Anoka City Council

December 8, 2025 (Worksession) Page 1 of 14 WORKSESSION OF THE ANOKA CITY COUNCIL ANOKA CITY HALL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION ROOM DECEMBER 8, 2025 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Skogquist called the worksession meeting to order at 5:00 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; Police Captain Schneider; Public Services Administrator Lisa LaCasse; Assistant City Engineer Ben Nelson; Electric Utility Director Del Vancura; and City Attorney Scott Baumgartner. Absent: None. 3. COUNCIL BUSINESS and/or DISCUSSION ITEMS 3.1 Discussion: Anoka Community Center; Final Feasibility Study Findings. Public Services Administrator Lisa LaCasse, Rita Trapp, Vice-President with HKGi, and Andrew Cooper, President with Oertel Architects, summarized the findings of Phase II of the feasibility study. They discussed the refined concept based on Council direction. Then they shared a background report stating that the City had purchased the real property at 2939 6th Avenue, formerly known as the Miller Manufacturing site or the Lakeland Tool and Engineering, Inc. site. The site includes a 175,750-square-foot structure on a 7.5-acre site within the NorthStar Transit Oriented Development (TOD) District. On April 21, 2025, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing a feasibility study to evaluate the potential reuse of the Miller Building for a community center and approving the agreement with Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. (HKGi) for said study. The study was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 included an evaluation of existing building conditions, needs analysis, and development of high-level alternative concepts for the use of the building. Phase II focuses on a preferred concept and will provide a financial analysis along with the fiscal impacts of the preferred concept. At August 25, 2025, worksession meeting, the consultants and staff presented the preliminary findings of Phase I of the study. The existing structure presents several issues and opportunities that constrain options for reuse, including the locations of existing structural columns, varying ceiling heights, overall building condition, and lack of a HVAC system. The results of the needs analysis survey indicated that indoor spaces are needed from 2:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily for a variety of athletic uses and that November – May is considered peak season for December 8, 2025 (Worksession) Page 2 of 14 indoor use, though some sports require access year-round. There is a need for competition and training spaces for court sports such as volleyball, basketball, etc., but field sports such as soccer, softball, and baseball also need indoor competitive and training spaces in the winter. Council discussion included determining what sport options should be accommodated and specific directions on the type of facility desired (i.e., athletic training/practice, game/tournament play, convertible space, etc.) for further analysis in Phase 2 of the feasibility report. Most of the Council agreed that Phase 1 demonstrated sufficient need to move forward with Phase 2 analysis in preparation for a final report to be presented at this worksession. The Council directed that, in refining the concept, the alternate layout scope was limited to looking at the reuse of Spaces 1 through 3 for indoor facilities. Phase 2 did not need to consider outdoor amenities or needed site changes. The City Council also requested that the cost of the alternate layout be compared to a new construction scenario for a building of the same size, footprint, and with the same uses. The Miller Building, constructed in four phases, presents both opportunities and obstacles. Spaces 1 through 3 are large, open warehouse areas with structural columns approximately every 50 feet, which created a challenging reuse for tournament sports. Space 4 is a former office area that is in poor condition and is not recommended for reuse. Ceiling heights range from 14 to 22 feet, which limits the sports that can be accommodated (e.g., soccer and tennis recommended heights are 35 to 40 feet, basketball and volleyball, the desired minimal ceiling height is 25 feet). A targeted survey of the local athletic organizations showed a clear demand for more indoor recreational, athletic training, and competition spaces. Most programming occurs between 2:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., and sports like baseball and softball face the greatest difficulty securing indoor time with flexible scheduling. Furthermore, a site visit with Anoka Ramsey Athletic Association (ARAA) president indicated that there is a strong demand for volleyball courts as the number of public courts is limited and private options are costly, leading to access/scheduling challenges for the program. Survey results concluded that there is a need for multi-use courts, turf fields, and flexible scheduling. The survey also highlighted seasonal demand patterns, with winter and spring being the busiest periods for indoor use. Overall, the survey found that demand still exceeds supply, especially for flexible, multi- sport spaces. Within a 10-mile radius of the