing any agreements with 287(g)-participating agencies. Council Member Budd described her own meeting arranged by Mr. Kruelle with Flock representatives as highly informative. She noted the program's value in enabling proactive rather than reactive policing, including its utility in weapon-related incidents. Mayor Mohamed noted that officers of color she had spoken with across the Twin Cities uniformly stated they could not do their work without ALPR. She expressed support for maintaining the current program and echoed the recommendation regarding 287(g) agencies. Council Member Farris expressed support for maintaining the program as-is. Council Member Brausen agreed with the recommendation to end agreements with 287(g) agencies and expressed interest in reviewing audit results. Council Member Baudhuin expressed comfort with the existing safeguards and supported keeping the program as nimble as possible. He also supported the 287(g) recommendation. Docusign Envelope ID: 5C069E1C-9161-8B87-8299-49600EEDE374 Special study session minutes - 7 - April 6, 2026 Council Member Bashore noted that he was the author of the study session request. He brought healthy skepticism to the process and found the answers provided by Flock and department staff reassuring. He supported maintaining the program and severing any 287(g) agreements. Mayor Mohamed highlighted the need for increased public education about the ALPR system, suggesting that Park Perspectives and the city's strategic priority around safety could serve as vehicles for that outreach. Ms. Keller summarized the council's direction: a majority supported ceasing data sharing with any agency holding a 287(g) agreement. There was support for ensuring audit results are shared with the city manager and made publicly available to the extent permitted by law. It was encouraged as a priority for police staff to provide additional public education on ALPR use and safeguards. The three PAC recommendations had already been implemented and no further changes to the current program were directed. City staff will collaborate with advisory bodies (such as PAC and PMAC) to review policies and practices related to policing and data use. 3. 2026 Market Value Update Mr. Bultema and Ms. Nathanson presented the staff report. All assessments are as of Jan. 2, 2026, and apply to taxes payable in 2027. Mr. Bultema provided an overview of the Minnesota property tax system, noting that assessors perform a reading of the market without any pressure to align with budget targets. He described the layered structure of tax capacity calculations, including fiscal disparities, Tax Increment Financing districts and various legislative carve-outs including the 4(d) low-income housing classification. Mr. Bultema described St. Louis Park as having a dense and relatively high valuation and tax capacity by statewide standards, with a healthy residential sale turnover rate returning to its pre-pandemic norm of approximately 5% to 5.5%. Single family homes are performing solidly, with the upper price brackets showing stronger movement than lower brackets due to differing sensitivity to interest rates. Condominiums remain the most volatile product type and have seen some softening at the lower end consistent with metro-wide trends. Townhomes are relatively stable. Mr. Bultema noted the city's Housing Improvement Association structure as a positive model for maintaining condominium property stock. Ms. Nathanson reported that apartment values were relatively flat overall, up just under 1% including new construction in lease-up phase. Commercial and industrial values were mixed: restaurants and groceries were flat; hotels were down 4.3% consistent with metro-wide trends; offices continued to decline slightly following an 8.1% reduction the prior year with ongoing high vacancies; retail was up slightly driven by small multi-tenant properties; and industrial was up with St. Louis Park's older flex-industrial stock benefiting from its light rail corridor location. Ms. Nathanson noted that value notices were mailed March 2, 2026, and that call volume from property owners was down compared to prior years. She described the appeals process: informal appeals are handled directly by the assessor's office; properties not resolved Docusign Envelope ID: 5C069E1C-9161-8B87-8299-49600EEDE374 Special study session minutes - 8 - April 6, 2026 informally proceed to the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting the following Monday at 6:00 p.m. Unresolved appeals may proceed to the County Board on June 15, 2026, and tax court filings are available through April 30, 2027, for the 2026 assessment. Council Member Budd asked about the 10-day freeze period referenced in the materials. Mr. Bultema explained that informal appeals can occur at any time, but 10 days before the local board meeting that informal window closes and any agreed reductions must be brought before the board for approval. Council Member Brausen asked about the large apartment building appeals that had come before the board in prior years. Ms. Nathanson explained that institutional investors typically pursue tax court rather than local board proceedings. She noted that the specific situation Council Member Brausen had referenced involved a property that has since been sold. Council Member Brausen asked whether the assessor could predict coastal/institutional investor litigation in future years. Mr. Bultema acknowledged it as an ongoing pattern that has developed over the past 7 or 8 years. Council Member Bashore asked about overall assessment stability relative to the prior year's commercial-to-residential tax shift. Mr. Bultema confirmed the shift would be considerably softer in 2026. He pointed out that last year's decertification of certain TIF districts had meaningfully expanded the overall tax capacity spread. Mayor Mohamed asked whether the current environment — including the impact of ICE enforcement activity on local businesses — might affect commercial values in the following assessment cycle. Mr. Bultema acknowledged the question as philosophical given the annual measurement approach and described next year's impact as uncertain. Mr. Bultema confirmed that at least two council members are currently certified to serve on the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization and encouraged newer members to pursue the 45- minute certification training. Council Member Brausen was identified as the chair for the upcoming board meeting. Written Report 4. Housing Activity Report Council Member Engelking noted the housing activity report was dense and informative. Docusign Envelope ID: 5C069E1C-9161-8B87-8299-49600EEDE374 Special study session minutes - 9 - April 6, 2026 The meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ 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: 5C069E1C-9161-8B87-8299-49600EEDE374