Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026.04.13 CCM STUDY04/13/26 -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 APRIL 13 , 2026 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Teneshia Kragness at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Pro Tem Teneshia Kagness, and Councilmembers Dan Jerzak, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, and Laurie Ann Moore. Also present were Deputy City Manager Darren Nyquist, Deputy City Clerk Kat Ellgren, City Clerk Shannon Pettit, and City Attorney Siobhan Tolar. Mayor April Graves was excused. CITY COUNCIL MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS Mayor Pro Tem Kragness noted a minute's correction on the regular session for the March 23 meeting, Senator Klobuchar’s name was misspelled on page eight. Councilmember Jerzak added that he has read front and back the regular sessions of the Housing Commission meeting minutes from March 17, and the standards manager items on page two have not been adopted yet. He reached out to Interim City Manager Daren Nyquist earlier with his concerns about policy and the actions he would have to take with City Staff, and to pull the minutes until Mr. Nyquist has the opportunity to address those things. He added that he was open to addressing all things that need to be clarified if necessary. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness noted that it would be fair to make sure that the record is accurate and would be in favor of pulling those minutes. Councilmember Jerzak stated that it is not only about accuracy, but also to clarify any confusion from a statement that may seem ambiguous, so that someone can return to it later. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness asked if there were any other comments from other Councilmembers on this topic. Councilmember Moore asked if the consensus was for Councilmember Jerzak to read the policy into a statement. 04/13/26 -2- DRAFT Councilmember Jerzak pointed out that he has already brought his concerns to the attention of Mr. Nyquist, and Mr. Nyquist will need some time to address those concerns; the record needs to be accurate. He added that he would address policy concerns and read through them for the record, but he has no say over administrative matters. Councilmember Moore added that it would not be necessary for Councilmember Jerzak to read those policy issues out loud, and the Council trusted his judgment. She noted that she did not hear Mayor Pro Tem Kragness say that she was going to accept the policy highlights and questions that Councilmember Jerzak had. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness stated for clarity that the minutes would be pulled from the Housing Commission meeting on March 17. Councilmember Jerzak added that the minutes from the Housing Commission March 17 meeting, standard manager, page 88 of 299, or better known as a draft meeting notes starting on page two, should be pulled in entirety and will provide an oral and written concerns to Mr. Nyquist. Councilmember Moore thanked City Staff for their MnDOT update in terms of cost share participation that was provided in the weekly summary. She asked about some of the reporting that the Council has been getting regarding Brooklyn Center Liquor operations and the Heritage Center. The Council should be getting totals in their weekly summary, as there are constituents asking the Council about the status after closing the Liquor Store, and the status of the McNeil Event Center and the Heritage Center. Mr. Nyquist responded that the new Finance Staff is trying to get that information to the Council on a monthly basis to track how the City is doing in terms of finances for the Liquor Store operations. Finance will continue to provide those numbers to the Council, but may need to refine some of those numbers as they dig deeper to try to understand and get accurate information. In terms of the Heritage Center and other Special Enterprise funds, the Council will get 2025 recaps on those in May. Those numbers will show that there needs to be some work done on the five- year financial management plan that will start the budget process. All of this takes time, as there is limited leadership in the Finance area and consultants, but it is being actively worked on. Councilmember Jerzak noted that he appreciated the clarification regarding the financials for the Liquor Store. For clarity, there was no intent to miss the administrative costs; they were accidentally missed. He added that this could lead to mistrust, and the Council does not need any of that; they just want transparency, and he appreciates Finance working on the complete picture. He asked if Mr. Nyquist anticipated being able to give the Council good financials, including what it cost to shut down the last Liquor Store, and render an opinion on whether or not that was worth it. Mr. Nyquist asked if Councilmember Jerzak was referring to the final accounting of costs related to shutting down the Liquor Store. Councilmember Jerzak confirmed that that is what he was asking for. 04/13/26 -3- DRAFT Mr. Nyquist stated he needs to have a conversation with the Liquor Store Manager and discuss how the shutdown went, and due to the transition of leadership in Finance at that time, things may have gotten lost. He added that he cannot answer the question with 100 percent certainty, but it is on his list to ensure that operations there are wrapped up. