Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025/02/18 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study SessionOfficial minutes City council special study session St. Louis Park, Minnesota Feb. 18, 2025 The meeting convened at 8:37 p.m. Council members present: Mayor Nadia Mohamed, Paul Baudhuin, Tim Brausen, Sue Budd, Yolanda Farris, Lynette Dumalag, Margaret Rog Council members absent: none Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), city attorney (Mr. Mattick), administrative services director (Ms. Brodeen), community engagement coordinator (Mr. Coleman), finance director (Ms. Cruver) Discussion items 1. Neighborhood funding program Mr. Coleman presented the staff report, including a breakdown of funding and how it has been used in past years. In this discussion, the considerations before the council are: • Does the council wish to authorize the Neighborhood Revitalization Grant Program? If so: o Which of the three funding formulas does the council support for the Neighborhood Revitalization Grant Program? o Does the council wish to allocate $50,000 annually to the program? Options for funding neighborhood programs were presented: • Funding structure 1: maintain the current funding structure • Funding structure 2: equal distribution of funds • Funding structure 3: needs-based formula to distribute funds Ms. Cruver added a brief explanation of public purpose and broadly, city staff ensures that every dollar obtained from the public - whether through property taxes or donation - is used to provide services or benefit to the community. She listed a few guideline to public purpose interpretation. She advised that the discussion about neighborhood funding focus on the approved uses of public purpose funding, giving examples as National Night Out, neighborhood beautification and certain social events. Ms. Cruver acknowledged that the current focus on public purpose and further guidance from the state may feel like a difference from past public purpose determinations. Council Member Brausen asked which state statute directs public purpose, specifically, allowing for National Night Out as an approved use of public dollars. Ms. Cruver referenced section 471, which contains language allowing National Night Out and activities aimed at improving relationships between communities and law enforcement as approved use of public dollars. Docusign Envelope ID: 3CFD916A-E6DA-42FD-9B21-E6E531577BF7 Special study session minutes -2- Feb. 18, 2025 Council Member Brausen clarified that a neighborhood event that focuses on improving relationships with law enforcement is approved, and Mr. Mattick added that the statute section specifically names National Night Out. Mr. Mattick thanked Ms. Cruver for laying out the information in statute and reminded the council that the purpose of public expenditure is derived from the Minnesota Constitution. Cities must operate under the legislation given by the state, and guidance is derived from opinions and rulings where communities have been successful in using public funds or were reported to the state auditor for review. These rulings give further detail to the structure the City of St. Louis Park utilizes in determining public purpose uses. The state is very strict and critical of use because the funds are derived through mandatory property taxes and are not given through donation. He gave an example of the difference between public and private sector lunch meetings: Private sector meetings that take place over lunch may expense their lunch tab as a cost of business, whereas public sector employees would need to cover their own lunch or choose to meet at another time. Food analysis has been a major subject of review for public spending, and that should be kept in mind for the discussion on neighborhood funding this evening. Mr. Coleman reviewed the restrictions on each of the proposed funding options, including the necessity for individuals to provide a W-9 form in order to be reimbursed for proper funds tracking. Other cities require their neighborhood organizations to be registered as nonprofits, and St. Louis Park does not. He added that this review of the past neighborhood funding programs and considering future options is in alignment with the city’s strategic priority to be a leader in equity and inclusion. Mr. Coleman reviewed the neighborhood grant funds spent and neighborhood demographic makeup of each neighborhood since 1997. He drew attention to maps on display around the Community Room, which were created in collaboration with the GIS department. The maps visually identified demographic differences between neighborhoods, including race and ethnicity, average income, average property value, socioeconomic status, educational attainment and disability status. To develop the funding structure options, staff collected and analyzed data. In collaboration with the REI division, the REI impact analysis tool was also utilized to review funding structure options. The Human Rights Commission also analyzed the funding program. The analyses conducted guided the program funding options presented to the council in discussion format today. Council members took time to review the presentation maps and