site, 23 indoor facilities offer turf and amenities; 8 of them are within five miles of the City of Anoka. These include public schools, the Andover YMCA, and private sports domes. Amenities at these facilities include features like gymnasiums, walking tracks, and rental rooms. Three alternative building layouts were developed during Phase 1. These concepts considered configurations of uses for three different types of facilities within a community center: field houses, social/community space, and courts/fitness areas. Alternative 1 would reuse the existing building with minimal demolition, converting the warehouse space into turf, court, and social areas. The estimated cost ranges from $21.4M to $37.4M. Alternative 2 would partially reuse space #3, along with new construction for a field house. The estimated cost ranges from $19.6M to $34.4M. Alternative 3 would include full demolition of the existing building and construction of a new community center. The estimated cost ranges December 8, 2025 (Worksession) Page 3 of 14 from $28.2M to $49.3M. The refined Concept and New Construction Phase 2 included a refined concept of Alternative 1 that included seven courts, turf space, batting cages, pickleball courts, an indoor playground, and community rooms. While it maximizes reuse, it also faces limitations: ceiling heights and column placement restrict competitive-level play, and safety concerns remain due to the proximity of courts to structural elements. The estimated total cost for this refined concept is $37.1M. Additionally, the study compared the above refined concept to the new construction of a facility. The new construction comparison concept offers an alternative layout using the same building footprint as the existing building, but without the design constraints of reuse. While this layout assumes new construction, it includes the same facilities as the refined concept. The comparison allows for a layout with a more efficient use of space without the majority of constraints of the building re-use refined concept. The estimated total cost for new construction of a facility is $48.3M. It’s noteworthy to mention that the total cost above does not include outdoor recreation space, parking, or other site improvements. Exploring costs for a potential community center that reuses the Miller Manufacturing building purchased by the City requires looking at both the costs associated with servicing debt and ongoing operations. The refined concept is projected to have a capital cost of $37.1M. Based on preliminary estimates for debt service costs ($2.85M), annual operating costs ($1.62M), and annual revenue ($1.64M), reusing the Miller Manufacturing building for a community center with the design in the refined concept would result in an annual deficit of $2,830,250. The debt service cost above is annually for a 20-year term at a rate of 4.03%. The total bond amounts to include the underwriters’ fees, cost to issue bond, capitalized interest, and construction expense, amounts to $38.67M. This would be an annual debt service payment of $2.85M or a monthly debt service payment of $237,500, and over the 20-year term, the amount paid is $58.04M. Given this, there is further need for careful planning, partnerships, and possibly phased implementation of a community center. If Council decides to move forward, the next steps include a recommendation to conduct a larger, broader community engagement effort, site access and parking analysis, and updated cost modeling that could include structural augmentation options. These steps will help refine the vision and ensure the project aligns with community priorities and fiscal realities. Ms. Trapp recommended that, should the Council wish to move forward at any level, community engagement should be conducted, as this was more of a feasibility study, adding site analysis would be needed as well. Mayor Skogquist thanked the team for the detailed analysis, then asked if the revenue assumptions were based on reuse and the $37 million option and asked if any estimates had been made for new construction. He said that whatever the Council decided to do, this information provided a good base to start. Ms. Trapp said the analysis was based on Council direction and was only completed on the existing building and not any new construction. December 8, 2025 (Worksession) Page 4 of 14 Councilmember Scott said he was pleased to learn that Alternative 2 revenue covered operational costs, stating he wouldn’t be comfortable unless the debt service was addressed. He said he liked the potential for a playground, gym, arts and cultural uses as well, adding that we might need to find an alternative use for this site based on the debt. Councilmember Rostad said it was nice to see fiscal balance, adding that while she loved the vision of what could be in this space, she didn’t think this was the right time to move forward at the estimated cost. She said it was not a good investment at this time and agreed that finding an alternative use, may be helpful. She said we shouldn’t sell the property now, as it will be worth more in the future, and challenged the City to include this structure for other uses at a future date. Councilmember Weaver said the Council approved the