Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025.02.10 CCM STUDY2/10/25 -1- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION FEBRUARY 10, 2025 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor April Graves at 6:09 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor April Graves and Councilmembers Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Dan Jerzak, Teneshia Kragness, and Laurie Ann Moore. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, City Clerk Barb Suciu, and City Attorney Siobhan Tolar. CITY COUNCIL MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated that Carol Cleven passed away a week and a half ago and that services will be held at Washburn McGreevy Glenhaven Chapel on W Broadway, in Crystal, MN. She stated she would pass the information on to staff to recognize her services. RESOLUTION 2021-073 Mayor Graves stated this item was tabled from January 27, 2025, meeting due to Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson excused absence. She turned the discussion to Councilmember Jerzak. Councilmember Jerzak explained Resolution 2024-138 was passed at the very last council meeting and at the end of a very late meeting, and there wasn’t enough time to discuss the item. Because the fifth section of Resolution 2021-073 dictates the creation of a pending Commission, it requires full discussion particularly only one councilmember voted in favor of the resolution. Councilmember Jerzak stated he believes all proposed commission members should be Brooklyn Center residents. Also, there shouldn’t be a requirement for all members to have had experience with law enforcement as that creates implicit bias. He stated by state statute that the police chief ultimately has the final decision. The policy review process should be held within the Police Department. Similar committees have not worked out well everywhere. He added of the thirteen of the original items in the resolution, only three of the listed responsibilities were in the original Resolution 2021-073. 2/10/25 -2- DRAFT Councilmember Jerzak pointed out he had discussed the topic with Dr. Edwards for over four hours. He did a side-by-side comparison of the original Resolution 2021-073 with the proposed changes, and only eight of the ten original ideals have either been enacted, are no longer relevant or have been voted down by the Council. He added the 2024 resolution was given to the council in the middle of the meeting and was brought to a vote. The council didn’t have the proper time to discuss the resolution. Councilmember Jerzak reiterated that he is being careful because Resolution 2024-138 is not on the agenda. However, it is relevant as the fifth item of Resolution 2021-073 is to form the commission proposed by Resolution 2024-138. He stated it was agreed upon to have a 45-day freeze on Resolution 2024-138 and would like to revisit this resolution for further discussion Councilmember Jerzak stated he was concerned about grant components. Dr. Edwards had previously explained that the grant funds were for expanded response. He clarified that number four of the resolution calls for the department of Community Prevention Health and Safety, which was not created because of logistical issues of directors reporting to directors. Mayor Graves stated the resolution passed at the end of December 2024 required that all voting members be residents of Brooklyn Center. She read an excerpt from Resolution 2024-138: “All voting members of the Commission shall be residents with direct experience or contact with the public safety, judicial, or public health systems or have had direct contact or expertise with one or more of the public safety, judicial, or public health systems.” Mayor Graves explained there is no requirement that the members have direct experience with law enforcement. Instead, there is a requirement that members have experience with any public health and safety systems. Councilmember Jerzak reiterated the Council didn’t have enough time to discuss the proposed changes. Ultimately, Resolution 2024-138 is not an agenda item, so they should not discuss it too deeply. Mayor Graves stated the fifth section of Resolution 2021-073 calls for the creation of the commission, which has been proposed as Resolution 2024-138. Councilmember Jerzak explained he submitted a number of suggested changes to Dr. Edwards such as all commission members being residents. Mayor Graves noted Resolution 2024-138 does require all members to be residents. Councilmember Jerzak stated he doesn’t want any non-voting members on the commission. Mayor Graves explained the non-voting members are staff liaisons from various departments. There has been previous discussion that the commission should have a direct connection with expertise within the city. 2/10/25 -3- DRAFT Councilmember Jerzak stated Resolution 2024-138 is not on tonight’s agenda. Therefore, he doesn’t want to speak about it. Ultimately, Resolution 2024-138 did not have a chance to compare the document to the fifth section of Resolution 2021-073. Mayor Graves pointed out the minutes of past meetings with discussion of Resolution 2021-073 provided to Council, and it shows there were multiple discussions regarding its fifth section. Three Councilmembers believed there was enough time to discuss Resolution 2021-073before the December meeting. She noted Councilmember Jerzak has an issue with the timing of the December meeting, though that was not the majority opinion of the Council. She explained she is aiming to move forward as the timing of the December meeting cannot be changed at present. She asked what issues Councilmember Jerzak still has. Councilmember Jerzak