HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020/05/18 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular Official minutes
City council meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
May 18, 2020
1. Call to order
Mayor Spano called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
1a. Pledge of allegiance
1b. Roll call
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Rachel Harris, Larry Kraft, Anne
Mavity, Nadia Mohamed, and Margaret Rog.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt),
CIO (Mr. Pires), Community Development Director (Ms. Barton), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick),
Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), Planner (Ms. Kramer), Economic Development Specialist (Ms.
Grove), Housing Supervisor/Deputy Community Development Director (Ms. Schnitker), EDA
Attorney (Ms. Ingram) Assistant Housing Supervisor (Ms. Olson), Senior Management Analyst
(Ms. Solano), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas).
Guests: Kent Dahl, Ehlers; St. Louis Park residents
2. Presentations - none
3. Approval of minutes
3a. LBAE meeting minutes of April 20, 2020
It was moved by Councilmember Kraft, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to approve
the April 20, 2020 LBAE meeting minutes as presented.
The motion passed 7-0.
3b. City council meeting minutes of April 20, 2020
It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve
the April 20, 2020 city council meeting minutes as presented.
The motion passed 7-0.
4. Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar
4a. Designate Thomas and Sons Construction the lowest responsible bidder and
authorize a contract with the firm in the amount of $586,676.30 for Monterey
Drive improvements (Phase 1) – project 4020-1101.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3CBE1212-35BC-4F00-B043-F0907074470E
City council meeting -2- May 18, 2020
It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve
the agenda as presented and items listed on the consent calendar; and to waive reading
of all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and commissions - none
6. Public hearings
6a. Establishment of the Parkway Residences Tax Increment Financing District
Resolution No. 20-082
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report.
Mayor Spano opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Spano
closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to adopt
Resolution No. 20-082 approving the establishment of the Parkway Residences Tax
Increment Financing District (a redevelopment district).
The motion passed 7-0.
6b. Public hearing and first reading of an ordinance establishing South Cedar Trails
Homeowners Association HIA
Ms. Olson presented the staff report.
Mayor Spano opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Spano
closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Harris noted she had inquired about risk on the project at the May 4,
2020 meeting. She asked Ms. Olson to elaborate on the purpose of the HIA program and
how it benefits the city’s housing goals. Ms. Olson stated the policy was adopted in 2001
and requires the units be affordable housing. She stated in this case, the units are all at
80% and 60% AMI, and the purpose of the policy is to assist housing associations that
need to do improvements, in order to preserve affordable housing.
Councilmember Rog asked if it is fairer and more reasonable to charge accordingly for
windows, and if the number of windows is tied to unit size. Ms. Olson stated yes, the 2-
and 3-bedroom units on the ends have more windows. She noted some owners had
already replaced some of their windows, and since that time, if owners had paid to
replace their windows, they will not have to pay for them at this time.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3CBE1212-35BC-4F00-B043-F0907074470E
City council meeting -3- May 18, 2020
Councilmember Rog asked if residents are supportive of this program . Ms. Olson
answered yes, they are, adding they are only paying for their own units’ windows .
Councilmember Brausen stated this method is available by the city to assist townhomes
and condos that don’t have other resources available, while allowing the city to
continue to offer affordable housing stock. He noted 28 of the 32-unit residents
approved of the improvements, and it is of very low risk to the city adding he will
support this motion.
Councilmember Mavity agreed with Councilmember Brausen, stating this model and the
way the city uses this is seen as a very effective way to provide quality and standards
and to help support affordable home ownership as well .
Councilmember Kraft stated cash flow issues due to the pandemic do not seem to be an
issue; however, he asked why there were not sufficient reserves set up over the years
by past management. He noted he was satisfied with staff’s explanation adding current
management seems to be doing the right things and he encouraged them to build up
their long-term reserves now. He stated he will support this as it supports affordable
home ownership, which can be great starter homes. He added it is of little financial risk
to the city and is a great thing to do.
Mayor Spano agreed it is low risk, with high rewards.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Harris, to
approve first reading of an ordinance establishing the South Cedar Trails Homeowners
Housing Improvement Area pursuant to Minnesota statues 428A.11 to 428A.21 and to
set second reading date for June 1, 2020.
The motion passed 7-0.
7. Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – none
8. Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items
8a. Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule
Charter
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report.
