Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026.01.12 CCM STUDY01/12/26 -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 JANUARY 12, 2026 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, Councilmembers Teneshia Kragness, Dan Jerzak, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, and Laurie Ann Moore. Also present were Deputy City Manager Darren Nyquist, City Clerk Shannon Pettit, and City Attorney Siobhan Tolar. CITY COUNCIL MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS Councilmember Moore said she would like to pull the Consent Agenda item 6d. Resolution Appointing Presiding Officers – Mayor Pro Tem and Acting Mayor Pro Tem For 2026, and 6f. Resolution Appointing Council Members To Commissions and Outside Organizations For 2026 for discussion. Mayor Graves asked if Councilmember Moore would like to discuss those items now. Councilmember Moore agreed that the Council should discuss them now. Councilmember Moore said Councilmember Kragness was chosen as Mayor Pro Tem at the beginning of last year, and Councilmember Jerzak was next in line according to protocol and seniority for 2026. Mayor Graves said she was not sure what protocol Councilmember Moore was referencing. Councilmember Moore said Mayor Graves has been on the Council for a long time, but last year at the Council meeting, she had said that everyone would have an opportunity to be Mayor Pro Tem. Mayor Graves said that is not part of protocol; that was a choice as presiding officer. Councilmember Moore said she would like to make a motion to have Councilmember Jerzak appointed as Mayor Pro Tem for 2026, and every year, a new Mayor Pro Tem is chosen. Mayor Graves said she has done that every year because it was her choice to do so as the presiding officer. Mayor Graves noted that the entire time she was on the Council during her first term, when Tim Wilson was Mayor, Dan Ryan was the chosen Mayor Pro Tem all four years. She continued that when Mike Elliott was Mayor, Marquita Butler served as Mayor Pro Tem for all four years. Councilmember Moore asked for a point of order, and she would like to continue. She stated that 01/12/26 -2- DRAFT in the City Charter, it states that there must be a Council consensus reached for the Mayor Pro Tem. Mayor Graves asked what Councilmember Moore’s point of order was. Councilmember Moore answered that she was not done explaining her reasoning behind her motion. Mayor Graves told Councilmember Moore to continue. Councilmember Moore said that in the City Charter, it very explicitly says there must be a consensus on who is appointed Mayor Pro Tem, and it is not the Mayor’s responsibility to pick or choose who it is. Mayor Graves said it is the Mayor’s responsibility to make the appointment, and it is the Council’s responsibility to consent or not consent. Councilmember Moore said that is why she would like it pulled from the Consent Agenda and added to the regular Council Consideration Items. Mayor Graves asked if Councilmember Moore would like to pull that agenda item, because she does not agree with the appointment that Mayor Graves has made. Councilmember Moore stated that Mayor Graves was correct, and she said that she would also like to discuss the Commission's appointments. In light of recent activities, all the Commission appointments have been kept the same, and she personally thinks that Councilmembers should have the opportunity to sit in on other Commissions to see what activities they are working on. Councilmember Moore continued that Mayor Graves did not reach out to ask what the Councilmember's interests were, which she did last year, but would like to pull Consent Agenda item 6f. Resolution Appointing Council Members to Commissions and Outside Organizations for 2026 to discuss additional assignments for Councilmembers to Commissions. Mayor Graves asked if Councilmember Moore had a specific recommendation on a change for those Commission appointments. Councilmember Moore said she would have liked to have been asked about what she was interested in, and personally would have liked to be considered for the Financial Commission. Councilmember Moore added that, in light of recent activities, being appointed to the Parks and Recreation Commission does not seem appropriate. Mayor Graves asked what recent activities she was referring to. Councilmember Moore said she was not going to say those activities out loud. Mayor Graves said she was unaware of the activities that Councilmember Moore was referring to. Councilmember Moore said if that is true, then Mayor Graves is unaware of things that have happened in the last week. Mayor Graves said she was not sure how that related to Councilmember Moore's assignment. Councilmember Moore stated she would like to make a motion and get a second to move those two Consent Agenda items for Council consideration. Mayor Graves said she had another point of discussion, but if there was a second, that motion could be made. Councilmember Jerzak said he would second the motion. 01/12/26 -3- DRAFT Mayor Graves said she had points of discussion and asked Councilmember Kragness if she had anything she would like to add before she began. Councilmember Kragness said as far as the Mayor Pro Tem appointment, she does not have any issues with remaining the Mayor Pro Tem. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson said last year, Mayor Graves did state during a discussion that her desire was to have each member of the Council be Mayor Pro Tem in order for every Councilmember to have that experience. Mayor Graves said she has made that statement every year since becoming Mayor, and this year she has decided to choose differently for her own personal reasons. Mayor Graves said if the Council would like her to state her reasons, she would. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson said she did not think it was necessary for Mayor Graves to state her reasons, but she liked the previous idea that Mayor Graves was going to rotate the Mayor Pro Tem appointment. Mayor Graves said she thought rotating the Mayor Pro Tem appointment was a fair and democratic thing to do, but she does not think this Council cares very much about fair and democratic things. Councilmember Moore asked for a point of order. Mayor Graves said she can speak freely about how she feels, just like all the Councilmembers can. Councilmember Moore said Mayor Graves had to be respectful of her fellow Councilmembers. Mayor Graves said Councilmember Moore was not being respectful to her and would not give a good reason for challenging her appointments. Councilmember Moore said that from her perspective, she already felt like Mayor Graves was attacking her. Mayor Graves asked Councilmember Moore why she felt that way, and said it sounds like she has a personal problem. Councilmember Moore said it is not a personal problem; it is Mayor Graves's problem. Mayor Graves addressed Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson and said she had discussed appointments with Councilmember Jerzak and said that Councilmember Jerzak had expressed a desire to have some help on a particular Commission, which she added a Councilmember to in order to support that Commission. She continued that Councilmember Jerzak has been experiencing health problems, and he does not yet know what it feels like to sit in the Mayor's role. Councilmember Kragness has done an exemplary job of taking on the role when she cannot be present. She added that taking on the Mayor's role is stressful, and she was being considerate of his health. Mayor Graves continued that it feels like Councilmembers wanted to be petty and dictate who is in control, when it is not typically challenged who is appointed Mayor Pro Tem by the Mayor. She said this behavior does not seem very different than the behavior that the Council has been exhibiting around specific Staff as well. Councilmember Moore asked for a point of order. Mayor Graves continued that she spoke about this behavior at the last Council meeting. Mayor Graves asked what Councilmember Moore's point of order was. Councilmember Moore asked if Mayor Graves is going to continue bringing 01/12/26 -4- DRAFT this up. Mayor Graves said she has not done anything wrong, and Councilmember Moore brings up whatever she wants, which is out of order. Councilmember Moore told Mayor Graves she was out of order. Mayor Graves said Councilmember Moore does not have a point of order and just wants to disagree with everything that she says. Mayor Graves addressed Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson and said she feels offended, and that the Council is playing petty politics and already has the votes to get the things done that they want to do. Mayor Graves added that there is no real reason to change the Mayor Pro Tem appointment. She asked Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson if she thought Councilmember Kragness did a good job as Mayor Pro Tem last year. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson said Councilmember Kragness did just fine, but that was not the point. Mayor Graves asked if Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson was aware that one of the Councilmembers was struggling with health issues that could be exacerbated by additional heightened stress. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson said yes, she was aware. Mayor Graves continued that she thought this decision was made out of compassion, but the rest of the Council does not feel that way and wants to second-guess her leadership, which has happened repeatedly since she became Mayor, and would not happen if she were Mayor Tim Wilson. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson disagreed and said that was not true. Mayor Graves answered that the record speaks for itself. Councilmember Jerzak said he appreciated Mayor Graves' concern and acknowledged that, but said he did not want to discuss those matters during a Council meeting. He said from his perspective, he is neutral on the appointment of Councilmember Kragness as Mayor Pro Tem, but the Council is being asked to declare a commitment to the Brooklyn Center City Charter at tonight's meeting, and that is a resolution that requires a vote. He added that the Council could vote on who is Mayor Pro Tem, and he could nominate Councilmember Kragness to be Mayor Pro Tem. He added that his issue is making a commitment to the City Charter and following through with voting on that position. Mayor Graves asked what he was referring to in the City Charter and what the Council should be doing according to the City Charter. Councilmember Jerzak said under Section 2.06 of the City Charter, “The Mayor shall be the presiding officer, the Council, except the Council shall choose from its members, a President Pro Tem, who shall hold office at the pleasure of the Council, and shall serve as the President in the Mayor’s disability or absence from the City." He added that this is on page four of the City Charter, last revised on December 8, 2022. Mayor Graves said Councilmember Jerzak just read something that the Council was all aware of, which is what they are doing and is on the Consent Agenda. She continued that the process is for the Mayor to make the appointments and the Council to have this conversation about it. She asked why he seconded the motion made by Councilmember Moore if he was neutral on Councilmember Kragness’s appointment. 01/12/26 -5- DRAFT Councilmember Jerzak answered that he wanted to have the appointment voted on, and having it on the Consent Agenda does not require a vote. He added that he also wanted to have an open discussion about the appointment. Mayor Graves asked if the Council still wanted to vote since the motion was made, there was a second, and there had been further discussion. Councilmember Moore said she just wanted to clarify that she has no issue with the appointment of Councilmember Kragness as Mayor Pro Tem, but she is deferring to the conversation that Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson remembered more clearly. Mayor Graves said she remembered having that conversation, too. Councilmember Moore said she was just going by Mayor Graves's previous words, and the next person in line would be Councilmember Jerzak, and that is the reason she is bringing it up. Mayor Graves said she is not denying that that was her plan, but she gave her reasons on why she decided to choose differently. She noted that everybody has the right to change their minds, and she has changed her mind about her appointment. Councilmember Jerzak said he does not want to start off getting into a petty back-and-forth, and asked if he could withdraw that aspect of it and make an amendment if necessary. He added that Councilmember Kragness did a fine job as Mayor Pro Tem last year, but his issue is committing to the City Charter; it cannot be on the Consent Agenda. Mayor Graves said she did not have a problem with that, but the Council is following normal protocol. Councilmember Jerzak said he does not want to make any more of the issue than it is. Mayor Graves said the Council does not want the item on the Consent Agenda, which means the Council needs to rescind its initial motion. She asked Councilmember Moore for her input. Councilmember Moore said if everyone were in agreement to move Consent Item 6d. Resolution Appointing Presiding Officers – Mayor Pro Tem and Acting Mayor Pro Tem for 2026, and 6f. Resolution Appointing Council Members to Commissions and Outside Organizations for 2026 to Council Consideration Items and move forward from there. Mayor Graves asked if Councilmember Moore would rescind her initial motion. Mayor Graves added that she agreed to put it under consideration, and that would mean that Consent Agenda Item 6d. Resolution Appointing Presiding Officers – Mayor Pro Tem and Acting Mayor Pro Tem For 2026, and 6f. Resolution Appointing Council Members To Commissions and Outside Organizations For 2026, becoming 10a. and 10b. Councilmember Jerzak asked if this was the appropriate time to make a motion that Councilmember Kragness be appointed as Mayor Pro Tem. Mayor Graves said that the motion was already in the packet, and the original motion needs to be rescinded first. City Attorney Siobhan Tolar asked Mayor Graves what she meant. Mayor Graves said Councilmember Moore made the motion that was seconded, and the Council was in discussion about her motion. 01/12/26 -6- DRAFT Councilmember Moore asked Councilmember Jerzak if he was asking her to rescind the motion because he is neutral and does not want it discussed during Council consideration. Councilmember Jerzak said yes, and he asked Councilmember Moore to rescind her motion because he is neutral on it and his only purpose was to follow the City Charter. Councilmember Moore rescinded her previous motion and said Consent Item 6d. Resolution Appointing Presiding Officers – Mayor Pro Tem and Mayor Pro Tem for 2026 did not need to be moved to item 10b. But she would still like Consent Agenda item 6f. Resolution Appointing Council Members To Commissions and Outside Organizations For 2026 to be discussed and pulled from the Consent Agenda, and discuss it now, so they do not take away too much time from the Work Session items. Mayor Graves asked Councilmember Jerzak if he cared about having a vote on Mayor Pro Tem. Councilmember Jerzak said he was neutral and had no issue with Councilmember Kragness continuing to be Mayor Pro Tem, as it is a thankless job being Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem. Councilmember Moore moved, and Councilmember Jerzak seconded to rescind the motion to move the Consent Agenda item 6d. Resolution Appointing Presiding Officers – Mayor Pro Tem and Acting Mayor Pro Tem for 2026, for Council consideration. Ms. Tolar asked for clarity on the record of what the Council was voting on. Mayor Graves said the Council was voting to rescind the original motion. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Jerzak said he had previously inquired about the minutes for the joint Financial and Council meetings that occurred over the summer and early fall with regard to the budget, and asked if this could be looked into, and the status of those minutes from the public meeting being transcribed and presented to the Council for approval and becoming part of the permanent archives. Deputy City Manager Daren Nyquist asked if the Council was requesting minutes from all the Financial Commission meetings. Councilmember Jerzak said it was his understanding that anytime there is a quorum, even in a joint meeting and it is public, there are supposed to be minutes for those meetings, and he has not seen them. He said he has asked to see those minutes in previous meetings and would like the Staff to follow up on that. Councilmember Jerzak said he assumed those meetings were all recorded. Mr. Nyquist said those meetings were recorded and would just need to find the minutes, given the Staff transition. Councilmember Moore asked to clarify that the motion does not include removing Consent Agenda Item 6f. Resolution Appointing Council Members to Commissions and Outside Organizations for 2026, so that the Council can discuss it. Mayor Graves said that was the agreement, so the one item will be discussed under Council Consideration Items. Councilmember Moore asked if rescinding her motion would rescind that item as well. Mayor Graves assured her that it did not. 01/12/26 -7- DRAFT Councilmember Moore asked Ms. Tolar if that was acceptable. Ms. Tolar responded that as long as what is being done is clear on the record, then it is fine. Councilmember Jerzak asked if it is deemed appropriate at some point in the meeting for him to recognize the service of Community Development Director Jesse Anderson, as he reported to him for a number of years as an Inspector, and tonight is his last night. Mayor Graves said that would be a great idea. Councilmember Jerzak asked Mr. Nyquist if there were any objections from him. Mr. Nyquist said he had none. Mr. Nyquist said he would let Community Development Director Jesse Anderson explain where he was off to, but that this would be his last presentation through this body. Mr. Nyquist continued that the presentation Mr. Anderson would do is a report back on the rental license program changes and tenant protection ordinance changes, with work that Mr. Anderson led throughout the summer, collecting information on reviewing procedures in those two arenas. Mr. Anderson said he would get to his presentation when it was his turn in the agenda, but thanked the Council, and said he has been working with the City for 16 years and started as a Housing Community Standard Supervisor, then Deputy Director, then Director, and he has enjoyed his time working for Brooklyn Center and the Staff over the years. Councilmember Jerzak said that as an Inspector, he saw quite a growth process with Mr. Anderson. He continued that one overwhelming thing he wanted to recognize was Mr. Anderson's ability to remain neutral and fair. He added that at one point, Mr. Anderson had