Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026.05.11 CCM STUDY05/11 /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 MAY 11 , 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 6:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor April Graves, and Councilmembers Dan Jerzak, Teneshia Kragness, and Laurie Ann Moore. Also present were Interim City Manager Daren Nyquist, Interim Deputy City Manager & Public Works Director Liz Heyman, Deputy City Clerk Kat Ellgren, Planning Manager Ginny McIntosh, Police Chief Garett Flesland, City Clerk Shannon Pettit, and City Attorney Siobhan Tolar. Councilmember Kris Lawrence-Anderson was absent. CITY COUNCIL MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS Councilmember Jerzak stated he would like the Council to consider adding a category to the agenda called Old Business for items that the Council needs to revisit. This would be valuable for items that need to be checked in on, and he would like the other Councilmembers' opinions. Mayor Graves asked if there were any thoughts from Staff on that suggestion. Councilmember Jerzak added that he brought it up to Interim City Manager Daren Nyquist, but he would like the Council's opinion as well. Mayor Graves stated she was not opposed to the idea, but is wondering if there seems to be a gap in determining whether this is necessary. Councilmember Jerzak added that there are so many things that the Council has to keep track of, and this would ensure that the Council is checking in on things like the rental Ordinance changes after a six-month period, to see how that is going. Councilmember Moore stated that, in light of recent discussions about Staff time, including the weekly summary, this type of category could be added to the weekly summary, not unlike an EDA update when appropriate. Mayor Graves noted that it is a nice idea and would see the benefit in that because the Council would still be keeping track, but it would not necessarily be added to the agenda. 05/11 /26 -2- DRAFT Councilmember Jerzak added that this could be good for accountability, so the Council does not forget to check in on things. Mayor Graves asked if Councilmember Kragness wanted to weigh in. Councilmember Kragness noted that she agreed with the need as mentioned. Mayor Graves asked City Staff what their recommendation would be. Interim City Manager Daren Nyquist stated that he is in agreement and that there is value to the idea to stay on task and keep a list of items that may need to come back for more discussion with the Council. He noted that he would bring something back in the next few meetings. Councilmember Kragness noted she had a correction to the minutes, in the Study Session on page six of 157, in the first paragraph, where fees for school grant buildings she was quoted as saying $30.90, when it should have said $30.08. CITY MANAGER MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS ARPA FUNDING UPDATE Mr. Nyquist explained that American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding will be discussed tonight with Ehlers and Interim Deputy City Manager Liz Heyman, along with the work done by Staff to get ready for federal reporting this year. The ARPA Act was enacted in 2021 and requires annual reporting and will end this year. With all of the Staff and leadership changes, it was a chore to put that figure together, but it was reported to the federal government, and the decision now will be what to do with the City's remaining funds. Mr. Nyquist noted that right now, the City has $600,000 remaining of ARPA funds that have to be spent in the next six months. The Council will have to decide how this money is spent based on federal guidelines, and it cannot be used for new projects or new contracts. He added that he and Staff came up with a list of projects this money could be used for, with two primary goals: to leave as little money on the table as possible, and use the money to have the biggest amount of impact in the shortest amount of time. In conversations with Staff, three different things came up as recommendations: funding Youth Outreach and Health on the Go for the rest of the year, paying any remaining balances on existing business development and technical support contracts, and funding the Expanded Response Pilot Program. The Police Department was asked if they would like access to Expanded Response during the summertime when they are busy with more calls for service, and their response was yes. Mr. Nyquist added that the contract with Canopy Roots ends in May, and due to hiring freezes happening in the county, the City will not have Expanded Response Team (ERT) support from the county beginning June 1. The recommendation then is to fund Expanded Response through the end of the summer to have some resources available to take some of the load off for calls for service for the Police Department. This time would also allow City Staff and the Council to have productive conversations about unwinding this pilot program and where the City should go with Expanded Response. He added that it is unlikely the City could continue with Canopy Roots due to the cost. The cost of $394,588.81 in the draft in front of the Council would pay for the current 05/11 /26 -3- DRAFT contract and extend through the summer. The cost is to be determined in order to continue with Hennepin County for the rest of the year, and will be based on the county's staffing levels. He added that this is the best way to spend the remaining money and have some impact with the time they have remaining to use those dollars. Councilmember Jerzak noted that he agreed with Staff's recommendations, especially considering the limited options with no new contracts. He added that the Council should start thinking about this from a regional approach because mental health problems do not stop when this contract ends. The Council and Staff could perhaps consider joining forces with nearby cities like Crystal and Columbia Heights as an option. Councilmember Moore thanked Mr. Nyquist for the summary and recommendations. She asked if there were any other Public Safety needs from the Police Department or Fire Department that are above and beyond what is listed on the report, so that the Council could figure out which funds went to which Departments. Mr. Nyquist