Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025/02/03 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study SessionOfficial minutes City council special study session St. Louis Park, Minnesota Feb. 3, 2025 The meeting convened at 8:02 p.m. Council members present: Paul Baudhuin, Tim Brausen, Sue Budd, Yolanda Farris, Lynette Dumalag, Margaret Rog Council members absent: Mayor Nadia Mohamed Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), housing supervisor and housing authority staff liaison (Ms. Olson), sustainability manager and environment and sustainability commission staff liaison (Ms. Ziring), communications and technology director and community technology advisory commission staff liaison (Ms. Smith), community engagement coordinator (Mr. Coleman) Discussion item 1. Boards and commissions protocol setting meeting. Mr. Coleman presented the staff report. He stated that the primary focus of this discussion is to set protocols, limitations, and obtain guidance from the council on each topic area. Mr. Coleman stated that a workgroup, including Councilmembers Brausen, Budd and Rog, and staff liaisons Ms. Olson, Ms. Smith and Ms. Ziring, provided input and developed recommendations and expectations for workplans and proposed forms. Overall effectiveness of boards and commissions is an evolving goal. For each topic, a set of recommendations and implementation actions will be suggested for 2025 and 2026. Roles and Expectations: Council Member Rog asked if boards and commissions’ roles are governed by city code. Mr. Coleman said that was correct. Council Member Rog asked if the proposed language and discussion today were informal, working plans to be formalized later in city code. Mr. Coleman stated that this discussion would add to what is laid out in the city code, giving detail and direction from the city council to enhance and clarify. Council Member Rog said she had not cross-checked the proposed language against the city code and asked if that had already been done, or was planned to be. Mr. Coleman responded that he would ensure that language would align. Council Member Dumalag stated that in the initial work of the redesign, the city attorney was heavily involved in creating the language. Ms. Keller added that the city attorney had been involved in the process over the years and would continue to assist with alignment. Docusign Envelope ID: C19E8E75-92D1-4045-8070-0AD123C4549B Study session minutes -2- Feb. 3, 2025 Mr. Coleman directed the discussion to the policy question of boards and commissions workplans and how the city council might initiate workplan items. Council Member Budd asked whether boards and commissions members would be expected to be a presence in the community. Mr. Coleman said the council should discuss this because opportunities may depend on specific boards and their unique role. Council Member Budd recommended “as appropriate” and that it should be a strong expectation, as boards and commissioners attending city events is an asset to the council. As they are volunteers, additional requirements for time commitment changes the requirement to serve on boards and commissions. Mr. Coleman advised that this recommendation proceed with care. Ms. Keller suggested that the workplans may further clarify expectations by scope and capacity. Mayor Pro Tem Brausen stated he does not support the expectation of board members and commissioners attending events. Council Member Farris asked how commissioners would connect with the community if they are not tabling at events. Mayor Pro Tem Brausen replied that the council members attend many, but not all, community events to connect with the community and that boards and commissions could emulate this practice. Council Member Budd advised that at community events, council members are more visible as well. Council Member Baudhuin expressed concerns of setting up requirements for attendance because then it has to be tracked. He suggested it be recommended, as people volunteer to serve on boards and commissions in order to connect with the community. Ms. Keller suggested that tabling at events is just one example of a way commissioners can connect and there are broader ways to be present in the community. Council Member Dumalag expressed concern over adding onto expectations after recruitment, particularly regarding scheduling and availability. This may present challenges in being sure that lived experiences and points of view are represented. Mayor Pro Tem Brausen agreed that adding expectations of attendance would not feel inclusive. Council Member Rog shared that boards and commissions appointees are sometimes disappointed that their work may involve less community interaction than anticipated. She recommended the wording of “encourage” and providing a roster of options for community events. Council Member Baudhuin agreed that “encourage” is a good suggestion, and particular events may be served well by specific invites by staff. For example, the race, equity and inclusion staff may invite Human Rights Commissioners to attend the National Day of Racial Healing event. She observed that commissioners are looking for opportunities to engage. Docusign Envelope ID: C19E8E75-92D1-4045-8070-0AD123C4549B Study session minutes -3- Feb. 3, 2025 Mayor