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness added that the month of April is National Arab American Heritage Month, and April 14 is Pan American Day. CITY MANAGER MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS PRIORITY PROJECT UPDATE Mr. Nyquist explained that this presentation is to remind the Council of the projects and priorities that the City is working on at any given time, and find alignment with the work being done and the updates on projects that the Council wants to receive. Overall, there were 31 projects selected, four with consensus among the Council, six projects with alignment, and 21 outliers. The four projects with consensus include resolving the outstanding Finance Director Transition issues, which will be an internal process that he will keep the Council informed on, but there will not be a presentation. The Financial Management Plan (FMP) for 2026, the Expanded Response Teams (ERT) 2026 to 2027 contract, and Opportunity Site developer recruitment will all have presentations brought to the Council. Mr. Nyquist continued that projects with alignment include the Highway 252/94 Environmental Impact Statement, Solar on City buildings research project, MnDOT cost share policy, revising the operating budget development process, cost recovery model at the Community Center, and the EDA Scattered Sites plan. All of these projects will be presented to the Council to keep them updated and informed. Mr. Nyquist added that the other 21 outlier projects have been gone through and slotted already in the agenda. The Cannabis lottery renewals update is on the agenda at tonight's meeting, which was on the outlier list. The other projects on this list will consist of combinations of presentations by City Staff and conversations with the Council. He noted that if there was anything on this list that the Council wanted to highlight, they could let him know. Mr. Nyquist asked if the Council had any questions for him. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness suggested that if there were any projects that could be summarized in the weekly update, that would be preferable. Councilmember Moore stated for clarity that one of the projects with consensus includes the ERT item with a contract that ends May 31. She asked if this presentation would include numbers, cost, and final payments because discussing the new 2026/2027 contract will require that previous information for budget meetings. Mr. Nyquist stated that the presentation will include the ERT report that the Council has asked for with more data, because the City is almost at a decision point regarding the program about where they want to go from here. This will most likely be a longer- 04/13/26 -4- DRAFT term conversation that may require more than one meeting, and that is how that project was itemized in the list. Councilmember Jerzak concurred that some updates could be included in the weekly newsletter, such as the choice for the new Finance Director, and audits speak for themselves and can also be included in a weekly update. He asked if more of these projects are included in weekly updates, and if that would move up other projects for presentations or one-on-one conversations that may be in alignment. Mr. Nyquist stated he would keep track of the items as they are ticked off the list, and could have conversations with the Council as they move through the list to figure out which projects they would like to hear about next. There are also other critical things that did not make it on these lists that will get snuck into the agenda, so it will be an evolving conversation. Councilmember Jerzak noted that the Council already received a MnDOT cost share policy, which will not have to go to the legislature and is complete. Other projects, like the Water Meter replacement, could be communicated with updates, and there is a value in having that information when the Council gets questions from people like Representative Vang, so responses can be sent. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness noted that the weekly update would keep projects at the forefront so the Council knows that work is being done on them, and constituents could be updated if they ask questions. Councilmember Moore added that some of the outlier projects are intimately tied to the budget process as a result of the ongoing. She noted that she discussed the Capital Improvement Projects that are already listed with Mr. Nyquist, but it would be nice to have that information on the website, so if projects are happening in a constituent's neighborhood, they could look up that information. Interim Deputy City Manager Liz Heyman noted that all active construction projects are currently listed on the City’s website. Councilmember Moore clarified that she is not saying that information is not on the website, but it would be nice to have certain things highlighted. She added that it would also be helpful to have some information about the website and how to navigate it if there is a concern. Councilmember Jerzak noted that one of the concerns that was a Council consensus was to return to parking issues and cement driveways, which are not included in this list, and all of that requires Staff time. He asked what assurances the Council has that those things will be put on the agenda again. The Council will not impose deadlines on agenda items, because City Staff have their day- to-day work and need a reasonable time to get information on things, but from a planning perspective, it needs to be brought up. Mr. Nyquist responded that there will have to be give and take for all issues, since Staff has limited time here. He added that if an issue rises to that level, where it needs to be discussed again, then 04/13/26 -5- DRAFT something has to come off the list to make room. As long as the Council and Staff are on the same page with that, that is good, and problems happen when there are missed expectations. Councilmember Jerzak noted that there may be