Anoka City Council

November 24, 2025 (Worksession) Page 1 of 18 WORKSESSION OF THE ANOKA CITY COUNCIL ANOKA CITY HALL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION ROOM NOVEMBER 24, 2025 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Skogquist called the worksession meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Present at roll call: Mayor Skogquist, Councilmembers Campbell, Rostad, Scott, and Weaver. Staff present: City Manager Greg Lee; Assistant City Manager Amy Oehlers; Finance Director Brenda Springer; Community Development Director Doug Borglund; Police Chief Andy Youngquist; Public Works Director Mark Anderson; Assistant City Engineer Ben Nelson; Enterprise Operations Director Kevin Morelli; Green Haven Golf Course Superintendent Mike Brual, Green Haven Golf Course Assistant Superintendent Brandon Howard, Electric Utility Director Del Vancura; and City Attorney Scott Baumgartner. Absent: None. 3. COUNCIL BUSINESS and/or DISCUSSION ITEMS 3.1 Discussion: Chapter 10, Article IV, Charitable and Legalized Gambling. Assistant City Manager Amy Oehlers shared a background report stating that at the September 22, 2025, worksession, the Council directed that this item be placed on a future worksession agenda so that the Council has an opportunity to discuss what they want for gambling regulations, lawful purpose expenditures, etc. Staff previously sent out a list of questions to the Councilmembers that staff is asking the Council to discuss and provide direction so that a proposed amended Charitable Gambling Ordinance can be prepared and submitted to the City Council. It is planned that an ordinance will be drafted and presented to the City Council for first reading at the December 1, 2025, Regular meeting, and second reading and adoption held at the December 15, 2025, Regular meeting, so the ordinance will be in effect January 1, 2026. Staff shared the list of questions, the current City regulations, and the previous letter from Attorney Scott Lepak, and asked for feedback. Councilmember Weaver said he supported an Anoka-first concept and reciprocal opportunities with other communities in order to be fair. He said we need to set an amount on how much should go back to the community, and if waivers are allowed once it is determined that another Anoka organization wasn’t interested in being considered when a premise permit becomes available. November 24, 2025 (Worksession) Page 2 of 18 Councilmember Rostad said she agreed but also supported putting the businesses first, as they needed to have autonomy in their business operations. She noted Anoka’s geographic space and the small footprints in the downtown area, and how larger entities such as ARAA and Anoka Hockey represent larger populations, and how we don’t want to isolate them too much. She said that while we need to have oversight, any ordinance can’t be too burdensome for staff. Councilmember Rostad said there is just under $1 million net in these organizations and wanted to see at least 50% spent in the trade area with clear steps and rules, but said a tiered structure won’t be easy for staff or the businesses to administer. She said any ordinance needs to be equitable for all businesses so everyone knows what to expect. She said she wanted to see consistent reporting and that if we establish a 10% fee, it should go to the City, adding that many generous people support the City, and while there is risk if anything is done, it needs to be fair and equitable. Councilmember Weaver agreed with the 10% fee and said any leftover revenue should go to support events such as Rockin’ on the Rum, as they ultimately bring customers to the restaurants. Mayor Skogquist said his goal was to explore options, noting cities don’t have to even allow gambling, but if we do, we need to establish something and then enforce the ordinance. He explained the Council would review each question proposed by staff for feedback and direction. Q-1. Do you want to require that an organization have its main physical office location registered in the City of Anoka and have been registered in the City of Anoka for at least 2 years preceding the application? Council consensus was to require an organization’s physical office to be located in Anoka for two years before an application. Q-2. If yes, do you want this verified through the Secretary of State’s Office? Council supported verification of an organization’s physical office through the Secretary of State’s Office. Q-3. Q-4. If you choose to require that their main physical office be in Anoka, do you want to allow a waiver to be granted if no local organization expresses an interest in obtaining a premise permit for a specific establishment? Mayor Skogquist noted that Mr. Lepak had shared that a physical office requirement was somewhat atypical. Councilmember Campbell said he felt it was important to have this waiver option available. November 24, 2025 (Worksession) Page 3 of 18 Councilmember Scott agreed, especially if there is not enough capacity or activities available that a business wants to offer. Mayor Skogquist said that with the current ordinance, we allow a waiver, but shared an example of veto power and how any organization could essentially veto