noted that everything in the report that the Council does not see expanded in 2026 has already been paid for. For example, the COVID-19 testing machine and body-worn cameras in the report have been paid for, and their boxes are closed. He noted that he does not know if those items were paid with ARPA funds or some other funds right now and would have to go back and look, but these items are what were reported to be attached to ARPA funding in previous years. He noted he could not answer Councilmember Moore's question about which funds went where, except for Police overtime, which ARPA funds would be used to pay the City back at $61,000, and would be a stopgap for any money left on the table at the end of the year. Councilmember Moore asked if the $61,000 could go towards Police overtime. Mr. Nyquist reiterated that it could, but it would really be used to pay the City back for that overtime. Councilmember Moore asked about the Health on the Go expense at $15,000 and asked if the City had already expended $47,000 for this program through the year or for the whole year. Ms. Heyman noted that the $47,000 was the expected expenditure for the year 2026, for contracts that were already in the works. Councilmember Moore asked what the $15,000 would go towards in terms of programming for 2026. Mr. Nyquist noted it would go towards current vendor relationships and existing contracts. Councilmember Moore asked if Mr. Nyquist knew what those contracts were. Mr. Nyquist responded that he is in the process of getting that information now, and it will be included in a weekly update. Councilmember Moore asked in terms of the Expanded Response Program with Canopy, if extending summer hours means extending from June through August, or also September. Mr. Nyquist responded that this is still to be determined. Preliminary conversations were to extend hours through September, but that could be a contract extension, so the structure of that deal has not been talked about yet. He noted he was waiting to get feedback from the Council before moving forward on a contract extension. 05/11 /26 -4- DRAFT Councilmember Moore added that she is supportive of this idea because she has been a social worker for the last 35 years, and mental health, including reimbursement from the federal government for Medicaid for mental health services, is currently on hold. She noted that she has asked for transparency around the follow-up work that has or has not happened with Canopy after their calls, for quite some time. Most recently, there was a correction given to the Council on how many calls Canopy actually had at a previous meeting. She added that transparency is important, so the Council is aware of the activities that Canopy is doing out there, and how that is meshing into the City's overall approach when there is a concern anywhere in the community, because the Police Department shows up for all of those concerns, too. Mayor Graves noted that Canopy is very interested in presenting to the Council, and it has been a matter of connecting with the right Staff and getting it on the agenda. She added that if the Council wants to hear from Canopy, then City Staff can work with Canopy to make sure that happens sooner rather than later. Councilmember Kragness noted that the report says there is $61,000 unassigned and asked if that could be used towards youth programs. She noted that it is just a suggestion, because that is another line item that could be zeroed out. It had the lowest amount remaining from the line item and could be completely funded. Mr. Nyquist stated that it could be done. Staff were looking at the initial budget and estimate for what it would take for the rest of the year, so that is why the $61,000 exists. Moving forward, the staff would focus on Health on the Go, Youth Outreach, ERT, and Business Development, and figure out the final cost throughout the year. The intent would be to fully fund Health on the Go and Youth Outreach for the rest of the year. Mayor Graves responded that she agreed with Councilmember Kragness about additional funds being spent around the youth, along with Councilmember Moore's point about heightened mental health needs, and Youth Outreach falls into the category of a preventative way of dealing with mental health. She added that she is supportive of the Staff's recommendations. WATER METER REPLACEMENTS: ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS DISCUSSION Mr. Nyquist noted that Ms. Heyman would be discussing the water meter replacement enforcement options and reopening that conversation. Staff did some work after the last conversation, with some recommendations and options for the Council to consider. Ms. Heyman explained that after consensus from the Council at the last meeting in March not to enforce water shut-offs, which the City was able to do with powers given to the City, the Council stated they wanted an Ordinance that would create a fines system instead as an enforcement option. The fines would take place after a property owner has received four notices from the City in letters, as well as a door knock to try and reach them to let the owner know they need to change out the water meter, which is a piece of City-owned equipment inside a private residence or a private building. 05/11 /26 -5- DRAFT Ms. Heyman continued that city staff had to do a fair amount of work with the city attorney and technical research to come up with what the options would be for this ordinance. She noted that she would turn it over to City Attorney Siobhan Tolar to go through the details, but at the high level, there will be four options that start at the top. The water shut-off switch is something that the city has the infrastructure to handle, and the implementation timeline and enforcement phase would be the shortest in terms of dedicated Staff time. The second option, which is what the Council had consensus around, is the administrative fine, which would be the longest implementation timelines with a high amount of dedicated Staff time for implementation, and if enforcement gets involved, it would require more time with appeals, and would let Ms. Tolar explain that more in detail. She added that the third option is a water usage estimate, which would have the longest timeline for implementation, and high dedicated Staff