HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025/09/15 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
SEPTEMBER 15, 2025
6:00 p.m. Economic Development Authority meeting
1. Call to order
2.Approve agenda
3. Minutes – none.
4. Consent item.
a.Resolution approving second amendment to the Environmental Response Fund grant agreement -
Ward 2
b.Resolution authorizing grant application for Affordable Homeownership program - Ward 1
5.Public hearings – none.
6. Regular business
a.Resolutions approving 2026 HRA and EDA levies
7. Communications and announcements – none.
8.Adjournment.
6:15 p.m. City council meeting – Council Chambers
1.Call to order
a.Roll call.
b.Pledge of Allegiance.
2.Approve agenda.
3.Presentations.
a.Proclamation observing Latino Heritage Month
4.Minutes – none.
5.Consent items.
a.Approve benefit renewal rates
b.Resolution authorizing contract with Symetra Life Insurance Company
c.Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
d.Resolution authorizing grant application for Hennepin County Youth Play Area grant
e.Resolution authorizing grant application for Department of Natural Resources Conservation
Partners Legacy grant - Ward 4
f.Approve temporary extension of licensed premises - Yard House #8354
g.Resolution appointing election workers for the November 4, 2025 municipal and school district
general election
Agenda EDA and city council meetings of September 15, 2025
6. Public hearing.
a. Public hearing to approve resolution for delinquent account certifications
7. Regular business.
a. Resolutions approving preliminary levy
b. Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
8. Communications and announcements.
a. Race, Equity and Inclusion system wrap-up
b. Vision 4.0 community engagement update
9. Adjournment.
Members of the public can attend St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and city council meetings in person. At regular
city council meetings, members of the public may comment on any item on the agenda by attending the meeting in-person or by
submitting written comments to info@stlouisparkmn.gov by noon the day of the meeting. Official minutes of meetings are
available on the city website once approved.
Watch St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority or regular city council meetings live at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil or at
www.parktv.org, or on local cable (Comcast SD channel 14/HD channel 798). Recordings of the meetings are available to watch on
the city's YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/@slpcable, usually within 24 hours of the meeting’s end.
City council study sessions are not broadcast. Generally, it is not council practice to receive public comment during study sessions.
The council chambers are equipped with Hearing Loop equipment and headsets are available to borrow.
If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952.924.2505.
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: September 15, 2025
Consent agenda item: 4a
Executive summary
Title: Resolution approving second amendment to the Environmental Response Fund grant
agreement - Ward 2
Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving a second amendment to the
Environmental Response Fund grant agreement.
Policy consideration: Does the Economic Development Authority (EDA) wish to approve a
second amendment to the Environmental Response Fund grant agreement with Hennepin
County, extending the grant period by 24 months?
Summary: In 2022, the EDA authorized application to the Hennepin County Environmental
Response Fund (ERF) grant to support the Wooddale Station redevelopment project. ERF grants
fund the assessment and cleanup of contaminated sites in Hennepin County.
The original developer selected for this project gave notice to the EDA that due to adverse
market conditions and other financial factors, the project was no longer financially feasible, and
they were unable to proceed. The current grant agreement is set to expire Nov. 15, 2025.
Hennepin County has agreed to extend the term of the cleanup grant for the Wooddale Station
redevelopment site until Nov. 15, 2027. This extension gives staff time to identify a new
developer, re-start the project, and clean up the site. The project will still be focused on transit-
oriented development, mixed-use development with inclusion of affordable housing units in-
line with established priorities and goals for redevelopment of the site and similar to prior
proposals.
Financial or budget considerations: Grant funds received aid in reducing redevelopment costs,
addressing any financial gaps, and offsetting the amount of public financial assistance
potentially needed to make the project viable.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Resolution
Prepared by: Clancy Ferris, legislative and grants analyst
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, EDA executive director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Economic development authority meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Title: Resolution approving second amendment to the Environmental Response Fund grant agreement - Ward 2
EDA Resolution No. 25 - ___
Approving Amendment No. 2 to the Environmental Response Fund Grant
Agreement
Be it resolved by the board of commissioners (the “board”) of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority (the “authority”) as follows:
Section 1. Recitals; Authorization.
(a) The authority and the Hennepin County Environmental and Energy Department
(the “county”) previously entered into an Environmental Fund Grant Agreement (the “original
agreement”), as amended by Amendment No. 1 to the agreement (as heretofore amended, the
“agreement”), which granted the authority $239,000 in grant funds to be used for cleanup at
the Wooddale Station Redevelopment project site (the “project”).
(b) Pursuant to the agreement, the authority is required to complete the project
within two (2) years from the execution of the agreement, with the option to extend the
duration of the agreement.
(c) The authority and county have negotiated and now propose to execute Amendment No.
2 to the agreement (the “second amendment”) to revise the agreement to expire on or before
November 15, 2027.
(d) The board has reviewed the second amendment and finds that the execution thereof is
in the best interest of the City of St. Louis Park and its residents.
Section 2. Approval of documents.
(a) The board approves the second amendment in substantially the form presented
to the board, together with any related documents necessary in connection therewith,
including without limitation all documents, exhibits, certifications, or consents referenced in or
attached to the prior grant agreements (the “documents”).
(b) The board hereby authorizes the president and executive director, in their
discretion and at such time, if any, as they may deem appropriate, to execute the documents
on behalf of the authority, and to carry out, on behalf of the authority, the authority’s
obligations thereunder when all conditions precedent thereto have been satisfied. The
documents shall be in substantially the form on file with the authority and the approval hereby
given to the documents includes approval of such additional details therein as may be
necessary and appropriate and such modifications thereof, deletions therefrom and additions
thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by legal counsel to the authority
and by the officers authorized herein to execute said documents prior to their execution; and
said officers are hereby authorized to approve said changes on behalf of the authority. The
execution of any instrument by the appropriate officers of the authority herein authorized shall
be conclusive evidence of the approval of such document in accordance with the terms hereof.
Economic development authority meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Title: Resolution approving second amendment to the Environmental Response Fund grant agreement - Ward 2
This resolution shall not constitute an offer and the documents shall not be effective until the
date of execution thereof as provided herein.
(c) In the event of absence or disability of the officers, any of the documents
authorized by this resolution to be executed may be executed without further act or
authorization of the board by any duly designated acting official, or by such other officer or
officers of the board as, in the opinion of the city attorney, may act in their behalf. Upon
execution and delivery of the documents, the officers and employees of the board are hereby
authorized and directed to take or cause to be taken such actions as may be necessary on
behalf of the board to implement the documents.
Section 3. Effective date. This resolution shall be effective upon approval.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the economic development
authority September 15, 2025:
Karen Barton, executive director Sue Budd, president
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, secretary
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: September 15, 2025
Consent agenda item: 4b
Executive summary
Title: Resolution authorizing grant application for Affordable Homeownership program - Ward 1
Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the application for – and, upon
award, acceptance of the award – a grant for the Affordable Homeownership program to
support the Minnetonka Boulevard Twinhomes project.
Policy consideration: Does the economic development authority (EDA) wish to authorize the
application for – and, upon award, acceptance of the award – for eligible grant expenses to
support the Minnetonka Boulevard Twinhomes affordable homeownership project?
Summary: The Metropolitan Council Affordable Homeownership program supports costs
related to the construction and rehabilitation of affordable for sale homes. The city will apply
for funds on behalf of the project, which will be developed by the Greater Metropolitan
Housing Corporation (GMHC). Funds will support a portion of grant eligible costs associated
with the Minnetonka Boulevard Twinhomes project.
Financial or budget considerations: Any grant funding received will assist with the project
financial feasibility and offset the amount of city financial assistance needed for the project.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion, Resolution
Prepared by: Clancy Ferris, legislative & grants analyst
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Economic development authority meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Title: Resolution authorizing grant application for Affordable Homeownership program - Ward 1
Discussion
Background: On July 21, 2025, the city council approved a resolution 25-079 authorizing the
grant agreement for the Minnetonka Boulevard Twin Homes Development. The City of St. Louis
Park applied for and received a $3,000,000 grant award through the Fiscal Year 2023
Congressionally Directed Spending (CDS) process. The City of St. Louis Park and its EDA are
partnering with Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC) to construct four twin
homes (eight owner-occupied units) on four vacant single-family lots fronting Minnetonka
Boulevard.
Present considerations: Grant applications for the Affordable Homeownership grant program
open Sept. 2, 2025, and close Oct. 1, 2025. Award decisions are expected in December 2025.
Staff will provide an update once notified of the application’s outcome.
Next steps: None at this time.
Economic development authority meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Title: Resolution authorizing grant application for Affordable Homeownership program - Ward 1
EDA Resolution No. 25 -__
Approving grant application for Affordable Homeownership program
and accepting grant funds if awarded
Be it resolved by the board of commissioners (the “board”) of the St. Louis Park economic
development authority (the “authority”) as follows:
1. That the city of St. Louis Park on behalf of its community development department apply for
a grant and upon acceptance, enter into a grant agreement with the Met Council for the
Affordable Homeownership grant.
2. Mayor Nadia Mohamed and City Manager Kim Keller, or successors, are hereby authorized
to execute such agreements and amendments as are necessary to implement the project on
behalf of the city of St. Louis Park and to be the fiscal agent and administer the grant.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the economic development
authority September 15, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Sue Budd, president
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: September 15, 2025
Action agenda item: 6a
Executive summary
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 HRA and EDA levies
Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolutions approving 2026 preliminary property tax
levy
Policy consideration: Does council support the proposed 2026 HRA and EDA levies that are a
part of the proposed 2026 budget? The balanced budget consists of an all-inclusive preliminary
levy increase of 8.02% and includes:
a. An HRA levy of $1,194,133 to support the Affordable Housing Trust Fund; and
b. An EDA levy of $375,000 to support ongoing spending in the development fund;
Summary: After several council study sessions focused on the budget this summer, staff
presented council a recommended budget and corresponding all-inclusive levy increase of
7.92%. Staff received feedback that was generally supportive of the new spending items but
wanted to ensure that more was being done in 2026 to combat climate change and support the
city’s climate action plan. At the direction of council an additional $50,000 of spending and levy
revenue was added to support sustainability programs bringing the levy increase to 8.02%.
The EDA must first approve the EDA and HRA levies by resolution before council approves the
overall property tax levy, including the two recommended for action in this report.
Financial or budget considerations: 2026 proposed budget and long-range financial plan
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Resolution (HRA levy)
Resolution (EDA levy)
Prepared by: Amelia Cruver, finance director
Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Approved by Kim Keller, city manager
Economic development authority meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 HRA and EDA levies
Discussion
Background:
2026 Budget Roadmap
Date Topics Issues and Decision Points
June 16,
2025
Base Budget and
Context
• 2024 Actual versus Budget
• 2025 decisions with trailing budgetary impacts
• 2026 revenue projections
• Personnel expense projections; Paid Family & Medical
Leave
• Employee Benefits Fund
• Internal service funds change
July 14,
2025
2024 Certified
Annual Financial
Report and Audit
• 2024 financial performance
• 2024 fund balances
• Audit findings and corrective action plans
Aug. 11,
2025
Operating Budget
Proposal
• New proposals for the 2026 operating budget, fund
balances and levy implications
Sept. 2,
2025
Capital
Improvement Plan
(CIP) and Final Levy
• Revised CIP 2026 – 2030 and budget implications
• Complete levy recommendation
• Projected levy impact by property type and quartile
• Fee adoption
Sept. 15,
2025
Levy adoption • Maximum levy adoption
October
2025, TBD
TIF Management
Plan update
• TIF district performance
• TIF district recommended transfers and decertification, if
any
Mid-
November
2025
County mails Truth
in Taxation property
tax notices
• Residents receive an estimate of their 2026 tax bill and
information on the public hearing in December 2025
Nov. 10,
2025
Council report and
discussion: Revised
budget
• Revisions to the budget and adjustments to the levy, as
needed. In November 2025, the levy can only go down
from the maximum set in September 2025
• Review the 2030-2034 CIP
Dec. 1,
2025
Council report and
public hearing: Truth
in Taxation
• Residents share feedback on the proposed 2026 budget
Dec. 15,
2025
Council report,
discussion and vote:
Budget adoption
• City council adopts the 2026 budget and CIP
Council reports and presentations for the base, operating, and capital budget discussions with
council are linked below and provide context for decision making on each of those sections of
the budget:
• Base budget June 16, 2025, report begins on page 94
o Presentation
• Operating Budget August 11, 2025
Economic development authority meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 HRA and EDA levies
o Presentation
• Capital Budget Sept 2, 2025, report begins on page 145
o Presentation
Present considerations:
The table below shows the proposed 2026 all-inclusive levy by fund that includes all the
changes that have been recommended in this report and reports from June 16 and Aug. 11,
2025. The park improvement fund levy has been reduced by $100,000 in the 2026
recommendation. This is recommended because that fund has a healthy fund balance of more
than two times its annual spending, which has been a result of several years of higher-than-
expected park and trail dedication fees. This recommendation seeks to strike the right balance
between tax levels and maintaining resources to manage park improvement needs as they
emerge. $50,000 has also been added to the levy to support expanded spending on climate and
sustainability programs.
Fund FY2025 FY2026 $ Change % Change
General 38,808,815 45,816,333 7,007,518 18.06%
Debt Service 6,856,221 5,792,684 (1,063,537) -15.51%
Development EDA 187,000 375,000 188,000 100.53%
Park Improvement 510,000 410,000 (100,000) -19.61%
Affordable Housing Trust 1,194,133 1,194,133 - 0.00%
Employee Benefits 200,000 400,000 200,000 100.00%
Capital Funds -
Municipal Bldg & Infrastructure 685,031 - (685,031) -100.00%
Technology 1,538,465 - (1,538,465) -100.00%
Total
49,979,665 53,988,150 4,008,485 8.02%
Note that in the above table the increased spending in the general levy is offset by $2.2 million
reduction in the Municipal Building and Infrastructure and Technology fund levies. This is
because the cost for these services will now be reflected in customer department’s budgets and
supported through the general levy.
The above budget accomplishes the following goals:
• Fully funds implementation of the new Minnesota Paid Family and Medical Leave for all
city employees.
• Funds a balanced budget in the Employee Benefit, Municipal Building and Technology
funds. Bringing in enough revenue to cover planned spending in a given year means
future cash transfers will not be needed, putting less pressure on the cities cash
reserves and ensuring large increases in the levy are not needed in future years.
• Supports the operation of a brush management site in 2026 free of charge to residents.
• Supports the operation of a concession stand in the Rec Center during winter months so
that visitors feel comfortable and welcomed while participating in recreational activities
at the city.
• Begins a multi-year plan to fully fund activity in the cities Climate Investment Fund in an
ongoing way using the property tax levy.
Economic development authority meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 6a) Page 4
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 HRA and EDA levies
• Uses analysis capabilities from our new budgeting software to right-size budgets in
multiple areas, including increases to budgeted overtime to reflect actual spending and
reductions in historically underspent funds.
• Offsets increased spending on programs and staff with over $200,000 in reductions to
department budgets.
What is driving the increased spending in the general fund in 2026?
The largest cost drivers in the proposed 2026 budget are maintenance and replacement of our
current city assets and base budget growth. The table below breaks down the building blocks of
the increase in the general fund portion of the levy in 2026. The chargebacks to support the
municipal building and infrastructure and technology funds are largely offset by the $2.2 million
saved by eliminating the old capital levy line item. In addition, some costs for things like
software and hardware had previously been included in departments’ general fund budgets.
This budget moves all those technology costs to the internal service fund and charges the
relevant department so that we can have a clear view of our technology spend at the city.
The table below shows updated proposed General Fund spending. New spending in 2026 is
highlighted. The majority of the $534,702 in new operating proposals from Aug. 11, 2025 are
items like bringing brush site operations in-house instead of closing the site and right-sizing
overtime.
Base increase in personnel spending, 6/16 report $1,278,890
Chargebacks for IT - maintenance/replacement $2,552,306
New chargebacks for IT - Police data integration software $55,000
Chargebacks for Municipal Building - maintenance/replacement $1,444,138
Chargebacks for Vehicle & Equipment -replacement $1,067,482
New Operating Proposals, from 8/11 report $534,702
Council Salary, finalized on 8/18 $25,000
Climate Investment Fund, recommending levy rather than Franchise fees $50,000
Increasing Climate Action Plan Spending $50,000
Property Tax Levy - General Fund increase 7,057,518
In addition, council asked staff to review whether a needs analysis for additional community
amenities, such as a community center, could be funded within the existing 2026 proposed
budget. Staff believes it can be and, if needed, can come back with a budget amendment in
2026.
Five-Year Outlook
The below five-year outlook contains the following assumptions:
• General fund expenses and levy increasing by 5% each year to account for personnel
and mandatory spending increasing with inflation.
• The debt service levy includes projected costs for existing debt and forecasted debt
payments that assume bonding of $4.5 million each year to support capital projects.
• A gradual increase in the Park Improvement levy as fund balance is spent down on park
improvement projects.
Economic development authority meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 6a) Page 5
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 HRA and EDA levies
Fund FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030
General 38,808,815
45,816,333
48,107,150
50,512,507
53,038,132
55,690,039
Debt Service 6,856,221
5,792,684
6,525,902
7,070,122
7,529,453
7,238,676
Development EDA 187,000 375,000 375,000 375,000 375,000 375,000
Park Improvement 510,000 410,000 510,000 600,000 700,000 800,000
Affordable Housing Trust 1,194,133
1,194,133
1,194,133
1,194,133
1,194,133
1,194,133
Employee Benefits 200,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000
Capital Funds
Municipal Bldg 685,031
Technology 1,538,465 -
Total 49,979,665
53,988,150
57,112,185
60,151,763
63,236,718
65,697,848
$ Increase
4,008,485 3,124,035 3,039,578 3,084,956 2,461,130
% Increase 8.02% 5.79% 5.32% 5.13% 3.89%
*Note: the EDA levy is deposited in the Development EDA fund and the HRA levy is deposited in
the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
Changes in the taxable market value of property in the City of St. Louis Park will have an impact
on taxpayers in 2026. Using the preliminary levy increase of 8.02% and the finalized taxable
market value produced by the county, the median homesteaded homeowner with a home
value at $387,200 is estimated to see a $328 annual increase to their property taxes in 2026, or
a monthly increase of $27. More information on the economic factors driving this change can
be found in the report to council on September 8 (report begins on page 27.)
Next steps: Once fees that support general and utility fund operations and capital projects and
the preliminary property tax levy are adopted on Sept. 15, the next step is budget revisions in
the late fall and final adoption on Dec 15, 2025.
Economic development authority meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 6a) Page 6
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 HRA and EDA levies
Resolution No. 25 - ____
Authorizing the preliminary HRA levy for 2026
Whereas, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the “EDA Act”),
the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park created the St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority (the "Authority"); and
Whereas, pursuant to the EDA Act, the city council granted to the Authority all of the
powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under the provisions of the
Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and
Whereas, Section 469.033, subdivision 6 of the Act authorizes the Authority to levy a tax
upon all taxable property within the city to be expended for the purposes authorized by the
HRA Act; and
Whereas, such levy may be in an amount not to exceed 0.0185 percent of estimated
market value of the city; and
Whereas, the Authority has filed its budget for the special benefit levy in accordance with
the budget procedures of the city in the amount of $1,194,133 and
Whereas, based upon such budgets the Authority will levy all or such portion of the
authorized levy as it deems necessary and proper;
Now therefore be it resolved by the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority that
approval is hereby given for the Authority to levy, for taxes payable in 2026, such tax upon the
taxable property of the city as the Authority may determine, subject to the limitations
contained in the HRA Act.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the economic development
authority September 15, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Sue Budd, president
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Economic development authority meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 6a) Page 7
Title: Resolutions approving 2026 HRA and EDA levies
Resolution No. 25 - ____
Authorizing a present intent to levy a tax for Economic Development Authority
purposes pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.107
Whereas, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 through 469.1082, as
amended (the “Act”), the City established the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the
“EDA”); and
Whereas, Section 469.107, subdivision 1 of the Act authorizes the City, at the request of
the EDA, to levy and collect a tax of up to 0.01813% of the estimated market value of taxable
property within the City, levied upon all taxable real property within the City, for economic
development purposes; and
Whereas, the EDA has requested that the City approve such a levy in the amount of
$375,000 and the City finds that such a levy is in the best interest of the City and EDA because it
will facilitate economic development.
Now therefore be it resolved that the City Economic Development Authority hereby
approves the levy of a tax for economic development purposes pursuant to Section 469.107,
subdivision 1 of the Act in the amount equal to $375,000 with respect to taxes payable in
calendar year 2026.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the economic development
authority September 15, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Sue Budd, president
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: September 15, 2025
Presentation: 3a
Executive summary
Title: Proclamation observing Latino Heritage Month
Recommended action: Mayor to read proclamation observing Sept. 15 through Oct. 15, 2025
as Latino Heritage Month.
Policy consideration: None
Summary: Latino Heritage Month is a time to recognize the significant contributions of Latino
communities to United States history and culture. This month-long celebration began in 1988
and falls during a span of dates several Latin American countries celebrate their Independence
Day. St. Louis Park is home, workplace and a place of gathering for many Latino people. We
take this time to recognize the diverse Latino heritage in our city and state.
Financial or budget considerations: None
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity
and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all.
Supporting documents: Resource page
Proclamation
Prepared by: Jocelyn I Hernandez Guitron, racial equity and inclusion specialist
BIPOC Employee resource group
Reviewed by: Pa Dao Yang, racial equity and inclusion director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: Proclamation observing Latino Heritage Month
Resource page
To celebrate Latino Heritage Month, the City of St. Louis Park invites you to:
• Explore the diversity of Latino identity.
o Latino Identity | National Museum of the American Latino (si.edu)
o Exploring Latino Diversity in the United States — Google Arts & Culture
• Consider some of the challenges Latinos face in the United States.
o Latinos worry about deportations more than other US adults | Pew Research
Center
o Anger grows over alleged racial profiling in immigration raids : NPR
• Connect with Latino organizations in Minnesota.
o Community Resources / Minnesota Council on Latino Affairs
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Title: Proclamation observing Latino Heritage Month
Proclamation observing
“Latino Heritage Month”
Whereas, the United States celebrates Latino Heritage Month from September 15 to
October 15 to recognize Latino culture, which originates from Latin America and its diaspora,
with diverse languages, dialects, customs and history – all under the umbrella of Latino; and
Whereas, these dates fall on the Independence days of several Latino nations including
Mexico, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Chile and Belize; and
Whereas, according to the 2020 Census data, there are 62.1 million Latinos in the
United States making up 18.7% of the population. In Minnesota, Latinos are 6% of the
population with 345,640 people and in St. Louis Park, Latinos are 6% of the city’s population
with 3,084 people; and
Whereas, Latino entrepreneurs, educators, healthcare providers, philanthropists, and
community and political leaders have helped create a more just and inclusive St. Louis Park for
all; and
Whereas, the current federal administration criminalizes immigrants and disregards
language access that harms Latino communities, and all communities, challenging the American
ideals of being a welcoming community for all – regardless of immigration status, where
everyone should be allowed for due process and equality, and;
Whereas, St. Louis Park stands in solidarity with the victims and the survivors of all hate
crimes targeting the Latino community across the nation and recognizes that our state is made
stronger by building and investing in diverse and vibrant communities; and
Whereas, St. Louis Park honors and celebrates the history, achievements, contributions,
and diversity of the Latino community. We recognize the need to foster and build relationships
between all communities throughout St. Louis Park and Minnesota,
Now, therefore, let it be known that the mayor and city council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, hereby observe September 15 to October 15, 2025, as Latino Heritage Month
in our community.
Wherefore, I set my hand and cause the
Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be
affixed this 15th day of September, 2025.
_________________________________
Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: September 15, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5a
Executive summary
Title: Resolution approving 2026 employer benefit contribution
Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolution establishing the employer contribution for
benefits in 2026.
Policy consideration: Does council approve the recommended amount of employer benefits
contribution for 2026?
Summary: This report details the city’s employee benefits planned for 2026, and staff’s
recommendation for setting the employer contribution for 2026. The recommendation follows
the funding philosophy adopted by the city in 2014 after several meetings and feedback from
an employee task force. The employer contribution funding philosophy is based on the
employer contribution for all plan options on the most utilized plan ($2500 deductible health
plan). It covers 100% of the premium for employee only coverage (plus additional funds for
voluntary elections for dental and deferred compensation).
For 2026, Health Partners will remain as our medical insurance vendor, Delta will remain as our
dental vendor, Symetra will be a new vendor and will administer our life insurance and long-
term disability (LTD) benefits, and AllOne Health -Sand Creek EAP will remain as our employe
assistance program vendor. In 2023 staff went out to the market on our benefit vendors. For
our medical insurance, we secured a two (2) year rate cap with our medical insurance provider
of 11% and 12% for 2025 and 2026 respectively. For 2026, we have surpassed the 12% increase
so our cap will take effect.
Financial or budget considerations: The amount recommended has been included in the 2026
budget.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Resolution
Prepared by: Rita Vorpahl, HR director
Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5a) Page 2
Title: Resolution approving 2026 employer benefit contribution
Discussion
Background: The city has an employee benefits committee that consists of employees
represented by all departments and all union groups. The purpose of the committee is to
educate employees on benefits and get feedback on what they are interested in seeing in our
benefits design. The benefits committee, along with our benefits consultant, assists with
gathering information and making recommendations on potential benefit designs or options.
They do not provide input on specific funding amounts for employer contribution. Annually ,
staff conducts open enrollment for employees to make updates to the benefits they
choose. Below is a summary of the city’s benefit details.
Medical insurance (overall renewal just under 17% premium increase with a cap of 12%)
The city has been insured through HealthPartners since 2012. Staff went out for a formal bid for
2023 which is required every five (5) years in accordance with state statute. Staff and our
benefit consultant are not surprised with these rates and will continue to monitor plans and
provide recommendations where appropriate to mitigate future costs.
Voluntary employees’ beneficiary association (VEBA) refresher
The city continues to offer a health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) with a VEBA funding
mechanism in coordination with the deductible health plans. The VEBA is funded with employer
contributions. Employer VEBA contributions are placed in a trust in an individual’s name and
funds are available for reimbursement of eligible medical expenses. VEBA funds not spent will
stay with the individual and roll over each year for future expenses. VEBA funds are set aside
tax-free, earn tax-free interest and qualified medical expenses are reimbursed tax-free. The
VEBA account stays with the individual after they leave employment and can be used for
reimbursement of qualified medical expenses, including premiums.
Dental insurance (9% increase in premiums)
They city has been insured with Delta Dental for many years and our consultant works closely
with them to secure the most favorable rates each year. Staff got a renewal with a 9% premium
increase.
MN Paid Family Medical Leave (PFML)
In accordance with Minesota Statutes, Section 268B, the city is required to implement the MN
Paid Family Medical Leave benefit effective January 1, 2026. The state’s administration fee for
2026 is .88% and the city has the option to elect a private vendor. Through a bidding process,
private vendors required the addition of the city’s life and long -term disability benefits to be
included. The city requested a formal bid and Symetra offered the services at the lowest cost
savings with a premium of .79% for PFML administration.
Life insurance (4% increase in premiums for basic life, no change for voluntary life)
A basic life insurance benefit is provided to all benefit -earning employees at 1.5 times their
salary, paid by the city. In 2024, the premium cost of basic life was reduced by 7%, with a three
(3) year rate guarantee. In 2026, with a vendor change, the basic life premiums will drop by 4%.
Employees also have the option to purchase additional supplemental insurance (up to
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5a) Page 3
Title: Resolution approving 2026 employer benefit contribution
$500,000), and spouse and dependent life insurance as well. There is no change to the
supplemental insurance rates or plan design.
Long term disability (LTD)
Staff are pleased to continue to offer LTD to all staff at no cost to the employee. This benefit
provides income continuation at 60% of pre -disability earnings for anyone who becomes ill or
injured and unable to resume work after a six-month waiting period. In 2024, the premium cost
of the LTD was reduced by 25%, with a three (3) year rate guarantee. In 2026 we will need to
switch to a new vendor for LTD to be in receive the lower premium for Minnesota Paid Leave.
Deferred compensation (continue with current program; no change recommended)
The city offers several deferred compensation programs (457 plans). Deferred compensation is
a program that allows employees to invest today for retirement. This is a voluntary program for
employees, with an employer match of $10 per pay period to non-union staff with a minimum
employee contribution of $50 per pay period (Resolution 12-044). This benefit has also been
negotiated into union contracts.
2026 employer contribution recommendation
An extensive employee task force was convened in the summer of 2014 to review employee
input on employee benefit programs. The result of those meetings was a recommendation to
provide tiered employer contribution funding which provided more funding to thos e who elect
to insure dependents. All funding amounts are based on the city’s most utilized plan ($2500
deductible plan). In the funding philosophy, employees electing employee only coverage are
provided with a city contribution equal to 100% of the premium with leftover funds available so
employees could purchase voluntary benefits such as dental insurance and a $50/pay period
deferred compensation contribution. The monthly contribution for 2026 is $1,170 per month
for employees who choose employee only health insurance coverage. The city also contributes
$2500/year ($208.34/month) to employee only VEBA accounts, which is 100% of the
deductible. The employer contribution for those who elect dependent coverage receive 75%
paid premium based in the $2500 deductible plan and $3,750 year ($312.50 / month) to their
VEBA accounts.
The chart below shows total employee and employer costs per month for each plan option
offered. The “employee cost” noted on the right is the difference between the “employer
contribution” and the “premium”. The VEBA contribution cannot be used to offset p remium
costs.
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5a) Page 4
Title: Resolution approving 2026 employer benefit contribution
2026 PLAN OPTIONS Premium Employer
Contribution
Employer VEBA
Contribution
Total
Employer
Contribution
Employee
Cost
$2,500 Employee $1,013.50 $1,170.00 $208.34 $1,378.34 -$156.50
Deductible Emp+Child(ren) $2,129.00 $1,595.00 $312.50 $1,907 .50 $534.00
Open access Emp+Spouse $2,232.00 $1,675.00 $312.50 $1,987 .50 $557.00
Family $2,838.50 $2,130.00 $312.50 $2,442 .50 $708.50
$4,500 Employee $848.50 $1,170.00 $208.34 $1,378.34 -$321.50
Deductible Emp+Child(ren) $1,782.00 $1,595.00 $312.50 $1,907 .50 $187.00
Open access Emp+Spouse $1,868.50 $1,675.00 $312.50 $1,987 .50 $193.50
Family $2,376.50 $2,130.00 $312.50 $2,442 .50 $246.50
$4,500 Employee $721.50 $1,170.00 $208.34 $1,378.34 -$448.50
Deductible Emp+Child(ren) $1,515.00 $1,595.00 $312.50 $1,907.50 -$80.00
Select Emp+Spouse $1,588.00 $1,675.00 $312.50 $1,987.50 -$87.00
Family $2,019.50 $2,130.00 $312.50 $2,442.50 -$110.50
$30 Employee $1,174.00 $1,170.00 -- $1,170.00 $4.00
Co-Pay Emp+Child(ren) $2,464.50 $1,595.00 -- $1,595.00 $869.50
Open access Emp+Spouse $2,583.50 $1,675.00 -- $1,675.00 $908.50
Family $3,285.50 $2,130.00 -- $2,130.00 $1,155.50
Waive $157.00 -- $157.00 -$157.00
*Numbers in (red) indicate the amount employees have to purchase additional benefits.
Benefit-earning part-time employees regularly scheduled to work 20-29 hours per week will be
eligible to receive a pro-rated (50%) employer contribution, and full 100% employer VEBA
contribution. Employees who choose to waive coverage will be eligible for a reduced employer
contribution that may be used to purchase other supplemental benefits in the amount of $15 7
(pro-rated for part-time employees).
Additional benefit enhancements:
Flexible spending account: The amount staff can contribute to a medical flexible spending
account will increase to the IRS maximum determined at the time of Open Enrollment. In 2025,
our employees can contribute up to $3,200. In 2026, the new limit is $3,300. The Dependent
Care assistance amount will increase from $5,000 to $7,500 January 1, 2026. Employees can
set aside this pre-tax amount for medical or dependent care spending.
Paid parent leave: Effective Sept. 1, 2024, eligibility requirement for paid parental leave was
moved move from one year of service to six months, aligning it with our current short -term
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5a) Page 5
Title: Resolution approving 2026 employer benefit contribution
disability plan. Adjusting our policy to six months enhanced our support for employees and
helps to ensure we remain competitive in attracting and retaining talent.
Budget considerations: In initial budget projections, city staff had estimated an 13% increase in
premiums for 2026. The renewal provided a 12% increase for medical insurance. This amount
has been included in the budget projections. These numbers were included in the budget
report that was provided to council on Aug. 11, 2025.
Next steps: Staff is pleased with the benefit programs that have been developed and
offered. Staff feel that the plans as outlined above will provide satisfactory and affordable
options for coverage based on individual needs. Approval is recommended.
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5a) Page 6
Title: Resolution approving 2026 employer benefit contribution
Resolution No. 25 -_____
Approving 2026 employer benefit contribution
Whereas, the city council has established a benefit plan that provides an effective means
for providing employee group benefits; and
Whereas, the city council establishes rates and plans for each calendar year; and
Whereas, the administration of such plans will be in accordance with plan documents as
approved by the city manager, who will also set policy and procedures for benefit level
classification and administration of plans.
Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
1. Effective January 1, 2026, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the city for non -
union regular employees, including the city manager, who work at least 30 hours per week,
and who choose EMPLOYEE ONLY coverage be set at $1,170 per month, pro-rated for
regular part-time employees who work 20-29 hours per week.
2. Effective January 1, 2026, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the city for non -
union regular employees, including the city manager, who work at least 30 hours per week,
and who choose EMPLOYEE + CHILD(REN) coverage be set at $1,595 per month, pro-rated
for regular part-time employees who work 20-29 hours per week.
3. Effective January 1, 2026, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the city for non -
union regular employees, including the city manager, who work at least 30 hours per week,
and who choose EMPLOYEE + SPOUSE coverage be set at $1,675 per month, pro-rated for
regular part-time employees who work 20-29 hours per week.
4. Effective January 1, 2026, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the city for non -
union regular employees, including the city manager, who work at least 30 hours per week,
and who choose FAMILY coverage be set at $2,130 per month, pro-rated for regular part-
time employees who work 20-29 hours per week.
5. Effective January 1, 2026, employees who choose EMPLOYEE ONLY coverage on the
DEDUCTIBLE PLANS will be eligible for an employer VEBA contribution of $208.34 per month
($2500/year).
6. Effective January 1, 2026, employees who choose EMPLOYEE+CHILD(REN),
EMPLOYEE+SPOUSE, or FAMILY coverage on the DEDUCTIBLE PLANS will be eligible for an
employer VEBA contribution of $312.50 per month ($3750/year).
7. Effective January 1, 2026, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the city for non -
union regular employees, including the city manager, who work at least 30 hours per week,
and who WAIVE COVERAGE will be set at $15 7 per month, pro-rated for regular part-time
employees who work 20-29 hours per week.
8. The city will continue to administer other benefit programs.
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5a) Page 7
Title: Resolution approving 2026 employer benefit contribution
9. The appropriate city officials are hereby authorized and directed to deduct the balance of
any sum premium from the compensation of an employee or officer and remit the
employee’s or officer’s share of any such premium to the insurer under an approved
contract.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council September 15, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: September 15, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5b
Executive summary
Title: Resolution authorizing contract with Symetra Life Insurance Company
Recommended action: Authorize execution of a two-year professional services contract with
Symetra Life Insurance in the annual amount of $133,610 for Minnesota Paid Leave benefits,
$54,484 for long-term disability, and $61,023 for life insurance.
Policy consideration: Does the council wish to enter into a contract with Symetra Life Insurance
for Minnesota Paid Leave benefits, long-term disability, and life insurance?
Summary: Starting on Jan. 1, 2026, Minnesota Paid Leave will be required. The current rate /
premium with the State of Minnesota is .88. Staff negotiated with multiple private vendors to
get a lower rate. Staff recommends the city has a private plan and uses Symetra Life Insurance
with a .79 premium. The contract covers a two-year term with a rate guarantee.
Financial or budget considerations: None
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: None
Prepared by: Rita Vorpahl, HR director
Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5b) Page 2
Title: Resolution authorizing contract with Symetra Life Insurance Company
Discussion
Background: After a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) process, The City of St. Louis Park
recommends a two-year contract with Symetra Life Insurance to provide Minnesota Paid leave
benefits, long-term disability, and life insurance. For Minnesota Paid Leave, Symetra will offer a
lower premium than the State of Minnesota and excellent customer service.
In order to secure a rate for Minnesota Paid Leave we had to select two ancillary benefits to
add. We are switching vendors and adding long-term disability and life insurance to Symetra.
Present considerations: As the state continues to make updates and clarify the Minnesota Paid
Leave program staff will keep an eye on the changing landscape. A two-year contract will allow
us to get the program working and evaluated in St. Louis Park. We will also have the flexibility
to possibly go with the state plan and premium after two years.
Next steps: Work with Symetra in 2026 and 2027.
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5b) Page 3
Title: Resolution authorizing contract with Symetra Life Insurance Company
Resolution No. 25 -__
Authorizing contract agreement with Symetra Life Insurance
Whereas, the city of St. Louis Park wishes to enter into contract with Symetra Life
Insurance; and
Whereas, the contract covers Minnesota Paid Leave, long-term disability and life
insurance; and
Whereas, the contract period is January 1, 2026, through December 31, 2027; and
Whereas, the total contract amount is $498,234,
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
that Mayor Nadia Mohamed and City Manager Kim Keller, or successors, are hereby authorized
to execute such agreements and amendments as are necessary to contract with Symetra Life
Insurance on behalf of the city of St. Louis Park.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council September 15, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: September 15, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5c
Executive summary
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
Recommended action: Motion to adopt second reading of ordinance relating to 2026 fees.
Policy consideration: Is the council supportive of the proposed fees?
Summary: Each year, our fees are reviewed by departments as part of the budget process. Fees
are reviewed based on comparison to other cities in the metro area, changes in regulations and
to make sure our business costs are covered for corresponding services. When possible, staff
try to stay in line with inflation, which for 2025 is currently around 3%. Most of our fee
increases are at or below inflation. The council is asked to approve Appendix A items because
those are within our city code. Other city fees are set administratively.
This is the second reading of the 2026 fees and there have been no changes since they were
discussed with council on Sept. 2, 2025.
Financial or budget considerations: The proposed fee changes have been incorporated into the
preliminary 2026 budget.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Ordinance
Ordinance summary for publication
Appendix A
Prepared by: Amelia Cruver, finance director
Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 2
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
Discussion
Background: St. Louis Park city code Sec. 1-19 references how fees are set. Fees included in the
attached ordinance are listed as Appendix A of the city code. Other fees are set administratively
and reviewed annually by city departments. Department directors have authority to set fees for
programs and services. Each department director has reviewed the fees listed in Appendix A of
the city code. Recommendations are included in the attached ordinance.
On June 16, 2025, the council received a report and presentation on the preliminary non-tax
general fund revenue projections for 2026. These fees align with those projections. Utility fees
for 2026 have been calculated to fund the utility capital costs included in the proposed
20262030 Capital Improvements Plan. Full funding for these capital projects relies on the
approval of the annual fee increase included in this schedule of 4.5% for water, sewer and
stormwater fees.
The first reading of this ordinance took place at the Sept. 2, 2025 city council meeting. This item
received the required public hearing with due notice on Sept. 2, 2025 and the council did not
take a vote at that time.
Present considerations: The administrative services, communications and technology,
community development, engineering, fire, building and energy, public works, parks and
recreation, and police departments have each reviewed and analyzed the proposed fee
adjustments, additions, and/or removals that are shown in Appendix A (attached). The 2026
proposed fee adjustments reflect administrative costs of providing services and remain
comparable with neighboring cities.
Updates on tiered fee structure: In this year’s review of the fee schedule two subgroups were
identified (i.e. nonprofits and neighborhood groups) as having a fee rate that was specific to
them. Through conversations with the city attorney, staff learned that it is not permissible to
have a tiered fee structure without first ensuring basic legal tests are administered. The list
below outlines the analysis:
1. distinctions between different groups of individuals need to have a rational basis and
serve a legitimate government purpose;
2. distinctions between groups cannot be made based upon suspect criteria – e.g., groups
that support city policies versus those that oppose those policies; and
3. the system should have objective criteria with little discretion to determine who
satisfies the criteria and who does not.
Given this information, staff has simplified the tiered fee structure to remove these two
situations. This simpler structure also helps ensure consistent and fair application of fees.
The following fees have been eliminated from the 2026 fee schedule:
• Housing Authority Owned Single Family Rental fee: all-encompassing single-family fee
• THC edible license: no longer licensing edibles
• THC retest fee: no longer licensing edibles
• Table and chair rentals: no longer offering rentals
• Mobile stage rental: no longer offering rentals
• Wood chip delivery: service unavailable
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 3
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
• Crime Free Multi-Housing Training fee: training is not hosted by St. Louis Park police
department
• Vehicle forfeiture admin fee: fee is negotiated and is not pre-set
• Fire rental fee for full-size fire truck, ladder truck & rescue unit: we moved to one single
rental fee regardless type of equipment
The following fees are newly proposed for 2026:
• Application fee for a tree protection permit: associated with inspection work staff do
during construction to ensure proper tree protection
• Variances Zoning Letter (non-standard): associated with producing zoning verification
letters for lenders or insurers
• Oak Patio Rental, 12hr, resident and nonresident: reduces the overall fee for those who
rent the patio for an extended day
• Temporary outdoor seating fee: added in 2025 to assist with maintenance of outdoor
space
Next steps: If approved, the fee changes will be effective Jan. 1, 2026.
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 4
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
Ordinance No. ___ - 25
Adopting fees for calendar year 2026
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Section 1. Fees called for within individual provisions of the city code are hereby set by
this ordinance for calendar year 2026.
Section 2. The attached Fee Schedule shall be included as Appendix A of the City Code
and shall replace those fees adopted August 19, 2024, by Ordinance No. 2679-24 for the
calendar year 2025 which is hereby rescinded.
*See attached PDF for Appendix A of the fee schedule*
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect Jan. 1, 2026.
Public Hearing September 2, 2025
First Reading September 2, 2025
Second Reading September 15, 2025
Date of Publication September 25, 2025
Date Ordinance takes effect January 1, 2026
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council September 15, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren M. Mattick, city attorney
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 5
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
Summary for publication
Ordinance No. ___ - 25
An ordinance adopting fees called for
by ordinance for calendar year 2026
This ordinance sets 2026 fees as outlined in Appendix A of the City Code of Ordinances. The fee
ordinance is modified to reflect the cost of providing services and is completed each year to
determine what, if any, fees require adjustment. This ordinance shall take effect January 1,
2026.
Adopted by the city council September 15, 2025
Nadia Mohamed /s/
mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the city clerk.
Published in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor: September 25, 2025
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 6
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
2026 Proposed City of St. Louis Park - FEES
SERVICE 2025 ADOPTED FEE 2026 PROPOSED FEE
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES
Chapter 4 – Animal Regulations $50 $50
Chapter 6 – Buildings & Building Regulations $100 $100
Chapter 6, Section 5 – Energy Benchmarking $100 $103
Chapter 6, Article V – Property Maintenance Code $150 $150
Chapter 6, Section X – Backflow Prevention $100 service fee added
monthly to utility bill
$100 service fee added
monthly to utility bill
Chapter 8 – Business and Business Licenses $150 $150
Chapter 8, Subdivision IV – Grease Producer License $200 Sewer Cleaning
Fee added monthly to
utility bill
$200 Sewer Cleaning
Fee added monthly to
utility bill
Chapter 12 – Environment $100 $100
Chapter 12, Section 2 – Environment & Public Health
Regulations Adopted by Reference
$100 $100
Chapter 12, Section 157 – Illicit Discharge and
Connection
$100 $100
Chapter 12, Section 159 – Wetland Protection $100 $100
Chapter 12, Article VI. Zero Waste Packaging $100 $100
Chapter 14 – Fire and Fire Prevention $100 $100
Chapter 14, Section 75 – Open burning without
permit
$100 $100
Chapter 20 – Parks and Recreation
Chapter 22 – Solid Waste Management - Residential $50 $50
Chapter 22 - Solid Waste Management - Multifamily
& Commercial
$100 $100
Chapter 22, Section 22-5b Hazardous and Infectious
materials
$200 $200
Chapter 24 – Streets, Sidewalks & Public Places $50 $50
Chapter 24, Section 24-43 – Household Trash &
Recycling Containers blocking public way
$50 $50
Chapter 24, Section 47 – Visual obstructions at
intersections
$100 $100
Chapter 24, Section 50 – Public Property: Defacing
or injuring
$150 $150
Chapter 24, Section 51 – Sweeping/blowing
leaves/grass clippings or pushing snow into/across
any street or alley is prohibited
$100 $100
Chapter 24, Section 274 – Work done without a
permit
$130 $130
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 7
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
Chapter 24, Section 24-342 - Snow, ice and rubbish a
public nuisance on sidewalks; removal by owner.
$25 first time.
Fee shall double for
each subsequent
violation, with a
maximum fee of $200
for SFR and $400 for all
others.
Does not reset
annually.
Does reset for new
owners.
$25 first time.
Fee shall double for
each subsequent
violation, with a
maximum fee of $200
for SFR and $400 for all
others.
Does not reset annually.
Does reset for new
owners.
Chapter 26 – Subdivision
Violation of a condition associated with a
Subdivision approval.
$750 $1,000
Chapter 32 – Utilities $50 $50
Violation of sprinkling restrictions $50 first time.
Fee shall double for
each subsequent
violation, with a
maximum fee of $200
for SFR and $400 for all
others.
Doesn't reset annually.
Does reset for new
owners.
$55 first time.
Fee shall double for
each subsequent
violation, with a
maximum fee of $250
for SFR and $450 for all
others.
Doesn't reset annually.
Does reset for new
owners.