agenda packet information together before continuing their discussion. Council Member Rog asked about the socioeconomic status review of the neighborhood organization maps. Mr. Coleman stated that socioeconomic status is based in overall wellbeing of the residents based on census data and metrics including race, ethnicity and educational attainment, among other data. Docusign Envelope ID: 3CFD916A-E6DA-42FD-9B21-E6E531577BF7 Special study session minutes -3- Feb. 18, 2025 Ms. Keller stated that the data that would be used by a needs-based formula is legally defensible as determined by the city attorney. Mr. Mattick added that the consideration of where the law is headed and where the law relates to decision-making at the city level right now. The courts have ruled that a decision based on race alone will be considered unconstitutional, so other criteria and data absolutely must be included in analysis. Mr. Coleman reviewed the proposed funding structures. The first option is to keep the format as it currently is, with a competitive grant cycle involving applications and a maximum of $3,000 in funding. The second option is an equal distribution of funds among all 35 neighborhoods with $1,428 available to each neighborhood through an application process. The third option is a needs-based formula to distribute funds based on population, median income and median property value. The score derived from the formula would indicate the funding award based on need: $1,900 for high needs, $1,400 for moderate need, and $1,000 for low need. Additional recommendations that came from the staff analysis and the Human Rights Commission were to add an annual registration process for neighborhood organizations and simplify the application process. Both processes can pose barriers to participation. Ms. Brodeen clarified that presently, becoming a recognized neighborhood organization is tied to the funding program. The goal is to build a strong program of neighborhood groups who can be engaged more than once a year, separate from applying for funding. Ms. Keller noted that the second and third proposed funding options both increase opportunities for engagement , since becoming an organized neighborhood and/or applying for funds is not competitive. Mayor Mohamed asked if staff had concerns about lower-income neighborhoods having additional barriers when providing their own funds up-front for neighborhood events and waiting for reimbursement. Mr. Coleman acknowledged it would be advantageous for the city to be able to pay vendors directly for a neighborhood event. On a case-by-case scenario this can be accomplished in working with neighborhood leaders. Ms. Brodeen noted that the structure of the program is very strict and that will always be a consideration. Council Member Farris noted that the Aquila neighborhood is very large, and asked how community members would know who leads their neighborhood organization. Ms. Brodeen stated that those responsible for leading their organization are encouraged to use neighborhood grant funds to reach all residents in their neighborhood. Mr. Coleman noted that neighborhood organization leaders are volunteers. Docusign Envelope ID: 3CFD916A-E6DA-42FD-9B21-E6E531577BF7 Special study session minutes -4- Feb. 18, 2025 Mayor Mohamed noted that engagement is not strictly limited to certain blocks or neighborhood areas, and she has seen invitations representing this in her own neighborhood. Council member Dumalag shared that within her own neighborhood association, Minikahda Oaks, neighbors can donate and contribute to neighborhood accounts. They do not solely depend on city funds for their events. Ms. Brodeen noted that, in the past, organizations had reached out to ask if they could utilize neighborhood grant funds exclusively for their block, and city staff had advised that would not be an approved use. Council Member Budd noted an example of a recently organized neighborhood association that worked with the city to obtain a mailing list of all residents within their area, enabling them to reach out and notify people of the work towards becoming an organized group. Mr. Coleman affirmed that the question is whether a neighborhood group is properly leveraging the funds they apply for. Council Member Rog added that in her experience, neighborhood groups really do try to build community and spend accordingly. She shared a concern that the wait for reimbursement can be up to 70 days. Ms. Brodeen clarified that additional conversations about what expenses are allowed can add delayed time between a reimbursement submission and confirmation. At times, the city also receives reimbursement requests from neighborhood groups that have had no previous interaction with the city, or do not have the appropriate receipts or documentation, which adds time to the process. Ms. Keller summarized that it takes time – and the city is obligated to review – to ensure that reimbursement matches public purpose. Ms. Cruver added that the city is obligated to make payment within 35 days of receiving an approved invoice. An incomplete request or extenuating issues can add time to the process. Council Member Budd noted that the current grant system is competitive, but