time if appealed. She added that there are also two types of broken water meters in the City, one that is a no-flow, where residents are only paying a base rate, and the other are meters that are not reading correctly, and those residents are already getting an estimated bill so it would be difficult to assign a second round of estimated billing for residents that are not returning calls from the City. She noted that she would let Ms. Tolar walk through the fourth option, which is the administrative warrant process. Ms. Tolar explained that an administrative warrant is probably not what the counselor thinks it is. An administrative warrant in this context is issued by a judge based on probable cause, where a judge will say that the City has the right, based on the facts that have been reported to the court, to go in and replace the water meter. This option would only be implemented if the City has warned a resident four times, over a number of weeks, and attempts to get the meter replaced. This is something that is used in other cities often, and is often used in code enforcement. The resident who would be subject to this warrant would get a notice that a warrant would be coming, so this would not be a surprise or a no-knock type warrant. She explained that this process would involve the repair personnel arriving at the home and letting the resident know that this is the fourth notice, and an administrative warrant from a judge states that personnel can enter the home without consent. In the event the resident still does not let the repair personnel in, they would notify the resident that they would come back to the resident's home with an arrest warrant. Ms. Tolar continued that there are a couple of ways that the Council can implement this type of procedure, but this is one that will likely get results, and that may sound harsh, but in fines and water estimate usage options, those are financial penalties, which everyone is aware that this Council does not necessarily like. The other possibility is that at the end of the day, the resident may choose not to pay a fine, and then the fine does not work, and the water meter still does not get replaced, so it may not accomplish what the Council is seeking, and it is fundamentally something to consider. Despite that, administrative fines and water usage estimates are still options that the Council has. Ms. Tolar asked Ms. Heyman if there was anything else she would like to go over. Ms. Heyman stated Ms. Tolar could go over the infrastructure that would need to be created on the City Staff's side for options two and three for the implementation phase, and explain why it would take a while for the Staff to set that up. 05/11 /26 -6- DRAFT Ms. Tolar explained that fines and water meter usage estimates would both require Ordinance amendments, which require notices, hearings, and appeals, and potentially additional appeals, as the council would have to build that into the water meter final procedure because of due process. She noted that everybody has a right to due process under the law, and that is what this would require. The water usage estimate would require something similar, not necessarily to this degree, but the City would still need to send out a notice because it is more like a water utility bill versus a fine. Councilmember Jerzak noted that initially he was not in favor of shutting off the water, but after a thorough review of Staff time, he has changed his position. He agreed that the water shut-off is the least costly and probably the best policy, and has faith that there will be very few of these actions overall, and is basing that on his experience in code enforcement. He stated he appreciated how the presentation was laid out and explained the amount of Staff time it would take, and that doing anything other than shutting off the water would be cumbersome, and he has faith and confidence in City Staff in their process and procedures. The good news is that if the resident made a mistake, the City can go back, replace the meter, and turn the water back on, but if there is a warrant issued, that resident will be angry about that for the rest of their life at the City, and it comes back really messy. The simplest option is to shut the water off, which will show the least amount of resistance. He added that he initially said he did not want to shut off the water, but when he looked at the totality of the circumstances, it was the only reasonable thing to do, and he will be supporting that. Councilmember Moore stated that if everyone recalls, this topic was a heated exchange between her and Mayor Graves regarding the fact that there was no consensus on this, and it was four to one. She added that she and Mayor Graves raised their voices a little bit at each other at that meeting, which she is not proud of, but she was the only one who felt that the Council should just shut the water off after numerous attempts were made by the City to replace the meter. The other options involve lawyers, high Staff time on Staff that is already pushed to the brink, and the City is already doing water use estimates. The administrative warrant is not like ICE, but it is a bad process and would trigger the community. The last thing residents would want to hear is that someone would enter their home without consent, after everything that has already happened. She noted that she is in favor of shutting off the water, as she was in March. Councilmember Kragness stated that she is not in favor of the water shut-off, and understands the importance of getting the meters replaced, but is also not in favor of administrative warrants. She stated that residents should not get warrants because of water. She added that she is still in favor of the fines and the water usage estimates, even though she understands the information and the Staff time it would require, and while she is taking that into consideration, from a human standpoint for the residents, she is not in favor of the other two options. Mayor Graves noted that when she had this discussion with City Staff, she did not feel like any of these were really good options, and a discussion needed to happen again with the Council. She noted that for her, it is about fairness, and this whole issue, in some way or another, is unfair, 05/11 /26 -7- DRAFT