Chapter 32, Section 37 Access to buildings. $100.00 per month $100.00 per month
Chapter 36 – Zoning
Any violation to Chapter 36 is a $50 fine $50
Chapter 36, Section 37 – Conducting a Land Use not
permitted in the zoning district
$100 $200
Violation of a condition associated with a
Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit Development,
or Special Permit approval
$750 $1,000
Public tree removal per diameter inch $235 $250
Repeat Violations within 24 Months Previous fine doubled
up to a maximum of
$2,000
Previous fine doubled
up to a maximum of
$2,000
Fines imposed are double the amount from the previous fine assessed, up to a maximum of $2,000. The
escalated fine amount is based on the number of identical violations within the previous 24 months from
the date of the current violation. For example, if there were four occurrences of an identical violation
within the previous 24 months of the current violation date that carried a $50 fine, the fine for the fourth
violation would be $400. (First violation: $50; second; $100; third:$200; fourth: $400). Fines reset to the
minimum amount if there are no identical violations within the previous 24 months of the current
violation.
*Fines in addition to abatement and licensing inspections
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 8
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
Fines listed above may be in addition to fees associated with abatement and licensing inspections.
BUILDING AND ENERGY
Building Demolition Deposit
1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $2,500 $2,575
All Other Buildings $5,000 $5,150
Building Demolition Permit
1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $205 $210
All Other Buildings $350 $360
Building Moving Permit $500 $515
Business Licenses
Billboards $200.00 per billboard $205.00 per billboard
Commercial Entertainment $325 $335
Courtesy Bench $85.00 per bench $90.00 per bench
Designated Outdoor Dog Area $75 $80
Dog Kennel $200 $205
Environmental Emissions $375 $385
Fats, Oils & Grease Producer License $400 $415
Fats, Oils & Grease Producer Provisional License $1,100 $1,135
Massage Therapy
Massage Therapy Establishment $450 $465
Massage Therapy License $145 $150
Therapists holding a Massage Therapy
Establishment License
$55 $60
Pawnbroker
License Fee $2,100 $2,150
Per Transaction Fee $3 $5
Investigation Fee $1,050 $1,080
Penalty $50.00 per day $50.00 per day
Sexually Oriented Business
Investigation Fee (High Impact) $525 $540
High Impact $4,700 $4,840
Limited Impact $135 $140
Tobacco Products & Related Device Sales $750 $775
Vehicle Parking Facilities
Enclosed Parking $400 $410
Parking Ramp $315 $325
Tanning Bed Facility $325 $335
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 9
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
Certificate of Occupancy
For each condominium unit completed after
building occupancy
$100 $105
Change of Use (does not apply to 1 & 2 family
dwellings)
Up to 5,000 sq ft $600 $615
5,001 to 25,000 sq ft $950 $980
25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $1,450 $1,495
75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $1,900 $1,955
100,000 to 200,000 sq ft $2,350 $2,420
above 200,000 sq ft $2,950 $3,035
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy - Single Family $250 $255
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy - All other
occupancies
$475 $490
Certificate of Property Maintenance
Change in Ownership
Condominium Unit $245 $250
Duplex (2 Family dwellings) $450 $460
Multi-Family (apartment) Buildings $400 per building + $30
per unit
$410 per building +
$35/unit
Single Family Dwellings $350 $360
All Other Buildings:
Up to 5,000 sq ft $575 $590
5,001 – 25,000 sq ft $910 $935
25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $1,375 $1,415
75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $1,825 $1,880
100,000 to 200,000 sq. ft $2,275 $2,345
above 200,000 sq. ft $2,850 $2,935
Temporary Certificate of Property Maintenance - SF
Residential
$150 $155
Temporary Certificate of Property Maintenance - All
others
$340 $350
Certificate of Property Maintenance Extension $100 $105
Construction Permits (building, electrical, fire
protection, mechanical, plumbing, pools, utilities)
Building and Fire Protection Permits Valuation
Up to $500 Base Fee $75 plus $2
for each additional (or
fraction thereof) $100
over $500.01
Base Fee $80 plus $2 for
each additional (or
fraction thereof) $100
over $500.01
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 10
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
$500.01 to $2,000.00 Base Fee $75 plus $100
for each additional (or
fraction thereof) $100
over $500.01
Base Fee $80 plus $100
for each additional (or
fraction thereof) $100
over $500.01
$2,000.01 to $25,000.00 $105 base fee plus $15
for each additional
$1,000 or fraction
thereof above $2,000
$110 base fee plus $15
for each additional
$1,000 or fraction
thereof above $2,000
$25,000.01 to $50,000.00 $450 base fee plus $10
for each additional
$1,000 or fraction
thereof above $25,000
$455 base fee plus $10
for each additional
$1,000 or fraction
thereof above $25,000
$50,000.01 to $100,000.00 $700 base fee plus $7
for each additional
$1,000 or fraction
thereof above $50,000
$705 base fee plus $7
for each additional
$1,000 or fraction
thereof above $50,000
$100,000.01 to $500,000.00 $1,050 base fee plus
$6.00 for each
additional $1,000 or
fraction thereof above
$100,000
$1,055 base fee plus
$6.00 for each
additional $1,000 or
fraction thereof above
$100,000
$500,000.01 to $1,000,000.00 $3,450 base fee plus
$5.50 for each
additional $1,000 or
fraction thereof above
$500,000
$3,455 base fee plus
$5.50 for each
additional $1,000 or
fraction thereof above
$500,000
$1,000,000.01 and up $6,200 base fee plus
$5.00 for each
additional $1,000 or
fraction thereof above
$1,000,000
$6,205 base fee plus
$5.00 for each
additional $1,000 or
fraction thereof above
$1,000,000
Single Family Building Permit Exceptions:
Reroofing – asphalt shingled, sloped roofs only
House or House and Garage $165 $170
Garage Only $90 $95
Residing
House or House and Garage $165 $170
Garage Only $90 $95
Solar
Building Mounted Photovoltaic Panels $200 $205
Commercial Building Permit Exceptions:
Solar
Building Mounted Photovoltaic Panels $400 $415
Electrical Permit
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 11
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
Installation, Replacement, Repair $80 $85
Installation of traffic signals per location $165 $170
Installation, Single Family Photovoltaic Panels $160 $165
Single family, one appliance $80 + 1.75% of
valuation
$85 + 1.75% of
valuation
ISTS Permit
Sewage treatment system install or repair $135 $140
Mechanical Permit
Installation, Replacement, Repair $80 + 1.75% of job
valuation
$85 + 1.75% of
valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Replace furnace, boiler or furnace/AC $90 $100
Install single fuel burning appliance with piping $90 $100
Install, replace or repair single mechanical appliance $90 $100
Plumbing Permit
Backflow Prevention Assembly Registration $40 $45
Monthly non-compliance registration service fee $100 $100
Installation, Replacement, Repair $80 +1.75 of job
valuation
$85 + 1.75% of
valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Repair/replace single plumbing fixture $80 $85.00
Private Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees
apply
Building permit fees
apply
Public Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees
apply
Building permit fees
apply
Sewer and Water Permit (all underground private
utilities)
Installation, Replacement, Repair $80 +1.75% of
valuation
$85 + 1.75% of
valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Replace/repair sewer or water service $120 $125
Water Access Charge - per SAC unit charged on new
or enlarged water services.
$800 per SAC unit
charged on new or
enlarged water services
$800 per SAC unit
charged on new or
enlarged water services
SAC/WAC Assessment Fee one-half of one percent
(0.5%) of the petitioned
amount, with a
minimum fee of $150
and a maximum fee of
$750
one-half of one percent
(0.5%) of the petitioned
amount, with a
minimum fee of $150
and a maximum fee of
$750
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 12
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
Energy Improvement Assessment Fee one-half of one percent
(0.5%) of the petitioned
amount, with a
minimum fee of $150
and a maximum fee of
$750
one-half of one percent
(0.5%) of the petitioned
amount, with a
minimum fee of $150
and a maximum fee of
$750
Certificate of Competency
Mechanical /Gas Piping $35 $35
Annual Renewal $20 $20
Contractor Licenses
Mechanical $135 $140
Solid Waste $250 $255
Tree Maintenance $135 $140
Dog Licenses
1 year $25 $30
2 year $40 $45
3 year $50 $55
Potentially Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $100 $110
Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $250 $260
Interim License $15 $20
Off-Leash Dog Area Permit (non-resident) $55 $60
Penalty for no license $40 $50
Inspections
After Hours Inspections $250 plus $100 per
hour after the first hour
$260 plus $105 per
hour after the first hour
Installation of permanent sign w/footing inspection Based on valuation
using building permit
fee table
Based on valuation
using building permit
fee table
Re-Inspection Fee (after correction notice issued has
not been corrected within 2 subsequent inspections)
$130 $135
Insurance Requirements
Circus $1,000,000 General
Liability
$1,000,000 General
Liability
Commercial Entertainment $1,000,000 General
Liability
$1,000,000 General
Liability
Mechanical Contractors $1,000,000 General
Liability
$1,000,000 General
Liability
Solid Waste $1,000,000 General
Liability
$1,000,000 General
Liability
Tree Maintenance & Removal $1,000,000 General
Liability
$1,000,000 General
Liability
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 13
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
Vehicle Parking Facility $1,000,000 General
Liability
$1,000,000 General
Liability
License Fees - Other
Investigation Fee $330 $340
Late Fee 25% of license fee
(minimum $50)
25% of license fee
(minimum $50)
License Reinstatement Fee $260 $270
Transfer of License (new ownership) $90 $95
Plan Review - 50% of amount due at time of
application. Exception: Single Family Residential
additions, accessory structures and remodels.
Building Permits 65% of Permit Fee 65% of Permit Fee
Repetitive Building 25% of Permit Fee for
Duplicate Structure
25% of Permit Fee for
Duplicate Structure
Electrical Permits 35% of Permit Fee 35% of Permit Fee
Mechanical Permits 35% of Permit Fee 35% of Permit Fee
Plumbing Permits 35% of Permit Fee 35% of Permit Fee
Sewer & Water Permits 35% of Permit Fee 35% of Permit Fee
Single Family Interior Remodel Permits 35% of Permit Fee 35% of Permit Fee
Non-owner Occupied License (Rental)
Condominium/Townhouse/ Cooperative per unit $175 $175
Duplex both sides non-owner occupied $305 $305
Single Family Unit/Duplex one-side only $275 $275
Multiple Family
Per Building $400 $400
Per Unit $30 $30
Temporary Noise Permit $95 $100
Temporary Use Permits
Amusement Rides, Carnivals & Circuses $290 $300
Commercial Film Production Application $135 $140
Petting Zoos $75 $80
Temporary Outdoor Retail Sales $135 $140
Temporary Outdoor Seating $75
Vehicle Decals
Solid Waste $35 $35
Tree Maintenance & Removal $20 $20
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 14
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Copies No Charge 0-9 pages;
10 pages $2.50;
$0.25/page thereafter
up to 100 pages
No Charge 0-9 pages;
10 pages $2.50;
$0.25/page thereafter
up to 100 pages
Domestic Partnership
Registration Application Fee $50 $50
Amendment to Application Fee $25 $25
Termination of Registration Fee $25 $25
Liquor Licenses
Brewpub Off-sale Malt Liquor $200 $200
Brewer's Off-sale Malt Liquor $200 $200
Micro distillery Cocktail Room $600 $600
Micro distillery Off-Sale $200 $200
Brewer's On-sale Taproom $600 $600
Club (per # members)
1 - 200 $300 $300
201 - 500 $500 $500
501 - 1000 $650 $650
1001 - 2000 $800 $800
2001 - 4000 $1,000 $1,000
4001 - 6000 $2,000 $2,000
6000+ $3,000 $3,000
Off-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $200 $200
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor $380 $380
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor fee, per M.S. 340A.480-
3(c )
$280 $280
On-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $750 $750
On-sale Culinary Class Limited $100 $100
On-sale Intoxicating Liquor $8,750 $8,750
On-sale Sunday Liquor $200 $200
On-sale Wine $2,000 $2,000
License Background Investigation (non-refundable) $500 in-state applicant;
actual costs for out-of-
state applicant may be
billed up to a maximum
of $10,000
$500 in-state applicant;
actual costs for out-of-
state applicant may be
billed up to a maximum
of $10,000
Store Manager Background Investigation $500 $500
On-sale license renewal per 340A.412, Subd. 2 $500 $500
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 15
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
Temporary On-sale License Fee $100/day $100/day
Proclamations
Framed Proclamation $15 $15
COMMUNICATIONS & TECHNOLOGY
Cable TV
Duplicate DVD, 1 to 4 copies $20.00 each $20.50 each
Duplicate DVD, 5+ copies $15.00 each $15.38 each
Duplicate Video USB (16GB) $20.00 each $20.50 each
GIS Services
Custom Mapping Fee - per hour minimum $50.00 $51.25
Custom GIS Analysis Fee - per hour minimum $50.00 $51.25
Printing
8.5 x 11 (per copy) $0.25 black and white
$0.75 color
$0.25 black and white
$0.75 color
17 x 22 $5.00 $5.00
24 x 36 $10.00 $10.00
36 x 36 $15.00 $15.00
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Comprehensive Plan Amendments $2,300 $2,370
Conditional Use Permit $2,300 $2,370
Administrative $500 $515
Major Amendment $2,300 $2,370
Minor Amendment $1,200 $1,235
Fill or excavation only $1,200 $1,235
Fence Permit
Installation $50 $55
Grant Technical Assistance (DEED, Met Council,
Hennepin County, etc.)
$3,000.00 ($2,000 non-
refundable)
$3,100
Numbering of Buildings (New Addresses) $50 $55
Official Map Amendment $2,250 $2,320
Parking Lot Permit
Installation/Reconstruction $200 $210
Driveway Permit $30 $35
Planned Unit Development
Preliminary PUD $4,000 $4,120
Final PUD $2,500 $2,575
Prelim/Final PUD Combined $6,000 $6,280
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 16
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
PUD - Administrative amendment $500 $515
PUD - Major Amendment $3,000 $3,100
PUD - Minor Amendment $1,200 $1,235
Recording Filing Fee
Single Family $75 $75
Other Uses $150 $150
Registration of Land Use $100 $105
Sign Permit
Erection of Temporary Sign $40 $50
Erection of Real Estate, Construction Sign 40+ ft $100 $105
Installation of Permanent Sign without footings $110 $115
Installation of Permanent Sign with footings $165 $170
Super graphic (mural) $40 $50
Special Permits
Administrative amendment $500 $515
Major Amendment $3,000 $3,090
Minor Amendment $1,200 $1,235
Street, Alley, Utility Vacations $1,000 $1,030
Subdivision Dedication Fee
Commercial/Industrial Properties 5% of current market
value of unimproved
land as determined by
City Assessor
5% of current market
value of unimproved
land as determined by
City Assessor
Multi-family Dwelling Units (per dwelling unit) $1,500 $1,500
Single-family Dwelling Units (per dwelling unit) $1,500 $1,500
Trails (per dwelling unit) $225 $225
Subdivisions/Replats
Preliminary Plat $2,000 plus $150 per
lot
$2,060 plus $150 per lot
Final Plat $750 $750
Combined Process and Replats $2,500 plus $150 per
lot
$2,575 plus $150 per lot
Exempt & Administrative Subdivisions $500 $515
Registered Land Survey $2,500 plus $150 per
parcel
$2,575 plus $155 per
parcel
Subdivision sidewalk cash-in-lieu fee (per square
foot)
$13 $21.90
Tax Increment Financing Application Fee $5,000 $5,150
Temporary Use
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 17
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
Carnival & Festival over 14 days $2,300 $2,370
Mobile Use Vehicle Zoning Permit (Food or Medical) $50 $55
Time Extension $250 $260
Traffic Management Plan
Administrative Fee (per square foot gross floor area
excluding parking garages)
0.10 0.10
Tree Protection Permit
Application fee $105.00
Tree Replacement
Cash in lieu of replacement trees (per inch at
diameter standard height)
$235 $250
Variances
Commercial $1,000 $1,030
Residential $1,000 $1,030
Zoning Appeal $325 $335
Zoning Letter (standard) $100 $105
Zoning Letter (non-standard) $105 plus hourly rate
for staff time
Zoning Map Amendments (except PUDs) $2,250 $2,320
Zoning Permit
Accessory Structures, 200 square feet or less $30 $55
Zoning Text Amendments $3,200 $3,300
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Permit Parking- High School & Medical need No Charge No Charge
Mobility Sharing
Device Impoundment
Impoundment fee $60 per mobility
sharing device
$60 per mobility sharing
device
Storage fee $20 per day if not
retrieved on the same
day of impoundment.
$20 per day if not
retrieved on the same
day of impoundment.
License fee $100 per mobility
sharing device
$100 per mobility
sharing device
Right-of-Way Permits
Base Fee $75 $75
Installation/repair of Sidewalk, Curb Cut or Curb and
Gutter Permit
$135 $135
Excavation
Hole in Boulevard (larger than 10" diameter) $75 $75
Hole in Road (larger than 10" diameter) $135 $135
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 18
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
Trenching in Boulevard 0-100 ft = $200
Over 100 ft = $200 + $1
per ft over 100 ft
0-100 ft = $200
Over 100 ft = $200 + $1
per ft over 100 ft
Trenching in Roadway 0-100 ft = $400
Over 100 ft = $400 + $1
per ft over 100 ft
0-100 ft = $400
Over 100 ft = $400 + $1
per ft over 100 ft
Delay penalty 3 times total permit fee 3 times total permit fee
Trenchless installation
Underground placement (boring) (0-100 ft) $1.50/ LF $1.50/ LF
Underground placement (boring) (over 100 ft) $1.00/ LF $1.00/ LF
Obstruction (road, lane, sidewalk, or bikeway
closure)
$100 per week $100 per week, per
lane, sidewalk, or
bikeway
Small Cell Wireless Facility Permit
Permit fee $1,500 per antenna $1,500 per antenna
Rent to occupy space on a city-owned wireless
support structure
$150 per year per
antenna
$150 per year per
antenna
Maintenance associated with space on a city-owned
wireless support structure
$25 per year per
antenna
$25 per year per
antenna
Electricity to operate small wireless facility, if not
purchased directly from utility
(i) $73 per radio node
less than or equal to
100 max watts; (ii)
$182 per radio node
over 100 max watts;
actual costs of
electricity, if the actual
costs exceed the
amount in item (i) or
(ii).
(i) $73 per radio node
less than or equal to
100 max watts; (ii) $182
per radio node over 100
max watts; actual costs
of electricity, if the
actual costs exceed the
amount in item (i) or
(ii).
Delay penalty 3 times total permit fee 3 times total permit fee
Temporary No Parking signs (for right-of-way permit
work)
Deposit of $25/sign
($100 minimum per
permit)
Deposit of $25/sign
($100 minimum per
permit)
Temporary Private Use of Public Property $800 $800
Dewatering Permit
Administrative Fee (all permits) $375 $400
Discharge to Sanitary Sewer Charge based on
duration/volume of
discharge
Charge based on
duration/volume of
discharge
Erosion Control Permit
Application and Review - single family $375 $400
Application and Review - other applicants $800 $850
Deposit - single family $1,500 $1,500
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 19
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
Deposit - other applicants $3,000 per acre (min.
$1,500)
$3,000 per acre (min.
$1,500)
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Knox Box Key Vault Installation Fee (one-time) $50 $50
Fire Alarms (False) $325.00 is the current
standby rate for a
staffed engine
$500
1st offense w/in year $0 $0
2nd offense w/in year $325 $500
3rd offense w/in year $325 $500
4th offense w/in year $325 $500
5th offense w/in year $325 $500
Each subsequent in same year $325 $500
Operational permits - including commercial kitchen
hoods
$75.00 per hour
(minimum 1 hour)
$75.00 per hour
(minimum 1 hour)
Fireworks Display Permit $75 - display set up
only
$75 - display set up only
Fireworks standby See service fees-fully
equipped/staffed
vehicle
See service fees-fully
equipped/staffed
vehicle
Recreational Fire Lifetime Permit $25 $25
Fire apparatus – non-standard services Hourly rate with 2
hours minimum
Hourly rate with 2
hours minimum
Service Fee for fully-equipped and staffed vehicles Hourly rate with 2
hours minimum
$500
Service Fee of a Chief Officer Hourly rate with 2
hours minimum
Staff's hourly rate
Inspections After Hours $90 per hour (2 hour
minimum)
Staff's hourly rate
Tents and Membrane Permit
Tents/Membrane Structures over 400 sq. ft. $100 $100
Fire Sprinkler System Assessment Application fee one-half of one percent
(0.5%) of the petitioned
amount, with a
minimum fee of $150
and a maximum fee of
$751
One-half of one percent
(0.5%) of the petitioned
amount, with a
minimum fee of $150
and a maximum fee of
$750
Gas Line Encroachment See service fees-fully
equipped/staffed
vehicle
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
RECREATION
Amphitheater, Wolfe Park Rental (per hour, 2 hour
minimum)
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 20
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
Resident $80 per hour $80 per hour
Non-Resident $90 per hour $90 per hour
Amphitheater & Park Building, Wolfe Park Rental
(per hour, 2 hour minimum)
Resident $110 per hour $110 per hour
Non-Resident $130 per hour $130 per hour
Court Rental (Tennis, Basketball, Sand Volleyball &
Pickle Ball)
Resident $30 per hour $30 per hour
Non-resident $35 per hour $35 per hour
Field Maintenance (OT rate)
Resident $100/hr., two PSW
workers
$125 per hour
Non-resident $120/hr., two PSW
workers
$145 per hour
Field Rental (Baseball & Softball)
Resident $90 per hour $90 per hour
Non-resident $100 per hour $100 per hour
Field Rental (Soccer)
Resident $90 per hour $90 per hour
Non-resident $100 per hour $100 per hour
Oak Hill Park Splash Pad Entrance Fee, 3201 Rhode
Island Ave
Resident Free Free
Non-Resident $1.00 per person $1.00 per person
Groups of 10-30 must pre-register $2.00 per person $2.00 per person
Park Building Rental (per hour, 2 hour minimum)
Damage Deposit $100 $100
Birchwood
Resident $70 per hour $70 per hour
Non-Resident $80 per hour $80 per hour
Browndale
Resident $70 per hour $70 per hour
Non-Resident $80 per hour $80 per hour
Louisiana Oaks
Resident $70 per hour $70 per hour
Non-Resident $80 per hour $80 per hour
Nelson Park
Resident $70 per hour $70 per hour
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 21
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
Non-Resident $80 per hour $80 per hour
Oak Hill Park
Resident $70 per hour $70 per hour
Non-Resident $80 per hour $80 per hour
Wolfe Park
Resident $70 per hour $70 per hour
Non-Resident $80 per hour $80 per hour
Park Rental - Large Event
Half Day fee $950 $950
Full Day fee $1,800 $1,800
Picnic Shelter Rental (per time block: 10 a.m. - 2
p.m. or 4 - 8 p.m.)
Damage Deposit $100 $100
Additional Hours (before 11 a.m.)
Resident $20 per hour $20 per hour
Non-resident $25 per hour $25 per hour
Fern Hill Park
Resident $90 per timeblock $90 per timeblock
Non-resident $110 per timeblock $110 per timeblock
Oak Hill Park
Central (resident) $95 per timeblock $95 per timeblock
Central (non-resident) $115 per timeblock $115 per timeblock
Main (resident) $120 per timeblock $120 per timeblock
Main (non-resident) $150 per timeblock $150 per timeblock
Wolfe Park
East (resident) $95 per timeblock $95 per timeblock
East (non-resident) $115 per timeblock $115 per timeblock
West (resident) $95 per timeblock $95 per timeblock
West (non-resident) $115 per timeblock $115 per timeblock
Rec Center
Banquet Room Rental (per hour; 2 hour minimum)
Damage Deposit $700 $700
Maintenance Fee $75/time $75/time
Resident Sunday - Friday $75 per hour $90 per hour
Resident Saturday (8 a.m. to midnight) $750/Saturday $900/Saturday
Non-resident Sunday - Friday $85 per hour $100 per hour
Non-resident Saturday (8 a.m. to midnight) $850/Saturday $1000/Saturday
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 22
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
Police Officer (after 9 p.m. events where alcohol is
served)
$310/event $457/event
Gallery Room Rental (per hour; 2 hour minimum)
Damage Deposit $100 $100
Maintenance Fee $30/time $30/time
Resident $55 per hour $55 per hour
Non-resident $65 per hour $65 per hour
Ice Rink Rental $240 per hour, plus tax $245 per hour, plus tax
Ice Skating Party (2 hr. use of Gallery, 15 pp adm
open skate)
Resident $115 $120
Non-resident $140 $145
Ice Skating Party (2 hr. use of Banquet Room, 15 pp
adm open skate)
Resident $130 $135
Non-resident $165 $170
Skate rental $3 $3
Skate sharpening $5 $5
Skating Admission - adult $5 $5
Skating Admission - youth & senior $4 $4
Ten Punch Pass - adult $40 $40
Ten Punch Pass - youth & senior $35 $35
Open Hockey Admission $5 $5
Open Hockey Ten Punch Pass $45 $45
Aquatic Park
Daily Entrance Rates (resident):
Under 1 year old Free Free
1 to 54 years old $10 $10
55+ years old $6 $6
Twilight (after 4:30 p.m.) $6 $6
Daily Entrance Rates (non-resident):
Under 1 year old Free Free
1 to 54 years old $15 $15
55+ years old $9 $9
Twilight (after 4:30 p.m.) $9 $9
Season Pass (Resident* & purchased on or before
May 31)
Under 1 year old Free Free
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 23
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
1 to 54 years old $60 $60
Caretaker/Nanny $65 $65
55+ years old $50 $50
Twilight (after 4:30 p.m.) $45 $45
Season Pass (Resident* & purchased on or after
June 1)
Under 1 year old Free Free
1 to 54 years old $70 $70
Caretaker/Nanny $75 $75
55+ years old $60 $60
Twilight (after 4:30 p.m.) $55 $55
Season Pass (Non-Resident & purchased on or
before first day of Aquatic Park)
Under 1 year old Free Free
1 to 54 years old $70 $70
Caretaker/Nanny $75 $75
55+ years old $60 $60
Twilight (after 4:30 p.m.) $55 $55
Season Pass (Non-Resident & purchased after first
day of Aquatic Park)
Under 1 year old Free Free
1 to 54 years old $80 $80
Caretaker/Nanny $85 $85
55+ years old $70 $70
Twilight (after 4:30 p.m.) $65 $65
Gazebo Rental (Daily admission/season pass
required)
Resident $55 per use $60 per use
Non-resident $65 per use $70 per use
Private Aquatic Park Rental $500 per hour $500 per hour
Lap Lane Rental $75 per hour $75 per hour
August Season Pass $30 $30
Recreation Outdoor Center (ROC)
Dry Floor Rental
Damage Deposit $300 $300
Food and Beverage Fee $75 $75
Resident, space only $55 per hour $60 per hour
Resident, space plus services $100 per hour $105 per hour
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 24
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
Non-resident, space only $70 per hour $75 per hour
Non-resident, space plus services $115 per hour $120 per hour
Ice Rink Rental * (residents) $175 per hour, plus tax $180 per hour, plus tax
Ice Rink Rental * (non-residents) $180 per hour, plus tax $185 per hour, plus tax
Skate Rental $3 $3
Skate Sharpening $5 $5
Skating Admission - adult $5 $5
Skating Admission - youth & senior $4 $4
Ten Punch Pass - adult $40 $40
Ten Punch Pass - youth & senior $35 $35
Open Hockey Admission $5 $5
Open Hockey Ten Punch Pass $45 $45
Turf Field Rental (full field - 200' x 85')
Resident $60 per hour $65 per hour
Non-resident $75 per hour $80 per hour
Skate Park Rental (outdoor) Free admission Free admission
Resident (private rental) $200 per hour $200 per hour
Non-Resident (private rental) $400 per hour $400 per hour
Westwood Hills Nature Center (indoor)
Conference Room
Damage Deposit $100 $100
Resident per hour (2 hr. min.) $55 per hour $60 per hour
Non-Resident per hour (2 hr. min.) $65 per hour $70 per hour
Multi-Purpose Rooms (A, B or C)
Damage Deposit $100 $100
Resident per hour (2 hr. min.) $60 per hour $65 per hour
Non-Resident per hour (2 hr. min.) $70 per hour $75 per hour
Entire Facility Rental
Damage Deposit $800 $800
Resident (12 hour rental) $1,600 $1,800
Non-Resident (12 hour rental) $1,900 $2,100
Westwood Hills Nature Center (outdoor)
Park Building Rental
Damage Deposit $300 $300
Resident - per hour (2 hr. min.) $75 per hour $75 per hour
Non-Resident - per hour (2 hr. min.) $85 per hour $85 per hour
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 25
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
Picnic Shelter Rental
Damage Deposit $100 $100
Resident - per hour (2 hr. min.) $135 per timeblock $135 per timeblock
Non-Resident - per hour (2 hr. min.) $165 per timeblock $165 per timeblock
Oak Patio Rental
Resident per hour (2 hr. min.) $37 per hour $40 per hour
Non-Resident per hour (2 hr. min.) $47 per hour $50 per hour
Oak Patio Rental, 12 hour rental - Resident $400.00
Oak Patio Rental, 12 hour rental - Non-resident $450.00
Observation Deck Rental
Damage Deposit $100 $100
Resident per hour (2 hr. min.) $40 per hour $40 per hour
Non-Resident per hour (2 hr. min.) $50 per hour $50 per hour
Winter Outdoor Hockey Rink Rental
Resident (during warming house hours) $30 per hour $30 per hour
Non-Resident (during warming house hours) $40 per hour $40 per hour
Warming House Rental
Resident (after hours) $50 per hour $50 per hour
Non-resident (after hours) $60 per hour $60 per hour
Non-resident & Resident (during hours) $20 per hour $20 per hour
Mobile Food Truck Vendor Permit $50 per day, per truck $50 per day, per truck
Professional Photo & Park Video Shoot (does not
include facility rental)
Individual $25 per hour $25 per hour
Commercial $125 per hour $125 per hour
Natural Resources & Park Maintenance
Community Garden Plot $45 per year $50 per year
Trees - nuisance abatement Fees
Private 10% with maximum of
$500
10% with maximum of
$500
Weed Elimination
Non-compliance of Weed Nuisance Notice $200 $200
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Animals
Animal Impound
Initial impoundment $40 $40
2nd offense w/in year $60 $60
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 26
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
3rd offense w/in year $85 $85
4th offense w/in year $110 $110
Boarding Per Day $30 $30
Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $250 $250
Potentially Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $250 $250
Copies & Reports
Clearance Letters $5 $5
Accident Photo $10 per disk $10 per disk
Audio Recording $10 $10
Police Report Certification $1 $1
Body Camera Video Requests $30 $30
Defense Attorney Case Requests $20 $40
Case file request for matters transferred to outside
agencies
$50 $50
911 Audio Transcription $10 $10
Obtaining audio (if not part of case file) and
transcribing
$20 $20
Criminal Background Investigation
Volunteers & Employees $5 $5
False Alarm (Police) Residential/Commercial Residential/Commercial
1st offense w/in year $0/$0 $0/$0
2nd offense w/in year $100/$100 $100/$100
3rd offense w/in year $100/$125 $100/$125
4th offense w/in year $100/$150 $100/$150
5th offense w/in year $100/$175 $100/$175
Each subsequent in same year $100/$25 increase $100/$25 increase
Late Payment Fee 10% 10%
Fingerprinting
St. Louis Park residents & business needs $25 per card $25 per card
Solicitor/Peddler Registration $150 Peddlers only $150 Peddlers only
PUBLIC WORKS
Block Party Application (MSC at 7305 Oxford St) No Charge No Charge
Cone Deposit $10/cone $10/cone
Event Recycling Bin Deposit $100/bin $100/bin
Bulk Water Filling Station ( Pre-purchase at MSC) $7/1,000 gallons $7/1,000 gallons
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 27
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
Fire Hydrant Use Permit (MSC - approval only by
PW/Utilities)
$200 connection fee
per hydrant
$1,500 deposit
$7/1,000 gallons
$200 connection fee
per hydrant
$1,500 deposit
$7/1,000 gallons
Permit to Exceed Vehicle Weight Limitations (MSC) $50 each $50 each
Service Fees (Stop Box Repairs) - MSC Shop
Public Service Worker
Regular Business Hours $60 $65
After Hours $180 $195
Non-Accessible Meter Charge $100 per month $100 per month
Winter Parking Permit
Caregiver parking $25 $25
No off-street parking available No Charge No Charge
Off-street parking available $125 $125
Bassett Creek Watershed Management District
(property pass-through charge)
Residential monthly $0.82 per residential
equivalent unit
$0.82 per residential
equivalent unit
Residential quarterly $2.46 per residential
equivalent unit
$2.46 per residential
equivalent unit
Land uses other than residential (Acreage * REF * 2.46 *
5) = quarterly rate
(Acreage * REF * 2.46 *
5) = quarterly rate
MN Dept of Health state testing fee
Quarterly (Residential and multi-family) $2.43 per quarter $3.81 per quarter
Monthly (Commercial) $0.81 per month $1.27 per month
Returned Check Fee $31 $30
Sanitary Sewer Base Charge
Quarterly Rate (Residential and multi-family) $24.19 $25.28
Monthly Rate (Commercial) $8.07 $8.43
Sewer and Service Charges
Sanitary Sewer Usage Rate - per unit $4.72 $4.93
Solid Waste Service - Collection Cost per Quarter
30 gallon EOW service (Every Other Week) $71.85 $75.99
30 gallon service $102.52 $108.42
60 gallon service $145.95 $154.34
90 gallon service $223.69 $236.55
120 gallon service $355.36 $375.79
150 gallon service $444.17 $469.71
180 gallon service $533.00 $563.65
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 28
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
270 gallon service $799.50 $845.47
360 gallon service $1,066.05 $1,127.35
Solid Waste Service (Residential)
Additional 30 gallon cart $70 $70
Additional 60 gallon cart $70 $70
Additional 90 gallon cart $70 $70
Cart Changes - over 1 per cart type per 12 month
period
$30 $30
Solid Waste Service (Commercial) - Collection Cost
30 gallon service
Garbage (monthly) $26.76 $28.30
Garbage (quarterly) $80.26 $84.87
60 gallon service
Garbage (monthly) $46.05 $48.69
Garbage (quarterly) $138.14 $146.08
Organics (monthly) $20.72 $21.91
Organics (quarterly)
90 gallon service
Garbage (monthly) $69.08 $73.05
Garbage (quarterly) $207.24 $219.15
Recycling (monthly) $24.12 $25.51
Recycling (quarterly) $72.36 $76.52
120 gallon service
Organics (monthly) $39.78 $42.06
Organics (quarterly) $119.34 $126.20
180 gallon service
Garbage (monthly) $142.62 $150.82
Garbage (quarterly) $427.84 $452.44
Recycling (monthly) $43.21 $45.70
Recycling (quarterly) $129.63 $137.09
Organics (monthly) $59.68 $63.11
Organics (quarterly) $179.02 $189.32
270 gallon service
Recycling (monthly) $59.68 $63.11
Recycling (quarterly) $179.02 $189.32
Storm Water Rate
Single family quarterly $31.93 $33.37
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 29
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
Basic system rate monthly $53.24 $55.64
Basic system rate quarterly $159.66 $166.84
Land uses other than residential (Acreage * REF * 30.56
* 5) = quarterly rate
(Acreage * REF * 30.56
* 5) = quarterly rate
Water Meter Charges
Commercial Monthly Fee
5/8" meter $14.92 $15.59
3/4" $14.92 $15.59
1" $20.87 $21.81
1.5" $26.82 $28.03
2" $43.21 $45.16
3" $163.93 $171.31
4" $208.64 $218.03
6" $312.95 $327.04
Residential/Multi-family Quarterly Fee
5/8" meter $44.75 $46.76
3/4" $44.75 $46.76
1" $62.61 $65.42
1.5" $80.46 $84.08
2" $129.63 $135.47
3" $491.80 $513.94
4" $625.93 $654.09
6" $938.86 $981.11
2" compound $129.61 $135.45
3" compound $491.82 $513.95
Water Rates per unit
(1 unit = 100 cu ft or 750 gallons)
Residential
Tier 1 0 - 13.333 units (0 - 10,000 gallons) $2.44 $2.54
Tier 2 13.333 - 20 units (10,000 - 15,000 gallons) $2.95 $3.08
Tier 3 > 20 units (>15,000 gallons) $3.54 $3.70
Multi Family All units $2.95 $3.08
Commercial
Tier 1 0 - 100 units (0 - 75,000 gallons) $2.69 $2.81
Tier 2 100 - 300 units (75,000 - 225,000 gallons) $2.96 $3.09
Tier 3 > 300 units (>225,000 gallons) $3.28 $3.42
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5c) Page 30
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2026 fees
Industrial
Tier 1 0 - 1,000 units (0 - 750,000 gallons) $2.69 $2.81
Tier 2 1,000 - 3,000 units (750,000 - 2,225,000
gallons)
$2.96 $3.09
Tier 3 > 3,000 units (>2,225,000 gallons) $3.28 $3.42
Irrigation All units $4.83 $5.04
Water Shut Off/Turn On
Normal business hours (7:00 a.m. - 2:30 p.m.) $62.70 $60.00
After hours (After 3:00 p.m., Weekends) $188.10 $180.00
Broken Water Meter Fee $100 per month $100 per month
Certification Admin Fees
Accounts with minimum unpaid balance $15.00 $15.00
Accounts certified with Hennepin County $50.00 $50.00
Chapter 22, Section 21 - Extra Garbage Stickers $3/sticker $3/sticker
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: September 15, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5d
Executive summary
Title: Resolution authorizing grant application for Hennepin County Youth Play Area grant
Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the application for – and, upon
award, accepting a grant for the Hennepin County youth play area grant.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to authorize the application for – and, upon
award, acceptance of the award – to the parks and recreation department to support the
installation of an all-inclusive playground?
Summary: The Hennepin County play area grant supports opportunities for youth participation
in sports and play by creating, expanding, and improving youth athletic facilities, recreational
facilities, playgrounds and other play spaces. The city will apply for $300,000 to install an
all-inclusive playground.
Financial or budget considerations: None.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity
and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Clancy Ferris, legislative and grants analyst
Reviewed by: Stacy M. Voelker, administrative coordinator
Nikki Friederich, recreation superintendent
Larry Umphrey, parks superintendent
Jason T. West, director of parks and recreation
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5d) Page 2
Title: Resolution authorizing grant application for Hennepin County Youth Play Area grant
Discussion
Background: Through the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), the Parks and Recreation
Department maintains a playground replacement program to ensure safe and engaging play
spaces for the community. St. Louis Park has 42 playgrounds, each with a life expectancy of
15 to 18 years and replaced on a rotating schedule. On average, two to four playgrounds are
reconstructed each year. All city playgrounds are designed to comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and meet American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) certification
requirements.
While traditional playgrounds meet ADA standards, they primarily focus on accessibility to and
around the equipment. Inclusive playgrounds, on the other hand, go beyond compliance. They
are intentionally designed to welcome children of all abilities, providing safe and engaging
spaces where physical, cognitive and social barriers may be minimized. These spaces include
sensory-rich features and developmentally appropriate elements that encourage children with
and without disabilities to play, learn and grow together.
Because inclusive playgrounds require additional amenities and design considerations to
achieve this higher level of accessibility, the city is seeking grant funds to help support the
project. If awarded, staff will evaluate and select the park site for 2027 that offers the greatest
accessibility and impact for this initiative.
Present considerations: Grant applications for the Hennepin County youth play area grants are
due Sept. 30, 2025.
Next steps: None at this time.
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5d) Page 3
Title: Resolution authorizing grant application for Hennepin County Youth Play Area grant
Resolution No. 25 -__
Approving grant application for Hennepin County youth activities
play area grant program and accepting grant funds if awarded
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park, on behalf of its parks and recreation department,
desires to apply for, and upon grant application acceptance, enter into an agreement with
Hennepin County to support the installation of an inclusive play area.
Be it resolved by the city council (the “city council”) of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the “city”) as follows:
1. That the City of St. Louis Park, on behalf of its parks and recreation department, apply for a
grant and upon acceptance, enter into a grant agreement with Hennepin County for the
youth activities play area grant.
2. Mayor Nadia Mohamed and City Manager Kim Keller, or successors, are hereby authorized
to execute such agreements and amendments as are necessary to implement the project
on behalf of the City of St. Louis Park and to be the fiscal agent and administer the grant.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council September 15, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: September 15, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5e
Executive summary
Title: Resolution authorizing grant application for Department of Natural Resources
Conservation Partners Legacy grant - Ward 4
Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the application for – and, upon
award, accepting a grant for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Conservation Partners Legacy grant.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to authorize the application for – and, upon
award, acceptance of the award – to the parks and recreation department to support improving
the habitat at Westwood Hills Nature Center?
Summary: The Minnesota DNR Conservation Partners Legacy grants support work to restore,
protect or enhance prairies, wetlands, forests, or habitat for fish, game or wildlife in Minnesota.
The city will apply for $500,000 to improve the habitat at Westwood Hills Nature Center.
Financial or budget considerations: None.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Clancy Ferris, legislative and grants analyst
Reviewed by: Michael Bahe, natural resources manager
Stacy M. Voelker, administrative coordinator
Jason T. West, director of parks and recreation
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 2
Title: Resolution authorizing grant application for Department of Natural Resources Conservation Partners Legacy
grant - Ward 4
Discussion
Background: The Minnesota DNR Conservation Partners Legacy grant project will continue the
work of improving the habitat at Westwood Hills Nature Center by removing buckthorn and
other invasive species. It will also boost biodiversity by planting native trees, wildflowers and
grasses. Contractors to complete the field work would be hired while administrative work
would be completed by city staff. This grant project will speed up and enhance outcomes from
invasive species control through current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) funding.
Present considerations: Grant applications for the MN DNR Conservation Partners Legacy grant
are due Sept. 16, 2025.
Next steps: None at this time.
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5e) Page 3
Title: Resolution authorizing grant application for Department of Natural Resources Conservation Partners Legacy
grant - Ward 4
Resolution No. 25 -__
Approving grant application for Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Conservation Partners Legacy grant and accepting grant funds if awarded
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park on behalf of its parks and recreation department
desires to apply for, and upon grant application acceptance, enter into an agreement with the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to support improving the natural habitat at
Westwood Hills Nature Center.
Be it resolved by the city council (the “city council”) of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the “city”) as follows:
1.That the City of St. Louis Park on behalf of its parks and recreation department apply for
a grant and upon acceptance, enter into a grant agreement with the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources for the Conservation Partners Legacy grant.
2.Mayor Nadia Mohamed and City Manager Kim Keller, or successors, are hereby
authorized to execute such agreements and amendments as are necessary to
implement the project on behalf of the city of St. Louis Park and to be the fiscal agent
and administer the grant.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council September 15, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: September 15, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5f
Executive summary
Title: Approve temporary extension of licensed premises - Yard House #8354
Recommended action: Motion to approve temporary extension of the licensed premises for
one-day events at Yard House #8354 located at 1665 Park Place Boulevard.
Policy consideration: Does the applicant meet the requirements for temporary extension of
their licensed premises for three special one-day events?
Summary: Yard House #8354, located at 1665 Park Place Boulevard, has requested a temporary
extension of their licensed premises for an event series described as “West End Oktoberfest
Celebration”. These events are proposed between 11 a.m. and 8 p.m. on Sept. 27, Oct. 4 and
Oct. 11, 2025 – all dates are Saturdays. The applicant proposed the temporary expansion of
their licensed premises to an area contiguous to Yard House for the events. Neighboring
businesses adjacent to the space will be closed during the events. Yard House #8354 has also
obtained permission from management at the West End.
Approximately 300 guests are expected to attend each event, and any amplified music will
conclude by 11 p.m. Traffic safety barriers around the event space will control entry and exit
from the proposed area and Yard House staff will be responsible for enforcing rules related to
the sale and service of alcohol, including age verification of guests. Parking spaces will be
available throughout the West End parking structures.
Staff reviewed the request and found no concerns with the proposed plans, including the police
and fire departments, who will ensure safety precautions are followed on the day of the events.
The West End has successfully held events of this type in the past with no major issues
reported. Additionally, the Yard House has provided proof of liquor liability insurance that
covers the expanded premises for all three events.
St. Louis Park City Code Section 3-106 states that “proposed enlargement or substantial
alteration which changes the character of the licensed establishment or extension of a premise
previously licensed shall not be allowed unless the city council approves an amendment to the
liquor license”. If approved, the temporary extension of the licensed premises will be valid only
for the dates and times outlined in the request.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Event area map
Prepared by: Amanda Scott-Lerdal, deputy city clerk
Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Yard House Beverage/Food Tent
" " " !"
" " "" "
Event area
Barricades
Public restrooms
**Private street closure, no detours: All parking to remain open as normal **
Trash/Recycling
" "
"
Severe weather shelter locations (bathrooms and
underground ramps)
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5f) Page 2
Title: Approve temporary extension of licensed premises - Yard House #8354
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: September 15, 2025
Consent agenda item: 5g
Executive summary
Title: Resolution appointing election workers for the Nov. 4, 2025 general election
Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolution appointing election workers for the Nov. 4,
2025, municipal and school district general election.
Policy consideration: None – the city council is required to formally appoint election workers
under Minnesota election law and the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter.
Summary: MN Statute 204B.21, Subd. 2 and St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter section 4.03
provide that election workers shall be appointed by the governing body of the municipality at
least 25 days before the election at which the workers will serve. The resolution identifies
individuals assigned to work at a precinct on Election Day, as well as individuals who will
conduct healthcare facility outreach voting prior to Election Day and serve on the city’s
absentee ballot board. All workers are required to complete a minimum of two hours of
training under state law. In St. Louis Park, many election workers attend multiple training
sessions (a total of four to six hours of training) because they serve in a leadership or other
specialized role on Election Day, or they assist with other elections services such as absentee
voting and health care facility outreach voting.
We are fortunate to have a very dedicated group of people who are committed to providing
this essential service to St. Louis Park voters.
Financial or budget considerations: The 2025 budget includes the funds required to hire and
train election workers.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Exhibit A
Prepared by: Marcus Paul, elections specialist
Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5g) Page 2
Title: Resolution appointing election workers for the Nov. 4, 2025 general election
Resolution No. 25-___
Resolution appointing election workers for the 2025 municipal and school
district general election
Whereas the municipal and school district general election will be held on November 4,
2025, at the following precinct locations:
• Ward 1 Precinct 1 - Beth El Synagogue, 5225 Barry St. W.
• Ward 1 Precinct 2 - Wat Thai of Minnesota, 2544 Hwy. 100 S.