refinancing of general obligation bonds last week during the regular meeting as part of the Consent Agenda and asked for the cost of this study. Assistant City Engineer Ben Nelson shared that the study cost $50,000. Councilmember Weaver referred to $12.4 million in bonds due February 1, unless we can defer them as well as the $1.2 million in interest, stating that if adopted in January to defer for three more years, the City will be paying interest on top of interest. He said he didn’t see how this could work and said the property should be sold. He spoke about the vote coming in January on the deferment and how staff shared with him the consequences that could occur should the City default on any debt service, adding that we need to sell this property. Mayor Skogquist asked why Councilmember Weaver voted to purchase the property and then supported demolishing the building. Councilmember Weaver disagreed, stating he voted against purchasing the property as well as demolishing the building, then spoke about how the discussions and voting when former Mayor Rice was on the Council. Mayor Skogquist explained the reasons for not demolishing the building, stating we have options such as lease, reuse, and others, and if the debt service can be paid with lease revenue, why wouldn’t we do that? He said selling may make sense but said we shouldn’t demolish the building as it would result in debt with nothing to show for it, similar to the parking ramp downtown. Councilmember Campbell said this would be an expensive conversion or demolition, and the estimates don’t include the lost tax revenue. He said since the building won’t work as a community center, we should hold a worksession soon to review other options, adding he would support a community center in the future at another location. Councilmember Rostad confirmed Anoka has never failed to meet its financial obligations and said if someone were to lease, there would be revenue for utilities, December 8, 2025 (Worksession) Page 5 of 14 property taxes, etc. She said she didn’t want to see this property sold yet, but wait until there is a compelling, solid development plan. Councilmember Weaver said there was an interested developer at one point, but they were told their concept wouldn’t be considered, so they left. Mayor Skogquist said he heard the same thing occur in Ramsey and stated he was not interested in being a pawn, then agreed we should hold a worksession to consider the rental of this site. Councilmember Scott said when the Council decided to consider this site, there was a concept with Gramercy to redevelop this entire area. He said he was glad we didn’t demolish the building because now we have options, noting that we’ll likely have to redo roads and infrastructure, though. He said about something being built just north of the ramp, which was why we purchased the site in the first place, then shared the unanimous voting record for this action in June 2023 because the City was under the impression there was a major redevelopment occurring, which didn’t happen. He said the City could default on any debt at any time, but that we’ve worked very hard, and if that happened, we’d have options available to refinance, and felt the earlier statements were creating a lot of fear mongering. A member of the audience spoke about the future of the courthouse. (inaudible) Mayor Skogquist noted the City was starting to get some interest in this area and concluded a worksession in January should be held regarding the reuse of space. Mr. Lee recommended that Council proceed with the refinancing bond in January and suggested a work session in February or March, as we do have parties interested in this site, but will need 60-90 days to finalize those options for potential leasing. Councilmember Campbell suggested including options with David Weekley Homes or other developers, too, during that worksession. 3.2 Discussion: Developing Protocol and Procedures for Dealing with Unhoused Individuals, Individuals with a Substance Abuse Disorder, and Individuals Experiencing Mental Health Challenges. Mr. Lee shared a background report stating that the topic of addressing issues and establishing set protocols and procedures for those in our community who may benefit from additional assistance is something that the City Council may want to consider. A City goal to consider would be to provide additional assistance not currently provided by other government agencies (i.e., County /State) to those who need it. It should also be a goal for the City to consider establishing processes and procedures that keep the City safe and welcoming to all who live, December 8, 2025 (Worksession) Page 6 of 14 work, and visit Anoka. As a starting point for discussion, the following is a series of potential actions and procedures that the Council may want to consider: discussions with other government agencies, such as Anoka County or the State that have the resources to address such issues; work with emergency housing organizations such as Stepping Stone Emergency Housing, to coordinate services and assistance, provide handouts of contact information of agencies that can assist; provide transportation to various assistance agencies, i.e. Stepping Stone Emergency Housing; hire