a bar and allow businesses to not work with any organization except the one they want. Councilmember Rostad shared the definition of a main physical office location and felt it needed to be clarified with regard to where they meet, and suggested organizations could also meet outside of Anoka to better define the requirement. Josh Jungling said a majority of their meetings are held at Green Haven. Councilmember Scott commented further about having the organizations be more accountable by requiring that they meet in Anoka. Councilmember Rostad supported anyone coming because it would be a win/win for the entire community, as they will spend money in Anoka, but we need to have internal controls overseen by staff. Mayor Skogquist said that with the 10% fee allowed by law, local organizations are more likely to spend their proceeds in Anoka naturally. Mr. Lepak spoke about maximizing dollars and having them stay in Anoka by creating trade areas and focusing only on local groups. Josh Jungling said he understood the Council’s goal, but said organizations sometimes can’t go to other cities, such as Champlin and Coon Rapids. He said that while this would be a win/win for the businesses, it would not be beneficial for the non-profits by allowing outside groups. Mayor Skogquist said it was important for Anoka to create revenue that benefits Anoka and covers the costs of City events. He said he was hesitant about the waiver and said that while the law defines the trade area specifically, there is not much overlap with Dayton, for example, and said we should be cautious about getting an entity in the trade area for 10% while the rest of the funds can go outside of Anoka, which is why we need a waiver process. Ms. Oehlers said premise permits used to be renewed every two years but now are perpetual, and said she didn’t believe the City could revoke a permit. Councilmember Rostad suggested implementing a two- or five-year review process. Mr. Lepak said staff could explore that as an option. November 24, 2025 (Worksession) Page 4 of 18 Council consensus was to explore the waiver process, create a review process if allowed, then create a tiered approach to give priority to local groups. An audience member asked about guidelines around how much is put back into the community. Mr. Lepak explained the 10% fee was based annually on net profits, but the portion spent in a trade area could be up to 100% and needs to be a qualifying expense. Q6. If you want to allow a waiver as currently in our regulations, do you want to include specifics on our 30-day process that we currently use? Councilmember Rostad suggested a public posting instead of sending letters. Councilmember Weaver supported sending a letter instead. Councilmember Scott suggested doing both to ensure organizations are aware of the opportunity and that we are transparent to the public. An audience member suggested contacting the establishment instead. Councilmember Rostad said this is making the assumption that they are a Tier 1 group, which may not be the case, and that it was imperative that businesses have control over who they partner with. Council consensus was to send a notice to the known organizations, as well as to post a public notice of any premise permit opportunities. O-1. Have no office location requirement at all, allowing any organization to obtain a premise permit. O-2. Not require that an organization have its physical office location in the City of Anoka, but limit organizations to having their physical office located in certain cities, such as cities in our trade area or only cities in our trade area that allow Anoka organizations to hold a premise permit in their city. O-3. Require that they have their physical office location in the City of Anoka for 2 years preceding the application and hold their monthly meetings in the City of Anoka. This would require the organization to report meeting dates and locations to the City. O-4. Require that they have their physical office location in the City of Anoka for 2 years preceding the application, and hold their monthly meetings in the City of Anoka, and that 50% of their membership must be individuals whose residency is in the City of Anoka. This would require the organization to report meeting dates and locations to the City. Mayor Skogquist said he was fine with organizations not meeting in the City. November 24, 2025 (Worksession) Page 5 of 18 Councilmember Campbell supported just having the office in Anoka, as it was too difficult to regulate where organizations meet. Councilmember Rostad said she appreciated the sentiment to keep organizations in the City, but didn’t want to micromanage too much and said it was not the best use of staff time to regulate. She shared Maple Grove’s ordinance and its conditions and supported making this as simple as possible. Mayor Skogquist said he wanted to ensure that we don’t see a scenario of a token office in the City with no other ties to Anoka. He commented on how many groups do great things but don’t actually live in the City, and that he didn’t want to exclude them either. Councilmember Scott said he supported Option 3 as it was the most realistic and supported our goals, stating monthly meetings at the