City Attorney Mattick stated the council is asked to review the information provided in
the staff report, hear the basis for the complaint from the complainants, and allow
Councilmember Mavity to respond to the complaint. Unless the council determines that
more information is needed, council is asked to deliberate and vote on the issue of
whether or not a violation of St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 2.09 has
occurred. If the council determines that a violation has occurred, the council must
follow the requirements of Section 2.09 related to public censure and imposition of any
additional penalty.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3CBE1212-35BC-4F00-B043-F0907074470E
City council meeting -4- May 18, 2020
City Attorney Mattick explained that because Councilmember Mavity has declared a
conflict of interest, his opinion is that no further action is required of council regarding
the alleged violation related to that matter. He stated the focus tonight will be to
address charter section 2.09 and allegations of interference with administration by
Councilmember Mavity.
Colette Rentz, 3640 Wooddale Ave., read the neighborhood group’s letter to the
council, into the record.
We were notified three (3) business days prior that this would be a City Council Agenda
item today. Furthermore, we were provided access to 58 pages of material under this
item one (1) business day ago. Moreover, it is undetermined if we would be allowed one
or three people to be in attendance and no process is defined. This simply is
unreasonable, unjust, and unfair to put the burden on the victims in this fashion.
As you are aware the UCC Communications Committee was formed from families
(approx. 90) that will be directly affected and impacted by the development .
Subsequently a complaint was submitted some time ago. We are not an investigatory
body, and nor should that be the role of such committee. We are not in a positon to call
multiple witnesses, interview appropriate folks, review emails … yet it does feel like that
is being pushed in our direction. It is only proper, and we are much surprised, that a
third-party investigation has not yet been commenced. This certainly would show this
was taken seriously and any decision was based on the findings of a fact through an
independent investigation.
Furthermore, as you are aware, we have requested fair, independent, and impartial
representation from an elected official now that Council Member Mavity has recused
herself. This has yet to happen or be addressed.
Thus, for reasons previously referenced and per advice, you have left us not much choice,
at this time to limit participation to respectfully to submitting this document and request
that it be read into the record. We do understand that you will be taking individual
public input as the agenda item was reviewed.
1. The Complainants are interested property owners who have reason to believe that
Councilmember Mavity has used her position on the City Council improperly in order to
advance her personal interests, that of PPL, the UCC and this Project . The basis of these
beliefs has been set forth previously to the Council via submission to the City Manager on
March 12, 2020.
2. This City Council is empowered under the Home Rule Charter, §208, to make
investigations into “…the city’s affairs including, but not limited to, neglect, dereliction of
duty, or waste on the part of any officer….” Id.
3. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter (“Charter”) expressly empowers City Manager
Tom Harmening to investigate alleged abuses and conflict of issues involving City
Councilmembers. Section 5.02(a) of the Charter requires the City Manager to perform
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3CBE1212-35BC-4F00-B043-F0907074470E
City council meeting -5- May 18, 2020
such investigations “…to enforce this Charter and the laws, ordinances and resolutions of
the City.” Id.
4. The City Manager is further tasked to recommend such “[m]easures as necessary for
the welfare of the people and the efficient administration of the public’s affairs….” Id.,
§5.02(f).
5. The Charter further sets forth a clear code of ethics to be followed by St. Louis
Park’s elected councilmembers and officials. Section 12.01 of the Charter delineates
“[t]hose acts or actions that are incompatible with the best interests of the city and by
directing disclosure by such officials of private financial or other interests, in matters
affecting the city….” Id., §12.01
6. Elected councilmembers such as Councilmember Mavity are prohibited from using
their position with the government of St. Louis Park for personal gain. Section 12.18 of
the Charter prohibits “[a]ny public official who is authorized to take part in any manner
in making a sale, lease or contract in his/her official capacity” from “[personally]
benefiting financially….” Id. Any such contract entered into by the City of St. Louis Park is
deemed void by the Charter. Id., §12.18(a).
7. The duty of councilmembers to avoid conflicts of interest is broadly defined beyond
financial conflicts of interest. Section 12.18(b) of the Charter expressly prohibits any
official “…authorized to take an action, vote, or make a decision concerning a non-
contractual transaction of the city and which would affect the public official’s
shareholders’ interests,…[and]shall disqualify himself/herself from such action, vote or
decision.” Id. Any transaction the City enters into involving a public official who acts in
violation of this prohibition “is voidable” by the council. Id.
