HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-14-22 CCP
!"#$%
&
'
&
%
()#)*#*)
*+,,
(
-+.+/#*,.01$
(
/+,0
2
/#"##
! 3
3
'
3
(
#
+
*
4&
.
! "#$
%
&
#
' (#
!"#$%
&
'
&
%
()#)*#*)
*+,,
(
-+.+/#*,.01$
(
/+,0
2
/#"##
!"#$%&
$&
%%
'
%
3
!4%
2
.
&
5
%
5 %
&
5
%
'
% %
%%
! 3
%
!
6
'
3
''
!4%
2
'%
&
'
%
'
'
%%
!
'
'
3
5
5
%
5
%
'
5'
5
%
5!7
%
%
!$
'
%
5
!
' (!")"
* +,-.///
-
!"#
%
!2
%
5
% %
!'
%%
'%
%
5
%
!$
5&
%&
8
'
!
%5
'
39
5
'
:33
:%
!
% ,
& 0+-
-!
#
(
-++/
-+1&/2
'
33
!
%
'
3
;
&
&
'
'3
3
!
! %%&'
! %%&'
!
%
75$
'
<
2
$
%&
$8
=!#"#)""#""/
#>
&
%&
.&
%&
!
" #
$
% & ''" '" '(" ' "
)
*
"
+
,#
-(
*,#
!
%%&
<
?@
'A
$
3'
%'
%&
'%
'.&
=B$
&
=%% &
=C
!.
/$
*
0
-(
*&1$*&
+
&
2
!
$=
4
&'
3
$%
D5
3
+
3
4
'!
%%&
$D$
3'3)
%%
."D
3
53
$
5$
6630 0
(-'5
0
0
) 0//30!/3,!-/3/
4 05!6-/
%
%
!'
'
3
5
5
%
5
5'
5
%
5
!7
%
%
!$
'
%
5
!
7 0-///
8 !/+/
!
4
3%
#'
33
'4
$
%%&
$
'
4
B/.
C
0
0
3
!,
'
+9
!
"#$" %
&' &()
!
*
)#&+ ,,-.
/
0
))12!03
.45 4 (4
,,-(0-
(
%
%
%
!
,56
""#$"
,5 #, ,
7*)
2
&*,
))
2
&*,
)
2
&*,
1/24/22 -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
WORK SESSION
JANUARY 4, 2022
VIA ZOOM
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Work Session called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at
5:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence-
Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, Community
Development Director Meg Beekman, and City Clerk Barb Suciu.
CONCEPT OPPORTUNITY SITE PILOT PROJECT - CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW
City Manager Reggie Edwards introduced the item and noted Council had asked for the topic to
be discussed further.
Community Development Director Meg Beekman explained there has been an issue with having
enough time to discuss the project. The project has changed in scope over time, and the
development team is taking unique approaches. The purpose of the meeting is for the Council to
have their questions regarding the projects answered. Also, the staff is hoping to hear from the
Council about their priorities and how Staff should move forward with the process.
Ms. Beekman explained Alatus has formally partnered with Project for Pride in Living (PPL) and
Resurrecting Faith World Ministries. She noted members of the development team, compromised
of the three separate organizations, are available to speak.
D’Angelos Svenkeson, Founder and CEO of NEOO Partners Inc, introduced himself. He
explained NEOO is an urban real estate development and urban planning firm. From 2017 to
2019, there were initial planning steps which included collective community engagement and a
preliminary plan. Throughout 2021, there was deeper community engagement that was more
culturally in-tune with those who have been left out of development engagement in the past. They
have been working with small businesses and community members to hear a variety of voices.
Mr. Svenkeson stated NEOO will be writing a final engagement report. African Career, Education
& Resource (ACER) will be overseeing the Community Taskforce, and community partners have
been working on programming components. Those materials will be delivered to Staff by
1/24/22 -2- DRAFT
February 11, 2022. Mr. Svenkeson showed an overview of the proposed site plan and a table
outlining the program elements.
Mr. Svenkeson stated they are taking the next 120 days to handle feedback, review the data, and
seek approvals. There will be further engagement opportunities on more specifics of the project
such as infrastructure impacts, design, programming, and financing. He noted other regulatory
bodies will also be involved in the engagement process.
Mayor Elliott noted some Councilmembers have specific questions. He asked Council Members
if anyone had comments or questions.
Councilmember Ryan stated he is interested in hearing about the mixed-rate housing component.
It is a particularly exciting component of the project. Ms. Beekman stated there are three
components of housing in the project, and there are about one-third of each type of unit. There
will be market-rate residential, mixed-income residential, and affordable residential buildings.
Within the affordable housing, there will be some family-oriented units and some workforce-
oriented units. Throughout the process, the team has found a need for more affordable housing.
She noted the more affordable housing and larger family unit sizes are somewhat difficult to
finance.
Ms. Beekman stated the mixed-income component is very unique. The project intends to hit a
mid-market product type. There are very few similar projects happening. Luxury apartments are
being built, and affordable units are being built for those in the 40-60 percent area median income
range. There are very few projects serving those in the 70-100 percent area median income range.
There are no subsidies available for that range, and the rent would not cover the cost of the project.
However, there is a gigantic demand in the market. Alatus has spent a lot of time determining how
to finance the project. She noted one of the investors is mission-driven.
Councilmember Ryan noted he had some concerns about levels of affordability. However, they
are experiencing a time crunch by the developers. Ms. Beekman stated there are a few reasons the
developers would like to move the project along. One concern for the City is the timing involved
with a Tax Increment Financing District. The developers do have financing in place for some
components of the project, so they need to move forward within a certain timeline to retain the
funding.
Councilmember Ryan stated he is concerned that they move forward on the project. He explained
he does not like all of the components of the project, but he understands different constituencies
have different interests. Given the mix, he is willing to accept the differences. The project will
meet the community needs and desires of key decision-makers.
Mayor Elliott asked what 30 percent area median income (AMI) would be. Ms. Beekman stated
a family of four with an area median income of 30 percent would be around $30,000.
Mayor Elliott stated there is a big need for that level of affordability. He asked how many units
would be available at that level of affordability. Nick Dallmeyer, a representative with Project for
1/24/22 -3- DRAFT
Pride in Living (PPL), stated 48 units would be for residents below 30 percent AMI, 147 units for
30-50 percent AMI, and potentially another 55 units for the 50-60 percent AMI.
Mayor Elliott asked how the bedrooms would be distributed. Mr. Dallmeyer stated there would
be 30 three-bedroom units, 15 four-bedroom units, and 115 two-bedroom units. He noted they are
willing to shift on the bedroom allocations. They have seen a need for larger family rental units
in the market, so they would like to maximize the larger unit sizes. They are hard to fit into
buildings, and they are hard to finance.
Mayor Elliott asked if there are occupancy limits. Mr. Dallmeyer stated there is an occupancy
limit within PPL projects, and it is two people per bedroom. He stated he would double-check that
component and give the information to the Council.
Mayor Elliott asked how many units there would be for those with larger than 60 percent AMI.
Mr. Dallmeyer stated there will be zero units in the affordable housing section for those with 60
percent AMI. The mixed-income building that Alatus is doing would have 60 percent AMI units.
Mayor Elliott asked for Alatus’ numbers regarding units and affordability. Barrett Corwin with
Alatus stated they are doing the 60-80 percent AMI units, which would be in the mixed-income
property. Currently, 64 of the units are slotted for the 60-80 percent AMI range to include one-
bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom units. He noted the development team made a point
to distribute the unit sizes amongst the properties. The mixed-income units and the affordable
units are more geared toward families than the market-rate building.
Mayor Elliott asked if the Alatus building is separate from the PPL building. Mr. Corwin
confirmed it was two separate buildings. The market-rate housing building would include some
units with an income cap. Residents would not know which units are which as they are all identical
and interspersed within the building.
Mayor Elliott asked if 64 of the 205 units in the mixed-income building would be 60-80 percent
AMI. Mr. Corwin stated they have about 75 efficiency units in the mixed-income building, none
of which are for the 60-80 percent AMI component. They tried to ensure the 60-80 percent AMI
units would be larger spaces.
Mayor Elliott asked how many affordable residential units there would be. Mr. Dallmeyer stated
there are 250 affordable residential units.
Mr. Corwin noted if they added the 64 60-80 percent AMI to the 250 units for under 60 percent
AMI, there would be 314 total units.
Mayor Elliott asked how it differs from the original proposal. Ms. Beekman stated the initial
starting point was just for a 300-unit market-rate building. The feedback was for there to be
affordable units included in each phase of the site. They have been looking for financing to support
that, which has led them to the current proposal.
1/24/22 -4- DRAFT
Mayor Elliott asked if the buildings in question are within the former Ford site footprint. Ms.
Beekman stated it is a component of those projects. The former Brookdale Square and Brookdale
Ford sites were about 15 acres, and the residential properties do not use all 15 acres. The current
proposal includes a little less than half of the initial footprint.
Mayor Elliott asked if the other plans for the Pilot Site, such as the community events space, would
cover the rest of the 15 acres. Ms. Beekman explained the new roads, community buildings,
stormwater ponds, and public plazas cover the rest of the 15 acres. Ms. Beekman showed the
aerial view of the proposed site.
Mayor Elliott asked what type of conversations have taken place about community ownership.
PPL is going to continue to own and operate its buildings in alignment with its mission. Ms.
Beekman stated there has been a task force leading the development of the Community Benefits
Agreement. That effort has been led by ACER, so they would have to speak to that aspect. There
will be a deliverable ready for the Council within a month or so.
Mayor Elliott stated the community ownership model is moving in the right direction. He asked
if a developer would build the market-rate housing building, would they sell it right away, or is
Alatus a builder and operator. Mr. Corwin stated Alatus’ investment strategies vary from project
to project and depend on the market changes. The properties are located in an opportunity zone,
so they anticipate they will be involved for about ten years. They have stayed in deals for a range
of years, but they are currently looking at a long-term hold.
Mr. Corwin noted Alatus does not currently have a management company, but they are very hands-
on with managing their properties. They would have a staff member overseeing the asset,
implementing the vision, and preserving the goals of the project. He added they would have a
management company oversee the mixed-rate housing buildings as well for continuity within the
site.
Mayor Elliott asked if the public plaza would be owned by the Economic Development Authority.
Ms. Beekman stated they are still deciding if it would be a public or private street. They are public
spaces. The childcare center and event center would be owned by Resurrecting Faith Ministries.
Mayor Elliott noted Resurrecting Faith Ministries is a mission-driven organization.
Mayor Elliott asked Cornell Lewis, a representative with Resurrecting Faith Ministries, to speak
to the vision of the childcare center and event center. Mr. Lewis stated they intend to stay there as
long as possible. They look forward to the affordable housing component and the community
aspect of the project. They hope to build up Brooklyn Center and plan on being a major part of
the community.
Mayor Elliott stated if there is an opportunity to liquidate the properties, he would like to see
something in the community benefits agreement for a local entity to have an opportunity to acquire
the property. He added he would like there to be a strong presence of public streets and roadways
for the public to access the area as well as car-free zones to allow for people to access the space.
1/24/22 -5- DRAFT
Mayor Elliott asked how the public art and pond would be accessible to the public. Ms. Beekman
stated one of the deliverables from the development team will be a series of overlay plans, one of
which will be transportation-focused. There will be a new regional trail as part of the project.
Through the site, there is a network of pedestrian and bicycle connections. Those trails may not
be publicly owned, but the City would require public access to those trails. The stormwater pond
is meant to be an amenity and create a beautiful space to be connected to a larger network of trails.
The development team has spent a lot of time on the topic as it is a priority for the project. There
will be more detail from the design team about how crosswalks will look and how they can be
pedestrian-centric.
Ms. Beekman stated it is a fairly tight site. The public plaza spaces would be car-free. Eventually,
a roadway will be utilized throughout the entire development that prioritizes pedestrians and
bicycles. She noted it would be more similar to European streets than how Americans are used to
seeing roadways.
Councilmember Graves noted she has a thorough understanding of the distribution of types of
housing. She stated she has questions about the incubator space and the event space, though they
are curiosities more than concerns. She asked for Staff to connect her with Resurrecting Faith
Ministries. Councilmember Graves added she is looking forward to hearing from Public Works
about the connectivity of the space. She thanked everyone for their work on the project and their
willingness to work with the community.
Councilmember Ryan stated his priority for the project is to have a successful project with high
value that addresses community needs and attracts future high-value projects to improve the long-
term financial standing of the City. He added they should consider more market-rate housing in
the future.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson noted the project has evolved a lot over the past two years.
The Council is always looking at the long-term vision and wants to be inclusive of people with all
income levels. She wants there to be opportunities for residents of all income levels to contribute
to the economy and to have a balanced community. Considering how much the project has
changed even in the last two years, the Council needs to look at the needs of the City in the coming
years. The individuals they are working with need to have a long-term vision as well.
Councilmember Butler thanked the presenters for the information. Most of her questions have
been answered. She has more questions about the event center, and she would like to connect with
Resurrecting Faith Ministries to discuss the vision further.
Mayor Elliott stated people move to Brooklyn Center because of its affordability. Affordability
doesn’t mean they cannot build a thriving economy. If they provide affordable housing, it allows
residents to grow their incomes and community involvement.
ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no objection, Mayor Elliott adjourned the City Council Work Session at 6:10 p.m.
1/24/22 -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
JANUARY 24, 2022
VIA ZOOM
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at
6:11 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence-
Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, Community
Development Director Meg Beekman, and City Clerk Barb Suciu.
CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS
City Manager Reggie Edwards requested they add a presentation regarding Carvana for the
Economic Development Authority meeting. City Clerk Barb Suciu stated Commission
Consideration Item 4a. 1601 James Circle Development Concept and Consideration of Letter of
Intent to Purchase EDA Property is related to Carvana. Ms. Suciu explained Dr. Edwards was just
pointed out the original agenda did not include it.
Councilmember Graves asked if they could go into the Economic Development Authority meeting
since there wasn’t anything on the Study Session agenda. Dr. Edwards stated there is one Work
Session item they could address during the Study Session.
MISCELLANEOUS
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she would like the Council to discuss the Friday
updates at a future session. She explained she is concerned about the legal budget. From January
to September of 2021, they spent over $158,000. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she
would like to discuss how much of that money was budgeted for the Council. She noted there was
a portion of the funds allocated for the Implementation Committee.
Mayor Elliott asked if the legal budget breaks down by department. Dr. Edwards stated Staff will
identify where funding originated from, but they do not have a line item list within the Council
budget for legal spending. Mayor Elliott stated 2021 has been an international crisis with the
uprising and other uses for the legal budget. He added he thought they would have spent more
than $158,000 on legal fees.
1/24/22 -2- DRAFT
Councilmember Ryan added he would also like to see that information. He noted there was a
change in practice since Mayor Elliott took office about obtaining legal information. There is an
increase in accessibility to the attorney that has increased the legal spending.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she would like a Work Session. She stated the
$158,000 was only for nine months, and the Friday updates show their monthly legal fees are
almost $16,000. The Council needs to acknowledge that and ensure they are using those funds
appropriately. Dr. Edwards stated he would add the spending from October, November, and
December and return to the Council with a final number.
Mayor Pro Tem Butler stated she recently met with people on the Highway 252 Task Force. She
receives updates via email. She noted she receives a lot of emails daily. She asked if they could
receive a monthly higher-level update from the Highway 252 Task Force. Dr. Edwards stated he
would work with the Highway 252 Task Force regarding her request.
Mayor Elliott stated he is interested in learning more about Council Consideration Item 10b.
Resolution Authorizing Application to Minnesota Management and Budget for $40,000,000 in
State of Minnesota General Obligation Bonds Proceeds for the Community Wealth Creation
through Acquisition Program. He explained he doesn’t want to put it on the Work Session, but
they should be mindful. He noted he feels comfortable moving forward with that Resolution.
Mayor Elliott added he wants to make sure they have enough time to act on the sales tax revenue.
DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS
ALLOCATION OF AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT FUNDS
Dr. Edwards introduced the item and explained Community Development Director Meg Beekman
would present on the topic with him. On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021 into law. The ARPA provides $1.9 trillion in additional relief
to respond to the novel coronavirus. According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds provide a substantial infusion of resources to
help turn the tide on the pandemic, address its fallout and lay the foundation for a strong and
equitable recovery. The City of Brooklyn Center received a total allocation of $3,200,000, with
half the funds received earlier in 2021 and another half available to be requested in 2022.
Dr. Edwards explained when Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) funds
were made available in 2020, the timeline to spend down those funds was very short. As a result,
most of the funding went to cover costs incurred by the City or were otherwise focused internally.
Funding supported a variety of projects including HVAC system upgrades, employee wages, small
business support, food shelf operations, and community innovative initiatives. The City abided by
several principles including erring on the side of safety of staff and the public, recovering or
reimbursing the City for expenditures made in response to the COVID-Pandemic, helping residents
survive, respond and thrive beyond, up to 18 months, the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Dr. Edwards stated, similar to CARES Act funding, similar principles for the use of ARPA funding
were established. An inter-department group of Staff initially met to begin discussing the use of
1/24/22 -3- DRAFT
funds, the process for allocation, and a framework through which funding decisions would be
made. The intent of the principles was intended to serve as a guide for the City’s expenditure of
the ARPA funding. The principles include: serving a clear and direct public purpose and benefit,
taking measures that err on the side of improving the safety and health of Staff and the public
related to the COVID-19 pandemic, bolstering long-term communication capacity between the
City and its residents, promoting public health through the encouraging of vaccines, COVID-19
awareness in general, bolstering communications throughout the City related to events, facilities,
accessibility, and services, enhancing communication for various emergency and safety
campaigns, and potential reimbursement for operational financial hardship.
Dr. Edwards added another principle is maximizing the use of funds to invest and increase capacity
within the community to recover and thrive beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. In year one, there
would be a 60 percent community investment and 40 percent operational investment. The second-
year would be a 70 percent community investment and a 30 percent operational investment.
Dr. Edwards explained further guiding principles include using funding in a manner that provides
long-term, multi-generational wealth-building and economic stability, using funding in a manner
that lowers the overall tax burden of residents, and ensuring any new programs developed or
funded with ARPA funds will have an identified sustainability plan for how they will continue
after the funding period is over. With the framework established, City departments and community
partners were asked to identify possible uses of funds, using the established guiding principles as
a matrix.
Dr. Edwards stated in the summer of 2021, the City convened a group of community stakeholders
to develop a framework for a new direction for the City. The result of that work was a report
entitled Evolving Brooklyn Center: A Community-Centered City, and it formed the basis for
funding requests to several philanthropic organizations. As part of a follow-up to this work, the
group was reconvened over two meetings to provide input and guidance on the use of ARPA funds.
Dr. Edwards noted during their initial sessions, this group of community stakeholders identified
four key areas that were critical to stabilizing the community and initiating real change. These
areas were around public safety and security, economic development, public health, and
community life resources such as food and housing. These four areas were carried forward into
the ARPA funding discussions as a way to identify priorities and ensure that the funds were being
used most effectively.
Community Development Director Meg Beekman stated during their first meeting, the community
stakeholders learned about the ARPA funding program, the established guiding principles, and the
programs and projects that had been proposed previously. The group identified gaps in the
program proposals and discussed key areas of focus. At their second meeting, the community
stakeholders worked together to come to a consensus on priorities for the use of the funds and the
programs to be funded. The input gathered from the work determined the funding priorities
included in the ARPA Funding Plan.
Ms. Beekman stated, based on the program priorities identified by the community stakeholder
group, the Staff has prepared a proposed ARPA Investment Plan. The investment plan includes a
1/24/22 -4- DRAFT
mix of internal and external funding programs and allows flexibility in terms of what program year
the funds will be delivered in.
Ms. Beekman explained out of the community engagement process and through the work of
identifying program funding, several themes arose around which ARPA-funded initiatives
revolved. The funding focuses on programs that build capacity through leveraging existing assets
in the community, strengthening partnerships and investing in the community, center economic
development, and youth, and building community. A majority of the youth and economic
development programs and initiatives that were prioritized through the community engagement
process involved a focus on multi-generational wealth building and youth engagement. The
process to create the ARPA investment plan was embedded in the community, and involved
community-based visioning. The funding centers around strengthening community partnerships
and resources.
Ms. Beekman stated last year, the City received CARES Act funding, which was intended to
provide relief from the effects of the pandemic. These funds were distributed to communities with
a very short timeline for spending them down, and with very little guidance in terms of how
spending would be tracked. As a result, most of the funds were utilized internally to the City to
provide recovery and make building and facility improvements. A smaller percentage of the funds
were allocated externally and provided direct relief to small businesses in the community and
organizations providing direct community services.
Ms. Beekman noted one of the guiding principles of the ARPA funds was to utilize a large
proportion of the funds externally and to build capacity within the community. The proposed
ARPA Investment Plan utilizes 75 percent of the funds externally and 25 percent of the funds on
internal projects and revenue recovery.
Ms. Beekman added the ARPA Investment Plan is intended as a roadmap and guideline for how
ARPA funds will be allocated. Funds are received over two years, and Staff will move projects
forward based on available funds and program timing. Staff proposed the idea to provide an annual
report to the City Council regarding the use of the funds and program implementation. The ARPA
Investment Plan allows for flexibility over time. Ms. Beekman added adjustments may need to be
made as more information becomes known about individual initiatives.
Ms. Beekman showed a table with the ARPA funding plan. Workforce development programming
would be done in partnership with local organizations. There would be sub-grants provided to
community partner organizations to deliver workforce development training, further develop the
Youth Entrepreneurship Program and an Expansion of BrookLynk Services and programming,
connecting higher barrier youth and Black Indigenous Person of Color job seekers to jobs, and a
Career Pathways Program focused on adult workforce development. She noted those programs
are to be done in partnership with Brooklyn Park.
Ms. Beekman noted there is an emphasis on youth outreach and engagement to contract with
community partners to establish a Youth Outreach team, develop Youth on Boards, facilitate
online and in-person youth outreach to enhance, and expand youth and family participation, and
engagement. She added the Funding Plan includes a Commercial Property Development Fund to
1/24/22 -5- DRAFT
establish a fund to support local small businesses with the acquisition of bricks and mortar real
estate.
Dr. Edwards asked Council if they would like Ms. Beekman to continue with the remaining 15
minutes of the presentation or if they would like to continue to Open Forum. Mayor Elliott stated
they will continue to Open Forum.
ADJOURN STUDY SESSION TO INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL
Hearing no objection, Mayor Elliott closed the Study Session at 6:48 p.m.
NOTE: Following the Regular Session, Mayor Pro Tem Butler indicated she had spoken with Dr.
Edwards, and they agreed the topic of funds was not time-sensitive. Given the late hour, this
discussion was continued to a later meeting.
1/24/22 -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
REGULAR SESSION
JANUARY 24, 2022
VIA ZOOM
1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL
CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Informal Open Forum called to order by Mayor Mike
Elliott at 6:48 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence-
Anderson, and Dan Ryan were present. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, City
Engineer Mike Albers, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, City Clerk Barb Suciu,
and City Attorney Troy Gilchrist.
Mayor Mike Elliott opened the meeting for the Informal Open Forum.
Paul C. explained he is a resident of Brooklyn Center. He voiced his support in changing the name
of the Event Center to no longer honor Earle Brown. Earle Brown was a prominent citizen in the
early 20th century. He was a farmer, sheriff, and highway patrolman. Being a prominent historical
figure does not entitle a person to be honored. The public now knows he was a member of the Ku
Klux Klan due to his own sworn testimony. Earle Brown claimed he infiltrated the group as a
police officer to know their happenings, but there is no proof of that.
Paul C. added Earle Brown was once the Vice President of the Minnesota Eugenics Society. They
should no longer honor a man with that legacy. Brooklyn Center’s greatest asset is its diversity.
Some people say they cannot change history and Earle Brown was a man of his time. However,
George Leach, Mayor of Minneapolis at that time, stood up to the Klu Klux Klan publicly and did
not allow police officers to join the Klu Klux Klan. George Leach was a man of his time. Paul C.
implored the City Council to consider the legacy they want to employ for Brooklyn Center.
Lori B. noted she did not ask to speak but still would. She thought they had already decided on
the names of buildings and streets related to Earle Brown, and it is disheartening to hear it is still
in consideration. If people have concerns about erasing history, they can add teaching about Earle
Brown in the schools or have a plaque reflecting what Earle Brown did. She pointed out that the
Klu Klux Klan still exists, and they should not be celebrating it.
Randy C. explained he is a resident of Brooklyn Center and has been for 25 years. He stated the
mission of Brooklyn Center is to ensure an attractive, clean, safe, and inclusive community that
1/24/22 -2- DRAFT
enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust. The vision is to see
Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural
and recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home,
and visitors enjoy due to its convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment.
Randy C. urged the elected officials to reread the mission, vision, values, and strategic priorities
of the City. He asked what their goals should be regarding housing. He asked how the Council is
enhancing the image of the City.
Randy C. added he hopes the Council will work through the naming of the Earle Brown facilities
and consider all residents’ opinions. Earle Brown’s involvement in the Klu Klux Klan needs to be
considered in the context. Earle Brown wanted to be on the inside of the powerful group as a law
enforcement officer to counteract its efforts. Randy C. added he appreciates the community
coming together to discuss the topic.
Mayor Elliott stated the Council already gave direction on the renaming of the Heritage Center,
and they have already been receiving name suggestions. The Council is waiting to hear from Staff
about community engagement and potential names. He asked if there is a timeline for renaming
the Center.
Dr. Edwards stated the renaming of the Event Center was addressed right before COVID-19 and
the political unrest occurred. They will rename streets and buildings. The staff has looked at
names for the Heritage Center, and they are prepared to bring the feedback back to the Council.
He added he has additional information regarding the history of Earle Brown. Staff will do some
more research before providing a proposal to the Council.
Mayor Elliott stated the Council has already given direction to the Staff to engage the community
regarding new names. He noted the Staff was supposed to return to the Council with names. He
asked if they worked with a consultant regarding new names. Dr. Edwards confirmed they spoke
with a marketing firm about potential names for the Heritage Center.
Mayor Elliott stated they paid for a consultant and engaged the community. He asked if when
Staff presents to the Council, will they present names and results of the meeting with the marketing
firm. Dr. Edwards stated they have found out information that they want to ensure the Council is
aware of before doing further third-party research and presenting potential names.
Mayor Elliott asked how much they spent on working with the marketing firm. Dr. Edwards stated
they spent $4,000 on the marketing firm.
Mayor Elliott asked what information was uncovered and what role a third-party researcher would
play. He pointed out the direction from Council was for Staff to return with potential names. He
asked if the City Manager has taken it upon himself to research the topic to determine if they
should change the name. Dr. Edwards stated they were going to return to the Council with the
information they have found and then ask for direction from the Council. Staff wants the Council
to make the most informed decisions.
1/24/22 -3- DRAFT
Mayor Elliott stated Staff has more information they want to bring to the City Council. Dr.
Edwards stated they will bring forth the additional information on February 14. They will also
bring more details about the process they have engaged in and findings from the community
engagement. If the information warrants additional research, then the Council can direct Staff to
conduct additional research.
Mayor Elliott asked if the information revealed in the process either supports or dispels Earle
Brown’s involvement with the Klu Klux Klan and the Minnesota Eugenics Society. Dr. Edwards
stated the information is related to that. The information they gathered has multiple perspectives
about Earle Brown that don’t necessarily lean one way or another. Staff will present what they
have found to the Council to see if additional research needs to be done. Dr. Edwards added Staff
would be remiss if they did not present all of the relevant information to the City Council.
Mayor Elliott stated the Council has already given direction to Staff that the name is going to be
changed and Staff should return with names. However, Staff intends to present more information
and ask for more direction. It is the role of Staff to follow the direction of the Council. He noted
he is curious to hear about the process and potential names, and there may be additional work that
needs to be done.
Julie B. noted she is in support of the name change for the Heritage Center. The City needs to
honor the voices that have not been honored in the past. Some voices have been harmed by those
trying to keep the name. When the elementary school changed its name, there likely was research
done by the Department of Education. Brooklyn Center’s Heritage Center cannot be named after
someone tied to such awfulness.
Alfreda D. stated the City has given the staff directive to look for names. She asked if that direction
includes the Heritage Center or everything named after Earle Brown. Mayor Elliott stated the
direction from the Council was to change everything with the Earle Brown name that the City has
control over, including the Heritage Center and the streets. Mayor Elliott stated they will have
name recommendations presented at the meeting on February 14, 2022.
Arvis S. noted he is a 50-year resident of Brooklyn Center. He explained Earle Brown was a man
of his time, just like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson who were slaveowners. Even
Franklin D. Roosevelt was a slaveowner, all are commended for their accomplishments. As a
property owner in the City, Arvid S. explained he is concerned about the costs associated with
changing names and the effects on businesses. If they spend money changing names within
Brooklyn Center, they should also work to abolish the dollar bill and the Washington Monument.
He asked where it stops.
Mayor Elliott stated Washington, Jefferson, and Roosevelt owned other human beings and
enslaved them. They were not slaves; they were people who were enslaved against their will. He
stated that is disgusting. The discussion at hand is what is within the purview of Brooklyn Center.
They are discussing if public spaces would uphold people who were members of the Klu Klux
Klan or in high-level leadership of eugenics organizations. It is not a question. It is resoundingly
clear there is no place to honor those individuals in public spaces. The individual never asked to
1/24/22 -4- DRAFT
have anything named after him. The naming conventions need to be in line with the City’s
collective values.
Randy C. stated he has not seen any appointments for the vacant Planning Commission seat or
other terms that have expired throughout 2019, 2020, and 2021. He pointed out Mayor Elliott has
used the term “hyper-vigilant,” and Randy C. asked Mayor Elliott to be hyper-vigilant about
commission appointments. Randy C. added there are businesses and community places in the City
that are named after Earle Brown.
Lori B. stated the changes stop when White people stop lynching Black and Brown people and
when things are named after the stolen lives that have been taken from the community. They need
to include everyone. White people are the minority in Brooklyn Center, and they need to be
respectful of the majority.
James stated he has lived in Brooklyn Center for eight years. He stated the Highway 252
presentation is important to many people on the meeting call. He noted the current topic is
important, but it is also important to discuss the superhighway that may go through their
neighborhood.
Myrna K. stated the changing of the City places named after Earle Brown should not be left to the
Council. Instead, it should be voted on by the residents. Lori B. stated there was already a vote
on it already. Myrna K. stated she wants the citizens of the City to vote rather than the five people
on the Council. She asked if Mayor Elliott has seen the presentation regarding new names.
Mayor Elliott stated he has not seen the presentation, but he has heard potential names. Myrna K.
stated the proposed names were terrible. Mayor Elliott stated he agrees the proposed names were
terrible, though that doesn’t reflect the opinion of the Council. Myrna K. stated the $4,000 was a
waste. She explained she has seen a lot of changes over her 55 years in Brooklyn Center, but those
changes need to be voted on by the citizens rather than just the Council.
Ms. Suciu noted it was almost 7:30 p.m., and there was a full agenda ahead. Mayor Elliott thanked
Ms. Suciu for her reminder.
Alfreda D. pointed out the issue had already been voted on. Even though it is about a name, it is
also about if the community values the history of Black and Brown people. They need to be careful
about how they talk about it. She stated she has a lot of respect for Myrna K. Aflreda D. stated if
they cannot trust the five people of the Council, then everything should go on the ballot. The
Council was elected by the community, and they include a lot of community engagement in their
decisions.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the
Informal Open Forum at 7:26 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
2. INVOCATION
1/24/22 -5- DRAFT
Councilmember Butler stated she would like to skip her invocation in the interest of time.
3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott
at 7:27 p.m.
4. ROLL CALL
Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence-
Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, City Engineer Mike
Albers, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, City Clerk Barb Suciu, and City
Attorney Troy Gilchrist.
5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to approve the Agenda and
Consent Agenda and the following consent items were approved:
6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. January 10, 2022 – Study Session
2. January 10, 2022 – Regular Session
3. January 10, 2022 – Work Session
6b. LICENSES
MECHANICAL
Absolute Mechanical LLC 7338 Ohms Lane
Edina, MN 55439
Admiral Radon Mechanical 13816 Utah Avenue
Savage, MN 55378
Tim’s Quality Plumbing 225 County Road 81
Osseo, MN 55369
Westair INC 11184 River Road Northeast
Hanover, MN 55341
RENTAL
INITIAL (TYPE IV – six-month license)
1/24/22 -6- DRAFT
5637Ǧ 39 Girard Avenue North Julian Guo
INITIAL (TYPE II – two-year license)
4201 Janet Lane Maria Basurto
RENEWAL (TYPE IV – six-month license)
5553 Aldrich Drive Geri Williams / NJERI Enterprises
LLC
7021 Unity Avenue North Geri Williams / NJERI Enterprises
LLC
RENEWAL (TYPE III – one-year license)
6742Ǧ 44 France Avenue North Xian Lin / Prosperous Property
5901 Aldrich Avenue North Home SFR Borrower LLC
RENEWAL (TYPE II – two-year license)
7111 Riverdale Allan & Vicki Olson
5447 4th Street North Xian Lin / Prosperous Property
3319 66th Avenue North IH3 Minnesota / Invitation Homes
6406 Indiana Avenue North William Coleman
5701 James Avenue North Jagdeep Singh Arora
RENEWAL (TYPE I – three-year license)
Lake Shore Apartments
4809Ǧ 11 Twin Lake Avenue Caroline Ericsson
3818 61st Avenue North Sherman Kho
4101 61st Avenue North Long Xiong
5323 Brooklyn Boulevard Chen Zhou / Cosco Property
6901 Quail Avenue North Xian Lin / Prosperous Property
6c. RESOLUTION NO. 2022-17; APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS,
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2022-01, 02, 03, AND 04, WOODBINE
AREA STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
1/24/22 -7- DRAFT
6d. RESOLUTION NO. 2022-18; APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS,
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2021-12, 53RD AVENUE MILL AND
OVERLAY (PENN AVENUE NORTH TO LYNDALE AVENUE NORTH)
Motion passed unanimously.
7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS
7a. HIGHWAY 252/I-94 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) UPDATE
- INTERIM SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AT 66TH AVENUE
City Manager Reggie Edwards introduced the item and invited City Engineer Mike Albers to
continue the Staff presentation.
City Engineer Mike Albers explained the City is partnering with the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT), Hennepin County, the City of Brooklyn Park, and the City of
Minneapolis on an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Highway 252 and Interstate 94
corridor from Highway 610 in Brooklyn Park to 4th Street in Minneapolis. The project partners
will use the EIS to gain a better understanding of safety and transportation needs in the area and
begin taking a closer look at how a potential construction project could affect the environment
surrounding Highway 252 and Interstate 94. The EIS is expected to be completed in 2024 or 2025
with the selection of one final design recommendation. The EIS work is expected to be
immediately followed by the preparation of design plans with construction potentially starting in
2026 or 2027.
Mr. Albers stated at Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting on October 7, 2021, MnDOT
indicated that they were investigating interim safety improvements to Highway 252 and Interstate
94 that could be implemented before the potential construction project in 2027. MnDOT will
present the full list of alternatives considered for interim safety improvements for Highway 252
and Interstate 94 at the January 27, 2022 PAC meeting. The purpose of this presentation is to
provide the Council an update on a potential interim safety improvement at 66th Avenue and
MnDOT would like to know if the City Council supports the change before MnDOT presents it to
the entire Policy Advisory Committee.
Mr. Albers introduced Jerome Adams, Project Manager with MnDOT, to continue the
presentation. Jerome Adams introduced himself, explained his role, and summarized the purpose
of the presentation. He explained that MnDOT recommends that the eastbound to southbound free
right turn at Highway 252 and 66th Avenue be removed and replaced with a regular right turn lane
that stops at the red light. Right turn on red would be permitted after a stop at the stoplight.
Mr. Adams explained there is currently an EIS underway to evaluate alternatives to improve this
corridor. Mr. Adams stated Highway 252 is killing people. There will be recommended
alternatives for 2024, and the potential construction would be in 2026 or 2027. He pointed out
public comments show that Highway 252 is dangerous now. They want to improve safety as much
as possible now without prejudicing the EIS process. Mr. Adams noted MnDOT has created a list
1/24/22 -8- DRAFT
of interim safety improvements and worked with project partners at the Federal Highway
Administration, City of Brooklyn Park, City of Brooklyn Center, and City of Minneapolis to look
at alternatives.
Mr. Adams stated MnDOT will present the full list of alternatives considered for interim safety
improvements for Highway 252 and Interstate 94 on January 27, 2022, Policy Advisory
Committee. At the current meeting, MnDOT will present only one of those recommendations
because it could be seen as a big change, and MnDOT would like to know if the City Council
supports the change before it presents to the entire Policy Advisory Committee. He pointed out
MnDOT does not have to present the change to them due to established municipality rules, but
they want input from Brooklyn Center.
Mr. Adams showed a picture illustrating a crash cluster in the southwest corner of Highway 252
and 66th Avenue. He then showed an aerial view of the intersection. Mr. Adams pointed out they
have been in a pandemic since 2020. In 2020, they saw traffic on all of the highways decrease,
and there was a corresponding drop in crashes. However, there was not a crash decrease at the
intersection in question. There was the same number of crashes at the corner in 2019 and 2020.
Therefore, there is something unique happening on the corner.
Mr. Adams showed a diagram with the proposed construction of a standard right turn lane at the
signal light. They would remove the concrete island, and the light would be a typical right turn at
the light. He showed an aerial photo with the proposed construction of a standard right turn lane.
Mr. Adams stated the change would be constructed in summer 2023, and there would be no cost
to the City of Brooklyn Center. Traffic modeling shows that the queue at the signal does not reach
the signal at Camden Avenue. Currently, the queue at the signal does block the driveway at
Speedway and Checkers, and that would not change with this proposal. Mr. Adams offered to
answer any questions.
Councilmember Graves asked if the main difference is to remove the concrete island. Mr. Adams
confirmed that is the main difference and cars would have to stop at the red light before turning
whereas people could turn right with the special lane.