some things that are outdated or unnecessary that Mr. Nyquist should not be spending time on. One example of this was preparing reports that never made a difference on rental licenses regarding calls of service from the police, because it never rose to the level that it would require change, but Staff spent a lot of time on it. He added that if there are things that the Council could help out with, they would help where they can in eliminating duplication. Mr. Nyquist stated that, being new to the role and figuring out what the expectations are, he can bring things to the Council in individual conversations to see if the Council wants to continue them and exercise what is useful. He noted he is still learning what the Council cares about, and finding those things out from conversations with Department Directors, creating lists, and providing more information in weekly updates. The focus will also be on slimming down projects for Staff to make things more efficient while addressing the more critical things per the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness thanked Mr. Nyqusit for pointing out what it takes to fulfill those requests with Staff time regarding the weekly updates, as that is something the Council has made requests for before. Councilmember Moore noted that the request for a weekly update for more information came prior to her being seated on the Council last year. Due to not getting that critical information at that time, the Council felt things were not being communicated in a timely fashion. As a result, the Council would overcorrect and think they need a weekly update, which has happened for quite a while now. She added that Mr. Nyquist does email the Council with urgent matters that need to be attended to, and if a weekly newsletter is too much of a burden for Staff’s time, maybe it could be bi-weekly. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness stated that the weekly update's intended purpose was one thing, but it has now expanded beyond that. Initially, it was used as a quick update, so a whole meeting did not have to be dedicated to answering a question someone had. It has since evolved as a placeholder, and it is being utilized for more than it was originally intended. Councilmember Jerzak added that the original purpose of the weekly update was that if someone approached the dais with a complaint or concern, Staff would address that in the weekly newsletter. The Council appreciates that Staff have kept that going, despite their workload. He noted, however, that Staff does not need to rehash presentations done by the EDA in the weekly update, because if something is really important, Mr. Nyquist will let the Council know. If the Council is going to be getting reports on the Heritage Center and other Enterprise funds, the Council does not need to know how many people were at an event; they need to know what it cost, and if it was profitable. The Council can always email Mr. Nyquist with more clarifying questions about events, but Staff should not be burdened with details like how many people attended an event. 04/13/26 -6- DRAFT Mayor Pro Tem Kragness noted that Staff may be including that information in anticipation of the questions from the Council, based on conversations that they have had before. Mr. Nyquist stated that it is a combination of both for Staff. It is a mix of anticipating what the Council wants to know and trying to cover every angle, which is impossible. As this moves forward, Staff could revisit the goal of this, focus on a bi-weekly report rather than a weekly update, which would be a big help, and focus on what information the Council wants in that report. He recognized that this is a critical information tool for the Council, but it needs to be refocused. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness stated that because City Staff is so lean right now, this would be a fair time to scale back on certain things, and that is okay. CANNABIS REGISTRATION UPDATE Mr. Nyquist introduced Deputy City Clerk Kat Ellgren to provide this update on the Cannabis Registration and lottery. Ms. Ellgren noted that she would preface this presentation with the fact that she has been living in the Cannabis Retail Registration world for a year, so if there is anything that does not seem clear to them, they should stop the presentation and ask questions. She explained the background of this ordinance. After going into effect on May 24, 2025, the state statute limited Cannabis Retail Registration to one per every 12,500 residents, which resulted in three Registrations. The Council decided to award the Registrations through a lottery process, which mimics the Office of Cannabis Management’s (OCM) process. After multiple Staff meetings and preparation, the Staff updated the City's website to include an adult-use Cannabis page, and the Registration application went live in November 2025. The OCM also noted its approval of the Staff of Brooklyn Center's lottery method. Ms. Ellgren explained that on March 23, 2026, the City Clerk's office reviewed and pre-approved the first complete application for a Cannabis Retail Registration. Final approval and acceptance started the 30-day countdown to the first lottery drawing. There are currently two complete applications and one incomplete application pending. Potential applicants who wish to be included in the lottery have until April 22, 2026, to apply, including fees and all supporting documentation. Ms. Ellgren noted that this is where it gets a little bit more intense as they discuss the proposed lottery process. There will be three separate lotteries, one for each of the three Retail Registrations. Each lottery will be held at a separate City Council meeting, using a bingo cage for the drawing. The lottery equipment will be on display in Council Chambers prior to each drawing to ensure transparency, with Staff keeping an eye on it as well. Each application is issued a Registration application number by iMS, which is the City's digital licensing service. The last two digits of this number will be their assigned lottery number. If the Registration number is Can26-0013, the lottery number would be 13. There will be one ball per applicant, and one Registration awarded per meeting. 