Pro Tem Brausen summarized the council’s consensus of support to encourage boards and commissions to engage in the community. Council Member Rog supplemented that name tags could help increase visibility for boards and commissions. Work Plans: Mr. Coleman introduced the topic of workplans. The workgroup recommended treating workplans as evolving documents that can be amended at any time, consisting of no more than six items, with most initiated by council. Council Member Rog asked if the intention was to make it common practice for items to initiated by council with fewer workplan items set by staff. She also asked if the council’s intention is to have workplan items initiated by the boards and commissions themselves. Council Member Budd said that she had heard support for up to two workplan items initiated by council, though she did not support keeping it at a strict number. Her support was for flexibility and to avoid having all the direction for workplan items fall upon staff liaisons. Council Member Baudhuin recommended encouraging boards and commissions initiate their workplan items, as the boards and commissions exist separately from council in order to provide a new point of view and to come up with ideas that the council did not; there should be a mix. Council Member Dumalag said she is open to either approach and past study sessions included statements like “it would be great to have [named board or commission] weigh in on this.” She is also open to having multiple boards and commissions take a look at one issue from different perspectives. Council Member Budd and Council Member Dumalag agreed that guardrails on workplans are their recommendation. Council Member Rog added there is a plan in place for an annual interface between boards and commissions and the city council. She suggested these check-in meetings may serve as the time that the list of workplan items is honed down to six by approval process, as clarified by Mr. Coleman. Ms. Keller recommended protecting against boards and commissions preparing to work outside their scope (in good faith) with the unintended result of undervalued work. Expectations about appropriate workplan items, like examples and timelines, would provide further guardrails in addition to the number. Docusign Envelope ID: C19E8E75-92D1-4045-8070-0AD123C4549B Study session minutes -4- Feb. 3, 2025 Mayor Pro Tem Brausen asked if the language on workplan items was going to be amended. Mr. Coleman observed that if workplan items were set as a minimum instead of a maximum, this would ensure that the council’s direction and the purpose of the advisory body are in alignment. Council Member Budd supported this recommendation. Council Member Rog supported the definition of a workplan item, observing that communication with the city council is not a workplan item, per se. Council Member Dumalag added a suggestion of six workplan items to be open at any time, and that the definition of a workplan item should assist in not overloading or underutilizing certain commissions. Mayor Pro Tem Brausen said he does not want to micromanage the process. He asked if priority setting for the council could include the action of adding an item to a workplan. Ms. Keller pointed out that staff liaisons can help manage and advise workplan flow, as they are acutely aware of whether their advisory body is wrapping up on items and has bandwidth for more or is already invested fully. Mayor Pro Tem Brausen said the council has consistently heard that boards and commissions want more connection with the city council. Council Member Rog agreed that ideas come up frequently in the interview process. She asked if the council is saying “no” to staff-initiated workplan items. Ms. Keller said she appreciated the question and would like to clearly delineate between the expectation that staff will initiate workplan items and reserving the ability to do so as needed. She further summarized that council could help clarify and limit workplan items through general guidance such as definitions and examples. The consensus agreed not to have most items initiated by the council and that the council asking a board or commission for perspective would constitute an item on their workplan. Council Member Rog pointed out that asking for perspective may be time sensitive. Ms. Keller agreed that policy question and capacity would be considered and that clarification was needed on how to add workplan items mid-stream. Mr. Coleman presented the question of approving annual workplans in February. Council Member Budd asked for opportunity to review workplans in advance of their approval. Council Member Baudhuin asked when the council will discuss workplans if they will be on the consent agenda in February, as council members generally provide comment on but do not discuss consent items. Docusign Envelope ID: C19E8E75-92D1-4045-8070-0AD123C4549B Study session minutes -5- Feb. 3, 2025 Ms. Keller stated that for this year, there are different expectations due to the timeframe and Mr. Coleman’s work to bring boards and commissions up to speed. In future years, there will be more opportunities for discussion of workplans before the vote. Council Member Baudhuin asked if all board and commission workplans are planned to be considered under one