physical office were not as important as encouraging meetings in Anoka to continue the local ties. Council consensus was to require an office in Anoka and to regularly meet in Anoka. Councilmember Rostad confirmed the requirement should be that an organization be in the City for two years, but preferred an organization in good standing with the State for three years prior, which would limit choices to businesses. Mayor Skogquist said How do we avoid a business not cherry picking where the easy money is. Councilmember Rostad said lots of oversight and reporting would address that concern. An audience member spoke about wanting to go to a business in Coon Rapids but was denied as they did not have a local business in Coon Rapids, adding that their organization has the smallest footprint in Anoka, and they would like to go to other cities and have it be reciprocal. Mr. Lepak commented on the large number of reporting requirements, which will assist in transparency. Josh Jungling said they preferred to meet at Green Haven but noted it was not open during the winter, so they instead met at the business where they conduct gambling. Council consensus was to require the majority of organizations' meetings to be in Anoka. Councilmember Rostad asked about the two-year requirement, and if implemented in Anoka, we would be excluding potential good partners. Mayor November 24, 2025 (Worksession) Page 6 of 18 Skogquist said we might be contingent on the outcome of the waiver, but could support something more flexible. Council consensus was to leave the two-year requirement in place. City Manager Greg Lee commented on the requirements of meetings and how to verify that this is occurring. Councilmember Weaver suggested organizations submit a copy of their minutes that state where they met. Q7. Would the Council agree to the following changes to this section: monthly reports to be submitted on a semi-annual basis instead; organizations must submit certain State forms; organizations must submit, on a form supplied by the City, a detailed itemization of the lawful purpose expenditures spent in the City of Anoka. Councilmember Rostad said monthly reports are already done for the State and felt they should be submitted to the City as well, including the meeting location requirement, as this would allow for staff oversight. She noted these reports will be needed if we implement the 10% requirement. Ms. Oehlers noted the reports don’t mean much to staff and that having an itemized list instead would be better to see where the funds are being spent. Mayor Skogquist agreed that the City-supplied report would be better for a clearer summary and supported quarterly reports instead of monthly to ensure organizations are meeting the outlined criteria. Council consensus was to require itemized expenditure reports submitted on a quarterly basis. Q8. Q9. What percentage of lawful purposes does the City want expended in the City of Anoka? What percentage of lawful purpose expenditures to be spent in our Trade Area? (Trade Area must be all cities contiguous to Anoka). Mr. Lepak said 10% is the maximum amount that can be collected and that the fee has to be placed in a separate fund of net profits derived from lawful gambling, adding that the money can’t cover administrative expenses. An audience member clarified that the 10% is an additional tax to the City, and now the City will decide where those funds are being directed instead of the organizations. He said the Anoka Area Ice Arena already donates funds to events such as Rockin’ on the Rum and others, and if this 10% is forced on us, their donations already in place will likely go away. Mayor Skogquist said the intent would be to ensure funds stay in Anoka. November 24, 2025 (Worksession) Page 7 of 18 Mr. Lepak said the 10% fund is not a tax but applies to contributions for things like public safety and would apply to all entities licensed in Anoka. An audience member commented on how patrons think their gambling is going to the specific organization, and now it will be going to a music event instead, for example, and felt that was not ethical, as it was taking funds from their organization. Mayor Skogquist disagreed with that scenario, stating Coon Rapids has a community fund as outlined by Statute and that we spend a lot of time and money on tourism-related events such as concerts and parades that bring people to Anoka, which will in turn increase charitable gambling participation. Rick Wesp suggested the Council implement a 2% fee instead of a 10% fee to lessen the impact on the organizations. Dottie Norgard explained how in another city their organization could earmark where their contribution goes to such as the Fire Department, and said it worked well. Councilmember Campbell asked if we could reduce the amount of money spent in the trade area instead. Mr. Lepak said if we do the 10% or use the local gambling tax, they are separate items, adding the City could also require the balance be used in the trade area. Mayor Skogquist supported the 10% fund creation as it would ensure money remains in Anoka. Councilmember Weaver agreed, stating that the money we spend on Anoka Halloween is over six figures, and this would benefit the