Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017/09/25 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study Session�llSt. Louis Park OFFICIAL MINUTES M I N N E S O T A CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Thom Miller, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, and Susan Sanger. Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jake Spano. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), Associate Planner (Ms. Framer), Inspection Services Manager (Ms. Boettcher), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Police Chief (Mr. Hareey), Police Lieutenant (Mr. Fruelle), Police Sergeant (Mr. Balvin), Police Sergeant (Mr. Lewis), Communications Specialist (Ms. Pribbenow), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Staple). Guest: Mr. Stoddard, Developer 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning — October 2 & 9, 2017 Mr. Harmening presented the proposed Study Session agenda for October 2 and 9, 2017. He noted that discussion of the regulation of flavored tobacco products is scheduled for the October 2 special study session, and the budget will be the main topic of discussion for the study session on October 9. Councilmember Mavity asked for additional information on the written report on visioning that is slated for October 9. Mayor Pro Tem Miller stated that he spoke with staff prior to the meeting and also requested to move that item from a written update to a discussion item. Councilmember Mavity agreed that she would like to have a discussion, specifically about how visioning will guide the Comprehensive Plan process and how input can be given during that process. 2. NOAH Preservation Policies Mr. Harmening stated that the council has discussed this topic previously and emphasized that staff is looking for direction regarding the advanced notice of sale; whether it would be helpful to preserve NOAH; and whether there would be unintended consequences by preserving NOAH. He stated that staff has been talking with the multi -family property owners, and there seems to be interest in talking through the ideas from different sides of this topic. Ms. Schnitker stated that an advanced notice of sale policy would require the property owner to provide notice to the city before entering into a purchase agreement, which would allow the city the ability to determine if it would be appropriate to purchase the property for preservation. She reviewed the actions which would trigger the notice; the length of the notice period; whom the notice would apply to; the definition of NOAH properties; the identification of NOAH properties; and the enforcement penalty. She highlighted the discussion points the council should consider tonight. She stated that this policy would apply to a potential of 41 developments. Seven already have restricted rents, which would leave the potential of 36 additional developments that the ordinance may apply to. She provided updates on other policies that staff is continuing to research on this topic, noting that the most discussion and opposition has been generated by the eviction for cause policy. She stated that two meetings were held with rental Study Session Minutes -2- September 25, 2017 owners and landlords, noting that there was a lot of good input received from those who attended, as well as from email correspondence. Councilmember Sanger asked for additional information on the advance notice of sale policy and the limit to the number of units, specifically whether it would apply per parcel or per development. Ms. Schnitker replied that the policy could apply to developments with multiple parcels, using the example of three adjacent buildings with different owners but one potential buyer. She noted that some existing developments have more than one parcel. Councilmember Sanger asked if the policy would apply if the owner were to sell 50 percent interest in the development. Ms. Schnitker replied that the policy would not apply when there is ownership distribution transfer involving existing owners. Mr. Mattick stated that the ordinance would apply if there was a purchase agreement. Councilmember Mavity stated that her focus is on the renters and the impact on the tenants. She stated that it is the new buyer who would make that impact and asked for additional information on the ability or necessity to trigger the second phase. Ms. Schnitker stated that the second notice was not included in the draft ordinance. Councilmember Mavity asked for additional information on the potential conflict with the prohibition of rent control. Mr. Mattick stated that the city could not propose anything that could be construed as rent control. Councilmember Mavity referenced financial assistance, noting that a previous report mentioned 4.5 million in general obligation bonds to provide assistance in rehab acquisition. She asked if this pilot project would only apply to developments with 40 units and less and why it would not apply to larger developments. Ms. Schnitker replied that this is only in the early planning stages, but since there is limited funding, the pilot would be more feasible for small to medium size buildings. Councilmember Brausen stated that there are not any Minnesota cases related to rent control prohibition, noting that there has not been any litigation in the past 30 years since the state adopted the prohibition. He asked for information on the language regarding a rent control being approved through a referendum on the General Election ballot. Mr. Mattick acknowledged that the language can become confusing and stated that staff is attempting to determine if there were laws that previously allowed that action prior to adoption. Perhaps this element was left on the books in error. Councilmember Brausen asked for the number of rental developments with under four units. Ms. Schnitker replied that there are currently 1,326 single-family homes that are non -homesteaded, but she acknowledged that those may not all be rentals, as they could be snowbirds or a property owner that