said he was a middle child and had to be the balance, and he remembered that because he wanted to acknowledge that he probably was not always the easiest to get along with. Councilmember Jerzak added that Mr. Anderson had taught him a lot about cooking for vegetarians and that he will always cherish that. He wished Mr. Anderson luck and said he deserved it and appreciated working for him. Councilmember Kragness thanked Mr. Anderson and said it was a pleasure working with him. Mayor Graves said she appreciated the conversations that they were able to have around the importance of economic development and supporting small businesses and ownership in the City. She said she also appreciated the candid one-on-one comments they were able to have together on their way to testifying at the Capitol. She added that Mr. Anderson will be missed, but knows where to find him and may reach out to ask for his advice, and hopes he will be welcome to that as well. Councilmember Moore said she thought it was important to share real-life examples, and she went up to the Asian Produce Market, where the owner mentioned to Councilmember Moore that Mr. Anderson was leaving, and how much they would miss working with him, as it has been 01/12/26 -8- DRAFT challenging starting an Asian Produce Market. She thanked Mr. Anderson for reaching out to the owners of the Asian Produce Market, and they said they really appreciated him. CITY MANAGER MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS REAFFIRMATION OF CITY’S STANCE ON IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES Mr. Nyquist introduced Police Chief Garrett Flesland to provide a statement based on recent events regarding ICE activities in the Metro area. He said he thought this was a good opportunity to have Chief Flesland reiterate the City's stance on these activities and provide a public update. Chief Flesland said he would like to take a few minutes at tonight’s meeting to reaffirm the City’s position and the Police Department’s role as it relates to recent federal immigration enforcement activity occurring throughout the region. As the City has already communicated publicly and as Mr. Nyquist has shared internally with City employees, this message reflects long-standing policy and does not represent a change in the Police Department’s approach. Chief Flesland noted the Brooklyn Center Police Department does not enforce civil immigration laws and does not participate in federal immigration raids and deportation efforts, nor does it inquire about immigration status as part of police activities and duties. He continued that civil immigration enforcement is the responsibility of the federal government, and the Police Department’s responsibility and focus remains on local public safety. He stated that he is aware that recent news and online conversations, including a fatal incident involving a federal agent in Minneapolis last week, have caused concerns, stress, and uncertainty for some members of the community, and the Police Department takes those concerns extremely seriously. He added that the Police Department is also seeing how quickly incomplete and inaccurate information can circulate online during times of heightened stress. He said in situations like these, the Police Department's approach is to slow things down, verify information carefully, and communicate clearly once there are reliable facts, and that is important for maintaining trust and avoiding unnecessary fear or confusion. He added that Public Safety depends on trust; people must feel safe calling 911, reporting concerns, and accessing City services without fear, and trust is essential, and protecting that is at the core of what the Police work is every day. Chief Flesland explained that if members of the community see Brooklyn Center Police at or near incidents where federal authorities are present, the officers are there solely to address local public safety needs such as traffic control, crowd management, or emergency response. He reiterated that officers are not assisting with immigration enforcement and are not involved in civil immigration actions or status inquiries. He stated that in Brooklyn Center, the Police Department's role is to keep the community safe and supported, which means continuing to serve everyone who lives, works, or visits the City with professionalism and care. He said this also means being clear and consistent in their messaging, so residents understand what the Police Department does and what it does not do. 01/12/26 -9- DRAFT Chief Flesland added that internally, he is mindful that situations like this can be extremely stressful for City employees as well. He stated that City leadership is monitoring developments closely, and the Police Department has provided guidance and support, so City Staff are not left to navigate high-stress situations on their own. He stated that, in short, the Police Department's mission values and approach have not changed and remain focused on local public safety, community trust, and serving the community with fairness and respect. Mayor Graves thanked Chief Flesland for putting out that message. She said she had a few questions, but did not expect him to have the answers immediately, but maybe follow up with the answers. She asked about the number of additional calls the Police Department is receiving from residents who are concerned or witnessing ICE activities, and the cost breakdown associated with responding to those calls. She asked if anything is being done or communicated to ensure that City Staff who may look like they immigrated here are staying safe and supported in the field, because she heard reports of two Public Works staff in Minneapolis yesterday who were stopped and detained by ICE. She reiterated that Chief Flesland did not have to answer any of those questions now, but she would like answers to them as soon as possible. Chief Flesland said a lot of the questions Mayor Graves asked are things that are being talked about internally within the Police Department. He said that he has given public-facing Staff guidance and best practices to support those potential interactions as best as possible. He said the Police Department is also looking at some communications to go out community-wide to get some awareness out because there are a lot of Brooklyn Center employees in the field interacting with the public every day. Mayor Graves said the employees who are interacting with the public every day are also a concern. Councilmember Kragness thanked Chief Flesland for the presentation, and said her concern is what the actual safety and support measures the City is providing to people who live and work in Brooklyn Center. Chief Flesland said a lot of the guidance internally is roles, responsibilities, and expectations, and externally, the Police Department is trying to be consistent in their messaging that immigration is not the role of the City government, and is not the role of the Police Department Staff. He added that there are ongoing conversations with community-based organizations as the Department tries to reaffirm its role and maintain those previously established lines of communication in those relationships to provide comprehensive services, support, and care for the community. He said the Department is continuing to partner with those community -based organizations as best as they can, while recognizing that there are certain limitations on what they can and can not do. Councilmember Kragness asked not just about law enforcement, but what kind of resources the City as a whole could provide. She asked if there was some kind of outreach that could be communicated to the community. Chief Flesland said there are some resources on the City’s website that the Department is trying to refresh as new information and resources become available, as well as continuing to participate in community dialogues. 01/12/26 -10- DRAFT Mayor Graves thanked Chief Flesland for his presentation. RENTAL LICENSE PROGRAM CHANGES Mr. Nyquist apologized for getting ahead of himself in his previous introduction and said this presentation is the culmination of the work that Mr. Anderson did over the course of the summer, doing outreach with stakeholders on both rental license procedures and tenant protection ordinances. Mayor Graves said for clarification that this is a work session item, so the Council is not taking a formal vote, but instead giving direction to Staff with this conversation. Mr. Anderson said he would start with the licensing program, which is primarily focused on non - owner-occupied properties, and when they apply for a license, they go through a process to get their inspection. He said this conversation is based on a discussion during the November 24, 2025, City Council meeting, where suggested changes were based on Council feedback and recommendations. Staff met with Brooklyn Park's rental license program staff to discuss their rental license program and get ideas and feedback. Mr. Anderson said he would highlight the proposed changes based on all the feedback received, and if the Council was on the same page, then the Department would start having a new ordinance drafted. Changes include eliminating the performance-based rental license program and additional requirements currently in Chapter 12-900. Those requirements include eight-hour crime-free housing training, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) inspections, an Action and Mitigation plan requirements, and removing the requirement that property owners must