Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025.05.27 CCM STUDY5/27/25 -1- 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 MAY 27, 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 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor April Graves and Councilmembers Dan Jerzak, Teneshia Kragness, and Laurie Ann Moore. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, Interim City Clerk Shannon Pettit, and City Attorney Siobhan Tolar. Councilmember Kris Lawrence-Anderson was excused. CITY COUNCIL MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS Councilmember Jerzak stated he submitted two corrections for the meeting minutes to Staff. One was correcting the name of the Councilmember who testified at the Capitol. The other correction was changing the word from “sunset” to “daylight.” Councilmember Kragness stated for the May 5, 2025 minutes on page 55 of 160 in the fourth paragraph, she requests that the word “material” be changed to “shrinkage.” For the May 12, 2025 minutes, she requested a change to her comments about the hotel owners’ focus on profits over the guests. She stated she was misquoted. Councilmember Jerzak noted the community has shown interest in having the Study Session recorded on CCX. He explained he would like to discuss the possibility further. Mayor Graves stated she would like for the Study Session to be on CCX. Councilmember Moore stated she would prefer to talk about the Code of Respect before changing the CCX recordings, though she isn’t opposed to the idea. She explained she thought the recording was posted online. Mayor Graves stated it used to be posted online, but they decided to stop posting it. CODE OF RESPECT 5/27/25 -2- City Manager Reggie Edwards explained that the proposed changes are a response to Council comments. The document prioritizes collaborative behavior and having a shared path forward. The effort is intended to be restorative. He commended the Council on their idea to create a Code of Respect instead of a Code of Conduct. City Attorney Siobhan Tolar reiterated that she implemented recommendations from the Council and softened the language. The idea is for the Council to agree to the Code of Respect, which details how they will treat one another. Ms. Tolar noted there is a pathway for both sanctions and restoration. On page 11, there are accountability measures. The bulk of substantive changes were in the accountability measures. There is an agreement to attempt restorative efforts prior to employing sanctions. Within sanctions, there is a warning, then a reprimand, then censure. Factors that will be considered in determining the appropriate restorative measure or sanction may include the seriousness of the violation and the number of preceding violations. Ms. Tolar pointed out that she created a grid to act as a visual guide for the violation tier, restorative measures, and sanction steps. For example, a first violation may be a “Disrespectful or offensive comment to Council Member, constituent, appointed official, or staff”. The restorative measure would be a “Private conversation amongst the parties with or without a mediator to try to resolve the issue; parties resolve the issue in public.” If the restorative step fails, then the process may escalate to a sanction such as a “public verbal warning from the presiding officer.” Ms. Tolar stated a second violation example could be, “Continued disrespectful exchanges with same or different Council Member, constituent, appointed official, or staff.” The restorative measure would be, “Public conversation at study or work session regarding behavior and potential causes and solutions; Offending Party attempts to resolve the issue by offering solutions for corrective behavior; Parties resolve the issue in public. If the Offending Party cannot agree to resolution, then move to step 2.” The second step of a sanction would be “Reprimand via Written Letter approved by Council, signed by the Mayor or Pro Tem.” Ms. Tolar further explained that a third minor or moderate violation may be “continued disrespectful comments/exchanges with Council Member, constituent, appointed official, or staff” after the first and second violations. There is no prescribed restorative measure. Instead, the prescribed sanction would be “Public censure via Council resolution.” Councilmember Moore noted the terms “restorative” and “sanction” remind her of a criminal code of conduct. She asked if there is a consensus of the Council before any violations are carried out. Ms. Tolar stated that the Council may decide if a consensus is required. There is a procedure by which someone may complain, and there is an investigation process. The grid merely illustrates a violation and potential responses. Ms. Tolar pointed out that Tier 2 violations are moderate to severe violations and may be 5/27/25 -3- considered inappropriate. For example, “directing staff to investigate a constituent matter unknown to Council or City Manager” would qualify as a moderate to severe violation. The restorative step would include a “public conversation regarding behavior at study or work session” and the “offending party issues a verbal public apology to those involved. If that step fails, the sanction would be “reprimand via written letter approved by Council, signed by the Mayor or Pro Tem.” Ms. Tolar noted another Tier 2 violation could be if a Councilmember were to “publicly endorse political candidate at a Council meeting.” The restorative measure is a “public conversation regarding behavior at work or study session.” If that step fails, the sanction would be an “immediate verbal public reprimand by Presiding Official; reprimand via written letter from approved by Council, signed by Mayor or Pro Tem.” Ms. Tolar added the third Tier 2 violation example is if a Councilmember were to “misrepresent a City position / Speak on behalf of the City with no Council consensus on the matter at hand.” For a third violation, there is no restorative measure. Instead, the prescribed sanction is a “public censure via Council resolution.” Ms. Tolar stated a Tier 3 violation is categorized as egregious which may include clear misconduct or violation of