in any given year, the budget of $50,000 is not spent in its entirety. She asked for clarification on how the current system is determined to be competitive. Mr. Coleman stated that when the system was originally set up, there may have been more neighborhood organizations applying for the funds, or that the intention was for the process to be competitive. However, that has not been the reality of the grant program’s use. Ms. Cruver noted that currently, the program is competitive in the sense that the city does not automatically approve or allocate funds. Neighborhood organizations submit their proposals for evaluation in order to be funded. In addition to this, the competition for funds would be stronger if the city received a high volume of proposals for evaluation. If there were instead a Docusign Envelope ID: 3CFD916A-E6DA-42FD-9B21-E6E531577BF7 Special study session minutes -5- Feb. 18, 2025 set amount of funding available for each neighborhood, the timing of the proposal process would allow for broader use of the total amount of funding allocated to neighborhoods. Council Member Budd stated that she would love to see neighborhood organizations utilize the entire budget each year and observed that a very small number of organizations are currently active. She proposed that each of the 14 active organizations be funded at $3,000 and remaining funds made available for new organizations, utilizing more of the budget this year. She summarized that the problem is not that the city does not have enough money, but that funding is not being used. Council Member Baudhuin stated his appreciation for staff’s work. He expressed frustration with the state statutes, laws and rules around public funding. From his point of view, inequity has been built into the structure the city must follow and therefore a solution may be a lost cause. He observed that the requirements of W-9 forms, board member requirements, and the other structures the city must follow are inherently barriers to participation. He asked how the city proposes to move past inherent inequities – he voiced support for all three options given, but has concerns about the process. Ms. Brodeen noted that when analyzing and discussing the neighborhood funding program, it was clear that regulation makes the program very difficult to administer and access. The three funding options discussed today are staff’s best attempts to equitably administer the program, increase neighborhood organization engagement and right-size what is currently successful. Council Member Dumalag stated that even robust and active neighborhood groups may inadvertently fail to include all neighbors. She stated that neighborhoods and homes look differently now than they did at the program’s inception and now include multi-family living and apartments as well as single-family dwellings. Though attempts are made to include the neighborhood in outreach, apartment buildings may or may not be included. She acknowledged the work and pride that organizations and leaders have, and that increasing involvement may be a broader discussion. Council Member Farris asked if it was possible for the information about neighborhood organizations, residents, and organization leaders to be shared to increase contact opportunities between leaders and interested neighbors. Mr. Coleman stated that as long as information is kept up to date, it is listed on the city website. Council Member Farris expressed frustration that the current situation seems unfair, with residents who pay taxes towards neighborhood funds not knowing how and when to get involved in the benefit of those funds. She asked for clarification on what is done with unspent funds. Ms. Cruver noted that funds come from the general fund and unspent monies return to the bottom line of the general fund as unobligated funds used in the next budget cycle for one-time spending opportunities. Docusign Envelope ID: 3CFD916A-E6DA-42FD-9B21-E6E531577BF7 Special study session minutes -6- Feb. 18, 2025 Council Member Farris asked why the unspent funds cannot go towards other outreach efforts such as handing out candy during the Parktacular Parade. Ms. Cruver noted that, as a food product, candy would not fall under the use of public purpose funds. Mayor Mohamed redirected the discussion from public purpose definition to hearing from each council member on their position on the recommendations for funding structure. Council Member Brausen spoke in favor of continuing to allocate $50,000 to the neighborhood funding program. He noted that active organizations that successfully utilize funds annually are doing important work and does not want to see their funding changed. He is in favor of the second funding option using a fixed amount for all 35 neighborhoods and also in favor of the third option where the equity scale is used. Council Member Rog thanked her fellow council members for this discussion. She shared that some neighborhoods are successful in outreach and creating inclusion opportunities through their annual events. She stated that she did not want to lose the important work that neighborhoods are capable of creating under the current structure. Mayor Mohamed shared that although she has lived