City of Anoka Social Services employee(s) who specialize in assistance and fill gaps where the County has been ineffective; seeking those that may need assistance in the Historic Rum River District (HRRD) parking ramp and other City owner facilities by developing a standard patrol protocol such as 3:00 a.m. daily review of facilities, station a CSO Officer at HRRD ramp every day at 6:00 a.m. Mayor Skogquist asked for more information on Stepping Stone. Steve Griffiths, Executive Director of Stepping Stone Emergency Housing, shared that they were in the former State hospital and served up to 66 individuals, both men and women. He said they were a residential facility for stays of 24 hours per day, then spoke about their intensive case management and senior citizen services. Mayor Skogquist asked if all 66 beds were available for emergency placements. Mr. Griffiths said they reserve four beds for law enforcement and Hope for Youth referrals, then explained that those placements include a background check for overnight stays that end at 10:00 a.m. unless a bed is available. Councilmember Scott asked about the unmet needs. Mr. Griffiths said they could serve as many as three times their current capacity if we had the resources. Mr. Lee spoke about how the Historic Rum River District (HRRD) is being used as a cold-weather shelter and whether there is a better option that will truly help the individuals in need. He said stairwells are not the best solution and said staff would like to be able to bring individuals to Stepping Stones and create a standard protocol for this process. Councilmember Scott suggested the Miller building could be used to house individuals but said we need more resources than what Anoka can provide. Councilmember Campbell noted the difficulty is that there are individuals who refuse any services, which makes it difficult for the City to address. Councilmember Rostad asked about what the officers need to address these situations. Police Captain Schneider responded how they do what they can, such as help them contact family, friends, or Stepping Stone but stated sometimes the criteria doesn’t fit Stepping Stone, so then their options are limited. He said if an individual is experiencing a mental health crisis, we can transport them to a hospital, but that is only a temporary fix. December 8, 2025 (Worksession) Page 7 of 14 Councilmember Rostad asked at what point their presence becomes trespassing. Captain Schneider said they have trespassed people at times but usually don’t, especially during extreme cold. Mayor Skogquist asked what options are available. Mr. Griffiths said there are not many options available when individuals are making the decision to be outside, adding that we can’t force people to go to Stepping Stone. He added that they also have rules in place that sometimes people don’t want to follow, and then they cannot use their services. Councilmember Scott asked about the adjustments made to incentivize alternative housing, such as closing the ramp from 3:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. Captain Schneider said that has helped a little but noted the individuals come back once the ramp is open again. Councilmember Scott asked about continuing infractions of the City ordinance and what alternatives or escalated process could be taken, such as citations or trespassing. City Attorney Scott Baumgartner explained the difficulties in place when processing someone who is suffering from mental illness who is charged with a misdemeanor, as they must undergo a Rule 20 evaluation to determine their competency to commit a criminal act, and if not, then the charges are dismissed. He spoke about how this is a national problem and the gap between those who can’t be convicted of criminal activity but are not incompetent enough to be civilly committed. Councilmember Scott asked if cities have worked with the League of Minnesota Cities to lobby the Legislature for ways to help identify and fill this gap. Mr. Baumgartner said he is not aware of any lobby work but felt this could be a good step. Councilmember Weaver asked if the Council is willing to allow stairwells to be used as living quarters and said he would support permitting police officers to transport individuals to Stepping Stone if requested. Councilmember Campbell agreed to support transportation even though it is not a permanent solution. Councilmember Scott asked if recidivism is lower than in a standard shelter and if there were opportunities to take advantage of the services offered at Stepping Stone. Mr. Baumgartner spoke about the need for specific criteria for our officers to offer Stepping Stone. December 8, 2025 (Worksession) Page 8 of 14 Mayor Skogquist asked if there were other options outside of Anoka. Captain Youngquist said there are other facilities, but they are likely full as well. Mr. Lee said staff would like to identify shorter-term solutions due to the cold weather season now and the need for cost and restroom facilities where people could be kept warm and safe and then moved out the next morning. Mr. Griffiths said they do have overnight staff and would be willing to discuss some options. Councilmember Weaver shared an experience that occurred last week