8. Finally, the Charter defines prohibited conflicts of interest in the context of gifts. The
Charter prohibits councilmembers from receiving—either directly or indirectly—and “in
any manner whatsoever in business dealings with the city…” items including money,
services, loans, promises or favors as a result of their position as a public official. See
§12.20. The Charter defines “gifts” and “things of value” very broadly, indicating that
this includes anything that would “[t]end to influence his/her in the discharge of his/her
duties….” Id.
9. The Complainant property owners and interested stakeholders have now been
advised that Councilmember Mavity has “disqualified” herself from further discussions
and decision-making with respect to the Project. It is noteworthy that this came only
after the complaint was brought to her attention.
10. While the Complainants are satisfied that an initial step to resolution of their
Complaint has taken place, the base issue—a councilmember’s self-disqualification in
light of her apparent use of her position as a city council member for St. Louis Park to
further the interests of herself and/or the developer who aligns with the councilmember
personal desires and perhaps financially. This issue is not resolved.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3CBE1212-35BC-4F00-B043-F0907074470E
City council meeting -6- May 18, 2020
11. The Complainants are not agreeable, nor do they concede, that Councilmember
Mavity’s “self-disqualification” constitutes in any way a resolution of the allegations
contained in Complainant’s Complaint, particularly, Complainant’s request for a
thorough and full investigation of Councilmember Mavity’s alleged violations of Charter
§§12.01, 12.18, 12.19 and 12.20. . See “Official Conflict of Interest,” p. 23 (St. Paul;
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo, August 23, 2019), as cited below:
“Disclose the interest as early as possible, orally in writing, not attempt to influence
others, and not participate in any discussions”. An independent third-party investigation
would be appropriate and reasonable as council member was at multiple meetings and
participated in many discussions, orally and in writing, in regard to this issue prior to and
after the complaint was submitted.
12. The Complainants further seek full disclosures of Councilmember Mavity’s basis for
self-disqualification. Councilmember Mavity is required under the Charter and under
Minnesota statutes to fully disclose her conflict of interest to the public . Section 12.12
requires St. Louis Park councilmembers to disclose to the public their employers, all
sources of compensation in excess of $1,000/year, and further requires the filing of a list
of all “business corporations, companies, firms or business enterprises, or partnerships
with which the individual is connected as an employee, officer, owner, director, trustee,
partner, advisor or consultant.” Id., §12.12(1), (2) and (3). Councilmembers are required
to update their disclosures annually on April 15. §12.15(1). Complainants request that all
such disclosures of Councilmember Mavity be disclosed to the public, including but not
limited to the conflict of interest disclosure she provided to the City Manager, City
Attorney, and/or the City Council together with her voluntary self -disqualification on all
future dealings with the Project. See also Minn. Stat. §10A.07, subd. Noteworthy, and
not contained within the March 12, 2020 complaint, among other compelling
information and facts, is Councilmember Mavity has an ongoing relationship with PPL,
and on March 15, 2020, she was a signatory to a letter to the Governor urging state
housing support for low income residents of the state. Councilmember Mavity signed this
letter in her capacity as “Executive Director” of “Minnesota Housing
Partnership.” Another signatory to the letter was Paul Williams, President and Chief
Executive Officer of PPL.
13. The Complainants further object to Councilmember Mavity’s appearance at the
hearing on Monday, March 18 ostensibly to “respond” to the Complainant’s Complaint .
While the Complainants agree that the councilmember is entitled to offer evidence and
rebuttal to the allegations, she is not entitled to be present during the deliberations by
the Council. The City Council’s proposed adjudication of Councilmember Mavity’s conflict
of interest issue under §2.09 of the Charter is a quasi-judicial decision. As such,
Councilmember Mavity’s presence at the hearing violates the spirit and intent of the
Charter—to ensure an unbiased decision by the City Council members on a fellow
member’s acts or conflicts. See “Official Conflict of Interest,” pp. 17-18 (St. Paul; League
of Minnesota Cities Information Memo, August 23, 2019), as cited below:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3CBE1212-35BC-4F00-B043-F0907074470E
City council meeting -7- May 18, 2020
“The purpose behind the creation of a rule which would disqualify public officials from
participating in proceedings in a decision-making capacity when they have a direct
interest in its outcome is to ensure that their decision will not be an arbitrary reflection
of their own selfish interests. There is no settled general rule as to whether such an
interest will disqualify an official.[25] Each case must be decided on the basis of the
particular facts present. Among the relevant factors that should be considered in making
this determination are: (1) The nature of the decision being made; (2) the nature of the
pecuniary interest; (3) the number of officials making the decision who are interested; (4)
the need, if any, to have interested persons make the decision; and (5) the other means
available, if any, such as the opportunity for review, that serve to insure that the officials
will not act arbitrarily to further their selfish interests.”