be current on property taxes and utilities before a license is issued, and removing the requirement regarding police calls for service at the residence before issuing a license. Other proposed changes include creating a new two-year rental license program, which includes single-family and multi- family properties. Currently, a property could get a three-year license if it did well on its inspection, or a six-month license if the inspection went poorly. The proposed change would mean everybody would get a two-year license, even for people who had previously qualified for the three-year rental license, and the two-year rental program would not change workload or Staffing levels. Mr. Anderson discussed Council considerations regarding the rental license inspection process and asked if the Council wants to issue the rental license and then conduct the inspections like Brooklyn Park does, but the cons of that are that the City loses the tool of forcing compliance in order to get a license. He continued that the City does have other tools for compliance, such as fines and formal complaints. Mr. Anderson said issuing the license before inspection may take pressure off the owners to finish inspection corrections before receiving the license, which can be challenging sometimes, especially if they apply late. He noted that giving the license before the inspection, or if the Council would prefer the license be issued after the property passes the rental license inspection. He noted that currently, rental licenses do not transfer to new owners, and even if the rental property just passed inspection, the new owner would have to pay for another inspection. 01/12/26 -11 - DRAFT He asked if the Council would consider allowing rental licenses to transfer to a new property owner. He said as of now, rental licenses are put on the Consent Agenda, but if the Council preferred, the Department would bypass the Council and just approve licenses administratively. Mr. Anderson noted that the next steps would be to get feedback from the Council, and the Staff would prepare a new Ordinance for Council consideration, outlining the new rental license program. Due to it being a change to an Ordinance, there would be a required first and second reading of the Ordinance with a Public Hearing. After the second reading, if adopted, the change would be effective 30 days after the new Ordinance publication. He asked if there were any other changes that the Council would like to discuss that he did not mention, or talk about the changes he highlighted. Councilmember Jerzak thanked Mr. Anderson and asked if, rather than leaving the license out for 90 days to complete the license period, it would be possible to leave the license out for a shorter period so it does not linger and forces the landlords to make the repairs. He said Mr. Anderson's Department is the expert, and the Council does not have to see the licenses to approve it unless the Department needs to bring a property to the Council for revocation, which is really rare. He said letting the Department handle the process would also expedite the process from a customer service standpoint. He noted that for transferring rental properties to new owners, he would like to see the ability to transfer the rental license to the new owner within six months of purchasing the property. He said his only concern is to ensure that the City is not just shuffling chairs on the deck, and it should be noted that the model that is being proposed is based on the IPMC, which is the International Property Maintenance Code. He added that Brooklyn Park also uses the IPMC, but there is a significant difference in what is written, and the emphasis is on basic culture and training, which is life, health, and safety, and that is the reason he had suggested the point system be adjusted for rental licenses. He said the new Ordinance should not compromise life, health, or safety, or only contribute to bureaucracy and costs, and the owner ends up with 57 pages of violations. He added that a hole in a soffit is not a life, health, or safety concern, but can be a very expensive aspect. Councilmember Jerzak continued that without a fundamental change in the training interpretation of the code, which emphasized life, health, and safety, which are not consequential. He said, for example, a frayed piece of carpeting may be a living issue, but inconsequential, and using those dollars to make repairs for a non-consequential thing means the owner does not have the money to make capital improvements. He said the Council wants life, health, and safety issues to be addressed and to be reasonable, such as a smoke detector getting fixed. He said in his opinion, the point system should be adjusted so it is more reflective of the life, health, and safety issues, as other cities are doing. He said he would really like to see the 90-day time period implemented, which puts the onus on both parties to get access and get things done. He said that without deadlines, procrastination becomes more than normal, and the City experiences backlogs. Mayor Graves thanked Councilmember Jerzak for his thoroughness with his comments and values the expertise that he brings to the Council from years of experience. She added that all of the Council members have years of experience in different fields, which she believes is valuable to 01/12/26 -12- DRAFT the Council. She asked Mr. Anderson if there were any edits or tweaks done to the current point system as part of this process. Mr. Anderson said in the current proposal that there would not be a point system in place anymore because there would just be a two-year license offered instead, and the owner would need to fix anything that came up in inspection. Mayor Graves asked about using Councilmember Jerzak’s examples of a hole in a soffit or a frayed rug, and if there was any additional work done around aligning the Ordinance with life, health, and safety. Mr. Anderson said right now, the Department is not talking about rewriting the maintenance code, really just the licensing, and by removing the point system for licensing, it does give Staff more flexibility in the prioritization of violations. He said with the point system, there was more pressure on Staff to write everything down to ensure consistency from property to property. Councilmember Jerzak said he did not want to bias his colleagues, but his recommendation is to eliminate the point system as well due to circumstances that can affect life, health, and safety, but are not always in the landlord's control, such as cleaning a vent hood at the property where a tenant currently lives, and never cleans it. He added that the flip side of that is fixing the issue right then and there as an Inspector, instead of waiting 10 days to write up a violation, especially for life, health, and safety issues like batteries missing in a smoke detector. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson said she would like a better understanding of why they would remove the requirement to pay the delinquent property taxes and utilities from the rental license program. Mr. Anderson said the owner has to pay those eventually anyway, and there is a mechanism for utilities to be put on their taxes in order to be paid. He said that by requiring those to get paid, it can hold up the license for a task that does not have a significant effect on the license. He added that it is up to the Council, but looking back about eight years ago, the Council changed the way that they did assessments for utilities, and the idea was the same: that there is a mechanism to get paid, and holding up the rental license for that is more administrati ve accounting work for Staff as well. Councilmember Moore said she has concerns about issuing the rental license and then conducting the inspection, and the administrative burden of having to go back if the property does not pass inspection and refunding the licensing fee. She said this scenario feels like putting the cart before the horse, and issuing licenses across the City to properties with multiple violations that have not been corrected is also concerning. She added that transferring the rental license to a new owner and allowing that to happen, especially if there is some type of history at the property, is also concerning. She said there could be circumstances where it would make sense to transfer the rental license, such as from family member to family member or if someone passed away, but to be cavalier about transferring the license to a new owner is also concerning to her. She said, as far as the properties being on the Consent Agenda for approval, she looks at all of those properties, and looks up the violations for those properties, and she knows that is because of th e current point system, but she would like to be informed about what is going on with the licenses in a weekly update. She said she has brought up in other meetings that some properties have multiple violations at the same property, and the City does not pull their rental license. She added that eliminating the point system and just going with a two-year license is a much better way to issue 01/12/26 -13- DRAFT the rental license. She asked who brought up the 90-day limitation and what it referred to. Mayor Graves answered that it was Councilmember Jerzak. Councilmember Jerzak explained that the City would issue the rental license within a 90 -day period to the owner after a successful inspection, and it could be revoked if the owner did not make the necessary