Mayor Elliott reminded Councilmembers to share their name before speaking.
Ms. Khan, a member of the Highway 252 Task Force, stated MnDOT has refused to implement
improvements on Highway 252 despite numerous requests, particularly since 2015 and as recently
as 2021. It is indeed a positive and worthwhile step to employ much-needed safety improvements.
Ms. Khan stated she agrees the removal of the free right turn at the intersection in question would
ultimately reduce accidents. However, MnDOT has refused to make other improvements, as
shown in one of their published documents. The options still need feedback from Brooklyn Center,
Brooklyn Park, Minneapolis, and the general public.
Ms. Khan stated there is an explicit bias for only the project alternatives that involve converting
Highway 252 into a freeway. There has been a suggestion of installing reflective backplates and
1/24/22 -9- DRAFT
adding more lane identification signs to improve safety. In the first instance, MnDOT’s
justification is that “the signal’s system likely will be removed shortly,” meaning when a freeway
is constructed. For the second suggestion, MnDOT’s justification is that no signs should be added
“at the time because of the anticipated freeway project,” and that challenges could still exist “even
when the freeway conversion project is constructed.”
Ms. Khan stated the technical advisory document dated December 16, 2021, shows explicit bias
in favor of converting Highway 252 into a freeway, despite MnDOT having said repeatedly in
meetings that they have no preferred project. It is a violation of the National Environmental
Protection Act’s (NEPA) EIS process for an agency to select a favored project during the
community engagement phase of the process.
Ms. Khan stated MnDOT has shown similar explicit bias in converting Highway 252 into a
freeway by developing a Purpose and Need Statement that neglects to address the issues of public
safety, health and environment, community livability, social justice, and equity. Rather, the
Statement stresses transportation issues only. She noted the transportation of goods is highlighted,
which would mean truck traffic on the potential freeway where there is none on the current
highway.
Ms. Khan explained the existing Statement is geared toward selecting a freeway that allegedly
decreases traffic and travel time, but it does not provide a framework for projects that would
prevent vehicle traffic or air pollution. In fact, the information provided through consultants
indicates a six-lane freeway option will double the annual traffic of Highway 252, which is 118,000
cars per day.
Ms. Khan stated she would like to request the Mayor and Council ask MnDOT to revise their
Statement to address issues of public safety, health and environment, community livability, social
justice, and equity. She added she would like full opportunities for public input and community
engagement during the revision of the Statement, which was written without any public input.
MnDOT must consider larger community needs. Ms. Khan added the Council should demand
MnDOT abide by NEPA’s EIS process. She added she would send her statement and the
aforementioned documents to the Council.
Mayor Elliott thanked Ms. Khan for her comments. He asked if Ms. Khan’s comments would be
added to MnDOT’s community comment period collection. Mr. Adams confirmed he would
collect the comments made by Ms. Khan.
Mayor Elliott stated Ms. Khan made some great points about community livability and equity and
non-freeway alternatives. Ms. Khan noted she sent other messages over the last two days that
further explain the situation. Mayor Elliott confirmed he received her messages.
Mr. Cooper, a member of the Highway 252 Task Force, stated the Task Force is pleased with
MnDOT adopting interim measures as the death rates are very high. He stated it was unfortunate
MnDOT did not explain why they rejected alternative solutions. There was a suggestion to protect
left-hand turn lanes as left-hand turn lanes are responsible for many deaths. However, there was
no explanation from MnDOT. He noted it would be a very inexpensive option to impact safety.
1/24/22 -10- DRAFT
Mr. Cooper stated the proposal presented by MnDOT was to maintain the use of a stoplight at the
intersection. The Task Force has been suggesting that option the whole time. The current
intersection is a combination of deadly components. For example, the intersection is less than one-
third of a mile from an interchange. The proposal to cure that issue in the short term is a traffic
light, but their long-term solution is to not have a traffic light there. That is inconsistent because
MnDOT is claiming the entrance lane is causing more accidents. If they have recognized the
entrance lane is causing more accidents, it is inconsistent because adding an interchange down the
line would create an even shorter entrance area.
Mr. Cooper noted Mr. Adams said the accident rate throughout Highway 252 is dropping, but it is
not dropping at 66th Avenue. 66th Avenue is in an inherently dangerous position. The solutions
proposed by Mr. Adams are not very comprehensive, though it is pleasing to see MnDOT has
come up with other proposals. However, the Council has suggested similar proposals for quite a
few years. Nonetheless, it is a step forward, and they need to emphasize it is a step in the right
direction. Mr. Cooper added the City Council should ask why proposals are being rejected as they
review the options.
Mr. McCarthy, a member of the Highway 252 Task Force, stated the suggestion by MnDOT is
minimal. He asked if crash test studies were done at the current layout. If so, he asked what
benefits were shown.
Mr. Adams stated the specific recommendation about removing the free right turn has not included
a crash model or crash study. Instead, they are using their engineering judgment and experience.
He stated the recommendation was specific to the intersection of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue.
There is a different free right turn at the intersection that MnDOT doesn’t see the need to change.
Unique circumstances for the current free right turn to be dangerous include a nearby bus stop.
Mr. McCarthy asked if there are tools available for the recommendation. He noted he is an
engineer, and he utilizes data rather than gut feelings. He asked if they considered moving the
interchange further away from the intersection in question to align with current recommended
safety standards.
Mr. Adams stated his presentation covered that issue. MnDOT is doing an EIS, and the process
for selecting a preferred alternative will likely end in 2024. In that process, they are looking for
alternatives for the interchange should there be a freeway. He added there are alternatives for an
at-grade expressway in that process. The alternatives will be presented in the Scoping Decision
document and will be available for a comment period. He noted there would be multiple
opportunities for comment periods beyond that. The current presentation is only about interim
safety improvements.
Mr. Adams added they cannot bias the EIS process, so any improvement has to be relatively minor
and, by definition, have no impacts on the community. He noted he will be presenting a full list
of alternative safety improvements at the January 27, 2022, PAC.
1/24/22 -11- DRAFT
Mr. McCarthy stated interim safety has been part of the process since 2014 and has been advocated
for by residents for far longer than that. However, he reiterated the proposed change is a step in
the right direction.
Mayor Elliott asked what information there is to show them the potential impact of the proposed
intersection change for the free right turn. Mr. Adams stated there are no immediate impacts, and
there are no-cost impacts on the City. The queue that occurs from stopping at the light on
eastbound 66th Avenue does not back up at the neighboring stoplight, so the change should not
cause any gridlock in that area. The current situation does form a queue of cars in front of the gas
station and Checkers, so that would not change. MnDOT believes the change will reduce crashes
and does not foresee a negative impact on the City.
Mayor Elliott asked about the safety impact. He pointed out MnDOT didn’t do a traffic pattern
study and asked if there is any information that provides an insight on the change in safety may
be. Mr. Adams stated he may have a document that could quantify the crash reduction impact.
However, he did not have it accessible at the moment.
Councilmember Graves asked why they are receiving the presentation on the current intersection
separate from the January 27 presentation. Mr. Adams stated they have reviewed the entire
corridor for a list of improvements alongside community partners. All of the items are pretty
minor. He emphasized the purpose of the EIS is to have a true change in crashes on Highway 252.
The reason for the singular presentation is because it is the biggest change recommended in the
interim safety improvements, and MnDOT wanted to give the City the courtesy. MnDOT does
not need to ask Brooklyn Center for municipal consent, but they are looking to partner with the
City in the recommendation. Overall, MnDOT recommends the change and does not see any
negative impacts.
Councilmember Graves stated she looks forward to the presentation for further safety
improvements. She noted the residents are saying this is a step in the right direction. If anything,
they are asking for more changes. She agreed the proposal makes sense as a first step in improving
safety.
Mayor Elliott stated he had to excuse himself for personal health issues.
Mayor Pro Tem Butler asked the staff for the next steps. Dr. Edwards stated the Staff is looking
for consensus from the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Butler asked if there were any objections from
the members of the Council.
Mayor Elliott stated there is a need to make an interim change, and the proposal addresses that.
Residents have commented and need additional questions answered by MnDOT before they can
move forward with supporting the project. He asked what the timeline is for the current proposal
if Mr. Adams has information for the concerns raised by the members of the Task Force, and what
the timeline would be to receive further answers.
Mr. Adams stated they are going to present all of the recommendations to the PAC on January 27,
2022, and there would be time for discussion after that. If they were to proceed with the changes,
1/24/22 -12- DRAFT
they would finalize the design in August 2022, and the construction can occur in summer 2023.
He noted he would like to come to a consensus within a month or so of the PAC presentation.
Mayor Elliott stated they should not move toward consensus yet as there is time for Mr. Adams to
return with answers to some of the Task Force’s questions.
Mayor Elliott moved and Councilmember Butler seconded to receive a presentation by MnDOT
on potential interim safety improvements at 66th Avenue as part of Highway 252/I-94
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and provide feedback to MnDOT.
Motion passed unanimously.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
9a. RESOLUTION NO. 2022-19; REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION
APPLICATION NO. 2022-001 FOR ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
FOR THE RETAIL SALE OF NEW AND USED AUTO PARTS WAREHOUSED
INDOORS AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2400 FREEWAY BOULEVARD
Dr. Edwards introduced the item and asked Ms. Beekman to continue the introductions.
Community Development Director Meg Beekman stated Assistant City Planner Olivia
Boerschinger would be presenting on the topic and invited Ms. Boerschinger to continue the Staff
presentation.
Assistant City Planner Olivia Boerschinger explained A-Abco Auto Parts Inc. is requesting the
issuance of a Special Use Permit to allow for retail sales and indoor warehousing of new and used
auto parts at 2400 Freeway Boulevard. The property is currently owned by Schmitt Music. A-
Abco Auto Parts Inc. currently has a manufacturing facility located in Fridley, and a 24,000 square-
foot retail sales and warehouse building located in Spring Lake Park. The applicant intends to
model the requested use on the property in question after the Spring Lake Park location, which has
approximately 20 employees. The applicant does not require outdoor storage, and there will be no
manufacturing or processing on the site.
Ms. Boerschinger explained the building located on the subject property was originally constructed
in 1974 and has been the recipient of numerous approvals from the City over the years, including
the original site and building plan approval in 1974 and issuance of multiple special use permits
relating to such uses as retail sales and warehousing for major appliances in 1974, retail sales in
1976, and retail sales and educational uses in 1977. The property’s current use, under the
ownership of Schmitt Music, is a special use that was approved in 1977 under a planning
commission application.
Ms. Boerschinger showed a slide of the exterior of the building. She noted they will not change
the exterior of the building, but there will be ongoing maintenance and an updated sign. Ms.
1/24/22 -13- DRAFT
Boerschinger showed photos of the interior images of the current building and an example of an
A-Abco front desk from another location.
Ms. Boerschinger noted the special use permit standards include that the establishment,
maintenance, or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general public welfare
and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. The special
use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for
the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the
neighborhood. The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district.
Adequate measurements have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress, and parking so
designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. Lastly, the special use shall, in all
other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which the property is located.
Ms. Boerschinger added the applicant is requesting approval for use that closely relates to a
permissible special use outlined under Section 35-330.3 of the City Code, which allows for the
“retail sales of products manufactured, processed, warehoused, or wholesaled on the use site,”
within the I-1 District, and is not entirely dissimilar to the current use of the property operating as
Schmitt Music. There will be no outdoor storage of materials or products permitted. Additionally,
no exterior changes to the existing building or property have been proposed at this time.
Ms. Boerschinger stated public notice was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on
December 30, 2021, and properties located within the notification area received a copy of the
notice and map, along with a link to the scheduled virtual Planning Commission meeting. The
Planning Commission ultimately held a public hearing for the aforementioned application at their
meeting on January 13, 2022, and was generally supportive of the outlined request.
Representatives from A-Abco Auto Parts were in attendance and answered questions relating to
traffic impacts, the business model, and anticipated employment.
Ms. Boerschinger explained the Planning Commission Commissioners engaged in conversation
regarding the application, particularly as the use relates to potential future employment as well as
concerns about customers conducting auto repairs in the parking lot during operating hours. City
Staff did not receive any public comment in advance of the scheduled public hearing, and no public
comment was offered at the meeting. Following the close of the public hearing, the Planning
Commission elected to unanimously (5-0) recommend City Council approval of the requested
issuance of a Special Use Permit for retail sales and indoor warehousing of new and used auto
parts at 2400 Freeway Boulevard.
Ms. Boerschinger explained Staff recommends that certain conditions be attached to any positive
recommendation on the approval of Application No. 2022-001 for 2400 Freeway Boulevard. First,
any major changes or modifications made to the subject property can only be made either through
the City’s Building Permit process or through formal Site and Building Plan approval by the City.
The applicant shall provide plans for any remodeling and submit building permit applications for
any work to be conducted to the building, or proposed new signage. Next, the applicant shall meet
with the Building Official and Fire Inspector before occupancy of the building to discuss any
changes to use or classification of the building, including but not limited to fire suppression
1/24/22 -14- DRAFT
systems, storage racking, hazardous materials and liquids storage, and so on. Additionally, the
applicant shall ensure compliance with the approved plan set, including replacement and repair of
any missing plantings as identified under the approved Landscape Plan, site irrigation, and site
lighting. Ms. Boerschinger noted the Special Use Permit is for the retail sales and warehousing of
auto parts and is subject to all applicable building codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any
violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. Furthermore, there may be no outside storage of
parts or products is permitted on the property, no parting out of vehicles or storage of vehicles is
to occur on-site or within the building, and, finally, no hazardous materials are to be stored on-site,
other than those typically found at retail auto parts stores.
Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded adopt RESOLUTION NO.
2022-19; Approving Planning Commission Application No. 2022-001 for issuance of a Special
Use Permit at 2400 Freeway Boulevard for Retail Sales and Indoor Warehousing of New and Used
Auto Parts, based upon the findings of fact and submitted application, and as amended by the
conditions of approval in the Resolution.
Motion passed unanimously.
10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS
10a. RESOLUTION NO. 2022-20; SUPPORTING THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE A
LOCAL SALES TAX TO FUND A SPECIFIC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROVIDING REGIONAL BENEFIT, TO ESTABLISH THE DURATION OF THE
TAX AND THE REVENUE TO BE RAISED BY THE TAX, AND TO AUTHORIZE
THE CITY TO ISSUE BONDS SUPPORTED BY THE SALES TAX REVENUE
Dr. Edwards stated at the September 27, 2021, City Council meeting, the Council discussed a
possible request for special legislation to levy a local sales tax. At that meeting, the Council raised
several questions regarding how a local sales tax would impact the community. At the October
25, 2021, City Council meeting, Staff provided background data regarding the impacts of a local
sales tax on residents, businesses, and the City's finances.
Dr. Edwards explained if a request to the legislature for a sales tax levy is to be submitted by the
January 31, 2022 deadline, the Council will need to pass a resolution supporting the request at the
January 24, 2022 meeting. If a request is made and granted by the legislature, the community
would then need to approve a referendum to establish the levy. Dr. Edwards invited Ms. Beekman
to continue the presentation.
Ms. Beekman noted as part of the community engagement efforts related to the 2040
Comprehensive Plan, the Opportunity Site master planning, and the Community Center Master
Plan, it is clear that the community desires more robust, culturally inclusive, and accessible
recreation programming and facilities. Community input has consistently indicated a desire for a
regionally significant attraction on the Opportunity Site that can function as an anchor to the
overall development and a gathering place and point of pride for the community. In addition,
community input has indicated a need for more diversity of recreation options for young people,
young families, and seniors in the community, specifically related to expanding facilities and
1/24/22 -15- DRAFT
programming at the current Community Center. She explained a sales tax levy offers an
opportunity to fund public purpose projects which respond to the community's requests and needs.
Ms. Beekman showed illustrations of potential opportunities. She explained they want to create a
sustainable, authentic outdoor experience and offer economic and social opportunities. The
recreation destination will promote healthy living and an inclusive, active civic life for current and
new residents of the City. The destination site would also include all-season programming. They
imagine a vibrant, central space where paid adventure sports keep people active, entertained, and
engaged year-round. An amphitheater provides free outdoor concerts several nights a week, and
an onsite restaurant and beer garden offers a place to gather and meet friends and family while
taking in the sites and sounds. The entire space has the feel of an open public park; there are no
gates or controlled access points. Additionally, bike trails and sidewalks meander through the site
and connect to nearby regional trail systems and neighborhoods. Potential programs include white
water rafting, climbing walls, kayaking, surfing, swift water rescue, racing, and more.
Ms. Beekman noted the US National Whitewater Center in Charlotte, North Carolina draws over
1.1 million visitors annually. However, Brooklyn Center is located near a much more populated
city. Additionally, the site in Charlotte does not offer winter activities.
Ms. Beekman stated the City has begun a master planning process to consider a new or expanded
community center. Components of that process have included identifying community needs in
terms of recreation and community center facilities, as well as a broader look at the surrounding
market and potential regional demand for community center space. As part of the planning
process, potential partners have been identified which could be leveraged to achieve a larger, more
regionally significant community and wellness center.
Ms. Beekman explained the City completed an initial analysis of the spacing needs and potential
partners and then moved into a second phase to develop plans and more solid cost estimates.
Several iterations of the plan have been worked through to find a balance that provides the types
of activities that will most benefit the community, will draw outside users to the new community
center, can be implemented over multiple phases, and ensures a feasible and cost-effective plan.
Ms. Beekman added one key aspect of the new community center will be that it can serve as a host
facility for regional tournaments. Tournaments not only bring new people to the community that
generates positive economic impact but the revenue generated from tournaments helps offset
operating costs of such a facility. There will also be extended family facilities such as a pool and
a splash pad.
Ms. Beekman stated the cost for both facilities would be $135 million. The proposed 0.50% sales
tax would generate $55 million over 20 years. Additional funding sources are being explored
through general obligation (GO) bonding, private investments, and local partners. The outdoor
adventure park intends to find external funding to support such a local amenity.
Ms. Beekman explained the process is very long. They must apply by January 31, 2022, to the
local sales tax authority. They will continue planning and due diligence efforts on both projects
to determine costs, feasibility, and implementation strategies. If a request is awarded, they would
1/24/22 -16- DRAFT
begin an extensive community engagement campaign in advance of a Citywide referendum on the
measure. If approved, the sales tax option would not go into effect until 2024. The City can
change its mind any time between now and then or decrease the sales tax percentage.
Councilmember Graves thanked Staff for the presentation. She noted she is excited about the ideas
and appreciates the flexibility in the process. Council and Staff will need to make sure the
community knows what they are working on. She explained she frequents the Community Center
and noted her previous neighborhood had a very robust community center. The framework creates
space for young people, and that is something the City can continue to do better at.
Councilmember Graves added she thinks of the Community Center as a prevention tool.
Councilmember Ryan stated his concern is with the financial risk exposure for building such a
large facility. He asked if they could improve an increase for a local option sales tax without
committing to it until the City does its due diligence on the projects. Ms. Beekman stated the State
legislature has to give the City permission to levy the sales tax, but that does not mean the City
must impose a sales tax. The community has the opportunity to vote on it, and there are regulations
in regards to what can be taxed and how much can be taxed.
Councilmember Ryan stated the New Hope Olympic pool was approved for a State bonding
request, which is less than five miles from Brooklyn Center’s Community Center. He asked how
that would impact the regional significance of the proposed project, but they can address that issue
later. He added he accepts the option of a local sales tax at no more than half of a percent currently.
Councilmember Ryan noted his concern about the impact on the lower-income residents as they
are more impacted by a sales tax at the time of increasing inflation.
Councilmember Graves stated an earlier presentation by Ms. Beekman provided them a ballpark
impact of the tax on an average household in Brooklyn Center. Ms. Beekman confirmed she had
the aforementioned information for the impact on the average household. The numbers from the
last presentation compare the impact funding through bonding would have on community
members in comparison to the impact of funding through a local sales tax.
Ms. Beekman showed a slide with the impact of the sales tax on those with a median income. With
a 0.50% sales tax, there would be a $46 impact on the annual expenses. As for the property tax
option, the average household would have to pay an additional $267 annually. She noted bonding
would increase property taxes, which would affect people in the community more than a local sales
tax as they would bear the majority of the costs.
Councilmember Graves thanked Ms. Beekman for the information. The bonding process doesn’t
require a referendum. In the sales tax scenario, they would be including the community in the
voting process and be asking them to pay less. She asked if the City applied for a 0.50% sales tax
levy if it would be an issue to change it. Ms. Beekman confirmed it would not be an issue to
change the sales tax levy.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson echoed the comments of her colleagues. In the interest of
time, she noted she would conclude her comments. Mayor Pro Tem Butler stated her questions
have already been addressed and noted it is a good first step.
1/24/22 -17- DRAFT
Dr. Edwards stated the bonding typically requires a 50 percent match. For the sales tax option, the
City would only have to match 18 percent. The residents would not bear a significant portion of
the funding as it would be spread out across the state.
Councilmember Ryan stated the total of the concept proposal is roughly $49 million. He asked if
that was correct. Ms. Beekman noted there is an error in the Resolution. The initial iteration
estimated $49 million for the project and the $55 million is for a buffer.
Councilmember Ryan stated if they are looking at $55 million and were so fortunate to receive an
18 percent match, they are talking about a $10 million match to be modest. He asked if he was
making sense. Dr. Edwards confirmed Councilmember Ryan was making sense and noted there
would be phases in the legislature as well.
Councilmember Ryan stated the project is evolving, and they will continue to look at various
aspects in greater detail. If they do go for a large project, the building will have a much larger
impact on the parking. Therefore, they may have an issue with parking. It is projected for 60
percent of users to be from outside of the City, but parking can be addressed at a later time. He
noted he would like to see recreational facilities in the City improved. Councilmember Ryan added
the question is if they can justify the project as a regional attraction, but he will speak with Staff
more on that topic at a later time. He added he would be happy to advocate for the project at the
State legislature.
Councilmember Graves moved and Mayor Pro Tem Butler seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO.
2022-20; Supporting the authority to impose a local sales tax to fund specific capital improvements
providing regional benefit, to establish the duration of the tax and the revenue to be raised by the
tax, and to authorize the city to issue bonds supported by the sales tax revenue.
Motion passed unanimously.
10b. RESOLUTION NO. 2022-21; AUTHORIZING APPLICATION TO MINNESOTA
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET FOR $40,000,000 IN STATE OF MINNESOTA
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS PROCEEDS FOR THE COMMUNITY
WEALTH CREATION THROUGH ACQUISITION PROGRAM
Dr. Edwards introduced the item and invited Ms. Beekman to make the staff presentation.
Ms. Beekman explained one of the City's strategic priorities is resident economic stability, and this
priority was further defined in 2020 to include specific initiatives focused on local business
economic stability. As part of that work, the City of Brooklyn Center has been working with the
community to identify ways to maintain affordable commercial rents for small businesses, provide
valid and effective small business support and technical assistance, and provide opportunities for
residents and businesses in and from Brooklyn Center to acquire real estate in the City.
Ms. Beekman noted several initiatives have been deployed including formal partnerships with
several community-based organizations to provide technical assistance to small businesses, the
1/24/22 -18- DRAFT
feasibility and development of an entrepreneurial market incubator as part of the initial phase of
development on the Opportunity Site, and the proposal of a real estate acquisition fund to support
local businesses with acquiring their bricks and mortar spaces as part of the American Rescue Plan
Act (ARPA) funding plan. Another initiative by the City includes forgivable loans and matching
grant programs.
Ms. Beekman stated recently, African Career, Education & Resource (ACER) has requested the
Cities of Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center to continue this work on a larger scale by requesting
the cities in seeking the issuance of GO bonds for the creation of a Community Wealth Creation
Through Acquisition Program. There is legislative support to draft a bill in support of this effort.
The request is for $40 million in funding to be shared between the two cities. The sites in Brooklyn
Center that ACER has identified as potential project areas that would receive the benefit of the GO
bonds are Humboldt Square Shopping Center, the Strip Center adjacent to the former Target
property, and the Entrepreneurial Market Plaza.
Ms. Beekman explained each proposed site provides a different opportunity for how community
ownership would be achieved; however, the general project plan would be funded with GO bonds
with certain requirements. ACER or the City may utilize GO bonds funding to purchase or long-
term lease high potential, pre-identified sites in Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center. These sites
were identified as high potential based on the current tenant mix of small, Black, Indigenous,
People of Color (BIPOC)-owned businesses, good location, meaning vulnerable to gentrification
and rent increases, and good access to transit and transportation. ACER and the City could
collaborate to convert the sites over time into co-ops or shared ownership models involving the
existing businesses in the spaces. ACER may work with business owners to remodel spaces where
possible to accommodate additional small businesses or start-ups. Or, in the case, that
redevelopment is the larger goal, provide community ownership in the redevelopment effort which
puts the community at the decision-making table and offers an equity stake in future development
which creates wealth-building opportunities. In some circumstances, ACER may work with
businesses to identify and select operators or managers for each site. ACER may work with the
state, City, and businesses to develop a model for selling the property to residents, businesses, or
the creation of a co-op. Lastly, ACER may provide technical assistance and ongoing business
support within each site.
Ms. Beekman pointed out there are several unknowns with the process, but Staff feels as though it
is a good opportunity for the community. She added issues to consider are legal parameters and
considerations such as land ownership and use, cumbersome legal process to get through with the
State, unique nature of the proposal compared with previous GO bond-funded projects, and
considerable legal challenges as there is not a clear path forward.
Ms. Beekman stated there are also administrative considerations. GO bonding is not similar to
other types of bonding the City has done and there is a considerable administrative responsibility
for the City. Significant resources would be needed to administer funds over a long period. The
City would need to maintain a contractual or ownership stake in the properties for the lifetime of
the project, and the City would remain responsible for ensuring the funds are used correctly.
1/24/22 -19- DRAFT
Ms. Beekman explained if the City chooses not to support the request, then ACER would need to
seek another funding source or a new fiscal agent. GO bonds are not an ideal source of funding
for this type of project, but the City’s support for the request shows commitment to the project and
goals. The project is very innovative for the GO bonding program and could serve as a model for
future project proposals. Community wealth building and BIPOC business ownership are goals
that are embedded in Brooklyn Center’s strategic priorities.
Ms. Beekman noted approval of bonding application is not certain. ACER is seeking a show of
support and the potential to unlock other funding sources. The bond request shows commitment
regardless of the outcome of the request.
Ms. Beekman stated if GO bonds are allocated by the State, ACER, Brooklyn Center, and
Brooklyn Park would enter into a Memorandum of Understanding or a Joint Powers Agreement.
ACER would be responsible for working to identify a path forward to create cooperative
ownership using GO bonds.
Ms. Beekman stated the City has already applied for $44 million to fund a new community center.
The request is included, in part, in the Governor’s bonding bill. The City can make more than one
bonding request. It has been recommended that the City prioritize the bonding request for the
community center and continue to lobby for both applications. Ms. Beekman offered to answer
any questions but pointed out she doesn’t have all of the answers currently.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she received a text from Mayor Elliott. The text asked
for Staff to come back with proposed programs and the impact of those proposed programs to be
created from the ARPA funds to be presented and discussed at a future work session. Ms.
Beekman stated the presentation on the partnership with ACER and Brooklyn Park through GO
bonds does not relate to ARPA funds. However, ARPA funds were addressed during the earlier
work session.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked if the GO bond is General Obligation. Ms. Beekman
confirmed Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson was correct.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated Ms. Beekman mentioned the strip center next to
Target. She asked if that would displace current businesses. Ms. Beekman stated the intent is to
prevent the displacement of current businesses. They want to provide ownership of those spaces
by the businesses so if the site is redeveloped, then the business owners would have a seat at the
table and an equity share.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked for clarification on the partnership between the City
and ACER since ACER would be the applicant. Ms. Beekman explained Brooklyn Center would
be the applicant as they are the fiscal agent and are ultimately responsible for the use of those
dollars. Nonprofits can acquire lands and assets through GO bonds in partnership with public
entities, so the bonds could look like that. She added there is a chance ACER may not be in the
chain of titling.
1/24/22 -20- DRAFT
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson noted her concerns about the unknowns as the process is
atypical. She asked what the in-kind match pertains to. Ms. Beekman stated the Economic
Development Authority already holds assets that can be used for the projects. Additionally, the
City can contribute administrative resources and Staff time for the in-kind match rather than cash
funds.
Councilmember Graves stated she likes the overall concept. Creating cooperative models has been
a goal of the Council. She noted her appreciation of showing support to the concept but was still
uneasy because there are many unknowns in the proposal. Councilmember Graves asked how the
project would be inclusive
Nelima Sitati Munene, ACER representative, noted Ms. Beekman and Dr. Edwards have done an
excellent job presenting the concept to the Council. The importance of the project came from
ACER’s work with micro-businesses in Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. She confirmed there
are several unknowns, but there is a lot to be said about being proactive, attracting interest to the
project, and building wealth within populations that have been left out.
Ms. Munene confirmed the project would be inclusive of all communities represented in Brooklyn
Center and pointed out the micro-business sector is very reflective of Brooklyn Center’s diverse
population. The City would own the land in the proposal, but there is hope for the GO bonds to
assist the entities in acquiring more land. An issue micro-businesses have faced in Brooklyn
Center and Brooklyn Park is the lack of affordable commercial space, and ACER wants to promote
long-term support of the businesses. Land in Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center is a hot market,
and they are not going to wait for micro-businesses. The proposal is an opportunity for the
community to retain the land and to allow for accessible, sustainable wealth-building.
Councilmember Graves asked what the process is for GO bonding in comparison to the previous
bonding presentation. Ms. Beekman explained the State passes a bonding bill every two years.
The GO bonding is not local dollars, and most of the money goes to State projects for infrastructure
improvements. Cities can apply for GO bonding to support locally significant projects. Ms.
Beekman pointed out Second Harvest Heartland is a recent example of that application.
Ms. Beekman noted the GO bonding does not require a referendum as the money is not local.
Local sales tax is asking the legislature for special permission to levy a sales tax for a municipality
above its typical authority. Both situations need sponsors in the House of Representatives and the
Senate. ACER has been working to garner support for the project, and the City has been doing
similar work to support the community center.
Councilmember Graves stated she would be interested in hearing comments from Brooklyn Park
about the proposal. She asked if the project goes forward, could additional staff be hiredto
administer the project.
Ms. Beekman stated she is unsure if Brooklyn Park has received the presentation, though Brooklyn
Center and Brooklyn Park have the same bond counsel. As for the hiring of staff, they could
leverage funding to hire additional staff or consultants. It is hard to know what ongoing
administration would entail.
1/24/22 -21- DRAFT
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked if the matter is time-sensitive. She explained she is
not comfortable making a decision that evening. If it is not time-sensitive, she would prefer to
absorb the information further. She added she would like to hear feedback from Brooklyn Park
regarding the proposal. Ms. Beekman stated the topic is time-sensitive as the deadline to apply is
January 31, 2021. She noted it had been difficult to bring items to the Council as its agendas have
been extremely full.
Councilmember Graves asked Ms. Munene if ACER has made progress in the House or Senate to
support the program. Ms. Munene confirmed they have been talking to State legislature
representatives. However, they cannot draft a bill without support from a city.
Councilmember Graves asked if Brooklyn Park had voted on the proposal. Ms. Munene stated
Brooklyn Park has not voted on the proposal.
Denise stated the ask is for $40,000,000 to be split evenly between Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn
Center. Additionally, the funding can be seen as a capital campaign. There is a huge need in the
community for such funding. She noted they were approached by State legislatures for the
Brooklyns to partner together for an initiative such as the one proposed. The local political
commitment is important to move the project forward. Even if the application does not pass, the
support can be used to secure other funding down the line.
Councilmember Graves moved and Mayor Pro Tem Butler seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO.
2022-21; Authorizing application to Minnesota Management and Budget for $40,000,000 in State
of Minnesota General Obligation Bonds Proceeds for the Community Wealth Creation through
Acquisition Program.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson voted against the same. Motion passed.
10c. AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE USE FACE COVERINGS IN
INDOOR SPACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION WITHIN THE CITY
Dr. Edwards stated the item was meant to be presented by Mayor Elliott. He explained the
Ordinance pertains to all businesses and public spaces within the City. Dr. Edwards asked City
Attorney Jason Hill to explain the Ordinance further.
Mr. Hill stated the Ordinance is an expansion of the previous Ordinance. The Ordinance in
question would supersede the previous Emergency Ordinance and is proposed with consideration
of the COVID-19 Omicron variance. He noted the language is similar to the face-covering
mandate in Minneapolis. Any type of indoor space with public accommodation would require the
use of face coverings.
Mr. Hill added the Ordinance requires those aged five and up to wear a face covering, in line with
the latest recommendations of the Center for Disease Control. He noted the Ordinance includes
an exemption for those with disabilities, performers, athletes, and the like. The length of the
mandate is 61 days unless repealed. He noted the previous Ordinance only included City buildings.
1/24/22 -22- DRAFT
Councilmember Graves stated she would rather continue the previous Resolution they passed. She
noted she is okay with raising the Ordinance to age five. Going beyond the previous Resolution
is unnecessary, though it is a local trend. The Omicron variant is more contagious, but most
businesses she has visited required masks to enter the premises. Implementing the proposed
Ordinance is an overuse of power as the community has already been using safety measures.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson noted her agreement with Councilmember Graves. Based
on the previous week’s Friday update email, Brooklyn Center is leading Hennepin County with
the number of COVID-19 cases. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson explained she is on the
fence with the issue, and she will defer to her colleagues. She explained she wants to address
COVID-19 without imposing upon businesses. Requiring masks could negatively impact
businesses.
Mayor Pro Tem Butler stated most stores she has gone to in the City require masks and most people
are wearing masks. The community is aware the variant is more contagious. Due to the comments
of Councilmember Graves, the Council will be unable to make a unanimous decision. She asked
Dr. Edwards if they can end the current mandate. Dr. Edwards stated if that is the direction of the
Council, then Staff can draft an Ordinance.
Mr. Hill stated the Ordinance adopted on December 9 will expire at the beginning of February
without action. Dr. Edwards asked if they could continue the Ordinance form on December 9
except for changing the age requirements of the masks. Mr. Hill confirmed there was no issue
with that action. The motion would be to automatically renew the December 9 Ordinance after its
expiration and change the age requirements.
Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to
automatically renew the Ordinance passed on December 9, 2021, upon its expiration period in
addition to changing the age requirement for children aged two and up to children aged five to
wear face coverings.
Motion passed unanimously.
11. COUNCIL REPORT
12. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Pro Tem Butler moved and Councilmember Graves seconded adjournment of the City
Council meeting at 9:58 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
!
"#$" %
&'
(&!)
*
+#&, ))-./
0.
1
) 0-))
.
01
) 0
.203
4 .0
-
)5-
! 14
6)))
))
5 !)
)). ))
.
4)
00)
.0
.
! 44 10)) 060
)
-
"57
88
9
%::;<
&("57
//:8
=5>*
%")%:: ?
$>=
)+-
//8;:/+
,%::;:
"4 :)
/%
>40%::
,@"5
:A9 01-%
&*%:: ;
,0*0
=;;
%+
)
%::
B 5 4
&B 5 4"5
??
%9
4 %::;
;
0C """=88A< -%9
-%::;
0
8:
"4/*%::;
>41
=; /
-%
$D%:: 8
!
""#$"%
)5 #) )
;<
&*)
E E
/
?
&*)
Page 2 of 2
b. Police Service Calls.
Police call rates will be based on the average number of valid police calls per unit per
year. Police incidences for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include
disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in Section 12-911, and events
categorized as Part I crimes in the Uniform Crime Reporting System including
homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, auto theft and arson.
Calls will not be counted for purposes of determining licensing categories where the
victim and suspect are “Family or household members” as defined in the Domestic
Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 518B.01, Subd. 2 (b) and where there is a
report of “Domestic Abuse” as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes,
Section 518B.01, Subd. 2 (a).