when a woman was shoveling snow early in the morning, and an individual who was staying outside the courthouse became aggressive towards her and was concerned that someone was going to get hurt if this activity was allowed to continue. Mayor Skogquist said we need to continue to work with Anoka County, as their case management hasn’t been working well, adding we need to put this in their hands as they are more effective in dealing with these concerns because there is only so much the City can do. Mr. Lee said he has spoken with other cities that have embedded social workers in place and will share their perspectives with the Council. An audience member asked if an individual couldn’t be arrested if intoxicated or high. Mr. Baumgartner responded that an arrest could occur, but probable cause would have to be determined first, and then the same process would occur regarding competency. An audience member asked if Stepping Stone was an overflow facility. Mr. Griffiths said overflow was done during COVID but has not occurred for the last two and a half years. Council consensus was to allow officers to provide transportation for individuals requesting to go to Stepping Stone or a similar facility, explore funding options for restroom facilities and other resources, especially during winter weather, conduct more sweeps, and work with Stepping Stone on other options. Councilmember Rostad asked when the last MTC bus is scheduled, as that may be a better option than a stairwell. Captain Schneider said officers will drive individuals to Northtown if appropriate but added they won’t make the situation become another city’s problem and usually instead provide resources. Mayor Skogquist said it will be important to document these incidents to share with other communities, as well as the County and State, so we can share real data. December 8, 2025 (Worksession) Page 9 of 14 3.3 Discussion: Chapter 10, Article IV, Charitable and Legalized Gambling. Assistant City Manager Amy Oehlers shared a background report at the worksession on November 24, 2025. The City Council discussed amendments to Chapter 10, Article IV, Charitable and Legalized Gambling of the City Code. The Council provided directions to staff on amendments to this section of the City Code. She outlined the amendments, including the waiver process and a review process that would need further discussion and direction by the City Council. Council should also discuss a process that should be followed if an organization fails to meet our Code requirements, i.e., physical office location, quarterly reporting, lawful purpose expenditures, contributions to City-administered funds, local gambling tax, etc. According to the Minnesota Gambling Control Board, should an organization fail to meet our City requirements, it will be up to the City to react to that. Premise permits are issued by the state and are perpetual, and the State will not revoke a premise permit for violation of a municipality’s regulations; however, the City can prohibit the organization from operating gambling activities at a specific location, or City-wide, if the organization fails to comply with our City Code. If the City is interested in having this option, specific language would need to be included in our City Code. She noted that staff have notified gambling organizations currently operating in the City of Anoka and provided notice to Our Lady of Epiphany Foundation regarding this discussion. Attorney Scott Lepak provided clarification and input on any additional language that should be included in the Code. He said there was not a lot of direction from other cities regarding outside organizations, adding that the options are either keep, remove, or tie them to another organization. He outlined options such as being focused on outside entities to limit the ability to operate in Anoka and said the State Gambling Control Board issues the licenses and preferred that cities didn’t further limit their licenses. He said the focus may be best placed on the bars instead, then outlined four options for consideration in detail. Councilmember Weaver asked about the option for when a waiver is given. Mr. Lepak said if the Council stays with Option 2, which doesn’t allow outside organizations, then no further revisions are needed. He said if the Council wanted a time-limited waiver option, then they should consider Option 3 or Option 4. Councilmember Rostad said she was not comfortable having a business owner choose someone on the limited waiver, as they would lose their autonomy. Mr. Lepak said a business would have to have a qualified entity with a one-year break in between. Mr. Lee suggested starting the waiver process again, in case someone else is available to serve. December 8, 2025 (Worksession) Page 10 of 14 Councilmember Rostad asked who determines if there are two qualified organizations. Councilmember Weaver said we would have to start the whole process over to determine that. Councilmember Scott said that if the charitable organization met the requirements for eligibility, it could negate some of the administrative work because, at the end of the waiver period, they would just have the non-eligible organizations to compete with for the lease. Mr. Lepak spoke about