corrections called out during inspection. Councilmember Moore asked if that was the current process. Councilmember Jerzak answered no, it is not part of the current process. Councilmember Moore said this would be a proposal going forward that if the Council approves the license on the front end, the owner would have 90 days, as that was not clear to her when Councilmember Jerzak was speaking earlier. Councilmember Jerzak said he is open to all suggestions from Councilmembers; he just does not want rental licenses to linger out there to get approved and for work to be done on a timely basis that works for all parties. He added that he actually brought this idea up in a Work Session with the acting City Manager at the time. Councilmember Moore said that for a moment she glazed over when he was speaking, so she wanted to be sure she was clear on his point. Mayor Graves asked Mr. Anderson if Brooklyn Park staff had given any feedback on compliance with violations, since they issue the license first and then do inspections. Mr. Anderson said Brooklyn Park said they have similar problems with compliance, and there are property owners there who struggle too with compliance. He said the main challenge is that issuing the license first takes away the license as an enforcement tool, but it does not take away the ability for the City to issue citations. He noted that right now, if someone does not pass inspection, they will receive a citation for renting without a license, but in the alternate version, the owner would get a violation itself rather than renting without a license, and if it continues, then there can be criminal charges brought against the landlord for not maintaining the property. Mr. Anderson said one challenge he does see if they do move to a two-year or three-year license then all licenses would expire at the end of the year and that could be challenging workload wise for inspectors to complete all of those properties within 90-days, because all inspections would have to be completed between January through March and no inspections would happen throughout the rest of the year. He said that would be adjusted administratively, but each option could work. He said he sees the benefits of requiring passing an inspection before receiving a license because it motivates the landlords, but it also puts landlords in a pinch if they apply late. He noted that currently, the City sends landlords an email 120 days before their license is due, but if they apply late and then only have 30 days to fix everything, they are not getting a license. Councilmember Kragness said one of her concerns about issuing the license first was losing that leverage, but she likes the idea of putting a timeframe on it, like Councilmember Jerzak suggested, to ensure things get done in a timely manner. She said she had questions about the transfer of licenses and asked Mr. Anderson to explain more about the rental license procedure itself. Mr. Anderson said that when a landlord applies for a license, they have to pass an inspection before 01/12/26 -14- DRAFT they get a license. He said once they apply for a license, it gets put on the schedule for inspection two weeks later, if they are lucky, but most of the time the inspection is scheduled a month out if the schedules are full. The landlord would get a follow-up inspection a month after the first, and in a perfect world, the landlord passes after the second inspection, and the process is finished in three months, but it does not always work that way. He said as far as the transfer goes, there are times that a landlord finishes the inspection, passes, and then sells the property, and if the new owner also wants to rent it, they have to apply for a license, pass inspection, and go through the whole process again. He said to think about a property like a 310-unit apartment complex, where an inspection takes time, and violations would take time to get fixed, and if it passes inspection, and then the owner sells the property, the new owner would have to go through that lengthy process again, even if the previous owner had recently just passed inspection. He said if the Council chooses to switch to a post-license inspection, then that is less challenging for new owners, but the new owners would also have a weird time window where they could not get their license because they have not passed inspection. He said they could also consider, instead of calling it a transfer, that the new owner would get the license and would not be required to get another inspection if the previous one was done recently enough, within the last three to six months. Councilmember Kragness said the license would not then be tied to the property, but to the person. Mr. Anderson said yes, the license is tied to the applicant. Councilmember Kragness said she wanted to make sure there was no loophole where the system could be manipulated, so that someone could potentially get approved for something and then intentionally pass it on to someone who may not have gotten approved. Mr. Anderson said the City would still require a license from the new owner, it would just be up to the Council to require a new inspection if it had recently passed inspection three to six months ago with the previous owner. Mayor Graves said she thought that was part of the suggestion Councilmember Jerzak had made, where he suggested that if it had passed inspection within the last six months, and asked Councilmember Jerzak if that was correct. Councilmember Jerzak said it i s very infrequent that the owner completes an inspection and then sells the property, and there is an ordinance that states that the owner has to put the City on notice if they are planning on selling a rental property. He said inspecting a recently sold property becomes unnecessary and cumbersome. Mayor Graves said she was willing to go along with the consensus of the Council, and she was alright with the rental license inspection process being done after the issuance and then requiring the inspection to be completed within 90 days to ensure compliance. She said she was also okay with issuing a new rental license to a recently sold property that had passed inspection, but required the new owner to get a new inspection within six months’ time to ensure compliance. She said she would like to look at specific violations to make sure they are aligned with health and safety, and that the City is not being overly punitive and making it more difficult for owners to get their rental licenses. Councilmember Jerzak asked for a point of clarification about the delinquent utilities and taxes, and said there came a point when Inspectors would post on the property that the landlord was delinquent, and it caused a lot of anxiety for the tenants. He added that a number of these 01/12/26 -15- DRAFT individuals who live in apartments, particularly those who are older or for whom there is a language barrier, are fearful that they will have to move or the landlord will lose their license. He said that fear is unnecessary because Inspectors do not evict people. He said that at the end of the year, the county will assess the unpaid taxes anyway, and having an Inspector post a notice on the property causes a lot of unnecessary stress for the tenants. Mayor Graves asked if Mr. Anderson felt like he received enough feedback from the Council to try to bring back a new Ordinance. Mr. Anderson said he felt like he had enough information for the Staff to start drafting the new Ordinance. Mayor Graves asked if there would be two Public Hearings regarding the Ordinance change. Mr. Anderson said there would be a vote on the first reading, and there would be a Public Hearing at the second reading. ADJOURN STUDY SESSION TO INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL Mayor Graves adjourned the Study Session at 7:00 p.m. TENANT PROTECTION ORDINANCE CHANGE (2:07:51) Mayor Graves reconvened the Study Session at 8:01 p.m. Mr. Nyquist introduced former Community Development Director Jesse Anderson to present this item. Mayor Graves said she had a question from the previous presentation that she would like to ask Mr. Anderson after this presentation. Mr. Anderson said the last time this was discussed, he brought a thorough summary with tenants’ feedback, property owners’ feedback, and drafted an Ordinance based on the majority of Council feedback from the last meeting, and wanted to get Council verification on that draft Ordinance before moving forward with the next steps. Mr. Anderson stated that it was brought forth originally at the November 24, 2025, City Council meeting, and the suggested changes are based on Council feedback and recommendations, and he worked with the City Attorney to get started in the right direction. Staff has attached a draft copy of the strikethrough Ordinance for review. He said that the Rental Program Ordinance will be a whole rebuild, and it will be complicated, but the Tenant Protection Ordinance changes, based on the feedback, are not as complicated as the Rental Program changes. He added that the proposed Ordinance changes in the packet show strikethrough definition sections of Chapter 12 pertaining to Tenant Protections, especially 12-912D.4: Pre-Eviction 30-Day Filing Notice and 12-912D.5: Just Cause Notice of Non-Renewal of Lease to Tenants. Mr. Anderson said there were three talking points for the Council to discuss, and the first was the Notice of Sale requirements, which is an older version that was adopted in 2018, and that Ordinance basically requires that