License
Category
Number of
Units
Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct
Service & Part I Crimes
(Calls Per Unit/Year)
No
Category
Impact
1-2 0-1
3-4 units 0-0.25
5 or more units 0-0.35
Decrease 1
Category
1-2 Greater than 1 but not more than 3
3-4 units Greater than 0.25 but not more than 1
5 or more units Greater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50
Decrease 2
Categories
1-2 Greater than 3
3-4 units Greater than 1
5 or more units Greater than 0.50
Property Code and Nuisance Violations Criteria
License Category
(Based on Property
Code Only)
Number of Units Property Code Violations per
Inspected Unit
Type I – 3 Year 1-2 units 0-2
3+ units 0-0.75
Type II – 2 Year 1-2 units Greater than 2 but not more than 5
3+ units Greater than 0.75 but not more than 1.5
Type III – 1 Year 1-2 units Greater than 5 but not more than 9
3+ units Greater than 1.5 but not more than 3
Type IV – 6 Months 1-2 units Greater than 9
3+ units Greater than 3
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
Ty
p
e
Re
n
e
w
a
l
or
In
i
t
i
a
l
O
w
n
e
r
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Co
d
e
Vi
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
Li
c
e
n
s
e
Ty
p
e
Po
l
i
c
e
CF
S
*
Fi
n
a
l
Li
c
e
n
s
e
Ty
p
e
**
Pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
Li
c
e
n
s
e
Ty
p
e
**
*
70
2
5
Dr
e
w
Av
e
N
Si
n
g
l
e
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
Ho
m
e
SF
R
Bo
r
r
o
w
e
r
LL
C
0I
I
N
/
A
II
71
2
4
We
s
t
Ri
v
e
r
Rd
S
i
n
g
l
e
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
e
g
u
n
Ol
a
t
a
y
a
/71
2
4
We
s
t
Ri
v
e
r
Rd
1
4
I
V
N
/
A
I
V
58
4
3
Fr
e
m
o
n
t
Av
e
N
Mu
l
t
i
1Bl
d
g
7
Un
i
t
s
Re
n
e
w
a
l
Fr
e
m
o
n
t
LL
C
/St
e
p
h
a
n
i
e
St
e
i
n
e
r
1
.1
4
pe
r
un
i
t
I0
I
I
I
53
3
2
Ͳ53
3
6
Ru
s
s
e
l
l
Av
e
N2
Fa
m
i
l
y
2Un
i
t
s
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
Do
u
g
l
a
s
Ry
a
n
1
I
0
I
I
I
33
2
8
49
t
h
Av
e
N
S
i
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
S
h
e
r
m
a
n
Kh
o
5
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
59
0
1
Al
d
r
i
c
h
Av
e
N
S
i
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
Ho
m
e
SF
R
Bo
r
r
o
w
e
r
LL
C
Ͳ
me
t
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
8
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
61
0
6
Al
d
r
i
c
h
Av
e
N
S
i
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
H
o
m
e
SF
R
Bo
r
r
o
w
e
r
LL
C
1
1
I
V
0
I
V
I
I
56
1
4
Br
y
a
n
t
Av
e
N
S
i
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
X
i
a
n
Li
n
/Pr
o
p
e
r
o
u
s
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
2
I
0
I
I
57
1
2
Br
y
a
n
t
Av
e
N
S
i
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
H
o
m
e
SF
R
Bo
r
r
o
w
e
r
LL
C
8
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
62
1
5
Br
y
a
n
t
Av
e
N
S
i
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
T
u
u
y
e
n
Tr
a
n
1
I
0
I
I
I
72
1
1
Ca
m
d
e
n
Av
e
N
S
i
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
Se
a
n
Ba
n
n
e
r
m
a
n
/B
a
n
n
e
r
m
a
n
Re
a
l
Es
t
a
t
e
Ͳ
mi
s
s
i
n
g
CP
T
E
D
in
s
p
e
c
i
t
o
n
1I
0
I
V
I
V
53
1
6
Co
l
f
a
x
Av
e
N
Si
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
Ho
m
e
SF
R
Bo
r
r
o
w
e
r
LL
C
Ͳ
me
t
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
3
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
67
1
8
Co
l
f
a
x
Av
e
N
S
i
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
Ho
m
e
SF
R
Bo
r
r
o
w
e
r
LL
C
Ͳ
me
t
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
24
I
V
0
I
V
I
I
I
68
2
8
Fr
e
m
o
n
t
PL
N
S
i
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
A
l
i
Sa
j
j
a
d
/78
6
Ho
m
e
s
LL
C
2
I
0
I
I
71
3
1
Ha
l
i
f
a
x
Av
e
N
S
i
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
J
o
a
n
Gu
n
d
e
r
s
o
n
/Op
e
n
Ha
n
d
s
In
c
0
I
0
I
I
71
2
5
Ky
l
e
Av
e
N
S
i
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
X
i
a
n
Li
n
/Pr
o
s
p
e
r
o
u
s
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
0
I
0
I
I
42
0
7
La
k
e
s
i
d
e
Av
e
#3
2
7
S
i
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
R
a
c
h
e
l
Pe
t
z
0
I
0
I
I
53
0
1
Lo
g
a
n
Av
e
N
S
i
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
M
N
S
F
II
W1
LL
C
Ͳ
me
t
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
0
I
0
I
I
V
53
2
2
Lo
g
a
n
Av
e
N
S
i
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
M
a
r
y
Jo
Sc
h
w
a
n
z
4
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
55
4
8
Lo
g
a
n
Av
e
N
S
i
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
L
a
t
e
e
f
Ol
a
r
i
n
d
e
3
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
55
0
9
Ly
n
d
a
l
e
Av
e
N
S
i
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
B
r
e
t
Hi
l
d
r
e
t
h
/
D
r
a
g
o
n
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Mg
t
1
I
0
I
I
I
72
2
5
Ma
j
o
r
Av
e
N
S
i
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
K
i
n
Ch
e
w
/Ia
s
i
s
II
I
LL
C
6
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
64
0
0
No
b
l
e
Av
e
N
S
i
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
Z
a
m
z
a
m
Ge
s
a
a
d
e
Ͳ
me
t
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
6
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
V
30
1
8
Oh
e
n
r
y
Rd
S
i
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
C
h
e
n
Zh
o
/Co
s
c
o
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
ILL
C
1
2
I
V
0
I
V
I
80
7
Wo
o
d
b
i
n
e
La
S
i
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
J
o
n
&Er
i
n
Gr
e
e
n
0
I
0
I
I
66
6
1
Xe
r
x
e
s
Pl
S
i
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
As
h
w
i
n
Go
e
l
/MN
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
ILL
C
Ͳ
me
t
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
3
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
*CF
S
=Ca
l
l
s
Fo
r
Se
r
v
i
c
e
fo
r
Re
n
e
w
a
l
Li
c
e
n
s
e
s
On
l
y
(I
n
i
t
i
a
l
Li
c
e
n
s
e
s
ar
e
no
t
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
to
ca
l
l
s
fo
r
se
r
v
i
c
e
an
d
wi
l
l
be
li
s
t
e
d
N/
A
.
)
**
Li
c
e
n
s
e
Ty
p
e
Be
i
n
g
Is
s
u
e
d
**
*
In
i
t
i
a
l
li
c
e
n
s
e
s
wi
l
l
no
t
sh
o
w
a
Al
l
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
ar
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
on
Ci
t
y
ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
ta
x
e
s
Ty
p
e
1=3Ye
a
r
Ty
p
e
II
=2Ye
a
r
Ty
p
e
II
I
=1Ye
a
r
Re
n
t
a
l
Li
c
e
n
s
e
s
fo
r
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
on
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
14
,
20
2
2
!
"#$"
% &!'()
*%
+,
%) !(!
-#+. '/'*%(01&
2
(1!31/41
(56
7
!
!
8!
!$4
-&-!-1
#'
31/41 984#'
31/41
!"#"$#$#"#%#&$"'
()
(
(
*
+
,%
)+
!
&:!
!&
31/41(56
7
!
!
8!
'1/0%!
0 '0&$4
-&-!-1
!#'
31/41 984#'
31/41 '1/
& 01/& '%
; '</10&/5
&
1
& ' 1/ 0 & /5
1/41
=:!>9 ! :>9&40%'<0</1
=:! 9?!:
:
&/5
'
1
'
=:!@?9!99:>? 1/99/
)
&10=!? >!??8?@&A& '/4
110&<
1 0
0&/5
6
6
!
B /'34 1
""#$"
/' #/ /
' :
41
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING
FINAL PAYMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2021-01, 02, 03, 04
AND 12, GRANDVIEW SOUTH AREA STREET, STORM DRAINAGE AND
UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS AND 53RD AVENUE UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, Ryan Contracting Company of Elko, Minnesota has completed the following
improvements in accordance with said contract:
Improvement Project Nos. 2021-01, 02, 03, 04 and 12, Grandview South Area
Street, Storm Drainage and Utility Improvements and 53rd Avenue Utility
Improvements
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that
1. Final payment shall be made on Improvement Project Nos. 2021-01, 02,
03, 04 and 12, Grandview South Area Street, Storm Drainage and Utility
Improvements and 53rd Avenue Utility Improvements, taking the
contractor’s receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said
improvements under said contract shall be $8,456,800.80.
2. The estimated project costs and revenues are hereby amended as follows:
COSTS As Original Award As Final
Contract $ 8,754,418.75 $ 8,456,800.80
Lighting $ 8,903.70 $ 8,903.70
Contingency $ 875,900.00 $ 1,050.48
Subtotal Construction Cost $ 9,639,222.45 $ 8,466,754.98
Admin/Legal/Engr. $ 974,000.00 $ 498,803.78
Total Estimated Project Cost $10,613,222.45 $ 8,965,558.76
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
REVENUES As Original Award As Final
2021-01, 02, 03 & 04: Grandview South Area
Street Assessment $ 1,178,450.57 $ 1,178,450.57
Storm Drainage Assessment $ 371,712.12 $ 371,712.12
Sanitary Sewer Utility $ 1,697,264.50 $ 1,490,731.60
Water Utility Fund $ 1,979,421.00 $ 1,728,400.95
Storm Drainage Utility Fund $ 724,559.88 $ 474,920.83
Street Light Utility $ 14,803.70 $ 9,602.02
Street Reconstruction Fund $ 2,688,182.68 $ 1,753,627.67
Municipal State Aid (MSA) Fund $ 1,517,347.25 $ 1,517,347.25
CenterPoint Energy $ 26,610.00 $ 25,340.00
Miscellaneous (plan sales) $ 320.00 $ 875.00
Subtotal Grandview South Revenue $10,198,671.70 $ 8,551,008.01
2021-12: 53rd Avenue
Sanitary Sewer Utility $ 147,516.00 $ 147,516.00
Water Utility Fund $ 29,632.00 $ 29,632.00
Storm Drainage Utility Fund $ 4,750.00 $ 4,750.00
Municipal State Aid (MSA) Fund $ 232,652.75 $ 232,652.75
Subtotal 53rd Avenue Revenue $ 414,550.75 $ 414,550.75
Total Estimated Revenue $10,613,222.45 $ 8,965,558.76
February 14, 2022
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
!
"#$"
% &!'()
*%
+,
%) !(!
-#+. '//0
&
1
2'3.
( 4
&&
3
/
3&
4/043/'35607&8(0
7&
//
07&9
!"!
#
!
$%
:
&&
; /
:4/04 (8:(9!&3 &56 0
034(07&
//
07&& )/443
4/04
56 0 7&
& ) ) +%
/
/-
8-9&:( 35607&)
4/03/&/04
/4&
&
<=5&
3
/
44
>
&4
0&&3/&/04/4
/
; ()
*% /'
(
(4
/4
44
&
'3)
%3
56
07&)(07&?0 7& :4/4'&
)
%&
435607&
@
4//
/
;2
'+
%
'@
& )
' 7%
/
;
> /''
(&
44'&5607&34>@'
&/%
& )&& &
3&>@'
&
) ))
% )(07&?07&
.5!
!&
)
&&
4/04/A
B//
/ /
@' 3&/A&/A; '
4/04 4/
. !
!&
//0& '/ ! /
@' !
4 3&
/04&)
'84
09)
%3
' 56 0
7&)(07&?07&
44
1
/
; /'
/'3&4
0/A!&
3+%
&
3
/
//
.
( 4 &
&
/
)
' 3&/8 C&9&4 /
@ &&
3+%
&/A
)
4) )&
3
/
3
) &
&)
/
) 3 /
5
D 3 (A 3 & 4
0/'3&/A &
4
/
3/ A
/
/ &
//A &4& )0
)
()
*%
CE F B
&
3+%&
3
/
&02
'.
( 43&
4
3560734G2 07
//
7 2/
'
&4
3&3
H&4
0/A
4/ &)
&&4
.(
&/A
'4)I!5J<!
3&/A)34
)
&/
:4/04(4&3
4 3&4
0/A '4
)
'448 9
-
-#'
8
9 I5
!
*#'
8
9 I6
!
-4
#'
8
9I
!
-?
&#'
8
9 I
/-
8
9 I
!
/-
8
9 I5K
!
3
/
8
9I5J<!
I!5J<!
7
7
!
L /':0 4
""#$"
/' #/ /
' =
04
4 =
04
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS FOR
THE IMPROVEMENT OF A PORTION OF 53RD AVENUE NORTH (PENN
AVENUE NORTH TO MISSISSIPPI DRIVE NORTH)
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center (“Brooklyn Center”) and the City of
Minneapolis (“Minneapolis”) desire to undertake a project to construct certain improvements on
a portion of 53rd Avenue North between Penn Avenue North and Mississippi Drive North
(“Project Area”) including, but not limited to, milling and paving, installing bicycle
facilities (striping and signs), and other related improvements (collectively, the “Project”);
and
WHEREAS, the Project is multi-jurisdictional, involving Brooklyn Center and
Minneapolis; and
WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center’s Capital Improvement Program identifies the 53rd
Avenue North roadway improvements between Penn Avenue North and Mississippi Drive
North to be constructed in 2022; and
WHEREAS, preliminary planning and design of the project have commenced
with Brooklyn Center taking the lead as the project manager; and
WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis desire to set forth their various
construction and funding responsibilities in a Joint Powers Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Minneapolis for the
improvement of a portion of 53rd Avenue North (Penn Avenue North to
Mississippi Drive North) is hereby accepted and approved. The Mayor and
City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute a final Agreement
and any amendments.
February 14, 2022
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
1
BR291-10-722178.v2
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT
OF A PORTION OF 53rd AVENUE NORTH
(PENN AVENUE NORTH TO MISSISSIPPI DRIVE NORTH)
This Joint Powers Agreement for the Improvement of a Portion of 53rd Avenue
North (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this day of _______ 2022 and
between the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, a municipal corporation, (“Brooklyn
Center”) and the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota, a municipal corporation
(“Minneapolis”). Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis may hereinafter be referred to
individually as a “party” or collectively as the “parties.”
RECITALS
A. The portion of 53rd Avenue North between Xerxes Avenue North and Mississippi
Drive North is a common boundary street that is maintained under a separate
maintenance agreement between the parties.
B. The parties desire to undertake a project to construct certain improvements on the portion
of 53rd Avenue North between Penn Avenue North and Mississippi Drive North
(“Project Area”) including, but not limited to, milling and paving, installing bicycle
facilities (striping and signs), and other related improvements (collectively, the
“Project”). The Project includes project development, preliminary and final
engineering plans, administration, construction, inspection, and all other cost and
work items described herein.
C. Each of the parties also intend to replace damaged curb and gutter and upgrade ADA
pedestrian ramps on the portions of the street located within their jurisdictional
boundaries, and to upgrade their respective sewer infrastructure in the Project Area
(collectively, for each party, the “Separate Improvements”).
D. The parties desire to set out their respective obligations regarding the completion of the
Project and constructing the Separate Improvements.
E. Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59 authorizes two or more governmental units to enter
into agreements to jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the
contracting parties or any similar power, including the joint undertaking of
improvements such as those contemplated in this Agreement.
F. The parties intend to undertake the Project and share costs as provided in this Agreement.
AGREEMENT
In consideration of the mutual undertakings and understandings expressed herein,
the parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Preliminary Design. The parties agree to address the preliminary design of the Project as
provided in this section.
2
BR291-10-722178.v2
(a) Brooklyn Center agrees to provide for the surveys, data collection, and preparation
of plans for preliminary design.
(b) Each party shall be responsible for conducting informational meetings for public
review, input, and comment in their own cities.
(c) Minneapolis will develop proposals for the bicycle facilities and coordinate outreach
related to the bicycle facilities.
(d) Brooklyn Center will coordinate the development of the preliminary design and will
present it for approval by each party.
2. Final Design. Brooklyn Center shall be responsible for completion of the final design for
the Project, including the preparation of plans and specifications (collectively, the
“Plans”). Brooklyn Center will present the Plans for approval by each party.
Advertisement for bids on the Project shall not be released until both parties have
approved the Plans.
3. Contracting. Brooklyn Center shall be responsible for advertising, receiving, opening, and
letting the contract for the Project as provided in this section.
(a) Brooklyn Center will provide Minneapolis a copy of the bids once they are opened.
Minneapolis may provide written comments within 7 days of receipt of the bids, but
Brooklyn Center will make the final decision as to the responsiveness of the bids and
shall determine which contractor (“Contractor”) qualifies as the lowest responsible
bidder under law. The parties anticipate the total cost of the Project will not exceed
$961,083.00 based upon estimated administrative costs and total bid price for the
Project as shown in Table 1 of Exhibit B. If either party determines that, based on
the bid price received, this total cost will be exceeded, Brooklyn Center will not
award the contract unless the parties agree in writing to increase the anticipated total
Project cost. Any such written agreement shall be incorporated in and made part of
this Agreement.
(b) Brooklyn Center shall be responsible for developing the contract documents,
including the contract with the selected Contractor (“Construction Contract”).
Brooklyn Center shall incorporate Minnesota Department of Transportation standard
specifications, rules and contract administration procedure into its Construction
Contract and ensure that the project meets all requirements for cost reimbursement
through the Municipal State Aid (MSA) program.
(c) Brooklyn Center shall require the Contractor to name Minneapolis as an additional
insured on its commercial general liability insurance policy.
4. Project Administration. Brooklyn Center shall be responsible for administering all aspects
of the Project including, but not limited to, construction engineering, contract
administration, State Aid and other agency submittals, staking and inspection, and contract
3
BR291-10-722178.v2
management.
5. Project Financing. Each party is responsible for financing and paying for their respective
portions of the Project costs as provided in this Agreement. Minneapolis intends to
specially assess a portion of its Project costs and is solely responsible for undertaking the
procedures for such assessments in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, chapter 429 and
its codes, policies, and regulations. Brooklyn Center intends to utilize State Aid to pay its
Project costs and is solely responsible for undertaking such procedures as may be required
to secure such financing and comply with the associated requirements.
6. Division of Project Costs. The parties agree they shall each be responsible for paying 50%
of all Project costs (collectively, the “Project Costs”). Project Costs shall include all of
the following costs: surveys and data collection; traffic studies; preparation of drawings
and exhibits; preliminary and final design; preparation of plans and specifications; contract
administration; State Aid submittals; administrative and legal costs; consulting engineering
fees as needed; private utility costs; testing; and all contract construction costs. Project
Costs do not include the costs associated with installing the Separate Improvements.
7. Invoicing for Project Costs. Brooklyn Center shall bill Minneapolis for its share of the
Project Costs as provided in this section.
(a) Brooklyn Center will invoice Minneapolis for its portion of the Project Costs based
on its quantity price and administrative costs as indicated above. The parties
understand and agree Brooklyn Center’s pre-bid cost estimates are only estimates
and that the actual quantity price may be more or less than the figures shown in the
estimate.
(b) Minneapolis shall pay the invoices in full within 30 days of receipt. If Minneapolis
has a question regarding any portion of an invoice it receives, the remainder of the
invoice shall be promptly paid and include a written explanation of the amounts in
question. Payment of any amounts in dispute will be made following good faith
negotiation and documentation of actual costs incurred in carrying out the work.
(c) Final payment on the Construction Contract shall occur only after final
acceptance of improvements by the parties.
8. Separate Improvements. Each party shall be responsible for constructing their respective
Separate Improvements at its own cost. Construction of the Separate Improvements may
occur in advance of the Project.
9. Maintenance of Improvements. Improvement constructed as part of the Project shall be
maintained in accordance with the separate maintenance agreement the parties entered into
for maintenance of the street in the Project Area. Each party shall be responsible for the
Separate Improvements it installs as shown in Exhibit A.
10. Compliance with Laws. The parties agree to comply with all applicable federal, state,
and local laws in carrying out their respective obligations under this Agreement. This
4
BR291-10-722178.v2
Agreement shall be construed and enforced according to the laws of Minnesota.
11. Cooperative Activity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, all activities by the Parties
under this Agreement are intended to be and shall be construed as a “cooperative activity,”
and it is the intent of the Parties that they shall be deemed a “single governmental unit” for
the purposes of determining total liability, as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, section
471.59, subd. 1a. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to alter, or shall be interpreted as
altering, the treatment of the Parties as a single governmental unit. For purposes of
Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59, subdivision 1a, each Party expressly declines
responsibility for the acts or omissions of the other Party.
12. Insurance and Indemnification. The Parties shall carry policies of liability insurance in at
least the amounts specified as the extent of their individual liability under Minnesota
Statutes, section 466.04, as amended. Nothing herein shall be deemed to waive any
statutory limits of liability granted to the Parties. Each Party agrees to defend, indemnify
and hold harmless (including reasonable attorney’s fees) the other Party, their elected
officials, officers, agents and employees from any liability, claims, demands, damages,
personal injury, costs, judgments or expenses arising from any act or omission of the
indemnifying Party relating to the Project. Neither Party shall be required to pay to the
other Party any amount as indemnification under this Agreement, whether arising pursuant
to this Agreement, expressly, by operation of law or otherwise, in excess of the limits of
liability applicable to the indemnifying Party under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466, or in
the event that Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 does not apply, the maximum amount of
insurance coverage available to the indemnifying Party. In those instances in which a
Party is directly liable for damages as well as for indemnification to the other Party, the
combined liability of the indemnifying Party shall not exceed the limits of liability under
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 or, in the event that Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 does
not apply, the maximum amount of insurance coverage available to the indemnifying
Party.
13. Notices. Any notices or correspondence required to be given under this Agreement or
any statute or ordinance shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be given if
delivered personally or mailed postage-prepaid by certified mail, return receipt
requested:
(a) As to Minneapolis:
Lawrence Matsumoto, PE
1901 East 26th Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404
(b) As to Brooklyn Center:
Mike Albers
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
or at such other address as either party may, from time to time, notify the other in
writing in accordance with this paragraph.
5
BR291-10-722178.v2
14. Term. This Agreement is effective as of the Effective Date indicated above and shall
continue in effect until the Project is completed, all work is accepted and all required
payments have been made. The indemnification and audit obligations shall survive the
termination of this Agreement.
15. Employees; Worker’s Compensation. Any and all employees of each Party and all other
persons engaged by that Party in the performance of the Work or any other work or
services required or contemplated by this Agreement shall not be considered employees
of the other Party. Any and all claims that might arise under the Worker’s
Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota
on behalf of said employees while so engaged, and any and all claims made by any third
parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so
engaged, shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the other Party.
16. Miscellaneous Provisions.
(a) Nonwaiver. If either party waives any default or non-performance by the other
party in writing, such waiver shall be deemed to apply only to such event and
shall not waive any other prior or subsequent default.
(b) Preamble and Recitals. The preamble and recitals set forth on page one of this
Agreement are incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement.
(c) Entire Agreement. This Agreement and its Exhibits attached hereto, if any,
evidence the entire agreement between the parties relating to the subject matter
addressed herein and supersedes all other prior agreements and
understandings, written or oral, between the parties.
(d) Amendment. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of
provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced
to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto or
their successors.
(e) Paragraph and Section Headings. The paragraph and section headings used in
this Agreement have no legal significance and are used solely for convenience
of reference.
(f) Contract Administration. To the degree permitted by state law, Minneapolis
designates Brooklyn Center as its representative authorized to act on
Minneapolis’s behalf with respect to this Agreement and delegates to Brooklyn
Center such authority as is needed to carry out the purpose of this Agreement.
(g) Limitations. This Agreement is not intended to and shall not create rights of
any character whatsoever in favor of any person, corporation, association or
entity other than the parties to this Agreement and their successors and assigns,
and the obligations herein assumed are solely for the use and benefit of the
6
BR291-10-722178.v2
parties to this Agreement and their successors and assigns.
(h) Non-Assignment. The parties hereto agree that neither party shall assign,
sublet, transfer or pledge this Agreement and/or the services to be performed
hereunder, whether in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the
non-assigning party. This non-assignment shall not apply to the hiring of
professional services firms (Consultants) to perform services associated with
the project.
(i) Counterparts. For the convenience of the parties, any number of counterparts
hereof may be executed and each such executed counterpart shall be deemed
an original, but all such counterparts together shall constitute one in the same
Agreement.
(j) Data Practices. Data provided to either party or received from either party under
this Agreement shall be administered in accordance with the Minnesota
Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter13.
(k) Audit. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 16C.05, subdivision 5, any books,
records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of each Party
relevant to the Agreement are subject to examination by the other Party and either
the Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor as appropriate. The Parties agree to
maintain these records for a period of at least six years from completion of the
Project.
(l) Severability. In the event that any provision of this Agreement is held to be
invalid, illegal or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
holding shall pertain only to such section and shall not invalidate or render
unenforceable any other provision of this Agreement.
[The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.]
7
BR291-10-722178.v2
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the City of Minneapolis has caused this
Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
Approved by: _______________________________________
Department Head responsible for
Contract Monitoring for this contract
_______________________________________
Date
Approved by: _______________________________________
Finance Officer
______________________________________
Date
Approved as to Form: _______________________________________
Assistant City Attorney
______________________________________
Date
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the City of Brooklyn Center has
caused these presents to be executed the day and year first above
written.
_
Mayor of Brooklyn Center
_
City Manager of Brooklyn Center
Exhibit A
Separate and Project Improvements
City of Brooklyn Center Scope of Work (north half of North 53rd Avenue); No Cost Sharing:
1. Select curb and gutter replacement
2. Minimal storm sewer improvements
3. Minimal water system improvements
4. ADA pedestrian corner upgrades
City of Minneapolis Scope of Work (south half of North 53rd Avenue); No Cost Sharing:
1. Select curb and gutter replacement
2. Minimal storm sewer improvements
3. Minimal water system improvements
4. ADA pedestrian corner upgrades
Brooklyn Center scope of work (North 53rd Avenue); 50/50 Cost Sharing:
1. Create design plans, specifications and bidding document for the mill and overlay on North 53 rd
Avenue (from Penn Avenue N to Lyndale Avenue N (east frontage road), including a new bike
lane complete with striping, images and signs for this new bike lane.
2. Bidding, contract award and execution of a contract for North 53rd Avenue (from Penn Avenue N
to Lyndale Avenue N (east frontage road) to be milled and overlaid. Settlement of any change
orders or supplemental agreements as a part of this contract.
3. Construction management and administration, testing and inspection and documentation of
work performed.
4. Milling and installation of a new 2-inch asphalt wear surface.
5. Installation of new bike lanes; complete with traffic lane marking, images, signs and permanent
bollards.
6. Communication to property owners along the corridor as necessary.
Exhibit B
Table 1. Project Cost
53rd Avenue Mill and Overlay
BC Project No. 2021-12
Engineer's Estimate
January 6, 2022
Estimated
Streets Total
Estimated Expenditures
Estimated Construction Cost Street & Utility $760,083.00 $760,083.00
Contingencies (10%) $76,000.00 $76,000.00
Administration, Engineering, Legal (15%) $125,000.00 $125,000.00
Total Estimated Project Costs
$961,083.00
$961,083.00
Estimated Funding
Minneapolis Funding $480,541.50 $480,541.50
Brooklyn Center Funding (MSA) $480,541.50 $480,541.50
Total Estimated Funding
$961,083.00
$961,083.00
!
"#$"
% %!&'
()
)' !
*+ %
, !&'
() -
%
.#*/ 0
&'
1
%-23
&40
*)!
%5% 04 %6
07
84
-23
%-)'%
9 4%
% -
4
3-2
44
4
3
42
3- 4
%%%
--
%-23
:
%4
;<
;<
=%%
%
% %
3 %-
!% -
'
3 0
&4
2%44
-2%
%
-%
-2%
(%-
%%44
8!-
--
02%3>?
44
%
%%-2
@
4'
'%
!%-4
10
'
42
%44
00-! :2A?B !320!
42
403-
%%
93%44 %
2
0
-!%
-2%
-
02'-
2
%
'
-4 ' % 3%'-!
%-
--%3>?
%
C %3% 3-23
%
%4'
%;3;
44
%
'%&'
() 40'% 3-23
4
244
% 4
'
3% 40244!
3
4
!
4
%44
!
.3!.!.'--
""#$"
40 #4 4
0 D
2-
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE
REMOVAL OF DEAD TREES AT CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN BROOKLYN
CENTER, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center City Code Section 20-202 and 19-101 thru 19-106,
declares any dead tree a public nuisance and provides for abatement by the City if not corrected by
the property owner; and
WHEREAS, removal of dead trees and abatement of the public nuisance is
necessary to prevent the hazard and to protect the safety of the public in neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, a Notice to Abate Nuisance and a Dead Tree Removal Agreement has
been issued to the owners of certain properties in the City of Brooklyn Center giving the owners
ten (10) days to remove dead trees on the owners’ property; and
WHEREAS, the City can expedite the removal of these dead trees by declaring
them a public nuisance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The dead tree at the following address is hereby declared to be a public nuisance.
Property Address Tree Type Tree Number
3212 QUARLES RD MAPLE 43
6920 EMERSON AVE N ASH 74
5715 KNOWX AVE N ASH 76
5700 GIRARD AVE N ASH 77, 78,79
5613 IRVING AVE N ASH 80
5410 FRANCE AVE N ASH 82
6413 JUNE AVE N ASH 86
2. After ten (10) days from the date of the initial notice, the property owner(s) was
notified of the council action regarding the determination by the City Council
declaring the dead tree a public nuisance.
3. The property owner(s) will receive a final written notice providing five (5) business
days in which to contest the determination of the City Council by requesting, in
writing, a hearing. Said request shall be filed with the City Clerk.
4. After five (5) days, if the property owner fails to request a hearing, the tree(s) shall
be removed by the City. The cost of abatement shall be recorded and become the
personal responsibility of the owner of record. If unpaid, the costs shall be
specially assessed to the property in accordance with city codes and Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 429.
RESOLUTION NO. ______________
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
!
"#$" %&'!'
()'
%* +,!'
()'
-#%. /))(
0 '
,1,%
1002
3
))45
%-,
&
!
"
45
%-,
&
( , ),
, 6,
,,'
)
7 6
,
2, , )
)(
6
&' )2 '6
'
''
86
%&
,
. !
!'/,))(9:
!
''
6
1,%
100
,,
/2;/ '61,%
100
2
%&2, 2,
)
,)< )
2=
!)
!&
!;)
6&;
2
6
2)
/266,'
,
2%&
6,
6 2>? @95A) 722,
)!,
(2'''
2 $ 6
,, >(
,@4!5
A 72,2'1,%
100
2, ,
, (>( @9 !4:5A)'
6,> 2,', ,
65!
;)
.4!
:,
)/22
/>(
/ , ;)
B
26
3!
;,2', 2
6
(
)) ,='
'
C );)
!, , )
')/
C"(
, , ),
/'
)( ) 2(2, ))''
86
8
,
2%&
6 8 , 2 / ,
)
*0
'2,6
2 ,2
(6
%&-,
66
2'(,6'
6,,2 '
%&
D%
/
%
6'%B1
%
6
6%&,,2 '
!
,''
B'!
'
-6
""#$"
)/ #) )
/0 -,-) E
/0F
0 '2-,-) E
%&)
BR291-4-774323.v1
Commissioner _____________________ introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
EDA RESOLUTION NO.______________
RESOLUTION APPROVING TERMS OF LOAN TO PHU BIA PRODUCE
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY FROM EDA REVOLVING LOAN FUND
AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF LOAN DOCUMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners of the Economic Development Authority
of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the “Board”), as follows:
1. Revolving Loan Program. The Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center,
Minnesota (the “EDA”) previously approved a Revolving Loan Fund Program (the “Program”), which
is administered by the EDA pursuant to its adopted policies, procedures, and guidelines.
2. Request for Loan. Phu Bia Produce Limited Liability Company, a Minnesota limited
liability company (the “Borrower”), has submitted a Program application requesting assistance to help
finance certain physical improvements to the building located at 1350 Shingle Creek Crossing,
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, including a walk-in cooler, restrooms, sidings and polishing of exiting
concrete floor deemed necessary for the operation of a retail store used for produce distribution (the
“Project”).
3. Board Approval; Proposed Terms of Loans. The loan (“Loan”) is to be made from
Program funds in the amount of $70,000 at an interest rate of 1.25% per annum. The Loan will be
amortized over seven years with the first monthly payment due on August 1, 2022. The Loan will be
secured by a Promissory Note and Security Agreement from the Borrower, together with a personal
guaranty from the owner of the Borrower. The Board hereby approves the Loan proposed to be
provided to Borrower under the Program.
4. Loan Documents and Execution Approved. The EDA has caused a Loan Agreement,
Security Agreement, Personal Guaranty, and Promissory Note to be drafted for the above-described
Loan (the “Loan Documents”). The Board hereby authorizes the President and Executive Director to
finalize and execute the Loan Documents.
January 24, 2022
Date President
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
1
BR291-4-774365.v2
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
COMMERCIAL LEASE AGREEMENT
This Lease Agreement made the ____ day of _________________,
20____, by and between City of Brooklyn Center, 6301 Shingle Creek
Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "Lessor",
and Phu Bia Produce Limited Liability Company, a Minnesota limited
liability company, 1350 Shingle Creek Crossing, Brooklyn Center,
Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "Lessee." Lessor and Lessee,
collectively referred to herein as the “Parties”, agree as follows:
1. DESCRIPTION OF LEASED PREMISES: The Lessor agrees to lease to the
Lessee approximately 3,500 square feet (SF) of retail/commercial located at
1350B Shingle Creek Crossing, Brooklyn Center, State of Minnesota,
hereinafter referred to as the “Premises”.
2. USE OF LEASED PREMISES: The Lessor is leasing the Premises to the
Lessee and the Lessee is hereby agreeing to lease the Premises for the
following use and purpose: Retail store and distribution of produce.
Any change in use or purpose to the Premises other than as described above
shall be upon prior written consent of Lessor only.
3. TERM OF LEASE: The term of this Lease shall be for a period of ____
year(s) ____ month(s) commencing on the ____ day of
_________________, 20____ and expiring at Midnight on the ____ day of
_________________, 20____. (“Initial Term”).
4. BASE RENT: The net monthly payment shall be four thousand three hundred
seventy-five dollars ($4,375.00), payable monthly with the first payment due on
August 1, 2022 and each monthly installment due thereafter on the 1st day of
each month payable by the 10th of each month. Said net monthly payment is-
hereafter referred to as the “Base Rent". Rent for any period during the term
hereon, which is for less than 1 month shall be a pro-rata portion of the monthly
rent.
5. OPTION TO RENEW: (Check One)
տ - Lessee may not renew the Lease.
տ - Lessee may have the right to renew the Lease with a total of ____
renewal period(s) with each term being ____ year(s) ____ month(s)
which may be exercised by giving written notice to Lessor no less than
2
BR291-4-774365.v2
60 days prior to the expiration of the Lease or respective renewal
period.
Rent for each option period shall: (Check One)
տ - Not increase.
տ - Shall be based on the current market rates for comparable
premises provided that the Base Rent upon the Renewal Term
shall not increase by more than 3% above the Base Rent payable
in the immediately preceding year.
6. EXPENSES: [Check and Initial whether this Lease is Gross, Modified Gross,
or Triple Net (NNN)]
տ - GROSS. Tenant’s Initials _____ Landlord’s Initials _____
It is the intention of the Parties that this Lease be considered a “Gross
Lease” and as such, the Base Rent is the entirety of the monthly rent.
Therefore, the Lessee is not obligated to pay any additional expenses
which includes utilities, real estate taxes, insurance (other than on the
Lessee’s personal property), charges or expenses of any nature
whatsoever in connection with the ownership and operation of the
Premises. The Lessor shall be obligated to maintain the general exterior
structure of the Premises, in addition, shall maintain all major systems
such as the heating, plumbing, and electrical. The parking area shall be
maintained by the Lessor including the removal of any snow or
environmental hazards as well as the grounds and lands surrounding the
Premises. The Lessor shall maintain at their expense casualty insurance
for the Premises against loss by fire which may or may not include any
extended coverage. The Lessee will provide and maintain personal liability
and property damage insurance as a lessee, at least to the limits of
$1,500,000.00 per occurrence, that will designate the Lessor as an "also
named insured", and shall provide the Lessor with a copy of such
insurance certification or policy prior to the effective date of this Lease.
տ. MODIFIED GROSS. Tenant’s Initials _____ Landlord’s Initials _____
It is the intention of the Parties that this Lease shall be considered a
“Modified Gross Lease”.
In addition to the Base Rent, the Lessee shall be obligated to pay the
following monthly expenses: Electricity, Gas, Water/Sewer, Plumbing
maintenance (grease traps, drainage and pipes maintenance), Electrical
maintenance, other minor repairs.
3
BR291-4-774365.v2
Lessor shall pay the following monthly expenses: Snow removal, Trash
service, Parking lot maintenance, HVAC maintenance.
տ. TRIPLE NET (NNN). Tenant’s Initials _____ Landlord’s Initials _____
It is the intention of the Parties that this Lease shall be considered a
“Triple Net Lease”.
I. Operating Expenses. The Lessor shall have no obligation to
provide any services, perform any acts, or pay expenses, charges,
obligations or costs of any kind whatsoever with respect to the
Premises. The Lessee hereby agrees to pay one-hundred percent
(100%) of any and all Operating Expenses as hereafter defined for
the entire term of the Lease and any extensions thereof in
accordance with specific provisions hereinafter set forth. The term
“Operating Expenses” shall include all costs to the Lessor
of operating and maintaining the Premises, and shall include,
without limitation, real estate and personal property taxes and
assessments, management fee(s), heating, air conditioning, HVAC,
electricity, water, waste disposal, sewage, operating materials and
supplies, service agreements and charges, lawn care, snow
removal, restriping, repairs, repaving, cleaning and custodial,
security, insurance, the cost of contesting the validity or
applicability of any governmental acts which may affect operating
expenses, and all other direct operating costs of operating
and maintaining the Premises and related parking areas, unless
expressly excluded from operating expenses.
II. Taxes. Lessee shall pay, during the term of this Lease, the real
estate taxes including any special taxes or assessments
(collectively, the "taxes") attributable to the Premises and accruing
during such term. Lessee, at Lessor’s option, shall pay to Lessor
said taxes on a monthly basis, based on one-twelfth (1/12) of the
estimated annual amount for taxes. Taxes for any fractional
calendar year during the term hereof shall be prorated. In the event
the Lessee does not make any tax payment required
hereunder, Lessee shall be in default of this Lease.
III. Insurance. Lessee shall maintain, at all times during the Term of
this Lease, comprehensive general liability insurance in an
insurance company licensed to do business in the State in which
the Premises are located and that is satisfactory to Lessor, properly
protecting and indemnifying Lessor with single limit coverage of not
less than ______________________
Dollars ($__________________) for injury to or
______________________ dollars ($__________________) death
of persons and
4
BR291-4-774365.v2
______________________ dollars ($__________________) for
property damage. During the Term of this Lease, Lessee shall
furnish the Lessor with certificate(s) of insurance, in a form
acceptable to Lessor, covering such insurance so maintained by
Lessee and naming Lessor and Lessor's mortgagees, if any, as
additional insured.