• Ward 1 Precinct 3 - St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
• Ward 2 Precinct 4 - St. Louis Park Recreation Center, 3700 Monterey Dr.
• Ward 2 Precinct 5 - Vista Lutheran Church, 4003 Wooddale Ave. S.
• Ward 2 Precinct 6 - St. Louis Park Municipal Service Center, 7305 Oxford St.
• Ward 3 Precinct 7 - St. Louis Park Senior High School, 6425 33rd St. W.
• Ward 3 Precinct 8 - Aquila Elementary School, 8500 31st St. W.
• Ward 3 Precinct 9 - Lenox Community Center, 6715 Minnetonka Blvd.
• Ward 4 Precinct 10 - St. Louis Park Middle School, 2025 Texas Ave. S.
• Ward 4 Precinct 11 - Park Harbor Church, 1615 Texas Ave. S.
• Ward 4 Precinct 12 - Westwood Lutheran Church, 9001 Cedar Lake Road
Whereas as authorized by Minnesota Statute 204B.21, Subd. 2 and St. Louis Park Home
Rule Charter section 4.03, election workers for precincts shall be appointed by the governing
body of the municipality no later than 25 days before each election; and
Now therefore be it resolved by the St. Louis Park City Council that the individuals named
in Exhibit A and on file in the office of the city clerk are hereby appointed to serve as election
workers, absentee ballot board members, or alternate workers for the 2025 municipal general
election; and
It is further resolved that as required by Minnesota Statute 203B.121, Sub. 1 and in
accordance with Minnesota Statute 204B.21, Subd. 2, the St. Louis Park City Council also
appoints all members of the Hennepin County absentee ballot board, under the direction of the
Hennepin County Elections Director, to serve as members of the St. Louis Park absentee ballot
board; and
Be it further resolved that the city clerk is authorized to make any substitutions or
additions as deemed necessary.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council September 15,
2025
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Last Name First Middle Precinct
Abramson Betsy St Louis Park W-1 P-03
Arnold Anthony St Louis Park W-3 P-07
Austin Rachel St Louis Park W-4 P-10
Bartels Kim St Louis Park W-3 P-08
Bartsch Nancy St Louis Park W-3 P-09
Belling Daniel St Louis Park W-3 P-07
Benson Janet St Louis Park W-3 P-09
Bergman Juli St Louis Park W-3 P-07
Bergman Juli AB Ballot Board
Bergquist Rogene St Louis Park W-2 P-06
Berkovitz Gary St Louis Park W-4 P-12
Berkovitz Gary AB Ballot Board
Botner Loren St Louis Park W-2 P-05
Braunstein Farrel AB Ballot Board
Brimeyer Jim St Louis Park W-4 P-11
Brokaw Mary Kay St Louis Park W-4 P-11
Burtch Lisa St Louis Park W-3 P-08
Carpenter Janet St Louis Park W-2 P-05
Church Wade St Louis Park W-4 P-10
Connell Thomas St Louis Park W-2 P-04
Conway Mary Kay St Louis Park W-4 P-11
Curran-Moore Kim St Louis Park W-3 P-09
Crouse Karyn AB Ballot Board
Dahlstrom McCashin Kelly St Louis Park W-2 P-05
Davis Nancy St Louis Park W-4 P-10
Davis Julia St Louis Park W-4 P-11
Dominguez Chelsa St Louis Park W-1 P-02
Drache Kay St Louis Park W-3 P-09
Dummer Bob St Louis Park W-3 P-07
Dworsky Richard Healthcare Facility Outreach
Ehresmann Erik St Louis Park W-2 P-05
Engelking Paula St Louis Park W-4 P-11
Ennenga Mark St Louis Park W-2 P-05
Ericksen Susan St Louis Park W-2 P-04
Erickson Richard St Louis Park W-1 P-03
Erickson Richard AB Ballot Board
Erlien Cathy St Louis Park W-4 P-11
Fischels Angela St Louis Park W-4 P-12
Fischels Angela AB Ballot Board
Fuller Sharon St Louis Park W-4 P-10
Geretz Alla St Louis Park W-2 P-05
Gipp Stephan St Louis Park W-3 P-09
Gremillion Kathy St Louis Park W-2 P-06
Grodnick Tamara St Louis Park W-4 P-11
Grodnick Tamara AB Ballot Board
Exhibit A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5g)
Title: Resolution appointing election workers for the Nov. 4, 2025 general election
Page 3
Grose Lawrence St Louis Park W-4 P-11
Grose Lawrence AB Ballot Board
Gunderson Gerald St Louis Park W-1 P-03
Hakala Kyle St Louis Park W-3 P-08
Hanson Ellen St Louis Park W-1 P-03
Hanson Wesley St Louis Park W-4 P-10
Hart Becky AB Ballot Board
Hartman Tamora St Louis Park W-4 P-12
Helseth Kati St Louis Park W-3 P-07
Hendrickson Stephanie St Louis Park W-1 P-02
Hendrix Mary AB Ballot Board
Henningson Karin St Louis Park W-3 P-09
Hines Linda AB Ballot Board
Hintz Alexander St Louis Park W-4 P-12
Hjelmeland Joan Healthcare Facility Outreach
Hogg Heidi St Louis Park W-1 P-02
Hogg Heidi Healthcare Facility Outreach
Hollensteiner Lisa St Louis Park W-4 P-12
Hollingsworth Leah St Louis Park W-1 P-02
Horwath Maya St Louis Park W-4 P-12
Howard Arzella St Louis Park W-4 P-10
Howard Gena St Louis Park W-1 P-02
Hu Michele St Louis Park W-3 P-07
Huebner Jeff St Louis Park W-1 P-03
Hultgren Kellie St Louis Park W-3 P-08
Hyde Jenna Healthcare Facility Outreach
Irving Christian St Louis Park W-1 P-01
Isenberg Chaiya St Louis Park W-1 P-01
Jaffee Jay St Louis Park W-1 P-03
Jensen Laura St Louis Park W-4 P-11
Jewell Jill St Louis Park W-4 P-12
Johnson Christine St Louis Park W-2 P-06
Jokinen Thomas St Louis Park W-2 P-04
Jokinen Thomas AB Ballot Board
Jones-Klausing Janice St Louis Park W-1 P-01
Kaczmarek Amy St Louis Park W-2 P-06
Kalk Todd St Louis Park W-1 P-03
Kalla Jodie St Louis Park W-1 P-01
Kertes Anne St Louis Park W-4 P-11
Knighton Jessica St Louis Park W-2 P-04
Kohli Ishpreet St Louis Park W-3 P-08
Koster Erin St Louis Park W-1 P-01
Kraft Lauri St Louis Park W-1 P-02
Krause Marguerite St Louis Park W-3 P-08
Krause Marguerite AB Ballot Board
Krinsky Polly St Louis Park W-1 P-03
LaFond Michael AB Ballot Board
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5g)
Title: Resolution appointing election workers for the Nov. 4, 2025 general election
Page 4
Larson David St Louis Park W-2 P-06
Laucher Linda St Louis Park W-3 P-09
Lee Martin St Louis Park W-3 P-07
Levin Trina St Louis Park W-1 P-01
Levin Trina Healthcare Facility Outreach
Levin Trina AB Ballot Board
Lewin Ellen St Louis Park W-2 P-04
Lewin Ellen Healthcare Facility Outreach
Lewin Ellen AB Ballot Board
Lieser Tim St Louis Park W-2 P-05
Lietzau Caitlin St Louis Park W-1 P-02
Luckow Anna St Louis Park W-4 P-10
Macewicz Walter David St Louis Park W-3 P-09
Madson Alison St Louis Park W-1 P-02
Manuel Julie St Louis Park W-3 P-08
Marek Margaret St Louis Park W-1 P-02
Margolis Joseph St Louis Park W-4 P-10
Martinez Rita St Louis Park W-1 P-01
Matko Ann R.St Louis Park W-4 P-12
Mattison Susanne St Louis Park W-3 P-08
Maynard Mary AB Ballot Board
Mcdonald Meredith St Louis Park W-2 P-06
McHugh Kelly St Louis Park W-1 P-01
Mclaughlin Ryan St Louis Park W-2 P-04
Merfeld Amelia St Louis Park W-2 P-05
Meyer Carrie St Louis Park W-2 P-06
Miatech Joseph St Louis Park W-1 P-03
Miklos Brian St Louis Park W-4 P-12
Miller Jean St Louis Park W-3 P-08
Mohr Marvin Healthcare Facility Outreach
Mohr Marvin St Louis Park W-1 P-01
Morris Mary St Louis Park W-3 P-09
Munoz Hernandez Kelly St Louis Park W-1 P-03
Murray Melissa St Louis Park W-3 P-09
Murray Melissa Healthcare Facility Outreach
Murray Melissa AB Ballot Board
Nelson-Zilka Karne Healthcare Facility Outreach
Nordstrom Amy St Louis Park W-3 P-08
Obert Mary St Louis Park W-4 P-12
Odishaw Jessolyn St Louis Park W-2 P-06
Oelschlaeger Karen St Louis Park W-2 P-06
Olson Karl Healthcare Facility Outreach
Orton Lynn St Louis Park W-4 P-12
Osfar Barb St Louis Park W-4 P-10
Osfar Barb AB Ballot Board
Oxley Claudia St Louis Park W-4 P-11
Pandit Varun A St Louis Park W-2 P-06
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5g)
Title: Resolution appointing election workers for the Nov. 4, 2025 general election
Page 5
Peltier Kay St Louis Park W-4 P-11
Penna Ross St Louis Park W-1 P-02
Penna Ross Healthcare Facility Outreach
Piper-Bichinho Jennie St Louis Park W-1 P-02
Post Carol St Louis Park W-1 P-03
Post Carol AB Ballot Board
Ranallo Lonni St Louis Park W-3 P-07
Richards David Healthcare Facility Outreach
Richards David AB Ballot Board
Rider Elaine Healthcare Facility Outreach
Ridgway JoAnn St Louis Park W-3 P-08
Rockler Naomi St Louis Park W-2 P-06
Rog Margaret Ann St Louis Park W-1 P-02
Rotert David St Louis Park W-3 P-09
Ruhl Barbara St Louis Park W-3 P-09
Ruhl Barbara AB Ballot Board
Ruth Roger St Louis Park W-2 P-04
Ruttger Theresa St Louis Park W-1 P-01
Santa Susan St Louis Park W-3 P-07
Sanville Marti AB Ballot Board
Savitt Debra St Louis Park W-1 P-02
Scheig William Healthcare Facility Outreach
Schingen Jesse St Louis Park W-2 P-04
Schlueter-Hynes Laurie St Louis Park W-3 P-09
Schreiner Irwin St Louis Park W-4 P-10
Schwartz Mark St Louis Park W-1 P-01
Schwieters Nicole St Louis Park W-3 P-09
Showalter Joy St Louis Park W-2 P-05
Sias Therese St Louis Park W-3 P-07
Skalman Ruth St Louis Park W-2 P-04
Smyth Jack St Louis Park W-4 P-10
Solmer Henry St Louis Park W-2 P-05
Soucheray Mary (Gina)St Louis Park W-4 P-11
Stevens Jeanne Healthcare Facility Outreach
Sweitzer Julie St Louis Park W-1 P-03
Sweitzer Julie AB Ballot Board
Sykes Pat St Louis Park W-3 P-09
Tepley Karen St Louis Park W-3 P-08
Thompson Linda St Louis Park W-4 P-10
Thompson Rolf St Louis Park W-2 P-06
Thorne Rich St Louis Park W-4 P-10
Tursich Ernest St Louis Park W-2 P-06
Twiford RJ St Louis Park W-4 P-12
Uhrig-Fox Dana St Louis Park W-1 P-01
Vos Rapoport Anne Monique St Louis Park W-4 P-11
Walker Alene St Louis Park W-4 P-10
Waterbury Julee St Louis Park W-3 P-08
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5g)
Title: Resolution appointing election workers for the Nov. 4, 2025 general election
Page 6
Way Autumn St Louis Park W-3 P-08
Weingartner Charles St Louis Park W-2 P-05
Wickersham Mary Healthcare Facility Outreach
Wickersham Mary AB Ballot Board
Wilensky Barbara St Louis Park W-1 P-01
Wilensky Barbara Healthcare Facility Outreach
Wilson Sylvia St Louis Park W-2 P-05
Winger Jody St Louis Park W-2 P-04
Witthuhn Jennifer St Louis Park W-3 P-07
Zessman Thomas St Louis Park W-1 P-02
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 5g)
Title: Resolution appointing election workers for the Nov. 4, 2025 general election
Page 7
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: September 15, 2025
Public hearing: 6a
Executive summary
Title: Resolution approving assessment of delinquent charges
Recommended action: Mayor to open the public hearing, solicit comments and close the public
hearing. Motion to adopt resolution to assess delinquent water, sewer, storm water, refuse,
abatement of tree removals, false alarms, mowing and citation charges against the benefiting
property.
Policy consideration: Does the city council desire to collect outstanding fees and charges
through the special assessment process?
Summary: The city certifies delinquent balances to Hennepin County as a means to collect on
these accounts. The certification is done via the special assessment process and becomes a lien
on the individual properties that is due over the next year or several years, depending on the
type of charge. Delinquent accounts relate to charges for wate r, sewer, storm water, refuse,
abatement of tree removals, tree pruning, false alarms, mowing and citations against the
benefiting property. To help mitigate the number of accounts that get certified, city staff work
with residents and businesses during the certification process and throughout the year to
resolve their outstanding balances by sending notices, answering questions on outstanding
account balances and providing information to residents on where they can find energy
assistance payment programs to help reduce the balance of their delinquent account.
Financial or budget considerations: Collection of these charges is vital to the financial stability
of the city’s utility systems and to reimburse the city for expenses incurred in providing
services. The certification process is also how the city is able to collect on delinquent account
receivable balances for services provided to specific properties, including mowing services, tree
removal services, false alarms, citations and other services.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Resolution
Prepared by: Kaitlyn Finkel, accountant
Reviewed by: Amelia Cruver, finance director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Title: Resolution approving assessment of delinquent charges
Discussion
Background: When a resident or customer receives a city service they are billed through one of
the city’s regular billing processes. The invoice(s) that are now past due are collected through
certification as a special assessment to the property receiving the service for the next year or
several years taxes, depending on the type of outstanding bill. In advance of the public hearing
date, individual letters were mailed to property owners advis ing them of the pending
assessment and their right to be heard before the city council. Per council pol icy, all delinquent
utility accounts have been assessed with a $15 administrative fee. This fee is not included in the
2025 amount below to provide consistent comparative data. The table below shows
comparison data from 2021 – 2025 in relation to the number of delinquent accounts or invoices
that received certification letter, and the total value of the delinquent amounts.
Year
Delinquent
Utility
Accounts
Other
Delinquent
Invoices
Beginning
Delinquent
Utility Balances
Other Beginning
Delinquent
Balances
Total Beginning
Delinquent
Balances
Total Final
Certification
Amount
2025 1343 203 $1,190,534 $84,349 $1,274,883 TBD
2024 1147 187 $887,651 $95,871 $983,522 $491,723
2023 1260 279 $957,779 $267,123 $1,224,902 $581,310
2022 1259 190 $887,254 $130,519 $1,017,774 $457,384
2021 1288 114 $816,840 $42,717 $850,517 $457,411
Each year a large portion of residents and businesses pay their delinquent amount(s) before the
certification deadline, thereby reducing the final amount certified and sent to Hennepin
County. From the time the letters are sent out until the balances are due, there are several
hundred property owners who contact the city with questions about their outstanding
balance(s) and the certification process. In an effort to improve collection rates, staff also
expanded their attempts to contact property owners about their delinquent accounts by cross
referencing the customer data in our billing system with the owner data held in the county’s
property information system and sending duplicate letters to any new address we did not
already have on file. More specific data about the collection trends for utility accounts is
represented in the table below.
Year
Starting Cert
Totals
Accts Balance
Mid-Process
Totals
Accts Balance
Mid-Process
Collection %
Accts Balance
Ending Cert
Totals
Accts Balance
Ending
Collection %
Accts Balance
2025 1343 $1,190,534 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
2024 1147 $887,651 660 $620,528 42% 30% 432 $444,284 62% 50%
2023 1260 $957,779 858 $758,393 32% 21% 498 $470,425 60% 51%
2022 1259 $887,254 740 $604,599 41% 32% 486 $406,451 61% 54%
2021 1288 $816,840 794 $570,512 38% 30% 533 $407,562 59% 50%
The amounts shown above do not include any added fees or interest. Customers have until Oct.
24, 2025, at 4:30 p.m. to pay their delinquent balances. A copy of the assessment roll is on file
with the City Clerk’s office for review.
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Title: Resolution approving assessment of delinquent charges
In an effort to help residents find assistance for paying their delinquent utility balances,
resources that provide utility payment assistance to low-income households is included directly
on the utility certification letters that each delinquent account receives.
Present considerations: Collection of these charges is necessary to reimburse the city for
expenses already incurred by providing services. Without collection of these charges, the cost
would be shifted to other rate-payers and the overall cost for the service would increase.
Next steps: After conducting the public hearing, the city council will take action by passing a
resolution to direct the assessment of delinquent water, sewer, storm water, refuse,
abatement of tree removals, false alarms, mowing and citations against the benefiting
property.
Staff will continue to collect payments related to the delinquent accounts and work with
residents to resolve issues related to their delinquent accounts. All delinquent accounts
outstanding as of Oct. 24, 2025, at 4:30 p.m. will be certified to Hennepin County for collection
as part of the owner’s property tax bill. Upon certification, the delinquent accounts will become
a lien on the individual properties.
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 6a) Page 4
Title: Resolution approving assessment of delinquent charges
Resolution No. 25 - ____
Levying assessment for delinquent utility accounts,
tree removals, false alarms, mowing and citations
Whereas, the city council has heretofore determined by resolution or ordinance the
rates and charges for water, sewer, storm water and refuse services of the city and has provided
for the abatement of tree removals, false alarms, mowing, and citations to a home or business
shall be at the expense of the owners of the premises involved; and
Whereas, all such sums become delinquent and assessable against the property served
under Section 18-153, Section 18-154, Section 22-37, Section 32-34, Section 34-52, Section 34-
56, Section 32-97, Section 32-153, Section 34-111, and Section 34-112, of the St. Louis Park City
Code and Minnesota Statutes Sections 415.01, 366.011, 366.012, 429.061, 429.101, 443.015,
410.33, and 444.075; and
Whereas, Finance has prepared a list of unpaid charges to be certified against each tract
or parcel of land served by utilities, or against which tree removals, false alarms, mowing and
citations remain unpaid at the close of business on Oct. 24, 2025; and
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park that said
assessment rolls are hereby adopted and approved, there is hereby levied and assessed against
each and every tract of land described therein an assessment in the amounts respectively
therein, and the city clerk is hereby authorized to deliver said assessment roll for amounts
unpaid at the close of business on Oct. 24, 2025, to the Auditor of Hennepin County for
collection of the assessment in the same manner as other municipal taxes are collected and
payment thereof enforced with interest from the date of this resolution at the rate of 6%
percent per annum; and
It is further resolved that said unpaid charges are hereby certified to the Auditor of
Hennepin County, and the chief financial officer is hereby authorized to deliver said list of unpaid
charges to the Auditor of Hennepin County, for collection in the same manner as other
municipal taxes are collected and payment thereof enforced with interest from the date of this
resolution.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council September 15, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: September 15, 2025
Action agenda item: 7a
Executive summary
Title: Resolutions approving preliminary levy
Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolutions approving 2026 preliminary property tax
levy
Policy consideration: Does council support the proposed 2026 budget as drafted? The balanced
budget consists of an all-inclusive preliminary levy increase of 8.02% based upon the following:
a. General levies (general fund, park improvement, and employee benefits) of
$46,626,333,
b. Debt service levy of $5,792,684,
c. HRA levy of $1,194,133 to support the Affordable Housing Trust Fund;
d. EDA levy of $375,000 to support ongoing spending in the development fund; and
e. Planned use of fund balance in the general fund of $300,000 to support one-time
items in the budget.
Summary: After several council study sessions focused on the budget this summer, staff
presented council a recommended budget and corresponding all-inclusive levy increase of
7.92%. Staff received feedback that was generally supportive of the new spending items but
wanted to ensure that more was being done in 2026 to combat climate change and support the
city’s climate action plan. At the direction of council an additional $50,000 of spending and levy
revenue was added to support sustainability programs bringing the levy increase to 8.02%.
Financial or budget considerations: 2026 proposed budget and long-range financial plan
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Resolution (General levy)
Resolution (HRA levy)
Resolution (EDA levy)
Prepared by: Amelia Cruver, finance director
Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Title: Resolutions approving preliminary levy
Discussion
Background:
2026 Budget Roadmap
Date Topics Issues and Decision Points
June 16,
2025
Base Budget and
Context
• 2024 Actual versus Budget
• 2025 decisions with trailing budgetary impacts
• 2026 revenue projections
• Personnel expense projections; Paid Family & Medical
Leave
• Employee Benefits Fund
• Internal service funds change
July 14,
2025
2024 Certified
Annual Financial
Report and Audit
• 2024 financial performance
• 2024 fund balances
• Audit findings and corrective action plans
Aug. 11,
2025
Operating Budget
Proposal
• New proposals for the 2026 operating budget , fund
balances and levy implications
Sept. 2,
2025
Capital
Improvement Plan
(CIP) and Final Levy
• Revised CIP 2026 – 2030 and budget implications
• Complete levy recommendation
• Projected levy impact by property type and quartile
• Fee adoption
Sept. 15,
2025
Levy adoption • Maximum levy adoption
October
2025, TBD
TIF Management
Plan update
• TIF district performance
• TIF district recommended transfers and decertification, if
any
Mid-
November
2025
County mails Truth
in Taxation property
tax notices
• Residents receive an estimate of their 2026 tax bill and
information on the public hearing in December 2025
Nov. 10,
2025
Council report and
discussion: Revised
budget
• Revisions to the budget and adjustments to the levy, as
needed. In November 2025, the levy can only go down
from the maximum set in September 2025
• Review the 2030-2034 CIP
Dec. 1,
2025
Council report and
public hearing: Truth
in Taxation
• Residents share feedback on the proposed 2026 budget
Dec. 15,
2025
Council report,
discussion and vote:
Budget adoption
• City council adopts the 2026 budget and CIP
Council reports and presentations for the base, operating, and capital budget discussions with
council are linked below and provide context for decision making on each of those sections of
the budget:
• Base budget June 16, 2025, report begins on page 94
o Presentation
• Operating Budget August 11, 2025
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Title: Resolutions approving preliminary levy
o Presentation
• Capital Budget Sept 2, 2025, report begins on page 145
o Presentation
Present considerations:
The table below shows the proposed 2026 all-inclusive levy by fund that includes all the
changes that have been recommended in this report and reports from June 16 and Aug. 11,
2025. The park improvement fund levy has been reduced by $100,000 in the 2026
recommendation. This is recommended because that fund has a healthy fund balance of more
than two times its annual spending, which has been a result of several years of higher-than-
expected park and trail dedication fees. This recommendation seeks to strike the right balance
between tax levels and maintaining resources to manage park improvement needs as they
emerge. $50,000 has also been added to the levy to support expanded spending on climate and
sustainability programs.
Fund FY2025 FY2026 $ Change % Change
General 38,808,815 45,816,333 7,007,518 18.06%
Debt Service 6,856,221 5,792,684 (1,063,537) -15.51%
Development EDA 187,000 375,000 188,000 100.53%
Park Improvement 510,000 410,000 (100,000) -19.61%
Affordable Housing Trust 1,194,133 1,194,133 - 0.00%
Employee Benefits 200,000 400,000 200,000 100.00%
Capital Funds -
Municipal Bldg & Infrastructure 685,031 - (685,031) -100.00%
Technology 1,538,465 - (1,538,465) -100.00%
Total
49,979,665 53,988,150 4,008,485 8.02%
Note that in the above table the increased spending in the general levy is offset by $2.2 million
reduction in the Municipal Building and Infrastructure and Technology fund levies. This is
because the cost for these services will now be reflected in customer department’s budgets and
supported through the general levy.
The above budget accomplishes the following goals:
• Fully funds implementation of the new Minnesota Paid Family and Medical Leave for all
city employees.
• Funds a balanced budget in the Employee Benefit, Municipal Building and Technology
funds. Bringing in enough revenue to cover planned spending in a given year means
future cash transfers will not be needed, putting less pressure on the cities cash
reserves and ensuring large increases in the levy are not needed in future years.
• Supports the operation of a brush management site in 2026 free of charge to residents .
• Supports the operation of a concession stand in the Rec Center during winter months so
that visitors feel comfortable and welcomed while participating in recreational activities
at the city.
• Begins a multi-year plan to fully fund activity in the cities Climate Investment Fund in an
ongoing way using the property tax levy.
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Title: Resolutions approving preliminary levy
• Uses analysis capabilities from our new budgeting software to right-size budgets in
multiple areas, including increases to budgeted overtime to reflect actual spending and
reductions in historically underspent funds.
• Offsets increased spending on programs and staff with over $200,000 in reductions to
department budgets.
What is driving the increased spending in the general fund in 2026?
The largest cost drivers in the proposed 2026 budget are maintenance and replacement of our
current city assets and base budget growth. The table below breaks down the building blocks of
the increase in the general fund portion of the levy in 2026. The chargebacks to support the
municipal building and infrastructure and technology funds are largely offset by the $2.2 million
saved by eliminating the old capital levy line item. In addition, some costs for things like
software and hardware had previously been included in departments’ general fund budgets.
This budget moves all those technology costs to the internal service fund and charges the
relevant department so that we can have a clear view of our technology spend at the city.
The table below shows updated proposed General Fund spending. New spending in 2026 is
highlighted. The majority of the $534,702 in new operating proposals from Aug. 11, 2025 are
items like bringing brush site operations in-house instead of closing the site and right-sizing
overtime.
Base increase in personnel spending, 6/16 report $1,278,890
Chargebacks for IT - maintenance/replacement $2,552,306
New chargebacks for IT - Police data integration software $55,000
Chargebacks for Municipal Building - maintenance/replacement $1,444,138
Chargebacks for Vehicle & Equipment -replacement $1,067,482
New Operating Proposals, from 8/11 report $534,702
Council Salary, finalized on 8/18 $25,000
Climate Investment Fund, recommending levy rather than Franchise fees $50,000
Increasing Climate Action Plan Spending $50,000
Property Tax Levy - General Fund increase 7,057,518
In addition, council asked staff to review whether a needs analysis for additional community
amenities, such as a community center, could be funded within the existing 2026 proposed
budget. Staff believes it can be and, if needed, can come back with a budg et amendment in
2026.
Five-Year Outlook
The below five-year outlook contains the following assumptions:
• General fund expenses and levy increasing by 5% each year to account for personnel
and mandatory spending increasing with inflation.
• The debt service levy includes projected costs for existing debt and forecasted debt
payments that assume bonding of $4.5 million each year to support capital projects.
• A gradual increase in the Park Improvement levy as fund balance is spent down on park
improvement projects.
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7a) Page 5
Title: Resolutions approving preliminary levy
Fund FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030
General 38,808,815
45,816,333
48,107,150
50,512,507
53,038,132
55,690,039
Debt Service 6,856,221
5,792,684
6,525,902
7,070,122
7,529,453
7,238,676
Development EDA 187,000 375,000 375,000 375,000 375,000 375,000
Park Improvement 510,000 410,000 510,000 600,000 700,000 800,000
Affordable Housing Trust 1,194,133
1,194,133
1,194,133
1,194,133
1,194,133
1,194,133
Employee Benefits 200,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000
Capital Funds
Municipal Bldg 685,031
Technology 1,538,465 -
Total 49,979,665
53,988,150
57,112,185
60,151,763
63,236,718
65,697,848
$ Increase
4,008,485 3,124,035 3,039,578 3,084,956 2,461,130
% Increase 8.02% 5.79% 5.32% 5.13% 3.89%
*Note: the EDA levy is deposited in the Development EDA fund and the HRA levy is deposited in
the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
Changes in the taxable market value of property in the City of St. Louis Park will have an impact
on taxpayers in 2026. Using the preliminary levy increase of 8.02% and the finalized taxable
market value produced by the county, the median homesteaded homeowner with a home
value at $387,200 is estimated to see a $328 annual increase to their property taxes in 2026, or
a monthly increase of $27. More information on the economic factors driving this change can
be found in the report to council on September 8 (report begins on page 27.)
Next steps: Once fees that support general and utility fund operations and capital projects and
the preliminary property tax levy are adopted on Sept. 15, the next step is budget revisions in
the late fall and final adoption on Dec 15, 2025.
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7a) Page 6
Title: Resolutions approving preliminary levy
Resolution No. 25 - ____
Approving 2026 preliminary property tax levy, and setting public hearing date
for the 2026 budget and final property tax levy
Whereas, The City of St. Louis Park is required by Charter and State law to approve a
resolution setting forth an annual tax levy to the Hennepin County Auditor; and
Whereas, Minnesota Statutes require approval of a preliminary property tax levy on or
before September 30th of each year; and
Whereas, the city council has received the proposed budget information; and
Whereas, after the approval of the proposed EDA and HRA levies by the EDA and City
Council in addition to the general (including Park Improvement, and Employee Benefits funds)
and debt service levies below, the overall preliminary levy increase will be 8.02 percent.
Now therefore be it resolved that the truth in taxation public hearing will be held on
December 1, 2025; and
Be it further resolved that there are enough dollars in the debt service funds for 2014A
and 2016A issuances to make full payments in 2026 with the lowered debt service levy below;
and
Be it further resolved that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, that the following sums of money be levied for collection in 2025 upon the
taxable property in said City of St. Louis Park for the following purposes:
2025 2026
adopted proposed
Tax capacity-based tax
levy levy levy
General
$41,742,311
$46,626,333
Debt service 6,856,221
5,792,684
Total
$48,598,532
$52,419,017
And
Be it further resolved that the chief financial officer is hereby authorized and directed
to transmit this information to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota and the
Minnesota Department of Revenue, if applicable, in the format requested as required by law.
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7a) Page 7
Title: Resolutions approving preliminary levy
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 15, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7a) Page 8
Title: Resolutions approving preliminary levy
Resolution No. 25 - ____
Authorizing the preliminary HRA levy for 2026
Whereas, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the “EDA Act”),
the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park created the St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority (the "Authority"); and
Whereas, pursuant to the EDA Act, the city council granted to the Authority all of the
powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under the provisions of the
Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and
Whereas, Section 469.033, subdivision 6 of the Act authorizes the Authority to levy a tax
upon all taxable property within the city to be expended for the purposes authorized by the HRA
Act; and
Whereas, such levy may be in an amount not to exceed 0.0185 percent of estimated
market value of the city; and
Whereas, the Authority has filed its budget for the special benefit levy in accordance with
the budget procedures of the city in the amount of $1,194,133 and
Whereas, based upon such budgets the Authority will levy all or such portion of the
authorized levy as it deems necessary and proper;
Now therefore be it resolved by the St. Louis Park City Council that approval is hereby
given for the Authority to levy, for taxes payable in 2026, such tax upon the taxable property of
the city as the Authority may determine, subject to the limitations contained in the HRA Act.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 15, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7a) Page 9
Title: Resolutions approving preliminary levy
Resolution No. 25 - ____
Authorizing a present intent to levy a tax for Economic Development Authority
purposes pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.107
Whereas, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 through 469.1082, as
amended (the “Act”), the City established the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the
“EDA”); and
Whereas, Section 469.107, subdivision 1 of the Act authorizes the City, at the request of
the EDA, to levy and collect a tax of up to 0.01813% of the estimated market value of taxable
property within the City, levied upon all taxable real property within the City, for economic
development purposes; and
Whereas, the EDA has requested that the City approve such a levy in the amount of
$375,000 and the City finds that such a levy is in the best interest of the City and EDA because it
will facilitate economic development.
Now therefore be it resolved that the City Council hereby approves the levy of a tax for
economic development purposes pursuant to Section 469.107, subdivision 1 of the Act in the
amount equal to $375,000 with respect to taxes payable in calendar year 2026.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 15, 2025:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: September 15, 2025
Action agenda item: 7b
Executive summary
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Recommended action: Review the findings of the independent investigation and corresponding
exhibits. The council is asked to deliberate and vote on the issue of whether violations of city
charter sections 2.09, 12.20 and 12.21 have occurred.
Possible actions the council may consider include:
•Option 1: Adopt the findings as presented by the independent investigator and find that
no violation of the St. Louis Park City Charter has occurred.
OR
•Option 2: Establish findings and find that a violation of the St. Louis Park City Charter has
occurred.
Policy consideration: Does the city council determine that violations of the St. Louis Park Home
Rule Charter Sections 2.09, 12.20 and 12.21 occurred as alleged in the July 8, 2025 complaint?
Summary: On July 8, 2025, the city manager received a written complaint alleging that
Councilmember Dumalag violated multiple sections of the city charter. The complaint alleges
specific violations of three city charter provisions, including Sections 2.09, 12.20 and 12.21. A
copy of the complaint is attached. Upon receipt of the complaint, the city engaged an external
consultant to investigate the matter. The investigator will attend the meeting to present their
findings to the council. A copy of the redacted report detailing the findings of the investigation
is also attached. Redactions are in place to conform with data practices law as relates to private
personnel data. Following the investigator’s presentation, the city council will have an
opportunity to ask questions and then is asked to deliberate and vote on the issue.
The city charter provides that the council is responsible for determining whether a violation of
the charter has occurred. Section 2.09 states, “The determination whether any violation of the
provisions of this section has occurred shall be made by the council upon its own inquiry and by
a two-thirds (2/3) majority of all of the councilmembers except the councilmember or members
being charged with the violation”. Because this item is fully within the council purview, public
comment will not be accepted on this item. If the council determines that a violation has
occurred, the council must follow the requirements of section 2.09 related to public censure
and imposition of any additional penalty.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Excerpt of city charter sections 2.09, 12.20, 12.21, August 21, 2025
council member investigation report and corresponding exhibits
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b) Page 2
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Section 2.09. Interference with administration. Except for the purpose of inquiry, the council
and its members shall deal with and control the administrative services solely through the city
manager, and neither the council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any of the
administrative personnel of the city, other than the city manager, either publicly or privately. If
this section is violated by any member of the city council, such violation shall result in the public
censure by the council of the offending party, and may, in addition, result in the imposition of a
civil penalty to be paid to the city in an amount equal to one (1) month's compensation payable
by the city to such member. The determination whether any violation of the provisions of this
section has occurred shall be made by the council upon its own inquiry and by a two-thirds
(2/3) majority of all the councilmembers except the councilmember or members being charged
with the violation.
Section 12.20 Gifts and favors. No public official shall accept any valuable gift, whether in the
form of money, service, loan, thing or promise, from any person, firm or corporation which to
their knowledge is concerned, directly or indirectly, in any manner whatsoever in business
dealings with the city; nor shall any public official (1) accept any gift, favor or thing of value that
may tend to influence them in the discharge of their duties; or (2) grant in the discharge of their
duties any improper favor, service, or thing of value or accept an offer which would not have
been given if they were not an official; or (3) accept or receive anything of value through sale or
gift of goods or services which would result directly or indirectly from their position as a public
official of the City of St. Louis Park.
Section 12.21. Use of city equipment and facilities. Use of city equipment and facilities. No
public official shall request or permit the unauthorized use of city-owned vehicles, equipment,
materials, property, labor or services for personal convenience or profit.
Document Number: 1041358
1
City of St. Louis Park
Council Member
Investigation Report
August 21, 2025
Investigated by
Pamela Whitmore
pwhitmore@kennedy-graven.com
(612) 337-9276
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(800) 788-8201
(612) 337-9300
(612) 337-9310 Fax
www.kennedy-graven.com
THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN PRIVATE PERSONNEL AND
INVESTIGATIVE DATA UNDER STATE LAW AND
MAY NOT BE DISCLOSED EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 3
Document Number: 1041358
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT............................................................. 3
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT POLICIES AND LAWS ............................................................... 4
SUMMARY OF FACTUAL FINDINGS ....................................................................................... 6
SUMMARY OF INCIDENTS, AND WITNESS SUMMARIES .................................................. 7
A. SPECIFIC EMAILS ....................................................................................................... 7
B. INTERVIEW SUMMARIES ...................................................................................... 10
1. Witness1 (SUBJECT OF COMPLAINT). ........................................................... 10
2. Witness2 ................................................................................................................ 12
3. Witness3 ................................................................................................................ 13
4. Witness4 ................................................................................................................ 15
5. Witness5 ................................................................................................................ 15
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 17
ATTACHMENTS ......................................................................................................................... 18
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 4
Document Number: 1041358
3
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
The undersigned, Pamela Whitmore, conducted an investigation of a complaint filed by a
resident with the City of St. Louis Park against City of St. Louis Park Council Member Lynette
Dumalag. The Complainant, Fred Ramos, submitted the Complaint on both he and his wife
Julia’s behalf (individually “Complainant”, and collectively “Complainants”). Specifically,
Complainants alleged specific violations of three City Charter provisions, including Section 2.09,
Section 12.20, and Section 12.21 and provided documents in support of their allegations.
Because of the specificity of the written complaint and supporting documentation, the scope of
the investigation focused on the written materials submitted. A copy of the Complaint is attached
hereto as Exhibit A and will be referenced throughout the report.
The Complainants have alleged that “Councilmember Lynette Dumalag has engaged in a pattern
of violating multiple charter sections by directly contacting and giving orders to city
administrative personnel, using her official position to provide preferential services to specific
residents, and misusing city resources for non-municipal purposes.” Complainants further stated
that “[t]his complaint addresses specific documented violations that occurred after
Councilmember Dumalag explicitly acknowledged charter limitations in July 2024”.
Complainant cited the following as supporting evidence of the claims made. Please note that the
below are direct citations from the Complaint and not the investigator’s findings:
A. July 10, 2024 Email: With respect to the July 10, 2024 email, Complainants allege that
Councilmember Dumalag demonstrated clear understanding of charter limitations by
telling Julia Ramos: "[a]s a policy maker, I influence policy, not direct staff to execute
jobs we hired them to do. If I do that, I'm in violation of our governance model."
B. August 12, 2024 Email: Regarding the August 12, 2024 email, Complainants contend
“[w]hile forwarding neighborhood advocacy [email] supporting the Moedings to a
"selected few" (as noted by Elisabeth in the email), Councilmember Dumalag directly
questioned Zoning Administrator Gary Morrison about BOZA proceedings and applicant
requirements.”
C. November 20, 2024 Email: In the November 20, 2024 email, Councilmember Dumalag
stated: "I'm copying Brian Hoffman who oversees our Licensing department. Brian, an
ice cream truck would need a license/permit to sell in SLP, correct? If so, do we have a
list of vendors?". Based on this email, Complainants argue “[t]his involved misusing city
resources to assist the Moedings on a personal, non-city matter - tracking down an ice
cream truck that had been stopped in the area. Any reasonable St. Louis Park resident
would be outraged that city resources were being directed for such personal, non-city
business rather than legitimate municipal purposes. This constitutes violations of Sections
2.09, 12.20, and 12.21.”
Complainant Fred Ramos then set forth an analysis of these emails in light of his understanding
of the Charter provisions. It is important to note that the scope of this investigation focuses on
fact finding and the Council, not the investigator, makes determinations about violations, if any.
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 5
Document Number: 1041358
4
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT POLICIES AND LAWS1
A. Charter Provisions.
1. Section 2.09 states “Section 2.09. Interference with administration. Except for the
purpose of inquiry, the council and its members shall deal with and control the
administrative services solely through the city manager, and neither the council
nor any member thereof shall give orders to any of the administrative personnel of
the city, other than the city manager, either publicly or privately. If this section is
violated by any member of the city council, such violation shall result in the
public censure by the council of the offending party, and may, in addition, result
in the imposition of a civil penalty to be paid to the city in an amount equal to one
(1) month's compensation payable by the city to such member. The determination
whether any violation of the provisions of this section has occurred shall be made
by the council upon its own inquiry and by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of all of the
councilmembers except the councilmember or members being charged with the
violation.”
2. Section 12.20 states “Gifts and favors. No public official shall accept any valuable
gift, whether in the form of money, service, loan, thing or promise, from any
person, firm or corporation which to their knowledge is concerned, directly or
indirectly, in any manner whatsoever in business dealings with the city; nor shall
any public official (1) accept any gift, favor or thing of value that may tend to
influence them in the discharge of their duties; or (2) grant in the discharge of
their duties any improper favor, service, or thing of value or accept an offer which
would not have been given if they were not an official; or (3) accept or receive
anything of value through sale or gift of goods or services which would result
directly or indirectly from their position as a public official of the City of St.
Louis Park.”
1 Statutes or Caselaw. St. Louis Park’s Charter does not provide a recall provision for elected
officials. Recently, in Jacobs v. City of Columbia Heights, 9 N.W.3d 536 (Minn. 2024), the
Minnesota Supreme interpreted Minnesota Statutes Section 204B.44 to allow the filing of a
petition to correct “any wrongful act, omission, or error of any ... municipal clerk ... or any other
individual charged with any duty concerning an election.” See generally, Minn. Stat. §
204B.44(a)(4). The Court, in its opinion, found that to include recalling “inferior officers” for
malfeasance or nonfeasance in the performance of their duties. See generally Minn. Const. art.
VIII, § 5. The Court held that this provision anticipated possible recalls of elected municipal
officers, Jacobsen, 96 N.W.2d at 572–73. The City has not received any such petition.
Regardless, the investigator found no facts which substantiate malfeasance or nonfeasance of
office.
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 6
Document Number: 1041358
5
3. Section 12.21 states “Section 12.21. Use of city equipment and facilities. No
public official shall request or permit the unauthorized use of city-owned vehicles,
equipment, materials, property, labor or services for personal convenience or
profit.”
B. Policies and Practice.
1. Council Norms. The Council has in place Council Norms which were adopted
January 27, 2022 and then updated May 9, 2022, March 9, 2023, Feb. 15, 2024;
and most recently Feb. 27, 2025. A copy of these Norms are attached as Exhibit
B. The relevant portions state:
Guidance for council/staff interactions
• DO strive to request only information you need to make the decision at hand.
• DON’T re-litigate points with staff during implementation.
• DO strive to adhere to our governance model – separation of responsibilities,
ends/means, big bowl/small bowl, etc.
Recusals
• Council members should recuse themselves from an issue as soon as a conflict is
reasonably apparent or identified, and no later than before a vote.
• Once a council member has recused themselves from an issue, they should not
work on the issue with staff or speak on it as a council member.
• When a vote happens, they may elect to sit at or leave the dais and may choose
to leave the room during the discussion.
• They also may only speak to staff or other council about the topic on the same
basis as any other member of the public.
2. Standard Operating Procedure. City Manager Keller sent an email on September
29, 2021, after her appointment as City Manager, to all members of Council and
Mayor, which outlined her interpretation of Council Norms and process. Ms.
Keller copied all Directors on that email. The relevant portion of the email is
attached with the Norms as Exhibit B and states:
Council requests/communication with staff At leadership meetings, department
leaders and I have been talking about organizational culture and observations
from these past weeks. These are some of the best conversations I have had all
week and they are helping me verify what I'm seeing. In one recent conversation
we talked about the best way for council requests/communications to be handled.
From what I understand, what I'll ask for below is in alignment with everyone's
history with Tom, so hopefully there's not much of a pivot needed. Please reach
out with any questions.
Please utilize the following people in specific situations:
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 7
Document Number: 1041358
6
1. Kim for emergencies, any time your request involves work direction, and cc me
when reaching out to directors.
2. Directors when you have questions about how something works or for
information only (not work direction). Directors will respond as quickly as they
are able during normal business hours. (If something is after hours and requires an
immediate response, please route it to me via phone/text.)
3. Staff only when the staff member has initiated the contact (e.g. scheduling
meetings, updating you on an issue, etc.)
Additional thoughts:
1. We're here to help and recognize that you have busy lives: Feel free to connect
us with constituents so we can listen to and work with them to solve the problem.
We'll take on that work and make sure you're looped in when issues are resolved
(or if we hit a roadblock).
2. Reaching past me and the directors puts staff in a challenging spot: As I noted
above, staff want to help! And they have work direction and priorities given to
them by their directors. Sending questions and concerns to me/the directors helps
us all support them by keeping lines of communication clear.
SUMMARY OF FACTUAL FINDINGS
The following sets forth the SUMMARY OF FACTUAL FINDINGS which, then, is followed by
more detailed overviews of witness statements.
SUMMARY OF FACTUAL FINDINGS
As set forth in detail below in the witness statements, no facts exist substantiating allegations
that Council Member Dumalag directed staff in a manner that interfered with administration or
rose to the level of giving “orders to any of the administrative personnel . . . either publicly or
privately”. Rather, all witnesses interviewed stated that any time they have interacted with
Council Member Dumalag, including the times reflected in the emails submitted by
Complainants, Council Member Dumalag asked appropriate questions integral to performing her
duties as an elected official of Ward 2. In fact, most, if not all, witnesses interviewed emphasized
how Council Member Dumalag represented one of the most respectful and appropriately curious
elected officials with whom they have worked.
As set forth in detail below in the witness statements, no facts exist substantiating allegations
that Council Member Dumalag (i) accepted any valuable gift. . .from any person, firm or
corporation which to her knowledge is concerned, directly or indirectly, in any manner
whatsoever in business dealings with the city; (ii) accepted any gift, favor or thing of value that
may tend to influence her either in the discharge of their duties; (iii) granted, in the discharge of
her duties, any improper favor, service, or thing of value or accept an offer which would not have
been given if she were not an official; or (iv) accepted or received anything of value through sale
or gift of goods or services which would result directly or indirectly from her position as a public
official of the City of St. Louis Park. The allegations inferred that Council Member Dumalag had
favored one resident over another. However, no facts substantiated that allegation, and, after
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 8
Document Number: 1041358
7
review of other emails related to the allegations but not included in the Complaint, the evidence
demonstrates that Council Member Dumalag was equally responsive to both resident parties
involved, and offered just as much, if not more, assistance to the Complainants.
As set forth in detail below in the witness statements, no facts exist substantiating allegations
that Council Member Dumalag requested or permitted the unauthorized use of city-owned
vehicles, equipment, materials, property, labor or services for personal convenience or profit.