Id. (emphasis added).
14. Upon a thorough third-party investigation it is likely you may find much compelling
information not only in regard to the conflict of interest but in regard to 2.09. With only
limited review of information provided one business day ago, it appears Council Member
Ann Mavity, directly or indirectly, in just one such example guided city planning by
letting them know the explicit dates that the project was trying to hit in order to achieve
the key milestone dates for the June 1st financial submission. Ann Mavity made it clear in
an email on March 6th to Jacquelyn Kramer “the timing is also a bit sensitive because if
the city does choose to deploy some vouchers to the project, the project application
might be more competitive if that decision is made before the June 4th state application
deadline. All this assumes a positive city council approval of some version of the project
by June which of course is still unresolved”. In this email exchange, Ann made it very
clear the timeline PPL was working under. She also continued to question the dates for
housing authority and city planning. This line of question – further illustrates and is just
one example of her ongoing intent to drive interference/timing of administrative and the
independent processes required under the Charter. These actions and conduct do not
support nonbiased and independent representation as called for under the Charter and
the spirit of an upcoming recusal.
15. In summary, the basis of the Complainant’s original complaint to the City has been
documented. Complainants therefore seek:
A. Full disclosure of any and all findings of the City Attorney and the City Manager
following their receipt of the Complaint; including but not limited to supporting
subsequent information communicated to the City Manager and City Attorney during an
April phone conference with complainants, and all information and discussions in
regards to setting up the May 18, 2020 meeting.
B. Full disclosure of the basis of Councilmember Mavity’s self-disqualification, including
all writings, communications, telephone transcripts, and any other evidence related to
the Councilmember’s self-disqualification; and
C. Full disclosure of findings of Council Member Mavity’s actions prior and after self-
disqualification in regard to this project.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3CBE1212-35BC-4F00-B043-F0907074470E
City council meeting -8- May 18, 2020
D. Any findings of fact and conclusions entered upon the public record from the City
Council following its conclusion of the proposed Article 2.09 hearing set to be conducted
on May 18, 2020.
E. A thorough and full third-party investigation of Councilmember Mavity’s alleged
violations of Charter §§2.09, 12.01, 12.18, 12.19 and 12.20.
Since this item was fast-tracked on the agenda with little to no notice, in addition to
previous concerns disclosed in the complaint to both the City Attorney and City Manager
(prior to this meeting being scheduled), it is only reasonable and transparent that this
submission be read in into the record in its entirety at the Council Meeting this evening
by the City Clerk, or another appropriate party you may designate. Everyone is aware
this is unprecedented times for public input and communication is not normal and
substandard, and detrimental to many aggrieved parties in this case. As you know
Elmwood is a very diverse neighborhood - racially, socio-economic, generationally, and
more. Many do not have the tools, skills or access to these new ways to participate in
revised public discourse. Their voice is no less important or valuable than that of the
wealth and young. Reading for those viewing is helpful and appropriate. We hope you
will concur that this is a very reasonable request based on the overall circumstances. It is
estimated it will take only around 10 minutes or less to be read an introdu ced into the
record. If this seems unacceptable, please advise with the justification of not
accommodating.
The Complainants present this position and request to the City Council in their capacity
as citizens of the City of St. Louis Park whom have direct property rights and interests at
stake in the Elmwood UCC Project.
Comments
Nancy Robridge, 5800 Cambridge St., stated she is concerned, and thinks the city council
must be held to the highest standards.