7. SECURITY DEPOSIT: In addition to the above, a deposit from Lessee in the
amount of four thousand three hundred seventy-five dollars ($4,375.00), shall be
due and payable to Lessor in advance or at the signing of this Lease, hereinafter
referred to as the “Security Deposit.” If Lessee fails to perform any term of this
Lease, Lessor may use the Security Deposit for payment of money that Lessor
may spend or damages that Lessor suffers because of Lessee’s failure to
perform. Lessor may use the Security Deposit to pay for any damage caused to
the Premises caused by Lessee or Lessee’s invitees. Lessor shall, within three
weeks after termination of this Lease and receipt of Lessee’s mailing address or
delivery instructions, return the Security Deposit. If Lessor does not return the
Security Deposit or only returns a portion of the Security Deposit, Lessor must
give Lessee a written statement with the specific reasons for withholding all or
part of the Security Deposit.
8. LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS: The Lessee agrees that no leasehold
improvements, alterations or changes of any nature, (except for those permitted
through the Revolving Loan Fund Program loan received by Lessee from the
Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota) shall be made
to the Premises or the exterior of the building without first obtaining the consent
of the Lessor in writing, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld,
and thereafter, any and all leasehold improvements made to the Premises which
become affixed or attached to the leasehold Premises shall remain the property
of the Lessor at the expiration or termination of this Lease. Furthermore, any
leasehold improvements shall be made only in accordance with applicable
federal, state or local codes, ordinances or regulations, having due regard for the
type of construction of the building housing the subject leasehold Premises. If the
Lessee makes any improvements to the Premises the Lessee shall be
responsible for payment, except the following: None.
Nothing in the Lease shall be construed to authorize the Lessee or any other
person acting for the Lessee to encumber the rents of the Premises or the
interest of the Lessee in the Premises or any person under and through whom
the Lessee has acquired its interest in the Premises with a mechanic’s lien or any
other type of encumbrance. Under no circumstance shall the Lessee be
construed to be the agent, employee or representative of Lessor. In the even a
lien is placed against the Premises, through actions of the Lessee, Lessee
will promptly pay the same or bond against the same and take steps immediately
to have such lien removed. If the Lessee fails to have the Lien removed, the
5
BR291-4-774365.v2
Lessor shall take steps to remove the lien and the Lessee shall pay Lessor for all
expenses related to the Lien and removal thereof and shall be in default of this
Lease.
9. LICENSES AND PERMITS: A copy of any and all local, state or federal
permits acquired by the Lessee which are required for the use of the Premises
shall be kept on site at all times and shall be readily accessible and produced to
the Lessor and/or their agents or any local, state, or federal officials upon
demand.
10. OBLIGATIONS OF LESSEE: The Lessee shall be primarily responsible
whenever needed for the maintenance and general pickup of the entranceway
leading into the Premises, so that this is kept in a neat, safe and presentable
condition. The Lessee shall also be responsible for all minor repairs and
maintenance of the leasehold Premises, particularly those items which need
immediate attention and which the Lessees, or their employees, can do and
perform on their own, including but not limited to, the replacement of light bulbs,
as well as the normal repair and cleaning of windows, cleaning and clearing
of toilets, etc., and the Lessee shall properly maintain the Premises in a good,
safe, and clean condition. The Lessee shall properly and promptly remove all
rubbish and hazardous wastes and see that the same are properly disposed of
according to all local, state or federal laws, rules regulations or ordinances.
In the event the structure of the Premises is damaged as a result of any neglect
or negligence of Lessee, their employees, agents, business invitees, or any
independent contractors serving the Lessee or in any way as a result of Lessee’s
use and occupancy of the Premises, then the Lessee shall be primarily
responsible for seeing that the proper claims are placed with the Lessee’s
insurance company, or the damaging party's insurance company, and shall
furthermore be responsible for seeing that the building is safeguarded with
respect to said damage and that all proper notices with respect to said damage,
are made in a timely fashion, including notice to the Lessor, and the party or
parties causing said damage. Any damage that is not covered by an insurance
company will be the liability of the Lessee.
The Lessee shall, during the term of this Lease, and in the renewal thereof, at its
sole expense, keep the interior of the Premises in as good a condition and repair
as it is at the date of this Lease, reasonable wear and use excepted. This
obligation would include the obligation to replace any plate glass damaged as a
result of the neglect or acts of Lessee or her guests or invitees. Furthermore, the
Lessee shall not knowingly commit nor permit to be committed any act or thing
contrary to the rules and regulations prescribed from time to time by any federal,
state or local authorities and shall expressly not be allowed to keep or maintain
any hazardous waste materials or contaminates on the Premises. Lessee shall
also be responsible for the cost, if any, which would be incurred to bring her
contemplated operation and business activity into compliance with any law or
regulation of a federal, state or local authority.
6
BR291-4-774365.v2
11. INSURANCE: In the event the Lessee shall fail to obtain insurance required
hereunder and fails to maintain the same in force continuously during the term,
Lessor may, but shall not be required to, obtain the same and charge the Lessee
for same as additional rent. Furthermore, Lessee agrees not to keep upon the
Premises any articles or goods which may be prohibited by the standard form of
fire insurance policy, and in the event the insurance rates applicable to fire and
extended coverage covering the Premises shall be increased by reason of any
use of the Premises made by Lessee, then Lessee shall pay to Lessor,
upon demand, such increase in insurance premium as shall be caused by said
use or Lessee’s proportionate share of any such increase.
12. SUBLET/ASSIGNMENT: The Lessee may not transfer or assign this Lease,
or any right or interest hereunder or sublet said leased Premises or any part
thereof without first obtaining the prior written consent and approval of the
Lessor.
13. DAMAGE TO LEASED PREMISES: In the event the building housing the
Premises shall be destroyed or damaged as a result of any fire or other casualty
which is not the result of the intentional acts or neglect of Lessee and which
precludes or adversely affects the Lessee’s occupancy of the Premises, then in
every such cause, the rent herein set forth shall be abated or adjusted according
to the extent to which the leased Premises have been rendered unfit for use and
occupation by the Lessee and until the demised Premises have been put in a
condition at the expense of the Lessor, at least to the extent of the value and as
nearly as possible to the condition of the Premises existing immediately prior to
such damage. It is understood, however, in the event of total or substantial
destruction to the Premises that in no event shall the Lessor's obligation to
restore, replace or rebuild exceed an amount equal to the sum of the insurance
proceeds available for reconstruction with respect to said damage.
14. DEFAULT AND POSSESSION: In the event that the Lessee shall fail to pay
rent, and any other expenses as set forth herein, or any part thereof, when the
same are due and payable, or shall otherwise be in default of any other terms of
said Lease for a period of more than 15 days after receiving notice of said
default, then the parties hereto expressly agree and covenant that the Lessor
may declare the Lease terminated and may immediately re-enter said Premises
and take possession of the same together with any of Lessee’s
personal property, equipment or fixtures left on the Premises which items may
be held by the Lessor as security for the Lessee’s eventual payment and/or
satisfaction of rental defaults or other defaults of Lessee under the Lease. It is
further agreed, that if the Lessee is in default, that the Lessor shall be entitled to
take any and all action to protect its interest in the personal property and
equipment, to prevent the unauthorized removal of said property or
equipment which threatened action would be deemed to constitute irreparable
harm and injury to the Lessor in violation of its security interest in said items of
personal property. Furthermore, in the event of default, the Lessor may
expressly undertake all reasonable preparations and efforts to release the
7
BR291-4-774365.v2
Premises including, but not limited to, the removal of all inventory, equipment or
leasehold improvements of the Lessee’s, at the Lessee’s expense, without
the need to first procure an order of any court to do so, although obligated in the
interim to undertake reasonable steps and procedures to safeguard the value of
Lessee’s property, including the storage of the same, under reasonable terms
and conditions at Lessee’s expense, and, in addition, it is understood that the
Lessor may sue the Lessee for any damages or past rents due and owing and
may undertake all and additional legal remedies then available.
In the event any legal action has to be instituted to enforce any terms or
provisions under this Lease, then the prevailing party in said action shall be
entitled to recover a reasonable attorney’s fee in addition to all costs of said
action.
Rent which is in default for more than 10 days after due date shall accrue a
payment penalty of one of the following: (Check One)
տ - Interest at a rate of _______________ percent (_____ %) per
annum on a daily basis until the amount is paid in full.
_ - Late fee of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00).
In this regard, all delinquent rental payments made shall be applied first toward
interest due and the remaining toward delinquent rental payments.
15. INDEMNIFICATION: The Lessee hereby covenants and agrees to indemnify,
defend and hold the Lessor harmless from any and all claims or liabilities which
may arise from any cause whatsoever as a result of Lessee’s use and occupancy
of the Premises, and further shall indemnify the Lessor for any losses which the
Lessor may suffer in connection with the Lessee’s use and occupancy or care,
custody and control of the Premises. The Lessee also hereby covenants and
agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Lessor from any and all claims or
liabilities which may arise from any latent defects in the subject Premises that
the Lessor is not aware of at the signing of the lease or at any time during the
lease term. Nothing contained herein shall be interpreted to constitute a waiver
of any statutory liability limits that Lessor is entitled to, whether under Minnesota
Statutes, chapter 466 or any other law.
16. BANKRUPTCY - INSOLVENCY: The Lessee agrees that in the event all or a
substantial portion of the Lessee’s assets are placed in the hands of a receiver
or a Trustee, and such status continues for a period of 30 days, or should the
Lessee make an assignment for the benefit of creditors or be adjudicated
bankrupt; or should the Lessee institute any proceedings under the bankruptcy
act or any amendment thereto, then this Lease or interest in and to the leased
Premises shall not become an asset in any such proceedings and, in such
event, and in addition to any and all other remedies of the Lessor hereunder
or by law provided, it shall be lawful for the Lessor to declare the term hereof
ended and to reenter the leased land and take possession thereof and all
8
BR291-4-774365.v2
improvements thereon and to remove all persons therefrom and the Lessee
shall have no further claim thereon.
17. SUBORDINATION AND ATTORNMENT: Upon request of the Lessor,
Lessee will subordinate its rights hereunder to the lien of any mortgage now or
hereafter in force against the property or any portion thereof, and to all
advances made or hereafter to be made upon the security thereof, and to any
ground or underlying lease of the property provided, however, that in such case
the holder of such mortgage, or the Lessor under such Lease shall agree that
this Lease shall not be divested or in any way affected by foreclosure, or other
default proceedings under said mortgage, obligation secured thereby, or Lease,
so long as the Lessee shall not be in default under the terms of this Lease.
Lessee agrees that this Lease shall remain in full force and effect
notwithstanding any such default proceedings under said mortgage or obligation
secured thereby.
Lessee shall, in the event of the sale or assignment of Lessor's interest in the
building of which the Premises form a part, or in the event of any proceedings
brought for the foreclosure of, or in the event of exercise of the power of sale
under any mortgage made by Lessor covering the Premises, attorn to the
purchaser and recognize such purchaser as Lessor under this Lease.
18. MISCELLANEOUS TERMS:
I. Usage by Lessee: Lessee shall comply with all rules, regulations and laws of
any governmental authority with respect to use and occupancy. Lessee shall
not conduct or permit to be conducted upon the Premises any business or
permit any act which is contrary to or in violation of any law, rules or
regulations and requirements that may be imposed by any authority or any
insurance company with which the Premises is insured, nor will the Lessee
allow the Premises to be used in any way which will invalidate or be in conflict
with any insurance policies applicable to the building. In no event shall
explosives or extra hazardous materials be taken onto or retained on
the Premises. Furthermore, Lessee shall not install or use any equipment that
will cause undue interference with the peaceable and quiet enjoyment of the
Premises by other tenants of the building.
II. Signs: Lessee shall not place on any exterior door, wall or window of the
Premises any sign or advertising matter without Lessor’s prior written consent
and the approval of any other government authority with jurisdiction. Thereafter,
Lessee agrees to maintain such sign or advertising matter as first approved by
Lessor in good condition and repair. Furthermore, Lessee shall conform to any
uniform reasonable sign plan or policy that the Lessor may introduce with
respect to the building. Upon vacating the Premises, Lessee agrees to remove
all signs and to repair all damages caused or resulting from such removal.
9
BR291-4-774365.v2
III. Animals: Unless otherwise stated in this Lease Agreement, the only animals
that shall be allowed on the Premises are those needed legally due to a
disability or handicap.
IV. Condition of Premises/Inspection by Lessee: The Lessee has had the
opportunity to inspect the Premises and acknowledges with its signature on this
lease that the Premises are in good condition and comply in all respects with the
requirements of this Lease. Furthermore, the Lessor makes no representation or
warranty with respect to the condition of the Premises or its fitness or availability
for any particular use, and the Lessor shall not be liable for any latent or patent
defect therein. Furthermore, the Lessee represents that Lessee has inspected
the Premises and is leasing and will take possession of the Premises with all
current fixtures present in their “as is” condition as of the date hereof.
V. Right of Entry: It is agreed and understood that the Lessor and its agents shall
have the complete and unencumbered right of entry to the Premises at any time
or times for purposes of inspecting or showing the Premises and for the
purpose of making any necessary repairs to the building or equipment as may
be required of the Lessor under the terms of this Lease or as may be deemed
necessary with respect to the inspection, maintenance or repair of the
building.
19. ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE: Lessee at any time and from time to time, upon
at least ten (10) days prior notice by Lessor, shall execute, acknowledge and
deliver to Lessor, and/or to any other person, firm or corporation specified by
Lessor, a statement certifying that the Lease is unmodified and in full force and
effect, or if the Lease has been modified, then that the same is in full force and
effect except as modified and stating the modifications, stating the dates to
which the fixed rent and additional rent have been paid, and stating whether
or not there exists any default by Lessor under this Lease and, if so, specifying
each such default.
20. HOLDOVER: Should Lessee remain in possession of the Premises after
the cancellation, expiration or sooner termination of the Lease, or any renewal
thereof, without the execution of a new Lease or addendum, such holding over
in the absence of a written agreement to the contrary shall be deemed, if
Lessor so elects, to have created and be construed to be a tenancy from month
to month, terminable upon thirty (30) days’ notice by either party.
21. WAIVER: Waiver by Lessor of a default under this Lease shall not constitute
a waiver of a subsequent default of any nature.
22. GOVERNING LAW: This Lease shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
23. NOTICES: Payments and notices shall be addressed to the following:
10
BR291-4-774365.v2
Lessor:
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Attn: City Manager
Lessee:
Phu Bia Produce Limited Liability Company
1350 Shingle Creek Crossing
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Attention: Mai Y Lor
24. AMENDMENT: No amendment of this Lease shall be effective unless
reduced to writing and subscribed by the parties with all the formality of the
original.
25. BINDING EFFECT: This Lease and any amendments thereto shall be
binding upon the Lessor and the Lessees and/or their respective successors,
heirs, assigns, executors and administrators.
[signature page follows]
11
BR291-4-774365.v2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto set their hands and seal this
____ day of _________________, 20____.
PHU BIA PRODUCE LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY:
By:
Name:
Its: Chief Manager
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
By:
Name: Mike Elliott
Its: Mayor
By:
Name: Reggie Edwards
Its: City Manager
!
"#$" %&'!''
()'
%* + !)
,''
()'
-#%+
'
.),.
,
/0 ))( 0-''/1
0,.
2 3'
4
!
"
#
# $
%
0,)(
.5
))' &).
, !. ,.0.
.).
&16
.'
,.
.(
0070)
,'8
.
'.
)
9
&)0
.
.
. .5 ,.
0,)(
.
. .)0,
.,
.
.: 5
'
.
)(
;
'
00
.
( .
)(
)0
..<') .))
'
.)1
.
!1 0)(
0 ..
8
0)
&'( )
* +
(
'
,
# -
!
* '.
+
' /
0
1
&( 2
!"# $!% &$ $
3!
4 /
!
$
$
5
0
$
' 6 7
0
'
/
8
$
"
)
( * .+
%
3
$
+
-
+
$
$
!
* '.
%
'
-
9
+
67': '
5
;<,9
/
'
$(
)*
# $
=
3 :
=
$
=
5
(.=
=
!
# $
9
/
'
=
.
=('1>!
!'0.
))(7
,.
)1
.
,'18
+
)$
$ > .
?>.@. ?.9@
$
=
$
=
&
&
8
=
$
# $
/ /
.
?%AA
A
A AA;A
''
'''
''
'
@,
>8
9
' $
# $
1
'
8
$
/
8 $ B
C!
* '
C&' *
C,)
C
C,
C
#
(
,
/
'
&
'
=
)
0
/,+
$
D
)
$
9 +
# $
E
' # $
D
$
*
'
# $
:4:6
?*3=@
# $
$
$
7,9
.# $
1
*3=
$
$
/
+
!"
#$#
%
"=
F* 5
%
&
$
# $
B
. G # $
B
B
(/
B
$
,/
$
'
(/
9
" &
.1
.
0'
-?. 1&
..
() !'
.
.
,'0
.,.
-?.0+@!
.
))
(
61& )(
''
6.
.
.() +.!
'',
.
6.
%&
))0'
&1)),..'
(3
),%& )'.8
A,.
'
'B
' .(., .
.
'
&<)
01 !(
0
)'.)) ,.
)(
)0
,)
'
C
' ,
%&
!
-,!-!-1''
""#$"
)0 #) )
0 >
0B6
/)
.#) >
&
)
0#) >
%&)
C;C
D"
''
3
%&)
'
C-1)'
%&)
++
0)
%&)
+@0) >
%&)
BR291-4-766437.v2
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-____
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING
TENANT PROTECTION AND SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center (“City”) previously amended the City Code to
establish certain protections for tenants of affordable housing units and now desires to expand
those protections; and
WHEREAS, City staff developed a proposed ordinance titled “An Ordinance Amending
Chapter 12 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding Tenant Protections” (“Ordinance”), which
amends Sections 12-912D and 12-1401 of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council discussed this issue at several work sessions and the
proposed Ordinance was presented to the City Council to conduct a first reading on November 8,
2021 in accordance with Section 3.04 of the City Charter; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance was presented to the City Council to conduct a public
hearing and a second reading on December 13, 2021 in accordance with Section 3.04 of the City
Charter; and
WHEREAS, the City Council continued the second reading from December 13, 2021 to
January 24, 2022, and the City Council acted at its meeting on January 24, 2022 to adopt the above-
referenced Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 412.191, subdivision 4 allows publication of
adopted ordinances by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing
maps or charts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determines publishing the entire text of the Ordinance is not
in the best interests of the City as the Ordinance is readily available to the public on the City’s
website and by contacting City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determines the following summary clearly informs the
public of the intent of Ordinance and where to obtain a copy of the full text.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center as follows:
1. A second reading has been conducted and the Ordinance is hereby adopted.
BR291-4-766437.v2
2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish the following notice and summary
of the Ordinance, which is hereby approved, once in the City’s official newspaper:
City of Brooklyn Center
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE CITY
CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING TENANT PROTECTION
Please take notice that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center has
adopted an ordinance to amend Chapter 12 of the City Code by amending Section 12-
912D to expand the protections provided to tenants of affordable housing units. The
ordinance establishes new requirements for landlords to provide tenants a notice at least
14 days before filing an eviction action, to provide tenants expanded 90 days’ notice of
nonrenewal or notice explaining the basis of a just cause nonrenewal of a lease, and
provides for filing a private enforcement action in district court for a violation of the
tenant protections under the section, including the seeking of an award of attorney’s fees.
A copy of the full ordinance is available on the City’s website.
3. City staff and consultants are authorized to take such other actions as may be needed to
incorporate the Ordinance into the City Code and to otherwise carry out the intent of this
Resolution.
January 24, 2022
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
1
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 13th day of December, 2021, at
7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard to consider an ordinance related to
tenant protections. City Council meetings are being conducted by electronic means under
Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.021 and information on how to connect to the meeting is
provided on the City’s website. Please notify the City Clerk at 763-569-3306 if there are any
questions about how to connect to the meeting.
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE CITY CODE OF
ORDINANCES REGARDING TENANT PROTECTION
THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN:
Article I. Legislative Findings. The City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center hereby finds
and determines as follows:
a. Tenants of affordable housing units have an income of 80% or less, and in some case much
less, of the area median income and so have few resources to fight predatory practices,
unjustified repair fees, retaliation, or other practices that exploit tenants within affordable
housing buildings;
b. The City Council regularly receives complaints at its meetings from residents of affordable
housing units regarding how they are treated by the owners and the resulting negative
emotional and financial impacts of those interactions;
c. The City Council previously adopted Section 12-912D to establish certain tenant protections
for those living within affordable housing units as an initial step to address the exploitation of
these tenants;
d. The City Council determines it is necessary to expand those initial protections in order to
promote housing stability and protect the health, safety, and welfare of those living within
affordable housing units; and
e. The tenant protections adopted as part of Section 12-912D are intended to be part of the health
and safety covenants in Minnesota Statutes, section 504B.161, subdivision 1(a)(4) and as
additional conditions provided for by ordinance as acknowledged in subdivision 4 of the same
statute.
Article II. Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 12-201 is amended by adding the following
definition and renumbering the subsequent definitions as needed:
2
__. Just Cause – any of the bases listed under Section 12-912D(5)(b) upon which an owner of
an affordable housing building may terminate tenancy.
Article III. Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 12-912D is amended by adding subsections 12-
912D(4), 12-912D(5), and 12-912(6) as follows, and renumbering the subsequent subsections as
needed:
4. Pre-Eviction Filing Notice. Except as provided otherwise in this subsection, an owner of an
affordable housing unit shall provide at least 14 days’ written notice to a tenant prior to filing
an eviction action on the basis of either: (a) an alleged non-payment of rent; or (b) an alleged
material breach of a lease.
a. Notices for Non-payment of Rent. For an allegation of any non-payment of rent, the notice
shall, at a minimum, include the following information:
(1) The name, mailing address, and telephone number of the person authorized to
receive rent and fees on behalf of the owner;
(2) The total amount of money due and owing to the owner by the tenant;
(3) A specific accounting of the money due and owing to the owner by the tenant,
including any past due rents, any late fees, and any other charges; and
(4) The deadline by which the total amount due and owing to the owner by the tenant
shall be paid to avoid an eviction action, which shall be no earlier than 14 days
from the date on which the notice is delivered.
b. Notices for Material Breach of a Lease. For an allegation of a material breach of a
lease, the notice shall, at a minimum, include the following information:
(1) The name, mailing address, and telephone number of the owner;
(2) A description of the specific conduct that the owner alleges is a violation of the
lease, including the dates of the violations and the persons who committed the
alleged violations;
(3) Identification of the specific clause of the lease alleged to have been violated;
(4) Notification that the tenant has the right to correct the alleged breach;
(5) Notification of how the tenant may correct the alleged breach;
(6) The deadline by which the alleged breach shall be corrected to avoid an eviction
action, which shall be no earlier than 14 days from the date on which the notice is
delivered; and
3
(7) A copy of the lease attached to the notice.
c. Exception for Expedited Eviction Actions. For an expedited eviction action filed
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 504B.321, subdivision 2, the owner shall
provide the notice required by Section 12-912D(4)(d) at least three days in advance of
filing the eviction action.
d. Additional Notice Requirements. All notices under this subsection shall also include
the following information:
(1) Notification that the tenant may be evicted if they do not pay the past due rent or
correct the alleged breach of lease by the deadline, as applicable;
(2) Information about accessing rental assistance by calling 211 or visiting
https://www.211unitedway.org/; and
(3) Information about accessing legal help by visiting the Law Help Website at
https://www.lawhelpmn.org/.
e. Delivery of Notice. The owner, or an agent for the owner, shall deliver any notice
required by this subsection personally or by first-class mail to the address of the
affordable housing unit. Such notice may, in addition to but not in place of personal
delivery or delivery by first-class mail, be delivered to any email or other electronic
means to the tenant at the tenant’s email address or electronic account.
f. Enforcement. In addition to any other remedy available at equity or law, failure to
comply with the provisions of this subsection may result in adverse rental license
actions, the imposition of administrative fines, or other penalties as provided in law.
g. Waiver Not Allowed. The parties to a written or oral lease of an affordable housing
unit shall not waive or modify the requirements imposed by this subsection. Any such
waiver provision that may exist in a lease is not enforceable.
5. Notice of Nonrenewal of Lease to Tenants.
a. Nonrenewal of Tenant With or Without Just Cause. An owner of an affordable housing
unit shall not issue a notice of nonrenewal of tenancy, refuse to renew, or issue a notice
to quit unless the owner: (a) provides at least 90 days’ written notice of nonrenewal to
the tenant, with or without Just Cause, or (b) provides written notice of nonrenewal to
the tenant that establishes one or more of the Just Causes listed under Section 12-
912D(5)(b).
b. Just Cause Notice. One or more of the following bases must be established to meet the
requirement under Section 12-912D(5)(a) to provide written notice of nonrenewal to a
tenant for Just Cause:
4
(1) Non-payment of Rent. The tenant fails to pay all monies owed to an owner after
receiving a written notice of non-payment from the owner;
(2) Material Non-Compliance. The tenant fails to cure a material breach of the lease after
receiving a written notice from the owner;
(3) Refusal to Renew. The tenant refuses to renew or extend the lease after the owner
requests in writing that the tenant do so;
(4) Occupancy by Property Owner or Family Member. The owner, in good faith, seeks to
recover possession of the unit so that the owner or a family member may occupy the
unit as that person’s principal residence;
(5) Building Demolishment or Conversion. The building is demolished or converted as
follows:
(i) The owner elects to demolish the building in which the affordable housing unit
is located, convert it to a cooperative, provided the owner complies with the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes, chapter 515B, or convert it to non-residential
use, provided that the owner shall obtain all permits necessary to demolish or
change the use before terminating any tenancy;
(ii) The owner seeks, in good faith, to recover the unit to sell it in accordance with a
condominium conversion, provided the owner complies with the provisions of
Minnesota Statutes, chapter 515B; or
(iii) The unit is being converted to a unit subsidized under a local, state, or federal
housing program and the tenant does not qualify to rent the unit under that
program;
(6) Rehabilitation and Renovation. The owner seeks, in good faith, to recover possession
of the unit that will render the unit uninhabitable for the duration of rehabilitation or
renovation;
(7) Complying with a Government Order to Vacate. The owner is complying with a
government agency’s order to vacate, order to abate, or any other order that necessitates
the vacating of the unit as a result of a violation of City Code or any other provision of
law including, but not limited to, Section 12-911 related to conduct, disorderly
activities, or nuisances; or
(8) Occupancy Conditioned on Employment. The tenant’s occupancy is conditioned upon
employment on the property and the employment relationship is terminated.
c. Owner Responsibilities. Any lease for an affordable housing unit shall include just
cause notice language as follows:
5
“The landlord under this lease shall not unilaterally terminate or attempt to terminate
the tenancy of any tenant unless the landlord either: (1) provides 90 days’ written notice
to the tenant of the termination or nonrenewal of the tenancy, or (b) provides written
notice to the tenant that establishes a basis for just cause for the termination of the
tenancy. The possible bases of just cause are listed in the City of Brooklyn Center’s
Just Cause Notice at City Code, Section 12-912D(5)(b). No other basis shall constitute
grounds for a just cause under this provision.”
d. Nonrenewal Notice Requirements. An owner providing a notice of nonrenewal of a
tenancy to a tenant of an affordable housing unit shall: (1) comply with all notice
requirements under the lease and applicable law; (2) include in such notice a written
statement of the reasons for the nonrenewal and the facts in support of those reasons,
and (3) maintain documentation totaling the number of notices of nonrenewal issued
by the owner.
e. City Right to Inspection of Nonrenewal Notices. Within ten days of any request by the
City, the owner of an affordable housing building shall provide to the City copies of its
documentation totaling the number of notices of nonrenewal issued by the owner.
f. Application. This Section applies to every lease, written or oral, for an affordable
housing unit.
g. Waiver Not Allowed. The parties to a written or oral lease of an affordable housing
unit shall not waive or modify the requirements imposed by this subsection. Any such
waiver provision that may exist in a lease is not enforceable.
6. Private Enforcement of Tenant Protection Ordinance. Any tenant or former tenant of an
affordable housing unit harmed by an owner’s violation of this Section 12-912D may bring
an action against the owner in district court. Such person shall be entitled to all remedies
available at law or in equity including, but not limited to, damages and injunctive relief. Any
plaintiff that prevails in such action may be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses.
Article IV. Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 12-1401 is amended by adding the double-
underlined language and deleting the stricken language as follows:
Section 12-1401. SEPARABILITY. Every Section, provision, or part of this Ordinance
Chapter is declared separable from every other Section, provision, or part to the extent that if any
Section, provision or part of the Chapter shall be held invalid, it shall not invalidate any other
Section, provision or part thereof.
Article V. Severability. Should any section or part of this ordinance be declared by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision will not affect the validity of the ordinance as
a whole or any part other than the part declared invalid.
Article VI. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty
days following its legal publication.
6
Adopted this 24th day of January, 2022.
_______________________________
Mike Elliott, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________
City Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Strikeout indicates matter to be deleted, double underline indicates new matter.)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 13th day of December, 2021, at
7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard to consider an ordinance related to
tenant protections. City Council meetings are being conducted by electronic means under
Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.021 and information on how to connect to the meeting is
provided on the City’s website. Please notify the City Clerk at 763-569-3306 if there are any
questions about how to connect to the meeting.
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE CITY CODE OF
ORDINANCES REGARDING TENANT PROTECTION
THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN:
Article I. Legislative Findings. The City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center hereby finds
and determines as follows:
Tenants of affordable housing units have an income of 80% or less, and in some case mucha.
less, of the area median income and so have few resources to fight predatory practices,
unjustified repair fees, retaliation, or other practices that exploit tenants within affordable
housing buildings;
The City Council regularly receives complaints at its meetings from residents of affordableb.
housing units regarding how they are treated by the owners and the resulting negative
emotional and financial impacts of those interactions;
The City Council previously adopted Section 12-912D to establish certain tenant protectionsc.
for those living within affordable housing units as an initial step to address the exploitation of
these tenants;
The City Council determines it is necessary to expand those initial protections in order tod.
promote housing stability and protect the health, safety, and welfare of those living within
affordable housing units; and
The tenant protections adopted as part of Section 12-912D are intended to be part of thee.
health and safety covenants in Minnesota Statutes, section 504B.161, subdivision 1(a)(4) and
as additional conditions provided for by ordinance as acknowledged in subdivision 4 of the
same statute.
Article II. Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 12-201 is amended by adding the following
definition and renumbering the subsequent definitions as needed:
1
__.Just Cause – any of the bases listed under Section 12-912D(5)(b) upon which an owner of
an affordable housing building may terminate tenancy.
Article III. Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 12-912D is amended by adding subsections
12-912D(4), 12-912D(5), and 12-912(6) as follows, and renumbering the subsequent subsections as
needed:
4.Pre-Eviction Filing Notice. Except as provided otherwise in this subsection, an owner of an
affordable housing unit shall provide at least 3014 days’ written notice to a tenant prior to
filing an eviction action on the basis of either: (a) an alleged non-payment of rent; or (b) an
alleged material breach of a lease.
Notices for Non-payment of Rent. For an allegation of any non-payment of rent, thea.
notice shall, at a minimum, include the following information:
The name, mailing address, and telephone number of the person authorized to(1)
receive rent and fees on behalf of the owner;
The total amount of money due and owing to the owner by the tenant;(2)
A specific accounting of the money due and owing to the owner by the tenant,(3)
including any past due rents, any late fees, and any other charges; and
The deadline by which the total amount due and owing to the owner by the(4)
tenant shall be paid to avoid an eviction action, which shall be no earlier than
3014 days from the date on which the notice is delivered.
Notices for Material Breach of a Lease. For an allegation of a material breach of ab.
lease, the notice shall, at a minimum, include the following information:
The name, mailing address, and telephone number of the owner;(1)
A description of the specific conduct that the owner alleges is a violation of the(2)
lease, including the dates of the violations and the persons who committed the
alleged violations;
Identification of the specific clause of the lease alleged to have been violated; (3)
Notification that the tenant has the right to correct the alleged breach; (4)
Notification of how the tenant may correct the alleged breach; (5)
The deadline by which the alleged breach shall be corrected to avoid an eviction(6)
action, which shall be no earlier than 3014 days from the date on which the notice
is delivered; and
2
A copy of the lease attached to the notice.(7)
Exception for Expedited Eviction Actions. For an expedited eviction action filedc.
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 504B.321, subdivision 2, the owner shall
provide the notice required by Section 12-912D(34)(d) at least three days in advance
of filing the eviction action.
Additional Notice Requirements.All notices under this subsection shall also included.
the following information:
Notification that the tenant may be evicted if they do not pay the past due rent or(1)
correct the alleged breach of lease by the deadline, as applicable;
Information about accessing rental assistance by calling 211 or visiting(2)
https://www.211unitedway.org/; and
Information about accessing legal help by visiting the Law Help Website at(3)
https://www.lawhelpmn.org/.
Delivery of Notice. The owner, or an agent for the owner, shall deliver any noticee.
required by this subsection personally or by first-class mail to the address of the
affordable housing unit. Such notice may, in addition to but not in place of personal
delivery or delivery by first-class mail, be delivered to any email or other electronic
means to the tenant at the tenant’s email address or electronic account.
Enforcement. In addition to any other remedy available at equity or law, failure tof.
comply with the provisions of this subsection may result in adverse rental license
actions, the imposition of administrative fines, or other penalties as provided in law.
Waiver Not Allowed. The parties to a written or oral lease of an affordable housingg.
unit shall not waive or modify the requirements imposed by this subsection. Any
such waiver provision that may exist in a lease is not enforceable.
5.Just Cause Notice of Nonrenewal of Lease to Tenants.
Nonrenewal of Tenant With or Without Just Cause Notice. An owner of an affordablea.
housing unit shall not issue a notice of nonrenewal of tenancy, refuse to renew, or issue
a notice to quit unless the owner is able to establish: (a) provides at least 90 days’
written notice of nonrenewal to the tenant, with or without Just Cause, or (b) provides
written notice of nonrenewal to the tenant that establishes one or more of the Just
Causes listed under Section 12-912D(5)(b).
Just Cause Notice. One or more of the following grounds for such action:bases must beb.
established to meet the requirement under Section 12-912D(5)(a) to provide written
notice of nonrenewal to a tenant for Just Cause:
3
Non-payment of Rent. The tenant fails to pay all monies owed to an owner after(1)
receiving a written notice of non-payment from the owner;
Material Non-Compliance. The tenant fails to cure a material breach of the lease after(2)
receiving a written notice from the owner;
Refusal to Renew. The tenant refuses to renew or extend the lease after the owner(3)
requests in writing that the tenant do so;
Occupancy by Property Owner or Family Member. The owner, in good faith, seeks to(4)
recover possession of the unit so that the owner or a family member may occupy the
unit as that person’s principal residence;
Building Demolishment or Conversion.The building is demolished or converted as(5)
follows:
The owner either:(i)
(i)Electselects to demolish the building in which the affordable housing unit is
located, convert it to a cooperative, provided the owner complies with the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes, chapter 515B, or convert it to non-residential
use, provided that the owner shall obtain all permits necessary to demolish or
change the use before terminating any tenancy;
The owner seeks, in good faith, to recover the unit to sell it in accordance with a(ii)
condominium conversion, provided the owner complies with the provisions of
Minnesota Statutes, chapter 515B; or
The unit is being converted to a unit subsidized under a local, state, or federal(iii)
housing program and the tenant does not qualify to rent the unit under that
program;
Rehabilitation and Renovation. The owner seeks, in good faith, to recover possession(6)
of the unit that will render the unit uninhabitable for the duration of rehabilitation or
renovation;
Complying with a Government Order to Vacate. The owner is complying with a(7)
government agency’s order to vacate, order to abate, or any other order that necessitates
the vacating of the unit as a result of a violation of City Code or any other provision of
law including, but not limited to, Section 12-911 related to conduct, disorderly
activities, or nuisances; or
Occupancy Conditioned on Employment. The tenant’s occupancy is conditioned upon(8)
employment on the property and the employment relationship is terminated.
b.Owner Responsibilities. Any lease for an affordable housing unit shall include justc.
cause notice language as follows:
4
“The landlord under this lease shall not unilaterally terminate or attempt to terminate
the tenancy of any tenant unless the landlord can prove that just cause exists. The
reasons foreither: (1) provides 90 days’ written notice to the tenant of the termination
or nonrenewal of the tenancy, or (b) provides written notice to the tenant that
establishes a basis for just cause for the termination of the tenancy. The possible
bases of just cause are listed in the City of Brooklyn Center’s Just Cause Notice (at
City Code,Section 12-912D(5)(b),and no others,.No other basis shall constitute
grounds for a just cause under this provision.”
c.Nonrenewal Notice Requirements. An owner providing a notice of nonrenewal of ad.
tenancy to a tenant of an affordable housing unit shall: (1) comply with all notice
requirements under the lease and applicable law;and (2)include in such notice a
written statement of the reasons for the nonrenewal and the facts in support of those
reasons, and (3) maintain documentation totaling the number of notices of nonrenewal
issued by the owner.
City Right to Inspection of Nonrenewal Notices. Within ten days of any request bye.
the City, the owner of an affordable housing building shall provide to the City copies
of its documentation totaling the number of notices of nonrenewal issued by the
owner.
d.Application. This Section applies to every lease, written or oral, for an affordablef.
housing unit.
e.Waiver Not Allowed. The parties to a written or oral lease of an affordable housingg.
unit shall not waive or modify the requirements imposed by this subsection. Any
such waiver provision that may exist in a lease is not enforceable.
6.Private Enforcement of Tenant Protection Ordinance.Any tenant or former tenant of an
affordable housing unit harmed by an owner’s violation of this Section 12-912D may bring
an action against the owner in district court. Such person shall be entitled to all remedies
available at law or in equity including, but not limited to, damages and injunctive relief.
Any plaintiff that prevails in such action may be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and
expenses.
Article IV.Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 12-1401 is amended by adding the
double-underlined language and deleting the stricken language as follows:
Section 12-1401. SEPARABILITY. Every Section, provision, or part of this Ordinance
Chapter is declared separable from every other Section, provision, or part to the extent that if any
Section, provision or part of the Chapter shall be held invalid, it shall not invalidate any other
Section, provision or part thereof.
5
Article V.Severability. Should any section or part of this ordinance be declared by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision will not affect the validity of the ordinance as
a whole or any part other than the part declared invalid.