entertainment district by bringing people to the restaurants. The audience agreed but said this should be privatized and not dictated by the City, adding that it will result in less staff time to monitor. An audience member asked if the State has guidelines on what the City can spend the funds on. Mayor Skogquist said the Statute outlines what cities can spend the collected funds on, and that it can’t be used on staff time to administer the fund. Council consensus was to create a 10% fund and create a contiguous trade area. Q10. Do you want to allow or prohibit payments for utilities, i.e., electricity, water, sewer, etc., to be used as a lawful purpose expenditure to meet percentage requirements? Mayor Skogquist suggested that utilities be included as lawful expenditures. Councilmember Weaver agreed, especially since they pay utilities to Anoka. He noted the intent of most groups is to focus on the trade area anyway. November 24, 2025 (Worksession) Page 8 of 18 Council consensus was to require 75% of organizations to contribute to the trade area of the profits earned in Anoka, not other cities. Q11. Do you want this percentage to be paid on a monthly basis or semi- annually? Some organizations have requested that it be semi-annually because they make specific donations to certain organizations at the same time each year. Finance Director Brenda Springer said quarterly would be best as it would match the lodging tax requirements schedule. Council consensus was to require the percentage to be paid quarterly to match the quarterly reporting requirements. Additional Option: City Administered Fund AO1. Do you want an organization to be required to contribute a certain percentage of its net profits derived from lawful gambling in the City to be placed in a fund administered and regulated by the City? AO1. If instituted, should this be paid to the City every month? AO2: Do you want to institute a Local Gambling Tax? This local gambling tax would be imposed on the gross receipts of an organization from all lawful gambling, less prizes paid out by the organization. This tax is capped at 3% and is only to cover the costs incurred to regulate gambling. If this is imposed, the payment should be made on a monthly basis, due to requirements for reporting to the Department of Revenue. AO3: Do you want to charge an investigation fee for the processing of the permit? Cannot exceed $250. If you charge an investigation fee, you cannot institute a Local Gambling Tax. Mr. Lepak explained it would not likely be a large benefit to income, as the staff time to administer wouldn’t cover the amount received. Councilmember Rostad said the gross amount would be significant in Anoka, as the total is close to $36,000,000 but agreed it would be a lot of work for staff to administer. Mayor Skogquist said he was supportive of a tax, adding that Andover charges a very small percentage. Ms. Oehlers suggested charging the $250 investigation fee instead and providing the data next year for further review. Council consensus was to institute a local gambling tax of 1/10 of 1%. SR1: Stipulate that the application process period will take a minimum of 60 days before being considered by the City Council. Council supported the 60-day application requirement. November 24, 2025 (Worksession) Page 9 of 18 Council consensus was to review the draft ordinance and further discuss the waiver process at the December 8 worksession. The Council took a short recess. 3.2 Discussion: Policy Establishing Fines and Enforcement Procedures for Establishments that Hold an On-Sale Liquor and/or Wine License. Ms. Oehlers shared a background report stating that previously, the City Council directed staff to develop a policy on fines and enforcement procedures for our establishments that hold an on-sale liquor and/or on-sale wine license. Staff sent the draft policy to Councilmembers on November 10, 2025, requesting feedback. Based on the feedback received, staff did make a change to the Level 1 Violation (2), which now reads failure to keep a 33-foot perimeter around licensed premises clear from trash, debris, emesis, etc. The 33-foot perimeter is measured from the exterior walls of the establishment, or if the establishment has outdoor seating or an outdoor patio, from the boundaries of the outdoor seating/patio area. Establishments will be responsible for clearing the trash, debris, emesis, etc., within 6 hours of the preceding night’s closing time. The proposed policy allows the City Council to suspend a Special 1 am license (for a period of time as determined by the Council on a case-by-case basis); institute fines that cannot exceed $2,000 pursuant to Statute §340A.415; suspend a full liquor/wine license; revoke a liquor/wine license. If the Council chooses to proceed with this policy, it will be placed on the December 1, 2025, regular meeting agenda, and if approved would become effective immediately. She noted the Community Development Department notified holders of an on-sale liquor and wine license and invited them to attend this worksession. Mayor Skogquist asked questions about the current level of offenses and whether only fines were imposed. City Attorney Scott Baumgartner said it depends on when they