Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026.05.26 CCM STUDY05/26/26 -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 26, 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 6:02 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 and excused. CITY COUNCIL MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS Mayor Graves asked if there were any questions on the agenda this evening. Councilmember Moore noted that, based on the Mayor’s previous action, it could be discussed, or item 6f. Resolution amending the Brooklyn Center Cultural and Public Arts Commission to revise term limits and rename the Commission could be removed from the consent agenda. Mayor Graves asked what her question was. Councilmember Moore stated that it could either be moved for consideration or talked about now. Mayor Graves confirmed it should be talked about now. Councilmember Moore noted that, based on the last approval of the Parks and Rec Commission members, there are some new individuals on the Parks and Rec Commission. There was a long- standing member who was not reappointed to the position, and that is one concern. The other concern is the request for term limits, when that Commission did a lot of work on the bylaws, which was quite extensive and commendable, compared to the other bylaws for other Commissions. The reason for term limits was for continuity, as previously discussed in the Council. She noted the Council had also previously discussed having some change in Commissioners over time, but was taken aback by renaming the Commission the Recommended Art, Beauty and Culture versus the Culture and Public Arts Commission. Even though the Commission has gone through the bylaws in quite extensive detail, she does not understand why the current members want to change it to Art, Beauty, and Culture. 05/26/26 -2- DRAFT Councilmember Moore continued that it is quite an appropriate name for a Culture and Public Arts Commission, and given their priorities, that makes much more sense than Art, Beauty, and Culture. She added that the Council has also discussed Staff time that is devoted to all the Commissions and with all of Staff being stretched thin, and currently, the Artist in Residence position may or may not be approved by the Council for the next year. That position was heavily debated last year during budget sessions. For those reasons, this is something the Council could certainly take up later, and she is not opposed to a discussion, but has concerns about lengthening a term limit, especially when the Council has talked about getting some variety in Commissioners from a variety of backgrounds. The other concern is Staff time and then the change in name. She stated she would like to table this for a future meeting, especially in light of the fact that the liaison for this Commission is a position that may or may not be in the 2027 budget. There have already been in-depth discussions this year about the Staff time being stretched thin, and adding this to Advisory Commissions to the Council. Councilmember Jerzak asked if this aligns with all of the other Commissions and if they are all the same. He noted he does not disagree with what the Commission is saying. The Commission wrote that it aligns with municipal practices, supports continuity, but if it is going to be changed, and if it aligns, he would like to change them all at once. It is important to consider that every two years is an election, and that can affect the outcome, but there should be some type of alignment there, too. The choice is the Mayor’s to recommend to the Council, and he has always respected that. He added that he is questioning for that purpose and respects all the work that has gone into this. He noted that the Council made a commitment to Staff about trying to reasonably help their workloads, and does not want to add things to their workloads unnecessarily, but that is his only other concern. He requested a little more research and a postponement. Councilmember Kragness agreed with Councilmember Jerzak and noted that the Council had spoken about Commissions before, when the Council was creating a new Commission, and wanted to make sure that there was alignment with the number of terms and number of members when those conversations came up. If this can best align them with the other ones, she would agree with that. As far as the name change, the Commission stated that they have reached a consensus on this, but she would be interested in having more conversations about it and would be interested in making sure that the Council did point that out, that the Commission did reach a consensus. She noted that, as Council Member Moore said, this was an out-of-the-blue type of situation, and more information is needed. Mayor Graves asked City Clerk Shannon Pettit if this resolution and the changes that they are suggesting, specifically around the Commissioner term length, are in alignment with other commissions. Ms. Pettit answered that currently, three of the Commissions, the Housing Commission, Parks and Recreation, and the Finance Commission, all have term lengths of three years. The Planning Commission has a two-year term length, and the Sister Cities has a five-year term length. Mayor Graves noted the term limit is not out of alignment and would be in alignment with three of the current Commissions. She asked if there had ever been a name change to a Commission 05/26/26 -3- DRAFT before. Ms. Pettit answered that she would have to research that. Mayor Graves noted that she has gone to several of the Cultural Art Commission meetings and remembered the discussion, but was not particularly involved in it. There was a report on beautification that came out five or six years ago, and her guess is that the