simply owns multiple properties. She stated that there are 297 duplexes and 1,160 condos and townhomes in St. Louis Park. Councilmember Brausen asked about the number of licensed rental properties in the city. Ms. Boettcher replied that there are 794 single-family homes, 167 duplexes, 147 townhomes, and 643 condos that are licensed as non -owner occupied. Councilmember Hallfin asked about the procedure for someone who purchases a property with existing renters. Ms. Mattick stated that it would depend upon the language in the lease. Unless the lease states that a change in ownership would nullify the lease, the renters would be able to remain for the term of the lease. He stated that if the language states that the lease would be terminated with a change in ownership or there is no language reflecting those terms, the lease could then be terminated. Study Session Minutes -3- September 25, 2017 Councilmember Hallfin asked how the city got in this position, noting that this potential action is reactive to something that happened at Meadowbrook. Mr. Harmening confirmed that the draft ordinance as written would not have applied to that situation. Councilmember Mavity stated that there are 5,000 other units in the community that could still be at risk. Councilmember Lindberg asked for more information on the prohibition on rent controls and how that would apply to the 90 -day notice under the second phase. Mr. Mattick replied that staff drafted a requirement that if a property owner is selling the property, they would have to provide notice to the city 90 days in advance of the purchase agreement being signed. He stated that the second component is to determine if the change in ownership would interfere with the otherwise established contract with the tenant, thereby suppressing rents. Mayor Pro Tem Miller stated that there was a building in Richfield that recently sold to AEON and asked if similar notification took place. Ms. Barton stated that the ordinance was not in place at that time in Richfield. She stated that AEON learned of the pending sale through another avenue and made an offer. The seller chose to accept AEON's offer over the offer they had previously received. Mayor Pro Tem Miller stated that a property owner could receive a purchase agreement on a property that they did not intend to sell and asked how the property owner would then give the sufficient notice. Ms. Schnitker replied that these properties are investment properties, and anyone can approach the property owner with a purchase offer at any time. She stated that the property owner would still need to give notice to the city prior to entering into a purchase agreement. Ms. Barton explained that the city would review the date on the purchase agreement and compare that to city records to ensure that a 90 -day notice was provided. Mayor Pro Tem Miller referred to the rent control discussion and asked how that would apply to properties under the Inclusionary Housing Policy. Ms. Schnitker stated that if the city has provided the property owner with financial assistance, and if that assistance is accepted, the rents would need to be within the affordable range. She stated that a property owner does not have to accept the financial assistance and then would not be required to have units within the affordable range. Councilmember Hallfin asked for additional details on the 90 -day notice. Ms. Schnitker stated that the property owner would not be able to enter into a purchase agreement until 90 days have passed from the date the property owner provided notice to the city of the intent to sell the property. She stated that the 90 -day period was chosen because it would not overly encumber the seller but would still allow enough time for a preservation buyer to purchase the property. Councilmember Hallfin noted that it typically does not take 90 days to sell a property and stated that the city would then be prohibiting the sale from occurring prior to that length of time. Councilmember Mavity noted that a purchase agreement simply outlines the terms of the sale and is not the actual sale. She asked if links to past reports on the 90 -day notice to the city policy could be provided for future discussions to avoid duplicating questions and comments. She referenced the length of the 90 -day notification period and asked if this is based on models used elsewhere in the nation. Ms. Schnitker replied that all the discussion with housing advocates and agencies have focused on 90 days as the period that is not too long but also provides sufficient opportunity for a preservation buyer. Study Session Minutes -4- September 25, 2017 Ms. Barton stated that she recently attended a national conference and the length of time was consistent at 90 days. She stated that Portland, Oregon, recently enacted a similar ordinance with a 90 -day notification period. Councilmember Mavity stated that she believes it would be important for staff to reference if other municipalities have used this length of time and whether that timeframe has been successful. She stated that while she agrees that it is important to allow time for a preservation buyer, she also views it as a tool that can minimize disruption to residents in the community and tenants who could be displaced. She stated that she views this as a tenant protection tool. Mayor Pro Tem Miller asked if Councilmember Mavity would want to see a notice provided to the tenants as well as the city. Councilmember Mavity stated that she was unsure of what should come next in terms of whom would be notified - whether that would be the tenants or an advocacy agency. She stated that it is an important element that the tenants be notified, referencing the drop of enrollment in local schools, which occurred after the recent development changed ownership and displaced tenants. Mayor Pro Tem Miller asked whether it would skirt the law if the ordinance were put in place, and the tenants found out about the potential sale through a third party. Mr. Mattick stated that it would not be a legal issue for