in other St. Louis Park neighborhoods, she had not been included in neighborhood events before moving to the Birchwood area. To this point, she added she did not know about the neighborhood grant funding program until she was elected to serve as a city council member. She complimented the Birchwood neighborhood for their work. She noted the question is really about how the city makes the program the best it can possibly be within the constraint of the law. Although the public purpose legislation can be a point of frustration, the city still has a responsibility to work within the system to provide for residents. She stated she is in favor of the third option. Mayor Mohamed stated that it is in the city’s best interest to ensure that the neighborhoods who have been engaged remain so, and that the neighborhoods who have applied for $0 in past years do not continue to do so in the future. She asked if there is a role for community engagement staff to educate broadly, advocating for the full and proper use of allocated funds. She felt there may be an opportunity to educate and remove barriers around how to apply for and use funds. Council Member Brausen asked if there was also a role for council members to actively educate and engage with neighborhood organizations and new organizations in their wards. Mayor Mohamed agreed that council members have many responsibilities, and adding conversations about activating organizations and educating them on the funds process could be part of regular contact with neighborhood leaders. Council Member Brausen noted that in his neighborhood, Cedar Manor, there was an organization but it fell out of use in part due to the shape of the neighborhood area as designated. He offered that at-large council members would be welcome to help connect with Ward 4. Docusign Envelope ID: 3CFD916A-E6DA-42FD-9B21-E6E531577BF7 Special study session minutes -7- Feb. 18, 2025 Council Member Farris noted that the costs of outreach may negate the ability to create an attractive event. Council Member Rog noted that Brooklyn Park has a very accessible website for neighborhood associations to apply to their city for funds and asked city staff to look into the feasibility of adding such an option to our city website. She added that it would increase access if the financial burden of fronting funds for events could be borne by more than one individual. She added that if the city could provide paper goods as part of their budget, it may be helpful. One element of public outreach that has been very successful in the Birchwood neighborhood is the use of sandwich boards, which are expensive and difficult to maintain. However, a survey from a few years ago had confirmed they are a primary means of communication. She proposed that if there were a way to include the purchase of sandwich boards using public purpose funds through neighborhood grants, the organizations would see increased participation. In conclusion, Council Member Rog stated that she agrees with removing the competitive grant process. Council Member Rog asked if barriers could be removed from having food trucks at neighborhood events regarding reimbursement for the required city permits. Mr. Coleman confirmed that it is a process that would benefit from the city paying the vendor directly, and mentioned food trucks and port-a-potties in that consideration. Ms. Brodeen clarified that paying for the permit is an allowable expense, but paying the food truck vendors for food for events is not allowable and residents would be responsible for paying for their own food. She stated that sandwich boards, as an item, would not be an excluded expense and that staff could work with the neighborhood on this if they desired to do so. Mr. Coleman reminded the discussion participants that National Night Out is an allowable expense. Council Member Baudhuin stated that this conversation is very important and wanted to reiterate his frustration with limitations. He noted his support for continuing to fund the program and reiterated that he is in support of all three of the funding options proposed, keeping in mind that inequities exist within the noted limitations Council Member Farris agreed with Council Member Baudhuin’s frustrations and stated that she supports keeping the program at $50,000 and keeping the first funding option the same. Council Member Dumalag stated her support for the third funding option. Council Member Budd stated that she supports the $3,000 per neighborhood model and keeping the overall budget at $50,000. Ms. Cruver clarified that the city cannot establish a program without appropriating adequate funds. Mayor Mohamed stated that the city council is closing the discussion with the goal of activating as many neighborhood groups as possible. Docusign Envelope ID: 3CFD916A-E6DA-42FD-9B21-E6E531577BF7 Special study session minutes -8- Feb. 18, 2025 2. Study session topic proposal – prevailing wage ordinance Ms. Keller presented the staff report. Council members agreed to bring the topic back for discussion in the fall of 2025. Communications/meeting check-in (verbal) The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor Docusign Envelope ID: 3CFD916A-E6DA-42FD-9B21-E6E531577BF7