desire to change the name and add in this beautification is to align the work with that report around beautifying Brooklyn Center and its image. This was also when the Council decided to have Artists in Residence and started doing more murals in the City and accentuating some of the different cultures. She noted that this might be the reasoning behind changing the name. Mayor Graves noted that Naheed was online and asked the Council if they minded getting any context from Naheed. She stated that Naheed would be held to the two-minute rule to speak if the Council was okay with that. Councilmember Moore noted that the Council could certainly hear from Naheed, but she is part of the Commission. She stated she would defer to Councilmember Jerzak. Councilmember Jerzak stated that before the Council hears from Naheed, he believed a lot of the talk was to expand the Commission’s scope of effect and ability to do more things because there was so much more available that they could do, including securing grants. He added that his biggest concern with this whole thing is if the Commission is in alignment with their bylaws, and if that is consistent throughout. He stated he is not opposed but wants to be sure everything is in alignment. Mayor Graves stated that she understood, and there will be no carve-outs. Naheed of the Cultural and Public Arts Commission stated she was available to answer any questions the Council might have about this resolution. The resolution was unanimously passed after discussions at two meetings. The name change was proposed for two reasons, firstly, a practical one, as the Commissioners were all discovering that it was hard to remember the name of the Commission, and anyone whom the Commissioners talked to, including other Staff members, could not remember the name. After discussing a few ideas, Commissioners came up with something that aligned alphabetically with a, b, c: Art, Beautification, and Culture, which Commissioners thought would be easier for everyone to remember. This also aligns with the beautification of the Brooklyn Center master plan for public art, which not only focuses on art and culture but also on beautification. Commissioners wanted to combine all of these matters with the name change. The original name was simply a name that the City Attorney came up with when she wrote the resolution and other documents, so the name did not come directly from the master plan. Mayor Graves thanked Naheed for the additional context, and the Council got a few answers. She asked Staff to review to ensure that there is alignment with existing City Commissions and double- check the bylaws to bring them back at the next meeting. She asked if there were any other questions on agenda items. Councilmember Jerzak stated he attended and wanted to thank Senator Pha, Representative Vang, along with the lobbying firm, Staff, and a number of people who testified, along with 05/26/26 -4- DRAFT Councilmember Kragness, who were all involved in procuring the grant for the Opportunity Site. He added that although he could name most of the people, he would not because he probably would accidentally leave someone out who came to the bonding tour, and he did not want to do that. Mayor Graves agreed and stated she is working on some thank-you letters that will be going out tomorrow night. Councilmember Jerzak thanked Mayor Graves for that because these are all personal relationships. Mayor Graves stated that relationships are everything. Councilmember Jerzak agreed and stated relationships are easily forgotten, and he did send each one of them a personal thank you as well. Mayor Graves stated she sent the thank you on behalf of the City. Councilmember Kragness noted she had one correction on the minutes. On the regular session minutes, May 11th, 2026, page 20, which is also page 35 of 85, the first sentence says, “… mention of a do blank and do from.” The sentence is missing the word “to.” With accounting that makes a difference. The sentence is about setting up a do to and a do from. Mayor Graves stated she remembered that conversation. She stated she would now move on to the City Manager Miscellaneous items. CITY MANAGER MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS COUNCIL PRIORITIES UPDATE Interim City Manager Daren Nyquist stated that after reviewing the City Council agendas, there is some room in the next couple of meetings. He stated he wanted to have a conversation to talk about what the Council would like to see on that agenda, and this is also an update of the previous conversation they had back in April. During his review, the Council ticked off more things than he could recall. As a reminder, the Council ranked in no particular order the top ten projects that they would want more information on. He noted that the Council came up with 31 different items with consensus and 21 outliers. The projects with consensus include resolving the outstanding Finance Director issues, transition items, Financial Management Plan, Expanded Response Teams contract, the Opportunity Site Development, and recruitment. If there is a checkmark there, that means Staff have done that work or have made some major headway on that work, and can provide updates on that. Mr. Nyquist continued that the point of this conversation is to go through the rest of the items and have some consensus with the Council about finding another handful of priority updates for the next couple of meetings. The outstanding Finance Director transition issues have been mentioned to each of the Councilmembers, but Staff is circling in on a Finance Director hire and hopes to have more details about that when everything is finalized at the next Council meeting. The Financial Management Plan was discussed two