the city to provide notice to the tenants or a third party that advises the tenants. Councilmember Brausen asked and received confirmation that this ordinance would not preclude a property owner from entering into an option to buy during the notification period. Councilmember Sanger asked if Councilmember Mavity would like to have notification provided to the tenants. Councilmember Mavity stated that her first concern would be preservation of the property as affordable, while her second concern would be the notification of the tenants. Councilmember Sanger noted that the impact on the tenants would not occur during the first 90 days. Mayor Pro Tem Miller stated that the notification would provide the residents with additional time. Councilmember Lindberg stated that while he understands the intention, he asked how the city would actually enforce and track this information. He stated that he would imagine there would be a significant burden on staff and asked what it would actually take to do this well. He asked specifically what the cost for enforcement of this policy would be and if something else could perhaps be done to provide better results. Ms. Schnitker replied that staff would provide the NOAH rent thresholds, and if developments have rental units below that threshold, the property owner would be required to certify and comply with the ordinance. She stated that staff is aware of the sale of properties and therefore did not anticipate a lot of additional staff work. Mr. Harmening stated that estimation of staff time would be based on the proposal in the report, but the workload could broaden if the draft ordinance was broadened. Councilmember Sanger asked who would handle the calls from residents. Ms. Schnitker replied that staff would continue to field those calls, consistent with the curzent procedure. Study Session Minutes -5- September 25, 2017 Councilmember Brausen stated that there is currently a crime -free ordinance in place, which does not require a lot of staff work, as the burden is placed on the property owner. Councilmember Mavity stated that as NOAH buildings are identified, the question would then be whether the reporting is done on good faith or whether staff is actually asking each rental unit to report the amount of their rent. She stated the latter option would be very burdensome and could be proprietary information. Ms. Schnitker replied that staff would simply be asking a property owner to reply yes or no as to whether there are units in their development that are under the NOAH threshold. Mr. Harmening explained that if there is one unit that meets the threshold, the property owner would then reply yes. Councilmember Sanger asked whether family size would be considered against the AMI. Ms. Schnitker replied that there are HUD published rents based on bedroom size. She stated that AMI is based on household income for each number of bedrooms, regardless of the number of people actually living in the unit. Ms. Barton explained that an assumption is made on the family size based on the number of bedrooms. Councilmember Brausen stated that he is an attorney and a certified real property law specialist. He believes that because staff has come forward with this policy, they must think that it is manageable. He stated that the city is simply talking about a proposal for notice, and he would recommend that a notice be required to be given to tenants, as well, which would allow renters the ability to plan for the future. He stated that this policy is basically a reporting regulation and believes that the city has the capacity to educate the rental licensees about it. He stated that notification would not impact the ability to sell or the price for which a property owner could sell their property. He stated that he would be in favor of extending this policy to all affordable rent properties and did not see the reason to exclude smaller developments and properties. He believed that the council should support this regulation and noted that he would support the regulation for all sized rental properties. Mr. Mattick stated that staff reviewed that option, but the underlying policy is not just so that the city knows when something is being sold. It is based on the preservation of affordability, and therefore extending the policy to non -affordable units would not make sense. Councilmember Brausen noted that there are going to be properties that flow above and below that threshold, and therefore including all properties would cover that aspect. Councilmember Mavity stated that affordable renters are challenged in finding an available unit, and the city needs to do something. She noted that there is an impact to the business community and schools when an affordable rental property is eliminated. She stated that if the city moves forward with this ordinance, she would want to ensure that renters are made aware of the policy and of a potential sale. She stated that there is a lack of affordable housing in the city and the community at large. She did not believe that there would be a benefit to notifying all sized properties at this time but would be open to expanding the parameters if the pilot is successful. She stated that if this policy can be implemented without rate impact, in terms of staff and market impact, she would support this. She stated that she is not committed to the 90 days for the length of the notification period. She would also be open to a 60 -day period because it applies only to a purchase agreement and not to the actual sale of the property. She believed that the city should move forward thoughtfully and to the extent that all stakeholders are informed. Study Session Minutes -6- September 25, 2017 Councilmember Sanger disagreed. She stated that she would support a rehab loan fund with discounted loans in exchange for keeping rents affordable for a specified amount of time, as that would protect the affordability of units. She stated that the job of the city is not to pick winners and losers among families but to ensure that there are