04/13/26 -7- DRAFT Ms. Ellgren explained that the first lottery is scheduled to be held during the Study Session on April 27, 2026, where the Mayor will pick a ball from the bingo cage. The selected number will be granted the first Brooklyn Center Cannabis Retail Registration. Applicants will be invited to attend the meeting, but will not be required to be present in order to win. The selected Applicant will be sent an email within 24 hours of the lottery to notify them of their Registration award. The City Clerk will issue the winner their provisional Cannabis Retail Registration. Once the OCM awards the applicant their Cannabis Retail License, the City’s provisional Registration becomes the applicant’s final Registration. The provisional Retail Registration is tied to the OCM’s approval, and the provisional Registration will have a temporary one-year expiration that will be updated to match the expiration of the business's OCM license to meet Minnesota Statute 342.22, subd. 3. Ms. Ellgren noted that after the winner is selected, the remaining applicants will be sent an email within 24 hours notifying them that they did not receive the first Registration, and their application will be closed, and all fees refunded unless they inform the Office of the City Clerk within 14 days that they wish to keep their application open. Should any applicants choose to keep their applications open, a second lottery will be scheduled a minimum of 90 days after the first. Any new applications will have until 6 days prior to the lottery date to join the second lottery. This process will repeat for the third lottery. Should no applicants choose to stay open, a second lottery will not be scheduled until a new application is received and passes provisional approval. The second lottery will be scheduled 90 days from the date of provisional approval. After the third lottery, any unselected applications will be closed, and applicants will receive refunds. The City Clerk’s office will establish a waiting list for any new or future applicants wishing to be notified in the event a Registration becomes available. Ms. Ellgren stated there are some alternate methods the Council could consider. They could implement a compressed 30-day timeline between lotteries instead of 90. The pros of this include a faster pace of Registration, as it does not give applications as much time to enter the lottery. She discussed a potential alternate lottery method where the first lottery would pull multiple winners until all three Registrations are granted. If there are only two applicants, the lottery would pull the two applicants, and a second lottery would happen once a third applicant is provisionally approved. This would issue Registrations at a faster pace, but Applicants could be trying to secure the same address, and it does not give as much time for Applicants to enter the lottery. The final option would be to remove the lottery and issue the Registration on a first-come, first-served basis. This would benefit Applicants who completed the provisional approval quickly, but it would require an Ordinance change, which would take a decent amount of time to remove the lottery, and the first issuance would happen no earlier than June 22, 2026. Ms. Ellgren noted that questions for the Council at this time are whether or not the Council wishes to continue the lottery, and if the Council wishes to have them every 30 or 90 days. There are also questions about the Registrations becoming available, post-lottery. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness asked how many applicants would fulfill the need for a lottery. Ms. Ellgren noted that the Ordinance never set a minimum, so if there is only one applicant, they would 04/13/26 -8- DRAFT get it, or if there were only two applicants, those applicants would have a fifty-fifty chance of winning. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness asked if the April 27 meeting was starting at 5:30 p.m. due to the lottery or if that was for a different reason. Mr. Nyquist noted that the meeting has a very full agenda, and that is why it has to start earlier. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness asked if there would still be time for the lottery on April 27. Mr. Nyquist confirmed that there would be enough time. Councilmember Jerzak thanked City Staff for all the work that went into this process and the presentation, and noted he would not be interested in changing anything about the lottery. When this Ordinance was passed, equity was the intent, and it is important to honor what the intent was when it was passed. He asked if the one reserved license is not used, if it goes back into the pool and is subject to the same lottery, or if the City can retrieve it. Ms. Ellgren noted that Councilmember Jerzak is talking about the Municipal Cannabis License or the Retail Registration, but Municipal Cannabis Retail Registrations are not part of the City's cap and are intentionally held aside. There were decisions made towards equity at the OCM level that, unlike liquor stores, which can only be municipal or privately-run, the OCM wanted both options to be available. The City has the