because some people have meters that are working, and some people do not. The City should also be fair in how it rectifies the unfairness. She noted that she does not like the idea of shutting the water off, and maybe if she had a better idea of the level of compliance or non-compliance, then she would be a little bit more supportive of it. She asked if anything had happened since the last conversation the Council had about this, or if it had just been discussions. Ms. Heyman noted that Staff has not done anything because they need to know what enforcement will be before starting to mail letter one, in the event they get to letter four. There have been conversations with the City's vendor, who is ready to start the process to get background work for data and data sharing going. She added that if the Council chooses the other two options, those have the highest implementation phase, and given where Staff is with their capacity, it would easily fall off before any water meter change-outs happen because Staff has to build out an Ordinance change, along with Finance, Utility billing, and the Police Department, to really understand what this process would look like. Staff cannot send out notices to residents without knowing what will happen if a fourth letter needs to be sent, and the resident needs to be informed about what the process entails, and how to appeal said fines. Mayor Graves stated that this is what bothers her: if a resident gets a letter the first time telling them their water meter is not working, and their water will be shut off. She added that she did not know her water meter was not working until she was told, but no one told her that if she did not pay her bill, she was going to have her water shut off. Ms. Heyman explained that the first letter does not state that the water will be shut off. The first letter will state that at the residence, there is city-owned property that is not working and needs to be changed out, at no cost to the resident, and to contact the City to schedule it. There will be a sentence at the bottom that states this may escalate, and is something that the resident needs to do. As the series of letters go on they get more serious as they go on, but the first letter would not indicate that the City is going to shut the water off and is a bit more polite than that for the first notice. Mayor Graves stated she would like to see the language used in the notice, because even if someone is threatening you nicely, that still feels messed up and is part of her concern. Councilmember Moore reiterated that four or five letters will go out to an individual, and the Council is not composed of engineers, and the only person on the Council who has done anything in code enforcement is Councilmember Jerzak. The Staff recommendation is now, so there is no administrative burden not only for the Staff, but for the resident to go through if they are going to appeal. Related to equity and fairness, there are multiple homeowners who are overpaying their water bill, whether it is an estimate or not, and getting those swapped out. Residents can always call the City and ask questions about the letters they receive, too. After looking at the Staff time, and this information was not available back in March when she was adamant about the water shut off then, but the process of appeals, the Staff burden, and a new system just sounds like extra dollars for Staff time and the software. 05/11 /26 -8- DRAFT Mayor Graves noted that she understands Councilmember Moore’s comments. Councilmember Jerzak added that the Council has been wrestling with these water meters for almost three years, and there has been a tremendous amount of revenue lost. He stated that he thinks it would be so few that would not want to replace their meters that the Council will ask themselves why they did not do this sooner. He added that he would like to move on, and let Staff move on because every day the City is losing revenue. Mayor Graves stated she does not disagree with Councilmember Jerzak’s statement at all. She stated she was willing to go with the water shut-off option, but would like to see how the language in the first few letters and the encouragement to comply is worded from the first letter through the fourth. Councilmember Jerzak asked if it would be fair, once Staff have their letters, to put them in a weekly update or send an email so the Council can look at it and does not have to go through another process. In other words, Staff has been given direction and can move forward, and the Mayor can always ask Staff to tweak the letters. Mayor Graves stated the main reason she is willing to do it is because of some of the things stated by Councilmembers, but also not wanting to add additional fines and penalties onto the people themselves. She wanted to acknowledge that not everyone may be aware of the situation, and should not be treated as if they are. Councilmember Kragness asked if there would be a fee to turn the water back on. Ms. Heyman stated that under the Ordinance, there can be, but Staff needs to work with Finance to determine what those fees would look like, and what can be waived because the City does have the power to waive those fees, but it will be a question of what types of power and discretion the Council would want to move forward with. Mayor Graves noted that it would be good information to bring back to the Council as well. Councilmember Jerzak stated it would be helpful to put this information in the quarterly reports as an education process, as a type of outreach, so residents know it is coming. He noted he does not want to add more to Staff's work, but it might help with the sense of surprise. Ms. Heyman commented that the quarterly can be done, but Staff wants to think this through in terms of communication because the City is only targeting 1,000 meters in the first year of the project, and does not want residents to be surprised if the City does not come to replace theirs in the first phase when there are 9,000 meters in total to be replaced. Mayor Graves asked if the projected timeline would be improved by taking this route. Ms. Heyman stated that it absolutely will. ADJOURNMENT 05/11 /26 -9- DRAFT Mayor Graves adjourned the Study Session at 6:44 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.