a number of affordable units in the city and to network with property owners who may have such properties for sale. She stated that the idea of providing 90 days of notice before signing a purchase agreement is meaningless and unnecessary. She stated that a developer of affordable housing has the same opportunities as other developers to check the properties that are listed for sale. She did not believe this ordinance is necessary and believed that it would instead infringe on the rights of property owners to sell their buildings. She stated that it is not the right of the city to require 90 days before a purchase agreement could be signed and added that a property owner would use the 90 days to set up financing so that on day 91 or 92, the sale could still go through. She stated that there would be unintended consequences as the policy would apply even if there is only one affordable unit. Therefore a landlord could simply raise the rent above the AMI limit. She stated that if there is a $1,000 fine, that is not prohibitive and would simply be considered as a cost of doing business to skip the 90 -day notification period. Councilmember Hallfin stated that he wants to preserve affordable housing to the extent possible and appreciates the passion on the subject. He noted that what is considered reasonable by some, is not reasonable for others. He agreed with a program to help property owners update properties with the condition that units remain affordable. He stated that since the city can provide rehab loans for industries, he would support similar action for landlords of affordable housing properties. He explained that the majority of affordable housing exists in buildings that are not as nice as the higher rent buildings. Therefore, he would support the assistance for building rehab. He stated that if the companies purchasing larger properties are players in the market place, they have the same opportunities to purchase those buildings as any other developer. He said that he wants to retain affordable housing but believes that this ordinance is misguided. Councilmember Sanger stated that she does not want to be the test case and would rather leave that to another community rather than the City of St. Louis Park spending the time and money to defend itself. Councilmember Lindberg agreed that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. He agreed that the city should be proactive and well thought out in policy and practice, but he was unsure that this ordinance would be the correct tool. He stated that it seemed reactive, whereas lie would prefer to find proactive ideas, such as the rehab loan project, to provide tangible results. He stated that the $1,000 administrative fine would be a measure of enforcement but noted that it would become a cost of doing business to simply pay the fine and move on with the sales transaction. He stated that an unintended consequence would be for the landlord to raise the rents above the AMI before the ordinance is enacted. He stated that he had been more supportive of this until he started thinking of applying it across the board, as it would prohibit a market transaction by enacting a 90 day waiting period, while property owners in every other city can move forward on a regular timeline. Mayor Pro "Tem Miller stated that when this topic arises, he is always struck by how many units are affected. He stated that he is concerned with keeping the NOAH units in place. He thanked the property owners for providing their input and participating in the discussions thus far. He questioned if this policy would backfire to some degree with the NOAH property owners. He asked how it would be fair for NOAH property owners to be required to have a 90 -day notification and $1,000 fine, while luxury rental owners would not be required to do the same. Study Session Minutes -7- September 25, 2017 He stated that he wanted the city to be the first and would like to move this policy forward on a small scale. He stated that it is not a perfect policy and would like staff to investigate the assistance for property rehab. He said that he would also like the stakeholder and property owner work group to move forward. Ms. Schnitker replied that the work group would move forward to discuss all four policies that the city is considering. Councilmember Mavity expressed support for the rehab assistance fund and believed the council should be cognizant of what that program would cost when the budget discussions continue. She agreed that continuing the work group would make sense. She stated that if this topic is important to the city, we should put some "skin in the game" in terms of budgeting. She stated that in research that has been done, the loss of NOAH units is increasing immensely. There needs to be discussion to determine if loss in the city can be mitigated. Councilmember Sanger asked for clarification on whether funds should be put in the budget for planning purposes. She noted that the maximum property tax levy has already been set for 2018. Because the funds that would be necessary to help a landlord would be substantial, it would be unreasonable to expect budgeting for the program to occur in the next calendar year. Councilmember Mavity stated that the preliminary budget is often lowered by final adoption. Perhaps instead of reducing, those funds could be put into a rehab assistance fund. She noted that there are housing funds available, as well. Councilmember Hallfin stated that it would make perfect sense to earmark this in the 2019 budget, but it would be a little late to attempt to implement this in 2018. Mr. Harmening stated that if the city attempted to do something in terms of a pilot in 2018, the city could find a way to finance the program, but it would depend upon the dollar amount. He stated that if the city were to look at a broad scale program, it would most likely need to issue debt to do so. Councilmember Brausen stated that he is interested in continuing the work group and considering options that would preserve affordable