restated that Resolution 2024-138 is not on the agenda tonight. The simplest thing is to bring Resolution 2024-138 to the next City Council Meeting, and we can have a robust discussion. He provided what is necessary to earn his vote. Mayor Graves asked if Councilmember Jerzak is requesting additional discussion of Resolution 2021-073 prior to considering Resolution 2024-138. Councilmember Jerzak reiterated only eight of the ten original ideals have been enacted, are no longer relevant or have been voted down by the Council. There is no need to dwell on Resolution 2021-073 but we agreed to come back and revisit 2024-138. Mayor Graves stated the minutes of past conversations regarding Resolution 2021-073 were pulled because some members of the Council believed there wasn’t enough discussion on the fifth item and, therefore, Council repealed Resolution 2024-138. Councilmember Jerzak stated he had concerns about the fifth section of Resolution 2021-073. The discussion was never completed. At 10:29 p.m. of the December 2024 meeting, Resolution 2024- 138 was called for a vote while members of the Council stated they needed more time for discussion. Mayor Graves stated a vote was called for. Councilmember Jerzak confirmed a vote was called for by an outgoing Councilmember. Councilmember Jerzak restated that Resolution 2024-138 is not on the agenda. It can be discussed at a future meeting. Mayor Graves asked if Councilmember Jerzak no longer needs time to discuss Resolution 2021- 073 but to bring Resolution 2024-138 to the next meeting for discussion. Councilmember Jerzak confirmed that is correct. He reiterated that he met with Dr. Edwards for almost four hours to address concerns. He received clarity on how the fourth item of Resolution 2021-073, the Department of Community Safety and Violence Prevention wasn’t implemented. 2/10/25 -4- DRAFT Mayor Graves noted the fourth section of Resolution 2021-073, called for a new department. Instead, the Office of Community Prevention, Health, and Safety was created. Councilmembers Jerzak and Lawrence-Anderson stated that was incorrect. Mayor Graves stated the City didn’t have the fiscal capacity to create an entire Department, but instead, the Office of Community Prevention, Health, and Safety was initiated. Councilmember Jerzak indicated the way Dr. Edwards explained it to him was it was a department within a department. Dr. Edwards explained the City didn’t have the financial capacity to create three new departments as described in Resolution 2024-138; the Resolution called for a Department of Community Safety and Violence Prevention that would oversee the Police Department, the Fire Department, the Traffic Enforcement Department, and the Community Response Department. There were both fiscal and hierarchical issues with implementing those components of Resolution 2021-073. In the spirit of moving forward, we created the Office of Community Prevention, Health, and Safety, which does not have supervision over any other department. It sits as another unit of government just like other departments. It works in partnership and collaboration with the Police Department and Fire Department. This is how we came to the pilots for Expanded Response. We did not create departments for this. It is a program within the Community Prevention, Health, and Safety, which is why the language was presented of creating units of government. It wasn’t as prescriptive, so staff has the ability to create in spirit what the council was trying to do but within our means and within the notion of good operations. Mayor Graves stated everyone appears to be on the same page now. Councilmember Moore stated Resolution 2021-073 is on the agenda, which Councilmember Jerzak set up for the Council. The original Resolution 2021-073 called for the creation of three new departments and multiple commissions or committees. She asked if the Council is amending Resolution 2021-073, repealing Resolution 2021-073, or starting fresh. Resolution 2021-073 has had multiple edits proposed. The decision on how to handle Resolution 2021-073 will impact related commissions, committees, and pilot programs. Mayor Graves confirmed there is a proposed edited version of Resolution 2021-073 that reflects proposed changes the City such as renaming some components. The Council previously received a presentation incorporating the edits, but they were not prepared to move forward with the changes. She asked how the Council would like to proceed. Resolution 2021-073 is important, but the Council deals with many important topics that deserve their attention. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson pointed out that only she and Mayor Graves were on the Council when Resolution 2021-073 was passed. Mayor Graves voted in favor of the item while Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson did not, primarily because of the issues that are still being discussed. 2/10/25 -5- DRAFT Mayor Graves agreed she didn’t support components of Resolution 2021-073 such as the three departments. She supported the spirit of Resolution 2021-073, but she did not support the structure of it. The Council was under a lot of pressure at the time Resolution 2021-073 was proposed. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked if the original Resolution 2021-073 would need to be repealed to vote on an amended version. City Attorney Siobhan Tolar stated if the Council wants to move forward with the edited version of Resolution 2021-073, then it would overwrite the original version. There would be no need for a repeal unless the Council was seeking a repeal. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked if the document with green and red edits on it is the latest proposal. Mayor Graves stated the document with the red and green edits is an early draft of edits for Resolution 2021-073. The Council was presented with edits by Staff, but the Council didn’t want to move forward with any edits. Edits would be required to align the original document with the actual capacity of the City. Mayor Graves added the Council has been generally supportive of Resolution 2021-073, though it hasn’t supported the proposed structure. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she doesn’t need to discuss Resolution 2021-073 more until she compares the proposed document to past iterations. She noted she has a concern with the fifth item, which is the prerequisite for members to have experience with law enforcement such as detainment. Mayor Graves explained that the Council felt similarly. Resolution 2024-138 which was passed in December only to be repealed does not require members to have direct experience with law enforcement. They are looking for residents who have experience with public safety systems, public health systems, and judicial systems or are experts in those spaces. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked for a copy of the latest draft of Resolution 2021-073. Mayor Graves stated it is on page 226 of the previous packet. Councilmember Moore noted she does not want to rehash the fifth section again. From the original Resolution 2021-073, she would remove the second section Community Alternative Response Government Unit, remove the third section Non-Moving traffic Violation, amend the fourth section to reflect the Office of Community Prevention, Health, and Safety and the Expanded Response pilot programs, and remove the fifth section as the work of the Implementation Committee doesn’t need to be extended. The subsequent sections have been addressed by the Council. Mayor Graves added the Community Response Department should be under the Office of Community Prevention, Health, and Safety. It may be beneficial to state what the City does, but it may be unnecessary. The third section was meant to be addressed by the presentation from the 2/10/25 -6- DRAFT Implementation Committee regarding nonmoving traffic violations. The Council, unfortunately, did not implement the recommendations from the Implementation Committee. Councilmember Kragness pointed out there are drafted changes based on the countless Council discussions regarding Resolution 2021-073. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense why people continue to reference the original document. Staff has made changes to better reflect the desires of the Council. Councilmember Kragness stated the Council needs to decide if they should move forward with the details of the commission mentioned in the fifth section or just repeal the section and stop wasting everyone’s time. The conversations are cyclical and unproductive. Mayor Graves noted the minutes have shown general support for a permanent commission. Councilmember Jerzak’s 45-day pause included his interest in further discussion of the permanent commission. It appears as though Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson was generally supportive of the commission as well. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson agreed she supports the general idea of a permanent commission, but there are details she doesn’t support. She also has issues with the fourth section. Mayor Graves agreed the fourth section requires additional edits to reflect what Brooklyn Center is doing. Mayor Graves directed Staff to edit Resolution 2021-073 to reflect the comments of the Council and present the item to Council at a future meeting. From there, the Council can have additional discussion solely on the proposed draft rather than previous iterations. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she would like to repeal Resolution 2021-073 and approve an entirely new document. Mayor Graves pointed out the City Attorney stated an amendment wouldn’t require a repeal. A repeal would eliminate a historically impactful document and potentially harm families. Councilmember Moore noted they are supposed to be discussing Resolution 2021-073. She offered to proposed a motion reflecting her desired changes. Mayor Graves stated a motion isn’t necessary if there is consensus of the Council, and the City Attorney already explained the process to amend Resolution 2021-073. Ms. Tolar stated a repeal is reversing the effect of a resolution. Resolutions are statements of intention and are non-binding. An amendment of a resolution creates a new resolution number with the new language. The newest numbered resolution would then be in effect. Councilmember Kragness pointed out the past City Attorney explained the situation in the same manner. The amendment process was agreed upon, which caused the subsequent discussions and edits of Resolution 2021-073. She added Councilmember Jerzak previously stated he doesn’t want to stray from Resolution 2021-073 too much. If an amendment wasn’t the intention, then the hours 2/10/25 -7- DRAFT of discussion would have been worthless. The Council needs to follow through with what it said it was doing. Councilmember Jerzak stated an amendment would be appropriate. He asked for an edited version of Resolution 2021-073 to be presented to the Council. He is still open to revisiting Resolution 2024-138 at the next City Council meeting. Mayor Graves agreed she would like the document to be edited and amended. She would like to find consensus amongst the Council and move forward with a united front. She added she aims for transparency and is open to compromise. Councilmember Moore pointed out that Resolution 2024-138 was brought up after 10:00 p.m. without review at the final December 2024 meeting. Two of the five Councilmembers voted against the item. As of 2025, the item was repealed because three of the five Councilmembers did not support it. The process was not transparent. The edited version of the resolutions needs to be presented to the Council for final discussion. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson noted she would like language in the fourth section of the Resolution 2021-073 regarding the chain of command. Mayor Graves pointed out that Councilmember Jerzak also mentioned that concern. She stated a new, clean draft would be the best choice for review. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she would like to see a marked-up, red version. Councilmember Kragness noted her agreement. Dr. Edwards noted page 138 of the packet pertains to the fourth section of Resolution 2021-073. A portion of the fourth section was edited based on previous discussions. Mayor Graves read an excerpt of the fourth section: “The City will create a new government unit of Community Prevention, Health, and Safety that will be responsible for coordinating with all City agencies and Citywide efforts regarding community prevention, health, and public safety and ensuring a well-coordinated, public-health- oriented approach throughout our City that relies upon a diversity of evidence-based prevention and intervention approaches to public safety, and a Director who has appropriate credentials and experience including public health expertise, community prevention and intervention in public safety, and that at minimum the following will have oversight of governmental units of Community Alternative Response and Non-Moving Traffic Violation Enforcement.” Mayor Graves stated the portion referencing Non-Moving Traffic Violation Enforcement would need to be removed. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated there is a lot of information and edits in the packet, and it is difficult to follow. Councilmember Moore noted her agreement. 2/10/25 -8- DRAFT Councilmember Kragness stated the Council cannot ask for a comparison document with edits if they are going to complain about it being too much. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated it isn’t too much. Councilmember Jerzak pointed out that the latest draft with edits was not brought back to the Council for a final vote. Mayor Graves confirmed that is correct. Councilmember Jerzak stated he would like there to be additional discussion on Resolution 2024- 138 at the next City Council meeting. For example, neighborhood representation is a great concept, but it would be unhelpful if that would inhibit the commission from meeting. CITY MANAGER MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS CONTINUE DISCUSSION OF STUDY/WORK SESSION ITEMS City Manager Reggie Edwards noted Staff compiled input from Councilmembers about upcoming Study and Work Session items. Staff will return with a proposed schedule based on the priorities of Councilmembers. Franchise fees were an added topic, and he requested Council provide their input on the new item via email. Dr. Edwards added some sections were missed by Councilmembers. He stated the sheets would be returned to Council to address the blanks. Councilmember Jerzak stated there were two areas of the previous set of minutes that required edits. He asked if the edits should be reported to the City Manager or the City Clerk. Dr. Edwards confirmed the edits should be sent to the City Clerk. Councilmember Jerzak stated on the seventh page of the Study Session that the Deputy City Manager’s name was incorrect. Additionally, the first page of the Study Session minutes needs clarity for which resolution the 45-day timeline is referring to. Councilmember Kragness added on the second page of the Study Session, that her comment was written incorrectly. She did not support the 45-day freeze. Instead, she suggested the 90-day recruitment period to allow for more discussion instead of the 45-day freeze. Councilmember Kragness pointed out there is a mathematical error on the Staff’s notes for the Resolution Supporting the Pursuit of a 2025 Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Grant for the Highway 100 Connectivity Study. 20 percent of $800,000 is $160,000. 15 percent of $800,000 is $120,000. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson noted on the Study Session for February 10, 2025, it is mentioned the item was tabled because she was “missing.” She requested it be edited to say she was “absent” instead. 2/10/25 -9- DRAFT There was consensus regarding the suggested changes. Dr. Edwards stated Staff would review the edits and listen to the recording to ensure the appropriate edits are made. Dr. Edwards pointed out that the Council had previously mentioned that if an item were to fail, it could not be addressed again for one year. The City Clerk and City Attorney and other Staff haven’t been able to find such a policy in place. While Council could create such a policy, there is not an active prohibition of addressing a failed item. Dr. Edwards asked when the City Council would be available to receive a presentation regarding his goals for 2025. He suggested January 17, 2025. Mayor Graves stated that is President’s Day. She noted it is concerning that Councilmembers have been unresponsive to scheduling the goal- setting. It negatively impacts the other Staff and does not set up Dr. Edwards for success. Councilmember Moore stated Mayor Graves is insinuating Councilmembers haven’t responded while they have responded multiple times. Mayor Graves