Based on the witness interviews and the documents reviewed, nothing the investigator reviewed
or heard uncovered any additional concerns that would trigger further investigation into other
possible Charter violations.
SUMMARY OF INCIDENTS, AND WITNESS SUMMARIES
Investigator conducted an interview of the Subject of the Complaint and the witnesses who had
relevant information. The following outlines the incidents and the witnesses’ testimony.
A. SPECIFIC EMAILS
1. July 10, 2024. See, Exhibit A.
a) Allegations from Complaint: Explicitly told Julia Ramos: "As a policy maker, I
influence policy, not direct staff to execute jobs we hired them to do. If I do that,
I'm in violation of our governance model." Complainant argues that this indicates
that Council Member Dumalag knew process, and so, if council found direction
was given to staff, then that direction must be intentional.
b) Though Complainant did not offer the July 10, 2024 email as anything other than
demonstrating that Council Member Dumalag knew the process for working with
staff, a deeper investigation into the full email string, as well as emails sent
concurrently at or around that date, contradict other allegations made by
Complainants. Complainants also allege that (i) Council Member Dumalag
favored one resident over another, (ii) Council Member Dumalag used her official
position for private favors (allegedly providing legal services to the Moedings),
(iii) Council Member Dumalag used her official position to provide valuable
services to preferred residents that ordinary citizens could not access and (iv)
Council Member Dumalag compromised neutrality.
c) The full email string from July 10, 2024, as well as emails sent in June 2024
between Council Member Dumalag and Complainant Julia Ramos, and another
email sent concurrently at or around July 10, 2024 between the two of them,
contradict other allegations made by Complainants about favoritism or bias. See
Exhibit C.2 Accordingly, the facts do not substantiate any favoritism, favors,
compromise of neutrality or provision of valuable services not provided to others.
Rather, these additional documents demonstrate that Council Member Dumalag
2 Investigator acknowledges that one of the email strings included in Exhibit C has odd formatting that causes it to
be excessively long. That is the format investigator received it in.
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 9
Document Number: 1041358
8
provided the same support and responsiveness to the Ramos as the Moedings,
possibly more since they reached out more.
2. August 12, 2024 email. See, Exhibit A.
a) Allegations from Complaint: In an email to staff, which included a forward of an
email from a different neighbor advocating for the Moedings and informing the
neighborhood about the meeting on the Moeding’s application for a variance,
Council Member Dumalag wrote “"FYI - this is going before BOZA, yes? Gary,
the Moedings are out of town? Does the applicant need to be there?" Complainant
alleges this email violated City Charter since it was sent “to” the zoning
administrator with a cc: to the City Manager, rather than sending the email to the
City Manager and then letting the City Manager send it to the Zoning
Administrator. Complainant also argues that by forwarding an email she received,
Council Member Dumalag’s email was “not just a general inquiry about city
procedure—it was targeted to a specific case involving neighbors she was
advocating for. She entangled staff in an advocacy effort, placing the zoning
administrator in a position where his and the entire department’s professional
objectivity could be questioned.”
b) The facts do not substantiate a violation of Charter Provision 2.09 and did not
compromise neutrality or show favoritism.
i. Witnesses 2, 3, and 5 serve in supervisory capacities. One of them, in fact,
is the . All witnesses stated that it is common and accepted
practice for Council Members to copy the appropriate director, and at
times, even the City Manager or the Deputy City Manager on emails the
Council Members send to the directors or staff. After being shown the
August 12, 2024 email and reviewing it, all witnesses agreed that Council
Member Dumalag followed the expected process.
ii. The witnesses who received or were copied on the August 12, 2024 email
all state that the language or form of the email did not flag concerns for
any of them that Council Member Dumalag was giving direction. In fact,
all considered the email representing the appropriate type of inquiry from
a Council Member representing their ward and trying to understand
process. More than one witness pointed out that the form of the inquiry
represents a common way in which Council Member Dumalag asks a
question. Additionally, most, if not all, of the witnesses pointed out to the
investigator that, in fact, no direction was given, even giving examples
such as did not say “move the meeting or cancel the meeting”.
iii. None of the witnesses interviewed felt Council Member Dumalag favored
one side over the other or put pressure on them regarding the issue. In fact,
all witnesses felt Council Member Dumalag very intentionally stayed
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 10
Document Number: 1041358
9
neutral and helped both sides in an appropriate manner as a representative
of the ward in which both parties resided.
3. November 20, 2024 email. See, Exhibit A.
a) Allegations from Complaint: Complainant alleges that in this email, Council
Member Dumalag gave a direct order to Brian Hoffman, when she wrote: "Brian,
an ice cream truck would need a license/permit to sell in SLP, correct? If so, do
we have a list of vendors?" Further, the Complainant alleges that this email
demonstrates that Council Member Dumalag coordinated multiple city
departments to assist private citizens in a personal legal matter involving tracking
down an ice cream truck. Complainant states that doing so represented a (i)
misuse of city resources and staff time for personal, non-city business while
bypassing the city manager and proper administrative channels; (ii) using her
official position to provide valuable services to preferred residents that ordinary
citizens could not access and (iii) resulted in unauthorized use of city labor,
communication systems, and administrative time for private legal assistance
rather than municipal purposes.
b) The fact do not substantiate violations of the charter provisions 2.09, 12.20 or
12.21.
i. All witnesses who were interviewed and who were included on the email
string from November 20, 2024, stated that asking Mr. Hoffman about ice
cream truck licensing in the manner in which Council Member Dumalag
phrased it did not represent direction but rather an inquiry. As a reminder,
the email read: "Brian, an ice cream truck would need a license/permit to
sell in SLP, correct? If so, do we have a list of vendors?" All witnesses
interviewed have first-hand knowledge of process and also interact or have
interacted at some point with various elected officials and all stated that
the phrasing by Council Member Dumalag is an inquiry and, in fact,
represents the type of inquiry staff commonly gets from elected officials –
about licensing and vendor lists. All interviewed who reviewed the email
also pointed out to the investigator that no direction actually was given,
such as “print that off and send to me”.
ii. The witnesses interviewed in supervisory positions copied on the email
stated that the manner in which Council Member Dumalag sent the email
included the appropriate copies to supervisory individuals and that nothing
in that email led them to flag it as an instance of a council member
exceeding their authority or role. The supervisory witnesses stated that one
of the reason the policy for copying them is in place is so they can be
aware of communications and also watch for instances of elected officials
violating policy. All interviewed stated that the none of Council Member
Dumalag’s emails represent policy violations.
iii. As stated earlier, the witnesses interviewed stated that the inquiry about
licensing and vendors represents a common question from elected officials
in their role when working with constituents and that their job is to
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 11
Document Number: 1041358
10
respond to these types of inquiries. As a result, not one witness felt that
Council Member Dumalag asked questions to further personal interest, or
that wasted or improperly used up staff time or other city resources.
B. INTERVIEW SUMMARIES
1. Witness1 (SUBJECT OF COMPLAINT).
On July 30, 2025, I met with Witness1 via TEAMS. Witness1 acknowledged
understanding the terms and signed the forms. A subsequent interview occurred.
Background. Witness1 serves Ward 2 for the City of St. Louis Park and is the subject of this
Complaint. Witness1 has served as a Ward 2 council member since November 2020, first
appointed to fill the remainder of the term following a resignation, then elected to the position in
November 2021.
Trainings. Witness1 has attended many trainings, including annual City Council trainings
conducted by city staff, which includes, each year, the Council revisiting Council Norms and
discussing communication practices.
Summary.
The interview began with the investigator asking Witness1 about the Council Norms and the
city’s standard process for communicating with staff. The witness accurately recited the Norms
and policy in a manner which aligned with the documents provided to the investigator from the
City Manager. When asked about Charter Section 12.20 and Complainant’s allegations of favors,
Witness1 expressed confusion about the allegation, stating she did not see the connection.
Witness1 stated she has not received any benefit, personal or otherwise, from either the ice
cream truck or the Moedings for asking about either the ice cream truck licensing, or the Board
of Zoning Appeals’ hearing process, nor did she provide the Moedings with legal advice. Rather,
Witness1 stated that a constituent, Mrs. Moeding, in her ward reached out to Witness1 asking if
the City licensed ice cream trucks. Witness1 commonly gets licensing questions or questions of a
similar nature (example provided was how to get a stop sign installed) from constituents and, as
a result, commonly asks staff process questions as a follow up to constituent questions.
Additionally, like in this instance, Council Member Dumalag stated she commonly refers
residents to staff after she initiates the conversation. Other witness interviews confirmed that
Witness1 commonly asks process questions which the other witnesses also attested to as
appropriate in Witness1’s role. The investigator then asked Witness1 about Section 12.21 of the
Charter and use of city equipment/staff/facilities. Witness1 responded that the emails represented
an inquiry about process and information and responding to those inquiries fall within the normal
duties of the staff on the emails. The other witnesses interviewed agreed that answering those
types of inquiries does, indeed, fall within the normal course of their duties.
With respect to the allegations of directing staff, Witness1 pointed out that either City Manager
or Deputy City Manager was copied on her emails which aligns with her understanding of the
process. The investigator confirmed that to be the case, and both the and the
confirmed that copying them on emails complies with expected process.
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 12
Document Number: 1041358
11
When discussing the August 12, 2024 email, Witness1 pointed out that the email originated from
a person in the neighborhood which got forwarded to her, and she just inquired about process for
the Board of Zoning Appeals. The forward of the email just further demonstrates why Witness1
wondered about process. Witness1 indicated that, during the entire time of the dispute, she did
not favor one resident over another, and, in fact, had more interactions with Complainants,
including offering to meet with them. Witness1 produced emails, not included by the
Complainants, supporting her statements and showing she positively interacted and tried to
support the Complainants. See Exhibit C.3
The Investigator has attached, as Exhibit C, emails string initiated by Complainant Julia Ramos,
in which Council Member Dumalag got looped into the email string by Ms. Ramos. In that email
string, Council Member Dumalag treats Complainants respectfully, goes above and beyond to
provide them assistance, including looping in staff appropriately and asking staff a question on
behalf of Complainants. The manner in which the Council Member asks staff a question for the
Complainants, mirrors how she had inquired about the ice cream truck licenses for the Moedings
and further demonstrates the manner of phrasing she uses when inquiring into a matter.
Additionally, as evidenced from the attached Exhibit C, the email strings from July 10, 2024
were more robust than what the Complainant attached and show a complete picture of the
exchanges related to the July 10, 2024 email submitted by Complainant. In fact, the emails
demonstrate that staff spent much time responding to Complainants’ concerns and that
Complainant Julia Ramos was the one who looped in Witness 1. Witness1 monitored the
exchange but did not insert herself into the string, demonstrating Witness1’s knowledge and
respect of the roles protected by Section 2.09 of the Charter. Concurrent with that lengthy email
exchange, Complainant Julia Ramos reached out to Witness1 separately to meet with Witness1,
to which Witness1 responded that “I have been copied on all the emails between you and Gary
Morrison (and now Sean Walther). I want to stress that you should work with Gary on this
basketball hoop issue. I could meet with both you and Gary to go over our city
process/procedure. While it appears to you that this basketball hoop process is bureaucratic, we
have to provide some process so our approach is fair to all parties. I'll reach out to Gary to check
on his schedule and get back to you with days/times.” Witness1 told the investigator that the
meeting never happened since staff asked Witness1 to wait to meet Complainants until after the
City Attorney had an opportunity to send a response to Complainant Julia Ramos. See Exhibit C,
last email attached. Indeed, staff made Complainant’s wife aware that a city response would be
sent to her. See, Exhibit D. In other interviews, staff with personal knowledge of the situation
confirmed staff recommended Witness1 to wait to meet with Complainant’s wife.
Regarding the Mavity complaint comparison, Witness1 did not serve on council at that time and
has no personal knowledge of that complaint. However, Witness1 did attest to asking the City
Attorney to analyze if a conflict existed. In watching the November 18, 2024 meeting,
investigator confirmed the City Attorney found no conflict. The current City Attorney served the
City in the same capacity during the Mavity complaint and sat in the best position to understand
precedence and still found no conflict. Witness1 stated that no one on staff or otherwise has
contacted her with concerns of overstepping her boundaries as an elected official.
3 As stated in previous footnote, investigator acknowledges that one of the email strings included in Exhibit C has
odd formatting that causes it to be excessively long. That is the format investigator received it in.
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 13
Document Number: 1041358
12
Credibility of Witness. Witness1 was very credible and transparent. Witness1’s testimony was
corroborated by other witnesses, as well as emails provided to the investigator.
2. Witness2
On August 5, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., the investigator met with Witness2 in person at St.
Louis Park City Hall. Witness2 acknowledged understanding the terms and signed the forms. A
subsequent interview occurred
Background. Witness2 works in a position for the City. Witness2 has worked for the
City for eight years and has reported to two different city managers. Witness2 has familiarity
with the Council Norms and watches for any deviation by elected officials of the Council Norms
and the expected communication practices as a part of her role. Witness2 confirmed that a cc: to
her, as the or to the City Manager or Deputy City Manager complies with expected
communication practices.
Order versus Inquiry. Witness2 stated that, on occasion, she has had to have an informal
discussion with either the City Manager or an elected official when she felt like a gentle
reminder was needed about interactions with staff. Witness2 stated that none of those instances
have ever involved Council Member Dumalag.
Emails. Witness2 was included on the August 12, 2024 email. As a reminder, the Complaint
requested investigation into the August 12, 2024 email (in which Council Member Dumalag
asked “"FYI - this is going before BOZA, yes? Gary, the Moedings are out of town? Does the
applicant need to be there?") to determine what communications, responses, and actions occurred
regarding BOZA attendance requirements and why equal treatment was not provided to all
parties. The Complainant further cited to the August 12, 2024 email as a violation of Section
2.09 of the City Charter, alleging it represents more than “just a general inquiry about city
procedure—it was targeted to a specific case involving neighbors she was advocating for. She
entangled staff in an advocacy effort, placing the zoning administrator in a position where his
and the entire department’s professional objectivity could be questioned.”
Witness2 disagreed with the Complainant’s interpretation. Witness2 stated that nothing in the
email concerned her and felt it followed policy by copying her or the City Manager or Deputy
City Manager and that the question in the email represented a procedural inquiry, not an order.
Additionally, Witness2 stated that Gary, , did not come to her with any concerns
or to complain about getting direction to act from Council Member Dumalag. Witness2 stated
that her relationship with Gary is of the nature where he would and has felt comfortable reporting
when he feels council members have overstepped, which did not happen in this instance.
Witness2 stated that she viewed the phrasing of the language in the August 12, 2024 email as
procedural in nature, and not direction. Witness2 stated that Council Member Dumalag did not,
within her knowledge, reach out to staff, either verbally or through writing to advocate for one
side over another. Witness2 felt Council Member Dumalag appropriately asked staff for
information, and that part of staff’s job is to provide information to council members. As such,
Witness2 did not feel any inappropriate use of city resources or staff time resulted from this
email.
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 14
Document Number: 1041358
13
Witness2 further stated that, from her perspective, Council Member Dumalag worked very hard
at being neutral, while still being helpful to both sides of this controversy as both reside in Ward
2. In fact, Witness2 provided an email between herself and the Complainant Julia Ramos, dated
July 10 2024, which shows Julia Ramos had asked Council Member Dumalag for assistance, and
on which Council Member Dumalag was copied. Exhibit D. The July 10, 2024 email provided
by Witness2 was a continuation of the partial email chain submitted along with the Complaint
and demonstrates that Council Member Dumalag did not advocate for one side over another and,
in fact, helped Complainants get information or responses as well.
With respect to the November 20, 2024 email, Witness2 did not have knowledge of that email
chain. Witness2 pointed out that it appeared the City Manager and the Deputy City Manager had
been copied on that email which complies with the communication procedure in place for the
City. Also, upon Witness2’s review of the November 20, 2024 email, Witness2 stated that, in her
opinion, it represented an appropriate inquiry about licensing, which, at that time she did not
oversee, and that, in her opinion, Council Member Dumalag did not order staff to do something.
Witness2 also stated that her did not come to her with concerns about the November
20, 2024 email.
Conflict. Witness2 stated that she was present at the May meeting where the City Attorney had
considered the conflict question and opined no conflict existed with respect to Council Member
Dumalag. Additional emails provided by Witness2 to the investigator also support the finding
that staff recommended to Council Member Dumalag to wait to meet with the Complainants
until after the City Attorney responded to questions Complainants had submitted to the City
discrediting Complainant’s assumption that Council Member Dumalag favored one side over the
other.
Credibility of Witness. Investigator found the witness very credible and also to have a good
understanding of city processes and the Charter.
3. Witness3
The investigator met with Witness3 on August 5, 2025 at 11 a.m. in person at St. Louis Park City
Hall. Witness3 acknowledged understanding the terms and signed the forms. A subsequent
interview occurred.
Background. Witness3 works in a supervisory capacity and has served as
since 2021. Witness3 has reported to three different city managers. Witness3 stated that the
current written Council Norms were always informally in place before the current city manager
and well before Council Member Dumalag served on Council.
Part of Witness3’s role includes planning annual council trainings and Witness3 stated that, at
every annual training, the Council actively reviews the Council Norms and communication
expectations. Another part of Witness3’s job involves overseeing communications between
council members and staff through the use by others of cc: and that cc’ing either Witness3 or the
City Manager complies with City processes and policies. The method of cc’ing either Witness3
or the City Manager allows them to ensure responsiveness as well as watch for direction being
given rather than inquiries made. Witness3 stated that, though other council members over the
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 15
Document Number: 1041358
14
years may have teetered on “giving direction”, Witness3 never has seen Council Member
Dumalag doing so. In fact, Witness3 stated that she considers Council Member Dumalag a model
council member in that Council Member Dumalag respects staff, comes prepared, stays curious,
informs herself, and has never given direction to staff or asked for favors. Witness3 further stated
that the questions asked by Council Member Dumalag represent the type of inquiries common
and expected of elected officials representing their wards, and that Council Member Dumalag, in
particular, has a curiosity about processes. Witness3 opined that asking staff for information in
the manner in which Council Member Dumalag has asked, including as represented in the
emails, and receiving staff responses, does not constitute unauthorized use of city resources;
rather, represents employees doing their job.
Emails.
Witness3 attested to following the emails to monitor the situation throughout the neighbor
dispute about the location of the basketball hoop. At no time, in monitoring the situation, did a
staff person come to Witness3 to complain about Council Member Dumalag at all – no
complaints of giving order or direction, no complaints of advocating for one side or the other,
and no complaints of putting staff in unfair positions.
Witness3 was included in the November 20, 2024 email. Witness3 stated her review of the email
at that time, as well as now, was that Council Member Dumalag made an inquiry and did not
give direction. Witness3 said it would have been cleaner if the resident had asked directly, but
that it is not uncommon for any elected official to ask a question on behalf of a constituent and
that Witness3 considers that as part of the elected officials’ role. Witness3 said that the phrasing
of the inquiry aligned with how Council Member Dumalag asks questions and that no one would
perceive that as an order. Moreover, Witness3 indicated that by copying her, Council Member
Dumalag followed policy as well. Ironically, Witness3 believes that no one at the City even had
to produce a list because the resident found the information on their own.
Witness3 also was copied on the August 12, 2024 email which related to the Board of Zoning
Appeals hearing for a variance. Witness3 stated that, upon review of the August 12, 2024 email,
both at the time she received it, and at the time of the interview, she viewed the question as an
inquiry into process – just asking if applicants need to be present – and not as preferring one
neighbor over another. Witness3 stated that neither she nor staff she knows about had any side
conversations with Council Member Dumalag about preferring one neighbor over another.
Witness3 did not appear to be on the July 10, 2024 string submitted with the Complaint, but
Complainant Julia Ramos did add Witness3 to the previous July 8, 2024 email string and, as a
result, Witness3 has personal knowledge of the assistance both staff and Council Member
Dumalag provided or attempted to provide to Complainants.
Conflict. Witness3 also knew the City Attorney did a conflict analysis and deemed Council
Member Dumalag did not have a conflict. Witness3, who worked at the City during the previous
Mavity complaint, also stated that the situation from the previous Mavity censure was
completely different than the current situation.
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 16
Document Number: 1041358
15
Credibility of Witness. Witness3 seemed truthful and transparent. Witness3 has had a long
career at the City and has a good basis from which to understand policy and process, as well as
knowing the history of what behavior rises to the level of violating policy or the Charter.
4. Witness4
On August 6, 2025 at 9:30 a.m., Witness4 was interviewed in person at St. Louis Park
City Hall. Witness4 was provided a Notice of Voluntary Interview with a Tennessen Notice,
which was reviewed by Witness4. Witness4 acknowledged understanding the terms and signed
the forms.
Background. Witness4 has worked for the City for 23 years and serves as the
. Witness4 reports to a director, who reports to the Deputy City Manager/City
Manager.
Emails. Witness4 has received emails from Council Member Dumalag as evidenced by exhibits
to the Complaint. In fact, in the Complaint, Complainant states that Council Member Dumalag
gave Witness4 a direct order. Witness4 disagrees. Witness4 considered Council Member
Dumalag’s August 12th email as asking a question about process and did not feel as though he
was being ordered to do something. In fact, Witness4 stated Council Member Dumalag never has
given direction or not followed policy when communicating with him. With respect to the
November 20, 2024 email, Witness4 also acknowledged receiving that email. Witness4 stated
that he did not feel as though Council Member Dumalag gave direction in that email, and, at no
time, did he feel pressured by Council Member Dumalag to favor one neighbor over another.
Additionally, Witness4 stated that Council Member Dumalag followed process in
communicating with him by copying his director, and in most instances the Deputy City
Manager or City Manager.
Regarding the July 8, 2024 through July 10, 2024 email string, Witness4 stated he spent a lot of
staff time working with the Complainants and had brought in his direct supervisor as standard
practice since he knew the Complainants disagreed with his determination. At no time during
that process did he receive outside influence from Council Member Dumalag and, in fact,
Complainant, not staff, looped in Council Member Dumalag on the July 8, 2024 through July 10,
2024 email correspondence. Witness4 stated that at no time did he meet with Council Member
Dumalag on this matter. Witness4 also stated that answering questions posed by council
members represents a part of his job and always has for the 23 years he has worked for the City
and does not represent unauthorized use of staff time. Witness4 further stated he has a good
relationship with all his supervisors and would go to them if he ever felt a council member
crossed the line, and that he never felt that way with respect to Council Member Dumalag.
Credibility of Witness. Witness4 has worked in the same role for over two decades and
certainly would know direction from inquiry. Witness4 answered the investigators questions in a
very calm, logical manner and the investigator has no concerns of his truthfulness or credibility.
5. Witness5
The investigator met with Witness5 on August 6, 2025 at 10:45 a.m. in person at St. Louis Park
City Hall. Witness5 was provided a Notice of Voluntary Interview with a Tennessen Notice,
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 17
Document Number: 1041358
16
which was reviewed by Witness5. Witness5 acknowledged understanding the terms and signed
the forms.
Background. Witness5 has served in the role as since 2021. Witness5 participates
in the annual council trainings and attested to the fact that Council revisits the norms each year.
Witness5 confirmed sending an email on September 24, 2021 to council members with cc to
department heads, in which she outlined the process for council members to communicate with
staff. This email stated:
Please utilize the following people in specific situations:
1. for emergencies, any time your request involves work direction and cc me when
reaching out to directors.
2. Directors when you have questions about how something works or for information (not
work direction). Directors will respond as quickly as they are able during normal business
hours. (If something is after hours and requires an immediate response, please route it to
me via phone/text)
3. Staff only when the staff member has initiated the contact (e.g. scheduling meetings,
updating you on an issue, etc.).
Witness5 confirmed this email represents her implementation of process pursuant to Section 2.09
of the Charter which states “Section 2.09. Interference with administration. Except for the
purpose of inquiry, the council and its members shall deal with and control the administrative
services solely through the city manager, and neither the council nor any member thereof shall
give orders to any of the administrative personnel of the city, other than the city manager, either
publicly or privately….”
Witness5 confirmed that by cc’ing her or the Deputy City Manager on any email, or if a
question, by cc’ing the appropriate director on the communication, then the Council Member has
complied with the policy and, in her opinion, Charter. Witness5 stated the leadership team
adopted this process as the norm since the volume of her email or the Deputy City Manager’s
email is so high that to have a communication sent just to them to then forward on would bottle-
neck the entire system and that the City has talented department heads to help monitor if
direction occurs rather than inquiry. Witness5 stated that she has, on occasion, had to discuss the
correct communication process with more than one Council Member but has never had to so do
with Council Member Dumalag. Additionally, Witness5 reviewed the emails in question and did
not view them as direction.
Witness5 also stated she never received any complaints of Council Member Dumalag misusing
city property or resources or giving favors to anyone. Witness5 clarified that helping residents
navigate city systems and processes is not a favor, and, in fact, represents a part of a ward
representative’s role. Additionally, Witness5 stated that she had personal knowledge that Council
Member Dumalag offered assistance with process to both parties involved in this conflict.
Emails. Witness5 brought a copy of the November 20, 2024 email to the interview which
showed her copied on the email. Witness5 stated that the email did not direct Brian, who was a
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 18
Document Number: 1041358
17
director at the time, to do anything; rather, it asked if the City licensed ice creams trucks and if it
did, does the city keep a list of vendors. Witness5 never flagged this email as direction, nor did
the Deputy City Manager who also received the email. Witness5 also stated that the resident did
not even end up needing the list and city never provided. Witness5 reviewed the August 12, 2025
email and confirmed that the manner in which the email was sent followed process as both she
and the appropriate director received it. Witness5 also deemed the question in the August 12,
2025 email an inquiry, not an order and gave an example of an order as asking for the meeting to
be delayed. Witness5 further stated that, in general, council members inquiries to staff and using
their city email represent appropriate uses of city resources. Witness5 stated that council
members should be curious and that Council Member Dumalag acted within her role. Witness5
has no recollection of having side conversations with Council Member Dumalag about either
party nor did she receive complaints from staff of pressure to favor one neighbor over another.
Upon an independent review of the July 8, 2025 through July 10, 2025 emails,
stated it appeared that staff worked extensively with Complainants on this matter, and that
Council Member Dumalag offered appropriate help as well.
Conflict. Witness5 did not get involved in the underlying matter other than on the night of the
May meeting when Witness5 assisted in coordinating how to accommodate both parties after
staff had learned that one party had restraining order in place against the other.
Credibility of Witness. Witness is credible. Witness is important as she sets the stage for
communication practices and represents the go-between Staff and Council in receiving or
working through complaints.
CONCLUSION
As stated in the beginning of the report, the Summary of Factual Findings and the witness
summaries outline the facts arising out of the investigation. The facts do not substantiate the
allegations in the Complaint.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED
Pamela Whitmore
Date: 8/21/2025
Pamela Whitmore
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 19
Document Number: 1041358
18
ATTACHMENTS
A. Complaint with the Complainant’s Exhibits
B. St. Louis Park Council Norms & portion of September 24, 2021 email from City
Manager regarding Norms
C. Emails provided by Council Member Dumalag
D. Emails provided by email
E. List of Witnesses, under separate copy
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 20
Document Number: 1041358
19
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 21
Complaint of Alleged Violations of Home Rule Charter by an Elected Official and Officer
of the City Lynette Dumalag
To: Kim Keller, City Manager
Email: kkeller@stlouisparkmn.gov
Date: July 8, 2025
Re: Charter Violation Complaint Against Councilmember Lynette Dumalag
Dear Ms. Keller,
Upon reason and belief Council Member Dumalag violated City Charter Section 2.09, Section
12.20, and Section 12.21. I hereby submit this formal complaint alleging violations of the St.
Louis Park Home Rule Charter (City Charter) by Councilmember Dumalag, and I request that
the City Council fulfill its mandatory duty under Section 2.09 to investigate and respond to these
violations.
The City Manager, in conjunction with the City Attorney, are empowered and have a duty under
5.02 of the City Charter, to commence a process and assure rectifying action is taken to preserve
the city's values and integrity. The City Charter is designed to assure that such violations are not
defended, but addressed, and recognized principled conduct is fundamental to the ethics of the
organization. City Attorneys, in similar cases, in other jurisdictions have taken appropriate
action, putting the protection of the intent and spirit of the City's Charter first.
VIOLATIONS ALLEGED
St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 2.09 - Interference with Administration
St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 12.20 - Gifts and Favors
St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 12.21 - Use of City Equipment and Facilities
FACTUAL BASIS
Councilmember Lynette Dumalag has engaged in a pattern of violating multiple charter sections
by directly contacting and giving orders to city administrative personnel, using her official
position to provide preferential services to specific residents, and misusing city resources for
non-municipal purposes. This complaint addresses specific documented violations that occurred
after Councilmember Dumalag explicitly acknowledged charter limitations in July 2024. In
addition, an investigation of all emails, messages, and other communications may uncover
additional violations of these and other City Charter provisions.
Specific Evidence:
July 10, 2024 Email: Councilmember Dumalag demonstrated clear understanding of charter
limitations, telling Julia Ramos: "As a policy maker, I influence policy, not direct staff to execute
jobs we hired them to do. If I do that, I'm in violation of our governance model."
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 22
November 20, 2024 Email: Councilmember Dumalag stated: "I'm copying Brian Hoffman who
oversees our Licensing department. Brian, an ice cream truck would need a license/permit to sell
in SLP, correct? If so, do we have a list of vendors?" This involved misusing city resources to
assist the Moedings on a personal, non-city matter - tracking down an ice cream truck that had
been stopped in the area. Any reasonable St. Louis Park resident would be outraged that city
resources were being directed for such personal, non-city business rather than legitimate
municipal purposes. This constitutes violations of Sections 2.09, 12.20, and 12.21.
August 12, 2024 Email: While forwarding neighborhood advocacy supporting the Moedings to
a "selected few" (as noted by Elisabeth in the email), Councilmember Dumalag directly
questioned Zoning Administrator Gary Morrison about BOZA proceedings and applicant
requirements.
CHARTER VIOLATION ANALYSIS
Section 2.09 - Interference with Administration
Section 2.09 explicitly states:
"Except for the purpose of inquiry, the council and its members shall deal with and control the
administrative services solely through the city manager, and neither the council nor any member
thereof shall give orders to any of the administrative personnel of the city, other than the city
manager, either publicly or privately."
Section 12.20 - Gifts and Favors
Section 12.20 states:
"No public official shall accept any valuable gift, whether in the form of money, service, loan,
thing or promise, from any person, firm or corporation which to their knowledge is concerned,
directly or indirectly, in any manner whatsoever in business dealings with the city; nor shall any
public official (1) accept any gift, favor or thing of value that may tend to influence them in the
discharge of their duties; or (2) grant in the discharge of their duties any improper favor,
service, or thing of value or accept an offer which would not have been given if they were not
an official; or (3) accept or receive anything of value through sale or gift of goods or services
which would result directly or indirectly from their position as a public official of the City of St.
Louis Park."
Section 12.21 - Use of City Equipment and Facilities
Section 12.21 states:
"No public official shall request or permit the unauthorized use of city-owned vehicles,
equipment, materials, property, labor or services for personal convenience or profit."
Councilmember Dumalag's actions violated these provisions by:
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 23
1. Willfully violating charter requirements despite demonstrating clear knowledge of the
restrictions in July 2024
2. Establishing a Pattern of Direct Contact with administrative personnel bypassing the
city manager (Section 2.09)
3. Giving direct orders to licensing and zoning department staff. One of the orders
involved a non-city matter (Section 2.09)
4. Using her official position to provide valuable services to the Moedings that would not
have been available to ordinary citizens (Section 12.20)
5. Directing city staff time and resources for personal benefit of specific residents rather
than general city business (Sections 12.20 and 12.21)
6. Unauthorized use of city labor and services - directing Brian Hoffman and Gary
Morrison to perform work unrelated to legitimate city business (Section 12.21)
7. Compromising administrative neutrality by advocating for specific parties while
simultaneously directing staff actions on the same matters
8. Creating conflicts of interest by participating in matters where she has personal
involvement
9. Placing implicit or explicit administrative pressure on city staff who must serve a
council member clearly biased toward specific outcomes
Specific Pattern of Violations:
July 10, 2024 - Acknowledged Charter Knowledge:
• Explicitly told Julia Ramos: "As a policy maker, I influence policy, not direct staff to
execute jobs we hired them to do. If I do that, I'm in violation of our governance model."
• Significance: Demonstrates clear understanding of charter requirements, making
subsequent violations willful rather than inadvertent
August 12, 2024 - Compromised Neutrality:
• Forwarded neighborhood advocacy email supporting the Moedings to city staff
• Simultaneously directed Gary Morrison: "FYI - this is going before BOZA, yes? Gary,
the Moedings are out of town? Does the applicant need to be there?"
• The complete record of communications, responses, and actions requires investigation by
the city.
• Section 2.09 Impact: She emailed the zoning administrator directly, copying the City
Manager, but not routing her communication through the City Manager as the Charter
requires.
• The language was not just a general inquiry about city procedure—it was targeted to a
specific case involving neighbors she was advocating for. She entangled staff in an
advocacy effort, placing the zoning administrator in a position where his and the entire
department’s professional objectivity could be questioned.
November 20, 2024 - Multiple Charter Violations:
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 24
• Directly ordered Brian Hoffman: "Brian, an ice cream truck would need a license/permit
to sell in SLP, correct? If so, do we have a list of vendors?"
• Coordinated multiple city departments to assist private citizens in a personal legal matter
involving tracking down an ice cream truck
• Section 2.09 Impact: Misused city resources and staff time for personal, non-city
business while bypassing the city manager and proper administrative channels
• Section 12.20 Impact: Used official position to provide valuable services to preferred
residents that ordinary citizens could not access
• Section 12.21 Impact: Unauthorized use of city labor, communication systems, and
administrative time for private legal assistance rather than municipal purposes
Administrative Pressure and Conflicts Created:
These violations place city staff in untenable positions where:
• Neutrality is compromised -- When a council member is advocating for one constituent
over another and implicitly endorsing specific outcomes, she put staff - who endeavor to
remain impartial - in a challenging, if not untenable situation.
• Professional integrity is threatened - Staff may feel pressured to favor matters
supported by council members.
• Proper procedures are undermined - Direct orders bypass established and mandatory
administrative channels and oversight.
• Public trust is damaged - Citizens cannot expect fair treatment when council members
interfere with administrative processes and use city resources for personal favoritism.
Resource Misuse:
The email evidence shows Councilmember Dumalag:
• Directed city staff to assist in private legal proceedings (restraining order case)
• Coordinated multiple city departments (licensing, etc.) for private benefit
• Used her official position to access city records unavailable to ordinary citizens
• Provided preferential treatment based on personal relationships rather than equal
municipal service
THIS WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE "INQUIRY"
This communication constituted impermissible "orders" rather than mere "inquiry" because of
the following:
Direct Commands to Staff:
• "Brian, an ice cream truck would need a license/permit to sell in SLP, correct?" - Direct
question to staff
• "If so, do we have a list of vendors?" - Direct request for official action and records
compilation
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 25
Required Administrative Work:
• The request required Brian Hoffman to research licensing requirements
• It demanded compilation and provision of vendor lists
• It necessitated official city time and resources
Purpose Exceeded Legislative Function:
• This was not related to council business or legislative inquiry
• It was to assist private citizens in a personal legal matter (a restraining order case)
• It used city resources for non-governmental purposes
Legal Standard for "Inquiry" vs. "Orders":
Permissible Inquiry would be: "How does our ice cream truck licensing process work?"
Here the City Council member would still be violating the charter, as all of this involves non -city
business.
Impermissible Orders (what occurred): "Brian, do we have a list of vendors?" and directing
staff to provide specific records and services for private citizens.
PRECEDENT REQUIRES EQUAL ENFORCEMENT
City Council Precedent:
On May 18, 2020, the St. Louis Park City Council addressed a charter violation complaint
against Councilmember Anne Mavity under Section 2.09. In that case:
• The council conducted a thorough investigation including staff statements and email
review
• Even though the matter involved legitimate city business (a development project within
city jurisdiction)
• Even though Councilmember Mavity recused herself from the development matter once
the complaint was filed
• The council took the complaint seriously and held a full hearing
Critical Distinctions in Dumalag Case:
1. No Recusal: Unlike Mavity, Councilmember Dumalag did not recuse herself from the
zoning matter. To the contrary, she led the vote against the appellants. And, as her
behavior following the November 18, 2024 hearing shows (in requesting city staff to
perform work on non-city business on behalf of the parties for whom she voted in the
zoning matter), she clearly was biased in favor of one Neighbor and against another in a
matter in which she voted.
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 26
2. Non-City Business: The Dumalag violations involved personal legal matters (a
restraining order) rather than legitimate city business.
3. More Severe Violations: Direct orders to compile vendor lists for private citizens
exceeds even the allegations against Mavity, and involves multiple charter sections.
4. Pattern of Violations: Multiple documented instances across multiple charter sections
versus single incident review.
5. Clearer Documentary Evidence: Direct email evidence of orders to staff and misuse of
city resources, unlike the speculative nature of much of the Mavity complaint.
6. Resource Misuse: Use of city resources for private benefit, which was not alleged in the
Mavity case.
The Mavity precedent establishes that even when a councilmember
• Recuses themselves from the matter
• Acts on legitimate city business
• Cooperates fully with investigation
The council still conducts thorough review under Section 2.09. The Dumalag case involves more
serious violations across multiple charter sections without any of these mitigating factors.
MANDATORY CHARTER REQUIREMENTS
Section 2.09 mandates specific actions when violations occur. Each separate violation requires
separate penalties:
Required Council Action for Each Violation:
1. Investigation: "The determination whether any violation of the provisions of this section
has occurred shall be made by the council upon its own inquiry"
2. Two-thirds vote: Required by "two-thirds (2/3) majority of all of the councilmembers
except the councilmember or members being charged with the violation"
3. Automatic penalty per violation: "such violation shall result in the public censure by
the council of the offending party"
4. Optional civil penalty per violation: "may, in addition, result in the imposition of a civil
penalty to be paid to the city in an amount equal to one (1) month's compensation"
Multiple Charter Violations Require Separate Accountability:
• Section 2.09 violations (August 12, 2024 and November 20, 2024): Interference with
administration
• Section 12.20 violations (November 20, 2024): Improper use of official position to
provide preferential services
• Section 12.21 violations (November 20, 2024): Unauthorized use of city resources and
labor
Penalty Structure for Multiple Violations:
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 27
• November 20, 2024 violations:
o Section 2.09: Public censure (mandatory) + civil penalty (discretionary)
o Section 12.20: Investigation and appropriate penalties under ethics provisions
o Section 12.21: Investigation and appropriate penalties under ethics provisions
• August 12, 2024 violation:
o Section 2.09: Public censure (mandatory) + civil penalty (discretionary)
• Pattern of violations: Demonstrates willful disregard warranting maximum penalties
under all applicable charter sections
The charter does not limit penalties to a single censure regardless of the number of violations.
Each separate act of interference with administration and each ethics violation constitutes a
distinct violation requiring separate accountability.
COUNCIL OBLIGATION FOR CONSISTENT ENFORCEMENT
The May 18, 2020 Mavity case demonstrates the council's commitment to charter enforcement.
In that proceeding, City Attorney Mattick stated the council was "asked to review the
information provided in the staff report, hear the basis for the complaint from the complainants,
and allow [the] Councilmember to respond to the complaint" before deliberating and voting on
whether a violation occurred.
The same thorough process must be applied to Councilmember Dumalag's more serious
violations across multiple charter sections. Failure to investigate this complaint with equal rigor
would constitute unequal enforcement of charter provisions and could itself violate the council's
charter obligations.
SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION REQUIRED
This complaint addresses the specific violations from August 12, 2024 and November 20, 2024.
However, the charter requires the council to conduct "its own inquiry" into whether violations
have occurred. This investigation should include:
1. Review of Councilmember Dumalag's these and other communications with city staff to
determine if this is part of a pattern.
2. Examination of other instances where she may have bypassed the city manager to direct
city personnel.
3. Assessment of whether these violations are isolated or represent ongoing interference
with administration and misuse of city resources.
4. Investigation into the August 12, 2024 incident to determine what communications ,
responses, and actions occurred regarding BOZA attendance requirements and why equal
treatment was not provided to all parties.
5. Review of any other instances where city resources may have been used for non-
municipal purposes or preferential treatment.
REQUEST FOR ACTION
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 28
I request that the City Manager and City Attorney:
1. Conduct an investigation into the alleged charter violations by gathering relevant
information, including:
o Review of Councilmember Dumalag's communications with city staff
o Written statements from all relevant city personnel regarding their interactions
with Councilmember Dumalag
o Assessment of whether these violations represent a pattern of interference with
administration and misuse of city resources
2. Prepare a comprehensive staff report, as was done in the Mavity matter, documenting
the findings and evidence
3. Place this matter on a city council agenda once the investigation is complete, following
the same process established in the May 18, 2020 Mavity case
4. Notify the city council of their mandatory duty to investigate under Section 2.09 and
other applicable charter provisions
5. Ensure proper procedures are followed for the required two-thirds vote, excluding
Councilmember Dumalag from the vote as specified in the charter
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Attached/Referenced:
• Copy of Councilmember Dumalag's email dated November 20, 2024
• Copy of Councilmember Dumalag's email dated August 12, 2024
• Copy of Councilmember Dumalag's email dated July 10, 2024
• St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
• May 18, 2020 council meeting agenda and minutes
LEGAL AUTHORITY
This complaint is made under the authority of:
• St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Sections 2.09, 12.20, and 12.21
• May 18, 2020 council precedent establishing investigation procedures
• The city's obligation to enforce its own charter provisions
• The public's right to accountable government
The charter creates a mandatory duty for the council to investigate these violations. Failure to
investigate and take appropriate action would itself constitute a violation of the council's charter
obligations and oath of office.
This is not a discretionary matter - the charter language is clear and mandatory: Violations "shall
result" in public censure and appropriate accountability under all applicable charter sections.
CONCLUSION
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 29
The evidence clearly demonstrates that Councilmember Dumalag violated multiple charter
sections by directly ordering city administrative personnel to perform official duties related to
licensing and vendor information, bypassing the city manager entirely, using her official position
to provide preferential services to specific residents, and misusing city resources for non -
municipal purposes.
These violations are more serious than the Mavity case of 2020 because they:
• Involved non-city business (personal legal matters) rather than legitimate city projects
• Demonstrate a pattern of interference across multiple incidents and multiple charter
sections
• Used city resources for private benefit and preferential treatment
• Present clearer documentary evidence of direct orders to staff and resource misuse
I respectfully request that the City Manager and City Council fulfill their charter obligations and
investigate these violations immediately, applying the same thorough standards established in the
Mavity precedent while recognizing the more serious nature of these multiple charter violations.
Please confirm receipt of this complaint and provide a timeline for when this matter will be
placed on the council agenda.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Fred Ramos
3320 Huntington Ave
St Louis Park, MN 55416
612-356-6395
frederickramos@comcast.net
cc: St. Louis Park City Attorney
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 30
Exhibit 1
Email from Council Member Lynette Dumalag (Nov. 20, 2024)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 31
From:Lilly Moeding
To:Lynette Dumalag
Cc:Brian Hoffman; Kim Keller; Cindy Walsh; Gary Morrison
Subject:Re: Lilly and Ross Moeding - follow up
Date:Wednesday, November 20, 2024 8:24:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you so much Lynette & thank you to everyone involved in helping bring this issue to
resolution on Monday.
Lynette, I was chatting with my 12-year old tonight and he happened to remember the
company name on the ice cream truck. I've located their website and put in a request to get in
contact with the driver.
The ice cream truck driver happened to pull up and park in front of our house on the day that
Julia was screaming profanity at Ross and the boys. I'm hopeful my request with the company
will help me get in touch with him. He's the only direct witness we have of Julia's behavior.
Thank you again. I appreciate our SLP community & wish you all a Happy Thanksgiving.
Lilly
On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 7:37 PM Lynette Dumalag <LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov> wrote:
Hello,
Thanks again to staff, especially Gary, for working on my neighborhood issue.
I spoke with Lilly this evening and as she and Ross prepare materials to contest the
restraining order, they need to contact one witness to a specific event that occurred this
Summer. This witness was an ice cream truck driver who has visited our neighborhood a few
times this Summer.
I'm copying Brian Hoffman who oversees our Licensing department. Brian, an ice cream
truck would need a license/permit to sell in SLP, correct? If so, do we have a list of vendors?
Thank you,
Lynette Dumalag (she/her/hers)
Saint Louis Park City Council, Ward 2
ldumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov
St. Louis Park 0689
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 32
Exhibit 2
Email from Council Member Lynette Dumalag (August 12, 2024)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 33
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 34
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 35
Exhibit 3
Email from Council Member Lynette Dumalag (July 10, 2024)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 36
From: Lynette Dumalag LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov
Subject:Re: Urgent help requested
Date:July 10, 2024 at 1:04 PM
To :Julia juel-mn@comcast.net
Cc:Kim Keller KKeller@stlouisparkmn.gov, Karen Barton KBarton@stlouisparkmn.gov
Julia,
I'm going to ask you again to work with Gary. As a policy maker, I influence policy, not direct staff to execute jobs we hired them to do. If I do that, I'm in violation of our govern
model.
Both Gary and Sean Walther have addressed questions that you've written in previous emails. If you are still unclear on what that process is, I've copied our city manager, Kim
and our Community Development Director, Karen Barton.
Thank you,
Lynette
From: Julia <juel-mn@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 11:04 AM
To: Lynette Dumalag <LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Urgent help requested
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Lynette
I request your he p in getting the city to respond to my emai that I sent on Monday Specifica y I need them to provide me in writing what their decision was upon the inspection of Ju y 3rd
I am trying to do precise y what everyone is te ing me to do fo ow the City procedure and work with Gary I was informed on Ju y 5th that I am under a 20 day dead ine that started running on June 24th That means that I have to make a decision whether to appea prepare the necessa
and pay the hefty fee in check form by this Friday since 20 days is Ju y 14th a Sunday Essentia y I was given 5 business days to comp ete this process and I have received no answers to my questions that ay at the heart of that process Five business days isn t even enough time to re
something through the mai to make sure it is received in time Time is running out and I sti do not have any written statement from the City what the decision on Ju y 3rd actua y was Gary said that this writing is in the emai s it is not I ta ked to him on Monday and he said he wou d po
anguage in the emai s that he is referring to He has not
P ease he p me work with the City process
Thank you
Ju ia Ramos
On Ju 8 2024 at 5:27 PM Lynette Duma ag <LDuma ag@st ouisparkmn gov> wrote:
Hi Julia,
Thanks for reaching out. I have been copied on all the emails between you and Gary Morrison (and now Sean Walther). I want to stress that you should work with Gary on th
basketball hoop issue.