Article VI.Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty
days following its legal publication.
Adopted this 1324th day of DecemberJanuary, 20212022.
_______________________________
Mike Elliott, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________
City Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Strikeout indicates matter to be deleted, double underline indicates new matter.)
6
Document comparison by Workshare 10.0 on Tuesday, January 18, 2022
11:04:03 AM
Input:
Document 1 ID PowerDocs://DOCSOPEN/672010/12
Description DOCSOPEN-#672010-v12-Tenant_Protection_Ordinance
_Amendment
Document 2 ID PowerDocs://DOCSOPEN/672010/14
Description DOCSOPEN-#672010-v14-Tenant_Protection_Ordinance
_Amendment
Rendering set Standard
Legend:
Insertion
Deletion
Moved from
Moved to
Style change
Format change
Moved deletion
Inserted cell
Deleted cell
Moved cell
Split/Merged cell
Padding cell
Statistics:
Count
Insertions 35
Deletions 21
Moved from 0
Moved to 0
Style change 0
Format changed 0
Total changes 56
Page 1
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
OCTOBER 19, 2021
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center Housing Commission was called to order by Chairperson Goodell at 7:00
p.m. The meeting was conducted virtually.
MEETING ATTENDEES
Chair Mark Goodell
Commissioner Paul Oman
Commissioner Michael Donnelly
Commissioner Zarita Hester
Commissioner Johnson Yang
City Staff present: Staff Liaison Jesse Anderson, Community Development Director Meg
Beekman, City Attorney Sam Ketchum, Planning Staff Olivia Boerschinger, and City Council
Liaison Kris Lawrence-Anderson.
Also present: Anab; Agnes; Leah DeGrazia; Lana Hamilton; Victoria Karmo; Madeleine Lerner,
ACER; Fadumo Mohamed; Lovetee Polahn; Eric Hauge, HOME Line; Samuel Spaid, HOME
Line; Tally; Shana Tomenes; Marie Vincent.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There was a motion by Commissioner Oman and seconded by Commissioner Donnelly to approve
the agenda as submitted. The motion passed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There was a motion by Commissioner Oman and seconded by Commissioner Donnelly to approve
the minutes of the Housing Commission meeting on August 18, 2021. The motion passed.
TENANT PROTECTION ORDINANCE DISCUSSION AND DRAFT ORDINANCE REVIEW
Staff Liaison Jesse Anderson gave an overview of the proposed tenant protection Ordinance He
added the City Council has held multiple work sessions regarding housing programs, and the City
is currently undergoing a City-wide housing study, which will provide recommendations for City
housing policies, housing priorities, and a housing action plan.
Mr. Anderson stated there is urgency related to this issue created by the phasing out of the eviction
moratorium as well as low vacancy rates. The proposed Ordinance addresses evictions, requiring
a 30-day written notice as well as preventing landlords or property owners from not renewing an
existing tenant lease without cause. He added some just cause reasons for non-renewal, as listed
in the proposed Ordinance, are non-payment of rent; material non-compliance; refusal to renew;
Page 2
conversion, demolition, rehab or renovation; compliance with a government order; or occupancy
conditional upon employment. He noted the Ordinance also addresses evictions and non-renewal
and provides support for tenants who have just cause to bring action against landlords.
Mr. Anderson stated City Staff received feedback and recommendations from ACER, HOME Line
and the Housing Justice Center to expedite the proposed Ordinance due to urgency related to
evictions and non-renewals. He added representatives of community organizations have joined
tonight’s meeting. He noted the proposed Ordinance will likely have its first reading at the
November 8, 2021 City Council meeting, and second reading and public hearing scheduled for the
City Council’s December 13, 2021 meeting, with the Ordinance going into effect in January 2022.
Chair Goodell requested feedback and comments from the Housing Commissioners and guests.
Commissioner Oman requested clarification regarding the timing of the Ordinance and actions that
can be brought against landlords for something that has already happened. Mr. Anderson stated
the Ordinance would go into effect in January 2022, so any violations could not have happened
before that.
City Attorney Sam Ketchum agreed with Mr. Anderson's assessment. He added the enforcement
provisions would apply to evictions after the Ordinance goes into effect.
A resident requested clarification regarding what control renters have with regard to friendly rental
agreements. Chair Goodell stated he believes there has been some investigation into concerns
about rental agreements, in terms of changes to a renewal or other limitations.
Mr. Anderson stated the proposed Ordinance amendment relates to non-renewals and evictions.
He added there are some areas of the Ordinance that have not been brought forward yet, that could
provide limitations on changes to lease agreements, which may be discussed under a future
Ordinance amendment.
The resident stated he has been living at Georgetown for 11 years, and management does whatever
they want, and imposes restrictions. He added he got a letter that they will not renew his lease and
put him on a month-to-month lease. He added he is concerned and hopes the Commission can
make some changes. He asked whether the Commission could go into people’s homes and find
out how they live and how they are being treated.
Chair Goodell thanked the resident for his comments. He added the Commission is interested in
hearing about the issue of lease agreements, although tonight’s amendment relates to evictions and
non-renewals. He added City Staff is researching these other important issues, and he appreciates
the resident bringing his concerns to the Housing Commission’s attention.
A resident, Tally, stated retaliation by landlords at Georgetown is not fair to tenants, and they are
not allowed to have visitors. She added they are not being treated as though Georgetown is their
home. She noted they have been towing cars and not giving any information about restrictions or
when they can park their cars.
Page 3
Another resident agreed, stating people do not speak up because they are afraid that they will get
an eviction notice. She added she was given an eviction notice because she did not apply for rental
assistance. She noted she told them her application was pending.
Tally stated it is not fair to Georgetown residents. She said the landlord does not fix anything, but
no one asks questions or asks for help. She added they are taking cars.
Lovetee stated she has been a Georgetown tenant for 2-3 years. She added she is concerned about
tenant protections. She asked what it will protect. She noted she has 6 living children, and the
Ordinance cannot protect her from being evicted. She added her lease has not been renewed for
no reason, and the landlord gave her 3 months to find a new home.
Lovetee stated she went to the office to ask about why her lease cannot be renewed, and she was
told she could not enter the office and she was not welcome. She added she is a tenant, and they
have no reason for not renewing her lease. She noted this is an emergency and she asked the City
for help. She noted the Ordinance needs to be passed now so their leases can be renewed.
Lovetee tasked whether something can be added to the Ordinance about lease renewal. She added
the only reason a lease should not be renewed is if a tenant does something crazy. She noted
landlords should not be able to renew leases without a reason.
Chair Goodell stated there are some serious issues with renewal of leases and evictions, and it is
his understanding that this Ordinance amendment will address both lease renewals and evictions.
He added the Ordinance would put restrictions on evictions and eviction notices, and a limit list of
reasons why a lease cannot be renewed. He noted the Ordinance will directly affect the residents’
situations when it is passed.
Chair Goodell stated the Housing Commission will not be passing the Ordinance, but rather
making a recommendation to the City Council. He added the Commission is a board of volunteer
citizens, and their job is to provide feedback and recommendations to the City Council. He noted
he truly appreciates everyone’s comments and feedback.
Sam Spaid, staff attorney for HOME Line, stated his organization supports the proposed
Ordinance. HOME Line is a state-wide nonprofit organization providing free, confidential legal
advice to residential tenants in Minnesota. He added the personal statements that are being
expressed tonight are the same things that HOME Line staff hear on a daily basis from tenants in
Minnesota. He noted the proposed Ordinance will address many of these issues –preventing non-
renewal without causeand giving tenants time to solve the problem when there are eviction threats,
and to seek legal advice to protect their interests.
Mr. Spaid stated there are tenant protections under State law, but they fall short of providing
solutions and do not help tenants as much as they should. He added tenant protections are
extremely important especially now that Covid restrictions are being lifted.
Madeleine Lerner, Organizing Manager at ACER, thanked the Housing Commission for the
opportunity to address this issue. She added the proposed Ordinance is a critical first step in
Page 4
instituting more comprehensive tenant protections in the City of Brooklyn Center. She noted
ACER staff continuously hears these same stories about evictions without notice, no direct contact
from landlords, and insufficient notice period for eviction or non-renewal.
Commissioner Zarita Hester stated she fully supports the Ordinance as there should be protection
for renters, because there is protection for landlords. She asked whether the Ordinance addresses
non-renewal of a lease if the property changes hands. She asked whether the Ordinance addresses
leases that are reduced to month-to-month leases.
Mr. Anderson stated there is an existing Ordinance on the books adopted 2 years ago that has a
notification requirement of 120 days before the landlord can make any changes to a lease.
Mr. Anderson stated the issue of month-to-month leases is not addressed and could be reviewed
in a different revision of this Ordinance, and a future policy change.
A resident asked whether there must be a specific cause for a landlord to change to a month-to-
month lease. He added landlords are using month-to-month leases as a form of retaliation.
Mr. Anderson stated just cause for non-renewals is included as a requirement in the Ordinance.
The proposed Ordinance will make it more enforceable.
Marie Vincent stated she has lived in Georgetown for 2 years. The lease renewal and eviction
issues are very serious, and reasons for eviction should be revealed to the tenant. One neighbor
stated that she could not go to the office and speak her mind because she was afraid of being
evicted. Brooklyn Center should be a free place for people to live and speak their minds, but they
are not able to do so at Georgetown. She asked for the Commission’s help with these issues.
Chair Goodell stated the proposed Ordinance includes a limited list of items that could be a reason
for eviction or non-renewal of lease, but notice needs to be given to the resident, and there must
be facts to support it.
Tally asked if the agreement could include information about when cars are going to be towed in
Georgetown. She asked whether the City has anything in place for people with a low credit score
to help them get a home,so they don’t have to go through this anymore.
Chair Goodell stated he is unsure about the towing regulations at Georgetown. He added the
proposed Ordinance being reviewed tonight does not address towing in particular.
Mr. Anderson agreed, adding further discussions can be initiated with the City Attorney for this
issue under future Ordinances, regarding regulations and enforcement.
Mr. Anderson stated the City of Brooklyn Center has a down payment assistance program that
provides up to $10,000 assistance for current Brooklyn Center renters who want to buy a home in
Brooklyn Center.
Chair Goodell agreed to post a link for the down payment assistance program in the chat function.
Page 5
A resident asked what the Commission is doing to support townhomes and rental complexes as
homes that people live in. He added people should not have their cars towed. He asked whether
the Commission plans to do something to see how people are living.
Chair Goodell stated he understands the resident is interested in having the Commission or City
do a survey of rental properties to find out what conditions tenants are living in, and what their
lives are like. He added there are concerns about towing. He noted the proposed Ordinance is
related to evictions and just causes for lease changes, but there are many other areas that the City
is looking at and these items can be included.
Chair Goodell stated the Housing Commission is a volunteer board that makes recommendations
to the City Council, with input from City Staff. He added the City will continue to look into these
issues and he appreciates everyone sharing their stories and concerns.
Eric Hauge, HOME Line, stated his organization has provided suggestions and recommendations
regarding policies for immediate response to the end of the eviction moratorium. He added his
organization hears about these kinds of issues regularly, and there has been inadequate response
from the State legislature to address tenant and landlord issues. He noted HOME Line is
committed to working with the City of Brooklyn Center to address these issues, recognizing that
the majority of tenant/landlord law is at the State level, but cities like Brooklyn Center are taking
important roles in regulating the businesses that operate in their City.
Community Development Director Meg Beekman stated the City began a Housing Study in
January 2021. An Advisory Council was formed, and the City contracted with CURA and
Research in Action to provide quantitative and qualitative analysis regarding housing stock and
housing gaps. The Advisory Council, made up of residents, will provide recommendations
focused on housing needs in the community, including anti-displacement and tenant protections,
as well as housing choice and diversity. The recommendations of the Advisory Council are
expected to be received by the City Council early in 2022. These recommendations will form the
basis of City-wide Housing Policy Action Plan.
Ms. Beekman stated tenant protection issues are important and extremely urgent, and some
housing topics have been tabled until the Housing Study is completed, to form recommendations
and implement solutions, so tenant protections can move forward more rapidly. She added City
Staff have met with tenants of Georgetown multiple times, as well as ACER and HOME Line, to
identify a broad collection of regulations pertaining to tenant protections, and to address concerns
that have been voiced this evening, including repairs and maintenance, towing policies, and safety
and security.
Ms. Beekman stated, as part of this review, the City has looked at how other cities, particularly St.
Paul, have addressed these issues. The City of St. Paul adopted a broad tenant protection
Ordinance last year, which covers many of the provisions proposed in the draft Ordinance,
including non-renewal without just cause. St. Paul was promptly faced with a lawsuit brought by
landlords, and the city rescinded the Ordinance due to an injunction. This situation has been part
of the City of Brooklyn Center’s consideration and discussions, and the provisions addressed in
Page 6
the proposed Ordinance that is being reviewed tonight address urgent anti-placement concerns
driven by the ending of the eviction moratorium.
Ms. Beekman stated there will be many more discussions, and City Staff will continue to work
with residents and community organizations. She added she wants to underscore that the City
Council takes these issues very seriously and they have directed City Staff to focus on actively
pursuing solutions.
Chair Goodell stated, to underscore the urgency of the situation, the eviction moratorium ended on
October 12, 2021.
Sam Spaid, HOME Line, stated most protections ended October 12, but there is still protection for
tenants who are behind on rent but have already applied for financial assistance through Rent Help.
He added protection for tenants with pending applications is extended through June 2022.
Meg Beekman stated these issues are not unique to Brooklyn Center. She added it has been a
failing of the State legislature to leave cities to deal with these concerns. She noted no other cities
have adopted a non-renewal without just cause Ordinance, and this is new territory, so the City
wanted to be fairly cautious about how it is brought forward to address concerns within the
authority of the City.
Mr. Hauge stressed the importance of understanding that there is nothing that automatically stops
an eviction from happening, which is why this Ordinance is so critically important. He added
housing instability can happen even when there are protections in place. He expressed his
agreement with Ms. Beekman that this is a unique and important protection that no other city in
Minnesota has ever done and that the State of Minnesota has not provided support in these areas.
Chair Goodell requested feedback from the Commissioners.
Lovetee asked how strong the Commission is in its relationship with the City. She added the
Commissioners have said they are a group of volunteers. She asked how much influence the
Commission has over the City. She asked whether the City could have a meeting with landlords
and tenants, to create a safe environment for renters and keep people safe in their homes. She
added she wants the City to create an atmosphere in which landlords and tenants can be friendly
and cooperative, so that non-renewals and evictions will stop. She noted she has lived in Brooklyn
Park and Crystal where meetings were held with landlords to evaluate leases.
Chair Goodell stated the Housing Commission is an advisory body comprised of citizens of
Brooklyn Center, whose job it is to review issues related to housing and provide recommendations
to the City Council. He added the Commission will provide a recommendation to the City Council
regarding this Ordinance, and that will be part of their consideration, but the Commission does not
pass Ordinances. He noted there have been questions in the past about improving relationships
between landlords and tenants.
Ms. Beekman stated the State law related to landlord/tenant relations is vague and untested, and
what cities can and cannot do has not been addressed in State statute. She added some cities are
Page 7
considering measures, including Minneapolis, which is looking into a Charter amendment via
referendum that would circumvent State statute with regard to addressing these issues. She noted
it is difficult to regulate mutual respect and common decency in landlord/tenant interactions,
especially when there are underlying factors, although many landlords and property owners have
positive relationships with their tenants.
Ms. Beekman stated City Staff is exploring ways to clarify expectations for how residents should
be treated, and what regulations are within the City’s authority to impose. She added the City does
not regulate private contracts but has some leverage with rental housing licensing. She noted Type
3 and Type 4 rental license properties are required to enter into a mitigation plan, which includes
demonstrating communication with tenants.
Commissioner Oman stated the Ordinance should be passed as soon as possible, as it is well-
written and concise, and addresses concerns raised by the community.
There was a motion by Commissioner Oman and seconded by Commissioner Hester to recommend
City Council approval of the Tenant Protection Ordinance. The motion passed.
Chair Goodell stated he supports expediting this Ordinance as much as possible.
Commissioner Donnelly asked whether the lawsuit regarding the St. Paul Ordinance affects this
Ordinance in any way, and whether the City should be concerned about lawsuits.
Ms. Beekman stated the City Attorney’s office drafted the proposed Ordinance and followed the
proceedings in St. Paul very closely, although no decisions were made in that case.
Mr. Spaid stated the proposed Ordinance is quite different from St. Paul’s Ordinance, as it focuses
on two items –notice for non-renewal and evictions. He added there is always a risk for a lawsuit
in this arena, but this Ordinance is taking a more targeted approach toward anti-displacement.
Chair Goodell thanked everyone for their input, and for sharing their stories and concerns. He
added it has been very moving and he appreciates all the comments. He noted the issue of tenant
rights and protections is of primary concern to the City Council and Commissions, and there will
be many more discussions on this issue.
A resident thanked the Housing Commission for listening to them and expressed her appreciation
for everything the City is trying to do for them.
Another resident thanked the Housing Commission for listening. She added she is overwhelmed
and hopeful that things will work out. She added the Commission and City Staff explained things
well, and she hopes that the City will move as fast as possible so change can come, and they can
be happy in their homes.
Lovetee requested a recap of the timetable for the Ordinance. Mr. Anderson stated the first reading
of the proposed Ordinance will be at the City Council’s November 8, 2021 meeting, at which they
will call for a second reading and public hearing, to be held at the City Council’s December 13,
Page 8
2021 meeting. He noted the earliest the proposed Ordinance would go into effect would be mid-
January 2022.
NEW NEIGHBOR WELCOME PROGRAM
Chair Goodell stated there have been two deliveries of New Neighbor welcome bags since the
Housing Commission’s last meeting, and they covered approximately 100 homes. He added there
are 139 homes left on the list, and he would like to suggest a few weekend dates for deliveries. He
noted, after the last meeting, he sent out a poll with potential dates, and he can do that again. The
Commissioners agreed.
City Council Liaison Kris Lawrence-Anderson requested that she be added to the email
distribution list. Chair Goodell agreed.
Chair Goodell thanked Commissioners Oman and Yang for delivering bags with him last time. He
thanked Mr. Anderson for putting the welcome bags together.
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT
City Council Liaison Lawrence-Anderson stated City Staff are updating the City calendar with
links to Commission meetings. She requested that the Housing Commission meeting information
be sent to City Clerk Barb Suciu to be added to the calendar. She added she would like to receive
links to the Charter Commission meetings as well.
City Council Liaison Lawrence-Anderson stated the City Council will be finalizing 2022 budgets
at their first meeting in December.
City Council Liaison Lawrence-Anderson stated the City is working to secure the safety of
residents and City Staff in preparation for the trial of Kim Potter which starts on November 30,
2021.
City Council Liaison Lawrence-Anderson stated she hopes to request a City Council review of the
issue of solicitor’s licenses in terms of predatory practices. She added this could be related to
tenant protections.
Chair Goodell asked whether there has been any movement from the City Council on Commission
re-appointments. He stated he received Commissioner Amdahl’s resignation recently, so there
will be another opening. He added Commissioner Amdahl has been on the Housing Commission
since 2008.
City Council Liaison Lawrence-Anderson stated that is very sad, and she will reach out to
Commissioner Amdahl.
City Council Liaison Lawrence-Anderson stated the City Council reviewed several applications at
our their meeting, and additional appointments will be reviewed at the next meeting in November.
Page 9
Chair Goodell asked whether that will include re-appointments for Commissioners whose terms
have expired. City Council Liaison Lawrence-Anderson confirmed this.
CHAIRPERSONS REPORT
Chair Goodell expressed his appreciation to the Commissioners at tonight’s meeting. He thanked
City Staff for their hard work on the proposed Ordinance.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business addressed by the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Commissioner Oman and seconded by Commissioner Yang to adjourn the
meeting. The motion passed. The Brooklyn Center Housing Commission adjourned at 8:41 p.m.
__________________________________
Chair Goodell
From: Erik Falkman <erik@sasapartments.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2021 10:08 AM
To: Meg Beekman <mbeekman@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us>
Subject: RE: Tenant Protection Ordinance
Thank you Meg,
You are certainly free to forward to council.
I am sorry to hear this feedback from renters in Brooklyn Center, and I have no doubt that these
issues are very real to some in our community, but as you said this ordinance does not do anything
to specifically address these concerns. Additionally, as one of the largest owners in Brooklyn Center,
this ordinance will affect our current and future residents even though as you stated none of these
concerns were at our properties. It seems like a few bad apples are driving an ordinance that may
potentially have a negative impact on everyone.
As far as retaliation is concerned, there are already severe penalties for “retaliation” and non-
renewal as described in your response, on the state and national level. If that is the primary
concern, then this ordinance is redundant and overly burdensome for all concerned and it will drive
up the cost and availability of housing in Brooklyn Center. More politics than policy.
As my email outlined, eviction is a last resort only when residents are unresponsive to efforts to
communicate. While I certainly believe (and our company practices) that it is in everyone’s interest
to try to resolve issues outside of the eviction process, the reality is, that it is not always possible.
And while the intent is to create space for this to happen, I truly believe that in application it will
have the exact opposite effect for most if not all renters, the risk to “work it out” will be too great
given the notice requirements. Where the unfortunate circumstances some of these renters are
calling about are due to a few bad landlords or managers, the result will be higher costs to all
renters, and I believe a higher incidence of eviction filings.
My initial thoughts on how to address this issue through regulatory or administrative means are:
Why not increase licensing requirements and fees and have a review process established for
these on-going repeat offenders and have it affect rental licensing tiers? If property
maintenance is not being completed that seems more like an inspection/licensing issue.
Brooklyn Center already has a robust and effective tiering system and that could be
implemented a little more stringently.
Fears of personal and property safety is tricky, as some of the steps (like towing
unauthorized vehicles) are done for these reasons but result in complaints by residents. But
overall this seem to me to be a policing issue and not any place where a landlord could be
effective. If it is fear of personal harm or stealing committed by a landlord that is again a
policing issue. Laws such as Kari Koskinen and penalties for entering without notice etc…
already exist and are prohibitive and punitive for managers that violate them. Any decent
manager knows these laws, and any crime should be reported to the police, not left to a
property manager to enforce, that seems dangerous for people not trained to handle these
situations.
If retaliation is a concern, I would think city staff could direct frightened renters to advocacy
groups for reporting and intervention, as those laws already exist. Once a complaint is
formalized then it is established for correlation to any type of non-renewal or termination of
tenancy as retaliation.
Overall I believe again that this ordinance proposal negatively affects all renters in our community
while the issues reside with just a few of the owners/managers, and these concerns could be
addressed administratively without the long term and unintended consequences of creating more
conflict, more eviction filings and more expense to renters with stricter screening requirements, all
of which will also impact the quality and availability of housing in Brooklyn Center.
I am happy to discuss further in person, or via zoom or phone.
All my best Meg and have a nice Thanksgiving-
Erik
Erik Falkman
Chief Operating Officer, Soderberg Apartment Specialists
763-746-4020 | erik@sasapartments.com
www.sasapartments.com
6401 Camden Ave N. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
From: Meg Beekman [mailto:mbeekman@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 11:43 AM
To: Erik Falkman <erik@sasapartments.com>
Subject: RE: Tenant Protection Ordinance
Erik,
The public hearing is scheduled for December 13, and the Council meetings are virtual. A link to the
meeting can be found on the City’s website.
I really appreciate your comments and thoughts on this matter. Your insight as a property manager
in how this ordinance will be implemented is helpful. Would you like me to forward your email to
our Councilmembers?
From the tenant side of things, the Council has been inundated in recent months from tenants
complaining about a whole host of issues related to their rental conditions. I will say that none of
these complaints have originated from any of your properties. That said, for many renters, the fear
of retaliation from their landlords for raising their concerns and asking for better, fairer, policies is
very real. Many of these issues center around timely and proper maintenance of units, overly
aggressive towing practices, and concerns of personal and property safety. While this ordinance
doesn’t address these issues specifically, it does attempt to address the underlying concern of non-
renewals as a retaliatory act for raising these other concerns.
Further, the purpose of the eviction notification provision within the ordinance is exactly intended to
create space for renters and landlords to work through issues, or allow time for the tenant to leave if
issues cannot be solved, prior to an eviction being filed.
I welcome your insights in how to better address these issues through regulatory means, if not
through a prohibition on non-renewals without just cause.
Thanks,
Meg
Meg Beekman, AICP | Community Development Director
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway | Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199
Direct: 763-569-3305 | General: 763-569-3330
General Email: communitydevelopment@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us
www.ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us | mbeekman@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us
From: Erik Falkman <erik@sasapartments.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 11:20 AM
To: Meg Beekman <mbeekman@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us>
Subject: Tenant Protection Ordinance
Dear Ms. Beekman,
Can you please let me know when the hearing is for the tenant protection ordinance currently under
consideration (attached) and if there will be an opportunity for the public to speak at this hearing? It
would be nice if the meeting could be in person especially given the potential profound impact of
this proposal.
As written, this ordinance has the very real potential to have significant negative consequences to all
renters in Brooklyn Center. As is the case in many of these well intentioned ordinances, the
unintended consequences could have a devastating effect on the individuals it was meant to help.
As the manager of approximately 25% of the rental units in Brooklyn Center I can tell you that
eviction is a remedy of last resort for most property managers and owners. It is expensive, time
consuming and we are acutely aware of the damaging effects this has on our residents. It is
primarily used when a resident is unresponsive to attempts to communicate and find a solution
outside of eviction. At that point it is the only tool available to gain possession of a unit, and even
then, it is usually negotiated in court for a resident to stay in their unit if they desire, and the eviction
is cancelled.
Most of our units are at or below the 60% AMI level and we take pride in providing safe, quality
housing, at a good value. We also take pride in our service and relationship with our residents.
While there are certainly some bad landlords, most owners and managers are fair, honest and try to
do their best by their residents, keeping up the property, addressing maintenance issues in a timely
manner, and updating the property to provide what residents are asking for all while balancing rising
costs of labor, materials, property taxes, insurance etc...
Common practice is to have a grace period on rent, in our case it is four days before late fees are
assessed and communication efforts begin. Current best practices are to provide notice or a “pay or
quit” depending on amount due and communication with the manager around the 7th of the month,
as evictions take approximately three weeks to process meaning we most likely will gain possession
of a unit 45 days after a notice of intent to file an eviction.
If this ordinance passes, rent will only be due on the first of the month (no grace period) with a
notice of intent to file an eviction delivered on the second of the month. This will also trigger late
fees on the second day of the month increasing costs to the residents. I believe this ordinance will
actually increase evictions. Where before owners and managers are incentivized to find a workable
solution or payment plan, with this ordinance the risk is too great if that plan is defaulted upon given
the notice provisions. I believe owners and managers will not be willing to work with residents
moving forward and will give notice immediately if rent is late.
If this ordinance process works as planned we would most likely be 60-75 days to gain possession of
an apartment. That risk is significant, as again that is just for possession and doesn’t account for
time for repairs, and marketing and re-leasing that apartment. That window of time also allows for
potential damage to be done to the apartment. There may be no rent being paid on that unit for 3-4
months in addition to costs. The impact on the renters of Brooklyn Center of this ordinance will be
dramatic as owners and managers will not risk any payment plans or other arrangements.
These risks will also require a different approach to screening to minimize that potential loss of
income and costs associated with this ordinance. It will be even more critical to try and mitigate risk
of default by increasing income and credit score requirements at the time of application for
residency. With higher screening requirements, less renters will qualify meaning fewer housing
options. This will result in more applications made by renters, increasing their costs to secure
housing, and managers and owners less willing to make exceptions.
In regards to the non-renewal portion of the ordinance; non-renewal of leases is another tool
alternative to eviction, as again it is understood by all that evictions are time consuming, expensive
for manager/owner and renter, and the impact of an eviction is devastating to the ability to secure
future housing. This provision will lead to managers being less forgiving and understanding, and will
result in more stringent documentation and giving notice to any and all infractions of the lease,
regardless of severity. This is also a very signbificant provision, as it increases the stress on both
renters and property staff and will inevitably lead to confrontations. The impact on all parties’
mental health cannot be understated. In our case, a notice of intent to non-renew a lease is
delivered at minimum, 75 days prior to lease expiration. An alternative to this provision would be a
simple requirement of a 75-90 day notice on non-renewal of lease.
Lastly, any property on the cusp of the 80% AMI will immediately raise rents to exempt themselves
from this ordinance.
This is a solution in search of a problem. A 30 day notice period is one of the longest and most
burdensome in the metro area. In most municipalities it is 7-14 days. If there are frequent
offenders it would be wiser to address specific concerns with specific management companies or
owners rather that use such a blunt tool that will have these consequences and many others for all
renters in the city.
While well intentioned, I believe this ordinance will increase evictions in our community, decrease
new investment, increase the cost burden to renters, and result in scarcer housing for the people
this ordinance is intended to benefit.
I am happy to discuss further with any member of the city staff or council. Please feel free to share
this.
Warmest Regards,
Erik
Erik Falkman
Chief Operating Officer, Soderberg Apartment Specialists
763-746-4020 | erik@sasapartments.com
www.sasapartments.com
6401 Camden Ave N. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Tenant / Landlord Tenant Protection Meeting Recap
January 12, 2022
There were a total of 25 participants, 3 city staff, city attorney, and 2 council members.
Staff provided a brief overview the current tenant protection ordinance stating that it applies to the
transfer of ownership.
Staff provided a brief recap of the concerns that were brought up at the ARM meeting. Those concerns
were:
x What is the definition of affordable housing, needed some clarification about affordable.
x The city getting involved with a private contract between landlord and tenant, city getting
involved with contract law.
x Landlords calling the police for service would impact their license type.
x If landlords are required to give a 30 day notice it would further delay their rent collection and
could take as long as 90 days to get the unit back.
x There were questions about the data used to come up with the ordinance.
x State statutes give tenants’ rights such retaliation protection and tenant remedies act in the
event that the repairs are not being done.
x Possible compromise such as shortening the 30 day notice to 14 days and replacing just cause
non-renewal with a notice period for just cause.
Staff provided an explained the 30 day eviction notice. Minneapolis give a 14 day and St. Louis Park’s is
7 days. Staff cited that the city is open for a discussion.
The concern regarding the 30 day windows is that it is too long to resolve the issue and would push it
into another month of the tenant potentially being late again on rent. Landlords often work with
tenants on resolving the matter and requiring a 30 day notice would mean that a notice would be given
on the 2nd day requiring eviction which may case tenants to panic and break down the communication
between landlord and tenant.
The most common issues that cause late rent is car breakdown or medical bill. If the notice is 30 days,
most landlords isn’t willing to do a payment plan beyond 30 days.
Staff gave an example of issuing a code violation notice. Staff stated the notice is not a citation but the
notice states the amount of time given and also includes language about an abatement or a citation.
Once a payment plan is entered into and the tenant breaks that agreement, a Hennepin county judge
will throw the case out and would require a new notice.
The citation doesn’t pay the mortgage and a tenant who doesn’t pay impacts the landlord’s mortgage.
Pushing the rent back 30 days would compound the amount of rent due making it more difficult for
them to pay.
Sam from Homeline stated that landlords who make payment arrangements and could extend for 30-60
and if the tenant defaults the arrangement could be held up in court.
If the notice is sent with language stating that the tenant is behind on rent, and rent isn’t paid, another
notice will be sent. The tenant would be behind on rent and before housing court, landlords have bent
over backwards to assist landlords. Many landlords reach out and willing to work something out.
A notice that states Eviction will cause a lot of stress, notices for noise violations already cause a lot of
stress, and a notice stating eviction will further cause stress. Tenants don’t know that they can call the
office to work out plan on how to pay the rent owed.
If a notice is not given to tenants and do not get a heads up they might not know that there is issue. A
suggestion was about crafting the notice so it is not threatening or intimidating. Regardless of the
language in the notice, the 30 day requirement would still mean the notice is given on day 2.
A concern about criminal would delay an eviction if a 30 day notice is required. It was stated that
criminal activity is exempt from the ordinance and there are state statutes that would allow for
expedited eviction.
Another concern was about the different rules that each city has in implementing tenant protection
laws. Staff stated that landlords should lobby MN Multi-Housing to lobby the legislature to pass laws
that would be implemented state wide.
Evictions take a long time and often times that tenants leave and landlords are not able to collect on the
back rent. If there are a few bad landlords only, why implement ordinance that impact the entire rental
property in the city. Further, the city already has a difficult rental license program and it is only
compounding regulation.
The cost of 30 days has impact on single family homes since there small margins on single family rentals
and as large investment companies leave and new ones move in, the cost of rent will increase. The
payment of rent language is in the lease and staff is willing to work with a date that will work with
everyone. It was suggested that the notice is shorted to 7 days. 7 days is not enough time for tenants
prepare and the more notice is preferred. Homeline suggested that the 30 day notice does not get
changed.
Staff stated that the courts have upheld Minneapolis and St. Louis Park’s ordinance so both dates would
be acceptable. 30 days would be in conflict with state statute, state statue is 14 days for a tenant to file
a rent abatement.
Landlords don’t want to file an eviction and have built a relationship with tenants. Using the word
eviction ruins the relationship. It was then stated that the relationship is a business relationship and not
friendship relationship.
An example of non-renewal just cause is a tenant who smokes marijuana but the landlord cannot evict
because there isn’t enough evidence which causes good tenants to move out. If the tenants are not
willing to testify, there is no way to get rid of the tenant. The only way would be to non-renew the
tenant. BC police does not respond to calls for service for marijuana and the current language would
require that the tenant is given an opportunity to correct the behavior.
Staff stated that there are real concerns that the city has continued to hear from residents about
maintenance and management practice and staff has to balance the interests of everyone.
ARM Meeting Comments
We have 13 people that signed in, however, there were about 20 people that showed up. Emails (where
emails were provided) were sent to invite them back for the January 12th meeting. Notes are not in any
particular order of discussion. Let me know if there are additions to this that I may have missed.
1. Questions were asked about the use of the word affordable housing and what would be
considered affordable housing. It was explained that affordable housing in the context of the
ordnance would be the rent amount based at 80% of AMI. The AMI amounts were referenced
in the ARM newsletter. It was suggested that the city adopt the state’s definition of affordable
housing.
2. The owner stated that due to the rent in Brooklyn Center, 80% of AMI would mean all properties
in the city are subject to this new ordinance since the rents are not more than the chart.
3. There were concerns about how the city is interfering with contract law since the contract is
between a landlord and tenant not with the city. There was a follow up about
enforcement. Staff explained that the ordinance would allow tenants to be more proactive and
would be able to use the ordinance as a defense in court. The city would not be enforcing the
ordinance.
4. A concern expressed if landlords are non-renewing because of police calls, they would need to
call the police for service which would ultimately impact their license type. Staff showed the
police calls for service chart and explained that not all calls for service would impact their license
type.
5. Many owners/landlords/managers expressed that they are already working with tenants on rent
issues and the ordinance would inhibit them to work with tenants since they would have to
serve a eviction notice after the 1 st of them month.
6. A question about the data used for the reason to come up with the non-renewals. Staff
explained that the data for non-renewals do not exist however the data for eviction filings,
vacancy rates, and housing costs exist which was used to craft the ordinance to prevent further
displacement of low income families who lack housing options. Staff also cited the U of MN
study which showed the housing issues.
7. There was concern that the city would be creating an ordinance that would be in conflict with
state statutes around tenant rights. It was also expressed that retaliation is outlined in state
statutes along with rent escrow procedures for repair or other issues.
8. Questions about why staff didn’t engage landlords in a conversation sooner and waited till it
was about to be approved by city council.
9. Giving tenants a 30 day notice for eviction filing would mean that every tenant that does not pay
rent on the 1st will be served a notice of eviction. Tenants would be upset and cause additional
work for landlords. It would also further delay actual evictions up to 60 days and landlords
would be without rent up to 3 months without rent collection.
10. It would deter landlords from working with tenants, most already do try to work something out
if the tenants are behind on rent.
11. The city is allowing tenants who can’t pay rent to live rent free and not allowing the landlord to
get the tenant out sooner.
12. Retaliation is already a right under MN statute and if a landlord is retaliating, the tenant has
rights that they can utilize.
13. If landlord isn’t repairing things, the tenant can file a rent escrow which is protected under MN
statute as well.
14. This ordinance is protecting bad tenants and allowing them to live in the unit while the good
tenants are going to suffer.
15. This is going to drive out good tenants because landlords won’t be able to evict bad tenants
quickly enough.
16. Just cause eviction would require that the landlords have enough evidence to prove in court
which is often difficult to do such as smoking or marijuana smoking.
17. The city should consider looking at St Louis Park’s tenant protection ordinance and change it to
7 day notice vs 30 day notice.
18. Comments were made about RentHelpMN and questions were asked if the city is helping with
tenants who need it. Staff stated that staff is not doing the technical assistance but referring to
partnering agencies such as CEAP and other organizations that assist with application and in-
person assistance. RentHelpMN is down to 30 days for 1 st time applicants and 2nd time
applicants are as long as 5 months.
!"#$%
&
'
&
%
()#)*#*)
*+,,
(
-+.+/#*,.01$
(
/+,0
2
/#"##
! 3
'
$
2
4#"
5
!
#! 3
&
%
678
2
4#"
5
"
#
$%& !'
(
)*)
+ !
! 9
3
:
93
,-
.
(#
(
/
)
-
0
!
! %
!
"#$" %
&' &()!))
*+)
,#&- ../)
0 1
)
2
!
**
3!
!0
&
3)
0102/
30
+*
45
.
/ +3**
167852
3#,
+)/3 !3*
,9
* +*
: .
/
/ 3+3.3+)
!
/!3/./
;
:*
3
/&(
*./4<!
!
33/3/
*
33/*
::;
,
-!3
3
3
))
+ !
!:
+=
>. !
?*+
* )+/0/
@3,/ )*
:
!3.)
+3 / *
3 !) /33/
*
:3
!3
/
++*
/+A
"6 )+ !)+
! ):
++!/ 3/+. !))