explained the last email she received from the past Human Resources Director stated only two Councilmembers had provided their availability. Councilmember Moore stated Mayor Graves doesn’t know what actually happened. She agreed Dr. Edwards should have already had his goal-setting discussion. Mayor Graves added it is important for Councilmembers to meet with Dr. Edwards for one-on- ones, even though it is not an official requirement. Some Councilmembers have not been meeting with him. Councilmember Moore tried to speak, but Mayor Graves stated she would not be interrupted. Mayor Graves stated the one-on-ones are important, especially when Councilmembers consistently request additional time to discuss and understand City happenings. Even one hour out of the month can considerably improve the success of the Council. She stated she is curious why some Councilmembers have decided to forgo an opportunity to grow in understanding. Councilmember Kragness pointed out they are supposed to be supervising the City Manager. Without meetings or conversations with the City Manager, it is difficult to provide proper supervision. Dr. Edwards needs clear expectations shared with him in order to be successful in his role. She added it is unfortunate that some Councilmembers are not properly positioned to supervise someone of Dr. Edwards’ caliber. A lack of management experience on top of not seeking out opportunities to meet with Dr. Edwards is concerning. Mayor Graves reiterated Dr. Edwards want to set a date for goal-setting. She requested the Councilmembers respond to his request with their availability. She also urged all Councilmembers to meet with Dr. Edwards in one-on-one sessions. Councilmember Moore noted there is a requirement for Janice or a representative of Common 2/10/25 -10- DRAFT Sense to be present. However, her availability and continued work with Brooklyn Center are unclear. Mayor Graves clarified presence of a Common Sense representative is not required for one-on-ones, but it is being considered for the goal-setting meeting. Dr. Edwards stated Common Sense will participate in the goal-setting meeting because they are a contractor of the Council. Councilmember Moore asked if the Common Sense representative is also covering the role of human resources. Dr. Edwards stated the representative doesn’t fulfill a human resources role. Their responsibility is to support Councilmembers in their supervision of the City Manager. Councilmember Moore pointed out Dr. Edwards supervises the Staff position of Human Resources Director. She stated Dr. Edwards provided updated goals via email to the Council and they responded with feedback. Dr. Edwards confirmed he sent an email with goals, but he has some edits to present to the Council. He is also seeking out feedback from Council about the goals. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson noted she has had issues with calendar updates that has impacted her one-on-one opportunities. At the previous meeting, a manager indicated Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson had missed a meeting with the manager and Dr. Edwards. However, a one-on-one is supposed to be with a Councilmember and City Manager alone. Additional parties joining the one-on-one is an ambush. Mayor Graves stated Dr. Edwards has given her a heads up if another person will be present for a scheduled one-on-one. However, Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson may express her expectations for the meeting directly to Dr. Edwards. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she did not receive a heads-up. Instead, they just happen to appear at the meeting. It has happened multiple times over the past couple of years. It is unfair that some Directors get to join the alleged one-on-ones while others do not. Overall, she hasn’t seen the value of one-on-ones. Councilmember Jerzak pointed out he has never missed a one-on-one, and he regularly requests additional one-on-one meetings. It should be the individual Councilmembers’ option to participate in a one-on-one or not. However, a Councilmember’s disinterest in a one-on-one should be clearly communicated with Dr. Edwards. His one-on-one meetings with Dr. Edwards have been helpful, and he has been able to express his opinion on other Staff joining the meeting. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson added that she has received the impression that one-on-ones with additional Staff have been used to gauge her perspective on a particular item and then alter the presentation to obtain the necessary votes. She has felt manipulated. Dr. Edwards explained if there is a significant or complex issue, he intends to explain what PFOS means before the formal presentation before the Council. His understanding was that the Council desires to be informed before a presentation and to avoid surprises. A Staff person joining a one- 2/10/25 -11 - DRAFT on-one meeting does happen ahead of votes to inform Councilmembers ahead of a vote. Staff has no intention of manipulating Council. If Council doesn’t want to receive the information, that is fine. It is the City Manager’s role to ensure the Council is as informed as possible. Mayor Graves noted she has benefitted from her one-on-one meetings, and she believes others may benefit as well. Mayor Graves added a Resolution was passed at the beginning of the year with a list of various holidays and cultural celebrations. She requested the events also be mentioned monthly as a way to highlight the community’s diversity. There was a consensus of the Council to have monthly highlights. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Graves adjourned the meeting at 7:28 p.m.