I could meet with both you and Gary to go over our city process/procedure. While it appears to you that it this basketball hoop process is bureacratic, we have to provide som
process so our approach is fair to all parties.
I'll reach out to Gary to check on his schedule and get back to you with days/times.
Thank you,
Lynette
From: Julia <juel-mn@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 12:49 PM
To: Lynette Dumalag <LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Lynette,
I hope you had a great holiday week.
I am wondering if you would have a chance in the next few days to meet with me and talk through this issue that has blown up even further this week. I feel like I am living through some so
Kafkaesque experience within an immovable bureaucratic loop. I would very much appreciate your input on City processes and procedures.
Please let me know when you’re available. I can make it work during office hours or after hours in the neighborhood.
Thank you so much,
Julia Ramos
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 37
Exhibit 4
St Louis Park Home Rule Charter
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 38
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 39
PART I
HOME RULE CHARTER*
*Editor's note--Printed herein is the Home Rule Charter of the City of St. Louis Park, as
adopted by the city council on December 7, 1954, and effective on January 7, 1955, as revised. A
complete list of amendments is located in Appendix B. Amendments to the Home Rule Charter, as
revised, are indicated by parenthetical history notes following amended provisions. The absence
of a history note indicates that the provision remains unchanged from the original Charter.
Obvious misspellings have been corrected without notation. For stylistic purposes, a uniform
system of headings, number style, catch lines and citations to state statutes has been used.
Additions made for clarity are indicated by brackets.
Chapter 1. Name, Boundaries, Powers and Construction
Sec. 1.00. Preamble.
Sec. 1.01. Name and boundaries.
Sec. 1.02. Powers of the city.
Sec. 1.03. City to succeed to rights and obligations of former municipality.
Sec. 1.04. Application of general laws.
Sec. 1.05. Charter a public act.
Chapter 2. Government and Officers
Sec. 2.01. Council-manager plan.
Sec. 2.02. Boards.
Sec. 2.03. Elected officers.
Sec. 2.04. Disqualification for appointive office.
Sec. 2.05. Vacancies in the council.
Sec. 2.06. The mayor.
Sec. 2.07. Compensation.
Sec. 2.08. Investigation of city affairs.
Sec. 2.09. Interference with administration.
Chapter 3. Procedure of Council
Sec. 3.01. Council meetings.
Sec. 3.02. Secretary of the council.
Sec. 3.03. Rules of procedure and quorum.
Sec. 3.04. Ordinances, resolutions and motions.
Sec. 3.05. Procedure on ordinances.
Sec. 3.06. Emergency ordinances.
Sec. 3.07. Signing and publication of ordinances and publication of minutes, resolutions, and
administrative rules and regulations.
Sec. 3.08. When ordinances and resolutions take effect.
Sec. 3.09. Amendment and repeal of ordinances.
City of St. Louis Park -1- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 40
HOME RULE CHARTER
Chapter 4. Nominations and Elections
Sec. 4.01. General election laws to apply.
Sec. 4.02. Regular municipal election.
Sec. 4.03. Special elections.
Sec. 4.04. Judges of election.
Sec. 4.05. Nomination by petition.
Sec. 4.06. Nomination petitions.
Sec. 4.07. Canvass of elections and taking of office.
Sec. 4.08. Voting method.
Chapter 5. Administration of City Affairs
Sec. 5.01. The city manager.
Sec. 5.02. Powers and duties of the city manager.
Sec. 5.03. Departments of administration.
Sec. 5.04. Other officers.
Sec. 5.05. Purchases and contracts.
Sec. 5.06. Contracts--how let.
Chapter 6. Taxation and Finance
Sec. 6.01. Council to control finances.
Sec. 6.02. Power of taxation.
Sec. 6.03. Board of equalization.
Sec. 6.04. Preparation of annual budget.
Sec. 6.05. Passage of the budget.
Sec. 6.06. Enforcement of the budget.
Sec. 6.07. Alterations in the budget.
Sec. 6.08. Emergency appropriation in budget.
Sec. 6.09. Levy and collection of taxes.
Sec. 6.10. Tax settlement with county.
Sec. 6.11. Disbursements--how made.
Sec. 6.12. Funds.
Sec. 6.13. Receipts to go to city treasurer.
Sec. 6.14. Accounts and reports.
Sec. 6.15. Bonds and debt limit.
Sec. 6.16. Form and repayment of bonds.
Sec. 6.17. Debt and tax anticipation certificates.
Sec. 6.18. Bonds outside the debt limit.
Chapter 7. Public Improvements and Special Assessments
Sec. 7.01. The city plan.
Sec. 7.02. Enforcement of city plan.
Sec. 7.03. Public improvements and special assessments.
Sec. 7.04. Local improvements.
Sec. 7.05. Public works--how performed.
Chapter 8. Eminent Domain
Sec. 8.01. Power to acquire property.
Sec. 8.02. Proceedings in acquiring property.
City of St. Louis Park -2- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 41
HOME RULE CHARTER
Chapter 8. Eminent Domain (continued)
Sec. 8.03. Payment of award.
Sec. 8.04. City may abandon proceedings.
Sec. 8.05. City may acquire entire plant.
Chapter 9. Franchises
Sec. 9.01. Definition of franchise.
Sec. 9.02. Franchise ordinances.
Chapter 10. Public Ownership and Operation of Utilities
Sec. 10.01. Construction, acquisition, and operation of utilities.
Sec. 10.02. Rates and finances.
Sec. 10.03. Purchase in bulk.
Sec. 10.04. City to pay for services.
Sec. 10.05. Lease of plant.
Sec. 10.06. Public utility--how sold.
Chapter 11. Miscellaneous Provisions
Sec. 11.01. Sale of real property.
Sec. 11.02. Vacation of streets.
Sec. 11.03. Damage suits.
Sec. 11.04. Civil service commission.
Sec. 11.05. Civil penalties
Chapter 12. Code of Ethics
Sec. 12.01. Declaration of policy.
Sec. 12.02. Definitions.
Sec. 12.03. Organization of personal campaign committees.
Sec. 12.04. Contributions.
Sec. 12.05. Use of contributions.
Sec. 12.06. Campaign reports.
Sec. 12.07. Records.
Sec. 12.08. Notice of failure to file.
Sec. 12.09. Termination report.
Sec. 12.10. Distribution.
Sec. 12.11. Penalty.
Sec. 12.12. Filing of information.
Sec. 12.13. Family interests.
Sec. 12.14. Exclusions.
Sec. 12.15. Time of required filing.
Sec. 12.16. Records.
Sec. 12.17. Penalty.
Sec. 12.18. Personal financial conflicts of public officials.
Sec. 12.19. Financial conflicts of associates of public officials; contracts and transactions voidable.
Sec. 12.20. Gifts and favors.
Sec. 12.21. Use of city equipment and facilities.
Sec. 12.22. Distribution.
Appendix A. Certificate of Commission
Appendix B. List of Amendments
City of St. Louis Park -3- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 42
HOME RULE CHARTER
CHAPTER 1. NAME, BOUNDARIES, POWERS AND CONSTRUCTION
Section 1.00. Preamble.
Human freedom and human rights are indivisible and the recognition of equality of all people
is indispensable in the administration of a just government. Written documents which govern our
nation and state clearly proclaim the rights and responsibilities of the people in making these
freedoms possible. It is proper that cities do also, for human rights denied to one are denied to
all. We, the people of St. Louis Park, therefore do hereby declare that equality of rights under the
law shall not be abridged or denied by the City of St. Louis Park on the basis of race, color, creed,
religion, national origin, gender, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, age or status
with regard to public assistance or disability. The following Charter is a declaration of the policy of
the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
Section 1.01. Name and boundaries.
Upon the taking effect of this Charter, the Village of St. Louis Park in the County of Hennepin
and State of Minnesota shall become a city under the name of the City of St. Louis Park, and shall
continue to be a municipal corporation with boundaries the same as they now are established or
as they may hereafter be established.
Section 1.02. Powers of the city.
The City of St. Louis Park:
shall have perpetual existence;
may sue and be sued;
may use and alter its seal at pleasure;
may enter into binding contracts;
may take by purchase, condemnation, gift, devise or otherwise and hold lease, sell and
convey all such real and personal property as its purposes may require, or the transaction
of its business may render convenient, within or without the limits of the City;
may acquire, construct, own, lease and operate public utilities and render public service
of every kind;
may grant franchises or licenses for the services which shall be rendered by any owner or
operator of a franchise or license;
may assess, levy and collect taxes for general or special purposes on all subjects or objects
which the City may lawfully tax;
may borrow money on the faith and credit of the City and issue bonds or certificates of
indebtedness. The indebtedness may be secured by granting a security interest in public
utilities or other property owned by the City or any income generated therefrom;
may appropriate the money of the City for lawful purposes;
may provide for, construct, regulate and maintain public works and local improvements;
may levy and collect assessments against real property within the City for local
improvements and services;
may license and regulate persons, corporations and associations engaged in any
occupation, trade or business;
City of St. Louis Park -4- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 43
HOME RULE CHARTER
may define, prohibit, abate and suppress all things detrimental to the health, morals,
comfort, safety, convenience and welfare of the inhabitants of the City and all nuisances
and causes thereof,
may regulate the construction, height and materials used in all buildings and the
maintenance and occupancy thereof,
may regulate and control the use of the streets and other public places; may make and
enforce local police, sanitary and other regulations;
may pass ordinances for maintaining and promoting the peace, good government and
welfare of the City and for the performance of all the functions thereof;
shall have all the powers possessed by municipal corporations at common law;
shall have, retain and may exercise all powers, functions, rights and privileges heretofore
possessed by the Village of St. Louis Park;
may exercise such powers beyond its corporate limits as may be necessary for the
effective exercise of any powers granted herein as authorized by law;
and in addition thereto, the City of St. Louis Park shall have and exercise all powers,
functions, rights and privileges exercised by, or which are incidental to, or inherent in,
municipal corporations and are not denied to it by the constitution or general laws of the
State of Minnesota.
The enumeration of powers herein shall not be construed to limit or restrict the powers
granted in general terms. No specific power granted in this Charter shall be construed to limit or
restrict the powers granted in this section. In addition to the powers herein and hereafter
granted, the City of St. Louis Park shall have power to deal with all matters of municipal concern
and have complete self-government in harmony with and subject to the constitution and laws of
the State of Minnesota.
Section 1.03. City to succeed to rights and obligations of former municipality.
The City of St. Louis Park shall remain vested with and continue to have, hold and enjoy all
property, property rights, rights of action and rights of every kind, privileges and immunities
belonging to or pertaining to the Village of St. Louis Park and shall be subject to all liabilities which
exist against said City on the effective date of this Charter.
Section 1.04. Application of general laws.
All general laws and statutes of the state applicable to all cities operating under home rule
charters, are applicable to cities of the same class as the City of St. Louis Park and shall be
construed as supplementary to the provisions of this Charter. The City shall have all powers and
authority granted by the laws of the state to municipalities to acquire property or exercise
authority or powers beyond its corporate limits. All powers conferred by this section shall be
exercised in conformance with this Charter and such authority and power shall not authorize the
City to incur any bonded debt in any other manner than authorized by this Charter.
Section 1.05. Charter a public act.
This charter shall be a public act and need not be pleaded or provided in any case. It shall take
effect thirty (30) days from and after its adoption by the voters (January 7, 1955).
City of St. Louis Park -5- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 44
HOME RULE CHARTER
CHAPTER 2. GOVERNMENT AND OFFICERS
Section 2.01. Council-manager plan.
The form of government established by this charter shall be known as the "council-manager
plan." All discretionary powers of the city, both legislative and executive, shall vest in and be
exercised by the city council. It shall have complete control over the city administration but shall
exercise this control exclusively through the city manager and shall not itself attempt to perform
any administrative work.
Section 2.02. Boards.
The council shall itself be and shall perform the duties and exercise the powers of all local
boards and commissions, except as herein otherwise provided. It may, however, by ordinance
create commissions with advisory powers to investigate any subject of interest to the
municipality.
The council shall encourage members of its diverse citizenry to become members of all
commissions and boards. The city shall establish standard procedures to facilitate these efforts.
Section 2.03. Elected officers.
The council shall be composed of a mayor and six (6) councilmembers who shall be qualified
voters. The mayor shall be elected at-large for a four-year term. Two (2) councilmembers shall be
elected at-large for terms of four (4) years each. The at-large seats shall be separate elective
offices designated as at-large A and at-large B.
A councilmember shall be elected for a four-year term from each of the city's four (4)
separate wards. The councilmember elected from a ward must be a resident of such ward. Should
that member cease to be a resident of such ward, that member is disqualified from further
service, and there then exists a vacancy in the office of councilmember from said ward; except
that a change in ward boundaries during the term of office shall not disqualify the member from
serving out the term.
The term of mayor and of each councilmember shall begin on the first (1st) regularly
scheduled meeting of the new year following a regularly scheduled municipal election, as
specified in Section 4.02 of this charter, and shall end when a successor has been duly elected and
has qualified but not before the last day of the calendar year in which a municipal election has
been held. The council shall be the judge of the election of its members.
The city shall be divided into four (4) separate wards, the boundaries of which shall be
established from time to time by ordinance adopted by the council based on findings of the
council that the wards so established are of as near equal size in both population and area as
practicable. After each decennial census of the United States, the council shall re-determine ward
boundaries. If the council shall fail to do so within two (2) years after the official certification of
the decennial census, no further remuneration shall be paid to the mayor or councilmembers
until the wards of the city are re-determined as required by this charter.
Oath of office. Every officer of the city shall, before entering upon the duties of this office,
take and subscribe to an oath of office in substantially the following form: " I do solemnly swear
(or affirm) to support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Minnesota and to
discharge faithfully the duties devolving upon me as (mayor or councilmember) of this city to the
best of my judgment and ability."
City of St. Louis Park -6- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 45
HOME RULE CHARTER
Section 2.04. Disqualification for appointive office.
No member of the council shall be appointed city manager or acting city manager, nor shall
any member hold any other paid municipal office or be employed by the city during the term as a
member of the council. No former councilmember shall be employed by the city, appointed to
any paid position of the city, or establish any independent contractual arrangement with the city
other than mayor or councilmember for a period of one (1) year after leaving office.
Section 2.05. Vacancies in the council.
A vacancy in the council shall be deemed to exist if any person elected thereto fails to qualify
on or before the date of the second (2nd) regular meeting of the new council. A vacancy shall also
be deemed to exist due to the death, resignation, removal from office, removal from the city,
removal of a ward councilmember from their ward, continuous absence from the city for more
than three (3) months, or conviction of a felony of any such person whether before or after their
qualification, or the failure of any councilmember without good cause to attend any council
meeting for a period of three (3) consecutive months. In each such case the council shall,
promptly by resolution, declare a vacancy of the remainder of the term and appoint an eligible
person to fill the vacancy unless the vacancy occurs within ninety (90) days of the next regularly
scheduled city or state election. In the latter case, the council shall appoint an eligible person who
shall serve until the following year's regularly scheduled election. The term of the appointed
person shall extend to the first (1st) regularly scheduled council meeting of a new year following a
regularly scheduled city or state election. The council shall call a special election concurrently with
the next regularly scheduled city or state election for the purpose of electing an eligible person to
fill the remainder, if any, of the unexpired term created by a vacancy.
Section 2.06. The mayor.
The mayor shall be the presiding officer of the council, except that the mayor pro tem shall be
mayor in case of the mayor's disability, absence from the city, or in the case of vacancy in the
office of mayor until a successor is appointed and qualified. The mayor shall vote as a member of
the council. The mayor shall exercise all powers and perform all duties conferred or imposed upon
the mayor by this charter, the ordinances of the city and laws of the state. The mayor shall be
recognized as the official head of the city for all ceremonial purposes, by the courts for the
purpose of serving civil process, and by the governor for the purposes of martial law.
Section 2.07. Compensation.
(a) The council shall set and may increase or decrease the salaries of the mayor and
councilmembers in a reasonable manner by ordinance; provided, however, that no such
ordinance shall be adopted increasing or decreasing any such salary until a public hearing
has been held thereon after publication of a notice setting forth a summary of the
proposed ordinance and the time and place of the hearing in the official newspaper at
least one (1) week in advance of such hearing. No such ordinance increasing or decreasing
any such salary shall become effective before the first (1st) day in December following the
next municipal election or such later date as is fixed in the ordinance. If within thirty (30)
days after approval of such ordinance increasing or decreasing any such salary, a petition
asking for a referendum on such ordinance is signed by registered voters equal in number
to fifteen percent (15%) of those who voted at the last regular municipal election is filed
with the city clerk, such ordinance shall not go into effect until it is first approved by a
majority of those voting thereon at a regular or special city election.
City of St. Louis Park -7- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 46
HOME RULE CHARTER
(b) When authorized by the council, its members shall be reimbursed for their reasonable
expenses incurred in connection with the city's business.
(c) The city manager and all subordinate officers and employees of the city shall receive such
reasonable compensation as may be fixed by the council.
Section 2.08. Investigation of city affairs.
The council shall have power to make investigations into the city's affairs including, but not
limited to, neglect, dereliction of duty or waste on the part of any officer or department of the
city, to subpoena witnesses, administer oaths and compel the production of books, papers, and
other documentary evidence. The council may provide for an examination or audit of the
accounts of any officer or department of the city government, or it may direct a survey or
research study of any problem affecting the city or its inhabitants at any time. Each such
investigation shall be authorized by resolution of the council.
Section 2.09. Interference with administration.
Except for the purpose of inquiry, the council and its members shall deal with and control the
administrative services solely through the city manager, and neither the council nor any member
thereof shall give orders to any of the administrative personnel of the city, other than the city
manager, either publicly or privately. If this section is violated by any member of the city council,
such violation shall result in the public censure by the council of the offending party, and may, in
addition, result in the imposition of a civil penalty to be paid to the city in an amount equal to one
(1) month's compensation payable by the city to such member. The determination whether any
violation of the provisions of this section has occurred shall be made by the council upon its own
inquiry and by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of all of the councilmembers except the councilmember
or members being charged with the violation.
CHAPTER 3. PROCEDURE OF COUNCIL
Section 3.01. Council meetings.
On the first (1st) regularly scheduled meeting of a new year following a municipal election as
specified in Sections 4.02 and 4.03 of this charter, the council shall meet at city hall at the usual
time for the holding of council meetings. At this time, the newly elected members of the council
shall assume their duties. Thereafter, the council shall meet at such times as may be prescribed by
resolution, except that it shall meet at a fixed time not less than once a month. The mayor or any
three (3) members of the council may call special meetings of the council upon at least twelve
(12) hours' notice to each member of the council. Such notice shall be delivered personally to
each member or be left in a conspicuous place at the residence if no such person be found there.
The presence of any member of the council at a special meeting shall constitute a waiver of any
formal notice unless the councilmember appears for the special purpose of objecting to the
holding of such meeting. The council may provide by ordinance a means by which a minority of
the councilmembers may compel the attendance of absent members. Except as otherwise
provided by law, all meetings of the council shall be public and any person shall have access to the
minutes and records thereof at all reasonable times. The mayor and councilmembers shall each
have one vote.
City of St. Louis Park -8- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 47
HOME RULE CHARTER
Section 3.02. Secretary of the council.
The council shall choose a secretary and such other officers and employees as may be
necessary to serve at its meetings. The secretary shall keep minutes of proceedings and such
other records and perform such other duties as may be required by this charter or the council.
The council may designate any official or employee of the city, except the city manager or a
member of the council, to act as secretary of the council.
Section 3.03. Rules of procedure and quorum.
The council shall determine its own rules and order of business, and shall keep a record of its
proceedings. A majority of the council shall constitute a quorum.
Section 3.04. Ordinance, resolutions, and motions.
Except as otherwise provided in this charter, all legislation shall be by ordinance. Every
ordinance and resolution shall be presented in writing and read in full at a council meeting;
provided, however, that the reading of a resolution or an ordinance may be dispensed with by
unanimous consent of all councilmembers present. All administrative business may be transacted
by ordinary motion. Upon the vote on ordinances, motions, and resolutions the ayes and noes
shall be recorded unless the vote is declared unanimous. A majority vote (four) of all of the
members of the council shall be required for the passage of all ordinances, motions and
resolutions except as otherwise provided in this charter, the ordinances of the city or the laws of
the State of Minnesota.
Section 3.05. Procedure on ordinances.
The enacting clause of all ordinances passed by the council shall be in the words, "The City of
St. Louis Park does ordain." Every ordinance other than emergency ordinances shall have two (2)
public readings in full, except as provided in Section 3.04. At least seven (7) days shall elapse
between the first (1st) reading or waiver thereof and second (2nd) reading or waiver thereof. All
legislation prescribing a penalty for violation thereof shall be enacted in the form of ordinances.
Section 3.06. Emergency ordinances.
An emergency ordinance is an ordinance necessary for the immediate preservation of the
public peace, health, morals, safety, or welfare in which the emergency is defined and declared,
and the ordinance is passed by a vote of at least five (5) members of the council. No prosecution
shall be based upon the provisions of any emergency ordinance until twenty-four (24) hours after
a copy of the approved emergency ordinance has been filed with the city clerk and posted in
three (3) conspicuous places in the city or until twenty-four (24) hours after the ordinance has
been published unless the person or entity charged with violation thereof had actual notice of the
passage thereof prior to the act or omission charged. Every emergency ordinance shall
automatically stand repealed on the sixty-first (61st) day following the date on which it was
adopted, but this shall not prevent reenactment of the ordinance in the manner specified in this
section if the emergency still exists. No grant of any franchise shall ever be made by an
emergency ordinance.
City of St. Louis Park -9- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 48
HOME RULE CHARTER
Section 3.07. Signing and publication of ordinances and publication of minutes, resolutions, and
administrative rules and regulations.
(a) Official publications. The council shall regulate by ordinance, subject to the requirements
of this charter, the manner in which official publicity shall be given to the holding of
elections, ordinances, resolutions, requests for bids upon contemplated purchases and
contracts, and all other matters whatsoever which require publication either by the
provisions of this charter or by the laws of Minnesota. It shall annually designate a legal
newspaper of general distribution in the city as the official newspaper of the city. Such
measures and matters required to be published by the laws of this state and this charter
and such other matters as the council may deem advisable and in the public interest shall
be published in the official newspaper. Additionally, the council may, in its discretion, mail
copies of the annual budget, ordinances, resolutions, election notices and such other
measures and matters as it may deem appropriate or post copies upon bulletin boards
located in public places in the city in such number and for such period of time as the
council may direct in each case. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as
authorizing or attempting to authorize any violation of the constitution or the statutes of
the state in any matter which is of state concern or which is exclusively under state
control.
(b) Publication regulations. Every ordinance passed by the council shall be signed by the
mayor, or by any other member of the council, the city manager, city attorney and
attested to by the city clerk, and filed and recorded by the city clerk in a book kept for
that purpose. The ordinance book shall be preserved as a permanent record of the city. If
the council determines that publication of the title and a summary of an ordinance would
clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance, the council may direct
that only the title of the ordinance and a summary be published. Such a summary shall
contain a notice that a full printed copy of the ordinance is available for inspection at the
office of the city clerk. Prior to publication, the council shall approve the text of the
summary and determine that it clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the
ordinance. Publication of the title and summary shall be deemed to fulfill all legal
publication requirements as completely as if the entire ordinance had been published.
(c) Publication of resolutions and motions. All resolutions and motions adopted at each
meeting of the council may, at the discretion of the council, be published in full or in part
in the official newspaper of the city.
(d) Reference method. Any administrative rule or regulation of any department of the State
of Minnesota affecting the city, any statute of the State of Minnesota, any published
code, specification, or regulation prepared by an official or unofficial organization for
general circulation and use may be adopted and incorporated in an ordinance by
reference thereto by marking a copy "official copy" and filing it for reference and
inspection in the city offices. The publication requirements of this charter shall be
deemed to be fully satisfied in such cases by use of this reference method.
Section 3.08. When ordinances and resolutions take effect.
Emergency ordinances adopted as provided in Section 3.06 of this charter, and ordinances
making the annual tax levy, disbursing money, determining the annual budget, and providing for
local improvements and assessments, shall take effect immediately upon their passage. All other
ordinances enacted by the council shall take effect fifteen (15) days after the date of their
publication, unless a later effective date is fixed therein. All resolutions shall take effect upon their
passage.
City of St. Louis Park -10- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 49
HOME RULE CHARTER
Section 3.09. Amendment and repeal of ordinances.
No ordinance or subsection shall be amended or repealed except by ordinance. Every
ordinance repealing all or part of an ordinance shall refer to the ordinance repealed by ordinance
number, title and date of passage. It shall specify the section or subsection number or numbe rs
affected. No ordinance or section thereof shall be amended by reference to its title alone. Each
amending ordinance shall set forth in full each section or subsection as amended; provided,
however, that this requirement shall not apply to amendments to zoning ordinances.
(Ord. No. 2365-08, 3-25-09)
CHAPTER 4. NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS
Section 4.01. General election laws to apply.
Except as hereinafter provided, the general laws of the State of Minnesota pertaining to
registration of voters and the conduct of general elections shall apply for all municipal elections of
such officers as are specified in this charter. The council shall, through ordinances adopted in
compliance with such state laws and this charter, adopt suitable and necessary regulations for the
conduct of such elections. (Ord. No. 2519-17, 5-15-17)
Section 4.02. Regular municipal election.
A regular municipal election shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in
November, 1967, and on the same day every two years thereafter, at such place or places as the
city council may designate by resolution. The council may divide the city into as many voting
precincts as it may from time to time deem necessary. Each ward shall constitute at least one (1)
voting precinct and no precinct shall be in more than one ward. At least two (2) weeks' notice
shall be given by the city clerk of the time and places of holding such election, and of the officers
to be elected by posting a notice thereof in at least one (1) public place in each voting precinct
and by publishing a notice thereof at least once in the official newspaper of the city. Failure to
give such notices shall not invalidate such election.
(Ord. No. 2291-05, 6-7-05)
Section 4.03. Special elections.
The council may by resolution order a special election, fix the time, and provide the means for
holding such special election. Three (3) weeks' published notice shall be given of any special
election. The procedure at such elections shall conform as nearly as possible to that herein
provided for other municipal elections. (Ord. No. 2519-17, 5-15-17)
Section 4.04. Judges of election.
The council shall at least twenty-five (25) days before each municipal election appoint at least
three (3) qualified voters to be judges of election for each precinct. (Ord. No. 2519-17, 5-15-17)
City of St. Louis Park -11- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 50
HOME RULE CHARTER
Section 4.05. Nomination by petition.
The nomination of elective officers provided for by this charter shall be by petition. The name
of any nominee shall be printed upon the ballot whenever a petition meeting the requirements
specified in this charter has been filed on the nominee's behalf with the city clerk. Such petition
shall be signed by at least fifty (50) currently registered electors qualified to vote for the office
specified in the petition. No elector shall sign petitions for more candidates than the number of
places to be filled at the election, and should the elector do so that signature shall be void as to
the petition or petitions last filed. All nomination petitions shall be filed with the city clerk no
more than ninety eight (98) days nor less than eighty four (84) days before the municipal general
election held in November of any year. The clerk shall prepare the ballots with names of the
candidates for an office in a manner provided by ordinance. Each petition, when presented, must
be accompanied by a twenty dollar ($20.00) filing fee.
(Ord. No. 2291-05, 6-7-05; Ord. No. 2386-10, 10-6-10; Ord. No. 2519-17, 5-15-17)
Section 4.06. Nomination Petitions.
The signatures to the nomination petition need not be contained on one (1) paper. Each
paper shall include an affidavit of its circulator stating the number of signators and affirming that
each signature was written in the circulator's presence and is the signature of the person who
signed it. The residence address of each signer shall be affixed to the petition. The nominee shall
indicate acceptance of the office, if elected, by an endorsement on the petition. The form of the
nomination petition shall be substantially as follows:
NOMINATION PETITION
We, the undersigned, electors of the City of St. Louis Park, nominate ________, whose
residence is ________, for the office of ________ to be voted for at the election to be held on the
________ day of ________; and we individually certify that we are qualified electors and that we
have not signed more nomination petitions of candidates for this office than there are persons to
be elected.
Name Street and Number
____ ____
____ ____
____________________ being duly sworn, deposes and says that the undersigned circulated the
foregoing petition and that the signatures were made in the circulator's presence and are the
signatures of the persons who signed them.
Signed____
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ________ day of ________, ________
____
Notary Public for Hennepin County, Minnesota
This petition, if found insufficient by the city clerk, shall be returned to ________ at
_____________.
City of St. Louis Park -12- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 51
HOME RULE CHARTER
I hereby indicate my willingness to accept the office of ________ if duly elected.
Nominee
(Ord. No. 2519-17, 5-15-17)
Section 4.07. Canvass of elections and taking of office.
The council shall meet and canvass the election returns within ten (10) days after any regular
or special elections, declare the results as soon as possible, and file a statement thereof with the
city clerk. Said statement shall be made part of the minutes and shall include:
(a) the total number of good ballots cast;
(b) the total number of spoiled or defective ballots;
(c) the vote for each candidate with a declaration of those who were elected;
(d) a true copy of the ballots used;
(e) the names of the judges and clerks of election; [and]
(f) such other information as may seem pertinent.
The city clerk shall notify all persons elected of the fact of their election, and the persons
elected shall qualify to take office at the time provided for by Section 3.01, by taking, subscribing,
and filing the required oath of office with the city clerk.
(Ord. No. 2519-17, 5-15-17)
Section 4.08. Voting method.
The voters elect the city’s elected officers by single transferable voting (also known as
“ranked-choice voting” or “instant-runoff voting”). The city council must provide by ordinance the
method of counting the votes and of breaking a tie.
(Ord. No. 2535-18, 5-7-18)
City of St. Louis Park -13- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 52
HOME RULE CHARTER
CHAPTER 5. ADMINISTRATION OF CITY AFFAIRS
Section 5.01. The city manager.
The city manager is the chief administrative officer of the city. The manager shall be chosen
by the council solely on the basis of training, experience and administrative qualifications. The
choice shall not be limited to inhabitants of the city or state. The city manager shall be appointed
for an indefinite period and may be discharged by the council at will. A city manager who has
been discharged after one (1) year of service shall have the right to appear at a regular council
meeting to discuss the discharge by filing a request with the city clerk within thirty (30) days after
the discharge and that the discharge be placed on a council agenda. Such appearance shall take
place within thirty (30) days after the request is filed. The council may suspend the city manager
from office, with or without pay. During the suspension, absence or disability of the city manager,
the duties of this office shall be performed by some properly qualified perso n designated by the
council as acting city manager.
Section 5.02. Powers and duties of the city manager.
Subject to the provisions of this charter and any regulations which may be adopted by the
council, the city manager shall control and direct the administration of the city's affairs. The
powers and duties of the city manager shall be:
(a) To enforce this charter and the laws, ordinances and resolutions of the city;
(b) To appoint with the consent of the council all department heads and other
officers of the city listed in Section 5.04(a) of the city charter, and to appoint and
remove for cause all permanent employees;
(c) To remove for cause, with the consent and approval of the council, all
department heads and other officers specified in Section 5.04(a);
(d) To exercise control over all departments and divisions of the city administration
created by this charter or which may be hereafter created by the council;
(e) To attend meetings of the council, with the right to take part in the discussions
but having no vote. The council may, however, at its discretion, exclude the city
manager from meetings at which removal of the city manager is considered;
(f) To recommend such measures to the council for adoption as may be deemed
necessary for the welfare of the people and the efficient administration of the
city's affairs;
(g) To keep the council fully advised of the financial condition and the needs of the
city, and to prepare and to submit the annual budget to the council; and
(h) To perform such other duties prescribed by state law and this charter or required
of the city manager by ordinances or resolutions adopted by the council.
Section 5.03. Departments of administration.
The council may create such offices, departments, divisions and bureaus for the
administration of the city's affairs as may seem necessary, and alter the powers and organization
of the same from time to time. It may enact an administrative code for the city by ordinance and
may amend that code from time to time.
City of St. Louis Park -14- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 53
HOME RULE CHARTER
Section 5.04. Other officers.
(a) Regulations. There shall be a city clerk, city treasurer and such other officers accountable
to the city manager as the council may designate by ordinance. The city clerk may be
designated to act as secretary to the council. The city attorney shall be appointed by the
council. The council may by ordinance abolish offices which have been created by
ordinance and it may combine the duties of various offices as it may see fit.
(b) Oath of office. Officers of the city shall, before entering upon the duties of their offices,
take and sign a written oath of office in substantially the following form: "I do solemnly
swear (or affirm) to support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of
Minnesota, and to discharge faithfully the duties devolving upon me as (city manager,
etc.) of this city to the best of my judgment and ability."
Section 5.05. Purchases and contracts.
The city manager is the chief purchasing agent of the city. All purchases on behalf of the city
shall be made, and all purchases and contracts shall be let, by the city manager, or city manager’s
designee, provided that the approval of the council must be given whenever the amount of such
purchase or contract exceeds the amount at which competitive bids are required by law. Except
for purchases and contracts made by the city manager, or city manager’s designee, as set forth
herein, contracts, bonds, and instruments to which the city is a party must be signed by the mayor
and city manager on behalf of the city.
(Ord. No. 2291-05, 6-7-05)
Section 5.06. Contracts--how let.
City contracts must be made in compliance with state law. The city council may reject any
and all bids.
(Ord. No. 2365-08, 3-25-09)
CHAPTER 6. TAXATION AND FINANCE
Section 6.01. Council to control finances.
The council shall have authority over the financial affairs of the city and shall provide for the
collection of all revenue and other assets, the auditing and settlement of accounts, and the
safekeeping and disbursement of public funds. In the exercise of sound discretion, it shall make
provision for the payment of all liabilities and expenses. The council shall establish the fiscal year
for the city.
Section 6.02. Power of taxation.
The city shall have, in addition to the powers expressly granted or implied by this charter, all
the powers to raise money by taxation granted by the applicable laws of the State.
City of St. Louis Park -15- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 54
HOME RULE CHARTER
Section 6.03. Board of equalization.
The council shall constitute and meet as a Board of Equalization on the third (3rd) Monday in
April of each year to equalize the assessed valuations according to law. A majority of the members
may act at such meeting and recess from day to day until they complete their statutory duties.
The annual session of the Board of Equalization shall not exceed twenty (20) consecutive calendar
days. A published notice of such meeting shall be given in the official newspaper of the city at
least ten (10) days prior to the day of said meeting. That notice shall specify the time and place of
the meeting.
Section 6.04. Preparation of annual budget.
The city manager shall prepare an annual budget which shall include any estimated deficit for
the current year. Estimates of expenditures shall be submitted by each department to the city
manager. Each estimate shall be divided into categories as required by the council and the city
manager.
The budget submitted by the city manager shall include revenues and expenses for the
preceding two (2) years, the current year, and the budget year with appropriate explanations and
shall be submitted to the council no later than the first (1st) regular monthly meeting in
September.
(Ord. No. 2291-05, 6-7-05)
Section 6.05. Passage of the budget.
The budget shall be considered at regular monthly meetings of the city council until all of the
material presented in the budget has been considered. The meetings shall be conducted upon
such matters, at such time and places, as shall be necessary to give interested citizens a
reasonable opportunity to ask questions and to be heard. The budget shall be available for public
inspection at reasonable times prior to its adoption at such place or places the city manager shall
designate. The city manager shall explain the various items therein as fully as may be deemed
necessary by the council. The annual budget finally agreed upon shall set forth in such detail as
may be determined by the city council the complete financial plan of the city for the ensuing fiscal
year. It shall indicate the sums to be raised, the sources of revenue, the sums to be spent, and the
purpose of each expenditure. The total sum appropriated shall not exceed the total estimated
revenue. The council shall adopt the budget by resolution.
Section 6.06. Enforcement of the budget.
It shall be the duty of the city manager to enforce the provisions of the budget. Any obligation
incurred by any city employee for any purpose not authorized in the budget or for any amount in
excess of the amount therein authorized shall be the personal obligation of that employee.
Section 6.07. Alterations in the budget.
After the budget has been adopted, the council shall not have the power to increase the
amounts therein fixed whether by the insertion of new items or otherwise in any amount in
excess of the estimated revenues, unless the actual receipts exceed such estimates and, in that
event, not in any amount in excess of such actual receipts. The council may at any time, by
resolution passed by a vote of at least five (5) members of the council, reduce salaries or reduce
the sums appropriated for any purpose by the budget, or may be a vote of at least five (5)
members of the council authorize the transfer of funds from unexpended accounts of the budget
for other purposes.
City of St. Louis Park -16- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 55
HOME RULE CHARTER
Section 6.08. Emergency appropriation in budget.
The council shall have power to establish an emergency appropriation as a part of the budget,
which shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the total budget. Transfers from the emergency
appropriation to any other appropriation shall be made only by a vote of at least five (5) members
of the council. The funds transferred to any department or division of the city shall be used only
for the purposes designated by the council.
Section 6.09. Levy and collection of taxes.
Each year the council shall levy the taxes necessary to meet the requirements of the budget
for the ensuing fiscal year in the manner prescribed by state law. The city treasurer shall transmit
a statement of the taxes levied to the county auditor annually. Such taxes shall be collected, and
their payment shall be enforced at the time and in the same manner as state and county taxes.
No tax shall be invalid because of any informality in the manner of levying the same, nor because
the amount levied exceeds the amount required to be raised for the purpose for which it was
levied. Any surplus shall go into a suspense fund and shall be used to reduce the levy for the
ensuing year. (Ord. No. 2386-10, 10-6-10)
Section 6.10. Tax settlement with county.
The city treasurer shall ensure that all monies in the county treasury belonging to the city are
promptly turned over to the city according to law. (Ord. No. 2386-10, 10-6-10)
Section 6.11. Disbursements--how made.
Disbursements shall be made only upon the order of the city manager after city council
approval, except under such conditions as the council may deem necessary and appropriate from
time to time by adoption of an ordinance. Every such order shall specify the purpose for which
the disbursement is made, and the fund from which it is to be paid. No claim against the city shall
be allowed unless accompanied by an itemized bill, a payroll or a time sheet, each of which shall
be approved and signed by the responsible city officer who vouches for its correctness and
reasonableness. All disbursements authorized by ordinance to be made without city council
approval shall be reviewed by the council. The council may, by ordinance, make additional
regulations for the safekeeping and disbursement of the city's funds. The council may, by
resolution or motion, waive the council's approval of salaries and wages of regular employees,
and fixed charges which have been previously authorized.
Section 6.12. Funds.
There must be maintained in the city a general fund and the funds required by law, ordinance,
the budget resolution, or other resolution. The council may make inter-fund loans and transfers
except from trust or agency funds or where prohibited by this charter or law.
Section 6.13. Receipts to go to city treasurer.
All money belonging to the city or any agency thereof shall be paid to the city treasurer by the
person authorized to receive it. All money received by the city treasurer shall be deposited as
soon as possible in a bank or banks or other depositories designated by the city council.
City of St. Louis Park -17- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 56
HOME RULE CHARTER
Section 6.14. Accounts and reports.
The city manager shall be the chief accounting officer of the city and of every agency thereof,
and the council may prescribe and enforce proper accounting methods, forms, blanks and other
devices consistent with law, this charter and the city ordinances. The city manager shall submit a
statement to the council each month showing the amount of money in the custody of the city
treasurer, the status of all funds, the amount spent or chargeable against each of the annual
budget allowances and the balances left in each, and such other information relative to the
finances of the city as the council may require. The council may at any time and shall annually
provide for an audit of the city finances by a certified public accountant or by the Department of
the State authorized to make examinations of the affairs of municipalities. On or before the last
day of June, in each year, the city manager shall prepare a complete financial report in a form
approved by the council of the city's financial operations for the preceding calendar year. That
report may be published in such manner as the council may direct and a summary thereof shall be
published in the official newspaper on or before July 31 of each year.
Section 6.15. Bonds and debt limit.
(a) In addition to the power to borrow and issue bonds and other obligations for the
payment of money specifically or impliedly granted by this charter, the city shall have the
powers regarding issuance of obligations granted to cities of its same class and to
statutory cities by the laws of the State of Minnesota. The city shall have the power to
issue and sell its bonds to the State of Minnesota and to comply with all provisions of law
relative to loans to municipalities from the permanent state funds. The city shall also have
such powers as are necessary to obtain loans or funds from the Government of the
United States and any of its instrumentalities, and to comply with all provisions of law
applicable to obtaining such loans or funds. The powers granted in this paragraph are in
addition to and separate from the powers granted by any other provisions of this charter.
Notwithstanding Section 1.04 of this charter, if the provisions of any laws referred to in
this paragraph are inconsistent with other provisions of this charter, the provisions of
such laws shall be controlling as to powers granted by such laws.
(b) In addition to its powers granted under Section 6.15(a) of this charter, the council, by a
vote of at least six (6) of its members and without submitting the question to the voters,
may authorize the issuance of bonds for any purpose permitted by state law.
(c) The total bonded debt of the city at the time any bonds are issued shall not exceed the
limit authorized by state law for cities of the same class and statutory cities.
(Ord. No. 2291-05, 6-7-05)
Section 6.16. Form and repayment of bonds.
(a) No bonds which pledge the full faith and credit of the city to their payment shall be issued
to run for longer than the reasonable life expectancy of the property or improvement for
which such bonds are authorized, as ascertained, and set forth in the resolution
authorizing such bonds, and in no case shall such bonds be issued to run for more than
thirty (30) years unless a longer maturity is otherwise authorized by state law. The
purposes for which bonds are authorized shall be set forth in the resolution authorizing
them, and the proceeds from such bonds which pledge the full faith and credit of the city
to their payment shall not be diverted to any other purposes.
City of St. Louis Park -18- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 57
HOME RULE CHARTER
(b) It shall be the duty of the city manager to include estimates in each year's budget of the
sums necessary to pay the interest on and principal of any bonds payable in the coming
fiscal year constituting expenditures to be included in the budget and payable from
revenues to be included in the budget. It shall be the duty of the council, enforceable by
mandamus upon the suit of any bondholder or taxpayer, to include such sum or sums as
may be necessary for this purpose in the approved annual budget.
(Ord. No. 2291-05, 6-7-05)
Section 6.17. Debt and tax anticipation certificates.
(a) If, in any year, the receipts from taxes or other sources should become insufficient for the
ordinary expenses of the city, as provided in the budget, or if any calamity or other public
emergency should subject the city to the necessity of making extraordinary expenditures,
the council may authorize the sale of emergency debt certificates to bear interest at not
more than the rate established by state law and for terms not to exceed eighteen (18)
months. A tax sufficient to redeem all such certificates at maturity shall be levied as part
of the budget for the following year. The authorization for an issue of such emergency
debt certificates shall be by ordinance approved by at least five (5) of the members of the
council; the ordinance may, if necessary, be passed as an emergency ordinance.
(b) For the purpose of providing money necessary to meet authorized expenditures, the
council may issue certificates of indebtedness in any year prior to the receipt of taxes
payable in such year. Such certificates shall be repaid out of such taxes before the end of
such year on such terms and conditions as the council may determine and shall bear
interest at a rate not to exceed that established by state law, such certificates outstanding
at any one time shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the tax levy payable in the current
year to the fund which benefited from the borrowing.
Section 6.18. Bonds outside the debt limit.
The council may authorize the issuance of bonds for lawful purposes outside of the debt limit
without limitation on their amount:
(a) For the creation and maintenance of a permanent improvement revolving fund;
(b) For extending, enlarging, or improving revenue-producing public utilities of
whatever nature, owned, and operated by the city, or of acquiring property
needed in connection therewith;
(c) For public improvements payable from special assessments; and
(d) For any authorized purpose for which obligations may be issued without regard to
debt limit under state law.
The council may also authorize the lease purchase of equipment or the purchase of
equipment on conditional sale contracts, provided that the lease or installment payments do not
extend beyond the estimated useful life of the equipment so leased or purchased, as ascertained,
and set forth in the resolution authorizing such lease or conditional sales contract.
(Ord. No. 2291-05, 6-7-05)
City of St. Louis Park -19- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 58
HOME RULE CHARTER
CHAPTER 7. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Section 7.01. The city plan.
The city council shall, with the assistance of the city manager and an advisory city planning
commission, prepare and adopt a comprehensive city plan for the future physical development of
the city. Such plan may be altered from time to time. It may include provisions for zoning, for the
platting and development of new areas, for the planning and location of public works of art,
public buildings, parks, playgrounds, bridges, transportation lines, and other public facilities, and
for the laying out, grading and improving of streets and public places, as well as for all other
matters which may seem essential to such a plan.
Section 7.02. Enforcement of city plan.
The council shall have power, acting through the city manager, to enforce a comprehensive
zoning ordinance. The council shall have power to pass ordinances to regulate the use of private
property, such as but not limited to the height of buildings, the proportion of the area of any lot
which may be built upon, building lines and proper and adequate provisions for parking. Such
power shall be exercised to promote public health, safety, morals, welfare, and convenience.
Section 7.03. Public improvements and special assessments.
The city shall have the power to make any and every type of public improvement not
forbidden by the laws of this state and to levy special assessments to pay for all such
improvements which are of a local character. The amounts assessed to benefited property to pay
for such local improvements may equal the cost of the improvements, including all cos ts and
expenses connected therewith, with interest, until paid, but shall not exceed the benefits to the
property.
Section 7.04. Local improvements.
The council may prepare and adopt an ordinance, prescribing the procedure which shall be
followed in making all local improvements and levying assessments. Such ordinance, when
adopted, shall supersede all other municipal provisions of the law on the same subject and may
be amended only by an affirmative vote of at least five (5) members of the council. Until the
adoption of such an ordinance, and in absence of such ordinance, all local improvements may be
made, and assessments levied as prescribed by applicable law.
Section 7.05. Public works--how performed.