housing. He stated that he is bothered that it has been implied that the notification would be onerous. Mayor Pro Tem Miller stated that it seems the group is split in their opinion of the notification policy. Mr. Harmening stated that the idea of bringing the work group together was to determine if there is common ground on any of the policies. He stated that staff can bring the comments of the council back to the work group and receive input from them on all of the policy items. He stated that staff needs to know if the council wants this policy separated from the other potential policies. Councilmember Sanger asked for additional information on the work group, specifically who would participate and the term of service. Mr. Harmening stated someone outside of the staff would facilitate the discussion with the idea of listening to the concerns on both the housing preservation side and the property owner side on all the policies to determine if there is common ground on one or all of the policies. If there is common ground, there could then be additional Study Session Minutes -8- September 25, 2017 meetings of the work group. He stated that if there is not common ground, there would not be a purpose to have additional work group meetings. It was the consensus of the council to defer action on a potential policy until input is received from the work group on the four potential policies. 3. SLP Policing Model / Critical Incident Planning (Session 2 of 4) Mr. Harmening stated that this is the second of four presentations on the policing model. Mr. Harcey introduced the members of the police force present including Mr. Kruelle, Mr. Balvin, and Mr. Lewis. He stated that this session will focus on the policies and procedures regarding biased policing, citizen contacts, use of force, vehicle pursuits, and current policing issues involving immigration and de-escalation. He explained how the department policies are developed. He used the example of body cameras, noting that if that element is used, the department will spend a lot of time researching the issue to ensure that the policy is the best fit for the community. He stated that policies are used as guidelines to ensure that the expectations of the community, residents and the city are met. Mr. Kruelle reviewed elements of professional conduct that make up the code, including courtesy, civil rights, and impartial and unbiased policing. He reviewed the guidelines for preventing perceptions of biased policing, explaining that if the wrong person is stopped and there is sufficient time, the officers should take the time to explain the process that led to the action. He stated that the department has been more restrictive than state law in terms of traffic stops, meaning that an officer must have a reason to run a license check on an individual. Councilmember Sanger referenced traffic stops, using the example of a roadway when multiple drivers are going over the posted speed and asked how the officer decides who to stop. Mr. Lewis replied that the decision is typically made out of convenience and safety, noting that it is not always safe to get to the person at the front of the pack. Mr. Harcey stated that it typically is the person who stands out, perhaps weaving in and out of traffic. Mr. Balvin noted that there is a lidar used to measure speed. Even though it appears everyone is going the same speed, sometimes a certain vehicle is pulling ahead in terms of increasing speed. Mr. Balvin noted that the lidar also must bounce off a license plate, and the vehicle that is pulled over may be the one that the officer was able to ping on lidar. Councilmember Hallfm referenced speed traps and a neighboring community to the south where speed traps are regularly set. Mr. Harcey noted that although the city does practice speed enforcement, the department focuses on targeted areas where complaints have been received. He stated that 20 years ago the department made the transition to cornmunity policing, focusing on the issues of the community. Mr. Lewis stated that the neighboring community to the south is self -funding, and therefore those actions fund that department. Study Session Minutes -9- September 25, 2017 Mr. Harcey provided information on immigration protocols, noting that the department does not pf enforce federal immigration laws. Therefore, officers do not ask the immigration status of those they encounter. He stated that if officers arrest a person, fingerprinting is required, and the fingerprints are then provided to the state and FBI, noting that the FBI then shares that information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division. He stated that by federal law, the department then needs to comply with any requests from ICE. He recalled only twice in his experience that the department has been approached by an ICE agent, noting that the most recent was perhaps in 2001. He stated that the department does not hold a person on a detainer, as that is a civil issue between the person and the government. He stated that the department would follow the normal procedure and would not hold someone on detainer for ICE. Councilmember Mavity referenced a letter that residents received from the Hennepin County Sherriff, referencing a statement about voluntarily disclosure. She asked and received confirmation that St. Louis Park's Police force does not follow that policy. Mr. Harcey stated that if there is ever any question about the protocol, the officers are free to call him or the deputy chief at any time. Mr. Balvin noted that officers are required to ask a person being booked if they are a citizen. There is a mandatory list of questions that must be asked, and if requested could include calling the embassy of that person's home country. Mr. Lewis used the example of a Moroccan citizen that was booked. He then had to ask the person if they wanted him to reach out to contact the Moroccan embassy on their behalf. Mr. Balvin noted that the majority of people do not wish for the department to contact the embassy of their home