weeks ago and has been wrapped up, so Staff can begin the budget process, and that was a critical step forward for Staff. The Expanded Response 05/26/26 -5- DRAFT team contracts have a route forward with the remaining ARPA money, and that was discussed at a previous meeting. Items that are outstanding include the Opportunity Site Developer recruitment, which deserves some more conversation. Mr. Nyquist noted that projects with alignment are a category for things that are being reviewed to see if they are working. This is time-related work that will go through the rest of the year, but one of the big ones that Staff has got clarity on is a cost share policy. The MnDOT cost share policy was ratified and approved thanks to Public Works Director Liz Heyman and her advocacy in that realm. Other things on this list are projects Highway 252 and the EIS statement, solar, and City buildings, which is a fun research project that Staff could dig into, and revising the operating budget development process, which will be tackled as Staff gets to the budget process this year. The cost recovery model at the Community Center looks at all the different programming and what costs can be recovered through that program at the Community Center. The EDA Scattered Sites plan has a slew of scattered sites around the City that could be potentially sold, and that is a plan in the works. Mr. Nyquist noted all the outliers for agenda items, and there are some checkboxes there, some bigger ones coming include a Council meeting with Senator Brooke, and the Heritage Center 2025 financial report will occur at the next Council meeting. He asked the Council to take some time to look at the list to find more agenda items to fill the slots in the upcoming meetings. Councilmember Jerzak stated that this is probably more of a comment, but projects with consensus include the Opportunity Site development and recruitment. He asked if they need to realign any of the master plan because there have been multiple changes, including market conditions. Now that the City has attained the grant for that project, and the amount of grants that the City has, the question is where this project lands. There was a previous developer with whom the City has terminated that agreement, and that realignment. He stated that it has been indicated that the grant that was given to the City is pretty flexible, but the Council needs to know the answer to those questions, so they do not have to go back to it multiple times, and the project can hit the ground running. Mayor Graves noted that this is why it is a project with consensus, because the Council wants to get an update on some of those questions. She added that the development with the previous developer there was not that much excitement around the concept in general, and the master plan did a ton of community engagement around it. While Staff does not need to go back to the drawing board at all, it is more about how the Council is reconfiguring the money. The change in developer means the project does not have to look like what was proposed, but it probably should still have that sort of mixed-use component that was available in the master plan. She stated she is excited to hear about what is next, and there has been an increase in interest from other people, along with other things in the City that are moving nearby. Councilmember Jerzak stated he does not want to reinvent the wheel again; he wants to know what is relevant for the project. There were certain things that were included with certain projects that are no longer relevant, so the Council needs to be brought up to date. 05/26/26 -6- DRAFT Mayor Graves agreed. Councilmember Jerzak stated that the Council needs to take the inventory. Mayor Graves stated there is definitely consensus on that from Councilmembers. She wondered if, with that conversation, they could also discuss the alignment with the EDA scattered sites plan, too, because it does not seem like it would get too long. Councilmember Moore stated that the City did secure grants and that there is probably some sort of time limit. So, along with the $3 million, the Council needs to know where the project is at and, knowing that now, as they review not only the master plan, but also other schematics that have been presented regarding the infrastructure, the storm water pond, some apartments, all of that was revised from the original plan. That needs to be brought forward to the Council to see with the numbers attached to it, so that the Council knows whether or not there is enough to get that infrastructure in place. Councilmember Moore asked Mr. Nyquist if the items with the check marks are the only things in the outliers that are completed. Mr. Nyquist confirmed that it is correct and added that at the next Council meeting, there will be presentations on the Centerbrook golf course and the Heritage Center 2025 financial. Councilmember Moore stated that in some of their previous discussions regarding the purchasing policy and P-Card policy, which is still tied to some work that the Interim Finance Director is doing, so that is why that is not completed. Mr. Nyquist stated that is correct and there has been work done on both of them, but they are not wrapped up enough to come to the Council. Councilmember Moore asked if the Council is going to try to look at this list every month because these are the priorities, so the Council can keep track of the progress. She stated she asks Mr. Nyquist questions in their one-on-one meetings, but may not bring up everything. Councilmember Kragness pointed out that the P-Card policy is very close to being done. The Finance Commission did a lot of work on that to get the point where it was ready for presentation, but that was before the Staff change. So that could be something that, once it gets more stable, that area can be pushed through quickly. Councilmember Jerzak stated again that if everything is important, nothing is important. So, from the Staff perspective, they need to zero in on the things that have the most impact on the City and the residents. Mayor Graves noted the Highway 252 project is important. Councilmember Jerzak agreed and stated that if two Councilmembers wanted to bring something forward, they could request it to the City manager or the Mayor to be brought forward. He stated that when he looked through this, he was very comfortable with what had been prioritized. He thanked Staff for zeroing in on those things and bringing that to fruition. 