*.*
..* 3
:
: *+
+
3
/ // ?3+:
*
): 3
/B+
)
+ 36780)
< "+
*
*! +3
*:1+C)3 2367850)
"
,
)
,/
!
)
+
+ /3 /0
:
3
8
+)+/ ?
.):
3 // !3+ /.!
*+/)(333
3
:/
:)3
/+
+
: *
/3
B+
/0/
,*
+:
++ :=
() 33
/
)+*
3 /33/ ?3+:
3
67850)
&
98)))
.+
:3
1
)))
. D
3
2D+).+:
3333
*
!67
!&
))
. 333
* !/
. !
:
! *
3))
./*
) /)+
1
!*
!2
*
): )/+.=
3 3
+
B
)
> //
*
+
3
3))
*3
*
:367850)
'8E
F))
* )
F+.
* )
'8G
F))
* )<
F+.
* )
# /
)3+*
8)!).8.3:
)
:
# /
)3 *B:/
+) *+/
30/
3*
.=
:
+/33
.H/
+
*
@
33/)( :
3!
+) ))
+ (
./+
:
// !
3 :
3
+
+ )
B
#
7 ))/
!3
*+/))
(3 *+/)(/
./3
3 /3( +.#$$%&
'
!/)3:
//
; *+3
3+
>. +//8+3
(!3
+ **). +*
+
3 /0/
3
.
!3
+/))
(3
.=/( 3
. :
>
))
..33 20:
,/,
I2)
*+)I<20:
"3I 2))
9
/ 1
/
3
23 /
/
30/
./
+
. 33/ :
) ?.*
3
= ).!3))
(3 :30/
+)!3
:
3
+
+ !3+) +A 33:++ +*
3
.=+
3+)++
( //
3
).!3))
(3 (3) +
.
/3 /3/ 3+) :/3
+3/)3()
3
/
+
.
30
0
(
& 3+)+
.
.=:3))
(3+! ?3 ++
++ 07* )03
* )+
)
B/
B/
+) JB
:
) /3+)3/
:
*
/3))
)+ !333(/
./
+)/
*
3) 3
30/
..* **3/
/ +) 3
&
+
3
/
3
*33*
B
.
3))
!
3
+ 3
+
* .
))
)
*+)3)A
/3+)
..* 3
+
.>333))
)+
**/ ).8.
3:
3)
< &
))
3+ 30
* )+
):
))
!
**))
8: *
3/
3
))
+ 3
+
9 !3
*,/
!3
3
+*
//)3? /3
+)
3 /
:))
.
3* 3.)
/ +
3)
!
3*
K
) /3 +
:( !) /3
/ .
>
3
+*
*)(:
/
)+*)
)+/3/ B+*
/ ):
3))
>. +*
))
*
@
330/ !/3
+
+ .
>++./3/ B!
:
+
3
))
3++ 07* )0.
> GL+/3
/ BL+/3/
+A **
3/07* )0
K33
+!
3)
+. /3/
+)
..*
(
307* )0
)+
/30/
:
**+
! ?
)*+A /: *
:/
+).)
,?++ +*
+3
3 /3/ +)
)+).37* )0 /JB
:
*.)!A ) ):)
)
/).:) (:
*
..*
3
* .)4<!E !<<
)
0/ 3
3
/3
++ 07* )0
))
) .
>333+
./(/ !*+++
+)
..* +
.>3 //
!
$
+
+ /3 /0/
/)
*+)!33
)).8.3:
"
##$% &#
+. #+ +
.
.9K
07* )0
&(+
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-____
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SPEND UP TO $3,264,133 IN
AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT FUNDS THROUGH 2024
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act
of 2021 (H.R.1319) into law. The American Rescue Plan Act provides $1.9 trillion in additional
relief to respond to the novelcoronavirus (COVID-19); and
WHEREAS, the city of Brooklyn Center was allocated $3,264,133 which can be used to
support urgentCOVID-19 response efforts to continue to decrease the spread of the virus and
bring the pandemic under control, replace lost revenue for eligible state, local, territorial and
Tribal governments to strengthen support for vital public services and help retain jobs, support
immediate economic stability for households and business and address systemic public health
and economic challenges that have contributed to the unequal impact of the pandemic, as well as
necessary investments in water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, on June _, 2021, the city of Brooklyn Center received $1,623,762.20, and a
supplemental distribution of $53,173.74 of the $3,264,133 with the remaining balance being
available for requesting in June 2022; and
WHEREAS, the period of performance for the American Rescue Plan Act is from March
3, 2021 and must be obligated by December 21, 2024, which means all funds must be
encumbered and projects contracted. By December 31, 2026, all projects must be complete,
including all payments made for encumbrances and projects; and
WHEREAS, the city of Brooklyn Center has established guiding principles for the use of
the funds and has utilized community feedback to develop a 2021-2024 investment plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the city of Brooklyn
Center hereby authorizes staff to spend up to $3,264,133 in American Rescue Recovery Act
funds between 2022 and 2024 in accordance with the proposed investment plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all planned investments that do not occur in a given
year will roll forward to the following year, provided all funds are expended by the end of 2024.
January 10, 2022
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
<ĞLJƌĞĂƐŽĨ^ƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĐ/ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚƚŽǀŽůǀĞƚŚĞŝƚLJ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ>ŝĨĞĂŶĚZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ;ŝ͘Ğ͘ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĂŶĚĨŽŽĚͿ
ZW&ƵŶĚŝŶŐWƌŝŶĐŝƉůĞƐ
WŽƐƐŝďŝůŝƚLJŽĨƐƉĞŶĚŝŶŐĂůůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͍
dŽƚĂůůůŽĐĂ ϯ͕ϭϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ
/ŶƚĞƌŶĂů ϵϯϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϯϬ͘ϬϬй
džƚĞƌŶĂů Ϯ͕ϭϳϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϳϬ͘ϬϬй
'ĞŶĞƌĂů&ƌĂŵĞǁŽƌŬ͗
WƵďůŝĐ^ĂĨĞƚLJ
WƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚ
ŶŚĂŶĐĞ͕ŵŽĚŝĨLJĂŶĚͬŽƌŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶŚŝŐŚůĞǀĞůŽĨĐŝƚLJƐĞƌǀŝĐ
ŶLJŶĞǁƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚŽƌĨƵŶĚĞĚǁŝƚŚZWĨƵŶĚ
^ĐĂůĞŽƌĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞƉŝůŽƚĨŽƌƉƌŽŵŝƐŝŶŐĞLJŽŶĚKs//ŶŶŽ
ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
^ĞƌǀŝŶŐĂĐůĞĂƌĂŶĚĚŝƌĞĐƚƉƵďůŝĐƉƵƌƉŽƐĞĂŶĚďĞŶĞĨŝƚ
dĂŬĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐƚŚĂƚĞƌƌŽŶƚŚĞƐŝĚĞŽĨŝŵƉƌŽǀŝŶŐƚŚĞƐĂĨĞƚ
ƌĞĐŽŐŶŝƚŝŽŶŽĨǁŽƌŬĚƵƌŝŶŐKs/
ŽůƐƚĞƌŝŶŐ>ŽŶŐͲƚĞƌŵŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĂƉĂĐŝƚLJďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚ
ZĞĐŽǀĞƌŝŶŐŽƌƌĞŝŵďƵƌƐĞŵĞŶƚĨŽƌŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĨŝŶĂŶĐŝĂůŚĂ
>ĞǀĞƌĂŐĞĨƵŶĚŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐƚŽĞŶŚĂŶĐĞŝŵƉ
DĂdžŝŵŝnjĞƵƐĞŽĨĨƵŶĚƐƚŽŝŶǀĞƐƚĂŶĚŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJǁŝƚ
RzĞĂƌKŶĞͲϲϬйĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚϰϬ
RzĞĂƌdǁŽͲϲϬйĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚϰϬ
hƐĞĨƵŶĚŝŶŐŝŶĂŵĂŶŶĞƌƚŚĂƚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐůŽŶŐͲƚĞƌŵ͕ŵƵůƚŝͲŐĞ
hƐĞĨƵŶĚŝŶŐŝŶĂŵĂŶŶĞƌƚŚĂƚůŽǁĞƌƐŽǀĞƌĂůůƚĂdžďƵƌĚĞŶŽĨ
hƐĞŽĨ&ƵŶĚƐ͗
ĐĞƐ;Ks/ZĞůĂƚĞĚZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞŽƌEĞǁtĂLJŽĨtŽƌŬŝŶŐͿ
ĚƐǁŝůůŚĂǀĞĂĐůĞĂƌůLJŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚLJƉůĂŶĨŽƌŚŽǁƚŚĞLJǁŝůůĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞĂĨ
ŽǀĂƚŝǀĞ/ŶŝƚŝĂƚŝǀĞƐƉƌŝŽƌƚŽĨƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞǁŝŶŝƚŝĂƚŝǀĞƐ
LJͬŚĞĂůƚŚŽĨƐƚĂĨĨĂŶĚƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞKs/ͲϭϵWĂŶĚĞŵŝĐͲ^ƚĂĨĨƐĂĨĞƚLJ͕
ŚĞŝƚLJĂŶĚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ;ŝƚLJǁŝĚĞĂŶĚŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐͿ
ƌĚƐŚŝƉ
ƉĂĐƚƚŽƌŽŽŬůLJŶĞŶƚĞƌƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐĂŶĚďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐ͘
ŚŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƚŽƌĞĐŽǀĞƌĂŶĚƚŚƌŝǀĞďĞLJŽŶĚƚŚĞKs/ͲϭϵWĂŶĚĞŵŝĐ
ϬйŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ
ϬйŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ
ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůǁĞĂůƚŚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ŚĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚͬŽƌĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐƐƚĂďŝůŝƚLJ͘
ĨƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ
džƉůĂŝŶƐŚŽǁLJ
ƚĞƌĨƵŶĚŝŶŐƉĞƌŝŽĚŝƐŽǀĞƌ
ŚĞĂůƚŚ;ƉŚLJƐŝĐĂůŽƌŵĞŶƚĂůͿĂŶĚŵŽƌĂůĞĂŶĚ
džĂŵƉůĞƐ'ŝǀĞŶƵƌŝŶŐtĞď
DŝŶŝŵƵŵŝŶĐŽŵĞĨŽƌĨŽůŬƐƚŚĂƚ
tŽƌŬĨŽƌĐĞƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐ
/ŵƉĂĐƚĞĚŝŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĞƐͲƚƌĂǀĞůĂŶĚ
ZĞŚĂďŝŶŐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͕
sĞƌLJŐĞŶĞƌŽƵƐŽŶƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐĐŚ
LJŽƵǁŝůůƐŚŽǁƚŚĞŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐŝĨŶŽƚĞdžƉůŝĐŝƚĞůLJŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚŝŶůŝƐƚ
ĂŶdƌĂŶƐĨĞƌĨƵŶĚƐƚŽ͗
ďŝŶĂƌ
ĐĂŶΖƚĨŝŶĚǁŽƌŬ͍
ƚŽƵƌŝƐŵ;ŶŽůŝŵŝƚƚŽĂŝĚƚŽƚŚŽƐĞĚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƌƚŝŽŶĂƚĞůLJŝŵƉĂĐƚĞĚ͘Ϳ
ƉƵƌĐŚĂƐĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐƚŽŚŽƵƐĞŚŽŵĞůĞƐƐ͘
ŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞĂŶĚĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘
Ž
Ɛ
ƚ
;d
Ś
ƌ
Ž
Ƶ
Ő
Ś
Ϯ
Ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
Ϳ
^Ƶ
ď
Ͳ
Ő
ƌ
Ă
Ŷ
ƚ
Ɛ
ƚ
Ž
Đ
Ž
ŵ
ŵ
Ƶ
Ŷ
ŝ
ƚ
LJ
Ɖ
Ă
ƌ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ğ
ƌ
Ž
ƌ
Ő
Ă
Ŷ
ŝ
nj
Ă
ŝ
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
Ɛ
ƚ
Ž
Ě
Ğ
ů
ŝ
ǀ
Ğ
ƌ
ǁ
Ž
ƌ
Ŭ
Ĩ
Žƌ
Đ
Ğ
ĚĞ
ǀ
Ğ
ů
Ž
Ɖ
ŵ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
ƚ
ƌ
Ă
ŝ
Ŷ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
;
W
Ă
ƌ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ğ
ƌ
Ɛ
Ś
ŝ
Ɖ
ǁ
ŝ
ƚ
Ś
ƌ
Ž
Ž
Ŭ
ů
LJ
Ŷ
W
Ă
ƌ
Ŭ
Ϳ
zŽ
Ƶ
ƚ
Ś
Ŷ
ƚ
ƌ
Ğ
Ɖ
ƌ
Ğ
Ŷ
Ƶ
Ğ
ƌ
Ɛ
Ś
ŝ
Ɖ
W
ƌ
Ž
Ő
ƌ
Ă
ŵ
Ͳ
dž
Ɖ
Ă
Ŷ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
Ž
Ĩ
ƌ
Ž
Ž
Ŭ
ů
LJ
Ŷ
Ŭ
^
Ğ
ƌ
ǀ
ŝ
Đ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
ƉƌŽ
ŐƌĂ
ŵ
ŵ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő;WĂ
ƌ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ğ
ƌ
Ś
Ɛ
ŝ
Ɖǁ
ŝ
ƚ
Ś
ƌ
Ž
Ž
Ŭ
ů
LJŶ
W
Ă
ƌ
Ŭ
Ϳ
Ž
Ŷ
Ŷ
Ğ
Đ
ƚ
Ś
ŝ
Ő
Ś
Ğ
ƌ
ď
Ă
ƌ
ƌ
ŝ
Ğ
ƌ
LJ
Ž
Ƶ
ƚ
Ś
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
ů
Ă
Đ
Ŭ
/
Ŷ
Ě
ŝ
Ő
Ğ
Ŷ
Ž
Ƶ
Ɛ
W
Ğ
ƌ
Ɛ
Ž
Ŷ
Ž
Ĩ
Ž
ů
Žƌ
;
/
W
K
Ϳ
ũŽď
Ɛ
Ğ
Ğ
Ŭ
Ğ
ƌ
Ɛ
ƚ
Ž
ũŽď
Ɛ
Ă
ƌ
Ğ
Ğ
ƌ
W
Ă
ƚ
Ś
ǁ
Ă
LJ
Ɛ
W
ƌ
Ž
Ő
ƌ
Ă
ŵ
Ͳ
&
Ž
Đ
Ƶ
Ɛ
Ğ
Ě
Ž
Ŷ
Ě
Ƶ
ů
ƚ
;
Ϯ
ϰ
н
Ϳ
ǁ
Ž
ƌ
Ŭ
Ĩ
Ž
ƌ
Đ
Ğ
ĚĞ
ǀ
Ğ
ů
Ž
ƉŵĞ
Ŷ
ƚ
;WĂ
ƌ
ƚ
Ŷ
Ğ
ƌ
Ś
Ɛ
ŝ
Ɖǁ
ŝ
ƚ
Ś
ƌ
Ž
Ž
Ŭ
ů
LJŶ
W
Ă
ƌ
Ŭ
Ϳ
Ž
Ŷ
ƚ
ƌ
Ă
Đ
ƚ
ǁ
ŝ
ƚ
Ś
Đ
Ž
ŵ
ŵ
Ƶ
Ŷ
ŝ
ƚ
LJ
Ɖ
Ă
ƌ
ƚ
Ŷ
Ğ
ƌ
Ɛ
ƚ
Ž
Ğ
Ɛ
ƚ
Ă
ď
ů
ŝ
Ɛ
Ś
Ă
z
Ž
Ƶ
ƚ
Ś
K
Ƶ
ƚ
ƌ
Ğ
Ă
Đ
Ś
ƚĞ
Ă
ŵ
zŽ
Ƶ
ƚ
Ś
Ž
Ŷ
Ž
Ă
ƌ
Ě
Ɛ
KŶ
ů
ŝ
Ŷ
Ğ
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
ŝ
Ŷ
Ͳ
Ɖ
Ğ
ƌ
Ɛ
Ž
Ŷ
LJ
Ž
Ƶ
ƚ
Ś
Ž
Ƶ
ƚ
ƌ
Ğ
Ă
Đ
Ś
ƚ
Ž
Ğ
Ŷ
Ś
Ă
Ŷ
Đ
Ğ
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
Ğ
dž
Ɖ
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
LJ
Ž
Ƶ
ƚ
Ś
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
ĨĂ
ŵ
ŝ
ů
LJ
Ɖ
Ă
ƌ
ƚ
ŝ
Đ
ŝ
Ɖ
Ă
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
Ğ
Ŷ
Ő
Ă
Ő
Ğ
ŵ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ž
ŵ
ŵ
Ğ
ƌ
Đ
ŝ
Ă
ů
W
ƌ
Ž
Ɖ
Ğ
ƌ
ƚ
LJ
Ğ
ǀ
Ğ
ů
Ž
Ɖ
ŵ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
&Ƶ
Ŷ
Ě
Đ
Ž
Ŷ
Ž
ŵ
ŝ
Đ
Ğ
ǀ
Ğ
ů
Ž
Ɖ
ŵ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
;
Ƶ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ɛ
Đ
Ž
Ŷ
Ž
ŵ
ŝ
Đ
^
ƚ
Ă
ď
ŝ
ů
ŝ
ƚ
LJ
Ϳ
Ɛ
ƚ
Ă
ď
ů
ŝ
Ɛ
Ś
Ă
Ĩ
Ƶ
Ŷ
Ě
ƚ
Ž
Ɛ
Ƶ
Ɖ
Ɖ
Ž
ƌ
ƚ
ů
Ž
Đ
Ă
ů
Ɛ
ŵ
Ă
ů
ů
ď
Ƶ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ɛ
Ğ
Ɛ
ǁ
ŝ
ƚ
Ś
ƚ
Ś
Ğ
Ă
Đ
Ƌ
Ƶŝ
Ɛ
ŝ
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
Ž
Ĩ
ďƌ
ŝ
Đ
Ŭ
Ɛ
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
ŵ
Ž
ƌ
ƚ
Ă
ƌ
ƌ
Ğ
Ă
ů
Ğ
Ɛ
ƚ
Ă
ƚ
Ğ
͘
&
Ƶ
Ŷ
Ě
Ɛ
ǁ
ŝ
ů
ů
ď
Ğ
Ƶ
Ɛ
Ğ
Ě
ƚ
Ž
Ɖ
ƌ
Ž
ǀ
ŝ
Ě
Ğ
Ğ
Ƌ
Ƶŝ
ƚ
LJ
ƚ
Ž
ůĞ
ǀ
Ğ
ƌ
Ă
Ő
Ğ
Ɖ
ƌ
ŝ
ǀ
Ă
ƚ
Ğ
ů
Ğ
Ŷ
Ě
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
͕
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
ƚ
Ž
Ɖ
ƌ
Ž
ǀ
ŝ
Ě
Ğ
Ő
Ă
Ɖ
Ĩ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ă
Ŷ
Đ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
Ĩ
Ž
ƌ
Đ
Ž
ŵ
ŵ
Ğƌ
Đ
ŝ
Ă
ů
ĚĞ
ǀ
Ğ
ů
Ž
Ɖ
ŵ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
ƚ
Ś
Ă
ƚ
Ɛ
Ƶ
Ɖ
Ɖ
Ž
ƌ
ƚ
Ɛ
Ɛ
ŵ
Ă
ů
ů
ď
Ƶ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ɛ
Ğ
Ɛ
͘
Ψ
ϳ
Ϭ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
&Ž
Ž
Ě
Đ
Đ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ɛ
Ž
ŵ
ŵ
Ƶ
Ŷ
ŝ
ƚ
LJ
>
ŝ
Ĩ
Ğ
Z
Ğ
Ɛ
Ž
Ƶ
ƌ
Đ
Ğ
Ɛ
&Ƶ
Ŷ
Ě
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
ƚ
Ž
Ɛ
Ƶ
Ɖ
Ɖ
Ž
ƌ
ƚ
Ĩ
Ž
Ž
Ě
Ě
ŝ
Ɛ
ƚ
ƌ
ŝ
ď
Ƶ
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
Ž
Ɖ
Ğ
ƌ
Ă
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ś
Ğ
ŝ
ƚ
LJ
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
Ğ
dž
Ɖ
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
ĂĐ
Đ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ɛ
ƚ
Ś
ƌ
Ž
Ƶ
Ő
Ś
ƚ
Ś
Ğ
Đ
ƌ
Ğ
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
Ž
Ĩ
Ă
ŵ
Ž
ď
ŝ
ů
Ğ
Ĩ
Ž
Ž
Ě
Ě
ŝ
Ɛ
ƚ
ƌ
ŝ
ď
Ƶ
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
Ɖ
ƌ
Ž
Ő
ƌ
Ă
ŵ
ŝ
Ŷ
ƉĂƌ
ƚ
Ŷ
Ğ
ƌ
Ɛ
Ś
ŝ
Ɖǁ
ŝ
ƚ
Ś
W
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
W
/
Ψ
ϭ
Ϯ
ϱ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
^ŵ
Ă
ů
ů
Ƶ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ɛ
Z
Ğ
Ɛ
Ž
Ƶ
ƌ
Đ
Ğ
,
Ƶ
ď
Đ
Ž
Ŷ
Ž
ŵ
ŝ
Đ
Ğ
ǀ
Ğ
ů
Ž
Ɖ
ŵ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
;
Ƶ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ɛ
Đ
Ž
Ŷ
Ž
ŵ
ŝ
Đ
^
ƚ
Ă
ď
ŝ
ů
ŝ
ƚ
LJ
Ϳ
Ž
ŵ
ŵ
Ƶ
Ŷ
ŝ
ƚ
LJ
Ͳ
ď
Ă
Ɛ
Ğ
Ě
Ɛ
Ɖ
Ă
Đ
Ğ
ƚ
Ž
Ɛ
Ƶ
Ɖ
Ɖ
Ž
ƌ
ƚ
ǁ
Ž
ƌ
Ŭ
Ĩ
Ž
ƌ
Đ
Ğ
Ě
Ğ
ǀ
Ğ
ů
Ž
Ɖ
ŵ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
͕
Đ
Ž
Ͳ
ǁ
Ž
ƌ
Ŭ
ŝŶ
Ő
ƐƉ
Ă
Đ
Ğ
͕
ŝ
Ŷ
Ŷ
Ž
ǀ
Ă
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
ů
Ă
ď
͕
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
Ś
Ƶ
ď
Ĩ
Ž
ƌ
Ɛ
ŵ
Ă
ů
ů
ď
Ƶ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ɛ
ƚ
Ğ
Đ
Ś
Ŷ
ŝ
Đ
Ă
ů
Ɛ
Ƶ
Ɖ
ƉŽ
ƌ
ƚ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϱ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
,Ƶ
ŵ
ď
Ž
ů
Ě
ƚ
E
Ğ
ŝ
Ő
Ś
ď
Ž
ƌ
Ś
Ž
Ž
Ě
W
Ğ
Ă
Đ
Ğ
͕
,Ă
ƌ
ŵ
Ž
Ŷ
LJ
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
W
ƌ
Ž
Ɛ
Ɖ
Ğ
ƌ
ŝ
ƚ
LJ
^
ŵ
Ă
ů
ů
ƌ
Ğ
Ă
W
ů
Ă
Ŷ
Ž
ŵ
ŵ
Ƶ
Ŷ
ŝ
ƚ
LJ
>
ŝ
Ĩ
Ğ
Z
Ğ
Ɛ
Ž
Ƶ
ƌ
Đ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ğ
ǀ
Ğ
ů
Ž
Ɖ
Ă
Đ
Ž
ŵ
ŵ
Ƶ
Ŷ
ŝ
ƚ
LJ
Ͳ
ů
Ğ
Ě
ǀ
ŝ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
Ĩ
Ž
ƌ
ƚ
Ś
Ğ
Ĩ
Ƶ
ƚ
Ƶ
ƌ
Ğ
Ž
Ĩ
ƚ
Ś
Ğ
,
Ƶ
ŵ
ď
Ž
ů
Ě
ƚ
EĞ
ŝ
Ő
Ś
ď
Ž
ƌ
Ś
Ž
Ž
Ě
ƚ
Ś
Ă
ƚ
ŝ
Ŷ
Đ
ů
Ƶ
Ě
Ğ
Ɛ
Ő
Ž
Ă
ů
Ɛ
Ĩ
Ž
ƌ
Ś
Ž
Ƶ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
͕
Ž
Ɖ
Ğ
Ŷ
Ɛ
Ɖ
Ă
Đ
Ğ
͕
Ɛ
ƚ
ƌ
Ğ
Ğ
ƚƐ
Đ
Ă
Ɖ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
ĂŶ
Ě
ď
Ƶ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ɛ
Ě
Ğ
ǀ
Ğ
ů
Ž
Ɖ
ŵ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
͘
/
Ě
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
ŝ
Ĩ
LJ
Ɛ
Ś
Ž
ƌ
ƚ
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
ů
Ž
Ŷ
Ő
Ğ
ƌ
Ͳ
ƚ
Ğ
ƌ
ŵ
ŝ
ŵ
Ɖ
ů
Ğ
ŵ
ĞŶ
ƚ
Ă
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
Ɛƚ
ƌ
Ă
ƚ
Ğ
Ő
LJ
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
Ɛ
Ƶ
Ɖ
Ɖ
Ž
ƌ
ƚ
Ă
Ŷ
ŝ
Ŷ
ŝ
ƚ
ŝ
Ă
ů
ŝ
Ŷ
ǀ
Ğ
Ɛ
ƚ
ŵ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
ŝ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ś
Ğ
Ŷ
Ğ
ŝ
Ő
Ś
ď
Ž
ƌ
Ś
Ž
Ž
Ě
ƚŽ
Đ
Ă
ƚ
Ă
ů
LJ
nj
Ğ
ƚŚ
Ğ
ǀ
ŝ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
͘
Ψ
Ϯ
ϱ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
,Ğ
Ă
ů
ƚ
Ś
Ž
Ŷ
ƚ
Ś
Ğ
'
Ž
W
Ƶ
ď
ů
ŝ
Đ
,
Ğ
Ă
ů
ƚ
Ś
dž
Ɖ
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
Ƶ
Ɖ
Ž
Ŷ
ƚ
Ś
Ğ
Ɖ
Ă
ƌ
ƚ
Ŷ
Ğ
ƌ
Ɛ
Ś
ŝ
Ɖ
Ɛ
Đ
ƌ
Ğ
Ă
ƚ
Ğ
Ě
Ă
Ɛ
Ɖ
Ă
ƌ
ƚ
Ž
Ĩ
ƚ
Ś
Ğ
Ɖ
ŝ
ů
Ž
ƚ
,
Ğ
Ă
ů
ƚ
Ś
Ž
Ŷ
ƚ
Ś
Ğ
'
Ž
Ɖƌ
Ž
Ő
ƌ
Ă
ŵ
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
Ğ
dž
Ɖ
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
Ɛ
Ğ
ƌ
ǀ
ŝ
Đ
Ğ
Ɛ
ƚ
Ž
ƌ
Ğ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ě
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ɛ
Ψ
Ϯ
Ϯ
ϱ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
ƌ
Ă
ů
Ğ
Ă
Ƶ
ƚ
ŝ
Ĩ
ŝ
Đ
Ă
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
Ƶ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ɛ
/ŵ
Ɖ
ƌ
Ž
ǀ
Ğ
ŵ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
ŝ
Ɛ
ƚ
ƌ
ŝ
Đ
ƚ
WƵ
ď
ů
ŝ
Đ
^
Ă
Ĩ
Ğ
ƚ
LJ
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
Ž
ŵ
ŵ
Ƶ
Ŷ
ŝ
ƚ
LJ
>
ŝ
Ĩ
Ğ
ZĞ
Ɛ
Ž
Ƶ
ƌ
Đ
Ğ
Ɛ
hƚ
ŝ
ů
ŝ
nj
Ğ
Ĩ
Ƶ
Ŷ
Ě
Ɛ
ƚ
Ž
Ğ
Ɛ
ƚ
Ă
ď
ů
ŝ
Ɛ
Ś
Ă
Đ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
ƌ
Ă
ů
Ƶ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ɛ
/
ŵ
Ɖ
ƌ
Ž
ǀ
Ğ
ŵ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
ŝ
Ɛ
ƚ
ƌ
ŝĐ
ƚ
ƚ
Ž
ĞŶ
Ś
Ă
Ŷ
Ğ
Đ
ů
Ğ
Ă
Ŷ
Ͳ
Ƶ
Ɖ
͕
Ɛ
Ŷ
Ž
ǁ
ƌ
Ğ
ŵ
Ž
ǀ
Ă
ů
͕
Ɛ
Ğ
Ă
Ɛ
Ž
Ŷ
Ă
ů
ů
ŝ
Ő
Ś
ƚ
Ɛ
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
Ő
ƌ
Ğ
Ğ
Ŷ
Ğ
ƌ
LJ
͕
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
Ɖů
Ă
Đ
Ğ
ŵ
Ă
Ŭ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
;
Ɖ
ƌ
Ž
Ő
ƌ
Ă
ŵ
ŵ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
ƚ
Ž
ď
Ğ
Ě
Ğ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ő
Ŷ
Ğ
Ě
ŝ
Ŷ
Ɖ
Ă
ƌ
ƚ
Ŷ
Ğ
ƌ
Ɛ
Ś
ŝ
Ɖ
ǁ
ŝ
ƚ
Ś
Ě
ŝ
Ɛ
ƚƌ
ŝ
Đ
ƚ
ďƵ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ɛ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ϳ
Ψ
ϳ
ϱ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
WƵ
ď
ů
ŝ
Đ
ƌ
ƚ
D
Ă
ƚ
Đ
Ś
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
&
Ƶ
Ŷ
Ě
Ž
ŵ
ŵ
Ƶ
Ŷ
ŝ
ƚ
LJ
>
ŝ
Ĩ
Ğ
Z
Ğ
Ɛ
Ž
Ƶ
ƌ
Đ
Ğ
Ɛ
&
Ƶ
Ŷ
Ě
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
ƚ
Ž
Đ
Ž
Ɛ
ƚ
Ɛ
Ś
Ă
ƌ
Ğ
Ɖ
Ƶ
ď
ů
ŝ
Đ
Ă
ƌ
ƚ
ŝ
Ŷ
ŝ
ƚ
ŝ
Ă
ƚ
ŝ
ǀ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ž
Ŷ
Ɖ
ƌ
ŝ
ǀ
Ă
ƚ
Ğ
Ɖ
ƌ
Ž
Ɖ
Ğ
ƌ
ƚ
LJ
Ψ
ϳ
ϱ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
dž
ƚ
Ğ
ƌ
Ŷ
Ă
ů
ͬ
Ž
ŵ
ŵ
Ƶ
Ŷ
ŝ
ƚ
LJ
W
Ă
ƌ
ƚ
Ŷ
Ğ
ƌ
Ɛ
Ś
ŝ
Ɖ
Ɛ
zŽ
Ƶ
ƚ
Ś
K
Ƶ
ƚ
ƌ
Ğ
Ă
Đ
Ś
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
Ŷ
Ő
Ă
Ő
Ğ
ŵ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ž
ŵ
ŵ
Ƶ
Ŷ
ŝ
ƚ
LJ
>
ŝ
Ĩ
Ğ
Z
Ğ
Ɛ
Ž
Ƶ
ƌ
Đ
Ğ
Ɛ
͕
W
Ƶ
ď
ů
ŝ
Đ
^Ă
Ĩ
Ğ
ƚ
LJ
͕
W
Ƶ
ď
ů
ŝ
Đ
,
Ğ
Ă
ů
ƚ
Ś
͕
Đ
Ž
Ŷ
Ž
ŵ
ŝ
Đ
Ğ
ǀ
Ğ
ů
Ž
Ɖ
ŵ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ψ
ϭ
ϱ
ϴ
͕
ϭ
ϯ
ϯ
Wƌ
Ž
Ő
ƌ
Ă
ŵ
ŝ
ƚ
Ğ
ŵ
W
Ƶ
ƌ
Ɖ
Ž
Ɛ
Ğ
ͬ
Ě
Ğ
Ɛ
Đ
ƌ
ŝ
Ɖ
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
<Ğ
LJ
ƌ
Ğ
Ă
tŽ
ƌ
Ŭ
Ĩ
Ž
ƌ
Đ
Ğ
Ğ
ǀ
Ğ
ů
Ž
Ɖ
ŵ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
W
ƌ
Ž
Ő
ƌ
Ă
ŵ
Ψ
ϱ
ϲ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Đ
Ž
Ŷ
Ž
ŵ
ŝ
Đ
Ğ
ǀ
Ğ
ů
Ž
Ɖ
ŵ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
;
Z
Ğ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ě
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
ĂŶ
Ě
Ƶ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ɛ
Đ
Ž
Ŷ
Ž
ŵ
ŝ
Đ
^
ƚ
Ă
ď
ŝ
ů
ŝ
ƚ
LJ
Ϳ
Ă
Ƶ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ğ
t
ƌ
ŝ
Ő
Ś
ƚ
D
Ğ
ŵ
Ž
ƌ
ŝ
Ă
ů
Ž
ŵ
ŵ
Ƶ
Ŷ
ŝ
ƚ
LJ
>
ŝ
Ĩ
Ğ
Z
Ğ
Ɛ
Ž
Ƶ
ƌ
Đ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ž
ŵ
ŵ
ŝ
Ɛ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
Ă
ƌ
ƚ
ŵ
Ğ
ŵŽ
ƌ
ŝ
Ă
ů
Ψ
Ϯ
ϱ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
dž
ƚ
Ğ
ƌ
Ŷ
Ă
ů
d
Ž
ƚ
Ă
ů
Ψ
Ϯ
͕
ϰ
ϰ
ϯ
͕
ϭ
ϯ
ϯ
ŝ
Ő
ŝ
ƚ
Ă
ů
D
Ğ
Ɛ
Ɛ
Ă
Ő
Ğ
Ž
Ă
ƌ
Ě
Ɛ
W
Ƶ
ď
ů
ŝ
Đ
,
Ğ
Ă
ů
ƚ
Ś
͕
W
Ƶ
ď
ů
ŝ
Đ
^
Ă
Ĩ
Ğ
ƚ
LJ
dž
ƚ
Ğ
ƌ
Ŷ
Ă
ů
Ě
ŝ
Ő
ŝ
ƚ
Ă
ů
ŵ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ɛ
Ă
Ő
Ğ
ď
Ž
Ă
ƌ
Ě
Ɛ
Ă
ƚ
ŝ
ƚ
LJ
Ĩ
Ă
Đ
ŝ
ů
ŝ
ƚ
ŝ
Ğ
Ɛ
ƚ
Ž
Ɖ
ƌ
Ž
ŵ
Ž
ƚ
Ğ
ď
Ğƚ
ƚ
Ğ
ƌ
ĐŽ
ŵ
ŵ
Ƶ
ŝ
Đ
Ă
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
Ɛ
ƚ
ƌ
Ă
ƚ
Ğ
Ő
ŝ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ψ
ϭ
Ϯ
Ϯ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ž
Ě
Ğ
Z
Ğ
Ě
W
Ƶ
ď
ů
ŝ
Đ
,
Ğ
Ă
ů
ƚ
Ś
͕
W
Ƶ
ď
ů
ŝ
Đ
^
Ă
Ĩ
Ğ
ƚ
LJ
Z
Ğ
ǀ
Ğ
Ŷ
Ƶ
Ğ
ƌ
Ğ
Ɖ
ů
Ă
Đ
Ğ
ŵ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
ƚ
Ž
Ɖ
Ă
LJ
Ĩ
Ž
ƌ
Ž
Ğ
Z
Ğ
Ě
Ɛ
Ğ
ƌ
ǀ
ŝ
Đ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ĩ
Ž
ƌ
ƚ
Ś
ƌ
Ğ
Ğ
LJ
Ğ
Ă
ƌ
Ɛ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϰ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
WŽ
ů
ŝ
Đ
Ğ
ů
Ă
ď
Ž
ƌ
Ɛ
ƚ
Ƶ
Ě
LJ
W
Ƶ
ď
ů
ŝ
Đ
^
Ă
Ĩ
Ğ
ƚ
LJ
^
ƚ
Ƶ
Ě
LJ
ƚ
Ž
Ě
Ğ
ƚ
Ğ
ƌ
ŵ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ğ
Ŷ
Ƶ
ŵ
ď
Ğ
ƌ
Ž
Ĩ
Ɖ
Ž
ů
ŝĐ
Ğ
Ž
Ĩ
Ĩ
ŝ
Đ
Ğ
ƌ
Ɛ
Ŷ
Ğ
Ğ
Ě
Ğ
Ě
ƚ
Ž
ŵ
Ă
ŝ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ă
ŝ
Ŷ
Ɛ
Ğ
ƌ
ǀ
ŝ
Đ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ψ
ϭ
ϯ
Ϭ
͕
ϬϬ
Ϭ
ŝ
ƌ
&
ŝ
ů
ƚ
Ğ
ƌ
Ɛ
W
Ƶ
ď
ů
ŝ
Đ
,
Ğ
Ă
ů
ƚ
Ś
/
Ŷ
Ɛ
ƚ
Ă
ů
ů
Ă
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
Ž
Ĩ
Đ
ů
Ğ
Ă
Ŷ
Ă
ŝ
ƌ
Ĩ
ŝ
ů
ƚ
Ğ
ƌ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ś
Ğ
Đ
Ă
ď
Ɛ
Ž
Ĩ
Ĩ
ŝ
ƌ
Ğ
ƚ
ƌ
Ƶ
Đ
Ŭ
Ɛ
Ψ
ϭ
Ϯ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
YƵ
Ă
Ŷ
ƚ
ŝ
Ĩ
ŝ
ƚ
Ϯ
ƌ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ɖ
ŝ
ƌ
Ă
ƚ
Ž
ƌ
ƚ
Ğ
Ɛ
ƚ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
ƐLJ
Ɛ
ƚ
Ğ
ŵ
WƵ
ď
ů
ŝ
Đ
,
Ğ
Ă
ů
ƚ
Ś
WƵ
ƌ
Đ
Ś
Ă
Ɛ
Ğ
Ă
ƌ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ɖ
ŝ
ƌ
Ă
ƚ
Ž
ƌ
ƚ
Ğ
Ɛ
ƚ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
Ɛ
LJ
Ɛ
ƚ
Ğ
ŵ
ƚ
Ž
ƚ
Ğ
Ɛ
ƚ
ƌ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ɖ
ŝ
ƌ
Ă
ƚ
Ž
ƌ
Ĩ
ŝ
ƚ
Ͳ
ƚ
ĞƐ
ƚ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
ƌ
Ğ
Ƌ
Ƶ
ŝ
ƌ
Ğ
Ě
ĂŶ
Ŷ
Ƶ
Ă
ů
ů
LJ
ϭϯ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
&ƌ
Ž
Ŷ
ƚ
>
ŝ
Ŷ
Ğ
Z
Ğ
ƚ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
ZĞ
Đ
Ž
Ő
Ŷ
ŝ
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
/
Ŷ
Đ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
ŝ
ǀ
Ğ
Ž
ŵ
ŵ
Ƶ
Ŷ
ŝ
ƚ
LJ
>
ŝ
Ĩ
Ğ
Z
Ğ
Ɛ
Ž
Ƶ
ƌ
Đ
Ğ
Ɛ
W
ƌ
Ž
ǀ
ŝ
Ě
Ğ
Ă
ď
Ž
Ŷ
Ƶ
Ɛ
Ĩ
Ž
ƌ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ɛ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
ŝ
Ă
ů
Ĩ
ƌ
Ž
Ŷ
ƚ
ů
ŝ
Ŷ
Ğ
Ğ
ŵ
Ɖ
ů
Ž
LJ
Ğ
Ğ
Ɛ
ǁ
Ś
Ž
ǁ
Ž
ƌ
Ŭ
Ğ
Ě
ŝ
Ŷ
Ͳ
Ɖ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ž
Ŷ
ƚŚ
ƌ
Ž
Ƶ
ŐŚ
ƚ
Ś
Ğ
ƉĂŶ
Ě
Ğ
ŵ
ŝ
Đ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϴ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
WƵ
ď
ů
ŝ
Đ
^
Ă
Ĩ
Ğ
ƚ
LJ
W
ƌ
Ž
ũ
Ğ
Đ
ƚ
D
Ă
Ŷ
Ă
Ő
Ğ
ƌ
WƵ
ď
ů
ŝ
Đ
^
Ă
Ĩ
Ğ
ƚ
LJ
E
Ğ
ǁ
Ɖ
Ž
Ɛ
ŝ
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
ƚ
Ž
Ă
Ɛ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ɛ
ƚ
ǁ
ŝ
ƚ
Ś
Đ
Ž
Ž
ƌ
Ě
ŝ
Ŷ
Ă
ƚ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
ƚ
Ś
Ğ
W
Ƶ
ď
ů
ŝ
Đ
^
Ă
Ĩ
Ğ
ƚ
LJ
Z
Ğ
Ɛ
Ž
ů
Ƶ
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
/ŵ
Ɖ
ů
Ğ
ŵ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ă
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
Ž
ŵ
ŵ
ŝ
ƚ
ƚ
Ğ
Ğ
͘
d
Ś
ŝ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ŷ
Đ
ů
Ƶ
Ě
Ğ
Ɛ
ϭ
&
d
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
Ɛ
Ƶ
Ɖ
Ɖ
ů
ŝ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ĩ
Ž
ƌ
ϭϮ
ŵŽ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ś
Ɛ
͘
Ψ
ϭ
ϱ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
WŽ
ů
ŝ
Đ
Ğ
Z
Ğ
ƚ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
/
Ŷ
Đ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
ŝ
ǀ
Ğ
WƵ
ď
ů
ŝ
Đ
^
Ă
Ĩ
Ğ
ƚ
LJ
d
Ś
ŝ
Ɛ
ŵ
Ğ
Ă
Ɛ
Ƶ
ƌ
Ğ
ǁ
Ă
Ɛ
ƚ
Ă
Ŭ
Ğ
Ŷ
Ă
Ɛ
Ɖ
Ă
ƌ
ƚ
Ž
Ĩ
Ŷ
Ğ
Ő
Ž
ƚ
ŝ
Ă
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
Ɛ
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
Ă
ŵ
Ğ
Ă
Ŷ
Ɛ
ƚ
Ž
Ɛ
ƚ
Ă
ď
Ă
ů
ŝ
nj
Ğ
ĂŶ
Ě
ƌ
Ğ
ƚ
Ă
ŝ
Ŷ
ƉŽů
ŝ
Đ
Ğ
Ž
Ĩ
Ĩ
ŝ
Đ
Ğ
ƌ
Ɛ
Ě
Ƶ
ƌ
ŝ
Ŷ
ŐĐ
ŝ
ǀ
ŝ
ů
Ƶ
Ŷ
ƌ
Ğ
Ɛ
ƚ
͘
Ψ
ϭ
ϵ
Ϯ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
,Ğ
ƌ
ŝ
ƚ
Ă
Ő
Ğ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ğ
ƌ
ZĞ
ǀ
Ğ
Ŷ
Ƶ
Ğ
ƌ
Ğ
Ɖ
ů
Ă
Đ
Ğ
ŵ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ĩ
Ž
ƌ
ƚ
Ś
Ğ
,
Ğ
ƌ
ŝ
ƚ
Ă
Ő
Ğ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ğ
ƌ
Ͳ
Ƶ
ƚ
ŝ
ů