occur, adding the fines could go higher in the step process if the offense was more egregious. Mayor Skogquist said he wanted to ensure we are equitable in our enforcement and are not being arbitrary. Josh Jungling spoke about how in another city, their staff didn’t want to call the police, as it was viewed as punitive to the bar owner, and said they would hate to see Anoka go that direction. Mike Roden Casa Rio, spoke about when there is an actionable offense in Forest Lake and police are called they could issue a waiver so it doesn’t count against their liquor license. Police Chief Andy Youngquist said the City didn’t want to penalize business owners for calling the police and likened it to the crime-free multi-family rental November 24, 2025 (Worksession) Page 10 of 18 ordinance. He said the intent was to address situations such as habitual fighting that could be caused by the bar owner through actions such as over-serving. Mr. Baumgartner said the intent is knowledge versus not addressing the problem, and that not by allowing the disorderly conduct, a bar owner shouldn’t be punished if they are trying to address the conduct. Ms. Oehlers clarified that was the intent of the language. Mayor Skogquist asked if other illegal activity was occurring; would that be included in the level of violations? Councilmember Weaver asked about Level 2 and how some will never meet the current building code, and that this was not realistic to meet. Chief Youngquist referred to the occupancy load concerns that occurred recently, which needed to be part of the City’s purview. Jess Pratt, Ambi Wine Bar, shared how each establishment has inspections conducted annually by the Health Department and said the code requirements are already being addressed. Mayor Skogquist shared a letter from Jess Hauf, 10K Brewing, who was not in favor of the proposed draft ordinance, then asked more about the substance of failed compliance checks. Chief Youngquist spoke about the possibility of including THC products in their compliance checks. Tony Hansen, The Wheelhouse, suggested changing Level III to attempt, as we can’t search patrons coming into their establishment, and felt the language should say a fair attempt rather than failure to prevent. Mike Roden, Casa Rio, spoke about the social district cups and whether they go outside the district and how bar owners can’t control that behavior once they leave their establishments. Mayor Skogquist said this language was directed towards leaving their licensed premise, such as patios, and not in the social district overall. Chief Youngquist said the department conducts random patrols to help ensure consumption stays within the social district. Councilmember Scott said it seemed to make sense to attempt to prevent, as people will still do things regardless. Gloria Nelson, 201 Tavern, shared an instance last year of a patron who was taking water outside the district, which looked like alcohol, and how they no November 24, 2025 (Worksession) Page 11 of 18 longer let anything leave, which may not be good for a customer who needs water. Member of the audience said we should hold the people who are breaking the law accountable instead of the bar owners. Mr. Baumgartner said he sympathized with the difficulty of bar owners to enforce, but said this was directed more towards when a bar owner knows something has occurred and takes no steps to address it. An audience member from Serum’s suggested posting signs as a method to address alcohol leaving the premises. Mayor Skogquist said he doesn’t care how each establishment does the work, but just cares about the results and addressing the behavior. Chief Youngquist said when the district started, we stressed that bar owners had to help control the environment, adding that signage only is not that effective. He said they see a lot of alcohol leaving bars and that he didn’t want to task staff to monitor cameras as that’s not a good use of time. He said they may include leaving with alcohol as part of future compliance checks to help enforce correct behavior, adding the City needs bar owners’ assistance with these concerns. Mr. Lee agreed that we need to work together on this, as this can become an image issue. He noted that the City had to call in a crew after the Halloween closure to pick up hundreds of plastic cups. An audience member explained how the bar owners have a text chain that they use to communicate when they see something, and how they are trying to police this behavior. She said we all care about this behavior and are taking steps, but noted issues will still occur. She said Ambi wasn’t open on Halloween, but that when all the bars close at the same time, people go outside, and trash is left. She said she believed the increased cleanup was an anomaly due to the situation. Chief Youngquist said the City recognizes that the bar owners are trying to help, but said they witnessed quite a bit of alcohol outside after 10:30 p.m., and that was because exits weren’t being monitored. Councilmember Weaver asked what it meant by being advised, and when officers advise a bar owner of a concern. Mr. Baumgartner said it would be similar to other code enforcement activities that, once advised, should be