when a property sells to a new owner, they have to give a 90-day 01/12/26 -16- DRAFT notice of any material changes and leases to the tenants. Mr. Anderson explained that this could pertain to a situation where a new owner buys the property and no longer allows dogs, but the previous property owner did, so the new owner would have to give the leasees a 90-day notice that the pet policy was being changed. He said his impression from the Council was that the Staff did not need to work on that Ordinance. Mr. Anderson asked if the Council majority was in agreement with the complete removal of the Just Cause, the complete removal of the pre-eviction notice, and the Just Cause Non-Renewal, or if the Council would like to adopt an Ordinance that aligns with the state's 14 -day pre-eviction notice. He explained the next steps since it is an Ordinance change, Staff would bring forward a copy of the proposed Ordinance revocation for Council consideration, and there would be a first and second reading with a Public Hearing. After the second reading, if adopted, the change would be effective 30 days after publication. Mr. Anderson asked for any feedback and comments on the three questions that he asked. Mayor Graves thanked Mr. Anderson for the presentation and asked Councilmembers for discussion. Councilmember Jerzak said with regard to changing the tenant's protection regarding the Notice of Sale, he had no interest in changing or revoking that because he thinks it is a valuable protection for the tenants. He said one thing he would offer is that when the City issues rental licenses, to include a copy of that Ordinance, so if the new property owner decides to make changes, they are aware there is a requirement to inform the tenants. Councilmember Jerzak said he also wanted to clarify that the Tenant’s Rights Ordinance is not being repealed in its entirety, as it is being presented. He said the City’s changes were enacted prior to the state protections, and he thinks that is an important point to make that there are state statutes, and the City's protections are being aligned with those state statutes. He said in his opinion, changing the City's Ordinance is to ensure a better level playing field for everyone, and he emphasized again that Brooklyn Center enacted its Tenant Protections before the state did. He added that he has consistently voted against carve-outs that differ from state statutes because they are confusing and make it harder for both tenants and everyone else. He said the upside is that it takes away a lot of the adversarial relationship that occurs. He said he does not like to talk about sensitive things, but for example now with all of the things going on with the community where a tenant may not be able to get to work but they have always been a good tenant, but the landlord has to serve by letter of the law and cannot negotiate with the tenants because if they do not file their paperwork immediately the landlord loses their protections. He said the adversary portion of this is the unintended consequences, and he knows that for a fact because he saw it as an Inspector. He said he would stand by his statement that the City is simply coming into alignment with state statutes. He said he respects all of the hard work that went into the Tenant Protections cards that were handed out to the Council earlier, but what would have been helpful for him would have been names, a building or address, or the City residents and why they are interested in this Ordinance, so it does not just look like an organization that has misunderstood things. He said rental managers and directors would tell the tenants that they have very little to do with state statutes. 01/12/26 -17- DRAFT Mayor Graves said she just realized that the Tenant Protections cards that were handed out to the Council have the Councilmembers' names on them. Councilmember Jerzak apologized and said he did not realize the cards had the names of Councilmembers on them. He added that the 14-day aligns with the state’s 14-day pre-eviction notice statute. He said he has listened to and heard the Mayor's concerns, but he wants to be in alignment with state statutes, as it is so much easier to explain. Mayor Graves asked for clarification on whether the state has a 14-day pre-eviction notice, if that is a choice, because in the presentation, it is listed as a question. She said she was under the impression that if it was a state statute, she thought it was required. Mr. Anderson said no matter what, there is a 14-day pre-eviction notice in the state statute, and the question is whether the Council would like to remove any topic of pre-eviction notice in the Ordinance, or just change the Ordinance to 14 days. He said the Council could leave it in their Ordinance, or take it out, and the 14-day notice would still be in effect per state statute. Councilmember Moore asked if the Council would revoke the Tenant Protection Ordinance that the City still has, which was effective January 1, 2025, Chapter 504b. Landlord and Tenant that is referenced on Homeline, the Housing Assistance Agency, and the City would now be referencing the state's Chapter 504b. and the City would no longer have a Brooklyn Center Ordinance around Tenant Protections. Mr. Anderson said that was correct, and if there was a court case, the defendant and plaintiff would have to either cite the City Ordinance, or if it gets removed, they would cite the state statutes. Councilmember Moore agreed with Councilmember Jerzak’s comments and said Brooklyn Center proposed and passed this Ordinance prior to the state really taking a hard look at and drafting the language that was approved in 2024 and became effective January 1, 2025. She said most housing assistance tenant organizations refer to the state statutes, and she would like Brooklyn Center to align with that as well. Councilmember Kragness asked if, even though the 14-day notice is a state statute, the Ordinance with the City can have something more lenient, such as a 30-day notice. She asked Mr. Anderson to confirm what it means exactly by a 14-day pre-eviction notice, and if that means someone could be kicked out of their home in 14 days. Mr. Anderson said the City can be more lenient and give the tenants 30 days, which is what the Ordinance states now, and does not have to align with the state. He said the City has also adopted the Just Cause Ordinance, and there is no Just Cause Ordinance at the state level. He said the 14-day pre-eviction notice means the landlord has given the tenant 14 days prior to filing the eviction notice to give the tenant an opportunity to fix the issue, and if the issue is not solved, then the landlord can file the eviction, but the landlord has to go through the courts for the eviction. He added that most tenants would try to avoid the unlawful detainer on their record, but the 14-day notice does not mean that they get kicked out on the 14th day. Councilmember Kragness asked if the public’s comments that they heard today are being taken into consideration with the Ordinance changes. Mr. Anderson said City Staff did have listening 01/12/26 -18- DRAFT sessions with both tenants and landlords prior to this, and in general, tenants want more protections and landlords would prefer those protections be reduced. Councilmember Kragness asked, with that being said, from both the tenants and the landlords, how City Staff came up with these recommendations. Mr. Anderson said these changes are based on the Council's feedback at the last Work Session. Councilmember Jerzak said he has heard time and time again that the Just Cause is pretty comprehensive. He said, for example, prior to the cannabis laws going into effect, if there were complaints of a tenant smoking from both neighbors, the landlord simply would not renew the tenant's lease, and that eliminates things from becoming adversarial. He said there used to a lot more funds for Non-Renewals especially during COVID, but now the landlord will try to negotiate these things a lot of times but if the City erects these barrios and tenants and landlords have to go to housing court, the court will rule on the Ordinance so it takes away the ability for the landlord and the tenant to sit down and have a conversation and it becomes quite adversarial. Mayor Graves said she wanted to bring up a story that is not necessarily directly related, but it was a moment in her time on this Council that affected her greatly. She said in her first two years on the Council, the then Police Chief came in to the Council to talk about a minor incident where an 18-year-old and another person had been trying to sell weed out in the community. The 18 -year- old stole the weed from the person, which was worth $20 to $30, and the other person followed the 18-year-old back to his home and called the police. The police entered the house and found some additional marijuana, but only a few bags, not anything to indicate that the 18-year-old was selling. She said the Police Chief at the time came in and told the Council about it, and the Council had some debate, and the Police Chief's concern was about the lease agreement that was violated by the 18-year-old's family. The Council had some debate about whether or not the Council should do something about the rental license in that meeting, and ultimately decided to talk to the landlord about it. She said that was one of the first times she really pushed back on the Council and said she did not think this was right. She said at the next meeting the landlord came