Tom Larson, 3751 Brunswick Ave. S., stated he attended the initial study session on the
PPL project and was surprised it would move forward before any public input. He added
that the two meetings were very contentious and stated that having been involved in
other projects in the past with lots of public engagement, the PPL project seemed
rushed. He noted this is disturbing and asked the council to please listen to all sides.
Barb Patterson, 4326 Wooddale Ave., stated she is a member of the city community
housing team, but is not speaking for that group this evening. She stated she has an
ongoing interest in affordable housing in St Louis Park and also knows others who have
written their support for Councilmember Mavity. She stated she is supportive also of
Councilmember Mavity who is her council representative and she is outraged people are
attacking Councilmember Mavity and saying she is not just. Ms. Patterson stated the city
needs affordable housing, adding this project has been filled with neighborhood
pushback, animosity, and vitriol. She stated Councilmember Mavity is a local expert on
affordable housing and the city is fortunate to have her on council and supporting us in
the neighborhood.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3CBE1212-35BC-4F00-B043-F0907074470E
City council meeting -9- May 18, 2020
Andrew Sockerson, 15 Oxford St., stated it makes sense to do a third-party investigation
and it is interesting there was a recusal by Councilmember Mavity after the fact.
Councilmember Brausen stated he wants to hear facts not just allegations. He stated the
complaint was read into the record and the staff report ed on what happened and what
occurred, but he did not hear any facts from the neighbors, only allegations. He stated it
is easy to make accusations, but the council will need to make decisions based on the
facts.
Councilmember Mohamed asked if the neighborhood was notified that they could give
public comment this evening.
Mr. Harmening stated staff offered the neighborhood group that wrote complaint and
email to present their point of view and then also allow Councilmember Mavity to
comment as well. He added staff has been in conversation with the neighborhood for a
while now, by email and phone calls, adding that he had advised a member of the
community last Tuesday that this item would be discussed tonight and staff sent an
invitation to the entire committee last Wednesday.
Mayor Spano asked for further public comment at this time.
John Gleason, 5801 Goodrich Ave., stated he is not a party to this charter complaint, but
has been involved in multiple developments in the city over the last 20 years. He noted
the behavior on this project is different, specifically with the developer and landowner,
Chris Olson, who stated at the neighborhood meeting that community involvement in
this project is specifically lower than other projects. Mr. Gleason added he asked why
the church did not follow protocol on this project with more involvement and stated Mr.
Olson said they were advised in 2018 that there was support on the council for
affordable housing, so there was no need to involve the neighborhood.
Comments by Councilmember Mavity
Councilmember Mavity stated she appreciated the opportunity to respond to this issue
and noted the city attorney stated the conflict of interest had been addressed, and
documents in the staff report show that she did not interfere with staff, adding that
there is enough evidence for the council to make a decision and end this process
tonight.
Councilmember Mavity submitted the following written statement as her complete
comments.
In response to item 8(a) on the May 18th, 2020 St. Louis Park City council agenda,
regarding the “Complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter”,
I appreciate the opportunity to respond as you are considering action on this item.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3CBE1212-35BC-4F00-B043-F0907074470E
City council meeting -10- May 18, 2020
The Complaint alleges two areas of violations of the City Charter: 1) conflict of interest
and 2) interference in administration. I believe that the summary memo from City
Manager Harmening clearly indicates that the first allegation is resolved and requir es no
action by the council. On the second item, I would assert that the record and documents
in the staff report, with absolute clarity, and from staff themselves and documented in
the record, indicate that no “Interference with Administration” occurred. On that basis, I
believe the council is empowered and required to conclude that no violation occurred
and that the complaint is summarily dismissed. It is in the best interest of the city to
resolve this complaint as quickly as possible, and I believe there is sufficient information
available from the city attorney’s investigation to do that this evening. Requests for
further delays I believe are being raised to distract and delay, and I believe the council
has sufficient information to resolve this tonight.
I’m going to address three items this evening: 1) briefly, even though it is resolved, for
the record, the conflict of interest allegation that our city attorney has advised is now
resolved; 2) the false accusation of interference with administration; and 3) defamation
of character.