allowed to address, such as staffing the exits. Chief Youngquist confirmed police would advise a bar owner in the moment when alcohol outside is witnessed. November 24, 2025 (Worksession) Page 12 of 18 Gloria Nelson, 201 Tavern, said when they closed that evening, there were reports of very bad activity in the parking ramps that had nothing to do with the patrons of their bars, and said that was very frustrating. Council consensus was to support the proposed Level III language. Mayor Skogquist spoke about failed compliance checks and whether THC should be included or other illegal drugs. Councilmember Scott asked who issues the license to sell THC. Mr. Baumgartner said that was done by the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM), then spoke about how failed compliance checks could be expanded to any adult beverage. Council consensus was to support failed compliance checks being moved to a Level II violation. Council discussed failed building code violations. Community Development Director Doug Borglund outlined potential violations, such as blocking exits or running extension cords, as violations, but said that for Inspections to go in, it would have to be a significant life-safety concern. Mayor Skogquist said these types of concerns could be addressed outside of the liquor license. Ms. Oehlers explained that renewals go through an inspection process annually now, before any license is renewed. Councilmember Weaver said if we eliminate Level III and now Level I, maybe we should incorporate Level II into something else and just have one criterion. He said failing compliance checks is important, and the severity in Level III should be higher, as this is significant. Council consensus was to leave building code violations as Level II. Councilmember Scott asked how the 30-foot perimeter was determined in Level II. Mayor Skogquist said it was based on the center line of the road and reached parking lots, too, with no dead zones, adding bar owners needed to be responsible for the space outside each bar. An audience member noted bar owners can pick up items outside, and then other items can be blown in when windy. Mr. Lee said the City recognized that this can occur and that the intent is that we all work together to pick up the trash when seen. Mayor Skogquist reviewed other aspects of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Lee shared that Halloween 2026 will be on a Saturday and suggested, instead of being overwhelmed like we were this year, to make it an event instead and November 24, 2025 (Worksession) Page 13 of 18 partner with the bar owners and provide structure and things to do for people, such as more lighting, street closures, Porta-A-Potties, etc. He also shared the possibility of implementing ramp parking charges, such as $5 on Friday and Saturday nights, to help offset costs to maintain the downtown area, such as public restrooms on Jackson Street. He said we should be taking advantage of this great opportunity to attract people to Anoka. An audience member said parking fees will hurt businesses and suggested using the charitable gambling funds instead, then suggested an outside organization, such as a band, could contribute to these costs as well. Ms. Oehlers said this ordinance will likely be before the Council at the December 15 meeting. An audience member asked if he would be cited for letting people leave with water, as he doesn’t want to have the expense and litter with plastic bottles. Chief Youngquist said officers haven’t taken any enforcement action to date with water, but said the letters were intended to notify bar owners of actions being seen and that they will likely do compliance checks that include leaving with alcohol after 10:00 p.m. 3.3 Discussion: Green Haven Phasing Plan. Enterprise Operations Director Kevin Morelli shared a background report stating that at the September 29, 2025, special worksession, Council discussed the visioning of Green Haven. Council gave staff direction to prepare three different phase options for future improvements at Green Haven, along with showing a plan to pay for the improvements to be presented for discussion at a future worksession. He shared three different phase options, including course improvements only; Bunkers, cart paths, and tee box replacements; construction of a driving range and two holes relocated; and total golf course improvements, which would combine Options #1 and #2. Historic Green Haven Golf & Event Center has existed since 1937 and is one of the only golf courses in the region that does not have a driving range and has not had significant improvements in the past 30 years. Not having a driving range limits staff from being able to work with youth to help grow the game of golf at Green Haven. Over the past 30 years, there have been anywhere from 32,000-42,000 rounds of golf played, leading to significant wear and tear to the bunkers, cart paths, and tee boxes. Council shall be aware that staff will provide an update about the consideration of a proposed new trailway along the alignment around the proposed M/I Homes of Minneapolis development in the Highland Park neighborhood. He shared the financial impacts of each option in detail, adding that