in with an attorney, and the then Mayor Tim Wilson, and the attorney argued back and forth during the meeting and the landlord told the Council that that the family had been living there for over 10 years, was a good resident that paid their rent and the mother actually had five children including the 18-year old and two of which had developmental disabilities. The landlord was fearful of what the Council would do, even though they had not made a decision yet, and had already kicked the family out of the property in November. Mayor Graves said she wanted to bring up that story because oftentimes, the conversations that the Council is having, whether they have been voted on or not, have real impacts on people's lives. She said to this day, she still thinks about that family, and she wishes that the Council had never had that discussion, because it was an injustice to that family. She said with that being said, she also wanted to read into the record number five within the City Ordinance, the Just Cause notice of Non-Renewal of lease to tenants, “Just Cause Notice. An owner of an affordable housing unit shall not issue a notice of Non-Renewal of tenancy, refuse to renew, or issue a notice to quit, unless the owner is able to establish one or more of the following grounds for such action. Non-payment of rent occurs when the tenant fails to pay all money owed to the owner after receiving a written 01/12/26 -19- DRAFT notice of non-payment from the owner. Material non-compliance, the tenant fails to cure a material breach of the lease after receiving a written notice from the owner. Refusal to renew, the tenant refuses to renew or extend the lease after the owner requ ests in writing that the tenant do so. Occupancy by a property owner or family member, the owner in good faith, seeks to recover possession of the unit so that the owner or family member may occupy the unit as that p erson's principal residence. Building demolition or conversion, the owner either elects to demolish the building in which the affordable housing unit is located, or convert it to a cooperative, provided the owner complies with the provisions of Minnesota statutes Chapter 515b. or convert it to a non- residential use, provided that the owners shall obtain all necessary permits to demolish or change the use before terminating any tenancy. The owner seeks in good faith to recover the unit to sell it in accordance with the condominium conversion, provided the owner complies with the provisions of Minnesota State Chapter 515b, or the unit is being converted to a unit subsidized under a local, state, or federal housing program, and the tenant does not qualify. Rehabilitation and renovation, the owner seeks in good faith to recover possession of the unit that will render the unit uninhabitable for the duration of the rehabilitation or renovation. Complying with a government order to vacate, the owner is complying with the government agency’s order to vacate, order to abate, or any other order that necessitates the vacating of the unit as a result of a violation of City code or any other provision of the law, including but not limited to, Section 12.911 related to conduct, disorderly activities, or nuisances.” Mayor Graves said those are multiple different instances, and it goes into more owner responsibilities in the Ordinance, but those are the main Just Causes that are named in the Ordinance. She said she wanted to draw attention to the survey that was done by City Staff about Tenant Protections. She read the first question aloud, “If your unit rents at or below the rates in the chart, your property is considered affordable. Is your property considered an affordable housing unit?" She noted that 92.5 percent of the responses to that question were yes. She said other questions on the survey included what eviction filings were for, and the vast majority of the reasons were for non-payment of rent, but some other responses were lease violation and abandonment. However, the majority of evictions that the City had were for non-payment of rent. She said when asked what the result of the eviction hearing was, the answer was either mutual lease termination or a writ of recovery was issued, so a fair percentage of those were resolved in the way that the landlords attempted to do so. She said that the Non-Renewals that were issued were for excessive late rent payment, material lease violations, or mutual agreement. She added that one question she wanted to draw attention to was whether the tenant protection notice of eviction impacts the decision to file the eviction, and 21 answered no, while six said yes. She said when asked the question if the Tenant Protection notice for lease Non-Renewal impacted the decision to issue a lease Non-Renewal, 19 people said no, and eight said yes. She added that based on the City's own surveys, the vast majority of landlords have actually said that it has not affected their ability, and they have still had Non-Renewals and evictions. Mayor Graves continued that earlier, there was a speaker who talked about the comparison between Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center, and since the passage of the Tenant Protection Ordinance on February 28, 2022, the differences of about 2.9 weekly evictions per 10,000 renter households occurred in the period from March to October 2022, so there has been a significant difference for 01/12/26 -20- DRAFT renters. She added that on the next page, it states that Just Cause Ordinances have a significant and noticeable effect on eviction and eviction filing rates, and given budget limitations of many states or municipalities, such as Brooklyn Center, Just Cause is a relatively low-cost, effective policy solution. She said because of those things, she is not in agreement to change any of the Ordinance and would request that if Council is really bent on changing anything, they should consider reducing it to 21 days for the pre-eviction notice, but she personally thinks it should stay at 30. She said it does not seem like it is an overdue problem for the vast majority of the landlords that took the time to respond to the survey; the Council does know that it has had a huge impact on the tenants, of which there are many more in the City. She said for those reasons, she is not in favor of changing the Ordinance. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson said she is not opposed to the 30-day period; however, since the state legislature just put a new law on the books, she would like to closely replicate what the state has done. She said she is okay with keeping the 30-day pre-eviction notice, but would otherwise like to follow the state. Mayor Graves said she was not sure what Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson meant by that. Mayor Graves asked if she would like to keep the 30-day pre- eviction, but get rid of the Just Cause Ordinance. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson said she believes that Brooklyn Center should align itself with the state as much as possible and would be willing to concede to 30 days, but otherwise would like to use the state model; otherwise, she would like to follow what the state has done. Mayor Graves said the Notice of Sale Ordinance is not at the state level, though, either. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson said that is correct, and she does support Tenant Protections, yet she believes it is confusing when cities adopt something different than the state. Councilmember Jerzak asked for clarification on which survey Mayor Graves referenced. Mayor Graves responded that there was a survey in the Council's packet. She said that when referencing the speaker, she was referencing the other document that the Council was given. Councilmember Kragness said that was one thing she wanted to reference, that 77 percent of the landlords said that Tenant Protections did not affect their decision to file an eviction. She stated that there is a state statute, but asked the Council why the City would not provide benefits to the community when the community is stating that is what they need. She said if the Council is serving the community, why would they not provide better protection to the community at large. She asked how the state statutes benefit the citizens, versus what the Council already has in place. Councilmember Moore said if the Council looks at the handout that was given, the eviction rates have remained flat, and there should not be any carve-out or exception from one city to the next, and all cities should follow the state statute. She said the City will continue to provide, and there is nothing that stands out to her, even when Mayor Graves read it aloud, that there has been any change with or without the Ordinance change, landlords still have to follow the 14-day pre-eviction notice because that is a state statute. She said she does not want carve-outs, and is in support of revoking and following the state statute that aligns with the 14-day pre-eviction notice, and defers to the state statute on Just Cause. Mayor Graves said the state does not have a Just Cause statute. Councilmember Moore concurred and said she supports following the state guidelines and 01/12/26 -21- DRAFT revoking the Brooklyn Center Tenant Protection Ordinance, and she would like to include the Notice of Sale requirements when landlords obtain a rental license. Mayor Graves said that it was Councilmember Jerzak who had stated that the Notice of Sale requirement should be included in the rental