country. Mayor Pro Tem Miller asked for an example of an officer stopping someone perceived to be Hispanic and who may be worried about deportation issues and how an officer would handle that. Mr. Harcey noted the department recently conducted training on this issue. He stated that officers are prepared to let people know that they will not be asking their status as a citizen unless they are booked. Mr. Balvin discussed the "use of force" policies. He reviewed the definition of "use of force," different levels of force, and reasons to use force. Mr. Harcey asked the council's level of comfort for the Police Department to participate in protecting private property or disrupting unlawful protest activity. Councilmember Sanger asked if force would be used to protect the rights of someone else that may be nearby. Mr. Harcey stated that the police would only ensure public safety and would not infringe on someone else's right for free speech. Councilmember Sanger used the example of someone camping out and blocking a roadway Mr. Harcey stated that is a question for the council's direction as to if the city can decide whether a gathering or protest is unlawful. Study Session Minutes -10- September 25, 2017 Mr. Harmening stated that the Police Department is looking for input from the council on the police's role where a line is crossed, using an example of protestors blocking Minnetonka Boulevard. Councilmember Sanger stated that inconvenience is one thing but counter protestors can be disruptive, as well. Councilmember Lindberg noted that there are situational issues. He stated that blocking Minnetonka Boulevard is one thing, while blocking the roadway and doing damage to private property is another. Mr. Lewis stated that the department is attempting to gain input on where to draw the line, using an example of Highway 100 being blocked, sending traffic down another roadway that is then blocked. Mr. Balvin stated that the Fourth Amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures, and there is a lot of discussion around what is reasonable and unreasonable. He provided additional input on court rulings regarding use of force and how the U.S. Supreme Court measures use of force cases. He noted that there are three key factors identified by the court in Graham vs. Conner that are based on the actions of the subject to determine the reasonableness of the use of force. He stated that there are also crucial facts to be considered for use of force, including the information known to the officer; how a reasonable officer would interpret the information; and how the officer actually responded based on that information. He stated that the court also set the standard for how a judge and jury should determine the reasonableness of the officer's conduct. He then provided the Minnesota State Statute regarding use of force and standard of reasonable necessity. He then reviewed the department policy for the use of force. He reviewed the guidelines that are used to determine the totality of the situation, which includes elements regarding the subject, the officer, and any special circumstances. He reviewed the department's policy on the use of non -deadly force, which mirrors that of the state, and the department's consequences of unlawful or unreasonable use of force. He provided the state statute used to authorize the use of deadly force by peace officers and the department's policy on when to initiate a vehicle pursuit. Mr. Harniening noted that the policy was built on research and the awareness of how deadly a vehicle pursuit can be. Mr. Harcey provided an example that occurred within the city where an officer did not have the ability to pursue a vehicle because there was not a known threat of deadly force from the person who would have been pursued. Councilmember Sanger asked the role of the dispatch person to solicit the necessary information that would warrant a pursuit. Mr. Harcey stated that in that case the dispatcher did have the information, and there was not a known weapon or threat of deadly force from the assailant. Councilmember Sanger asked if it would make a difference if the person violated an order of protection. Mr. Harcey stated that the department would still not pursue the vehicle because of the threat of safety to other people who may be driving or walling on the roadway. Mr. Balvin used the example of a pedestrian being struck by a vehicle involved in a chase and perhaps the assailant stole a television. He explained that an innocent bystander was then killed or injured over the stealing of a television. Study Session Minutes 11- September 25, 2017 Mr. Harcey noted that a supervisor has the authority to stop the pursuit of a suspect at any time, + as often an officer involved in a chase can become involved in the chase and not aware of how unsafe the activity is becoming. Councilmember Hallfin asked if word has spread and criminals know that the policy in St. Louis Park is that officers will not chase. Mr. Harcey noted that the department does charge people with a felony for fleeing a police officer. Mr. Balvin stated that people are becoming more aware of what can and cannot generally be done. He used the example of a suspect heckling an officer because the suspect knows that the officer will not take certain actions. Mr. Lewis agreed that criminals often do their homework and are aware of what the department may or may not do. Councilmember Mavity stated that the city has agreements for mutual aid and acknowledged that other municipalities have their own policies. She asked what the determination is for other municipalities to apply their own policies within the boundaries of our city. Mr. Harcey stated that the department would use their own criteria for determining if officers would become involved in an incident that passes across the boundaries of another city. He stated that if St. Louis Park had a situation that required the mutual aid of other municipalities, St. Louis Park would become the lead agency, and our department policies would prevail. He noted