My work in the non-profit sector advancing affordable housing is well known. This work
does not specifically benefit from any one project advancing or not, in fact, my work is
focused on state and federal level housing policies and investments, as well as creating
policy frameworks and tools for local communities. And since many speakers have
referenced the timing of this project, and my mention of it, it’s because it’s the same
timeline as every affordable project applying for funding to the states. Right now, there
are at least 100 projects across MN applying to the State for funding in their once annual
funding solicitation, representing 6,600 possible new units of housing. They are all on the
exact same timeline, and I am working hard to secure $200 million from the legislature
to allow the state to fund as many of these as possible. In advancing affordable housing
in this way, I work in partnership with hundreds of stakeholders across the state who
share this value and goal. In the past, I have traditionally disclosed any potential or
appearances of conflicts at the earliest opportunity and once an actual project has
applied for city approvals, have been faithful to recusing myself as each one comes
before council as needed. All of you have witnessed me do this repeatedly. Therefore, at
the study session in January 2020, I disclosed a relationship with PPL, as part of my work
in advancing affordable housing. To be clear, there was no active development
application at the city – it wasn’t officially a city project at that point. Typically, I then
officially recuse myself when an action is being brought to the council on a project and
had every intention to do so if and when an action was brought to council. Since this had
not occurred yet, I had not yet “officially” recused myself. In light of the complaint, I have
recused myself in order to clarify this now, for the purposes of this Complaint. As noted
by the City Manager’s report, this issue in the complaint is resolved and no further action
by the City council is needed or recommended by the City Attorney.
Regarding the false accusation of Interference in administration, this is essentially the
question of whether I directed staff… which I did not. I have freely provided insights into
the community, city policies, past developments, to anyone who asks – including in this
instance to Elmwood residents and the UCC development team - but also refer them to
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3CBE1212-35BC-4F00-B043-F0907074470E
City council meeting -11- May 18, 2020
staff for technical guidance and application details, and to neighbors for review and
early input for further steps. A thorough review and investigation has been conducted.
And staff themselves, by their statements attesting to their interactions with me, and by
record of email communications, were never directed by me to proceed on this project in
any way different than they have done on any project proposal that would come to their
attention.
As you reviewed in the emails attached in the council packet, it’s also important to note,
in contrast to what is being alleged, that in my responses to neighbors that the
complainants have submitted, I have consistently referenced “city council action” – never
have I asserted in communication or in writing or otherwise, that I could or would have a
decision making role in steering such a project.
Again, in sum, the record clearly demonstrates that no interference occurred, and I
respectfully request the Council to reject this false and outrageous accusation and reject
the Complaint in total.
More troublesome to me and I think perhaps should be to you as well, are the false
accusations of what is alleged as “nefarious” (legally, meaning criminal) wrong-doing –
accusations that defame my character. As public officials, our actions must be held to
the highest ethical standards, and I am confident that my actions have done so.
Whether or not the signatories to the Complaint understood the legal definition of
“nefarious”, as a matter of public record, and for any future legal actions that may
ensue, it’s imperative that you do consider the gravity and implications of that false
accusation and its legal definition – that it is accusing criminal activity. I ask that you
consider that if residents who disagree with city policy, with a duly -elected official’s
public positions and vision for the city, falsely accuse that official of criminal conduct, it
sets a precedent that could undermine public confidence in how the city does its
business. And to be clear, as I’ve outlined, I categorically assert that my actions have
been in support of and in alignment with our City Charter.
I want to be clear - I absolutely believe that each of the signatories on this Complaint
love their community and that they want the best for their neighborhood and for SLP.
I also understand that it can be frustrating for residents when they feel that the city’s
goals and direction – and their own city councilmember - do not reflect their own vision
or wishes. They have asked for “representation” with an implicit assumption that if their
proposal is not advanced, that they are not “represented”. All of you on this council
understand well, that this is the complexity of representing a large and diverse city.
Whether I have responded or engaged neighbors in the same way each of you do or
would have, is not germane to today’s considerations. Each of us responds as best we
can and as we see fit. That is an entirely different issue than the false accusation of
“nefarious” actions, including steering staff work on this project, which I categorically did
not do, and which staff documentation and statements also do not support.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3CBE1212-35BC-4F00-B043-F0907074470E
City council meeting -12- May 18, 2020
I have been very clear about my vision and values that I am advancing as a city
councilmember. In fact, I’m proud of my life-long professional work in advancing
affordable housing, in advancing race equity goals to ensure everyone’s voice is included
in policy decisions, in advancing sustainability including more walkable communities,
advocating for SWLRT and leveraging that investment through denser development
around station areas. And these are our shared and official goals and vision for our city.