license, because he did not want to get rid of that first bullet point in the presentation, but he was in favor of getting rid of the Just Cause and moving to the 14-day alignment with state statute. Mayor Graves asked if she was correct. Councilmember Jerzak confirmed that Mayor Graves was correct and said there are always going to be exceptions, and he understands what the Mayor was saying when she told the story about the family that was evicted, and that would have been very difficult, but the Council has to enact policies for the general majority of the people. He said if you come from the standpoint that there is no benefit for a landlord to have an empty space, and if there was any way that they could get paid on time, that is what the landlords want. He said oftentimes the Council does not know what they do not know, and one can never know what goes on behind the scenes as to why a tenant is evicted; it could be 10 complaints. He said he wants to clarify that he has tried to explain policies to tenants, and all that can be said is to visit Homeline and there are services available for tenants, but it is not the responsibility of the Council to enact ordinances for small minorities, not that they do not deserve protection, and that is why the City has protections, but he believes that the protection is adequate for what the state provides and tenants could petition the state for more powerful protections if they want. He said that is his position. Mayor Graves said she is disappointed to hear that, although not particularly surprised. She said that is why the community organized the way that it did to try to get things in front of the Council to let them know how they feel about it. She said this does speak to the majority of the community members in the City, and changing the Ordinance speaks to the minority, which are the landlords who have a lot more money than the majority of the people living in affordable housing in the City. She said she is not suggesting that landlords should not get their rent, but being late is a lot different than being kicked out of a home and relocating an entire family when they are already low -income. She said not every landlord, but a fair percentage of them, 77 of them, said this did not change their ability to file an eviction, and only 28 or 29 responded that it was an issue for them. She said she does have some empathy and understanding for a smaller landlord that is only owning one single family home, or a small unit multi-family complex and that is part of the reason the Council had so many discussions when they first passed as and she was willing to think about the 21-day instead of the 30-day because there was some arguments around the timing of how evictions work and being able to make sure that tenants have enough time to figure things out before being kicked out of the actual unit which she found somewhat compelling. She said she has no desire to get rid of the Just Cause Non-Renewals because the things that are outlined in that are perfectly legitimate, and if there is not something in law, what is stopping a landlord from kicking somebody out because the landlord does not like the tenant, or does not like the way the tenant looks. She said she is not willing to change her mind on that, and the Council probably already has the votes, but she is grateful that since the City passed it in 2022, the state put something in place, even though she thinks it is still lacking substantially in what the City needs, but at least that does not mean that the tenants will have absolutely no protection, so that is the only thing that she can really feel good 01/12/26 -22- DRAFT about if the Council goes forward with their consensus. She encourages the Council to do more research, she encourages residents to come to Public Hearings with more stories to the Council, with people who have addresses, so the Council does not think that the residents have people sign cards that do not actually live in the City. She said it is important to really speak to the Just Cause importance because that policy is not at the state level. She said if the Council does end up changing it to a 14-day pre-eviction notice alignment with the state, she would like the Council to strongly consider not getting rid of the Just Cause Non-Renewal, especially since the Council has not heard any testimony that it causes any unfair disadvantage to the landlords. She said that the Council is hearing from community members who have made a difference for those who have been staying in rental properties. Councilmember Jerzak said he would be open to reconsidering the Just Cause Ordinance, and would direct Staff to bring back more data, and he would be willing to hear from the landlords, not just one side. He said that when landlords said the Just Cause did not change their minds for the evictions, he wants to know what their thinking is, maybe it is more cost-effective, or maybe the landlords just figure they can handle it. He said he would be willing to hear more, and maybe the Council could table that portion of the Ordinance for now. Mayor Graves said the Council is not voting on anything tonight. Councilmember Jerzak said he knows, but he would like to give the Staff direction to seek out more information from both landlords and tenants. He added that several of the people who approached the Council tonight are homeowners and activists, and are not affected by these policies, which is fine, but he would like to hear from people who are actually affected by this to testify. He said he is open to hearing about the Just Cause aspect because the Council has not heard a lot about it. He added that he will stay with the 14-day pre-eviction notice because that is only a notice that the landlord could, not that they would file an eviction notice. He said that with more balanced information, he would make a decision about the Just Cause. He added that the Council should also vote to keep the Notice of Sale requirements. Mayor Graves asked if there was a consensus to move forward with the Tenant Protection Ordinance regarding Notice of Sale. Mayor Graves noted there was Council consensus on that, and the Council wants more information on Just Cause, and the consensus right now is to align with the 14-day pre-eviction notice with the state statute. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson said she would concede to a 30-day pre-eviction notice. Mayor Graves said she does not want the 14-day pre-eviction notice and thinks it should stay at 30 days. Councilmember Kragness added that she would like the pre-eviction notice to stay at 30 days as well. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson said she would stay with the 30-day period as well. Mr. Anderson said he would like to clarify a few things and offer some suggestions. He asked if the Staff is going to prepare an Ordinance to leave the 30-day pre-eviction notice as is, or change it to 14 days. He said he thought it sounded like the Council would like to leave it at 30 days. Mayor Graves said it does not sound like the Council is ready to prepare a new Ordinance, and she said the Council should have another Work Session, which makes more sense than having Staff draft something new when the Council has not gotten a clear consensus on it. 01/12/26 -23- DRAFT Mr. Anderson said if the Council wanted to adjust the needle towards tenant or landlord, the Council could consider not removing the Just Cause Non-Renewal and could implement a 90-day Non-Renewal without Just Cause, meaning the landlord gives the tenant 90-days or six-months with a notice. This would give landlords an opportunity to non-renew the lease without Just Cause, but gives tenants a decent amount of time to find another place to live. Mayor Graves asked Mr. Anderson to bring more data on that, if he has it. Mr. Anderson said nobody has implemented that policy, so he would not have any data on that. Councilmember Moore said she is adamant that there is not a carve-out for Brooklyn Center, and the Council should be following the state statute for 14 days, and the 30 -day period, and there is no effect between the 14-day and the 30-day, as it is a notice. She continued that tenants are not going to get thrown out in the final 16 days of the month. She said she agrees with Councilmember Jerzak and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson that it does not make any common sense to have a carve-out just for Brooklyn Center. She said there is no affordable housing in the Metro area, and she said when her child was 19, she got a notice and was evicted because of a roommate. She asked why the Council is making exceptions now, and should be revoking and following the state statute. She added that she is okay with Just Cause and thinks there could be an argument there, but she needs more information. She continued that she has researched this a lot, and worked in the field a lot with folks, and Homeline refers to the state statute as well, and they are the number one resource for working with tenants. Mayor Graves said she was not sure, but it would be nice to get a statement from Homeline to help with this conversation as well. She said this conversation has been extended as far as it can be during this session right now. She added that she is hopeful that the Staff and community can share more information, and the Council can have another discussion during another Work Session. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Graves adjourned the Study Session at 8:47 p.m.