consent item. Mr. Coleman confirmed that is how it is tentatively scheduled. Council Member Rog asked if boards and commissions are currently paused in their work while they await workplan approval. Mr. Coleman stated that rollover of items means that work continues this year, while new items are tentative pending approval. He added that workplans would remain in effect until 2026, and once approved, will feature a process for adding new items mid-stream. Council Member Rog shared the context behind past practice for workplans. It was perceived that boards and commissions were creating their own direction in a vacuum without the connection to the work of the city council, though they were supposed to function as advisory bodies. Council Member Rog stated her support for the proposed practice of matching workplans during the council’s connection time with each board and commission. Mr. Coleman asked for questions on the implementation of these changes as recommended by the workgroup. Council Member Dumalag expressed support, and that the living document workplan process is very helpful to informing city council’s policy. Boards and commissions are invited to share their work, and it is the city council’s responsibility to make informed decisions. Meetings with city council: Mr. Coleman shared the workgroup’s recommendation that boards and commissions not be tied to setting their check-in meeting with the council during certain systems work, as it does not always align as intended. Instead, each commission will be assigned a month during which they will have the opportunity to meet with council for 30 to 60 minutes. This check-in meeting will be individual between council and each commission. There will also be a broad recognition meeting between council and all boards and commissions. Council Member Rog stated that annual recognition was also suggested by survey response to add collaboration opportunities between boards and commissions. She shared that it seemed uncertain whether staff was in support of this annual meeting. She suggested a survey or check- in to see whether boards and commissions members wanted to hold the annual recognition meeting. Mr. Coleman asked for clarification on gauging the interest level of boards and commissions. Ms. Keller confirmed that staff can assess interest levels to see if the annual recognition meeting is in demand. Docusign Envelope ID: C19E8E75-92D1-4045-8070-0AD123C4549B Study session minutes -6- Feb. 3, 2025 Mayor Pro Tem Brausen stated his support for the annual recognition meeting, and the ability to express appreciation for boards and commissions work. Council Member Budd recommended that it proceed if interest level is present at all – it does not need to be unanimous to be valuable. Council Member Dumalag shared her experience as a planning commissioner and how informative she had found the annual meeting to be. Mr. Coleman presented the 2025 implementation schedule and coordinating monthly meetings where each board and commission is tentatively planned to come before the city council for a check in meeting. At these individual meetings, the chair, vice chair and liaison will present their workplan and have the opportunity to receive feedback and modifications from the council. Council Member Budd confirmed that boards and commissions check-ins were to be included during study sessions or special study sessions. Mr. Coleman confirmed this, and that no survey of interest was needed. Mayor Pro Tem Brausen asked if there was flexibility in scheduling the check-in meetings. Ms. Keller affirmed that scheduling tentatively allows this flexibility as well as forethought in planning. Council Member Dumalag stated the schedule seemed reasonable in light of potential budgetary considerations. Council Member Baudhuin asked if it was mandatory that a board or commission’s chair and vice chair had to be in attendance, or if other members could represent their board due to scheduling needs. Mayor Pro Tem Brausen summarized that the check-in meeting could be attended by chair, vice- chair or representative attendee. Mr. Coleman noted that the tentative check-in schedule was accepted by consensus and could be amended in the future. Communication forms: Mr. Coleman presented two forms for consideration. The intention is to meet the recommendation for additional channels of communication between the city council and boards and commissions, and to remove the perception of a staff-imposed firewall on communication. He asked city council members to review the forms in the study session packet materials. Docusign Envelope ID: C19E8E75-92D1-4045-8070-0AD123C4549B Study session minutes -7- Feb. 3, 2025 Council Member Rog clarified that there is an existing, successful mechanism for council members to propose topics for study sessions. To update this Study Session Topic Request form, the council had asked for a clear intention that up to two boards and commissions be included for consideration of the topic. The addition to the form is a series of checkboxes that shows a clear intention to loop in boards and commissions. Mr. Coleman asked for any questions or concerns, and the consensus was agreement to proceed with the pilot project of the routing of the form. Mayor Pro Tem observed that as part of that