Public works, including all local improvements, may be constructed, extended, repaired, and
maintained either directly by day labor or by contract. The city shall require contractors to give
bonds for the protection of the city and all persons furnishing labor and materials pursuant to the
statutes of the state.
City of St. Louis Park -20- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 59
HOME RULE CHARTER
CHAPTER 8. EMINENT DOMAIN
Section 8.01. Power to acquire property.
The City of St. Louis Park is hereby empowered to acquire, by purchase, gift, devise or
condemnation, any property, corporeal or incorporeal, either within or without its corporate
boundaries, which may be needed by the city for any public use or purpose. Easements for any
public purpose may be acquired by gift, devise, purchase, or condemnation in the manner
provided by law.
Section 8.02. Proceedings in acquiring property.
The necessity for the taking of property by the city shall be determined by the council and
shall be declared by a resolution which shall describe such property and state the use to which it
is to be devoted. In the acquisition of property by the exercise of the right of eminent domain, the
city shall proceed according to applicable law.
Section 8.03. Payment of award.
Whenever an award of damages shall be confirmed in any proceeding for the taking of
property under this charter, or whenever the court shall render final judgment in any appeal from
any such award, and the time for abandoning such proceedings by the city shall have expired, the
city shall be bound to, and shall, within sixty (60) days of such final determination, pay the
amount of the award or judgment of the court, as the case may be, and if not so paid, judgment
therefore may be had against the city.
Section 8.04. City may abandon proceedings.
The city may, by resolution of the council at any stage of the condemnation proceedings or at
any time within thirty (30) days after final determination thereof, abandon such proceedings as to
all or any parcel of the property sought to be acquired and shall pay all reasonable costs and
expenses thereof, including fees of counsel.
Section 8.05. City may acquire entire plant.
In case the city shall condemn a public utility which is operated at the time of the
commencement of the condemnation proceedings as one property or one system, it shall not be
necessary in such condemnation proceedings, or any of the proceedings of the council, to
describe or treat separately the different kinds of property composing such system, but all of the
property, lands, articles, franchises and rights which enter into and go to make up such system
may, unless otherwise ordered by the court, be treated together as constituting one property,
and an award for the whole property in one lump sum may be made by the commissioners or
other body assessing the damages in condemnation. This shall not prevent the city from acquiring
only such part or parts thereof as may be necessary in the public interest in cases where the plant
and property are separable into distinct parts.
City of St. Louis Park -21- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 60
HOME RULE CHARTER
CHAPTER 9. FRANCHISES
Section 9.01. Definition of franchise.
The word "franchise" as used in this charter shall be construed to include all privileges
granted to any person, firm, association, or corporation in, over, upon or under any of the
highways or public places of the city, whether such privileges have been or shall hereafter be
granted either by the city or by the State of Minnesota.
Section 9.02. Franchise ordinances.
The council may grant franchises by ordinance. Every ordinance granting a franchise shall
contain all the terms and conditions of the franchise and shall be adopted in the manner
prescribed by chapter 3 of the charter, except that no franchise will be granted by emergency
ordinance. In addition to the requirements of chapter 3 of the charter, no franchise ordinance
shall be granted until a public hearing has been held by the city council. Notice of the public
hearing must be published at least once in the city's official newspaper at least twenty (20) days
prior to the public hearing.
CHAPTER 10. PUBLIC OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF UTILITIES
Section 10.01. Construction, acquisition, and operation of utilities.
The city shall have power to acquire public utilities as provided in chapter 8 of this charter and
to build and construct such utilities as may be authorized by at least sixty (60) percent of the
votes cast on the issue at a regular or special election.
Section 10.02. Rates and finances.
Upon recommendations of the city manager, or upon its own motion, the council shall have
the power to fix all rates and charges for all utilities owned by the city, but such rates and charges
shall be just and reasonable. The council may prescribe the time and manner in which payments
for all such services shall be made, make such other regulations as may be necessary and
prescribe penalties for violations of such regulations.
Section 10.03. Purchase in bulk.
The council may, in lieu of providing for the local production of gas, electricity, water, and
other utilities, purchase them in bulk and resell them to local consumers at such reasonable rates
it may fix.
Section 10.04. City to pay for services.
The council shall make a reasonable charge, based on the cost of service, for lighting the
streets and public buildings, for supplying heat, water, power, or any other utility. Such charges
for light, heat, power, water, and other services shall be collected in the same manner as from
other consumers, unless the council provides some other plan.
City of St. Louis Park -22- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 61
HOME RULE CHARTER
Section 10.05. Lease of plant.
The council may, if the public interests will be served, contract with any responsible person,
co-partnership, or corporation for the operation of any utility owned by the city, upon such
rentals and conditions as it may deem necessary. Such contract shall be embodied in and let only
by an ordinance approved by an affirmative vote of at least five (5) members of the council. In no
case shall such contract be for a longer term than ten (10) years. The contractor shall be subject,
as far as possible, to the rules governing rates, service, and council control, contained in chapter 9
of this charter which are applicable to the holders of franchises.
Section 10.06. Public utility--how sold.
No public utility owned by the city shall be sold or otherwise disposed of by the city unless the
full terms of the proposition of said sale or other disposition thereof, together with the price to be
paid therefore, shall have been embodied in an ordinance passed by an affirmative vote of at
least five (5) members of the council, submitted to the electors at a general or special election
and approved by at least a sixty (60) percent vote of the voters voting thereon.
CHAPTER 11. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Section 11.01. Sale of real property.
No real property of the city shall be sold or disposed of except by ordinance or resolution. The
proceeds of any such sale shall be used as far as possible to retire any outstanding indebtedness
incurred by the city in the purchase, construction or improvement of this or other property used
for the same public purpose. If there is no such outstanding indebtedness, the council may, by a
resolution adopted by an affirmative vote of at least five (5) members of the council, designate
some other public use for such proceeds.
Section 11.02. Vacation of streets.
The council shall have the exclusive power, by ordinance passed by a vote of at least five (5)
members of the council, to vacate or discontinue highways, streets, and alleys within the city.
Such vacations may be made only after notice to affected property owners after hearing, upon
such further terms, and by such procedure as the council may, by ordinance, prescribe. A record
of each such vacation shall be filed in the office of the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles
of Hennepin County, as appropriate.
Section 11.03. Damage suits.
The State of Minnesota has regulated actions for the recovery of damages for injuries to
persons and property by statute. Therefore, the Minnesota Tort Claims Act, applicable to
Minnesota municipalities as it may be amended from time to time, M.S.A. Ch. 466, is hereby
adopted by reference. The city expressly preserves all rights and defenses accorded to it by law,
including the right to bring claims for contribution or indemnity. (Ord. No. 2614-21, 5-17-21)
City of St. Louis Park -23- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 62
HOME RULE CHARTER
Section 11.04. Civil service commission.
Subject to Minnesota statutes and the provisions of this charter, the city council may
establish, alter from time to time, or abolish, by ordinance, a civil service or merit system for all
regular city employees or for such classifications as may be deemed advisable. The city council
may create and appoint a civil service commission to administer and supervise such civil service or
merit system. (Ord. No. 2291-05, 6-7-05)
Section 11.05. Civil Penalties.
(a) The city council may establish by ordinance a procedure for imposing a civil penalty for any
violation of a city ordinance. The procedure must include provisions to notify the person or
entity of the penalty and the opportunity to be heard in response to the charge.
(b) The city council may provide by ordinance that unpaid civil penalties be collected through a
process similar to a special assessment against real property if the penalty relates to the
maintenance of the property or to an activity, use, or delivery of city service associated with
the property. The ordinance must provide that the city should first attempt to obtain
voluntary payment of the penalty. The ordinance must also provide that notice and an
opportunity to be heard be given to the property owner listed on the official tax records
before the penalty is assessed.
(c) With respect to unpaid civil penalties assessed against real property pursuant to paragraph
(b) of this section, the assessment may include late payment penalties to cover the
administrative and legal costs incurred by the city in connection with collecting the unpaid
penalties.
(Ord. No. 2411-12, 6-15-12)
CHAPTER 12. CODE OF ETHICS
Section 12.01. Declaration of policy.
The proper operation of democratic government requires that public officials be independent,
impartial, and responsible to the people; that governmental decisions and policy be made in the
proper channels of the governmental structure; that public office not be used for personal gain,
and that the public has confidence in the integrity of its government. In recognition of these goals,
there is hereby established a code of ethics for all public officials. The purpose of this code is to
establish ethical standards of conduct for all such officials by setting forth those acts or actions
that are incompatible with the best interests of the city and by directing disclosure by such
officials of private financial or other interests in matters affecting the city. The provisions and
purpose of this code and such rules and regulations as may be established are hereby declared to
be in the best interests of the City of St. Louis Park.
Section 12.02. Definitions.
When used in this chapter, the following terms shall have ascribed to them the definitions set
out herein:
(1) Associate means any person related to a public official by blood or marriage.
City of St. Louis Park -24- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 63
HOME RULE CHARTER
(2) Candidate means any individual who seeks nomination or election as a public official of
the City of St. Louis Park. An individual shall be deemed to seek nomination or election if
they have taken the action necessary under the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park to
qualify for nomination or election to an office, or have received contributions or made
expenditures in excess of one hundred dollars ($100.00), or have given consent, implicit
or explicit, for any other person to receive contributions or make expenditures in excess
of one hundred dollars ($100.00) with a view to bringing about their nomination for
election or election to an office. (Ord. 2614-21, 5-17-21)
(3) Contribution means a transfer of funds or a donation in kind and includes any loan or
advance of credit to a candidate, personal campaign committee, political committee, or
party committee, which loan or advance of credit is (a) forgiven or (b) paid by an entity
other than the personal campaign committee, political committee, or party committee to
which the loan or advance of credit is made. If an advance of credit or a loan is forgiven or
paid as provided in this subdivision, it is a contribution in the year in which the loan or
advance of credit is made.
(a) Transfer of funds means money or negotiable instruments given by an individual
or entity to a candidate, personal campaign committee, party committee or
political committee for the purpose of influencing the nomination or election of a
candidate.
(b) Donation in kind means anything of value other than money or negotiable
instruments given by an individual or association to a candidate, personal
campaign committee, political committee, or party committee for the purpose of
influencing the nomination or election of a candidate. Donation in kind includes
an approved expenditure.
(c) Approved expenditure means an expenditure made on behalf of a candidate by an
entity other than the personal campaign committee of that candidate, which
expenditure is made with the authorization or express or implied consent of, or in
cooperation or in concert with, or at the request or suggestion of that candidate,
the candidate's personal campaign committee, or the candidate's agent. An
approved expenditure is a contribution to that candidate.
(4) Expenditure means a purchase or payment of money or anything of value, or an advance
of credit, made or incurred for the purpose of supporting or opposing the nomination or
election of a candidate.
An expenditure is considered to be made in the year in which the goods or services for
which it was made are used or consumed.
Expenditure includes the dollar value of a donation in kind.
Expenditure does not include:
(a) Transfers of funds as defined in Section 12.02(3)(a);
(b) Services provided without compensation by an individual volunteering time on
behalf of a candidate; or
(c) The publishing or broadcasting of news items or editorial comments by the news
media.
(5) Election means a primary, special primary, regular or special City election.
City of St. Louis Park -25- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 64
HOME RULE CHARTER
(6) Interest means any concern which yields a pecuniary or material benefit.
(7) Personal campaign committee means any committee appointed by a candidate for any
election.
(8) Party committee means any committee appointed or elected to represent any political
party with a party organization in the State of Minnesota.
(9) Political committee means a group of two or more persons who were elected or appointed
by any political party or association for the purpose, wholly or partly, of raising, collecting
or disbursing money or directing the raising, collecting or disbursing thereof, for
nomination or election purposes, or who cooperates in the raising, collecting or disbursing
of money used, or to be used for or against the election to public office of any person or
any class or number of persons, or for or against the adoption of any ordinance or charter
amendment.
(10) Public official means any person holding the office of mayor or councilmember by election
or by appointment.
Section 12.03. Organization of personal campaign committees.
Every candidate shall designate a single personal campaign committee which shall have a
treasurer. The candidate shall file a signed statement with the city clerk stating that a personal
campaign committee has been formed and giving the name and address of every member and of
the treasurer thereof. Such filing shall be made before any expenditures are made by the personal
campaign committee. Only the candidate and the personal campaign committee shall receive
contributions and make expenditures on behalf of the candidate; provided, however, that party
committees and political committees shall not be prohibited from receiving contributions and
making expenditures related to nominations or elections.
Section 12.04. Contributions.
(1) A candidate or personal campaign committee may not accept aggregate contributions
made by an individual or committee in excess of the contribution limits provided for in
Minnesota Statutes Section 211A.12. (Ord. No. 2530-18, 2-5-18)
(2) Every person who receives a contribution or loan for a personal campaign committee
shall, on demand of the treasurer, and in any event, within fourteen (14) days after
receipt of the contribution or loan, furnish the treasurer with the name and, if known,
address of the contributor or lender, the amount contributed or loaned and the date of
receipt.
(3) No anonymous contributions in excess of twenty dollars ($20.00) or any anonymous
contributions aggregating in excess of one hundred dollars ($100.00) in any calendar year
shall be retained by the personal campaign committee but shall be forwarded to the city
clerk and deposited to the general fund of the city. This subdivision shall not apply to
anonymous contributions aggregating in excess of one hundred dollars ($100.00) arising
from fund raising sales, where in consideration of a contribution or contributions, a
person receives any tangible goods whose value has a reasonable relationship to the
contribution.
(4) All contributions of fifty dollars ($50.00) or more shall be made by check, bank draft or
money order.
City of St. Louis Park -26- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 65
HOME RULE CHARTER
(5) All monetary contributions received by or on behalf of any candidate or personal
campaign committee shall be deposited within fourteen (14) days after receipt in an
account designated "campaign fund of (name of personal campaign committee)."
Section 12.05. Use of contributions.
All contributions received on behalf of a candidate or personal campaign committee shall be
used solely for the purpose of conducting that candidate's campaign for nomination for election
or election to political office. Following an election any remaining contributions may also be paid
to the city general fund, a party committee, or any charity. Contributions may not exceed fifty
dollars ($50.00) annually to any one charity.
Section 12.06. Campaign reports.
(1) The candidate or treasurer of every personal campaign committee in every regular or
special election, shall file a financial report with the city clerk as follows:
(a) Ten (10) days before the regular or special elections;
(b) Thirty (30) days after the regular or special election; and
(c) January 31 in the year following the regular or special election.
The report shall be verified upon the oath of such candidate or treasurer of such personal
campaign committee and shall cover all transactions made up to and including the third day
before the filing of the report and not accounted for and reported upon in reports previously
filed, except that no transactions shall be made thereafter which are not included in the final
report. Each report, after the first, shall contain a summary of all preceding reports.
(2) The reports required by Section 12.06(1) shall disclose the following:
(a) Every contribution received by such candidate or committee during such period
from any source whatsoever which the candidate or committee uses or has used,
or is at liberty to use for political purposes which in aggregate exceeds one
hundred dollars ($100.00) within the calendar year, together with the name of
every person or source from which each was received and the date when each
was received, together with the total amount received from all sources in any
amount or manner;
(b) Every promise or pledge of money, property or other thing of value, which in
aggregate exceeds one hundred dollars ($100.00) within the calendar year,
received by such candidate or committee during such period, the proceeds of
which the candidate or committee uses or has used, or is at liberty to use for
political purposes, together with the names of the persons by whom each was
promised or pledged, the special purposes for which each was promised or
pledged, and the date when each was promised or pledged, together with the
total amount promised or pledged from all sources in any amounts or manner;
(c) Every disbursement by such candidate or committee for political purposes during
such period, together with the name of every person to whom the disbursement
is made, the specific purpose for which each was made and the date when each
was made;
(d) Every obligation, expressed or implied, to make disbursement incurred by such
candidate or committee for political purposes during such period, together with
City of St. Louis Park -27- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 66
HOME RULE CHARTER
the names of the person or persons to or with whom each such obligation has
been incurred, the specific purposes for which each was made, and the date
when each was incurred, together with the total amount of such obligations
made in any amounts or manner.
Section 12.07. Records.
(1) The candidate or the treasurer of each personal campaign committee or political
committee shall preserve all records and accounts required for the reports required in
Section 12.06 for one year after the date of the election.
(2) The city clerk shall keep all reports filed as required by Section 12.06 for one (1) year after
the date of the election. Reports shall be available to the public at a reasonable time and
place.
Section 12.08. Notice of failure to file.
The city clerk shall receive all reports filed as required by Section 12.06 and notify the person
required to file a report that such person has failed to file a document by this chapter.
Section 12.09. Termination report.
No personal campaign committee, party committee or political committee shall dissolve until
it has filed a termination report. The termination report shall include all information required in
periodic reports and a statement as to the disposition of any residual funds.
Section 12.10. Distribution.
The city clerk shall distribute a copy of sections 12.02 through 12.11 to every candidate for
public office upon the candidate's filing for office.
Section 12.11. Penalty.
Any candidate, personal campaign committee, party committee or political committee found
to be in violation of sections 12.02 through 12.09 shall be liable for a fine of not more than five
hundred dollars ($500.00).
Section 12.12. Filing of Information.
Each public official and each candidate must file as public record in the office of the city clerk
a statement containing the following:
(1) Individual's name, address, occupation and principal place of business;
(2) A listing of all sources of compensation received for services rendered in excess of one
thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per year without specifying the dollar amount;
(3) A list of the names of all business corporations, companies, firms or other business
enterprises or partnerships with which the individual is connected as an employee,
officer, owner, director, trustee, partner, advisor, or consultant.
(4) A list of financial interests through ownership of stocks, bonds, or other securities with
value in excess of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500.00) without specifying the
dollar amount.
City of St. Louis Park -28- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 67
HOME RULE CHARTER
(5) A list of all real property located within the City of St. Louis Park, excluding personal
homestead property, in which the individual has any financial interest in excess of one
thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500.00). The filing shall indicate the location of such
property but may omit any valuation.
Section 12.13. Family interests.
If the spouse and/or minor children of a public official or candidate hold an interest which, if
held by the official or candidate would have to be disclosed under the provisions of section 12.12,
such interest of the spouse and/or minor children must be included in the statement filed
according to section 12.12.
Section 12.14. Exclusions.
Section 12.12 shall not be construed to require:
(1) Filing of any information relative to connections or interests with any nonprofit
organization.
(2) Disclosure of privileged relationships, as recognized by law (e.g., doctor-patient, attorney-
client, pastor-parishioner, etc.).
Section 12.15. Time of required filing.
The times at which required personal financial disclosure filings must be made are as follows:
(1) Public officials--not later than sixty (60) days after the effective date of this amendment
and every April 15 thereafter.
(2) Candidates--within fourteen (14) days after filing an affidavit of candidacy or petition to
appear on the ballot for an elective office.
Section 12.16. Records.
The city clerk shall keep all reports filed as required by sections 12.12 through 12.15 for four
(4) years.
Section 12.17. Penalty.
Any candidates or public officials who fail to file all the necessary documents with the city
clerk within thirty (30) days after notice from the city clerk that they are delinquent in their filings
shall be liable for a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00).
Section 12.18. Personal financial conflicts of public officials.
(a) Contracts void. Except for any contract permitted by M.S.A. § 471.88, any public official
who is authorized to take part in any manner in making a sale, lease, or contract in their
official capacity shall have no personal financial interest in that sale, lease, or contract or
personally benefit financially therefrom unless the effect on the public official's personal
financial interest is no greater than on any other person and/or property similarly
situated. Any sale, lease, or contract entered into by the city with regard to which a public
official has acted in violation of this section is void. Any money which is paid by the
council in violation of this paragraph may be recovered from any and all persons
interested therein. Any vote pursuant to M.S.A. § 471.88 must be unanimous by council.
City of St. Louis Park -29- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 68
HOME RULE CHARTER
(b) Noncontractual transactions voidable. Any public official who in the discharge of their
duties would be authorized to take an action, vote, or make a decision concerning a
noncontractual transaction of the city which would affect the public official's interests,
unless the effect on their interests is no greater than on other persons and/or property
similarly situated, shall disqualify themselves from such action, vote or decision. Any
transaction entered into by the city with regard to which a public official has acted in
violation of this paragraph is voidable at the option of the council. Any money, which was
paid by the council in violation of this paragraph, may be recovered from any and all
persons interested therein.
(Ord. No. 2614-21, 5-17-21)
Section 12.19. Financial conflicts of associates of public officials; contracts and transactions
voidable.
Any public official who in the discharge of their duties would be authorized to take an action,
vote or make a decision concerning a contractual or non-contractual transaction which would
affect the interests of their associates, unless the effect on the interests of their associates is no
greater than on other persons and/or property similarly situated, shall disqualify themselves from
such action, vote or decision.
Any contract or transaction entered into by the city with regard to which a public official has
acted in violation of this section is voidable at the option of the council. Any money, which was
paid by the council in violation of this section, may be recovered from any and all persons
interested therein.
(Ord. No. 2614-21, 5-17-21)
Section 12.20. Gifts and favors.
No public official shall accept any valuable gift, whether in the form of money, service, loan,
thing or promise, from any person, firm or corporation which to their knowledge is concerned,
directly or indirectly, in any manner whatsoever in business dealings with the city; nor shall any
public official (1) accept any gift, favor or thing of value that may tend to influence them in the
discharge of their duties; or (2) grant in the discharge of their duties any improper favor, service,
or thing of value or accept an offer which would not have been given if they were not an official;
or (3) accept or receive anything of value through sale or gift of goods or services which would
result directly or indirectly from their position as a public official of the City of St. Louis Park.
(Ord. No. 2614-21, 5-17-21)
Section 12.21. Use of city equipment and facilities.
No public official shall request or permit the unauthorized use of city-owned vehicles,
equipment, materials, property, labor or services for personal convenience or profit.
Section 12.22. Distribution.
The city clerk shall distribute a copy of this chapter to every public official within thirty (30)
days after enactment of these sections. The city clerk shall also distribute a copy of this chapter to
every subsequently elected or appointed public official within fourteen (14) days of the public
official's election or appointment to public office and every candidate for city office upon the
candidate's filing for office.
City of St. Louis Park -30- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 69
HOME RULE CHARTER
APPENDIX A. CERTIFICATE OF COMMISSION
We, the undersigned, being duly appointed, qualified and acting members of the Board of
Freeholders (Charter Commission) in and for the Village of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, hereby certify that the foregoing document consisting of Chapters 1 through Chapter
11, inclusive, is the draft of a proposed Charter prepared and framed by said Board of
Freeholders, and hereby affix our signatures to said draft in testimony of our approval thereof,
and deliver the same to the Honorable Russell Fernstrom, President of the Council of said Village,
as the chief magistrate or executive thereof, for the action pursuant to law.
Dated at St. Louis Park, Minnesota, this ________ day of ________, 1954.
MAURICE ADELSHEIM, JR. J. E. ADOLPH KARLSSON
WILLIAM R. CHAPMAN LELAND F. LELAND
JAMES S. CULLEN MRS. LYDIA ROGERS
TRES F. GOETTING EDMUND T. MONTGOMERY
MRS. GERTRUDE HOGNANDER MRS. CATHERINE WESTERDAHL
FRED W. KAEPPEL EDWARD ROUSE
WALTER WHEELER
EVERETT A. DRAKE, CHAIRMAN
The foregoing draft of a proposed Charter and certificate in connection therewith received
this day of ________, 1954.
(Adopted December 7, 1954; effective January 7, 1955)
City of St. Louis Park -31- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 70
HOME RULE CHARTER
APPENDIX B. LIST OF AMENDMENTS
Text--(C)hapter or (S)ection Passage
Date
(O)rdinance
or Election
Effective
Date
(S) 4.03, 4.06 11/4/58 Election 12/4/58
(S) 2.08 12/8/59 Election 1/8/60
(S) 2.05 11/8/60 Election 12/8/60
(S) 4.02, 5.06, 6.04, 6.14 11/8/66 Election 12/8/66
(S) 2.04 6/14/71 (O) 1149 9/15/71
(S) 4.08 7/19/71 (O) 1158 10/20/71
(S) 5.02(b)8/30/71 (O) 1163 10/31/71
(S) 2.03 3/5/73 (O) 1211 6/6/73
(S) 5.05, 5.06 5/29/73 (O) 1224 8/29/73
(S) 6.14 5/29/73 (O) 1225 8/29/73
(S) 11.04 5/29/73 (O) 1226 8/29/73
(S) 11.04, 11.10, 11.11, 11.12, 11.13, 11.14 2/3/75 (O) 1278 5/7/75
(S) 2.03, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10 2/3/75 (O) 1279 5/7/75
(S) 3.03, 3.06, 3.09 4/7/75 (O) 1288 7/9/75
(S) 5.01, 5.02 4/7/75 (O) 1289 7/9/75
(S) 6.02, 6.03, 6.04, 6.05, 6.09, 6.10, 6.14, 6.15,
6.16, 6.17
4/7/75 (O) 1290 7/9/75
(S) 7.02, 7.04 4/7/75 (O) 1291 7/9/75
(S) 2.05, 4.03, 4.04 2/7/77 (O) 1362-77 5/17/77
(S) 2.03, 2.05, 3.01 11/8/77 Election 12/15/77
(S) 2.07 11/20/78 (O) 1432-79 12/1/79
(S) 2.09 11/6/79 Election 12/6/79
(C) 12 11/4/80 Election 12/4/80
(S) 3.07 2/18/82 (O) 1540-82 4/22/82
(S) 4.05 7/19/82 (O) 1567-82 10/26/82
(S) 2.03 11/2/82 Election 12/2/82
(S) 1.03, 1.04, 1.05, 2.03(b), 2.06, 2.07(a-d),
3.07(a-b), 4.06, 5.04(a-b), 5.05, 5.06, 6.02, 6.04,
6.05, 6.06, 6.07, 6.08, 6.11, 6.12, 6.14, 6.15(b),
6.17(a-b), 6.18(b-c), 8.01, 8.02, 9.02, 9.03, 9.05,
9.06(a-b), 11.01-11.05, 11.06, 11.07
3/21/83 (O) 1593-83 6/28/93
(S) 2.03 1/21/85 (O) 1644-85 6/28/83
City of St. Louis Park -32-City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 71
HOME RULE CHARTER
Text--(C)hapter or (S)ection Passage
Date
(O)rdinance No.
or Election
Effective
Date
(S) 1.00 9/15/86 (O) 1695-86 10/7/86
(S) 2.04, 3.04, 3.07, 4.06, 4.07, 5.01, 5.05, 5.06,
6.17, 11.03, 11.04, 12.01(3), 12.03
5/4/87 (O) 1716-87 8/10/87
(S) 2.05, 2.06, 4.06, 4.07, 5.01, 5.02, 5.04, 6.05,
6.06, 6.07, 6.15, 11.04 plus minor changes to:
1.02, 1.04, 2.03, 2.04, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 3.01,
3.03, 3.04, 3.06, 3.07, 3.09, 3.10, 4.03, 4.08(C) 5
& 6, (S) 7.01, 7.02, 7.04, 8.02, 8.05, (C) 9-11
5/20/91 (O) 1855-91 7/1/91
(S) 1.00, 1.02, 2.03, 3.03, 3.07, 5.02, 6.04, 6.08,
6.11, 6.13, 11.02, 1.04, Index
10/20/92 (O) 1898-92 12/10/92
(S) 4.03, 4.06, 6.11, 6.15, 6.16, 6.18 5/3/93 (O) 1913-93,
1914-93,
1916-93
8/11/93
(S) 5.05 & 5.06 7/1/96 (O) 2070-96 9/29/96
(S) 1.00 6/2/97 (O) 2094-97 9/9/97
(S) 2.02, 6.05, 6.07, 6.12, 6.14, 12.03, 12.04,
12.05, 12.06, 12.07 & 12.18
4/20/98 (O) 2114-98 7/19/99
(S) 11.03, Chapter 11--Certificate of
Commission, Chapter 13--Index, Chapter
14--Amendments
9/8/99 (O) 2127-98 12/7/99
Table of Contents, (S), 1.02, 2.06, 2.08, 3.01,
3.03, 3.07, 5.05, 5.06, 5.07, 7.04, 9.02 through
9.09, 11.02, 11.04, 11.05, Index
3/5/01 (O) 2193-01 6/12/2001
(S) 4.02, 4.03, 4.06, 5.05, 6.04, 6.15, 6.16, 6.18,
amended. 11.01, 11.06 (deleted)
3-14-2005 (O) 2291-05 6/7/2005
(S) 3.10 (deleted), 5.06 12-15-08 (O) 2365-08 3/25/2009
(S) 4.03, 4.06, 6.09, 6.10 6-28-10 (O) 2386-10 10/6/2010
(S) 4.01, 4.03, 4.04, 4.05, 4.06, and 4.07 5-15-17 (O) 2519-17 8/16/2017
(S) 4.08 5-7-18 (O) 2535-18 8/15/2018
(S) 2.05, 3.01, 11.03, 12.02, 12.18, 12.19, 12.20 5-17-21 (O) 2614-21 8/25/2021
City of St. Louis Park -33- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 72
HOME RULE CHARTER
CHARTER INDEX
Section
ADMINISTRATION
Administration of city affairs
Administrative code ............................................................................................................. 5.03
Administrative rules and regulations of any state department or state statute
Adoption by reference ..................................................................................................... 3.07(d)
City manager............................................................................................................................ 5.01
Contracts, how let ................................................................................................................... 5.06
Council-manager plan of government ..................................................................................... 2.01
Departments of administration ............................................................................................... 5.03
Interference with administration ............................................................................................ 2.09
Other officers ........................................................................................................................... 5.04
Powers and duties ................................................................................................................... 5.02
Purchases and contracts .......................................................................................................... 5.05
ADVERTISING
Advertising for bid
How contracts let ................................................................................................................... 5.06
Assessed valuations ................................................................................................................. 6.03
AMENDMENTS
Amendments to charter ....................................................................................................... App. B
List of amendments .............................................................................................................. App. B
Ordinances ............................................................................................................................... 3.09
AUDITS
Auditing
City manager ........................................................................................................................ 6.14
Council control ..................................................................................................................... 6.01
City finance .............................................................................................................................. 6.14
Investigations by council ......................................................................................................... 2.08
BANKING INSTITUTIONS
Depositories ............................................................................................................................. 6.13
BIDDING
Competitive bidding
How contracts let ............................................................................................................. 5.06(a)
See: PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Authority to investigate ........................................................................................................... 2.02
Board of equalization ............................................................................................................... 6.03
Bureaus; creation ..................................................................................................................... 1.02
Civil service commission ........................................................................................................ 11.04
Local boards and commissions, creating. ................................................................................ 2.02
Party committee; defined .................................................................................................. 12.02(8)
Personal campaign committee, defined ............................................................................ 12.02(7)
Personal campaign committee; organization. ....................................................................... 12.03
Planning commission .............................................................................................................. 7.01
Political committee, defined .............................................................................................. 12.02(9)
City of St. Louis Park -34- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 73
HOME RULE CHARTER
BONDS
Bonds and debt limit …………………………………………………………………………………………………………6.15
Bonds outside the debt limit………………………………………………………………………………………………6.18
Form and repayment of bonds…………………………………………………………………………………………..6.16
BOUNDARIES
City boundaries ........................................................................................................................ 1.01
BUDGET
Alterations ............................................................................................................................... 6.07
Annual ............................................................................................................................. 6.04, 6.14
Emergency appropriations ..................................................................................................... 6.08
Enforcement. ........................................................................................................................... 6.06
How adopted ........................................................................................................................... 6.05
Ordinance ....................................................................................................................... 3.08, 6.05
Passage .................................................................................................................................... 6.05
Procedure ................................................................................................................................ 6.04
Transfer of funds ............................................................................................................ 6.07, 6.08
BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS
Maintenance of buildings; authority ...................................................................................... 1.02
Materials; building authority .................................................................................................. 1.02
Occupancy, authority ............................................................................................................. 1.02
BUILDINGS, PUBLIC
Public buildings. ....................................................................................................................... 7.01
BUSINESS REGULATIONS
Authority to regulate ............................................................................................................... 1.02
CERTIFICATION
Certificate of commission ..................................................................................................... App. A
Certificate of indebtedness ................................................................................................. 6.17(b)
Certified public accountant audit ............................................................................................ 6.14
CITY ATTORNEY
Appointment ........................................................................................................................... 5.04
Sign ordinances................................................................................................................... .3.07(b)
CITY CLERK
Administrative officers ............................................................................................................ 5.04
Attest ordinances ................................................................................................................ 3.07(b)
Charter distribution .................................................................................................... 12.10, 12.22
Election notices. ..................................................................................................................... .4.02
Notice of election winners ...................................................................................................... 4.07
Records ................................................................................................................................ 3.07(b)
Secretary of council ........................................................................................................ 3.02, 5.04
City of St. Louis Park -35- City Charter (8/25/21)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 74
HOME RULE CHARTER
CITY COUNCIL
Adjournment if no quorum ..................................................................................................... 3.03
Administration limitations .............................................................................................. 2.01, 2.09
Approval of contracts .............................................................................................................. 5.05
Assessments ........................................................................................................ 7.03, 7.04, 11.05
At large members .................................................................................................................... 2.03
Audits .............................................................................................................................. 2.08, 6.14
Canvass of elections and taking of office ................................................................................ 4.07
City equipment and facilities ................................................................................................. 12.21
City use of utilities ................................................................................................................. 10.04
Compensation ......................................................................................................................... 2.07
Composition ............................................................................................................................ 2.03
Control generally ..................................................................................................................... 2.01
Council-manager plan .............................................................................................................. 2.01
Council members
Absence ................................................................................................................................ 2.05
Administrative restrictions ................................................................................................... 2.09
At large ................................................................................................................................. 2.03
Attendance ........................................................................................................................... 3.01
Candidate .................................................................................................................... 2.03, 4.05
Death .................................................................................................................................... 2.05
Expenses ........................................................................................................................... 2.07(b)
Failure to perform duties or qualify ..................................................................................... 2.05
Financial disclosure, filing ...................................................................................... 12.06 et seq.
Gifts and favors .................................................................................................................. 12.20
Mayor vote .......................................................................................................................... 2.06
Moving out of ward .............................................................................................................. 2.03
New members ............................................................................................................. 2.03, 2.05
Qualifications .............................................................................................................. 2.03, 2.04
Removal from ward .............................................................................................................. 2.05
Resignation ........................................................................................................................... 2.05
Salaries ............................................................................................................................. 2.07(a)
Term ..................................................................................................................................... 2.03
Violation ............................................................................................................................... 2.09
Voting ................................................................................................................................... 3.01
Election .................................................................................................................................... 2.03
Expenses .............................................................................................................................. 2.07(b)
Favors .................................................................................................................................... 12.20
Financial control ...................................................................................................................... 6.01
Gifts and favors...................................................................................................................... 12.20
Improvements ......................................................................................................................... 7.03
Investigation ............................................................................................................................ 2.08
Journal ............................................................................................................................ 3.02, 3.03
Meetings
Dates prescribed by resolution ............................................................................................ 3.01
Legislation ................................................................................................................ 3.04 et seq.
See: ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
Location ................................................................................................................................ 3.01
Minutes of meeting ..................................................................................................... 3.01, 3.02
Number ................................................................................................................................ 3.01
Public .................................................................................................................................... 3.01
Rules of procedure and quorum .......................................................................................... 3.03
City of St. Louis Park -36- City Charter (8/25/21)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 75
HOME RULE CHARTER
Special meetings................................................................................................................... 3.01
Nominations and elections ...........................................................................................4.01 et seq.
See: ELECTIONS
Notices, giving ......................................................................................................................... 3.07
Powers and authority ..................................................................................................... 1.04, 2.01
Creating departments/offices ..................................................................................... 5.03, 5.04
Presiding officer ....................................................................................................................... 2.06
Publications ............................................................................................................................. 3.07
Quorum ................................................................................................................................... 3.03
Residency ................................................................................................................................. 2.03
Salaries ............................................................................................................................ 2.07, 6.11
Secretary .................................................................................................................................. 3.02
Special assessments ................................................................................................................ 7.03
Subpoena ................................................................................................................................. 2.08
Surveys and research ............................................................................................................... 2.08
Use of proceeds of real property sale ................................................................................... 11.01
Vacancies ................................................................................................................................. 2.05
Voting ...................................................................................................................................... 3.04
Ward boundaries ..................................................................................................................... 2.03
CITY MANAGER
Accounting officer ...................................................................................................... 5.02(g), 6.14
Administrative duties from council ......................................................................................... 2.09
Annual budget ......................................................................................................................... 6.04
Annual statements .................................................................................................................. 6.14
Appointment, suspension, etc. ................................................................................................ 5.01
Budget enforcement .................................................................................................. 6.06, 6.16(b)
Chief administrative officer ..................................................................................................... 5.01
Chief purchasing agent ............................................................................................................ 5.05
Compensation ................................................................................................................................
Council and mayor salaries set by ordinance ....................................................................... 2.07
Contracts ................................................................................................................................. 5.05
Council direction ...................................................................................................................... 2.01
Council-manager plan .............................................................................................................. 2.01
Council members; prohibition ........................................................................................ 2.04, 2.09
Discharge ................................................................................................................................. 5.01
Duties, generally ...................................................................................................................... 5.02
Financial statement ................................................................................................................. 6.14
Interference with administration ............................................................................................ 2.09
Investigation of city affairs ...................................................................................................... 2.08
Not to be secretary of council ................................................................................................. 3.02
Planning enforcement ............................................................................................................. 7.01
Powers and duties ................................................................................................................... 5.02
Qualifications ........................................................................................................................... 5.01
Rates of city utilities .............................................................................................................. 10.02
Reports .................................................................................................................................... 6.14
Salary ................................................................................................................................... 2.07(c)
Sign contracts .......................................................................................................................... 5.05
Sign ordinances.................................................................................................................... 3.07(b)
The mayor ................................................................................................................................ 2.06
Vacancies in the council .......................................................................................................... 2.05
City of St. Louis Park -37- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 76
HOME RULE CHARTER
CITY TREASURER
Accounts and reports .............................................................................................................. 6.14
Administrative officers ............................................................................................................ 5.04
Levy and Collection of Taxes………………………………………………………………................................. 6.09
Receipts ................................................................................................................................... 6.13
Tax Settlement with County……………………………………………………………………………………………….6.10
CODE OF ETHICS
Campaign reports ................................................................................................................... 12.06
Conflicts
Financial conflicts of associates of public officials; contracts and transactions voidable. .12.19
Personal financial conflicts of public officials .................................................................... 12.18
Contributions ......................................................................................................................... 12.04
Use of contributions ........................................................................................................... 12.05
Declaration of policy .............................................................................................................. 12.01
Definitions ............................................................................................................................. 12.02
Distribution ................................................................................................................. 12.10, 12.22
Exclusions .............................................................................................................................. 12.14
Family interests ..................................................................................................................... 12.13
Filing of information .............................................................................................................. 12.12
Gifts and favors...................................................................................................................... 12.20
Notice of failure to file ........................................................................................................... 12.08
Penalty ........................................................................................................................ 12.11, 12.17
Personal campaign committees, organizing .......................................................................... 12.03
Records
Campaign committee ......................................................................................................... 12.07
Keeping on file .................................................................................................................... 12.16
Termination report ................................................................................................................ 12.09
Time of required filing ........................................................................................................... 12.15
Use of city equipment and facilities ...................................................................................... 12.21
CONDEMNATION. See: EMINENT DOMAIN
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. See: CODE OF ETHICS
CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS
Authority ......................................................................................................................... 1.02, 5.05
Conditional sales...................................................................................................................... 6.18
Conflicts. ..................................................................................................................... 12.18, 12.19
Construction contracts ............................................................................................................ 5.06
Favors………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………12.20
How let………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5.06
Over $25,000.00 ............................................................................................................. 5.05, 5.06
Public works ............................................................................................................................. 7.05
Purchasing and contracting ..................................................................................................... 5.05
Signing ..................................................................................................................................... 5.05
Utility leasing ......................................................................................................................... 10.05
Voidable ...................................................................................................................... 12.18, 12.19
CORPORATE LIMITS
Powers of city outside ............................................................................................................. 1.02
City of St. Louis Park -38- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 77
HOME RULE CHARTER
COUNCIL. See: CITY COUNCIL
DAMAGING, DEFACING PROPERTY, ETC.
Damage suits ......................................................................................................................... 11.03
DEPARTMENTS OF CITY
Departments of administration ............................................................................................... 5.03
EASEMENTS
Acquisition ............................................................................................................................... 8.01
EFFECTIVE DATE
Charter ..................................................................................................................................... 1.05
ELECTIONS
Council members ..................................................................................................................... 2.03
Nominations and elections
Canvass of elections and taking of office ............................................................................. 4.07
General election laws to apply ............................................................................................. 4.01
Judges of election ................................................................................................................. 4.04
Nomination by petition ........................................................................................................ 4.05
Nomination petitions ........................................................................................................... 4.06
Regular municipal election ................................................................................................... 4.02
Special elections ................................................................................................................... 4.03
Voting method ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4.08
Wards
Boundary changes ................................................................................................................ 2.03
Council members elections .................................................................................................. 2.03
Description ........................................................................................................................... 2.03
Redistricting ......................................................................................................................... 2.03
EMINENT DOMAIN
City may abandon proceedings ............................................................................................... 8.04
City may acquire entire plant .................................................................................................. 8.05
Payment of award ................................................................................................................... 8.03
Power to acquire property ...................................................................................................... 8.01
Proceedings in acquiring property .......................................................................................... 8.02
EMPLOYEES. See: OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
FINANCE. See: TAXATION AND FINANCE
FRANCHISES
Acceptance .............................................................................................................................. 9.02
Authority .................................................................................................................................. 1.02
Defined .................................................................................................................................... 9.01
Emergency ordinance ..................................................................................................... 3.06, 9.02
Eminent domain ...................................................................................................................... 8.05
Extension ................................................................................................................................. 9.02
Ordinances ............................................................................................................................... 9.02
Public hearing .......................................................................................................................... 9.02
City of St. Louis Park -39- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 78
HOME RULE CHARTER
GOVERNMENT
Council-manager form of government .................................................................................... 2.01
LICENSES AND PERMITS
General authority .................................................................................................................... 1.02
MANAGER. See: CITY MANAGER
MAYOR
Ceremonial head of city........................................................................................................... 2.06
Compensation ......................................................................................................................... 2.07
Disability .................................................................................................................................. 2.06
Duties ....................................................................................................................................... 2.06
Duty to redetermine ward boundaries ................................................................................... 2.03
Elected at large ........................................................................................................................ 2.03
Election, term .......................................................................................................................... 2.03
Generally ................................................................................................................................. 2.06
Martial law duties .................................................................................................................... 2.06
Mayor pro tem ............................................................................................................... 2.03, 2.06
Service of papers ..................................................................................................................... 2.06
Sign controls ............................................................................................................................ 5.05
Sign ordinance ..................................................................................................................... 3.07(b)
Term ........................................................................................................................................ 2.03
Voting ............................................................................................................................. 2.06, 3.01
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Civil penalties ......................................................................................................................... 11.05
Civil service commission ........................................................................................................ 11.04
Damage suits ......................................................................................................................... 11.03
Sale of real property .............................................................................................................. 11.01
Vacation of streets ................................................................................................................ 11.02
NAME OF CITY ............................................................................................................................ 1.01
NEWSPAPERS
Official publications regulated by ordinance ...................................................................... 3.07(a)
NOMINATIONS
Nominations and elections .......................................................................................... 4.01 et seq.
See: ELECTIONS
NOTICES, PUBLIC
Election .................................................................................................................................... 4.02
Levy of additional tax .............................................................................................................. 6.02
Minutes, resolutions, administrative rules and regulations ................................................... 3.07
Person responsible for damage ............................................................................................. 11.03
Special elections ...................................................................................................................... 4.03
City of St. Louis Park -40- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 79
HOME RULE CHARTER
OATH, AFFIRMATION, SWEAR OR SWORN
Oath of office ........................................................................................................................... 2.03
Elections, filing ..................................................................................................................... 4.07
Investigations by council ...................................................................................................... 2.08
Officers ................................................................................................................................. 5.04
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
Appointed offices
Disqualification ..................................................................................................................... 2.04
Appointments
Attorney. .......................................................................................................................... 5.04(a)
Clerk and treasurer........................................................................................................... 5.04(a)
Council vacancy .................................................................................................................... 2.05
Council members ................................................................................................................. 2.04
Disqualification ..................................................................................................................... 2.04
Manager ..................................................................................................................... 2.04, 5.01
Secretary of council ................................................................................................. 3.02, 5.04(a)
Subordinate officers ......................................................................................................... 5.04(a)
City council .................................................................................................................. 2.03 et seq.
See: CITY COUNCIL
City officers not to accept favors or contracts ................................................ 12.18, 12.19, 12.20
Civil service commission ........................................................................................................ 11.04
Council-manager plan .............................................................................................................. 2.01
Elected officers ........................................................................................................................ 2.03
Interference with administration by council ........................................................................... 2.09
Investigation of city affairs by council ..................................................................................... 2.08
Local boards and commissions ................................................................................................ 2.02
Mayor ...................................................................................................................................... 2.06
See also that subject
Merit system; establishment ................................................................................................. 11.04
Nominations and elections .......................................................................................... 4.01 et seq.
See: ELECTIONS
Oath of office ........................................................................................................................... 5.04
Officers .................................................................................................................................... 5.04
Secretary of council ................................................................................................................. 3.02
Vacancies ................................................................................................................................. 2.05
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
Adoption by reference......................................................................................................... 3.07(d)
Council and mayor salaries set by ordinance .......................................................................... 2.07
Legislation
Amendment and repeal of ordinances ................................................................................ 3.09
Emergency ordinances ......................................................................................................... 3.06
Ordinance, resolutions and motions .................................................................................... 3.04
Procedure on ordinances ..................................................................................................... 3.05
Publication of minutes, resolutions, administrative rules and regulations ......................... 3.07
Signing and publication of ordinances ................................................................................. 3.07
When ordinances and resolutions take effect ..................................................................... 3.08
City of St. Louis Park -41- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 80
HOME RULE CHARTER
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS - continued
Motions
Generally .............................................................................................................................. 3.04
Publication ............................................................................................................................ 3.07
Votes required ...................................................................................................................... 3.04
Official publications regulated by ordinance ...................................................................... 3.07(a)
Publication ............................................................................................................................... 3.07
When ordinances take effect .................................................................................................. 3.08
PETITIONS
Nominations by petition .............................................................................................. 4.05 et seq.