projections show that by 2030, we would have additional revenue of $620,000 to cover any debt service payments. Ms. Springer explained how 2025 was used as a base year for these projections, adding that while this could be different if there is extensive rain, they wanted to November 24, 2025 (Worksession) Page 14 of 18 use a conservative number of rounds, especially with a new driving range and new revenue projections. Mr. Morelli noted the proposed increases were minimal but still in line with other courses, then shared a possible schedule for the proposed improvements, including clean-up of the former Buldoc property. Councilmember Weaver asked about plans for 2026. Mike Brual responded we likely couldn’t get a contractor by 2026 as this was a tight market but if approved would try as sooner would be better. Ms. Springer explained we would proceed with a reimbursement resolution first for 18 months, do the project, then reimburse ourselves with the bond proceeds. Mr. Morelli outlined impact landing zones on Holes 15 and 16 and the danger to trail users. Councilmember Weaver suggested we do the trail work in 2026. staff agreed, stating other work that could be done would be ash tree removal. Mr. Nelson said the trail authorization is scheduled for Council consideration on December 1 and that funding could come from the sale of the land. Councilmember Scott clarified that the projections were net revenue. Mayor Skogquist confirmed additional fees would be charged for a few years without any improvement to the bunkers. Ms. Springer said that was correct, but noted golfers would see the construction and know more was coming. Mayor Skogquist said while he appreciated all the work, he felt timing was not appropriate for Phase II at this time. He said we have other needs to be addressed and was not sure if the increased fees would cover the $7 million cost. He said he supported doing Phase I but not Phase II. Councilmember Weaver said that if we bond for Phase I only, we will have the necessary additional revenue to pay those bonds. Ms. Springer said we’d have $245,000 by 2028, which would be close to covering the $274,000 cost, adding that we’d need to know when the Council was interested in starting Phase II, as there were some cost efficiencies with constructing both phases at the same time. Councilmember Weaver supported doing both phases and starting the trail now. He said the course needs to be sustainable into the future, and if these estimates are conservative, it could be even better, adding that golfers should pay for the course, not the residents. He said if done, Green Haven will become a destination place and make it a premier course that will drive energy into the restaurant and downtown as well. November 24, 2025 (Worksession) Page 15 of 18 Mayor Skogquist said taxpayers are already subsidizing the course by buying property for this project. He said we have many needs to balance and can’t vote to borrow $7 million. He said the costs used to cover the range and other improvements were $2 and $4 increases, and that the driving range didn’t cover all that, and not paying for itself would just be a continuation of increased fees. He said the main issues being addressed in Phases I and II are additional amenities. Economic Development Commissioner Andrew Boho commented that we won’t get our money back from the Buldoc property purchase and didn’t see how we could make the course more competitive. He said we could sell the course and make it private, but that the City is giving serious consideration to a community center now, and what happens if a future Council doesn’t support that 60 years from now, because the same thing will happen. He said the course needs to remain and be viable. Councilmember Campbell supported Phase I only, as well as we have other obligations to address, and we need to be more fiscally conservation on Phase II in 12-18 months. He said he was not opposed to Phase II and was pleased the range didn’t include nets, which is good for aesthetics, but said he is not ready to pay for the range yet. Councilmember Rostad asked for feedback from other Commissions. Commissioner Boho said he was not comfortable sharing others’ feedback but felt many were generally supportive. Mr. Borglund noted the EDC passed a resolution last year in support of these improvements. Ms. Springer noted the bond estimates were based on 15-year bonds and that estimates could be shared for 20 years to create fewer annual debt payments. She said they’d do the same thing for Phase I and wouldn’t bond until the project was significantly complete to save costs. An audience member said the range is a revenue driver, and this is what you need to do to help the course succeed. Councilmember Weaver asked how much work would have to be torn out if we do Phase I only and then decide to do Phase II. Staff stated estimated the costs would be $50,000-$100,000 to redo irrigation, bunkers, paths, and tees on Holes 5 and 6 as well as additional contractor costs. Councilmember Scott said he supported doing both phases, but noted that doing them separately would result in additional bonding costs. He spoke about the risk November 24, 2025 (Worksession) Page 16 of 18 of doing a