Implementing each of these goals, necessarily disrupts “business as usual”, and brings
change to neighborhoods like Elmwood. And while residents of course can disagree with
these goals, for the complainants to take this approach, i.e., to accuse me of violations
of city charter, it’s outrageous and beyond the pale for how such disagreements should
be resolved.
Many of the complainants have previously publicly and actively opposed approved city
policies and developments, e.g., they’ve opposed ones that advance more density – like
Elmwood Sr building, and opposed more sidewalks and walkability – like we completed
two years ago in Elmwood neighborhood, they’ve opposed greater affordability in
housing developments – as reflected in the PLACE project. They have every right to
oppose those policies and projects, of course, but their lack of success has driven them to
this attempt to sideline me on issues of city policy, is part of an ongoing effort to oppose
those policies and is entirely inappropriate and outrageous.
The complaints against me are based on policy disagreements that should be resolved
through elections, not through such a complaint.
As a SLP Councilmember, I represent many, many diverse interests, perspectives, and
people. After three terms and more than a decade on this council, and having won re-
election twice (including winning a majority from Elmwood precincts in the all my
elections, including the most recent election in the midst of the brouhaha about
sidewalks), I also understand that the loudest and most insistent voices aren’t the only
ones I need to consider or that I need to represent. E.g., about 44% of SLP households
are renters, but their voices and interests are rarely raised in neighborhood meetings
such as the two that were held by the UCC development team. So, our challenge as
elected representatives is to listen to all these constituencies, and then make
determinations about policy. And our race equity work, for me, means that I’m listening
to a multitude of diverse voices on density, on affordability, on walkability and not just
the voices that are loudest in opposition.
I am proud of the leadership and expertise I have brought to advancing all of these
areas. This is exactly why I ran for office in the first place. And I’m proud of our city and
community for sharing and supporting that vision.
The allegations made in this Complaint, are absolutely outrageous, go well beyond the
parameters of how to resolve disagreements in SLP. I want to be clear: Should this issue
remain unresolved this evening, I categorically reserve my rights to pursue claims of
defamation of character against the complainants, including suing for damages arising
from their Complaint and false accusations.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3CBE1212-35BC-4F00-B043-F0907074470E
City council meeting -13- May 18, 2020
This is obviously a difficult matter for me and for the city and it’s in all our interests to
have it resolved tonight. The last-minute submission of the complainants, for which they
clearly spent a bit of time preparing, is a direct attempt to delay this issue.
In sum - This complaint is unfounded, is full of false accusations and defamatory attacks.
And most importantly and simply, it’s not supported by the record as reflected in your
packets this evening. I ask you now to reject the Complaint in total, and specifically to
make a determination that these are unsubstantiated and that there are no findings of
violations on Section 2.09. I also ask that you make a clear statement that this type of
attempt to intimidate and influence city business is unacceptable.
Additional comments
Mike Witter, 319 Oxford St., stated he was calling about needing all the facts to make a
decision and added it is clear all the facts are not evident. He added the council needs to
subpoena all those involved and then make a decision.
Council deliberation
Councilmember Kraft stated he read through all the materials and staff statements, and
asked Mr. Harmening if any other staff were involved in this process. Mr. Harmening
stated no other staff was involved that would have had any kind of influence over a land
use application.
Mr. Mattick stated in an email to staff, it was asked that they disclose any and all
discussions with Councilmember Mavity. Staff then gave written statements which were
added unedited to the council packet for review.
Councilmember Brausen stated as he expressed at the beginning of the meeting, he is
interested in facts, adding he sees lots of accusations, but he has lots of questions. He
stated Councilmember Mavity has recused herself on many projects and continues to do
so ongoing. He stated this has been very accusatory and it is difficult for him to see any
facts that substantiate these allegations.
Councilmember Rog asked if this public process was remarkably different from the
public process on other projects, or if it seemed on track. Mr. Harmening stated the
meetings referred to in the complaint were not city-led meetings and noted staff had
not begun the public process yet on this project. He added staff is now trying to
understand better the neighborhood concerns.