See: ELECTIONS
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Civil service commission ........................................................................................................ 11.04
Emergency command by mayor .............................................................................................. 2.06
POWERS AND CONSTRUCTION
Powers of city
Discretionary powers vested in city council ......................................................................... 2.01
Implied powers ..................................................................................................................... 1.02
Investigation of city affairs ...................................................................................................... 2.08
PREAMBLE .................................................................................................................................. 1.00
PROPERTY
Acquisition ............................................................................................................................... 8.01
Civil Penalties……………………………………………………………………………….11.05
Sale of real property .............................................................................................................. 11.01
PUBLICATIONS
Publication of minutes, resolutions, administrative rules and regulations ............................ 3.07
PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING
Contracts, how let ................................................................................................................... 5.06
Installment purchases ............................................................................................................. 6.18
Inter-fund loans ....................................................................................................................... 6.12
Official publications ............................................................................................................. 3.07(a)
Purchases and contracts .......................................................................................................... 5.05
RECORDS
Minutes
Council .................................................................................................................................. 3.01
Secretary of council .............................................................................................................. 3.02
Public records; keeping ........................................................................................................... 3.02
STATE LAWS
Application of general laws ..................................................................................................... 1.04
Charter a public act ................................................................................................................. 1.05
City of St. Louis Park -42- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 81
HOME RULE CHARTER
STREETS AND SIDEWALKS
Grading and improving
City Plan ................................................................................................................................ 7.01
Regulate and control the use of the streets
Powers of city ....................................................................................................................... 1.02
Vacation of streets ................................................................................................................ 11.02
SUCCESSION
City to succeed to rights and obligations of former municipality ........................................... 1.03
SUITS AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS
Damage suits ................................................................................................................ 1.02, 11.03
Injuries; suits.......................................................................................................................... 11.03
SURVEYS, MAPS AND PLATS
Platting..................................................................................................................................... 7.01
TAXATION AND FINANCE
Accounting methods................................................................................................................ 6.14
Accounts and reports .............................................................................................................. 6.14
Alterations in the budget......................................................................................................... 6.07
Annual budget ............................................................................................................ 6.04, 6.16(b)
See: BUDGET
Board of equalization .............................................................................................................. 6.03
Bonds and debt limit ............................................................................................................... 6.15
Bonds outside the debt limit ................................................................................................... 6.18
Conflicts ...................................................................................................................... 12.18, 12.19
Council to control finances ...................................................................................................... 6.01
Debt and tax anticipation certificates ..................................................................................... 6.17
Director of finance; taxes ............................................................................................... 6.09, 6.10
Disbursements; how made ...................................................................................................... 6.11
Emergency appropriation in budget ....................................................................................... 6.08
Enforcement of the budget ..................................................................................................... 6.06
Form and repayment of bonds ................................................................................................ 6.16
Funds ....................................................................................................................................... 6.12
Levy and collection of taxes .................................................................................................... 6.09
Local improvements and assessments
Authority generally ...................................................................................................... 1.02, 7.03
Bonds ....................................................................................................................................... 6.18
City plan ................................................................................................................................... 7.01
Enforcement of city plan ...................................................................................................... 7.02
Contracts ................................................................................................................................. 7.05
Fund ......................................................................................................................................... 6.12
Local improvements ................................................................................................................ 7.04
Ordinance ................................................................................................................................ 7.04
Public improvements and special assessments....................................................................... 7.03
Public works; how performed ................................................................................................. 7.05
Revolving fund ......................................................................................................................... 6.18
Special assessment authority .................................................................................................. 1.02
Special assessment fund ................................................................................................. 6.12, 6.18
The city plan ............................................................................................................................ 7.01
Enforcement of city plan ...................................................................................................... 7.02
City of St. Louis Park -43- City Charter (8/25/21)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 82
HOME RULE CHARTER
TAXATION AND FINANCE - continued
When ordinances and resolutions take effect ..................................................................... 3.08
Passage of the budget ............................................................................................................. 6.05
Power of taxation .................................................................................................................... 6.02
Preparation of annual budget ................................................................................................. 6.04
Receipts to go to city treasurer ............................................................................................... 6.13
Tax settlement with county ..................................................................................................... 6.10
UTILITIES
Acquisition
Powers of city ....................................................................................................................... 1.02
Proceedings in acquiring ...................................................................................................... 8.02
Bonds ....................................................................................................................................... 6.18
Building .................................................................................................................................. 10.01
City purchases in bulk ............................................................................................................ 10.03
City use .................................................................................................................................. 10.04
Easements ............................................................................................................................... 8.01
Election ....................................................................................................................... 10.01, 10.06
Eminent domain ...................................................................................................................... 8.05
Favors .................................................................................................................................... 12.20
Franchises ................................................................................................................................ 9.02
Fund ...................................................................................................................................... 6.12(f)
Lease operations ................................................................................................................... 10.05
Planning ................................................................................................................................... 7.02
Public ownership and operation of utilities
City to pay for services ....................................................................................................... 10.04
Construction, acquisition and operation of utilities .......................................................... 10.01
Lease of plant ..................................................................................................................... 10.05
Public utility; how sold ....................................................................................................... 10.06
Purchase in bulk ................................................................................................................. 10.03
Rates and finances ............................................................................................................. 10.02
Public utilities; authority ................................................................................. 1.02, 8.01, 10.01
Public utility fund .................................................................................................................. 6.12(f)
Public Works
Authority .............................................................................................................................. 1.02
How performed .................................................................................................................... 7.05
Planning ................................................................................................................................ 7.01
Rates and charges ....................................................................................................... 10.02, 10.04
Regulation .............................................................................................................................. 10.01
Sale of city ............................................................................................................................. 10.06
VILLAGE
Powers transferred .................................................................................................................. 1.02
Rights go to city ....................................................................................................................... 1.03
WRITS, WARRANTS AND OTHER PROCESSES
Process; service upon mayor ................................................................................................... 2.06
ZONING
Zoning, city plan ...................................................................................................................... 7.01
City of St. Louis Park -44- City Charter (8/25/2021)
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 83
Exhibit 5
City Council Packet – May 18, 2020
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 84
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 85
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 86
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 87
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 88
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 89
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 90
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 91
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 92
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 93
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 94
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 95
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 96
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 97
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 98
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 99
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 100
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 101
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 102
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 103
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 104
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 105
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 106
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 107
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 108
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 109
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 110
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 111
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 112
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 113
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 114
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 115
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 116
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 117
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 118
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 119
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 120
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 121
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 122
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 123
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 124
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 125
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 126
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 127
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 128
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 129
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 130
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 131
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 132
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 133
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 134
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 135
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 136
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 137
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 138
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 139
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 140
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 141
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 142
Exhibit 6
City Council Minutes – May 18, 2020
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 143
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 144
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 145
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 146
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 147
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 148
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 149
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 150
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 151
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 152
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 153
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 154
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 155
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 156
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 157
EXHIBIT A
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 158
The St. Louis Park City Council has an adopted set of standards called Norms and Protocols.
These standards establish clear expectations for behavior and interaction between
individuals and as a governing body. They serve to create and foster a productive
environment by encouraging participation, minimizing conflict, and ensuring everyone feels
comfortable speaking. Consistent application of these standards leads to better collaboration
and outcomes in service to the city and community.
An agreed upon set of Norms and Protocols provide for clarity and consistency, offer a shared
understanding of what is expected from each member, creates a safe and inclusive culture,
and reduces confusion and misunderstandings. By following these standards, everyone feels
valued and heard.
Norms and Protocols serve to hold individuals and the group accountable for their actions and
behaviors, builds trust among colleagues, serves to minimize conflicts, and provides for
efficiency and effectiveness in managing the council’s business.
The Norms and Protocols are reviewed and updated annually by the council.
St. Louis Park City Council norms
DO:
•Assume good intentions.
•Agree to disagree.
•Pay attention to each other; listen.
•Accept the vote once taken and support implementation. (Suggested response: “I
accept the body’s decision, even though I didn’t vote for it.”)
•Make sure everyone has opportunity to speak.
•Be respectful, open and honest.
•Exercise humility.
•Seek opportunities to make/build connections with each other.
•Address problems with other council members in a timely and constructive manner.
•Accept the decisions of other council members.
•Focus discussions on policy.
•Check self in adherence to norms; practice self-regulation.
•Keep cellphone use to a minimum and use discretion with devices at the dais
DON’T:
•Have extended side conversations during council meetings and study sessions.
•Personalize policy disagreements or take offense to what someone says as their truth.
•Get stuck when you disagree with an outcome.
EXHIBIT B
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 159
Accountability to norms
•Exercise caution calling each other out in public.
•Identify/own your feelings and needs when speaking up.
•Address issues/concerns one on one or with an intermediary.
Guidance for council/staff interactions
•DO strive to request only information you need to make the decision at hand.
•DON’T re-litigate points with staff during implementation.
•DO strive to adhere to our governance model – separation of responsibilities,
ends/means, big bowl/small bowl, etc.
Council protocols for key situations
Titles
•During council meetings, council addresses each other using titles (for example, Mayor
Mohamed)
•During study sessions, council uses first names.
•Staff use council titles in public communications with council; council is free to use first
names for staff.
Public discussions
•Council wants free-flowing discussion; the mayor is responsible for facilitating this.
•Mayor will generally speak last in council meetings but will participate more
flexibly in study sessions.
•Mayor will actively create space for at-large members in discussions.
Ward considerations
•For issues specific to a ward, the impacted ward member speaks first and make(s) the
motion unless they decline to do so.
Agenda items
•In rare situations, there may be multiple council members who wish to have council
officially consider an item at a council meeting, even if there is not widespread
support for the item. In those situations, council will consider hearing the item so
that those council members can go on the record. It is understood that this would be
a very unusual situation and staff would not be expected to do additional research or
policy development work on the item in order to prepare it for council. It is further
understood that, if made available, this opportunity would exist so that council
members can be shown to be responsive to their constituency. It is not to be
weaponized to undermine other council norms or protocols.
EXHIBIT B
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 160
Recusals
•Council members should recuse themselves from an issue as soon as a conflict
is reasonably apparent or identified, and no later than before a vote.
•Once a council member has recused themselves from an issue, they should not
work on the issue with staff or speak on it as a council member.
•When a vote happens, they may elect to sit at or leave the dais and may choose to
leave the room during the discussion.
•They also may only speak to staff or other council about the topic on the same
basis as any other member of the public.
Spokesperson
•In general, the mayor represents the council to the media on issues of “why” and staff
work with media on the “how.”
•Council may represent themselves on issues they feel strongly about, making it clear
they don’t speak for the city council.
•As a general rule, council should always notify staff of media requests and/or
appearances to avoid surprises.
Emails
•For media requests, broadly controversial issues, or social issues, the mayor and staff
are to be tied in by “reply all.” Staff are also available to assist with crafting responses.
•For city-wide or general issues:
o The group will give the mayor 48 hours to respond.
o For citywide emails, suggestion is for the at-large council members or
ward member to “reply all” to say, “Thanks for your message, I’ll reach
out separately to avoid any open meeting law conflicts" or "Thank you, I
have received this email."
o It’s okay for other recipients to reply directly to senders to acknowledge the
message.
•Forward-specific issues:
o The group will give the ward council member 48 hours to respond.
o When a member of the public sends an email to multiple council or
staff, the impacted ward member takes the lead.
o Suggestion is for the ward member to “reply all” to say, “Thanks for your
message, I’ll reach out separately to avoid any open meeting law conflicts” or
“Thank you, I have received your email.”
o It’s okay for other recipients to reply directly to senders to acknowledge the
message.
Established January 27, 2022; updated May 9, 2022; updated March 9, 2023; updated Feb. 15,
2024; updated Feb. 27, 2025
EXHIBIT B
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 161
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 162
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 163
On Monday, June 3, 2024 at 03:56:00 PM CDT, Joanne Francoual <joannefrancoual@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hello Lynette!
Well, I told her that I was going to email this to you and she thanked me profusely!
May I take that as a 'yes'?
Thank you Lynette! I think that mediation services would be wonderful!!
Joanne
From: Lynette Dumalag <duma17@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 15:51
To: Joanne Francoual <joannefrancoual@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Neighbor issue
Whoa. Can you respond to them and ask them if it is OK that you forward their message to me? I'm guessing this is Ross and Lilly. The city has mediation services, which I think is the next step.
But first let's get their OK that you can send this to me.
Thanks!
Lynette
On Monday, June 3, 2024 at 01:39:38 PM CDT, Joanne Francoual <joannefrancoual@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hello Lynette!
Sorry to bother you, but as our neighborhood council member, do you have any thoughts/suggestions about this?
Are you aware if we have neighborhood by laws that may address neighborhood property line issues?
Please see the email below
I'd appreciate any insight you may have on this!
Joanne
From: Julia <juel-mn@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 12:41
To: Joanne Francoual <joannefrancoual@hotmail.com>
Subject: Neighbor issue
Hi Joanne,
Sorry to involve you in this, but we are not sure where to turn since we are new to Minikahda Oaks. In addition to the fact that this is happening to newcomers in your neighborhood, the neighborhood directory
has been used to obtain phone numbers to send aggressive texts. The neighborhood’s reputation for being friendly and neighborly is being severely tested.
My husband, Fred, and I moved into 3320 Huntington this winter, so this is our first spring here. We find ourselves in a very unfortunate dispute with our next door neighbors, that escalated very quickly, in a
span of one week. The initial point of stress and anxiety was that they installed a regulation size basketball hoop on our property line, only a couple of feet from our driveway between our houses. It is not
perpendicular to our house, but faces right into it. A ball or, frequently, multiple balls thrown at the hoop fly directly and repeatedly at us, our house, our windows, our entryway, our cars and our driveway.
They use that hoop 3-10 times a day, every day, and continue to do so whether we, our visitors, or our cars are in our driveway. They also direct their kids to run through our driveway at all times to retrieve the
ball, an act that is incredibly intrusive and very dangerous.
In addition, their tree fell onto our yard, which is part of Bass Lake preserve. It is now completely blocking our view of the water, after we spent the last month clearing and restructuring our backyard for that
view. They keep claiming rights to the wooden fence that lines our driveway and to half of the median between our driveways. The fence is fully on our property, continues the line of fence in our backyard and
is attached to our gate. According to property records, our lot is completely rectangular, the same in the back of the house as in the front, so the fence and division lines should be consistent from our backyard
to the side yard. Finally, we noticed that there is a water drainage issue caused by their new, three car, two story garage with steep eaves, that seems to have been built way too close to our old garage. The
water is coming out of their garage gutter that is buried either on the property line, or, possibly on our property. City code requires that gutters and eaves be at least 2 feet away from the property line. The
garages are at the very end of a flat land area, immediately behind them is a steep drop off into the marsh. The water from their gutter is causing significant soil erosion very quickly on the hill, which is putting
their garage in danger of crashing right into the protected marsh below. It also now compromises the integrity of the foundations of our garage and poses danger to our persons and our property.
We wanted to start addressing these issues with them through a conversation. We know that these are very difficult issues to bring up, but that it must be done, due to the degree of the potential dangers and
liabilities that they pose. We decided the softest way to approach them would be to send a friendly text, inviting them to our house for some wine, at a time of their convenience, to discuss some property line
issues. Within minutes of my husband sending that text, the neighbor was aggressively knocking on our door, refusing to come in, with his arms folded at his chest and steam coming out of his ears. I followed
my husband into our driveway, as this tall, much younger man was intimidating and threatening. In a raised voice, he started talking about this neighborhood and how we are starting things off on the wrong
foot, that sending a text is way too formal, that this neighborhood is much more casual and friendly. According to him, this neighborhood doesn’t care about things like encroachment on property, grounds for
adverse possession, obligations and liabilities based on property lines, or interference with the neighbor’s (and the neighborhood’s, frankly) quiet enjoyment of their property. He then called his wife, who
calmed him down a little, even though he proceeded to insert utterly irrelevant personal information into the conversation - like the fact that he’s an introvert and that he rebuilt his house from the studs up. He
even dragged his little kids over so that I tell them why it is dangerous for them to run in the way of our cars on our driveway. We conditionally concluded that fraught conversation by agreeing that they would
limit the basketball playing to the very reasonable 10 am to 10 pm, and abstain if they see that we have visitors, and that the neighbor would cut up and dispose of his fallen tree in the winter, as he is very
skilled at and very fond of tree cutting, but wants to wait until the ground is frozen over.
In the next few days, they started to send very aggressive texts first just to me, then to both to myself and to my husband. I have not previously sent them any texts or given them my phone number, the
neighbor said she found my number in the neighborhood directory. The first text said that they’re not liable for their fallen tree and that we need to call our insurance. Our insurance, as far as we can discern
from reading our policy, does not cover fallen trees unless they fall on our house or on our driveway. Then they informed us that they only need to obey the city official quiet hours, which start at 7 am on
weekdays, not our agreement with them. Then they sent an excerpt from a completely inapplicable statute to tell us that we need to pay them half of the cost of the fence, which we bought as part of our home
purchase, as it was on our property when we bought the house and we were not notified of any easements. The texts were getting so intrusive, disruptive, and stressful, that I had to ask them to communicate
to me in person, not through text. Then, even after I requested they don’t text me with property related issues, the neighbor sent yet another juvenile, harassing and aggressive text, at which point I blocked him.
What this appears like to us at the moment, is that these people abused the time when the long-time occupant of this house became elderly and widowed, and encroached on his property when he could no
longer pay attention and was not up for a fight. Who knows, maybe their encroachments and aggression are what finally drove him out of his home of many decades. It is doubtful that he would have tolerated
this in his prime, as he did not agree to give an easement to the city for the Bass Lake pedestrian walkway. No neighbors seem to have been to his backyard, so he was very protective of his property lines, as
well as of his privacy when he could be. Following him, the house was being flipped and nobody lived here while it was under construction last year. The man whom we bought this house from was likely not
aware of these encroachments, being a realtor/flipper, not a resident. The neighbors seem to have expanded their already very large double plot holdings into our space in this time period. And now that they
are being confronted with the consequences of their actions, they are trying to bully their way out of it, rather than reach agreements and solutions as adults.
We are trying to protect our safety, sanity and our property, to stay free of the slew of the potential liabilities all this causes, not be subject to intimidation and harassment from our next door neighbors in answer
to our plea for consideration, as well as to protect the beauty, reputation and peace of the neighborhood and the waterway. We tried to have a peaceful conversation and calmly work with our neighbors to
resolve these issues, but were met with menace, total lack of empathy, and intimidation. All of the encroachments we speak of are easily observable to the naked eye and we have the record of all the texts.
We now have no choice but to pay for a land survey, which is going to cost us close to $2,000 to protect our property rights, which we, ourselves, are not breaching in any way. We have owned property in the
Minneapolis area since 1990 and have never had cause to obtain a land survey, have never been in any disputes with our neighbors, were always able to resolve any property issues amicably. This level of
aggression, lack of any consideration, and petty bullying is absolutely unacceptable and any community that wants to be known as friendly and welcoming needs to step in and protect its reputation.
Please advise us what, if anything, the neighborhood association normally does in these situations. Does the neighborhood association have any sort of code of conduct applicable here? Are there any rules
against throwing balls at your neighbors and their property? Any rules about the amount of nuisance noise that is acceptable in such a quiet neighborhood and in such small quarters? Any regulations about
encroachments? What if these encroachments pose significant liability to persons, property, and protected waterways? Are there practices involving neighbors’ large trees that fall onto their neighbors yards
and obscure their brand new, hard worked for view?
Despite this shocking experience, we are still willing to believe that the encroaching neighbors are an aberration and not the rule in this neighborhood. All occupants of other houses in our vicinity seem very
nice, quiet and considerate. The basketball hoop across the street from us poses no problems, as it is rarely if ever used and is pointing at their own driveway and house. We are not subjected to other
people’s or children’s loud and constant hobbies, no regularly intrusive noises, and there are no barking dogs. Only this one house. We would appreciate any and all conflict resolution assistance.
Thank you so much,
Julia and Fred Ramos
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 164
From: Julia <juel-mn@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 5:01 PM
To: Sean Walther <SWalther@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Cc: Gary Morrison <GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Lynette Dumalag
<LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Cindy Walsh <CWalsh@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Karen Barton
<KBarton@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Re: neighbor issue
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you, Sean.
We also do not know what specifically we are appealing because we do not have anything in
writing other than the June 24th letter. That letter just states that the property irons must be
exposed and that the inspection must be scheduled by July 8th. We do not have any written
language to appeal as far as what the outcome of that inspection was. We are being repeatedly
told that it must be “in compliance.” Does that mean it needs to be removed? Does that mean
it needs to be relocated? If so, was there an express approval of the proposed relocation site?
In approving that site, was any consideration given to the hazard, nuisance and unprecedented
nature of such a site poses? Was there counseling provided that such a proposed site for
relocation is extremely inappropriate? Was there a discussion about the direction in which the
basketball hoop faces - the fact that it is pointed at our house and our driveway, so the balls are
being thrown directly at us and our property? What was the date by which such removal or
relocation was supposed to be achieved?
We did not receive any notice of when the inspection was scheduled and therefore were
caught off guard when the harassment from the neighbors suddenly resumed immediately
following that inspection. As the next day was a holiday, we had no notice or explanation of
what occurred or what the actual decision was until our phone conversation with Gary on July
5th. We were not notified of the 20 day appeal deadline until that time and did not have even
a copy of the June 24th letter until that day. We feel that the date of the inspection, July 3rd, is
the day the decision was made and the existing sport court was deemed to be in non-
compliance. Therefore that’s the date that the appeals process should start at the earliest and
that the appeal deadline should be July 23rd. Even more fair would be to consider it to start on
the date a written notice of the decision is actually written. We are very much prejudiced
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 165
under the current deadline and our attorney is not able to prepare appropriate supporting
documentation under these deadlines. We have no intention of appealing the decision to
inspect the property by July 8th or the decision of July 3rd that the current location is out of
compliance. To hold us to the deadline of 20 days from June 24th is arbitrary.
In order to evaluate whether to and what to actually appeal, and to prepare substantive
documentation, we need a written description of what the zoning decision on July 3rd actually
was. Gary said that it is in the chain of emails, but we do not have any such writing.
As the city has verified that it determined that the sport court in its current location is in non-
compliance with the City Code and no appeal has been filed, we believe it would be entirely
appropriate to notify the party in non-compliance that the sports court out of compliance must
not be used.
We agree that it would be unfair to require our neighbors to remove or relocate the sports
court by July 8th. Gary’s letter of June 24th did not say anything about removing or relocating
by that date. It just said that the inspection must occur by that date. It seems especially
unrealistic to require them to obtain contractors to do so during a holiday week and weekend.
None of us knows at this point whether the neighbors intend to relocate the court to their
absurd proposed location or to be reasonable and use this opportunity to remove it
permanently or relocate to a location that would not be so objectionable. Not only do they
have a large lot with lots of other possible sites, they have a whole second lot behind this one.
The city should provide all of us guidance to the exact timing and its exact decisions. The
only thing that is clear right now is that the city definitively decided on July 3rd that the
current location is out of compliance. Therefore, the only reasonably instruction at this point
is that it should not be used in its current location.
We request that the City provide us with an explanation for its zoning decision to measure the
5 foot setback to the basketball pole rather than an entire sports court. As the zoning code
does not have any definition of a “sports court” this is left to a reasonable person
interpretation. We raised this issue to Gary and received no answer other than “5 foot
setback.” Our position is that measuring this 5 foot just to the in-concrete in ground pole is a
misapplication of the zoning code. Sports courts contemplate actual activity to be conducted
on them. The code specifically separates them from the concept of “structures.” Unlike a flag
pole, a sports court requires vigorous activity on its perimeter. Therefore many jurisdictions
provide for a perimeter around any basketball hoop. A reasonable person understands that a
sports court involves an area in all directions significantly beyond the basketball hoop itself. It
is a misreading of the Code to decide that only the "basketball hoop structure" needs to be set
back five (5) feet from the side property line. Instead, the Code says that the "sport court"
needs to be set back from the property line. In this particular case, a basketball sport court
needs to include a baseline area for typical basketball activities, including missed shots, layups
and turnovers out of bounds.
The fact that these people did not actually build a pad behind the pole to conduct those
activities does not eliminate the fact that those activities are being conducted and just implies
that they will be using the surrounding area of grass or, in our case, of our driveway, to
conduct these activities. Of course they could not construct the actual pad sufficient to those
activities, because in its current or proposed location, that would be on our property. They are
effectively avoiding and breaching the intention of the code to provide for a safe location of a
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 166
sports court if they do not have enough property in this side yard to actually conduct this
activity.
In addition, and significantly, the code states that its purpose is to “preserve… public health
and safety, property values and allow all residents a reasonable use and enjoyment of
property.” The specific zoning regulations, such as 5 feet setbacks for sport courts should be
interpreted with that intention. If in fact Gary approved the relocation of just the basketball
pole, not the entire sports court within 5 feet of our cars, our persons, our entryway, our
windows, our visitors and our pets, that would be an interpretation that completely disregards
our health and safety, reduces our property value and interferes with our use and enjoyment of
our property. If the neighbor is permitted to create a basketball sport court without any
baseline area, the City will be permitting a use by the neighbor which will inevitably result in
trespasses on our property, and a nuisance which frustrates our ability to peacefully use our
property.
Finally, we do not have any information on the appeals process. Who conducts it? When will
the hearing take place? Are we allowed to come in and present our case? What documentation
is requested/required? When will the decision be issued? Will it be in writing?
I look forward to answers to all the questions and issues I raised.
Thank you.
Julia Ramos
On Jul 8, 2024, at 1:38 PM, Sean Walther <SWalther@stlouisparkmn.gov> wrote:
I am Gary’s supervisor. He consulted me on this decision and I supported this course of
action. This is also supported by my supervisor, Karen Barton.
Based on the email exchanges up to Friday, it seemed an appeal of staff’s decision was
eminent albeit unclear what would specifically be appealed. It is impractical to
potentially require moving the basketball hoop twice. It is reasonable and prudent to
allow this person more time to comply with city code pending a potential, and what
seemed to us likely, appeal of staff’s determination that would relate to hoop
placement. It is common practice to provide additional time when a variable such as
this is introduced. An appeal may result in different direction regarding how to comply
with city code. Please continue to work with Gary Morrison. He has been very
communicative to all parties throughout and in his role as zoning administrator, he is the
authority on this matter.
I was also forwarded a voicemail this morning to Cindy Walsh in which you indicated
Gary has not been responsive. In viewing the emails chains, he has shared the date of
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 167
his determination, the deadline to appeal the decision that the hoop needs to be 5 feet
form the property line per zoning code, the cost to appeal and that a letter to Gary
formally filing the appeal is sufficient (there isn’t a special city form to complete).
In addition, I heard that you and the neighbor are considering mediation, which may help
to resolve the matter.
Sean Walther, AICP (he/him/his)
planning manager/deputy community development director | City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Office: 952.924.2574
www.stlouispark.org
From: Julia <juel-mn@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2024 5:46 PM
To: Gary Morrison <GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Cc: Lynette Dumalag <LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Cindy Walsh
<CWalsh@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Sean Walther <SWalther@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Re: neighbor issue
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Gary,
That is absolutely unacceptable that you notified the neighbor that he does not
need to take the structure down by July 8th. We need that to be reversed
immediately. We were collecting information from you on whether to appeal and
will ask for input from City management as soon as they are back in the office
before we make that decision. We have not filed an appeal. NO APPEAL HAS
BEEN MADE. Therefore there is no appeal process to complete at this point.
There is zero reason to delay enforcement of your order to remove the structure
by July 8th.
We very specifically told you that we are NOT appealing your decision of June 24
that the pole needs to be removed. We are NOT appealing that decision at all and
never stated that intention.
We very urgently request that as you specified in your written decision of June 24,
you notify the neighbor that the structure needs to be removed by July 8th.
Julia Ramos
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 168
On Jul 5, 2024, at 4:35 PM, Gary Morrison
<GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov> wrote:
Hi Julia,
There is no application form for an appeal. All I need from you is a
written notice stating the decision you are appealing. Include any
background or arguments/documents that support your appeal.
Attached is the letter I sent to the neighbor notifying them of the
violation. The letter states that a five foot minimum setback is
required from the sport court to the side lot line. It also states that the
measurement is taken from the lot line to the basketball hoop
structure. The decision that the proposed location meets code was
not put in writing to your neighbor, but is stated in the email chain
below.
When an appeal is made, then we delay enforcement until the appeal
process is complete. Therefore, I notified the neighbor that the
structure does not have to be relocated by July 8. The structure can
remain in its current location until the appeal process is completed.
This means until July 14 if you choose not to appeal, or until a final
determination is made as a result of the appeal process. The city will
not intervene in the use of the basketball hoop while the appeal
process is underway.
You can find more information about the appeal process by reviewing
city code section 36-30. This section of code outlines the appeal
process.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Gary Morrison
Zoning Administrator | City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Office: 952.924.2592
www.stlouispark.org
Experience LIFE in the Park.
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 169
From: Julia <juel-mn@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2024 12:45 PM
To: Gary Morrison <GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Cc: Lynette Dumalag <LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Cindy Walsh
<CWalsh@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Sean Walther
<SWalther@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Re: neighbor issue
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links
or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you so much for your response, Gary, I hope you enjoyed the
Holiday yesterday despite the rain.
We have communicated with mediation and started that process.
We are really grateful that the city has this service.
We have no choice but to pursue the appeal of the zoning decision to
relocate. We are not contesting the zoning decision of June 24 where
the sport court was found to be out of compliance. We are contesting
the decision to allow it be relocated just a short distance over. As we
said, this does not solve the hazard and nuisance problem and
establishes a dangerous precedent for the city. Was that approval of
relocation of the sports court to still be between houses in writing?
Can we please have a copy of that writing, as well as of the June 24th
letter noting the non-compliance of the current location? We need
that documentation to prepare for our appeal. As we stated before,
we do not believe that a basketball court should be measured from
the pole, but should be measured from the 6-7 foot baseline,
followed by the edge of the sports court, which should be an
additional 5 feet from the pole. The “structure” is the entire sports
court, not just the basketball pole.
We do not want to make any impression that we are appealing the
decision that the current location of the sports court is out of
compliance and must be removed by July 8th.
Is there a form for the notice of appeal? To whom do we write the
check? To what address should we be sending the notice of appeal?
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 170
What can we expect after we file our notice of appeal? Is the decision
to approve the proposed new location of the pole frozen at this stage
and they are not allowed to relocate until the appeals process is
complete?
Finally, are they allowed to use the current structure that has been
decided as being out of compliance?
I look forward to the tree review by Michael Bahe.
Thank you again,
Julia Ramos
On Jul 5, 2024, at 12:05 PM, Gary Morrison
<GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov> wrote:
Hi Julia,
I’m sorry to hear about the noise. I did give them the
information about the mediation services the city makes
available to residents. In case you don’t already have it,
and you are interested in the mediation, then you can
reach out to the Community Mediation team at 763-561-
0033. This organization is not affiliated with the city, we
just pay for the services to help neighbors with issues
that are beyond the city’s scope. The mediators are very
good, and will handle all communications and steps
needed to set up the mediation.
Apart from the mediation, we discussed the five foot
minimum setback required for the basketball hoop. A
measurement was taken from where he proposes to
move it to, and it will meet that requirement. He was
given until July 8th to relocate the structure.
An appeal of a decision made by the zoning
administrator can be appealed to the Board of Zoning
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 171
Appeals. The appeal can be made by filing a notice of
appeal with the community development department
addressed to the Boad of Zoning Appeals. The notice
needs to state the action appealed and state the specific
grounds upon which the appeal is made. There is a $325
fee required for appealing actions. This fee needs to be
included with the notice of appeal. A notice must be filed
within 20 days of the written notice stating the decision.
The notice was written on June 24, 2024. The 20 days
expires on July 14, 2024.
With regards to the tree, I will reach out to Michael Bahe
to set up a time for him to review it.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Gary Morrison
Zoning Administrator | City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Office: 952.924.2592
www.stlouispark.org
Experience LIFE in the Park.
From: Julia <juel-mn@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 1:48 PM
To: Gary Morrison <GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Cc: Lynette Dumalag <LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Cindy
Walsh <CWalsh@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Sean Walther
<SWalther@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Re: neighbor issue
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender
and know the content is safe.
Hi Gary,
We’re under a barrage of harassment here following your
conversation with our neighbor yesterday. He’s
continuing to send aggressive texts and they are playing
at the hoop non stop. We asked them specifically to be
mindful that our offices face the hoop and not to make
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 172
excessive noise during the workday. So they are doing
this today to spite and harass us. As you determined and
informed them that the current hoop is out of
conformance, are they allowed to be using it still? What
is the date by which you told them they must have the
structure removed?
Can you please give us written evidence of your final
decision regarding the position of their sports court in
writing? What is the appeals process for zoning decisions
in St. Louis Park? We believe this decision does not
meet the necessary court offsets and safeguards
reasonable and necessary for any basketball court and
sets up a dangerous precedent of allowing sports courts
to be constructed in between houses, especially with
yards as narrow as ours. I understand that you are
applying the regulations as they currently stand on the
books, but I do not believe this is in the interests of the
city or its residents. We would like to start an appeal
before the hoop is relocated to their currently proposed
location that you approved, which would be even closer
to our main door and in front of our office and kitchen
windows, literally in the narrowest part of our driveway.
We are facing entitled, petty, selfish, lying and aggressive
people on the other side of this issue. You mentioned
mediation services. Can you please give me that
information on how I can get that process started?
I also just reread your old emails and I missed where
earlier you mentioned that you could come out with
natural resources manager to assess the fallen tree
situation. The noise from the hoop and the stress from
the harassment is making it hard to think. I would very
much appreciate if you could still come out with the
appropriate personnel to look at the fallen tree. Next
week I am available on any of the mornings until 1:30.
Thank you,
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 173
Julia Ramos
On Jul 1, 2024, at 4:02 PM, Julia <juel-
mn@comcast.net> wrote:
Hi Gary,
Thank you for sending the letter to the 3330
neighbor last week. Unfortunately, it did not
seem to abate the use of the baseball hoop
as their main activity this weekend. Not only
did they continue to use the court all week,
this Sunday they hosted a series of
gatherings where their visitors also
participated in the ball throwing and noise
making primarily right under our windows
and at our narrow point of entry.
For the record, I actually did not formally ask
you to review the garage situation. I wanted
to get a proper survey done before
addressing that formally. I asked the zoning
department only about the sports court after
checking variety of city zoning regulations. I
sent a separate email to my neighborhood
president after receiving a series of
harassing texts from my 3330 neighbor, as I
was at a loss for what to do. I did not know
that another neighbor is on the City Council
and that she would forward my email to the
city leadership.
I do believe that the 3330 neighbor read your
letter, as he placed a wooden stake marked
“bball” slightly towards his driveway, but
essentially in the same location. Seems like
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 174
he’s acknowledging that the current
placement is not meeting the 5 foot setback
requirement, but is proposing to relocate the
pole just slightly more towards his driveway
to neatly skirt that regulation. This
completely does not resolve the hazard and
nuisance issue that the basketball pole
poses. It would be even closer to our door,
our main loading and unloading zone, less
behind a fence, and still between our houses
and under our windows.
In our experience, residents tolerate noise
and nuisance from their neighbors when they
know it’s temporary and that, if asked, the
neighbors would stop the offensive practice.
In our case, our gentle requests were
brushed off and an invitation to discuss over
wine was met with belligerence and
mocking and harassing texts. Our request
for consideration encountered an absolute
refusal do change. So we cannot resolve
this situation by normal means of
communication and establishing reasonable
practices with these neighbors.
We have actually been paying particular
attention to basketball hoop placement and
have yet to see a single house in St. Louis
Park, Edina or Minneapolis where a
basketball hoop is located between actual
houses or under the neighbor’s windows, let
alone a sports court where the pole is set in
concrete. Is there really no current zoning
provision that would address this highly
irregular placement of a sports court? If so,
I am guessing that nobody has been
obnoxious enough to place their baskettball
hoop or a sports court in between houses,
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 175
especially when one house is in a
particularly narrow city lot. But this issue
must be addressed now that it happened,
whether with a new regulation prohibiting
placement between houses or with having a
parameter rule on baseball poles/sports
courts, or something of that nature.
The edge of the sport court should not be the
measuring line for the placement of the
basketball pole itself. The pole itself is
usually placed 5 or so further in from the
edge of the sports court. In addition, every
basketball court should provide for a
baseline area behind the edge of the court of
approximately 6-7 feet to allow players to
shoot layups and run past the hoop and to
retreat balls that miss. Currently our
driveway serves as this area behind the hoop
for balls to drop as well as the baseline area.
So the hoop must be placed much further
back from the property line - 5 feet from the
property line to the baseline, additional 6-7
feet for the baseline to the edge of the court,
5 feet in from the edge of the sports court to
the pole, totaling 17-18 feet from the
property line to the pole. This may not be in
the SLP zoning code yet, but this is the
standard for basketball courts.
<image001.png>
I am still wondering why this northt part of
their lot is not considered their back yard, if
their front door is facing their neighbor to the
south, rather than the street to the east.
According to the zoning drawing you sent
me, this is their back yard, as it is behind
their front door. If it’s their back yard, would
it not require a 25 foot setback and full
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 176
fencing? I am suggesting this as a way to use
existing zoning regulations to solve this
issue. Is there any other regulation you can
think of or any other conversation you could
have with them to have them remove this
pestilence permanently or to move it as far
away from our living quarters as possible?
Not only do they have a wide lot with plenty
of other spaces for them to practice their
sports, but they have a whole second lot
behind this one, which could easily
accommodate a sports court in a much safer
and far less provocative and dangerous
space.
Their reasoning is that they are just so much
into basketball that having that pole set in
concrete under our windows is essential. I
think particularly if they are so much into it
and practice constantly, that they should
seek a location for this activity that would
not interfere with other people or pose such
potential hazards and liabilities. Like a gym
or a park. Or, if it’s so important, spend the
money on the additional paving and build a
sport court in the lower part of the second
lot, away from the neighbors' residences.
I really implore you to use this opportunity to
solve this issue through your zoning powers.
If it is not solved now, it’s going to lead to all
kinds of liability issues, be a sore spot in the
neighborhood, interfere with everyone’s
peaceful enjoyment of their property, and be
a drain on city resources with continuous
requests for additional regulation and,
possibly, police involvement. The purpose
of zoning regulation is to protect health,
safety and welfare of the residents.
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 177
Allowing a precedent of installation of
sports court or permanent sports equipment
in constant use in between houses with
narrow lots, especially where long driveways
are next to each other and entry points into
garages and houses are concerned, is very
much against the health, safety and welfare
of the community.
Thank you so much, I really appreciate all
your help with this unfortunate situation.
Julia Ramos
On Jun 10, 2024, at 8:47 AM,
Gary Morrison
<GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov>
wrote:
Thank you for the email Fred.
You are correct, I do not believe
there is anything in the zoning
ordinance that regulates the
position of the hoop. Without
the code provision, it makes it
difficult for the city to require a
change.
But, I’ll see what I can do about
the location of the hoop.
Gary Morrison
Zoning Administrator | City of St.
Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park,
MN 55416
Office: 952.924.2592
www.stlouispark.org
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 178
Experience LIFE in the Park.
From: Fred Ramos
<frederickramos@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 8:40
AM
To: Gary Morrison
<GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Re: neighbor issue
CAUTION: This email originated from
outside of the organization. Do not
click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know
the content is safe.
Hi Gary,
Can you add me to your email
communications with my wife
Julia? She is offsite this week
working during the day.
I wanted to add that after this
hoop is disassembled or
removed, any future hoops
should not be set up so that
balls fly in the direction of our
house. I searched the zoning
code, but did not see language
on this Applying a reasonable
person standard, however, this
type of set up clearly poses a
hazard to the people subject to
incoming balls and risks
property damage, in addition to
disrupting the enjoyment of life.
Most hoops that I have seen are
positioned on a garage or
toward the owner’s own house.
Down the street there is a hoop
set up on the street so that the
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 179
ball is thrown in the direction of
the owner’s own yard.
Thank you.
Fred
On Jun 9, 2024, at
12:16 PM, Julia
<juel-
mn@comcast.net>
wrote:
Begin
forwarded
message:
From: Gary
Morrison
<GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject:
RE:
neighbor
issue
Date: June
7,
2024
at
1:59:44 PM
CDT
To: Julia
<juel-
mn@comcast.net>
HI
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 180
Julia,
Just
want
to
answer
your
questions
below:
The
code
doesn’t
specify
that
the
seven
foot
side
yard is
a
driveway
side. It
is up to
the
property
owner
to
decide
which
side
they
want
the
wider
setback.
For
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 181
narrow
lots
that
tends
to be
the
driveway
side,
but for
wider
lots,
like
your
neighbor’s,
it
remains
undetermined
until
they
declare
it,
typically
with an
addition
to the
side
that
takes it
to the
five
foot
setback,
leaving
seven
or
more
feet on
the
other
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 182
side.
The
neighbor’s
detached
garage
is in
the
back
yard,
not the
side
yard.
So the
two
foot
setback
applies.
The
side
yard
and
back
yard
are
defined
as
shown
in the
following
exhibit:
<image001.png>
The
decision
to have
a
survey
done is
yours.
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 183
The
city
can’t
make
them
pay for
it.
The
process
the city
follows
when
verifying
setbacks
is to
have
them
locate
the
corner
irons.
That
should
be
simple
enough
to do
as they
were
there a
few
years
ago.
With
regards
to the
tree, I
will
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 184
have
the
city’s
natural
resources
manager
review
it. I will
reach
out to
him
and set
up a
time
where
we can
meet
you at
your
property
next
week.
What
times/days
work
well for
you?
Gary
Morrison
Zoning
Administrator
| City of
St. Louis
Park
5005
Minnetonka
Blvd, St.
Louis
Park,
MN
55416
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 185
Office:
952.924.2592
www.stlouispark.org
Experience
LIFE in
the Park.
From: Julia
<juel-
mn@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday,
June 7,
2024
1:28
PM
To: Gary
Morrison
<GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Re:
neighbor
issue
CAUTION:
This
email
originated
from
outside
of the
organization.
Do not
click
links or
open
attachments
unless
you
recognize
the
sender
and
know
the
content
is safe.
Hi
Gary,
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 186
Thank
you so
much
for
looking
at this
situation
and
the
information
about
the city
mediation.
We
are
very
much
counting
on your
help.
The
most
urgent
issue
is the
basketball
court,
as it
poses
immediate
danger
to us,
our
visitors
and
our
property,
with
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 187
the
balls
flying
directly
at us.
Children
-who
may be
less
careful
than
adults
-are
running
through
our
driveway
to
retrieve
the
balls,
sometimes
opening
our
gate or
squeezing
behind
the
end of
the
fence
and
our
garage,
immediately
behind
our
cars,
putting
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 188
themselves
in
danger
of
being
hit and
injured.
I have
a
question
about
the
SLP
code -
we
were
originally
told by
the city
that
the
requirement
is 7
feet on
the
side of
a
detached
garage,
but
you’re
now
saying
5 feet.
In
addition,
in a
grid in
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 189
Section
36-162
d.(5)
seems
to
provide
additional
requirements
that in
lots
9,000
sq feet
in size
and at
least
75 feet
wide
accessory
structures
must
be
must
be at
least 9
feet
away
from a
side
yard
line.
Doesn’t
this
provision
apply
in this
case?
Thank
you for
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 190
being
willing
to look
at the
garage
issue
at the
same
time,
but a
nonconformity
there
might
be
difficult
to
determine
if we
stay
with
your
number
of 2
feet
before
we
have
the
land
survey
done.
It is
scheduled
for late
June.
We
would
appreciate
if you
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 191
check
the
garage
for all
possible
nonconformities,
as it
seems
too big
and
too
high. It
seems
that
the 2
feet
that
you
state
for the
garage
applies
for all
sides
of the
yard,
but
Section
f.of
the
same
section
of the
SLP
code
provides
specifically
that
“Detached
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 192
garages
when
located
in the
side
yard
must
conform
to the
side
yard
requirements
of the
principal
building”
-which
should
be 5
feet.
Also,
subsection
36-
163 f.
(8)
provides
that no
side
yard
shall
be less
than 5
feet
deep, I
assume
that
includes
eaves
and
gutters.
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 193
Please
note
that
our
garage
is old
and
has not
been
moved
or
remodeled
from
its
original
foundation.
Their
garage
is in
the
approximate
location
of the
previous
garage,
but
much
expanded
and
not in
the
original
footprint.
So
they
should
be
conforming
to the
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 194
current
code
and
not
under
any
grandfather
clause.
Should
they
pay for
the
land
survey
if
they’re
the
ones
who
are
encroaching?
Finally,
with
regard
to
THEIR
very
large
tree
that
fell in
our
backyard,
they
claim
no
responsibility
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 195
for it. It
is
seriously
obstructing
our
view,
causing
water
to seep
into
the
fenced
and
finished
part of
our
yard,
which
is
damaging
our
plants,
and is
expensive
for us
to
remove.
Although
it’s
difficult
to see,
as our
view of
the
base of
the
tree is
currently
inhibited
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 196
by
water,
it is
evident
that
the
base
has
serious
scratching
and
damage
on it,
as if
from
an axe
or
beavers.
So
their
claim
that
the
tree
was
healthy
when it
fell
does
not
appear
to be a
fact.
Does
the city
regulate
tree
removal?
Can
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 197
the city
remove
this
tree
and
access
them
for the
cost?
Thank
you
again,
looking
forward
to
hearing
back
from
you on
this
issue.
Julia
Ramos
612-
223-
4599
On
Jun
7,
2024,
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 198
at
12:02 PM,
Gary
Morrison
<GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov>
wrote:
Hi
Julia,
I
just
wanted
to
touch
base
with
you
about
the
basketball
hoop
and
garage.
Looks
like
the
hoop
should
be
at
least
five
feet
from
the
side
lot
line.
I’ll
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 199
work
with
your
neighbor
to
verify
this.
Additionally,
the
garage
should
be
at
least
two
feet
off
the
side
lot
line.