municipal dispensary and suggested seeing how that goes first before doing another project. Ron Prokott, American Cooperative resident, spoke about the increased revenue from the new homes that will be constructed, who will likely want an enhanced golf course, and shared how Majestic Oaks and Bunker Hills are used for lessons, tournaments, and youth programs, and how this would happen at Green Haven if improved, which would add to the revenue. He shared how people are loyal to their course of choice and how the same thing will happen at Green Haven too, once complete, then cautioned about if privatized, how the course could at any moment be sold off for lots, and the course would be gone forever. Mr. Lee asked when we would bond for just Phase I. Ms. Springer said we could add Phase II at any time after 18 months, and only issue one bond, so the decision doesn’t have to be right now. Mr. Morelli said the new holes on the Buldoc property couldn’t be done because we didn’t own the property at that time, but that work could be done before 2027 to get ready. Councilmember Weaver asked if the new homeowners were expecting course improvements. Mr. Borglund said the developer was expecting improvements, but will still move forward regardless. Commissioner Boho asked about the decreased revenue that could result if these improvements aren’t done, as that is a possibility. Councilmember Scott responded that Phase I would address many of the main complaints about the course. Mr. Morelli noted that many golfers use ranges at other courses and that it would be nice to capture that revenue too. Councilmember Rostad said she supported Phase I and the trail but would like to learn more about the timing of Phase II. She said she had confidence in the staff around their projections, but had some concerns with budget deficits. Mr. Lee summarized support for moving forward with Phase I and the trial, and the direct staff will continue work on Phase II timing for a decision in spring 2026. Councilmember Weaver said he still supported doing both phases at the same time to save those additional costs, adding that the costs will only increase the longer we wait. Mr. Lee asked if it would cost extra if we didn’t plan for both phases at the same time. Morelli said the architect can do work for Phase I and Holes 5 and 6 in November 24, 2025 (Worksession) Page 17 of 18 Phase II to replace the holes removed for the range but that the contractor would be on site for the work and that tying work between the two phases would be beneficial both financially and logistically. Mr. Morelli noted that if we don’t do the new holes, it will delay the range as well. Mayor Skogquist said he was trying to lead by example and that there was the potential option to limit work on the Buldoc property and not have the work ripped out if we decided to move forward with Phase II. Electric Utility Director Del Vancura asked if we would lose customers during construction if we just do Phase I. Mayor Skogquist said the plan was never to close any portion of the course during construction. Staff explained the plan included minimal disruption with partial or temporary hole closures but would occur in the fall and not close the entire course at all. Councilmember Scott asked what the current bonding capacity was for the City. Ms. Springer said Anoka was $40 million from our debt limit and carried a lot less debt compared to other cities, adding that if the project amount was under $10 million, the bond could be bank-certified, resulting in a lower interest rate, too. Council consensus was to move forward with Phase I and the trial and continue to explore Phase II. 3.4 Discussion: Review of Proposed Changes Related to Chapter 22, Article XII Cannabinoid Products and Article XIII Regulation of Adult Use Cannabis Business Operations. Mr. Borglund shared a background report asking that Council review the proposed changes to existing Chapter 22 Article XII Cannabinoid Products and Article XIII Regulation of Adult Use Cannabis Business Operations, and the introduction of regulations that combine the two existing sections of Chapter 22 into one setback of regulations, which was triggered by changes in the licensing process handled by the OCM. He said compliance checks and other oversight would still occur, then noted the hours for sale are consistent with liquor store sales. He spoke about the buffer measurement clarification, which was also being recommended, then said Council action will be requested at the December 1 meeting, as the lower-potency hemp edible retailer licenses are ready for renewal and can’t be renewed unless licensed by the OCM. Mr. Baumgartner explained how the law changed to have the OCM regulate both lower-potency and adult-use cannabis and how it made sense to combine Anoka’s regulation into one section of the City code instead of two. November 24, 2025 (Worksession) Page 18 of 18 9. OTHER BUSINESS None. 10. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilmember Scott, seconded by Councilmember Rostad, to adjourn the Worksession at 8:49 p.m. Motion carried. Submitted by: Cathy Sorensen, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Approval Attestation: Amy T. Oehlers, City Clerk