the law. The example in the grid is, “Use profane language toward Council member(s), staff, constituent, appointed official; After investigation, found to have violated Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.” There is no restorative step. Instead, the sanction would be a censure or applicable criminal consequence. Ms. Tolar pointed out she compared the document to the Charter, and she noted whenever the document overlapped with the Charter. The complaint process details ethics and various procedures, which are also mentioned in the drafted Code of Respect. Mayor Graves thanked Staff for their work on the item. Councilmember Kragness expressed her appreciation of Staff’s work and the softening of the language. Councilmember Jerzak noted his agreement with Councilmember Kragness. He stated on page 15 of 19, he suggested that reporting a potential violation to the City Attorney may be added, referring to item b. He offered the same suggestion for the Investigation Procedure portion of the Code of Respect. Councilmember Jerzak explained Staff must abide by a Code of Conduct. He asked if the Council may report a Staff violation of their Code of Conduct, similar to Staff’s ability to report the Council per item 4b. Ms. Tolar pointed out that page five addresses Staff Criticism and allows for Councilmembers to express concerns about Staff privately to the City Manager. Councilmember Jerzak stated he understands the purpose of item 10i. Personal Attacks. He stated the “tone of voice” may be difficult to enforce without bias, as some people speak more passionately or loudly than others. 5/27/25 -4- Mayor Graves stated the item doesn’t require people to know every cultural difference or preference. Instead, the aim is for Councilmembers to be self-aware. Someone disliking another’s tone of voice doesn’t rise to the level of a violation. It is a different consideration if a certain tone of voice is used consistently over time. Councilmember Jerzak pointed out he wants to maintain the opportunity for a public apology, such as, “Madam Mayor, I apologize if my comments were disrespectful.” Sometimes his directness and passion come off as intimidating, but he is well-intentioned. His goal is to remain respectful while maintaining his passion and directness. Mayor Graves agreed she would like for Councilmembers to communicate their concerns or feelings of disrespect at the moment when appropriate. Similarly, it would stand to reason that another individual may express their apology as an immediate response. Councilmember Jerzak stated he supports the document as a whole. He stated he would like for the Code of Respect and similar documents for Staff and Commissioners to be voted on altogether. Councilmember Moore pointed out Personal Attacks are mentioned on three separate pages. She explained she doesn’t like the term “personal attack” in a Code of Respect document. Folks have previously expressed that rolling one’s eyes is disrespectful, or body language is deemed disrespectful. She learned that she received a complaint against her as a Commissioner for rolling her eyes and raising her voice. Ultimately, cultural differences, body language, tone of voice, and the like are too subjective. She noted she has felt disrespected in her role as a Councilmember, and she has been accused of being disrespectful. Councilmember Moore stated the language of restorative practices is off-putting because of its connotation related to criminal acts. The illustrations in the grid are helpful and much appreciated. The document doesn’t address a requirement for Council to reach consensus about which tier a certain action may fall under. A constituent recently commented on eye-rolling, and the incident was subjective. The communication needs to be more clear. Councilmember Moore added the Councilmembers were elected to represent the community in a respectful way and to make important decisions regarding tax dollars. While she isn’t opposed to the Code of Respect, there is ambiguous language. Also, the Mayor or presiding officer has sole authority to impose a restorative step or sanction. Ms. Tolar explained if someone were to believe there was a Code of Respect violation, they may report it to the City Manager, for example. The City Manager would participate in fact-finding to determine if there was a violation. The next step would be a notice and hearing. The Investigation Procedure is detailed on page 15 of 19. Only when a sanction is imposed, then the Council may vote and discuss a letter of reprimand or censure. A reprimand or censure would require a public hearing and consensus of the Council. 5/27/25 -5- Councilmember Moore stated she went through the process as a Commissioner, and she never received information on the conclusion. Ms. Tolar stated the Code of Respect addresses Councilmember conduct. Councilmember Moore explained she received a complaint from a Councilmember while she was not on the Council. Mayor Graves stated that is not where the complaint came from. Councilmember Moore stated she didn’t know where the complaint came from. Councilmember Moore asked how that process fits into the Code of Respect. Ms. Tolar explained the complaint process acts as a sort of funnel of information. The Council can make a decision for a complaint’s fact-finding process to include the Council, though the accused party wouldn’t be included in the fact-finding effort. Councilmember Jerzak stated he is comfortable with the City Attorney’s proposed document and answers to the Council’s questions. Councilmember Kragness agreed that the reporting process and investigation process be the same. Whoever receives the report should be the one to determine the next step. Once the severity is determined, it can go to the Council. Ms. Tolar pointed out the point of restoration is for the offending party to participate in the resolution. A sanction may be imposed if the offending party is uninterested or unwilling to participate in a restorative effort. Ms. Tolar added the language for the “Personal Attacks” is not new; it is merely softened. The piece lives in each section so it would apply to different situations and involved