ŝ
nj
Ğ
Ĩ
Ƶ
Ŷ
Ě
Ɛ
ƚ
Ž
Ğdž
Ɖ
ů
Ž
ƌ
Ğ
ǁĂ
LJ
Ɛ
ƚ
Ž
Ğ
dž
Ɖ
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
Ă
Ŷ
Ě
Ğ
Ŷ
Ś
Ă
Ŷ
Đ
Ğ
ƚ
Ś
Ğ
,
Ğ
ƌ
ŝ
ƚ
Ă
Ő
Ğ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ğ
ƌ
Ζ
Ɛ
Đ
Ž
ŵ
ŵ
Ƶ
Ŷ
ŝ
ƚ
LJ
ď
Ğ
Ŷ
Ğ
Ĩŝ
ƚ
Ɛ
Ψ
ϭ
ϱ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
/Ŷ
ƚ
Ğ
ƌ
Ŷ
Ă
ů
d
Ž
ƚ
Ă
ů
ϴϮ
ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
dŽ
ƚ
Ă
ů
ŝ
Ŷ
ǀ
Ğ
Ɛ
ƚ
ŵ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ψ
ϯ
͕
Ϯ
ϲ
ϰ
͕
ϭ
ϯ
ϯ
/Ŷ
ƚ
Ğ
ƌ
Ŷ
Ă
ů
W
ƌ
Ž
Ő
ƌ
Ă
ŵ
Ɛ
ͬ
/
Ŷ
ŝ
ƚ
ŝ
Ă
ƚ
ŝ
ǀ
Ğ
Ɛ
ͬ
Z
Ğ
ǀ
Ğ
Ŷ
Ƶ
Ğ
Z
Ğ
Ɖ
ů
Ă
Đ
Ğ
ŵ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
ĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ dŝŵĞůŝŶĞ
ZĞĐĞŝǀĞZW'ƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐ :ƵŶĞ͕ϮϬϮϭ
ZĞĐĞŝǀĞZW&ƵŶĚŝŶŐ ƵŐƵƐƚ͕ϮϬϮϭ
ƐƚĂďůŝƐŚZWdžƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞWƌŝŶĐŝƉůĞƐ ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌ͕ϮϬϮϭ
^ŽůŝĐŝƚŝŶƚĞƌŶĂůƐƉĞŶĚŝŶŐǀŝĂĚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐ ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌ;ϯƌĚǁĞĞŬͿ͕ϮϬϮϭ
ŽƵŶĐŝůZĞƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶĐĐĞƉƚŝŶŐZW&ƵŶĚŝŶŐ ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌ;ϯƌĚǁĞĞŬͿ͕ϮϬϮϭ
'ƌŽƵƉ^ĞůĞĐƚ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂů
ƌĞĂƚĞƐƚĂĨĨƵƉĚĂƚĞĂŶĚƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐƌĞƉŽƌƚŽŶ
ĞLJŽŶĚKs//ŶŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶ/ŶŝƚŝĂƚŝǀĞƐ ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌ;ϰƚŚǁĞĞŬͿ͕ϮϬϮϭ
KŶďŽĂƌĚĞǀĂůƵĂƚŽƌĐŽŶƐƵůƚĂŶƚĨŽƌĞǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ
Z^d/ŶŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶ/ŶŝƚŝĂƚŝǀĞƐĂŶĚZW
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ/ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚWƌŽũĞĐƚƐ
^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌ͕ϮϬϮϭʹ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌ͕ϮϬϮϮ;ϭϮŵŽŶƚŚƐͿ
^ŽůŝĐŝƚƉƵďůŝĐƌĂŶŬŝŶŐŽĨŶĞĞĚƐ;ƉĞƌŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚ
ĂƌĞĂƐĨŽƌZ^&ƵŶĚŝŶŐͿĂŶĚĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ KĐƚŽďĞƌ;Ϯ ŶĚǁĞĞŬͿ͕ϮϬϮϭ
ƌĂĨƚďƵĚŐĞƚƵƐĞŽĨĂůůZWĨƵŶĚŝŶŐ EŽǀĞŵďĞƌKĐƚŽďĞƌ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌ;ϭƐƚϯƌĚϰƚŚǁĞĞŬͿ͕ϮϬϮϭ
WƌĞƐĞŶƚZWĨƵŶĚŝŶŐĞdžƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƉůĂŶƚŽƚŚĞ
ŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝů EŽǀĞŵďĞƌKĐƚŽďĞƌϮϱ͕ϮϬϮϭ
/ŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚƚŚĞZWĨƵŶĚŝŶŐĞdžƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƉůĂŶ͘ EŽǀĞŵďĞƌ͕ϮϬϮϭ
&ĂĐŝůŝƚĂƚĞŽĨĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶǁŝƚŚĂĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŐƌŽƵƉ
ƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞƵƐĞŽĨ
ĨƵŶĚŝŶŐŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚĨŽƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ
ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
KĐƚŽďĞƌ;ϭ ƐƚǁĞĞŬͿ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌ;ϯƌĚǁĞĞŬͿ͕ϮϬϮϭ
ŽŵŵĞŶƚ
dŽĚĚͬZĞŐŐŝĞ
DĞŐƐĞŶĚŽƵƚĨŽƌŵƚŽĚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐ͘
'ƌŽƵƉ
ĂƌŝƐƐĂͬŶĚƌĞǁ,͘
ZĞŐŐŝĞ
WʹĐƌĞĂƚĞĚďƵĐŬĞƚƐƚŚĞŶZ&WĨŽƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƚŽ
ĐŽŶĚƵĐƚǁŽƌŬŝŶƚŚŽƐĞĂƌĞĂƐ
'ƌŽƵƉZĞĐŽŶǀĞŶĞʹKŶƵĐŬĞƚƐŽƌƌĞǀŝĞǁŽĨƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůƐ
WƌŽĐĞƐƐ;ϮƉĂƌƚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐͿ͗
Ͳ'ƌŽƵƉŽŶǀĞƌƐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƵƉĚĂƚĞŽŶĨƵŶĚŝŶŐ
/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĂůƐĞƐƐŝŽŶŽŶƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐĞĨĨŽƌƚƐ
Ͳ/ŶƚĞƌĂĐƚŝǀĞĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶŽŶƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝĞƐƚŚĂƚŝŶĨŽƌŵ
ďƵĐŬĞƚƐ
DĞŐͬ:ĂŶĞůůĞͬZĞŐŐŝĞ
ĂƌďͬŶŐĞů
ŶĚƌĞǁ^͘
'ƌŽƵƉ
!
"#$" %&'!''
()'
%* + !)
,''
()'
-#%+ ''
()'%&$
.
/
'
0
! "#$"%""
-1
&
.,'2
2.,
3
4''
()'%&$ /%$0,
%$, )(
52#-)',"
#5()'/"#02)
2
''
()'.(
. 256'
') 2, )
'
,5
& '
')(' ! )) )5
(
.(
.
")
( %$,
,'"# ),
),, !2
2
'
52,,).
). 55")
''
. %'
!
7
!
&7'2).
)
2
)
(%$,
,'"#%&
.
53
)
,2,
22")
22
8
-,2%$)'9
22,%$.(
'
,2.5:.(
%6.
')
7(.
'
. ' 5
2
4 .''
2; )
6 22
)
(
, '
<
),2
%$=)
2)'5 ,.(
. 56.(
'
) 2
' '2
9
'2(
),2'
.,2%$, !")
) >3,
)!2
2
,26 2)
,2)'
6 2.(
.
5,,
; ")
)>3,
)(!2)
.
2? &
!2
2
@
2, ) (
15
)
.
2
5
2
7
A7 (B))
.
7
A7 (B"' ))
.
7
A4"
))
. ,"' 7).
7
A -)).!2!-(
7
A>A
252(
8.
7
AC-.''
()'
% ")
)
5,2'
).,2%$, !2
( 2 ,,
2
2
)
. 2
2
(,'2)
,
, ' &)'
,'2
7
D!
. )>),2
%$,
)5
(
E2
%&
!2''
. 2 F
.!2).
9
' ,2, !2'
2
5
)2
)5
(
.'
2
5.,2 ,
2
&
) .(''
G!2
2(
)5
(
,
9 '&
'
. 2 2
2)5
(
8. ,
2'2
%$,
. ,'+ 3+4
222
3
%$,
52
5
22+4
!
2,
,
!
"#H
!
7'
"$%#'
/H>D!
0
2'
, 2")
"'25)'
2 ,2,
'
"#)'
5
,25
")
I >3,
)
. .
8%$,2
2
25)'
2 )' 2)(
,,
(5
'2' '&
)
'
2
2' ''
.
2
2
& 2 %&
I !2
2 ,, (
5
22'
)&),2'
%&2 2HD>!
H>D!
2
25)'2
,
D3
2 2 2
.
,C )) &
,
,'
22
25)'
., 5'(
5
%&2H>
!
,, )).2,'
A
252(
8.7'
J!
2
J, 5
H<>!
F
2,'A
252(
8.,
.
E2
&2=',%$.,2=!2(5(
5
")
2 .',H>D!
!5 1 I .!,2)) ,
'
2.,, "(!2
.'5: "#)(
6' ")
( 2') ','"#'
2.'2
).
).
. 5 ,'2&
)).
!
&
'
"
257'3 %$, 2 ,,
'
2
I =
.
,'
2
&!).5
2.,%$, 2
DC
),%&I 2
))
,'
2' !,2
2
)
J<>,2 2'
,'
!,
'2' 2
5(5 '
2
I 2
&222
)')(
52' 2
),
'2' !5 '
152
&,
5 22
,2
)'2.!2
C 2!
")
!2)'
5''
))
.)
7'
3%&H
!
2'5
22
%$,
2
.
2,(
'/0
'
2)'2
2 2,)' 2)'
2
'5,2' (
52'&2)'2 2 2.
)
F
!2
'2 2)'=)
5
))
2&
%&!2(,'
''52G 2
%&!5
%&
!
%&2
'
H
!
-12(
(.
,2
)'
227$
2(
)).
2
!22 525
!
,'.
2
2%&-2 7$2 4 K
,%&"(!
. 2( 2'5,
. 2
)'
5
,
,!'5
22
I
. !2
'
)),2',
%&
2 .
'
' ))
)
2' 5'
L))
.(
,2;-
.,%&+4!
)(
22
,'
2'
.((
5,)2 !2)'2 H>!
, (
5,'
J!
!
.
-G
9
.2532 G
9
.
A")F
'
2
I )(
5))'F ,2)2 (.',5
2
!2
2
2 '
'2 22
(
)
2
2!
'
'
8
2
'),2
)'
F,
')(' 32 )2
')(' ''
)5
,
. 2
.
85'
'
-'
. 2( %$, )2 )
9
)''&2)2
')(' 2
22 ,%$,
2
'
2
E !2
29
6',).
))&!
2 ,2):5(2
5
,2, (
5!
'&
'
')(' '&'=)
(22(,2,
5
-'%
)
3). ,
%$, ,)' ))2
. )), '5
2")
1"# ,
%$, 5
2
'
' ! )
6 )):5.
")
1! ,2, 9
' :5.(=
',.'A
&2 ,%$, !
9
=
().!2
2,
(
'5
'
9
('5, ,
@
'
2
).'
9
' !2
25
.(!2
I , '55G'2
' ( '5
2, 5'
'5
))
2
%$,
,%&
.
)5H>D!
-1 ''.
.2 ,%$, ,27'
7'''
.,2.' 2"'257'22
2'5,))
2
.
/C 0F
''22)'
)''
)!5
5,
2F42
, 22%$
2!222"
-2
!
)
5 ,)' '
5
.62.'! 1'5
,9 ,.,%$,
%
I
. .
5)))5
2
5 2,2
5D!
.
%$
"
"
257'F,'.
&
&' (
22)' 2
1 2 2M
-2 1)) .,2''. M
(!( )
!*
'
-5
++,- .+
). #) )
25;7'
) D
%&)
%&%$
"
D
%&)
dŽ
ƚ
Ă
ů
&
Ƶ
Ŷ
Ě
Ɛ
^Ɖ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
Wƌ
Ž
ũ
Ğ
Đ
ƚ
Ɛ
Ž
ŵ
Ɖ
ů
Ğ
ƚ
Ğ
Ě
>Ž
Ă
Ŷ
Ɛ
Ɖ
Ɖ
ƌ
Ž
ǀ
Ğ
Ě
ŵ
Ž
Ƶ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ɖ
Ɖ
ƌ
Ž
ǀ
Ğ
Ě
Ɖ
Ɖ
ů
ŝ
Đ
Ă
Ŷ
ƚ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ŷ
>Ž
Ă
Ŷ
W
ƌ
Ž
Đ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ɛ
&Ƶ
Ŷ
Ě
Ɛ
Z
Ğ
Ɛ
Ğ
ƌ
ǀ
Ğ
Ě
ĨŽ
ƌ
Ɖ
Ɖ
ů
ŝ
Đ
Ă
Ŷ
ƚ
Ɛ
ZĞ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ě
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ɛ
ǁĂ
ŝ
ƚ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
&Ƶ
Ŷ
Ě
Ɛ
E
Ž
ƚ
Ž
ŵ
ŵ
ŝ
ƚ
ƚ
Ğ
Ě
Wƌ
Ž
Ő
ƌ
Ă
ŵ
/Ŷ
Đ
Ž
ŵ
Ğ
&
Ƶ
Ŷ
Ě
Ɛ
^
Ɖ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
Wƌ
Ž
ũ
Ğ
Đ
ƚ
Ɛ
Ž
ŵ
Ɖ
ů
Ğ
ƚ
Ğ
Ě
>Ž
Ă
Ŷ
Ɛ
Ɖ
Ɖ
ƌ
Ž
ǀ
Ğ
Ě
ŵ
Ž
Ƶ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ɖ
Ɖ
ƌ
Ž
ǀ
Ğ
Ě
Ϯϯ
͕
ϲ
ϰ
Ϭ
Ψ
Ϭ
ϭ
Ϯ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϱ
ϭ
Ϭ
ϴ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϭ
ϯ
ϭ
ϭ
ϲ
͕
ϵ
ϲ
ϵ
Ψ
Ϯ
Ϯ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϯ
͕
ϲ
ϰ
Ϭ
Ψ
Ϭ
ϭ
Ϯ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
Ϯϱ
͕
ϰ
Ϭ
ϰ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϰ
ϲ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϲ
ϭ
Ϭ
ϳ
͕
ϱ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϱ
ϭ
ϯ
Ϯ
͕
ϴ
Ϯ
ϵ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϵ
͕
Ϯ
ϳ
ϵ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϱ
͕
ϰ
Ϭ
ϰ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϰ
ϲ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϱϵ
͕
ϭ
Ϭ
ϯ
Ψ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ͳ
Ψ
ϭ
ϭ
ϱ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϭ
ϰ
Ϯ
ϰ
Ϭ
͕
Ϯ
ϰ
ϴ
Ψ
ϯ
ϰ
͕
ϯ
ϱ
ϭ
Ψ
ϱ
ϵ
͕
ϭ
Ϭ
ϯ
Ψ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ͳ
Ψ
Ͳ
Ψ
Ϭ
ϭ
ϯ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϭ
ϯ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϱ
ϭ
ϴ
͕
ϴ
Ϯ
ϱ
Ψ
Ͳ
Ψ
Ͳ
Ψ
Ϭ
ϭ
ϯ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
Ϯϱ
͕
ϲ
ϵ
ϵ
Ψ
ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
Ϭ
Ͳ
Ψ
ϭ
ϰ
ϴ
͕
ϳ
ϯ
ϴ
Ψ
ϵ
ϴ
ϲ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϱ
͕
ϲ
ϵ
ϵ
Ψ
ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϴ͕
Ϭ
ϵ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ͳ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϳ
ϳ
͕
ϴ
ϴ
ϵ
Ψ
Ͳ
Ψ
ϴ
͕
Ϭ
ϵ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϭ
Ϭ
Ͳ
Ψ
Ϯϴ
͕
ϲ
ϳ
ϱ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϭ
ϭ
ϯ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϰ
ϲ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϴ
ϵ
ϵ
͕
ϳ
ϭ
ϳ
Ψ
Ͳ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϴ
͕
ϲ
ϳ
ϱ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϭ
ϭ
ϯ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
Ͳ
Ψ
Ϭ
Ϯ
ϲ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϰ
ϭ
Ϯ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϵ
ϭ
ϰ
͕
ϰ
ϲ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϰ
ϳ
͕
ϳ
ϱ
Ϭ
Ψ
Ͳ
Ψ
Ϭ
Ϯ
ϲ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
Ͳ
Ψ
Ϭ
ϰ
ϭ
Ϯ
ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϰ
ϱ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϱ
ϯ
ϭ
Ϯ
͕
Ϭ
ϱ
ϱ
Ψ
Ϯ
͕
ϲ
ϰ
Ϭ
Ψ
Ͳ
Ψ
Ϭ
ϰ
ϭ
Ϯ
ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
Ͳ
Ψ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ͳ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϯ
ϳ
͕
ϱ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϱ
ϳ
ϯ
ϲ
͕
ϳ
Ϯ
ϵ
Ψ
Ͳ
Ψ
Ͳ
Ψ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ͳ
Ψ
ϭϳ
Ϭ
͕
ϲ
ϭ
ϭ
Ψ
ϲ
ϭ
ϱ
ϯ
ϰ
ϰ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϱ
ϱ
Ϯ
ϯ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϳ
ϳ
ϴ
ϭ
ϵ
ϴ
͕
ϰ
ϱ
ϵ
Ψ
ϭ
ϯ
ϳ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
ϳ
Ψ
ϭ
ϳ
Ϭ
͕
ϲ
ϭ
ϭ
Ψ
ϲ
ϭ
ϱ
ϯ
ϰ
ϰ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
:Ă
Ŷ
Ƶ
Ă
ƌ
LJ
ϭ
͕
Ϯ
Ϭ
Ϯ
ϭ
ƚ
Ž
D
Ă
ƌ
Đ
Ś
ϯ
ϭ
͕
Ϯ
Ϭ
Ϯ
ϭ
,
E
E
W
/
E
K
h
E
d
z
Z
,
/
>
/
d
d
/
K
E
>
K
E
W
Z
K
'
Z
D
Y
h
Z
d
Z
>
z
Z
W
K
Z
d
zĞ
Ă
ƌ
ƚ
Ž
Ă
ƚ
Ğ
dŽ
ƚ
Ă
ů
&
Ƶ
Ŷ
Ě
Ɛ
^Ɖ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
Wƌ
Ž
ũ
Ğ
Đ
ƚ
Ɛ
Ž
ŵ
Ɖ
ů
Ğ
ƚ
Ğ
Ě
>Ž
Ă
Ŷ
Ɛ
Ɖ
Ɖ
ƌ
Ž
ǀ
Ğ
Ě
ŵ
Ž
Ƶ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ɖ
Ɖ
ƌ
Ž
ǀ
Ğ
Ě
Ɖ
Ɖ
ů
ŝ
Đ
Ă
Ŷ
ƚ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ŷ
>Ž
Ă
Ŷ
W
ƌ
Ž
Đ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ɛ
&Ƶ
Ŷ
Ě
Ɛ
Z
Ğ
Ɛ
Ğ
ƌ
ǀ
Ğ
Ě
ĨŽ
ƌ
Ɖ
Ɖ
ů
ŝ
Đ
Ă
Ŷ
ƚ
Ɛ
ZĞ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ě
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ɛ
ǁĂ
ŝ
ƚ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
&Ƶ
Ŷ
Ě
Ɛ
E
Ž
ƚ
Ž
ŵ
ŵ
ŝ
ƚ
ƚ
Ğ
Ě
Wƌ
Ž
Ő
ƌ
Ă
ŵ
/Ŷ
Đ
Ž
ŵ
Ğ
&
Ƶ
Ŷ
Ě
Ɛ
^
Ɖ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
Wƌ
Ž
ũ
Ğ
Đ
ƚ
Ɛ
Ž
ŵ
Ɖ
ů
Ğ
ƚ
Ğ
Ě
>Ž
Ă
Ŷ
Ɛ
Ɖ
Ɖ
ƌ
Ž
ǀ
Ğ
Ě
ŵ
Ž
Ƶ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ɖ
Ɖ
ƌ
Ž
ǀ
Ğ
Ě
ϭ͕
ϱ
ϱ
Ϯ
Ψ
ϭ
ϭ
Ϯ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϯ
ϳ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϭ
ϰ
Ϭ
ϳ
Ϭ
͕
Ϯ
ϯ
ϯ
Ψ
ϯ
͕
ϳ
ϴ
ϰ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϱ
͕
ϭ
ϵ
Ϯ
Ψ
ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϳϰ
͕
Ϯ
ϱ
ϯ
Ψ
ϳ
ϰ
ϲ
ϳ
͕
ϱ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϰ
ϲ
ϵ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϳ
ϯ
ϯ
ϵ
͕
ϭ
ϰ
Ϭ
Ψ
Ͳ
Ψ
ϵ
ϵ
͕
ϲ
ϱ
ϳ
Ψ
ϵ
ϴ
ϭ
Ϯ
ϳ
͕
ϱ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϭϮ
͕
ϯ
ϴ
ϱ
Ψ
Ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
Ϯ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
Ϭ
Ͳ
Ψ
ϭ
ϲ
ϭ
ϯ
ϭ
͕
ϴ
ϱ
ϲ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϱ
͕
ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϳ
ϭ
͕
ϰ
ϴ
ϴ
Ψ
Ϭ
Ϭ
ϰ
Ϯ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϭ͕
Ϯ
ϰ
ϭ
Ψ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ͳ
Ψ
ϭ
ϯ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϱ
ϭ
ϴ
͕
ϳ
ϵ
ϴ
Ψ
Ͳ
Ψ
ϭ
͕
Ϯ
ϰ
ϭ
Ψ
Ϭ
ϭ
ϯ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϯϰ
͕
ϱ
ϭ
ϲ
Ψ
Ϯ
Ϭ
Ͳ
Ψ
Ϭ
Ͳ
Ψ
ϭ
ϳ
ϭ
ϭ
͕
ϵ
ϱ
ϭ
Ψ
ϯ
͕
Ϯ
ϳ
ϭ
Ψ
ϲ
Ϭ
͕
Ϯ
ϭ
ϱ
Ψ
ϯ
Ϯ
ϰ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
Ͳ
Ψ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ͳ
Ψ
ϭ
ϱ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϯ
Ϯ
Ϯ
͕
ϴ
ϴ
ϵ
Ψ
Ͳ
Ψ
ϴ
͕
Ϭ
ϵ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϭ
Ϭ
Ͳ
Ψ
Ϯϯ
͕
ϵ
Ϯ
ϲ
Ψ
Ϭ
ϭ
ϭ
ϱ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϯ
ϰ
ϱ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϵ
Ϯ
Ϯ
Ϭ
͕
ϴ
ϲ
ϯ
Ψ
Ͳ
Ψ
ϱ
Ϯ
͕
ϲ
Ϭ
Ϯ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϭ
Ϯ
ϴ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϭϱ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
ϭ
Ψ
ϭ
ϭ
ϯ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϯ
ϵ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϭ
ϭ
ϭ
ϰ
͕
ϰ
ϯ
ϯ
Ψ
Ͳ
Ψ
ϭ
ϱ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
ϭ
Ψ
ϭ
ϯ
ϵ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϮϮ
͕
Ϭ
ϱ
ϵ
Ψ
ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
ϱ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
Ϭ
Ͳ
Ψ
ϲ
ϰ
ϭ
ϭ
͕
ϵ
ϴ
Ϯ
Ψ
Ͳ
Ψ
Ϯ
Ϯ
͕
Ϭ
ϱ
ϵ
Ψ
ϭ
ϲ
ϭ
ϲ
ϲ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϯϮ
͕
ϵ
Ϯ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϯ
Ϯ
ϭ
Ϯ
͕
ϱ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϭ
ϯ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϲ
ϭ
ϯ
ϭ
͕
ϳ
Ϭ
ϲ
Ψ
Ͳ
Ψ
ϯ
Ϯ
͕
ϵ
Ϯ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϯ
Ϯ
ϭ
Ϯ
͕
ϱ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
Ϯϭ
ϳ
͕
ϴ
ϱ
ϰ
Ψ
ϭ
ϱ
ϭ
ϯ
Ϯ
ϯ
Ϯ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϭ
ϲ
ϯ
ϯ
ϵ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϴ
ϱ
ϲ
Ϯ
ϱ
ϯ
͕
ϴ
ϱ
ϭ
Ψ
ϯ
Ϯ
͕
ϭ
ϱ
ϱ
Ψ
ϯ
ϴ
ϴ
͕
ϰ
ϲ
ϱ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϭ
Ϯ
ϱ
ϱ
ϳ
ϲ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
,
E
E
W
/
E
K
h
E
d
z
Z
,
/
>
/
d
d
/
K
E
>
K
E
W
Z
K
'
Z
D
Y
h
Z
d
Z
>
z
Z
W
K
Z
d
Ɖ
ƌ
ŝ
ů
ϭ
͕
Ϯ
Ϭ
Ϯ
ϭ
ƚ
Ž
:
Ƶ
Ŷ
Ğ
ϯ
Ϭ
͕
Ϯ
Ϭ
Ϯ
ϭ
zĞ
Ă
ƌ
ƚ
Ž
Ă
ƚ
Ğ
ŝƚLJ
dŽƚĂů&ƵŶĚƐ
^ƉĞŶƚ
WƌŽũĞĐƚƐ
ŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚ
>ŽĂŶƐ
ƉƉƌŽǀĞĚ
ŵŽƵŶƚ
ƉƉƌŽǀĞĚ
ƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚƐŝŶ
>ŽĂŶWƌŽĐĞƐƐ
ƌŽŽŬůLJŶĞŶƚĞƌ ϯϵ͕ϭϳϴΨ ϭ ϯ ϲϴ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϲ
ƌŽŽŬůLJŶWĂƌŬ ϯϬ͕ϭϭϱΨ Ϯ ϲ ϴϲ͕ϱϬϬΨ ϴ
ŽŶƐŽůŝĚĂƚĞĚWŽŽů ϵϰ͕ϭϵϳΨ ϱ ϭ ϯϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϳ
ĚŝŶĂ ͲΨ Ϭ Ϭ ͲΨ Ϯ
,ŽƉŬŝŶƐ ϯϴ͕ϮϯϯΨ ϭ Ϭ ͲΨ ϰ
DĂƉůĞ'ƌŽǀĞ ϮϬ͕ϰϯϲΨ ϭ ϭ ϭϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϭ
DŝŶŶĞƚŽŶŬĂ Ϯϯ͕ϮϭϰΨ ϯ ϯ ϰϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϳ
EĞǁ,ŽƉĞ Ϯ͕ϵϴϰΨ Ϭ ϭ ϯϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϰ
ZŝĐŚĨŝĞůĚ ϮϮ͕ϳϰϰΨ ϰ Ϯ ϯϱ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϯ
^ƚ͘>ŽƵŝƐWĂƌŬ ϰ͕ϲϵϱΨ ϭ Ϯ ϲϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϰ
KsZ>>dKd> Ϯϳϱ͕ϳϵϱΨ ϭϴ ϭϵ ϯϱϵ͕ϱϬϬΨ ϰϲ
,EEW/EKhEdzZ,/>
:ƵůLJϭ͕
&ƵŶĚƐZĞƐĞƌǀĞĚĨŽƌ
ƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚƐ
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ
ǁĂŝƚŝŶŐ
&ƵŶĚƐEŽƚ
ŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĚ
WƌŽŐƌĂŵ
/ŶĐŽŵĞ &ƵŶĚƐ^ƉĞŶƚ
WƌŽũĞĐƚƐ
ŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚ
ϭϲϳ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϭϰϳ ϰϲ͕ϳϳϴΨ ͲΨ ϲϰ͕ϯϳϬΨ Ϯ
ϭϯϲ͕ϬϬϬΨ Ϯϵϱ ϭϭϬ͕ϴϮϴΨ ϯϱ͕ϵϰϴΨ ϭϮϵ͕ϳϳϮΨ ϵ
ϭϰϳ͕ϱϬϬΨ ϭϲϵ ϰϲ͕ϳϯϯΨ ϭϲ͕ϱϯϱΨ ϭϲϱ͕ϲϴϱΨ ϱ
ϲϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϲ ϰϱ͕ϳϰϴΨ ϭ͕ϮϰϭΨ Ϭ
ϭϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϭϴ ϯϱ͕ϭϴϯΨ ϯϴ͕ϳϳϬΨ ϵϴ͕ϰϰϳΨ ϯ
ϮϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϯϲ ϴ͕ϲϴϵΨ ͲΨ Ϯϴ͕ϱϮϲΨ ϭ
ϭϬϬ͕ϯϳϴΨ ϴϱ ϲϮ͕ϭϮϰΨ ͲΨ ϳϱ͕ϴϭϲΨ ϱ
ϯϲϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϭϬ ϯϵ͕ϭϲϰΨ Ϯϲ͕ϰϬϬΨ ϭϳ͕ϵϴϲΨ ϭ
ϲϳ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϳϭ ϲϱ͕ϰϬϮΨ ϰϳ͕ϲϯϲΨ ϰϰ͕ϴϬϯΨ ϱ
ϭϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϲϮ ϲϰ͕ϳϲϯΨ ͲΨ ϯϳ͕ϲϭϱΨ ϰ
ϭ͕Ϯϱϳ͕ϴϳϴΨ ϴϵϵ ϱϮϱ͕ϰϭϮΨ ϭϲϱ͕ϮϴϵΨ ϲϲϰ͕ϮϲϬΨ ϯϱ
z
>/dd/KE>KEWZK'ZDYhZdZ>zZWKZd
ϮϬϮϭƚŽ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϯϬ͕ϮϬϮϭ
>ŽĂŶƐ
ƉƉƌŽǀĞĚ
ŵŽƵŶƚ
ƉƉƌŽǀĞĚ
WƌŽŐƌĂŵ
/ŶĐŽŵĞ
ϰ ϭϬϴ͕ϬϬϬΨ Ϯϱ͕ϳϴϰΨ
ϭϬ Ϯϭϰ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϲϱ͕ϮϮϳΨ
ϯ ϳϮ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϳϱ͕ϵϴϲΨ
Ϭ ϯϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ͲΨ
Ϭ ϰϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϰϯ͕ϬϮϳΨ
ϭ ϭϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ͲΨ
ϰ ϲϴ͕ϬϬϬΨ ͲΨ
Ϯ ϭϮϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϳϰ͕ϭϱϬΨ
ϰ ϮϬϭ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϱϬ͕ϮϳϲΨ
ϰ ϳϮ͕ϱϬϬΨ ͲΨ
ϯϮ ϵϯϱ͕ϱϬϬΨ ϯϯϰ͕ϰϱϭΨ
zĞĂƌƚŽĂƚĞ
dŽ
ƚ
Ă
ů
&
Ƶ
Ŷ
Ě
Ɛ
^Ɖ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
Wƌ
Ž
ũ
Ğ
Đ
ƚ
Ɛ
Ž
ŵ
Ɖ
ů
Ğ
ƚ
Ğ
Ě
>Ž
Ă
Ŷ
Ɛ
Ɖ
Ɖ
ƌ
Ž
ǀ
Ğ
Ě
ŵ
Ž
Ƶ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ɖ
Ɖ
ƌ
Ž
ǀ
Ğ
Ě
Ɖ
Ɖ
ů
ŝ
Đ
Ă
Ŷ
ƚ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ŷ
>Ž
Ă
Ŷ
W
ƌ
Ž
Đ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ɛ
&Ƶ
Ŷ
Ě
Ɛ
Z
Ğ
Ɛ
Ğ
ƌ
ǀ
Ğ
Ě
ĨŽ
ƌ
Ɖ
Ɖ
ů
ŝ
Đ
Ă
Ŷ
ƚ
Ɛ
ZĞ
Ɛ
ŝ
Ě
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ɛ
ǁĂ
ŝ
ƚ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
&Ƶ
Ŷ
Ě
Ɛ
E
Ž
ƚ
Ž
ŵ
ŵ
ŝ
ƚ
ƚ
Ğ
Ě
Wƌ
Ž
Ő
ƌ
Ă
ŵ
/Ŷ
Đ
Ž
ŵ
Ğ
&
Ƶ
Ŷ
Ě
Ɛ
^
Ɖ
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
Wƌ
Ž
ũ
Ğ
Đ
ƚ
Ɛ
Ž
ŵ
Ɖ
ů
Ğ
ƚ
Ğ
Ě
>Ž
Ă
Ŷ
Ɛ
Ɖ
Ɖ
ƌ
Ž
ǀ
Ğ
Ě
ŵ
Ž
Ƶ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ɖ
Ɖ
ƌ
Ž
ǀ
Ğ
Ě
ϳ͕
Ϭ
ϯ
Ϯ
Ψ
ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
ϱ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϱ
ϭ
Ϭ
ϰ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϭ
ϲ
ϰ
ϴ
ϲ
͕
ϲ
ϱ
Ϯ
Ψ
Ϯ
Ϯ
͕
ϲ
ϲ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϳ
ϭ
͕
ϰ
Ϭ
ϭ
Ψ
ϯ
ϱ
ϭ
ϱ
ϯ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϱϮ
͕
ϳ
ϭ
ϳ
Ψ
ϯ
Ϯ
ϯ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϭ
Ϭ
ϭ
ϵ
ϳ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϵ
ϳ
ϵ
ϭ
͕
ϱ
ϳ
ϯ
Ψ
ϭ
ϯ
͕
Ϯ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϭ
ϴ
Ϯ
͕
ϰ
ϴ
ϵ
Ψ
ϭ
ϲ
ϴ
Ϯ
ϰ
ϰ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϯϮ
͕
ϴ
ϯ
ϲ
Ψ
Ϯ
Ϯ
ϰ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϲ
ϭ
ϳ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϭ
ϴ
ϳ
ϱ
Ϯ
͕
ϭ
Ϯ
ϭ
Ψ
ϭ
ϳ
͕
ϲ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϭ
ϵ
ϴ
͕
ϱ
Ϯ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϴ
ϯ
ϭ
ϭ
Ϯ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
Ͳ
Ψ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ͳ
Ψ
ϯ
ϵ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϴ
ϭ
ϱ
͕
ϳ
ϰ
ϴ
Ψ
Ͳ
Ψ
ϭ
͕
Ϯ
ϰ
ϭ
Ψ
Ϭ
Ϭ
ϯ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϯϯ
͕
Ϯ
Ϯ
ϳ
Ψ
Ϯ
Ϭ
Ͳ
Ψ
ϲ
ϭ
ϱ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϭ
ϴ
ϰ
ϲ
͕
ϳ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϵ
͕
ϲ
ϱ
ϵ
Ψ
ϭ
ϯ
ϭ
͕
ϲ
ϳ
ϰ
Ψ
ϲ
Ϭ
ϰ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
Ϯϵ
͕
ϳ
ϵ
ϵ
Ψ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ͳ
Ψ
Ϭ
Ͳ
Ψ
ϯ
ϳ
Ϯ
ϴ
͕
ϲ
ϰ
ϯ
Ψ
Ͳ
Ψ
ϱ
ϴ
͕
ϯ
Ϯ
ϱ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϭ
ϭ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϯϭ
͕
ϰ
ϯ
Ϭ
Ψ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ͳ
Ψ
ϳ
ϭ
Ϭ
ϱ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϳ
ϵ
ϲ
ϱ
͕
ϰ
ϲ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϴ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
ϴ
Ψ
ϭ
Ϭ
ϳ
͕
Ϯ
ϰ
ϲ
Ψ
ϱ
ϯ
ϲ
ϴ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϰϵ
͕
ϰ
ϳ
ϲ
Ψ
ϭ
ϭ
ϯ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϲ
ϭ
ϰ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϭ
Ϭ
ϯ
ϭ
͕
ϳ
ϯ
ϰ
Ψ
ϯ
ϰ
͕
ϯ
Ϯ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϲ
ϳ
͕
ϰ
ϲ
ϭ
Ψ
Ϯ
Ϯ
ϭ
ϱ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϮϮ
͕
ϵ
ϱ
ϲ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϭ
ϳ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϯ
ϵ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϳ
ϰ
ϯ
ϲ
͕
ϵ
ϴ
ϯ
Ψ
ϯ
ϵ
͕
ϯ
ϵ
ϴ
Ψ
ϲ
ϳ
͕
ϳ
ϱ
ϴ
Ψ
ϳ
ϯ
Ϯ
Ϭ
ϴ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϵϬ
ϯ
Ψ
Ϭ
Ϯ
ϯ
ϳ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϰ
ϭ
Ϯ
Ϭ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϲ
ϱ
ϱ
ϯ
͕
ϴ
ϭ
Ϯ
Ψ
ϯ
ϱ
͕
ϱ
ϴ
ϱ
Ψ
ϯ
ϴ
͕
ϱ
ϭ
ϴ
Ψ
ϰ
ϰ
ϭ
Ϭ
ϵ
͕
ϱ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
Ϯϲ
Ϭ
͕
ϯ
ϳ
ϰ
Ψ
ϭ
ϭ
ϭ
Ϭ
ϭ
ϴ
ϵ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϱ
Ϭ
ϭ
͕
ϭ
ϲ
ϲ
͕
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
ϵ
ϯ
ϵ
ϱ
Ϭ
ϵ
͕
ϰ
Ϯ
ϲ
Ψ
ϭ
ϴ
Ϭ
͕
ϰ
ϯ
ϭ
Ψ
ϵ
Ϯ
ϰ
͕
ϲ
ϯ
ϱ
Ψ
ϱ
ϯ
Ϯ
ϵ
ϭ
͕
ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
͕
ϱ
Ϭ
Ϭ
Ψ
,
E
E
W
/
E
K
h
E
d
z
Z
,
/
>
/
d
d
/
K
E
>
K
E
W
Z
K
'
Z
D
Y
h
Z
d
Z
>
z
Z
W
K
Z
d
KĐ
ƚ
Ž
ď
Ğ
ƌ
ϭ
͕
Ϯ
Ϭ
Ϯ
ϭ
ƚ
Ž
Ğ
Đ
Ğ
ŵ
ď
Ğ
ƌ
ϯ
ϭ
͕
Ϯ
Ϭ
Ϯ
ϭ
zĞ
Ă
ƌ
ƚ
Ž
Ă
ƚ
Ğ
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ/Ͳ&ƵŶĚŝŶŐ,ŝƐƚŽƌLJ;ƌĞǀŝƐĞĚϭͲϮϵͲϮϬϭϰͿ
5HVROXWLRQ
1XPEHU ,QLWLDO%XGJHW $GMXVWHG +20(6&6 &($3 +RPH/LQH
1HLJKERUKRR
G
6WDELOL]DWLRQ
&RGH
(QIRUFHPHQW
,QLWLDWLYHV
+HQQHSLQ
&RXQW\5HKDE
)XQGV
6KLQJOH
&UHHN
7RZHUV
DPHQGHG
1$
1$
1$
1$
1$
$PHQGHG
5H
V
1
R
$G
M
X
V
W
H
G
ZL
W
K
GH
F
U
H
D
V
H
5H
V
1
R
$G
M
X
V
W
H
G
ZL
W
K
L
Q
F
U
H
D
V
H
5H
V
1
R
$G
M
X
V
W
H
G
ZL
W
K
LQ
F
U
H
D
V
H
5H
V
1
R
5H
V
1
R
5
H
V
1
R
5
H
V
1
R
5
H
V
1
R
&'
%
*
)
X
Q
G
V
5
H
G
X
F
H
G
,
Q
F
U
H
D
V
H
G
,
Q
F
U
H
D
V
H
G
,Q
L
W
L
D
O
%
X
G
J
H
W
$G
M
X
V
W
H
G
3X
E
O
L
F
6
H
U
Y
L
F
H
3U
R
M
H
F
W
V
+R
P
H
6
&
6
&(
$
3
+R
P
H
O
L
Q
H
1H
L
J
K
E
R
U
K
R
R
G
6W
D
E
L
O
L
]
D
W
L
R
Q
&
R
GH
(
Q
I
R
U
F
H
P
H
Q
W
$P
H
Q
G
H
G
1H
Z
3U
R
J
U
D
P
5H
K
D
E
$
P
H
Q
G
H
G
6K
L
Q
J
O
H
&
U
H
H
N
7R
Z
H
U
V
dŽ
ƚ
Ă
ů
ů
ů
Ž
Đ
Ă
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϭ
ϭ
͕
ϲ
ϰ
ϭ
Ψ
ϭ
ϳ
Ϭ
͕
Ϯ
ϵ
ϰ
Ψ
Ϯ
Ϭ
ϯ
͕
ϱ
ϴ
ϴ
Ψ
Ϯ
Ϭ
ϯ
͕
ϱ
ϴ
ϴ
Ψ
ϭ
ϴ
ϴ
͕
ϵ
ϲ
ϱ
Ψ
ϭ
ϴ
ϴ
͕
ϵ
ϲ
ϱ
Ψ
ϭ
ϴ
ϲ
͕
Ϯ
ϭ
ϱ
Ψ
ϰ
ϯ
ϲ
͕
ϰ
ϵ
ϴ
Ψ
ϭ
ϵ
ϱ
͕
Ϭ
ϭ
ϵ
Ψ
ϭ
ϵ
ϱ
͕
Ϭ
ϭ
ϵ
Ψ
ϭ
ϵ
ϵ
͕
ϳ
ϲ
ϰ
Ύƚ
LJ
Ɖ
Ž
Ž
Ŷ
Ϯ
Ϭ
ϭ
Ϭ
ƌ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ž
ů
Ƶ
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
Ɛ
ƚ
Ă