the intent to have a waivered organization work to become a qualified organization before their waiver expiration. Councilmember Rostad noted there are several organizations now, but we’re not clear whether they are meeting requirements, such as meeting location, and said no organizations may be currently compliant. A member of the audience asked when this would become effective if adopted, then said the City wouldn’t need to be concerned about outside entities if the 10% contribution clause was adopted. Mayor Skogquist said the 75% expenditure must be spent in the trade area, such as an adjacent city, and that the soonest this could be in effect would be the end of January. Bob Erickson, Anoka Ice Arena, suggested the contribution of net profits didn’t need to start at 10%, but could be lower and could be increased in the future. He said the City didn’t need that much funding for concerts in the park and asked if organizations would be highlighted at events, as they would then become sponsors. Mayor Skogquist said that the suggestion could be included in Council discussions. Mayor Skogquist confirmed the proposed amendment included the ability to reapply as outlined for a waiver for a specific number of years, and then the bar could say they either need other options, or the organization could reapply, and if they don’t, they could lose that revenue source for another local organization. Mr. Lepak asked how many years the Council would like to see the waiver set at. Council supported renewing the waiver every three years. Councilmember Weaver asked who would be eligible for a waiver. Mayor Skogquist outlined that the proposed amendment stated the criteria would be based on an organization’s main office location, such as the trade area. Councilmember Weaver asked if an organization was in a city that didn’t allow an Anoka-based business to hold a premises permit, would they be granted a waiver? Mayor Skogquist, they would then be considered under Option 3. Councilmember Campbell said we still haven’t clarified the situation we are in now and said he didn’t want to force a business owner to have to partner with someone they didn’t want to partner with. December 8, 2025 (Worksession) Page 11 of 14 Mr. Erickson said they have an option, but the City is saying that a bar owner can’t partner with them, which could result in them not being able to offer charitable gambling. Rick Wesp said three large organizations can conduct charitable gambling for any bar in Anoka, so statements saying they can’t handle the volume are incorrect, and he wasn’t sure where that information was coming from. Councilmember Rostad said she didn’t think it was the Council’s place to direct who to do business with. Councilmember Weaver agreed but said we need clarity and support by changing the term to trade area, as it is cleaner. Mayor Skogquist said the third change, Option 3, is outside of the trade area. Councilmember Weaver said he wouldn’t support that waiver unless there is an exception because a bar didn’t have anyone else available. Mr. Erickson asked if the Council could guarantee any opening to an Anoka organization because if they don’t honor a waiver, that’s what will happen. He said all this happened because a mistake was made that was not being owned up to. Mayor Skogquist said he supported the additional contributions because gambling shouldn’t be subsidized by the taxpayers and should be offset with .1% tax and the 10% contribution to offset costs. He said Council will have to make tough decisions, but added that if there is no good scenario, we should have the opportunity to deny another waiver. Councilmember Weaver said he didn’t mind the waiver if no other organization in the trade area was interested but said we have a situation with an outside organization that started this discussion, and he was not interested in supporting that at all. Councilmember Scott asked how we get there, though, because having the other requirements diminishes outside organizations from coming in. Councilmember Weaver said some exceptions should be allowed. Mr. Lepak said there will likely not be a high number of organizations under Option 3, as they will be too far out of their area to spend their proceeds. Ms. Oehlers clarified proposed changes in Section 10-92 that if a majority of the Council wanted the outside organization to remain, they could obtain a waiver for an additional three-year period. Councilmember Rostad noted the number of youth who play sports, that are from Anoka, is quite small and that these changes should be focused on the trade area, December 8, 2025 (Worksession) Page 12 of 14 as it is much bigger than the City of Anoka, adding that being punitive to entities that don’t include Anoka is short-sighted. Councilmember Weaver said ARAA has a lot of youth in Ramsey, but they attend Anoka High School, which is Anoka-based. A member of the audience (inaudible) spoke about the traffic they bring to the City through gambling and tournaments, adding that other organizations host tournaments at the ice arena, and that Council should review the 10%. A member of the audience spoke about how their work brings people from outside Anoka, and that girls’ hockey is both Anoka and Champlin youth, and