right through the Ordinance to have a Municipal Cannabis Retail store until the state says they cannot. At this point, the City has three separate private Cannabis Retail Registrations, so if in the future the City does open a Municipal Cannabis Retail, there will still be three private Cannabis Retail Registrations. Councilmember Jerzak noted that product availability is a huge problem on a wholesale level. Getting certification for the transport agent is a huge problem, and there is a bottleneck in approving testing sites. The state has amended to go out of state for testing, but now that requires interstate transport, which there are not enough of. The wholesale market for Cannabis is primarily coming from the Native American tribes, which is fine, but everybody is competing for that product. He noted he was bringing this up because this means that Cannabis will not be available tomorrow, and the Council has to put some reasonableness on this. He added for clarity that he is not interested in doing anything other than what has been prepared. Councilmember Moore added that she would like to continue with the lottery and does not see any reason why it could not be changed to every 30 days, because 90 days is just delaying things, and as Councilmember Jerzak pointed out, the applicants will already have enough delays. If the applicants have done everything they need to in order to get their license for the City Clerk's Office, the Council should not continue to delay them. City Attorney Siobhan Tolar noted that the timing issue is also, from an equity perspective, to give people who have not finalized their Registration the opportunity to get into the pool. If, after 90 days, there are only three applicants and one of them falls through because they cannot get their stuff together, there would still be opportunities for that applicant to get a Registration. She noted that this does not have to have any bearing on the Council's decision, but wanted to give background. 04/13/26 -9- DRAFT Councilmember Moore thanked Ms. Tolar for the clarification and asked if the question is whether or not there are 30 days or 90 days between lotteries. Ms. Ellgren confirmed that it is the question. Councilmember Moore noted that if lotteries are happening more often, that still gives the applicant the opportunity to get things together. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness added that the Council needs to stay consistent, and that is the reason the lottery process was initially decided, and although they thought there would be more applications, the Council needs to maintain the lottery. The fact that other cities are switching to the lottery process for this also means this was the right decision. Councilmember Jerzak noted for clarification that the application requires the applicant to list their address due to zoning. There are some very specific restrictions on how far an address can be away from a school and other areas within the City, and applicants should understand that this is why their address is needed. Ms. Ellgren added that one of the first questions the applicants are asked is if they have spoken to the City’s Zoning Department, and an email confirmation has to be provided from the Assistant City Planner that the applicant has spoken to her and that the address qualifies. Councilmember Jerzak asked if the Shingle Creek development area is approved because constituents have asked. He stated that he will send constituents to the appropriate person for the answer to this question. Ms. Ellgren stated that the hope is that all three Registrations will become successful enterprises. However, if one of the businesses falls through and there is an open Registration that had previously been awarded, if the Council wishes to continue the lottery process for all open Registrations or move to a waiting list, first come first serve process. This would be after the first three Registrations have been issued and only in the case one falls through, or if down the line these businesses are doing really well and the Council wishes to open up more Registrations. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness affirmed that she would be more interested in keeping consistency in the process, but it is something that the Council could revisit as needed. Councilmember Moore asked if that would require an Ordinance change when it is that far into the process and the Registration has already been issued, because Mr. Ellgren previously asked if the Council wanted to change to a first-come, first-served basis, but that would require an Ordinance change. Ms. Ellgren stated that this is something that needs to be clarified on Registrations that are closed. She noted that her understanding is based on the first three Registrations being chosen and sent out, and Ms. Tolar might have a different answer. If the Council were to choose to make changes, that is something the Staff would need to start working on. 04/13/26 -10- DRAFT Councilmember Moore added that she is okay with continuing the lottery process, if they would still have to go through an Ordinance change when they are this far into the process. Councilmember Jerzak concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Kragness that the Council should continue with what they have to maintain consistency with no carve-outs, but should be available if a circumstance comes up. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness thanked Ms. Ellgren for the presentation. Mayor Pro Tem Kragness stated that there would be a seven-minute recess before starting the Regular Session. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pro Tem Kragness adjourned the Study Session at 6:53 p.m.