routing, no workplan items would be placed upon a board or commission until the city council members agreed to consider the item at a study session. Ms. Keller confirmed this was correct. Mr. Coleman described the second form, the Advisory Communication to Council form. As a body, a board or commission would submit a topic related to their work to the city council for consideration. The document is a new mechanism recommended by the environment and sustainability commission liaison, Ms. Ziring. The advisory body would also note which strategic priority the item pertains to as well as what outcome they are looking for from the city council: review and reply, approved workplan item, review and decide, or informational only. Whether the item requires cross-collaboration would also enable collaboration between boards and commissions. The form would come before the council as part of their study session agenda packets. Mayor Pro Tem Brausen summarized that the form would say that an advisory body has decided an issue is important, voted on it, and wants that issue to go before the council for consideration in a timely manner. Council Member Farris complimented the form for its timeliness and visibility. Council Member Dumalag agreed and observed that the workplan feature of the form allows the advisory body to raise awareness of an issue related to their work. Council Member Rog pointed out that the form is also flexible in that items do not have to be tied to workplan action items. Mr. Coleman stated that the forms would come before council along with the 2025 workplans. He observed that the council’s consensus in this discussion is to move forward with the piloting of the two forms presented. Council Member Rog shared that in the past, boards and commissions communications were an item on the city council’s agenda. She suggested the item be restored to the agenda template. Ms. Keller recalled the rationale behind the organization of the city council’s agenda, and said the city clerk could be consulted for specifics. Other avenues are available for communications of boards and commissions work. Regardless of the nomenclature, there is space to bring the information before the council. Docusign Envelope ID: C19E8E75-92D1-4045-8070-0AD123C4549B Study session minutes -8- Feb. 3, 2025 Council Member Budd stated that it would be a good trigger to see the work on the agenda. Council Member Dumalag asked when the item went away on the agenda, and Ms. Keller stated it may have been a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and how meetings were limited at that time. Council Member Rog stated that with the recent work to restructure the boards and commissions and this evening’s topics, now would be a good time to examine how information is shared between boards and commissions and the city council. Mayor Pro Tem Brausen suggested that the question could be discussed at a later time. Mr. Coleman summarized that in 2026, the plan is to revisit the efficacy of the forms as piloted. Informational Resources for Council: Mr. Coleman asked the council to consider information resources that facilitate ongoing communications with boards and commissions outside of meetings. A contact information sheet was created to summarize the best forms of contact and list of names for all boards and commissions chairs and vice chairs, and would be made available to the council. A meeting schedule summary was also created to show adopted meetings for all boards and commissions for 2025. Mayor Pro Tem Brausen thanked staff for placing the information in one concise document, noting that it is publicly available information as associated with each individual board and commission. Council Member Baudhuin asked if the meeting postings should be considered as an open invitation for council members to attend. Mayor Pro Tem Brausen and Mr. Coleman confirmed that all are open meetings. Mr. Coleman shared that boards and commissions members shared that they would like to have council members in attendance at more of their meetings. He asked the council members if they would be comfortable attending boards and commissions meetings and if so, how many they may be willing to commit to. Mayor Pro Tem Brausen stated that he could commit to attending a couple of meetings per year. He shared remarks that Mayor Mohamed had asked him to share on her behalf, as she could not attend this discussion. Her availability is at capacity; she cannot commit to attend specific boards and commissions meetings. Council Member Baudhuin asked the council members to make a strategic decision to ensure that every board and commission received at least one council member in attendance to one meeting per year. Ms. Keller advised that the council pursue this course of action so that staff liaisons can prepare. Docusign Envelope ID: C19E8E75-92D1-4045-8070-0AD123C4549B Study session minutes -9- Feb. 3, 2025 Council Member Rog asked for a calendar component to enable council members to sign up to attend certain meetings. Council Member Baudhuin asked that the boards and commissions leadership also be able to indicate which meetings are most meaningful and would be ideal for a city council member to attend. Council Member Farris pointed out that certain board and commission agenda