that if an incident from this city passes across to another municipality, that municipality may choose to take their own action. He used the example of pursuit, noting that perhaps St. Louis Park officers did not pursue a suspect, but that suspect crossed into a neighboring community and that community chose to enact their own pursuit of that vehicle. Mr. Balvin stated that no use of force looks pretty in action, noting that often the aftermath is caught on camera and not the entire incident. Mr. Lewis stated that de-escalation is a big focus of officer training in the current climate. He provided the definition of de-escalation and reviewed the de-escalation techniques used by law enforcement. He noted that body language and reading body language is a key component of active listening. He reviewed the five universal truths that all people want and noted that those align with the standards of the department. He reviewed the de-escalation training that the department participates in, including a 40 -hoar Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training. He stated that the CIT training focuses on being objective rather than subjective, and he reviewed some aspects of the coaching. Councilmember Sanger used the example of someone acting violently and received confirmation that in that situation it would not matter if someone was mentally ill. Police officers would respond to the incident itself. Mr. Lewis stated that there have been times where he has been able to use de-escalation techniques to resolve a situation but noted that is not always the case. Mr. Harcey stated that the officers are instructed that if there is not a threat to safety, the officers have all the time they need to resolve the situation. Study Session Minutes -12- September 25, 2017 Councilmember Sanger asked the role of the department if someone is suicidal. Mr. Harcey replied that it is the obligation of the department to protect the safety of the person. Mr. Lewis stated that officers use time to their advantage and instead of pushing the person they use time and resources to their benefit. Councilmember Mavity stated that she found tonight's information helpful. She asked if there is a stated policy for transgender residents. Mr. Harcey replied that there is not a stated policy at this time. He stated that in custody all people are held separately. There are not communal holding areas. Councilmember Mavity asked how all of this information is tracked and whether incidents are tracked by race, gender, or any measure for trend purposes. Mr. Harcey replied that the department currently does not track using those methods. I -Ie stated that there are difficulties in identifying race, and therefore the department does not track race or gender incidents. Councilmember Mavity asked if that has been included as a goal for race equity. Mr. Harcey replied that tracking is not included as a goal for race equity. He stated that they are in the early stages of discussions on tracking, but eventually they will come to a resolution on how information is tracked. Councilmember Mavity stated that it is important to have data to determine the baseline Mr. Lewis stated that when people are booked, the officers ask people to identify their race rather than making assumptions. Councilmember Hallfin stated that he had an encounter with a resident who was approached by police for smoking a cigarette on the side of the road. Mr. Lewis replied that the department did receive a call about suspicious activity. He stated that dispatch has been trained to ask for further details when they receive a suspicious activity call. He noted that in the past, residents have been encouraged to report suspicious activity in their neighborhood, as residents often recognize suspicious activity in their neighborhood better than the officers do. He stated that it is a process of fine tuning the information that the department receives. Mr. Harcey noted that in the case of the smoker, the officer would simply explain that they were responding to a phone call and would thank the person for their time and wish them a good night. 4. Proposed Redevelopment — 9808 & 9920 Wayzata Blvd. (former Santorini site) Mr. Walther introduced Ms. Kramer, a new member of the Community Development Department. Ms. Kramer provided information on a proposed redevelopment of the former Santorini restaurant site. She stated that the redevelopment would include two sites - one containing a 149 - unit apartment building and the other containing a 112 -room limited services hotel. She explained the upcoming schedule for review by the planning commission and by city council. Study Session Minutes -13- September 25, 2017 Developer Bill Stoddard introduced himself and provided background information on his development experience in the area. He stated that he has been interested in this site for four years and was hopeful that the council would be interested in this project. He thanked the council for their time. He stated that he has been to a lot of neighborhood meetings and that he was impressed with the attendance of three staff members and a councilmember at the neighborhood meeting, noting that only two of the 200 plus invited residents actually attended the meeting. Mr. Walther stated that staff is looking for input from the council on the project before it moves forward through the review process. Councilmember Brausen asked about the number of affordable units that would be included in the apartment building. Mr. Walther stated that at the 50 percent threshold, 15 percent of the units would be required, while at the 60 percent threshold, 18 percent of the units would be required to be affordable. Mr. Stoddard stated that he intends to propose the 50 percent threshold, which would equate to 15 units of affordable housing. Councilmember Sanger asked and received confirmation that the billboards would be removed. She also asked for input on the number of parking stalls proposed, specifically asking why staff believed the lower rate of stalls would be