how this needs to be more than just Anoka. She spoke about the need for ownership and being happy with the organization’s service, and that they will pay the 10% whether they fall into the trade area or not, as it is very large already. She said this would provide more opportunities and asked the Council to be open- minded to outside organizations. Mr. Erickson agreed but noted that other cities don’t allow them to operate in their cities, which prevents them from recovering those losses. He said they would love to market themselves and were confident they’d have more places, but weren’t allowed to operate in other cities, and that Anoka needs to protect them by allowing them to stay here. Brian Lindberg, Anoka Ice Arena, asked about the proposed gambling tax and contribution. Mayor Skogquist explained that these are both allowed by statute and are used to fund activities in the City. He said thousands of dollars are brought to Anoka and surrounding entities, and that these funds could be used in many ways but noted they could affect contributions or the Anti-Crime Commission. Mayor Skogquist said he supported the proposed 10% contribution. Councilmember Rostad said the proposed total was only $98,000 and that we spend three times that amount on concerts, Anoka Halloween, the tree lighting event, and others. Brian Lindberg, said they have been supportive of the City for many years and that the ice arena has operated since 1981 and was an asset to the City. Councilmember Campbell said we could amend the proposed percentage to something lower, such as 7%. Councilmember Weaver said he would consider reviewing the percentage, then noted the ice arena was paying an electric bill to the City, which is a major expense. He said he was still not clear on how an organization can replace an established organization that isn’t allowed in another city and said that definitions of local organizations will be important. December 8, 2025 (Worksession) Page 13 of 14 A member of the audience said it would be a legitimate business decision if someone wanted to change to a different organization. Mr. Lepak shared the proposed definition of a local organization. Councilmember Weaver, what happens to Option 3 if the bar doesn’t like the organization already here? Then they asked where they have to spend their funds. Mr. Lepak explained the process, adding that it will always be the Council’s decision and that the organization would have to spend 75% of its proceeds in the trade area, contribute 10%, and the local gambling tax of 1/10% as a lawful purpose expenditure if approved. Councilmember Weaver said it will be important to differentiate between “shall” and “must,” as that will be challenged, then said we shouldn’t grant a waiver if other organizations want to conduct gambling for a location and stressed the importance of being Anoka first. Councilmember Rostad said that action could result in taking away a business’s choice and that she wouldn’t support telling businesses what they can do. Mr. Baumgartner clarified that before a waiver could even be considered, the organization would have to go through the various options. Mr. Lepak said the waiver only applies once an outside organization is involved and is based on the definition, and that “may” would apply to those outside the local organization definition. Councilmember Scott said he hoped all participants operated in good faith and in the spirit of what the City is trying to do. He said while we can’t direct businesses who they work with, he hoped they did enough in this ordinance to get to the spirit and the 75% trade area. Mayor Skogquist said the term “may” was needed because circumstances in getting to the waiver level might be different each time. He said he wanted to provide a waiver, so a local bar had a choice, but said the priority was local organizations that met the criteria. Councilmember Scott said he was open to amounts less than the proposed 10% but noted it shouldn’t be too low to not be worth the administrative costs. Councilmember Rostad clarified eligibility criteria included the main physical location in the City and asked staff to clarify that all entities are indeed based in Anoka. Ms. Oehlers referred to the proposed grandfathering of organizations before 2007. December 8, 2025 (Worksession) Page 14 of 14 Council consensus was to summarize the proposed amendments for consideration at the January meeting, including the amendment to the trade area. Mr. Lee suggested an amendment on physical location to include holding most of an organization’s annual meetings in Anoka, to be the majority of official meetings instead. Mayor Skogquist referred to the reporting requirements that will be implemented. Councilmember Weaver said he was still not comfortable with the proposed language, as it included a loophole, and he had just proposed a new tax and the taking of 10% of the profits. Mayor Skogquist disagreed. 9. OTHER BUSINESS None. 10. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilmember Rostad, seconded by Councilmember Scott, to adjourn the Worksession at 7:51 p.m. Motion carried. Submitted by: Cathy Sorensen, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Approval Attestation: Amy T. Oehlers, City Clerk