parties. Councilmember Kragness noted her appreciation of the language because it clearly indicates that tone of voice may be inappropriate. Mayor Graves stated the Council has shown overall support for the Code of Respect. They will hold off on voting on the item until similar documents for Staff and Commissions are reviewed. Councilmember Jerzak asked if the Council supported his idea to add the City Attorney to the list of folks who may receive a complaint. Councilmember Kragness stated it seemed like it was just a typo because the City Attorney was listed as a receiving party throughout the document except for in one section. Mayor Graves noted she agreed with the City Attorney being a party eligible to receive a complaint. PROPOSED BUDGET SCHEDULE 5/27/25 -6- Dr. Edwards explained the schedule was provided to the Council. The presentations were further spread out. Each meeting is a shorter period of time. Two sessions were added. The Council expressed interest in a priority-setting conversation, which is included in the schedule. Dr. Edwards pointed out that the schedule currently calls for an audit presentation on June 30, 2025. However, the auditor is unavailable on that date. The Council will receive the audit prior to June 30, which is on schedule. Staff suggests that the audit presentation be scheduled for July 7, 2025. The budget overview and levy discussion can also be held on that date. Councilmember Moore stated the June 30, 2025, date could be eliminated to add the July 7, 2025, meeting. Dr. Edwards stated the priorities will be discussed on June 9, 2025. Mayor Graves stated she would be willing to meet on July 7, 2025. Councilmember Kragness asked if the June 30, 2025, meeting would be eliminated should they agree to meet on July 7, 2025. Dr. Edwards stated July 7, 2025, is the most important. If the Council isn’t agreeable to June 30, 2025, then that meeting will go away. Councilmember Jerzak noted the previous minutes indicate that the Council had the option to move the audit up. However, Staff keeps pushing back the audit presentation. Dr. Edwards explained the City can move up the audit process in future years but not for the current year. The audit will still be provided to the Council as scheduled. Mayor Graves stated the audit presentation is being pushed back. Dr. Edwards stated the presentation is being pushed off by only one week. Councilmember Kragness pointed out that July 7, 2025, is the Monday following a holiday weekend. Dr. Edwards stated the audit presentation can be received whenever the Council desires after June 30, 2025. Councilmember Moore suggested the audit presentation be included on July 14, 2025, with the regularly scheduled meeting. Dr. Edwards stated he would confer with the auditors to confirm their availability. Mayor Graves stated it was the consensus of the Council to move the audit presentation to July 14, 2025. Councilmember Moore reiterated the Council is interested in moving up the audit timeline. Dr. Edwards explained that historically, the earliest the City has received the audit is the first week of June. Staff will work with the auditor to move up the audit timeline in the future. 5/27/25 -7- Councilmember Kragness pointed out that Brooklyn Center has solid financials, so the audit itself isn’t providing new information. They can rely on the City’s financial reports because the audit has not shown material differences. Dr. Edwards reiterated that the Council will receive the audit on schedule. Councilmember Moore noted the Council hasn’t received any quarterly financials. Dr. Edwards stated the Council has sent out monthly financials for three of the five months. They don’t typically provide a report for the first month as Staff’s focus is preparing for the audit during that time. Staff has committed to the goal of providing quarterly financial reports in the future. Mayor Graves asked if the Council will still be meeting on June 30, 2025. Dr. Edwards stated he needs to schedule a time with Mayor Graves to discuss 360 and that process. June 30 was already on the schedule for Council, so they want to make use of that date somehow. CITY MANAGER MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS BAYMONT INN & SUITES UPDATE City Manager Reggie Edwards explained that the intention is to help Baymont to move as quickly as possible. It is in the City’s best interest for Baymont’s business to be up and running. There is the topic of a reinstatement fee. Council may consider implementing a reinstatement fee as a Council Consideration Item. If it were passed and the conditions of the temporary license were resolved, the owner could go through the administrative process to have their license reinstated without using more of Council’s time. The recommended reinstatement fee is $300, which is 1.5 times the initial fee. The item would also authorize Staff to renew the license through an administrative process to save time for all parties. Baymont is not allowed to have new guests until the license is renewed. Councilmember Jerzak pointed out he thoroughly reviewed the resolution and met with Dr. Edwards one-on-one. The Council doesn’t want to put anyone out of business. However, they need to maintain City Code. There was a passionate email received from the owner. As long as the Baymont is in compliance with City regulations, then they should be able to operate their business. Councilmember Kragness noted her support of the $300 fee. It will also hold Staff accountable to support the Baymont in returning to operations. Councilmember Moore expressed her agreement with the other comments. It was the consensus of the Council to support the recommended $300 restatement fee. Dr. Edwards asked if the item could be moved to the Consent Agenda, should there be a unanimous agreement. Councilmember Jerzak asked if they are required to have a unanimous decision of all 5/27/25 -8- five Councilmembers to move an item to the Consent Agenda. Dr. Edwards stated it requires unanimous support by all present Councilmembers. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Jerzak seconded to close the Study Session at 6:59 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.