05/26/26 -7- DRAFT Mayor Graves stated that Highway 252 seems really important to get in front of the Council sooner rather than later, and she is interested in the research project as well as the environment, which is really important to her, and she is passionate about it. She added that the Shingle Creek Trail restoration and the tree management and reforestation update would be good to get as well, and the Council will revisit the list. OLD BUSINESS DISCUSSION Mr. Nyquist noted he wanted to revisit this item from the previous Council meeting. Staff was talking about old business and rehashing what that could look like, a little more clarity in terms of the goals the Council had from providing an old business agenda item on the agenda that could be in this meeting or the regular meeting. He noted that he wanted to get more clarity before Staff brought a recommended procedure for old business. Councilmember Jerzak noted that Mr. Nyquist has answered some of the questions tonight, and the Council has identified the very high-priority projects. If there are any loose ends with those projects, then that would be considered old business that requires the Council to return to that due to the significance. He added that he does not want to create another line item where the Council is carrying 50 things forward. As an example, he had written down that there was a Council consensus for a financial report for the Enterprise Fund. That presentation is coming up next week, so he would not have wanted that to be left out, especially when the Council goes into budget season, because it was recommended that the Council consider changing the policy on the percentage of the General Fund threshold from 40 to 50 percent. Those are important things that require some follow-ups, so they do not get forgotten. Mayor Graves added that old businesses would be a placeholder for those types of things that may not necessarily need to be on the agenda, but need a follow-up update, and if there were questions after the initial discussion. Councilmember Moore noted that it aligns with how the Council is doing its EDA meetings with the EDA update. So if the Staff was not going to have it as a regular standing Council agenda item, then this may be a place where Staff could provide an update, not unlike the Council report. She added that Councilmember Jerzak is the one who brought this up and has probably spent more time thinking about it, but she is on the fence as to whether or not this needs to be an item on the regular agenda. If there is a consensus from the Council on what that looks like in terms of reporting success or goals that might be related to the priorities that needed to be communicated to Council, then that would make sense. Councilmember. Jerzak added as an example, next week Staff are going to present the Heritage Center Enterprise Fund. He noted that one of the questions Councilmember Moore had previously asked was whether the Heritage Center could be sold or leased. That would be an old business item that, until the Council gets that answer, now that may be in that report, but that is something that was asked that the Council is looking for. If it works better for Staff to put it in the weekly 05/26/26 -8- DRAFT update, then Staff should do that. Sometimes the Council gets time between very important questions, because the Council also needs time to consider things. Councilmember Kragness added that the Council appreciates the transparency and the visibility from Staff and needs to have that as the Council is making these decisions. She noted that Staff can figure out how to keep the Council presented with that, but there is consensus with the Council to make sure the Council has that visibility at all times. Councilmember Kragness asked if that was enough clarity for Mr. Nyquist. Mr. Nyquist responded that in the next meeting, he can have a recommended process, though, and the Council can start to activate that and then iterate if it does not work. Mayor Graves stated that sounds good. She asked if there were any other discussion items, and if not, would adjourn the study session. Councilmember Moore stated that, regarding the question about the Heritage Center and whether or not it could be sold, she did not add it as a discussion item, but it has been communicated with Mr. Nyquist to get an update on whether or not the City can. She stated she knew that Ms. Heyman also talked about what is actually historical at that site, which is the water tower and not the building, and that there has been a building assessment plan completed on it. As the Council goes into the budget season, there will be discussions around different revenue funds and the budget line items. This should be a priority topic, as the Council has looked at even prior to COVID-19, continuing to prop up the Heritage Center. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Moore seconded to adjourn the Study Session at 6:36 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.