We
should
be
able
to
verify
this
at
the
same
time
as
the
basketball
hoop.
I
talked
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 200
with
the
city
staff
that
administers
the
noise
ordinance.
Unfortunately,
they
do
not
regulate
basketball
playing
under
the
noise
regulations.
Exceptions
to
this
could
be
if
there
is
a
party
or
large
gathering
going,
then
the
limit
would
be
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 201
11pm
Sunday
through
Thursday,
and
midnight
Friday
and
Saturday.
If
you
believe
the
noise
is
excessive,
then
they
recommend
that
you
call
the
police
to
talk
to
them
while
the
noise
is
occurring.
Hopefully
it
doesn’t
come
to
that
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 202
point,
and
an
agreement
can
be
reached.
To
assist
with
coming
to
an
agreement,
the
city
does
offer
a
mediation
service.
It
is
a
third
party
organization
that
specializes
in
mediating
neighbor
issues.
It
is
not
part
of
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 203
the
city,
but
the
city
will
pay
for
their
time.
So
there
is
no
cost
to
you
for
the
service.
Let
me
know
if
you
are
interested
in
this,
and
I
will
talk
to
the
neighbors
about
it.
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 204
I’m
sorry
you
are
having
to
deal
with
this.
Let
me
know
if
you
have
any
questions.
Gary
Morrison
Zoning
Administrator
|
City
of
St.
Louis
Park
5005
Minnetonka
Blvd,
St.
Louis
Park,
MN
55416
Office:
952.924.2592
www.stlouispark.org
Experience
LIFE
in
the
Park.
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 205
From: Julia
<juel-
mn@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday,
June
5,
2024
4:10
PM
To: Sean
Walther
<SWalther@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Cc: Gary
Morrison
<GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Re:
neighbor
issue
CAUTION:
This
email
originated
from
outside
of
the
organization.
Do
not
click
links
or
open
attachments
unless
you
recognize
the
sender
and
know
the
content
is
safe.
Good
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 206
afternoon,
Thank
you
so
much
for
elevating
these
concerns.
I
look
to
working
through
these
issues
with
Gary.
Best
regards,
Julia
Ramos
On
Jun
5,
2024,
at
10:46 AM,
Sean
Walther
<SWalther@stlouisparkmn.gov>
wrote:
Julia,
Zoning
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 207
Administrator
Gary
Morrison
will
provide
more
information
to
you
in
response
to
the
concerns
you
shared
with
Council
Member
Dumalag.
Please
allow
a
few
days
for
him
to
review
the
issues
and
respond.
His
direct
contact
information
is
952.924.2592
and gmorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov.
Thank
you.
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 208
Sean
Walther (he/him/his)
planning
manager/deputy
community
development
director
|
City
of
St.
Louis
Park
5005
Minnetonka
Blvd,
St.
Louis
Park,
MN
55416
Office:
952.924.2574
www.stlouisparkmn.gov
Experience
LIFE
in
the
Park.
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 209
From: Lynette Dumalag <LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 5:27 PM
To: Julia <juel-mn@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: meeting
Hi Julia,
Thanks for reaching out. I have been copied on all the emails between you and Gary Morrison
(and now Sean Walther). I want to stress that you should work with Gary on this basketball
hoop issue.
I could meet with both you and Gary to go over our city process/procedure. While it appears to
you that it this basketball hoop process is bureacratic, we have to provide some process so our
approach is fair to all parties.
I'll reach out to Gary to check on his schedule and get back to you with days/times.
Thank you,
Lynette
From: Julia <juel-mn@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 12:49 PM
To: Lynette Dumalag <LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Lynette,
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 210
I hope you had a great holiday week.
I am wondering if you would have a chance in the next few days to meet with me and talk through
this issue that has blown up even further this week. I feel like I am living through some sort of a
Kafkaesque experience within an immovable bureaucratic loop. I would very much appreciate your
input on City processes and procedures.
Please let me know when you’re available. I can make it work during office hours or after hours in
the neighborhood.
Thank you so much,
Julia Ramos
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 211
From: Karen Barton <KBarton@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 7:53 AM
To: Lynette Dumalag <LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Re: meeting
Good morning, Lynette!
Thanks for sharing this. Per our conversation, we are looping in Soren and will have him send a
letter to the Ramos' to respond to their concerns. I don't know exactly when the letter will be
sent out, but I would anticipate it will happen fairly quickly (within the next week).
I would suggest waiting to meet with Julia until after Soren has sent the letter if she is still
wanting to meet at that point.
Feel free to call if you have questions or want to talk more.
Thanks!
Karen
Karen Barton
Community Development Director | City of St. Louis Park
Office: 952.924.2684
Mobile: 612.357.1182
From: Lynette Dumalag <LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 10:05 AM
To: Karen Barton <KBarton@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Fw: meeting
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 212
fyi
From: Lynette Dumalag <LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 5:27 PM
To: Julia <juel-mn@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: meeting
Hi Julia,
Thanks for reaching out. I have been copied on all the emails between you and Gary Morrison
(and now Sean Walther). I want to stress that you should work with Gary on this basketball
hoop issue.
I could meet with both you and Gary to go over our city process/procedure. While it appears to
you that it this basketball hoop process is bureacratic, we have to provide some process so our
approach is fair to all parties.
I'll reach out to Gary to check on his schedule and get back to you with days/times.
Thank you,
Lynette
From: Julia <juel-mn@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 12:49 PM
To: Lynette Dumalag <LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Lynette,
I hope you had a great holiday week.
I am wondering if you would have a chance in the next few days to meet with me and talk through
this issue that has blown up even further this week. I feel like I am living through some sort of a
Kafkaesque experience within an immovable bureaucratic loop. I would very much appreciate your
input on City processes and procedures.
Please let me know when you’re available. I can make it work during office hours or after hours in
the neighborhood.
Thank you so much,
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 213
Julia Ramos
EXHIBIT C
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 214
From: Karen Barton <KBarton@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 4:04 PM
To: Julia <juel-mn@comcast.net>
Cc: Kim Keller <KKeller@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Lynette Dumalag <LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Re: neighbor issue
Julia,
I highlighted in yellow the information regarding how to make an appeal in the email below from Gary on July 5. The letter sent to the property owners on June 24th and emailed to you references the section
of the code violation to which you can make your appeal.
Since the deadline to file the appeal falls on a Sunday (July 14), you have until the end of day on Monday, July 15 to file the appeal.
And as I mentioned, we are working to provide you with a written response to your questions within the next several business days, however, I would encourage you to review prior emails from Gary as most
of the answers to your questions have been provided previously.
Karen Barton
Community Development Director | City of St. Louis Park
Office: 952.924.2684
Mobile: 612.357.1182
From: Julia <juel-mn@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 3:01 PM
To: Karen Barton <KBarton@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Cc: Kim Keller <KKeller@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Lynette Dumalag <LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Re: neighbor issue
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you so much for your response, Karen.
I really am sorry to be a pest here, but Gary told us that we are under a deadline of 20 days from June 24th to decide on our appeal and file it with with City. That is July 24, this Sunday. That means we
have to file by this Friday. We do not have several business days if we are to meet that deadline.
Please advise us on what we should be basing our appeal, as the city decision as to the approval of the relocation site is not in writing. Also, please advise if we are wrong to be in such a lather about the
deadline for appeal and that this deadline should be counted from a different date than June 24th.
Thank you,
Julia Ramos
On Jul 10, 2024, at 2:49 PM, Karen Barton <KBarton@stlouisparkmn.gov> wrote:
Julia,
We are in the process of preparing a response to your questions. We are working to have the response to you within the next several business days.
In the meantime, I would encourage you to review emails you've received from Gary previously, as they address a number of your questions.
Thank you,
Karen Barton
Community Development Director | City of St. Louis Park
Office: 952.924.2684
Mobile: 612.357.1182
From: Julia <juel-mn@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 1:18 PM
To: Lynette Dumalag <LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Cc: Kim Keller <KKeller@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Karen Barton <KBarton@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Fwd: neighbor issue
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am referring to this email that I sent on Monday. Not sure if you have seen it? None of the questions that I raised here have been answered. I have received no response.
Julia
Begin forwarded message:
From: Julia <juel-mn@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: neighbor issue
Date: July 8, 2024 at 5:01:43 PM CDT
To: Sean Walther <SWalther@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Cc: Gary Morrison <GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Lynette Dumalag <LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Cindy Walsh <CWalsh@stlouisparkmn.gov>, Karen Barton <KBarton@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Thank you, Sean.
We also do not know what specifically we are appealing because we do not have anything in writing other than the June 24th letter. That letter just states that the property irons must be exposed and that the inspection
must be scheduled by July 8th. We do not have any written language to appeal as far as what the outcome of that inspection was. We are being repeatedly told that it must be “in compliance.” Does that mean it needs
to be removed? Does that mean it needs to be relocated? If so, was there an express approval of the proposed relocation site? In approving that site, was any consideration given to the hazard, nuisance and
unprecedented nature of such a site poses? Was there counseling provided that such a proposed site for relocation is extremely inappropriate? Was there a discussion about the direction in which the basketball hoop
EXHIBIT D
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 215
faces - the fact that it is pointed at our house and our driveway, so the balls are being thrown directly at us and our property? What was the date by which such removal or relocation was supposed to be achieved?
We did not receive any notice of when the inspection was scheduled and therefore were caught off guard when the harassment from the neighbors suddenly resumed immediately following that inspection. As the next
day was a holiday, we had no notice or explanation of what occurred or what the actual decision was until our phone conversation with Gary on July 5th. We were not notified of the 20 day appeal deadline until that
time and did not have even a copy of the June 24th letter until that day. We feel that the date of the inspection, July 3rd, is the day the decision was made and the existing sport court was deemed to be in non-
compliance. Therefore that’s the date that the appeals process should start at the earliest and that the appeal deadline should be July 23rd. Even more fair would be to consider it to start on the date a written notice of
the decision is actually written. We are very much prejudiced under the current deadline and our attorney is not able to prepare appropriate supporting documentation under these deadlines. We have no intention of
appealing the decision to inspect the property by July 8th or the decision of July 3rd that the current location is out of compliance. To hold us to the deadline of 20 days from June 24th is arbitrary.
In order to evaluate whether to and what to actually appeal, and to prepare substantive documentation, we need a written description of what the zoning decision on July 3rd actually was. Gary said that it is in the chain
of emails, but we do not have any such writing.
As the city has verified that it determined that the sport court in its current location is in non-compliance with the City Code and no appeal has been filed, we believe it would be entirely appropriate to notify the party in
non-compliance that the sports court out of compliance must not be used.
We agree that it would be unfair to require our neighbors to remove or relocate the sports court by July 8th. Gary’s letter of June 24th did not say anything about removing or relocating by that date. It just said that the
inspection must occur by that date. It seems especially unrealistic to require them to obtain contractors to do so during a holiday week and weekend.
None of us knows at this point whether the neighbors intend to relocate the court to their absurd proposed location or to be reasonable and use this opportunity to remove it permanently or relocate to a location that
would not be so objectionable. Not only do they have a large lot with lots of other possible sites, they have a whole second lot behind this one. The city should provide all of us guidance to the exact timing and its exact
decisions. The only thing that is clear right now is that the city definitively decided on July 3rd that the current location is out of compliance. Therefore, the only reasonably instruction at this point is that it should not be
used in its current location.
We request that the City provide us with an explanation for its zoning decision to measure the 5 foot setback to the basketball pole rather than an entire sports court. As the zoning code does not have any definition of
a “sports court” this is left to a reasonable person interpretation. We raised this issue to Gary and received no answer other than “5 foot setback.” Our position is that measuring this 5 foot just to the in-concrete in
ground pole is a misapplication of the zoning code. Sports courts contemplate actual activity to be conducted on them. The code specifically separates them from the concept of “structures.” Unlike a flag pole, a sports
court requires vigorous activity on its perimeter. Therefore many jurisdictions provide for a perimeter around any basketball hoop. A reasonable person understands that a sports court involves an area in all directions
significantly beyond the basketball hoop itself. It is a misreading of the Code to decide that only the "basketball hoop structure" needs to be set back five (5) feet from the side property line. Instead, the Code says that
the "sport court" needs to be set back from the property line. In this particular case, a basketball sport court needs to include a baseline area for typical basketball activities, including missed shots, layups and turnovers
out of bounds.
The fact that these people did not actually build a pad behind the pole to conduct those activities does not eliminate the fact that those activities are being conducted and just implies that they will be using the
surrounding area of grass or, in our case, of our driveway, to conduct these activities. Of course they could not construct the actual pad sufficient to those activities, because in its current or proposed location, that
would be on our property. They are effectively avoiding and breaching the intention of the code to provide for a safe location of a sports court if they do not have enough property in this side yard to actually conduct this
activity.
In addition, and significantly, the code states that its purpose is to “preserve… public health and safety, property values and allow all residents a reasonable use and enjoyment of property.” The specific zoning
regulations, such as 5 feet setbacks for sport courts should be interpreted with that intention. If in fact Gary approved the relocation of just the basketball pole, not the entire sports court within 5 feet of our cars, our
persons, our entryway, our windows, our visitors and our pets, that would be an interpretation that completely disregards our health and safety, reduces our property value and interferes with our use and enjoyment of
our property. If the neighbor is permitted to create a basketball sport court without any baseline area, the City will be permitting a use by the neighbor which will inevitably result in trespasses on our property, and a
nuisance which frustrates our ability to peacefully use our property.
Finally, we do not have any information on the appeals process. Who conducts it? When will the hearing take place? Are we allowed to come in and present our case? What documentation is requested/required?
When will the decision be issued? Will it be in writing?
I look forward to answers to all the questions and issues I raised.
Thank you.
Julia Ramos
On Jul 8, 2024, at 1:38 PM, Sean Walther <SWalther@stlouisparkmn.gov> wrote:
I am Gary’s supervisor. He consulted me on this decision and I supported this course of action. This is also supported by my supervisor, Karen Barton.
Based on the email exchanges up to Friday, it seemed an appeal of staff’s decision was eminent albeit unclear what would specifically be appealed. It is impractical to potentially
require moving the basketball hoop twice. It is reasonable and prudent to allow this person more time to comply with city code pending a potential, and what seemed to us likely,
appeal of staff’s determination that would relate to hoop placement. It is common practice to provide additional time when a variable such as this is introduced. An appeal may
result in different direction regarding how to comply with city code. Please continue to work with Gary Morrison. He has been very communicative to all parties throughout and in
his role as zoning administrator, he is the authority on this matter.
I was also forwarded a voicemail this morning to Cindy Walsh in which you indicated Gary has not been responsive. In viewing the emails chains, he has shared the date of his
determination, the deadline to appeal the decision that the hoop needs to be 5 feet form the property line per zoning code, the cost to appeal and that a letter to Gary formally filing
the appeal is sufficient (there isn’t a special city form to complete).
In addition, I heard that you and the neighbor are considering mediation, which may help to resolve the matter.
Sean Walther, AICP (he/him/his)
planning manager/deputy community development director | City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Office: 952.924.2574
www.stlouispark.org
From: Julia <juel-mn@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2024 5:46 PM
To: Gary Morrison <GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Cc: Lynette Dumalag <LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Cindy Walsh <CWalsh@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Sean Walther <SWalther@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Re: neighbor issue
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Gary,
That is absolutely unacceptable that you notified the neighbor that he does not need to take the structure down by July 8th. We need that to be reversed immediately.
We were collecting information from you on whether to appeal and will ask for input from City management as soon as they are back in the office before we make that
decision. We have not filed an appeal. NO APPEAL HAS BEEN MADE. Therefore there is no appeal process to complete at this point. There is zero reason to delay
enforcement of your order to remove the structure by July 8th.
We very specifically told you that we are NOT appealing your decision of June 24 that the pole needs to be removed. We are NOT appealing that decision at all and
never stated that intention.
We very urgently request that as you specified in your written decision of June 24, you notify the neighbor that the structure needs to be removed by July 8th.
Julia Ramos
On Jul 5, 2024, at 4:35 PM, Gary Morrison <GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov> wrote:
Hi Julia,
There is no application form for an appeal. All I need from you is a written notice stating the decision you are appealing. Include any background or
EXHIBIT D
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 216
arguments/documents that support your appeal.
Attached is the letter I sent to the neighbor notifying them of the violation. The letter states that a five foot minimum setback is required from the sport court
to the side lot line. It also states that the measurement is taken from the lot line to the basketball hoop structure. The decision that the proposed location
meets code was not put in writing to your neighbor, but is stated in the email chain below.
When an appeal is made, then we delay enforcement until the appeal process is complete. Therefore, I notified the neighbor that the structure does not
have to be relocated by July 8. The structure can remain in its current location until the appeal process is completed. This means until July 14 if you choose
not to appeal, or until a final determination is made as a result of the appeal process. The city will not intervene in the use of the basketball hoop while the
appeal process is underway.
You can find more information about the appeal process by reviewing city code section 36-30. This section of code outlines the appeal process.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Gary Morrison
Zoning Administrator | City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Office: 952.924.2592
www.stlouispark.org
Experience LIFE in the Park.
From: Julia <juel-mn@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2024 12:45 PM
To: Gary Morrison <GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Cc: Lynette Dumalag <LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Cindy Walsh <CWalsh@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Sean Walther <SWalther@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Re: neighbor issue
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you so much for your response, Gary, I hope you enjoyed the Holiday yesterday despite the rain.
We have communicated with mediation and started that process. We are really grateful that the city has this service.
We have no choice but to pursue the appeal of the zoning decision to relocate. We are not contesting the zoning decision of June 24 where the sport court
was found to be out of compliance. We are contesting the decision to allow it be relocated just a short distance over. As we said, this does not solve the
hazard and nuisance problem and establishes a dangerous precedent for the city. Was that approval of relocation of the sports court to still be between
houses in writing? Can we please have a copy of that writing, as well as of the June 24th letter noting the non-compliance of the current location? We need
that documentation to prepare for our appeal. As we stated before, we do not believe that a basketball court should be measured from the pole, but should
be measured from the 6-7 foot baseline, followed by the edge of the sports court, which should be an additional 5 feet from the pole. The “structure” is the
entire sports court, not just the basketball pole.
We do not want to make any impression that we are appealing the decision that the current location of the sports court is out of compliance and must be
removed by July 8th.
Is there a form for the notice of appeal? To whom do we write the check? To what address should we be sending the notice of appeal?
What can we expect after we file our notice of appeal? Is the decision to approve the proposed new location of the pole frozen at this stage and they are not
allowed to relocate until the appeals process is complete?
Finally, are they allowed to use the current structure that has been decided as being out of compliance?
I look forward to the tree review by Michael Bahe.
Thank you again,
Julia Ramos
On Jul 5, 2024, at 12:05 PM, Gary Morrison <GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov> wrote:
Hi Julia,
I’m sorry to hear about the noise. I did give them the information about the mediation services the city makes available to residents. In case you
don’t already have it, and you are interested in the mediation, then you can reach out to the Community Mediation team at 763-561-0033. This
organization is not affiliated with the city, we just pay for the services to help neighbors with issues that are beyond the city’s scope. The
mediators are very good, and will handle all communications and steps needed to set up the mediation.
Apart from the mediation, we discussed the five foot minimum setback required for the basketball hoop. A measurement was taken from
where he proposes to move it to, and it will meet that requirement. He was given until July 8th to relocate the structure.
An appeal of a decision made by the zoning administrator can be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The appeal can be made by filing a
notice of appeal with the community development department addressed to the Boad of Zoning Appeals. The notice needs to state the action
appealed and state the specific grounds upon which the appeal is made. There is a $325 fee required for appealing actions. This fee needs to
be included with the notice of appeal. A notice must be filed within 20 days of the written notice stating the decision. The notice was written on
June 24, 2024. The 20 days expires on July 14, 2024.
With regards to the tree, I will reach out to Michael Bahe to set up a time for him to review it.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Gary Morrison
Zoning Administrator | City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Office: 952.924.2592
www.stlouispark.org
EXHIBIT D
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 217
Experience LIFE in the Park.
From: Julia <juel-mn@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 1:48 PM
To: Gary Morrison <GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Cc: Lynette Dumalag <LDumalag@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Cindy Walsh <CWalsh@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Sean Walther <SWalther@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Re: neighbor issue
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Gary,
We’re under a barrage of harassment here following your conversation with our neighbor yesterday. He’s continuing to send aggressive texts
and they are playing at the hoop non stop. We asked them specifically to be mindful that our offices face the hoop and not to make excessive
noise during the workday. So they are doing this today to spite and harass us. As you determined and informed them that the current hoop is
out of conformance, are they allowed to be using it still? What is the date by which you told them they must have the structure removed?
Can you please give us written evidence of your final decision regarding the position of their sports court in writing? What is the appeals
process for zoning decisions in St. Louis Park? We believe this decision does not meet the necessary court offsets and safeguards reasonable
and necessary for any basketball court and sets up a dangerous precedent of allowing sports courts to be constructed in between houses,
especially with yards as narrow as ours. I understand that you are applying the regulations as they currently stand on the books, but I do not
believe this is in the interests of the city or its residents. We would like to start an appeal before the hoop is relocated to their currently
proposed location that you approved, which would be even closer to our main door and in front of our office and kitchen windows, literally in
the narrowest part of our driveway.
We are facing entitled, petty, selfish, lying and aggressive people on the other side of this issue. You mentioned mediation services. Can you
please give me that information on how I can get that process started?
I also just reread your old emails and I missed where earlier you mentioned that you could come out with natural resources manager to assess
the fallen tree situation. The noise from the hoop and the stress from the harassment is making it hard to think. I would very much appreciate if
you could still come out with the appropriate personnel to look at the fallen tree. Next week I am available on any of the mornings until 1:30.
Thank you,
Julia Ramos
On Jul 1, 2024, at 4:02 PM, Julia <juel-mn@comcast.net> wrote:
Hi Gary,
Thank you for sending the letter to the 3330 neighbor last week. Unfortunately, it did not seem to abate the use of the baseball
hoop as their main activity this weekend. Not only did they continue to use the court all week, this Sunday they hosted a series of
gatherings where their visitors also participated in the ball throwing and noise making primarily right under our windows and at our
narrow point of entry.
For the record, I actually did not formally ask you to review the garage situation. I wanted to get a proper survey done before
addressing that formally. I asked the zoning department only about the sports court after checking variety of city zoning
regulations. I sent a separate email to my neighborhood president after receiving a series of harassing texts from my 3330
neighbor, as I was at a loss for what to do. I did not know that another neighbor is on the City Council and that she would forward
my email to the city leadership.
I do believe that the 3330 neighbor read your letter, as he placed a wooden stake marked “bball” slightly towards his driveway,
but essentially in the same location. Seems like he’s acknowledging that the current placement is not meeting the 5 foot setback
requirement, but is proposing to relocate the pole just slightly more towards his driveway to neatly skirt that regulation. This
completely does not resolve the hazard and nuisance issue that the basketball pole poses. It would be even closer to our door, our
main loading and unloading zone, less behind a fence, and still between our houses and under our windows.
In our experience, residents tolerate noise and nuisance from their neighbors when they know it’s temporary and that, if asked, the
neighbors would stop the offensive practice. In our case, our gentle requests were brushed off and an invitation to discuss over
wine was met with belligerence and mocking and harassing texts. Our request for consideration encountered an absolute refusal
do change. So we cannot resolve this situation by normal means of communication and establishing reasonable practices with
these neighbors.
We have actually been paying particular attention to basketball hoop placement and have yet to see a single house in St. Louis
Park, Edina or Minneapolis where a basketball hoop is located between actual houses or under the neighbor’s windows, let alone
a sports court where the pole is set in concrete. Is there really no current zoning provision that would address this highly irregular
placement of a sports court? If so, I am guessing that nobody has been obnoxious enough to place their baskettball hoop or a
sports court in between houses, especially when one house is in a particularly narrow city lot. But this issue must be addressed
now that it happened, whether with a new regulation prohibiting placement between houses or with having a parameter rule on
baseball poles/sports courts, or something of that nature.
The edge of the sport court should not be the measuring line for the placement of the basketball pole itself. The pole itself is
usually placed 5 or so further in from the edge of the sports court. In addition, every basketball court should provide for a baseline
area behind the edge of the court of approximately 6-7 feet to allow players to shoot layups and run past the hoop and to retreat
balls that miss. Currently our driveway serves as this area behind the hoop for balls to drop as well as the baseline area. So the
hoop must be placed much further back from the property line - 5 feet from the property line to the baseline, additional 6-7 feet
for the baseline to the edge of the court, 5 feet in from the edge of the sports court to the pole, totaling 17-18 feet from the property
line to the pole. This may not be in the SLP zoning code yet, but this is the standard for basketball courts. <image001.png>
I am still wondering why this northt part of their lot is not considered their back yard, if their front door is facing their neighbor to the
south, rather than the street to the east. According to the zoning drawing you sent me, this is their back yard, as it is behind their
front door. If it’s their back yard, would it not require a 25 foot setback and full fencing? I am suggesting this as a way to use
existing zoning regulations to solve this issue. Is there any other regulation you can think of or any other conversation you could
EXHIBIT D
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 218
have with them to have them remove this pestilence permanently or to move it as far away from our living quarters as possible?
Not only do they have a wide lot with plenty of other spaces for them to practice their sports, but they have a whole second lot
behind this one, which could easily accommodate a sports court in a much safer and far less provocative and dangerous space.
Their reasoning is that they are just so much into basketball that having that pole set in concrete under our windows is essential. I
think particularly if they are so much into it and practice constantly, that they should seek a location for this activity that would not
interfere with other people or pose such potential hazards and liabilities. Like a gym or a park. Or, if it’s so important, spend the
money on the additional paving and build a sport court in the lower part of the second lot, away from the neighbors' residences.
I really implore you to use this opportunity to solve this issue through your zoning powers. If it is not solved now, it’s going to lead
to all kinds of liability issues, be a sore spot in the neighborhood, interfere with everyone’s peaceful enjoyment of their property,
and be a drain on city resources with continuous requests for additional regulation and, possibly, police involvement. The purpose
of zoning regulation is to protect health, safety and welfare of the residents. Allowing a precedent of installation of sports court or
permanent sports equipment in constant use in between houses with narrow lots, especially where long driveways are next to
each other and entry points into garages and houses are concerned, is very much against the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
Thank you so much, I really appreciate all your help with this unfortunate situation.
Julia Ramos
On Jun 10, 2024, at 8:47 AM, Gary Morrison <GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov> wrote:
Thank you for the email Fred.
You are correct, I do not believe there is anything in the zoning ordinance that regulates the position of the hoop.
Without the code provision, it makes it difficult for the city to require a change.
But, I’ll see what I can do about the location of the hoop.
Gary Morrison
Zoning Administrator | City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Office: 952.924.2592
www.stlouispark.org
Experience LIFE in the Park.
From: Fred Ramos <frederickramos@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 8:40 AM
To: Gary Morrison <GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Re: neighbor issue
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Hi Gary,
Can you add me to your email communications with my wife Julia? She is offsite this week working during the day.
I wanted to add that after this hoop is disassembled or removed, any future hoops should not be set up so that balls fly
in the direction of our house. I searched the zoning code, but did not see language on this Applying a reasonable
person standard, however, this type of set up clearly poses a hazard to the people subject to incoming balls and risks
property damage, in addition to disrupting the enjoyment of life. Most hoops that I have seen are positioned on a
garage or toward the owner’s own house. Down the street there is a hoop set up on the street so that the ball is
thrown in the direction of the owner’s own yard.
Thank you.
Fred
On Jun 9, 2024, at 12:16 PM, Julia <juel-mn@comcast.net> wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Gary Morrison <GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: RE: neighbor issue
Date: June 7, 2024 at 1:59:44 PM CDT
To: Julia <juel-mn@comcast.net>
HI Julia,
Just want to answer your questions below:
The code doesn’t specify that the seven foot side yard is a driveway side. It is up to the
property owner to decide which side they want the wider setback. For narrow lots that tends
to be the driveway side, but for wider lots, like your neighbor’s, it remains undetermined until
they declare it, typically with an addition to the side that takes it to the five foot setback,
EXHIBIT D
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 219
leaving seven or more feet on the other side.
The neighbor’s detached garage is in the back yard, not the side yard. So the two foot setback
applies. The side yard and back yard are defined as shown in the following exhibit:
<image001.png>
The decision to have a survey done is yours. The city can’t make them pay for it.
The process the city follows when verifying setbacks is to have them locate the corner irons.
That should be simple enough to do as they were there a few years ago.
With regards to the tree, I will have the city’s natural resources manager review it. I will reach
out to him and set up a time where we can meet you at your property next week. What
times/days work well for you?
Gary Morrison
Zoning Administrator | City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Office: 952.924.2592
www.stlouispark.org
Experience LIFE in the Park.
From: Julia <juel-mn@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2024 1:28 PM
To: Gary Morrison <GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Re: neighbor issue
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Gary,
Thank you so much for looking at this situation and the information about the city mediation.
We are very much counting on your help.
The most urgent issue is the basketball court, as it poses immediate danger to us, our visitors
and our property, with the balls flying directly at us. Children - who may be less careful than
adults - are running through our driveway to retrieve the balls, sometimes opening our gate or
squeezing behind the end of the fence and our garage, immediately behind our cars, putting
themselves in danger of being hit and injured.
I have a question about the SLP code - we were originally told by the city that the
requirement is 7 feet on the side of a detached garage, but you’re now saying 5 feet. In
addition, in a grid in Section 36-162 d. (5) seems to provide additional requirements that in
lots 9,000 sq feet in size and at least 75 feet wide accessory structures must be must be at
least 9 feet away from a side yard line. Doesn’t this provision apply in this case?
Thank you for being willing to look at the garage issue at the same time, but a nonconformity
there might be difficult to determine if we stay with your number of 2 feet before we have the
land survey done. It is scheduled for late June. We would appreciate if you check the garage
for all possible nonconformities, as it seems too big and too high. It seems that the 2 feet
that you state for the garage applies for all sides of the yard, but Section f. of the same
section of the SLP code provides specifically that “Detached garages when located in the
side yard must conform to the side yard requirements of the principal building” - which
should be 5 feet. Also, subsection 36-163 f. (8) provides that no side yard shall be less than
5 feet deep, I assume that includes eaves and gutters. Please note that our garage is old and
has not been moved or remodeled from its original foundation. Their garage is in the
approximate location of the previous garage, but much expanded and not in the original
footprint. So they should be conforming to the current code and not under any grandfather
clause.
Should they pay for the land survey if they’re the ones who are encroaching?
Finally, with regard to THEIR very large tree that fell in our backyard, they claim no
responsibility for it. It is seriously obstructing our view, causing water to seep into the fenced
and finished part of our yard, which is damaging our plants, and is expensive for us to remove.
Although it’s difficult to see, as our view of the base of the tree is currently inhibited by water,
it is evident that the base has serious scratching and damage on it, as if from an axe or
beavers. So their claim that the tree was healthy when it fell does not appear to be a fact.
Does the city regulate tree removal? Can the city remove this tree and access them for the
cost?
Thank you again, looking forward to hearing back from you on this issue.
Julia Ramos
612-223-4599
On Jun 7, 2024, at 12:02 PM, Gary Morrison <GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov>
wrote:
Hi Julia,
I just wanted to touch base with you about the basketball hoop and garage.
EXHIBIT D
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 220
Looks like the hoop should be at least five feet from the side lot line. I’ll work
with your neighbor to verify this.
Additionally, the garage should be at least two feet off the side lot line. We
should be able to verify this at the same time as the basketball hoop.
I talked with the city staff that administers the noise ordinance. Unfortunately,
they do not regulate basketball playing under the noise regulations. Exceptions
to this could be if there is a party or large gathering going, then the limit would be
11pm Sunday through Thursday, and midnight Friday and Saturday. If you believe
the noise is excessive, then they recommend that you call the police to talk to
them while the noise is occurring. Hopefully it doesn’t come to that point, and an
agreement can be reached.
To assist with coming to an agreement, the city does offer a mediation service. It
is a third party organization that specializes in mediating neighbor issues. It is not
part of the city, but the city will pay for their time. So there is no cost to you for
the service. Let me know if you are interested in this, and I will talk to the
neighbors about it.
I’m sorry you are having to deal with this. Let me know if you have any questions.
Gary Morrison
Zoning Administrator | City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Office: 952.924.2592
www.stlouispark.org
Experience LIFE in the Park.
From: Julia <juel-mn@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2024 4:10 PM
To: Sean Walther <SWalther@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Cc: Gary Morrison <GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Subject: Re: neighbor issue
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good afternoon,
Thank you so much for elevating these concerns. I look to working through these
issues with Gary.
Best regards,
Julia Ramos
On Jun 5, 2024, at 10:46 AM, Sean Walther
<SWalther@stlouisparkmn.gov> wrote:
Julia,
Zoning Administrator Gary Morrison will provide more information to you
in response to the concerns you shared with Council Member Dumalag.
Please allow a few days for him to review the issues and respond. His
direct contact information is 952.924.2592 and
gmorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov.
Thank you.
Sean Walther (he/him/his)
planning manager/deputy community development director | City of St. Louis
Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Office: 952.924.2574
www.stlouisparkmn.gov
Experience LIFE in the Park.
EXHIBIT D
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 221
Document Number: 1044900
EXHIBIT E
LIST OF WITNESSES
List of Witnesses
1. Witness1: Council Member Dumalag
2. Winess2:
3. Witness3:
4. Witness4:
5. Witness5:
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Page 222
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: September 15, 2025
Discussion item: 8a
Executive summary
Title: Race, Equity and Inclusion (REI) system wrap-up
Recommended action: There is no recommended action. This item is for informational
purposes only.
Policy consideration: There is no policy consideration being requested for this item.
Summary: Since the REI division was created in 2018, there has been intentional efforts and
progress to support the city in all programs, services, and activities to be a leader in racial
equity and inclusion. The REI system started in 2023 and has continued to support citywide
efforts through utilizing REI lens, frameworks, and models to embed racial equity throughout
our organization. Through the 2025 REI system, REI division presented to council on
foundational bodies of work, they are the Title VI program and the language access plan. This
report also includes the list of the 2026 cultural observances and proclamations that will be
issued in 2026.
Financial or budget considerations: None.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity
and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all.
Supporting documents: 9/8/2025 council study session agenda
Prepared by: Pa Dao Yang, Racial equity and inclusion director
Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Title: Race, Equity and Inclusion (REI) system wrap-up
Discussion
Background: The REI division was created in 2018 after the city of St. Louis Park participated in
the 2016 Government Alliance for Race and Equity, a national network of government working
to achieve racial equity and advance opportunities for all. In 2023, the city of St. Louis Park
started the systems approach where departments, divisions, and key initiatives are brought
forward to council to stay informed and approve key policies. The REI system occurs annually in
September; includes a kickoff report, presentations on key policies or programs, and wrap up
report. When the new racial equity and inclusion director was hired in February 2025, they
have been developing and refining foundational policies, programs, and activities that are
necessary to continue racial equity and inclusion work in the city of St. Louis Park.
Present considerations: This section includes a summary of what was presented to council
during the REI system and information regarding the list of 2026 proclamations and cultural
observances. Here is what was presented to council during the REI system:
• Title VI program: The city of St. Louis Park has a Title VI plan a that was approved by
council in 2022 primarily focused on meeting the requirements of the Minnesota
Department of Transportation for the Engineering department. Staff shared plans with
the council to expand this plan into a program that aligns with the intent of the law and
the city’s strategic priority of being a leader in racial equity and inclusion. Staff will bring
back the final program to the council in 2026.
• Language access plan: An extension of the Title VI Program, a comprehensive language
access plan is significant to adhering to the Title VI Civil Rights Act of 1964 to ensure
nondiscrimination based on national origin which includes providing meaningful support
for limited English proficient (LEP) individuals in our city. Staff will bring back details
around the final language access plan to council in 2026.
2026 Cultural observances and proclamations:
The City of St. Louis Park encourages community members to be aware of and respectful of
diverse religious and cultural observances. In 2023, the council supported staff’s request to
adopt proclamations in recognition of cultural and religious observances. Staff outlined a
practice of recognizing culturally significant days by issuing proclamations and bringing the
community together for events (e.g. the National Day of Racial Healing and Juneteenth
celebration). Internally, city staff attend activities hosted by employee resource groups and
educational material is shared on the internal intranet.
The following holidays will be recognized by council when establishing meeting schedules in
2026:
• New Year’s Day – January 1
• Reverend Martin Luther King Day – Third Monday in January
• President’s Day – Third Monday in February
• Memorial Day – Last Monday in May
• Juneteenth – June 19
• Independence Day – July 4
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Title: Race, Equity and Inclusion (REI) system wrap-up
• Labor Day – First Monday in September
• Veteran’s Day – November 11
• Thanksgiving Day – Fourth Thursday in November
• Friday after Thanksgiving – Friday after Thanksgiving
• Christmas Day – December 25
The following proclamations are recommended for public recognition in 2026:
• Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Day – Third Monday in January
• National Day of Racial Healing – The day after Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Day
• International Holocaust Remembrance Day – January 27
• Black History Month – February
• Ramadan – Begin evening of February 17 and conclude evening of March 18
• National Women’s History Month – March
• Asian American Pacific Islander and Native Hawaiian Heritage Month – May
• American Indian/Native American Heritage Month – May
• Jewish American Heritage Month – May
• Military Appreciation and National Veterans and Military Families Month – May
• Immigrant Heritage Month and World Refugee Day - June
• Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Pride Month – June
• Juneteenth – June
• National Language Access Week – June
• National Disability Independence Day – July 16
• Women’s Equality Day – August
• National Purple Heart Day – August
• National Latino Heritage Month – September 15 – October 15
• Welcoming Week – September
• National Disability Employment Awareness Month – October
• Indigenous People’s Day – Second Monday in October
• Veterans Day – November
• Transgender Day of Remembrance – November
• International Migrants Day – November 18
• Universal Human Rights Month - December
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: September 15, 2025
Discussion item: 8b
Executive summary
Title: Vision 4.0 community engagement update
Recommended action: There is no action being requested this item is for informational
purposes.
Policy consideration: None at this time.
Summary: The community engagement phase of the vision 4.0 process was scheduled to run
from March through September 2025. Throughout this period, a variety of strategies were
implemented to gather meaningful input from residents and community members, including an
ambassador cohort, a community committee, mobile and static engagement efforts, virtual
outreach, and facilitated conversations.
As the engagement phase draws to a close, the staff is prepared to share an update on
community participation and feedback. This update will also outline the next steps in the
visioning process as the project transitions to its next phase.
Financial or budget considerations: None
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: None.
Prepared by: Pat Coleman, community engagement coordinator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager, deputy community development director
Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Title: Vision 4.0 community engagement update
Discussion
Background: Since 1995, St. Louis Park has been deeply committed to engaging residents,
community organizations, businesses and partners through three extensive 10-year visioning
processes. These efforts have been instrumental in shaping a vibrant, cohesive community. The
community is currently engaged in the fourth iteration of this 10-year visioning process, called
vision 4.0.
During a study session presentation on Feb. 12, 2024, staff outlined a detailed timeline for the
initial planning stage of the vision 4.0 process. The council received details on the engagement
plan for the vision 4.0 process during a study session on Jan. 6, 2025 from staff and the
consultants – Forecast Public Art in partnership with Bolten & Menk. The community
involvement plan included the following engagement goals for the vision 4.0 process:
• Provide clear information to the community about the process.
• Explore the community’s progress and evolving identity.
• Identify the community’s aspirations and recommendations for its future.
• Gather information from a diverse range of people, with a focus on underrepresented
and emerging voices, youth, and renters.
• Provide a variety of ways for members of the community to share their views.
• Utilize cost effective methods to engage with the community.
• Employ diverse methods such as town hall meetings, focus groups, surveys, online
platforms, pop-up events, fun activities, one-on-one interviews and dialogue, and
targeted outreach to underrepresented groups.
In addition to the engagement goals, the consultant also established a variety of methods that
will ensure the engagement goals are achieved, such as:
• Ambassador cohort: Through a series of three facilitated meetings, a small group of
community members that will discuss community identity, develop vision process values
to guide conversations, and build relationships between community members and city
representatives. Community members such as the council, city staff and leadership,
boards and commission members, community committee members, youth, additional
community members, etc., will be invited to participate in this ambassador cohort.
• Facilitated small group conversations: Community members will be trained to host
conversations within their networks to gather information and amplify community
voices.
• Mobile engagement: Utilizing the community engagement van to attend city events and
connect with community members.
• Static engagement: Employing traditional methods to build awareness around the
engagement process by reaching people during their daily routines (e.g., webpage,
online surveys, email communication, posters and lawn signs, open house-style
gatherings both virtual and in-person).
• Virtual engagement: Leveraging the city's strong social media presence to reach and
engage social media users.
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Title: Vision 4.0 community engagement update
Since January 2025, staff and the consultants have been carrying out the activities listed above
in the community involvement plan and this report will share updates with the council on how
those community engagement activities have been going, high level themes from the input so
far and the next steps in the process.
Present considerations:
Update on engagement strategies:
• Ambassador cohort: Three structured engagement sessions were conducted, each
lasting 1.5 hours and drawing an average of 30 participants from 13 distinct
neighborhoods. Attendees included a diverse mix of city staff, residents, renters,
homeowners, and business owners.
o Key outcomes:
Community identity: Participants identified 96 traits and values that
reflect the character of St. Louis Park, with recurring themes such as
Caring, Diverse, Family-focused, Safe, and Welcoming.
Engagement questions: Participants collaboratively developed a set of
questions designed for use across multiple platforms to support broader
community outreach and dialogue.
• Community committee: Eleven dedicated community members served as vital
connectors between city staff and the broader community throughout the Vision 4.0
engagement phase. These individuals actively promoted the initiative by sharing
information, distributing lawn signs, posters, and business cards within their
neighborhoods, participating in tabling events, and consistently keeping their
communities informed and engaged throughout the process.
• Facilitated small group conversations: So far, there have been 11 community
conversations hosted by residents, and each of those conversations had about 5 - 7
attendees. Residents choosing to host conversations have until Sept. 30 to turn in their
conversation feedback.
• Mobile engagement: Across vision 4.0 community committee members, boards and
commissions, staff and consultant teams, more than 20 tabling events have been held to
date, collectively engaging over 1,000 St. Louis Park residents. These outreach efforts
have included a mix of mobile engagement sessions and participation in high-traffic city
events such as:
o Fire station open house
o Skateapolooza
o Parktacular
o Fireworks celebration
o Basketball in the park
o Movies in the park
o St. Louis Park art fair
• Static engagement: Over 400 survey responses have been submitted by residents and
community members. Social media played a key role in the engagement strategy, with
nearly 20 posts shared across multiple platforms. These efforts generated close to
40,000 video views and over 1,000 combined likes, comments, and shares.
• Virtual engagement: Online and on-demand training for hosts of small group
conversations, online survey in three languages, and a virtual town hall.
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Title: Vision 4.0 community engagement update
There are still engagement opportunities continuing through the month of September. There
will be three more open houses: a virtual open house on Tuesday, Sept. 16 from 6:00-7:00 p.m.,
an open house at Aquila Park on Saturday, Sept. 20 from 4:00-6:00 p.m. and through a
partnership with the school district to participate in the back-to-school night on Sept. 25. The
online survey link was also included in the fall park perspective that was mailed to residents in
early September. The survey will remain open until Sept. 30th. Interested residents can still
take the survey and/or attend one of the listed open houses. More information can be found
on the vision 4.0 project website.
Who is being reached: In efforts to reach the engagement goals requested by the council,
optional demographic questions were included during engagement activities. These responses
help ensure that a broad and diverse range of resident voices are heard and have helped
determine where and how to structure our engagement activities and open houses. The
primary source of this data is the online survey. Overall, this engagement process has reached a
wide range of residents, from across all areas of the city that is generally reflective of the city’s
overall demographics. Here is summary of the data from the specific questions asked.
• Neighborhood representation: Residents from 27 different neighborhoods participated
in the survey. A small portion of respondents were unsure of which neighborhood they
reside in.
• Age range: Survey participants ranged in age from 12 to over 75. The three most
represented age groups were:
o 35–44 years old (31.9%)
o 24–34 years old (20.1%)
o 45–54 years old (14.2%)
• Racial demographics: Most respondents identified as White or Caucasian (79.6%).
Additional representation included individuals identifying as Black or African American,
Asian, Hispanic or Latino, two or more races and others who preferred not to disclose
their race. According to the 2020 U.S. Census, St. Louis Park’s population is 80.5% White
and 19.5% people of color.
What we have heard so far: Once engagement wraps up at the end of September a complete
analysis of all data will be completed. Staff wanted to provide the council with a very high-level
list of themes from what has been heard so far. It should be noted that some of these general
themes may be different in the final report after a complete analysis has been conducted. Here
are the general themes so far:
• Safety: The call for a safe community came up very frequently in feedback. Many
residents expressed concern about crime and wanting St. Louis Park to be and remain a
safe community.
• Housing and affordability: There was a desire expressed for more affordable housing
options, including single-family homes and first-time homebuyers.
• Infrastructure: Residents expressed a need for improved and maintained public
infrastructure. Residents want safe roads, sidewalks and streetlights for example.
• Sustainability: The theme of sustainability continued to show up in the comments with
residents suggesting local food production and increased efforts toward composting and
renewable energy.
• Community connection and racial equity: A deep sense of community was a re-occurring
theme throughout the comments. Neighbors, friends and the small-town feel was listed
City council meeting of September 15, 2025 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Title: Vision 4.0 community engagement update
as a major reason residents choose to stay in St. Louis Park. The data also highlighted
the importance of the Jewish community in the city and wishes for the city to continue
to promote diversity, equity and inclusion.
Here is a word cloud that highlights common words included in the feedback:
Next steps: The consultants will continue to synthesize community engagement feedback, draft
the vision and strategic priorities. All community feedback, including input from small group
conversations, the online survey and ongoing public events will be consolidated into a final
draft of the vision 4.0 report.
The community committee will review the draft of the vision 4.0 report in October and
November. The council will receive a presentation and the final report during a study session in
December. The council will adopt the final strategic priorities in early 2026.
Date Next steps
Now -
November
Consultants continue to synthesize community feedback and draft the vision
4.0 report. The community committee will review the draft.
December The council will receive a presentation and the final report during a study
session.
Early 2026 The council will refine and officially adopt the final strategic priorities.