appropriate. Mr. Walther replied that it would be a limited services hotel, which would not host conferences or large events on-site. He noted that some guests would also utilize transit options, such as hotel or airport shuttle. Mr. Haimening asked if a flag has been identified for the hotel. Mr. Stoddard stated that a brand has not yet been identified and hoped that would be done further into the planning process. Councilmember Brausen stated that he has spoken with the developer, and this seems to be an opportunity to gain the highest and best use of the parcel. He stated that he likes the landscaping and design proposed. He noted that this development is at an intersection where bolder colors could stand out to create uniqueness. He noted that he would support the current concept. Councilmember Lindberg stated that this seems to be a great fit for a hotel. He commented that he often drives past another beautiful and well-designed project that this developer has done. It was the consensus of the council to support the project continuing to move forward in the planning review process. Communications/Meeting Check -In (Verbal) Councilmember Sanger provided an update on language for a resolution that she and Mayor Spano have been working on to be sent to the Charter Commission regarding ranked choice voting. She stated that Mayor Spano proposed that language be included in the resolution stating that if the Charter Commission recommended moving forward with ranked choice voting, that they also provide a recommendation as to whether the question should also be put on a ballot for voter consideration. She stated that it was her impression that the direction from the council was only to pose the question regarding ranked choice voting and not the methodology for implementing it Study Session Minutes -14- September 25, 2017 Councilmember Mavity stated that there was specific discussion at the last meeting when this was discussed, and the decision was that a yes or no question would be put before the Charter Commission regarding ranked choice voting with no mention of asking their opinion on how the amendment should be made Mayor Pro Tem Miller agreed that it was the consensus of the council to only pose that one question to the Charter Commission. Mr. Harmening read aloud the email correspondence from Mayor Spann Councilmember Lindberg asked for input on why the decision was made to simply ask the one question about ranked choice voting. Councilmember Sanger stated that historically the city has amended the charter by asking the Charter Commission whether the city should move forward, and if so, the change is made by unanimous vote of the Council. She stated that putting this on a ballot is expensive and requires a lot of work to even get residents to the point where an informed decision can be made. She stated that residents elect the members of the council to make these choices for them. Councilmember Mavity stated that it is also clear that if there was not the required unanimous vote to put the amendment into effect, the item could then move forward as a ballot question. She stated that the council had this same discussion last week and there were four very solid votes to move forward in this manner. Councilmember Hallfin acknowledged that Mayor Spano felt strongly on the topic. Therefore the council may be setting itself up for a council vote and still having to go to a referendum. He stated that the Charter Commission could make a decision based on both options. Councilmember Sanger stated that the question today is what will be asked of the Charter Commission and the decision was to ask the clear question of whether the council should amend the charter to provide for ranked choice voting. Councilmember Lindberg stated that comparing this to the discussion of eliminating the primary is an apples to oranges comparison. He stated that he views ranked choice voting as a significant change to how the council is elected. He did not believe that there would be harm in asking another question of the Charter Commission regarding making this significant change to the voting process. He stated that while he understands that he was elected to make decisions, there are things, such as voting, that the council needs to think long and hard about. He did not feel that the council has thoroughly done their homework on this issue. He stated that while the council has heard from advocacy groups, he has not heard from the residents of his own ward. Therefore at this time he would not vote in support. Mayor Pro Tem Miller stated that he would agree that ranked choice voting would be a large step, but it would be a step toward equity. He did not feel it would be any more difficult for the Charter Commission to consider than the issue of the primary election. He acknowledged that the process would become more difficult if it rooves forward, but noted that is not the process the Charter Commission needs to vote on. Councilmember Sanger stated that it is her belief that it was a more weighted decision to eliminate the primary election. She stated that assuming the Charter Commission returns a Study Session Minutes -15- September 25, 2017 recommendation to consider this topic, perhaps then a town hall meeting could be held to seek input from residents. She stated that she has not heard negative comments on the topic. Councilmember Brausen stated that asking the simplified question of the Charter Commission does not mean that the issue itself is simplified. He agreed that if the Charter Commission gives direction to move forward, public input should be solicited. It was the consensus of the council to draft the resolution requesting only a yes or no recommendation on moving forward with rank choice voting 5. Comprehensive Plan Update 6. 2018 Connect the Park Project 7. Update on Bass Lake Preserve Stormwater Improvement Projects 8. Historic Walker Lake Design Study 9. Surface Water Management Plan Update 10. August 2017 Monthly Financial Report Meliss erne y, City Clerk 4ThomM'Mayor Pro Tem