Mr. Walther stated city staff did not feel any pressure or influence from Councilmember
Mavity to adjust the process on this project . He stated this item was brought to council
in January for a study session after the developer had a neighborhood meeting at the
United Congregational Church. The applicants had one meeting before applying, and
then a second meeting with adjustments to the plan, for the neighbors. He stated the
city’s formal process would then begin after that time.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3CBE1212-35BC-4F00-B043-F0907074470E
City council meeting -14- May 18, 2020
Councilmember Rog stated it is not uncommon to have informal contact between a
developer and a councilmember, adding that UCC and PPL reached out to her as well.
She noted typically, Councilmember Mavity would have had contact with them as well.
Councilmember Harris asked Mr. Walther if UCC or PPL had reached out to staff to begin
the public engagement process. Mr. Walther stated yes, they had.
Mr. Mattick stated councilmembers declare if they have a COI at the meeting, but they
can also disclose it earlier as well. He stated it is typically done at the meeting as a COI
can affect votes.
Councilmember Harris stated she has heard Councilmember Mavity disclose COI in the
past and this allegation has been summarily disproven throughout the course of review.
She thanked Councilmember Mavity for her demonstration of strong ethics.
Councilmember Mohamed stated this is uncharted territory, and added in going through
the report and listening, she has come to the conclusion that Councilmember Mavity
has not interfered with staff. She stated it is practice for all councilmembers to not email
or call staff without copying Mr. Harmening and added she does not see any proof here
of any wrongdoing on Councilmember Mavity’s part. She added Councilmember Mavity
has interests and is passionate about affordable housing, and this is part of her
platform. She thanked Mr. Harmening and City Attorney Mattick for walking the council
through this complex issue.
Mayor Spano asked about the COI and if a recusal applies to actions or comments
before an actual vote. Mr. Mattick stated because of the nature of COI, when a person
recuses themselves from a vote, there is no rule saying they cannot have discussions or
talk to the public about the issue prior to the recusal.
Mayor Spano stated this is the larger issue of the neighborhood’s concerns . Mayor
Spano asked Mr. Mattick why staff did not make a recommendation to council on the
issue of 2.09 in the charter. Mr. Mattick stated the facts were presented and staff did
not feel it was appropriate to make a recommendation to council, as they wanted to be
unbiased before the council.
Mayor Spano stated the comments made this evening by the neighbors were not part of
the staff report, adding he believes the council should take some time to look into this
further. He stated he is interested in looking at everything and also in having a third
party look into this. He added all councilmember have their lives outside of the city
council, but he strives to remain as impartial as possible. He again stated he would like
to pause on this and have a third party review it further.
Councilmember Kraft stated he is focusing on just the key pieces and noted that he is
not taking any position whatsoever on the development itself. He stated that the
essence of the complaint is there was a conflict of interest and a violation of 2.09. He
added the charter is clear on what must be done if there is a conflict of interest, they
must disclose that before an action or vote is taken, and that has happened with the
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3CBE1212-35BC-4F00-B043-F0907074470E
City council meeting -15- May 18, 2020
recusal of councilmember Mavity. He further added that the 2 nd piece, is about a
violation of 2.09. He stated he is satisfied with the staff statements and the
investigations made to date, including his own review of every email involved, that he
saw nothing abnormal and a violation of 2.09 did not happen.
Councilmember Brausen agreed with Councilmember Kraft adding if an independent
investigator were to look at the allegations, a dangerous precedent would be set, and
anytime a group is in opposition to a project and there are allegations, there will need to
be an independent investigation. He stated these are only allegations with no examples
of proof, and just because Councilmember Mavity notifies the neighborhood group of
dates of the process, does not mean she is directing the project. Without any facts that
document the allegations, there is no need to do a further investigation, and while he
stated he is not trying to minimize the concerns of the neighborhood, he noted there
will be time for input from neighbors on the project, before any decisions are made by
council.
Councilmember Rog stated this is uncharted territory, and while she likes residents to
be satisfied, and the engagement process to be exhausted, she is not interested in a
third-party investigation at this time. She stated she is ready to support the motion.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Kraft, that after
considering the evidence presented and all reports, a violation of 2.09 did not occur and
the complaint will be dismissed in its entirety, with no further action.
The motion passed 5-1-1 (Mayor Spano opposed; Councilmember Mavity abstained).
9. Communications - none
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3CBE1212-35BC-4F00-B043-F0907074470E