items might also be of particular interest to specific council members. Council Member Baudhuin pointed out that council members were free to attend more than two meetings per year as available. Council Member Dumalag observed that in attendance, fellow council members must maintain mindfulness of open meeting law requirements. Ms. Keller also noted that whoever is in the room can change the context of the conversation. Mayor Pro Tem asked that anyone in attendance speak from their individual perspective and not on behalf of the city council as a body. Council Member Dumalag and Council Member Baudhuin offered comments on how a council member being in a board or commission meeting could be construed as direction, influence or evaluation when their intent was purely to observe. Council Member Dumalag pointed out that simply being in the room shows that a council member may be in favor of or against an item, and may influence votes. Mr. Coleman summarized that the council’s consensus is to move forward with the suggested changes as needed and to evaluate their effectiveness in 2026. He noted the importance of revisiting and pivoting with the resources as needed, and that continued discussion is anticipated. For next steps, staff will take the council’s direction for final approval and implementation. Regarding the plan to approve boards and commissions workplans on the consent agenda, Ms. Keller asked if there was anticipation of moving the item to regular business for a larger discussion prior to vote. Mayor Pro Tem Brausen suggested that council members reach out to Ms. Keller once workplans are reviewed to indicate whether they would like to move the item on the agenda. Council Member Rog stated thanks for all who participated in the workgroup. Council Member Budd, Council Member Dumalag, Council Member Farris, Mayor Pro Tem Brausen and Council Member Baudhuin also thanked staff, particularly Mr. Coleman, and the boards and commissions members for all their hard work. Docusign Envelope ID: C19E8E75-92D1-4045-8070-0AD123C4549B Study session minutes -10- Feb. 3, 2025 Ms. Keller echoed the council’s thanks to the boards and commissions members in the room. Written Reports 2. Community Development Block Grant 2025 Council Member Rog asked if the city would still receive these funds. Ms. Keller explained that in the past it has been an allocation and, in the future, will be a competitive grant. Ms. Olson stated that the city CDBG funds are currently allocated to the deferred loans program and that program will continue to exist and be funded by the county. 15% of the grant funds can be allocated to public service projects and is already being done by a competitive RFP process by the county. Because CBDG grants come with many requirements, larger grants make more sense for larger projects. St. Louis Park residents can still apply for deferred loan program. Council Member Budd asked if there was a long wait list for the program. Ms. Olson confirmed there is, but the list is not permanent. People on the waitlist may be actively seeking other funding sources and no longer need the program, or have moved, by the time their position moves up on the waitlist and staff can contact them. 3. Proposed amendments to city code chapters 8 and 18 related to tobacco licensing and definitions of drug paraphernalia Mayor Pro Tem Brausen stated that some council members may have received an email from a resident pertaining to their intentions to sell paraphernalia. Ms. Keller said this may have been a gap in the proposed amendments and staff would bring forward a proposal. Compliance checks that can be completed in concert with other licensed areas would be most efficient and it is likely that consumers will be seeking out cannabis products and paraphernalia at legitimately licensed retailers. 4. Cannabis and lower-potency hemp retail registration Council Member Rog asked about the first-come, first-served language and asked what that process would look like. Ms. Keller stated that the city does not yet know what the state’s practice will be when they send applications; whether they will “bundle” qualified applicants and send as a group, or send to the city piecemeal. The city attorney has been included in conversations to prepare for scrutiny and a legal process. An unanswered question is whether the state will send a number of applications together or singly. Council Member Rog asked for consideration for existing businesses that currently sell hemp products and have built up a business in the community, including a customer base. Docusign Envelope ID: C19E8E75-92D1-4045-8070-0AD123C4549B Study session minutes -11- Feb. 3, 2025 Ms. Keller stated that the staff report can include the attorney’s opinion, as there is not currently an equitable way to give preference to existing businesses. Council Member Rog asked if there was consideration for women-, BIPOC-, or veteran-owned applicants. Ms. Keller stated that protected classes could be included in the analysis. Ms. Keller stated that the ordinance amendments would be drafted based on the recommendations in the report, including hours of operation. The meeting adjourned at 9:24 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor Docusign Envelope ID: C19E8E75-92D1-4045-8070-0AD123C4549B