ƚ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
ƚ
Ś
Ğ
Ğ
Ɛ
ƚ
ŝ
ŵ
Ă
ƚ
Ğ
Ě
Ă
ů
ů
Ž
Đ
Ă
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
ǁ
Ž
Ƶ
ů
Ě
ď
Ğ
ϭ
ϴ
ϲ
͕
ϵ
ϲ
ϴ
͕
Ă
Đ
ƚ
Ƶ
Ă
ů
Ğ
Ɛ
ƚ
ŝ
ŵ
Ă
ƚ
Ğ
Ě
Ă
ů
ů
Ž
Đ
Ă
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
ǁ
Ă
Ɛ
ϭ
ϴ
ϴ
͕
ϵ
ϲ
ϱ
͘
d
Ś
Ğ
ů
ů
Ž
ĐĂ
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
ƚ
Ž
ƚ
Ă
ů
Ğ
Ě
ƚ
Ś
Ğ
Đ
Ž
ƌ
ƌ
Ğ
Đ
5H
V
1
R
5
H
V
1
R
5
H
V
1
R
ΨϮ
ϯ
ϵ
͕
Ϭ
Ϯ
ϵ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϯ
ϰ
͕
ϱ
ϭ
ϲ
Ψ
Ϯ
ϯ
ϰ
͕
ϱ
ϭ
ϲ
Đƚ
Ă
ƚ
ŝ
Đ
ŝ
Ɖ
Ă
ƚ
Ğ
Ě
Ă
ů
ů
Ž
Đ
Ă
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
͘
'zĞĂƌ dŽƚĂů dŽEŽŶWƌŽĨŝƚƐ ,ŽŵĞ ĞĂƉ ,ŽŵĞůŝŶĞ ŽĚĞŶĨƌŽŽƵŶƚLJZ ŚĞĐŬdŽƚĂ
ϮϬϬϴ ϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ϮϬϬϵ ϭϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ϮϬϭϬ ϭϲϰϲϮϯ
ϮϬϭϭ ϭϳϭϬϭϰ ϮϱϲϱϮ͘ϭ ϭϭϳϲϬ ϴϰϬϬ ϱϰϲϬ ϭϮϲϬϬϬ ϭϵϯϵϰ ϭϳϭϬϭϰ
ϮϬϭϮ Ϯϭϭϲϰϭ ϯϭϳϰϱ ϭϰϲϬϯ ϭϬϰϳϲ ϲϲϲϲ ϭϱϬϬϬϬ Ϯϵϴϵϲ Ϯϭϭϲϰϭ
ϭϱϬϬϬ ϭϱϬϬϬ ϳϵϲϴ
ů
ŐĞŶĐLJ
ƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ
WŽŝŶƚƐ
WĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨ
dŽƚĂůWŽŝŶƚƐ ZĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚ WŽŝŶƚƐͬZĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚ
,KDϭϭϱ ϭϬϬй ϭϰ͕ϱϬϬ͘ϬϬΨ ϭϰ͕ϱϬϬ͘ϬϬΨ
,ŽŵĞůŝŶĞ ϭϬϱ ϵϭ͘ϬϬй ϵ͕ϭϰϳ͘ϬϬΨ ϴ͕ϯϮϯ͘ϳϳΨ
W ϵϱ ϴϯ͘ϬϬй ϭϱ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬΨ ϭϮ͕ϰϱϬ͘ϬϬΨ
ǀĞŶƵĞƐĨŽƌzŽƵƚŚ ϳϴ ϲϳ͘ϬϬй ϱ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬΨ ϯ͕ϯϱϬ͘ϬϬΨ
WƌŽh^ϰϮ ϯϳ͘ϬϬй ϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬΨ ϯ͕ϳϬϬ͘ϬϬΨ
dŽƚĂů͗ϰϯϱ ϱϯ͕ϲϰϳ͘ϬϬΨ ϰϮ͕ϯϮϯ͘ϳϳΨ
&'%*$FWLYLW\ 5HTXHVWHG$PRXQW
2SWLRQ
6DPHDV
2SWLRQ
5HFRPHQGHG2SWLRQ 2SWLRQ
3XEOLF6HUYLFHV
6HQLRU&RPPXQLW\
6HUYLFHV+20(
3URJUDP
&($36HQLRU
6HUYLFH3URJUDP
+20(/LQH7HQDQW
$GYRFDF\3URJUDP
<RXWK)LQDQFLDO
/LWHUDF\7UDLQLQJ
$YHQXHVIRU<RXWK
7RWDO3XEOLF
6HUYLFHV
1RQ3XEOLF6HUYLFHV
&LW\RI%URRNO\Q
&HQWHU
1HLJKERUKRRG
6WDELOL]DWLRQ&RGH
(QIRUFHPHQW
+RPH
5HKDELOLWDWLRQ
3URJUDP
7RWDO
dŽƉdŚƌĞĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ
ŐĞŶĐLJ
ƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽ
ŶWŽŝŶƚƐ
dŽƚĂů
WŽŝŶƚƐ WĞƌĐĞŶƚ &ƵŶĚƐ
,KDϭϭϱ ϭϭϱ ϭϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ͘ϯϲϱϭ ϭϯ͕ϭϬϮΨ
,ŽŵĞůŝŶĞ ϭϬϱ ϭϭϱ ϵϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϯϯϯϯ ϭϭ͕ϵϲϮΨ
W ϵϱ ϭϭϱ ϴϮ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϯϬϭϲ ϭϬ͕ϴϮϯΨ
ǀĞŶƵĞƐĨŽ ϳϴ ϭϭϱ
WƌŽh^ϯϬ ϭϭϱ
dŽƚĂů͗ϰϮϯ ϱϳϱ Ϯϳϯ͘ϵ ϭ͘ϬϬϬϬ ϯϱ͕ϴϴϳΨ
ϭ͘Ϭ Ψϭϰ͕ϱϬϬ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘ϰϭϭϮϯϳ ϭϰϳϱϴ͘Ϭϲ
Ϭ͘ϵ Ψϴ͕ϯϲϵ͘ϱ Ϭ͘Ϯϰ ϴϱϭϴ͘ϰϮϲ
Ϭ͘ϴ ΨϭϮ͕ϯϵϬ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘ϯϱϭϯϵϱ ϭϮϲϭϬ͘ϱϭ
Ψϯϱ͕Ϯϱϵ͘ϱ ϯϱϴϴϳ
dŽƉ&ŽƵƌWƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ
WĞƌĐĞŶƚ &ƵŶĚƐ
Ϯϵй ϭϬ͕ϱϬϭΨ
Ϯϰй ϴ͕ϲϳϱΨ
ϮϬй ϳ͕ϭϮϯΨ
ϴй Ϯ͕ϳϯϵΨ
Ϯϵ͕ϬϯϴΨ
ϭϮϱϬϬ ϭϰϱϬϬ ϭϮϳϴϵ ϭϮϴϬϬ
ϭϮϱϬϬ ϭϯϬϯϱ ϭϭϰϵϲ͘ϴϳ ϭϭϱϬϬ
ϲϳϰϬ ϵϭϲϳ ϴϬϴϱ͘Ϯϵϰ ϴϬϴϳ
ϯϱϬϬнϲϰϳ ϯϱϬϬ ϯϱϬϬ ϯϱϬϬ
ϯϭϳϰϬ ϰϬϮϬϮ ϯϱϴϳϭ͘ϭϲ ϯϱϴϴϳ
ϯϱϴϴϳ ϯϱϴϴϳ ϯϱϴϴϳ ϯϱϴϴϳ
ϰϭϰϳ Ͳϰϯϭϱ ϭϱ͘ϴϯϲ Ϭ
3X
E
O
L
F
6
H
U
Y
L
F
H
)X
Q
G
V
$P
H
Q
G
H
G
E
\
&R
X
Q
F
L
O
1
$
1
$
1
$
1
$
ΎϮ
Ϭ
ϭ
ϴ
'
Ă
ů
ů
Ž
Đ
Ă
ƚ
ŝ
Ž
Ŷ
Ě
Ž
Ğ
Ɛ
Ŷ
Ζ
ƚ
ŝ
Ŷ
Đ
ů
Ƶ
Ě
Ğ
ϭ
ϱ
й
W
Ƶ
ď
ů
ŝ
Đ
Ɛ
Ğ
ƌ
ǀ
ŝ
Đ
Ğ
Ĩ
Ğ
Ğ
Ɛ
Ă
Ɛ
,
Ğ
Ŷ
Ŷ
Ğ
Ɖ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
Ž
Ƶ
Ŷ
ƚ
LJ
ŝ
ƌ
Ğ
Đ
ƚ
ů
LJ
Ě
ŝ
Ɛ
ƚ
ƌ
ŝ
ď
Ƶ
ƚ
Ğ
Ě
ƚ
Ś
Ğ
Ĩ
Ƶ
Ŷ
Ě
Ɛ
͘
)X
Q
G
L
Q
J
<H
D
U
,Q
L
W
L
D
O
%
X
G
J
H
W
$
G
M
X
V
W
H
G
1H
L
J
K
E
R
U
K
R
R
G
6W
D
E
L
O
L
]
D
W
L
R
Q
&R
G
H
(Q
I
R
U
F
H
P
H
Q
W
,Q
L
W
L
D
W
L
Y
H
V
+H
Q
Q
H
S
L
Q
&R
X
Q
W
\
5
H
K
D
E
)X
Q
G
V
+R
P
H
2
Z
Q
H
U
$V
V
L
V
W
D
Q
F
H
3U
R
J
U
D
P
$P
H
Q
G
H
G
E
\
&R
X
Q
F
L
O
!
"#$" %
&'
(
)
*#&+ "
( "
,
( ,(
( --
).&,/
--
0/(
(
1
.(
(
0(
23 ( 4
34!
!("
&,/
0(
(( -
((-!5((-.6
.!7
8
-
98
:
;8.- --
-/
. 88/(
1
(0
(--
08(80
( .-
0/.<=
> !(1!(
0
1
./, ((
0
(--
(88-0
0 ..-
0
?1
.(0
1(
--
0
(
.&,!
8@; (
34
1("
A .
348-
.01(.(
--
>
--
)
(
!&,
&(BC6!D
>
.( -
/!%(
+
!
./E--
-!%(
B$!&,
B1
F
!9/1
!%
--
6
)!&"**:-06..
-E$8
!
&,
("
.889
-<G!=
!
.( 8
:
!
"#$" %
&'
!
(#&) #*+
,
#*-.
&%+/012
1*-.
1
0
/3
+04
(
1 0
.-
-
5
6
(*
+1
2
+ /&1
6
++
-7
(6
811
/
!"#$%
&
'
&
%
()#)*#*)
*+,,
(
-+.+/#*,.01$
(
/+,0
2
/#"##
33
4
''
%
%
!
% '
' 3 3
%5
6 76
&
%
8
&
%!
%5
'
!
'
6
&
%
76 8
!
%
'
3
4
&
&
'
'3
3
!
! %%&'
!
"
!
%%&
$
&
%
9
3$:
'$
&
3
29
!!"
# $
!
"#$" %
&' &()
!
*
)#&+ ,,-.
/
0
))12!03
.45 4 (4
,,-(0-
(
6%
%
!
%
"
#
,57
$$%&'$"
,5 #, ,
8
&*,
1/24/22 -1- DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
JANUARY 24, 2022
CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Regular Session called to
order by President Pro Tem Marquita Butler at 9:59 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
President Pro Tem Marquita Butler and Commissioners April Graves and Kris Lawrence-
Anderson were present. Mayor Mike Elliott and Commissioner Dan Ryan were absent. Also
present were Executive Director Reggie Edwards, Community Development Director Meg
Beekman, and City Clerk Barb Suciu.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Graves moved and President Pro Tem Butler seconded to approve the Agenda and
Consent Agenda, and the following item was approved:
3a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. January 10, 2022 – Regular Session
3b. PHU BIA PRODUCE - EDA REVOLVING LOAN FUND PROGRAM
REQUEST
3c. TASTE OF AFRICA- EDA REVOLVING LOAN FUND PROGRAM
REQUEST
Motion passed unanimously.
4. COMMISSION CONSIDERATION ITEMS
4a. 1601 JAMES CIRCLE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AND CONSIDERATION OF
LETTER OF INTENT TO PURCHASE EDA PROPERTY
1/24/22 -2- DRAFT
Executive Director Reggie Edwards introduced the item and noted the Council had questions about
zoning of the facility and vehicle registration. He invited Community Development Director Meg
Beekman to present the staff report.
Community Development Director Meg Beekman stated they gave a similar presentation at the
previous meeting. At the January 10, 2022 City Council work session, the Council considered a
concept review and letter of intent to purchase EDA-owned property at 1601 James Circle by
Carvana.
Ms. Beekman stated he City first acquired and combined two parcels, the former Olive Garden
and former Cracker Barrell, in 2006. The EDA acquired both parcels for $2,893,295 and then
demolished the structures on site. A portion of the properties were subdivided off and sold when
the FBI building was constructed, leaving the current 4.93 acre configuration.
Ms. Beekman explained Carvana has submitted a Letter of Intent to purchase 1601 James Circle
as well as a concept plan for how they would intend to use the property. Carvana is proposing to
purchase a roughly 3.5 acre portion of 1601 James Circle North to locate a Carvana Vending
Machine. The remaining portion of the land would be retained by the EDA. The building would
consist of a prominent glass structure up to ten stories in height which would house vehicles. The
balance of the site would be parking for employees, customers, and circulation for loading and
unloading vehicles. The use would provide approximately ten jobs.
Ms. Beekman stated Carvana has submitted a letter of intent to purchase roughly 3.5 acres of the
4.93 acre site for $2,000,000. This equates to $13.50 per square foot for land, which is a fair market
value. The letter of intent identifies $25,000 earnest money, 90 days due diligence to study the
site, and an additional 180-day approval period to seek City approvals for the use to include a
Preliminary and Final Plat and Site and Building Plan Review. Additionally, the seller pays 4
percent commission to buyer’s broker. The buyer is responsible for obtaining City approvals and
conducting due diligence.
Ms. Beekman noted at the January 10, 2022 City Council work session, Councilmembers raised
several questions about the project that they asked to have resolved prior to making a determination
on how to proceed. The Council identified three areas they were seeking additional information
on such as information and response to identified issues Carvana has had with vehicle registration
and title transfers at other locations throughout the Country, how safety and security would be
managed on the site, and how Carvana would meet the City's licensing requirement under Section
23 of the City Code, which requires auto dealer license holders to provide an on-site repair facility
as part of the dealership.
Ms. Beekman stated Carvana has prepared a response to the first question, regarding transfer of
registration issues, and has been provided to the Council. Carvana and Staff discussed safety and
security issues. They are committed to providing ample lighting on the site and are open to the
inclusion of a fence or gate to secure the site. Most vehicles are stored inside the vending machine
tower and will be secure there.
1/24/22 -3- DRAFT
Ms. Beekman added Staff looked into the licensing question. The City Code requires automobile
dealers to have a City license. Based on the definition in the Code, Carvana would be required to
obtain a Class A Motor Vehicle license from the City. The Code further requires that, "Class A
license holders shall provide, operate and maintain on its premises in the City of Brooklyn Center
an equipped and manned repair shop or facility capable of repairing the motors, engines, brakes,
lights, tires, electrical and other operating equipment of any motor vehicle sold by such dealer.”
Ms. Beekman noted Carvana does maintain a repair facility which would meet the requirements
of the license, with the exception that it is not located within the City of Brooklyn Center. Given
the changing car market, online vehicle sales dealerships are a growing business offering a
different car buying experience and competing with traditional dealerships. The current City Code
likely did not contemplate this business model when it was drafted.
Ms. Beekman explained if the City Council is amenable to the concept plan and project moving
forward, Staff will ask the City Attorney to draft an amendment to the City Code to remove the
requirement that repair services be offered on premises, which will allow for the online vehicle
delivery model that Carvana and others provide.
Ms. Beekman explained if the EDA were to approve a Resolution authorizing Staff to enter into a
Letter of Intent to purchase the EDA-owned property at 1601 James Circle, from there, Carvana
can make a formal application.
Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson noted her concern if they amended the City Code to allow for
a dealership without a repair facility, then other car sales facilities could enter the community
without their own repair facilities. She explained she is not comfortable altering the City Code for
Carvana’s business model. She asked if the pros and cons of the amendment have been weighed
by Staff.
Ms. Beekman confirmed the topic was discussed with the City Attorney. The intent of the
Ordinance is for the repair services to be provided. They can craft an amendment that addresses
the intent of the Ordinance. Additionally, repair facilities are generally built into the dealership’s
business model. The issue is the location of the repair facility. She asked if the repair facility must
be on-site or if it can be outside of the City. Staff can continue to discuss the issue with the City
Attorney as the outcome of the conversation will impact the outcome of the project.
Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson stated she has concerns with the ten jobs on the 3.5 acres and
the leftover 1.5 acres on an already bizarre geographic configuration. Furthermore, the building
is very unique and not transferrable such as an office building would be. All in all, she explained
she is not sold on the concept. She thanked Ms. Beekman and Staff for their work on the project
and presentation.
Commissioner Graves noted she shares concerns of Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson.
Considering when they bought the larger plot for around $3 million and Carvana is offering $2
million, they would be recouping the investment in the development site. They have had other
opportunities for the site that did not follow through. She explained she in inclined to continue the
process.
1/24/22 -4- DRAFT
President Pro Tem Butler agreed she has similar concerns as Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson
and Commissioner Graves. President Pro Tem Butler asked if they were to vote in favor of the
Resolution, what would the City be locked into. Ms. Beekman explained a letter of intent is similar
to an option agreement. A letter of intent would give Carvana control of the site to complete their
due diligence and a land use study. From there, they would negotiate a purchase agreement.
President Pro Tem Butler asked if they have already agreed to letters of intent previously. Ms.
Beekman confirmed there have been two prior letters of intent. The first was an office building
which was not financially feasible. The other was an offer to build an office for 12 jobs, but they
ended up in Brooklyn Park.
Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson asked what is the risk to the City if they move forward with a
letter of intent. Ms. Beekman stated a letter of intent is non-binding to some degree. It provides
Carvana site control for a period of time. She added if the EDA is uninterested in the project, it
would be a much better use of Staff’s time and Carvana’s time if that was made clear now. If there
are particular things that need to be addressed, those concerns can be addressed throughout the due
diligence process. The use of the property is what is being proposed. Commissioner Lawrence-
Anderson noted she is not supportive of the proposed use currently.
Commissioner Graves moved and President Pro Tem Butler seconded to approve a Resolution
authorizing Staff to enter into a Letter of Intent to purchase the EDA-owned property at 1601
James Circle.
Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson voted against the same. Motion passed.
5. ADJOURNMENT
President Pro Tem Butler moved and Commissioner Graves seconded adjournment of the
Economic Development Authority meeting at 10:19 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
!
"#$" %
&' &()!))
*+)
,#&- .++*
/
)
*+))0
1 !22!/34
/
2
*
!22 .
10
5
!
6!1
1++ 4)*+
+ 41
++
,
7).
11*+))!1
1
*
41
!
*
1++ + !1
8)*4
17
/
)
*+))
1 !22
1
./
)
*+)) 49: 416
;++
,
(
1*+
) +419:;
..< +1 4*+)
=+
>!1/
)
*+)) +41)!1
(11*) +
(1++
,
! 4
)+).
.*+)1
11
? *
411
1
&@( .5)+1
* )+41++
,
5.
1 01
1(.11
!1/A+
+
!
!
1
+ 1+)
+ 1+
(
1++
,
.)5 )(+4 ))4+
).*
. 1(+5+
6+
B11
+
*1 ! 1 +.
+
))
)8 1
1 1+
1
*+)+1A+1*+))
/34/
2
*
.0
1
(*
+ 4:;)
A *+)+
1*+))+ 1
++1
1
- !
!).
111))
)+ 1 1+1*+)+1 8+
4)1- !
!).
B1
+
)
*+))+*
*+
1A
*
1
1
1
)+1
!<
! .)+ 1 )
4*+ 111*
1+1<
++
.
1) 41+
)
*+))+*
1*+)).*
1 1
1
(!1114
1) 1 +
5
. 41+1*+))
5
+
54.
1+ 1+31
5C
+.
+
))
).*
. ! (
11
.D*
(4)+
))
&< /1
5C
5)
++* 1 )54
+
+5
4! +.).) !*
)
5
!
+5
+ !))
5<
1+
)
*+)) C
1*+))
)5 1
4
A+
11+31
1
EF9!
A+ 1
5
55
)5 111
)! 4A+ 1*
++*41+3
1+
)
*+))5)
5
1+
1*111+
4<
1
5
. 1)
1)54.*
. 1
1
)+1+35
4
.1
)+.1*
) )0( 1G0H
0+5
))+
+.<0
,5)
B4 ++
.41*+)+3
))
&< )*+))
*
.4 ++
.
)+.1<
+
/1 )41
++*
/)
5)
B*
.
+41A + 41+3!//2!1
1
12="851
)+4
1+3!0!1
1
1))
*!5
+11
<
=1
1 1
14)4+
)
*+)
)
11
++*/
.A +)*
1
11+ 41
*+)
1*+))
.1
1
! )*
<
41
4 ) 41+3 1 !.
. !
)
1*+1
* I
45(1+3!111 5)
++
.+5
5
++
.!1
15*
51
111+
*
+
1$A+
11
)
1 *+) )
5 +
5 4 A+
5 1
1
+*+)(1
!
5
1/
)
*+))
1
++
1
A=)
%JG++
,
H
14A
)
51
*+)*
514
5*+)A+
.*
.
A
*))
)1 5!. 5!1
+3
))
;5 )+ 1 3 +++!
.D*
(41 5
4)
.1 41)+ +))
&< )4
1+3
!
1++
,
/1
.*+)+1 1*5
*+
11C
5 (1)1 1
11* 1+1+3
))
5< 1
8A
.4
"
#
*+)
$$%&'$"
+. #+ +
. >
.2B
- !
!,8+ >
&(+
++
,
/ ,))) >
&(+
/%
&(+
Commissioner introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
EDA RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT WITH ALATUS, LLC, PROJECT FOR PRIDE IN LIVING, LLC
AND RESURRECTING FAITH WORLD MINISTRIES
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
(the “Authority”) has received a proposal from Alatus, a Minnesota limited liability company
(“Alatus”), Project for Pride in Living, a Minnesota limited liability company (“PPL”), and
Resurrecting Faith World Ministries (“RFWM”), collectively referred to as the “Developer”
regarding the development of a portion of land owned by the Authority (“Authority Property”) for
the construction of a mixed use development together with related improvements including
centralized park area, new roads and storm water ponding (the “Development”), which proposal
contemplates the Authority’s conveyance of the Authority Property to the Developer; and
WHEREAS, Alatus and Authority entered into a previous preliminary development
agreement on March 26, 2018 for the Authority Property which expired on April 1, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the previous preliminary development agreement was renewed in April
2019, and subsequently expired on April 1, 2020; and
WHEREAS, Alatus has since expanded the development team to include PPL and
RFWM to lead various aspects of the overall development plan; and
WHEREAS, Authority’s Board of Commissioners and the Developer intend to enter
into another Preliminary Development Agreement (“Agreement”) to allow the Developer and the
Authority time to further refine master PUD plan for the Development, conduct due diligence on the
property, negotiate the purchase of the Authority Property, determine financial feasibility of the
development plan, and seek approval for a master PUD plan for the Redevelopment Property; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement will allow the Developer time to refine its plans for the
Development, which it intends to seek approval for during the term of this Agreement; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the
Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the “Board), as follows:
1. The EDA hereby approves the Preliminary Development Agreement substantially in
accordance with the terms set forth in the form presented to the Board, together with any related
documents necessary in connection therewith (collectively, the "Preliminary Development
Documents") and hereby authorizes the President and Executive Director to negotiate the final terms
thereof and, in their discretion and at such time as they may deem appropriate, to execute the
Preliminary Development Documents on behalf of the Authority, and to carry out, on behalf of the
Authority, the Authority’s obligations thereunder.
2. The approval hereby given to the Preliminary Development Documents includes approval
Resolution No.
of such additional details therein as may be necessary and appropriate and such modifications
thereof, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved
by legal counsel to the Authority and by the officers authorized herein to execute said documents
prior to their execution; and said officers are hereby authorized to approve said changes on behalf of
the Authority. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate officers of the Authority herein
authorized shall conclusive evidence of the approval of such document in accordance with the terms
hereof. In the event of absence or disability of the officers, any of the documents authorized by this
Resolution to be executed may be executed without further act or authorization of the Board by any
duly designated acting official, or by such other officer or officers of the Board as, in the opinion of
the City Attorney, may act in their behalf.
3. Upon execution and delivery of the Preliminary Development Documents, the officers and
employees of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to take or cause to be taken such
actions as may be necessary on behalf of the Authority to implement the Preliminary Development
Documents.
4. The Board hereby determines that the execution and performance of the Preliminary
Development Documents will help realize the public purposes of the Act.
February 14, 2022
Date President
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by commissioner
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
!
"#! $
%& %'( ((
)*(
+"%, *
**
+
-
-.
/*
-)
+
01
2
2
)
2*
**
+
-
-.
'13 *)*
*
4(**3
*
*)**
4
2
))*(
*
'13 *)*
*
4(
**32*)
2
**
2/*.
2
2*3
2
5
33*6
3
*4
0)*
25)4
2
2*.
37
)*
*
*)4(
*
2*2)/74
2
2**3$
371
*
4
2*
)*2)*)
2*
4(
2 7
2
(2
2
*
244(**3)*
6* 8
2
-()*(
(
2)*
2
2(3(
)*(
*4
2/9:
2
2
**
+
3*24
2
)*(
-
2
2
2
4()*
**
2)4
2
2)*(4
2*
;(3
2
4
2(
2
7
2)
2
2
< =(
*)
(>
'7
2
>3
7?
4(3@
% A
2?
2)*
4
2
()4
2*43*24)*(
2
**>(
9
42(>4((
2?2*
*
3(
2-()*(
(
2
4((4
2*(
2
**
+
B2
)
2
24(*
2-.
4-C)3
2D
2)*(
*.
3)*
2*
2)*(
(27'
2
2
2((
*
'(
E
27*
*2)*(
(27(3
2
2((
*
*
2*.
*3*3((
(32
7
2)((
*
2$)(7 (3
2
)*
34(23% $
-
$(+
3
2((
(
*
2
((
*
2)7(34)(
2
((
3
2(
3)324((
4(
2((
*
>*
**7
24
,
23@)'427(32
)3
2(
4(
2((
*
'
2
2)*
72((
7E
*2)*(
(((B
'
2
2* 27
)3
2
2(7((
7E
4('
2*
*2'3*
3
22
2
42
2)*(
(*
2*
*
23@)'4
2((
*
47'2
22
((
/(3
2((
(782(3**
4((
2*4*)*
2)*(
(7234((
(
,7
3
2
2
*
* *
))
24((
74
$2723F-(*
+
-FD (78
2
*((
GH3-F)(
(
D'2
F/,
/7
$2723F*
+
-FD 7A
2
$2723F*
+
-I FD 7 9
22)
72*.
7
24(3)47'2B**
7'
(
2*
*
4**>(
:4
2
2
4+2'-'%C'2*
E)77'
2>742 )
(*
22
3((*
2
*'
-@7
*@4
2**2(>
234
J
=/
('
/
(3/4(
2)*(
22*@*7
*
2
2
*'
-@7
$>
27(>/((3/4(*.
22*
)2
4
2
7*2/(2
>
)*(
472
2
34
2
#
2)
+* ((
)
*
(**
)
2
2*(7*
4
*7
K()2*
-.
-)4*
(4207
-)23((
2**
%)(
E
7
@4
1
7)*(
**
3
2
27
2'
2
*'
-@(*(
3
2.
7
2$
-
2
' 7C
22
4
27
**@2*) : 14
747
/'*B2 14
*@
)
*727
2(7
2*
3*
7(>4*7*)
*)(7 '7
>*
2/
*'
* *
4
-'*(*)
2(>4(4
/
*'2
(
*2
*)*7(
*4
2)*(
2)-'
*L7L*'
2 J424/(
2
2)*(
*)221
*7*
22
4
2
**
+
2*
*3*
MJJ2
4
2)*(
(3
'
2
2((
*
3@)
'4)
2((
2
E@
2
*.
*
2((
7E
*
23*
3(4
2*.
4
(7/,/3(3
2
2((
*
*
2
2*.
*
)(
*
(7/2/D'
2
23@)'4
*
((
7E
*
2*.
3
E
2
*.
*
,/7/!
9/*7((
*4D
2//
4(**3*771
4
2*.
,/,/
3
27
23(
2((
(
*4
2*.
27
2(
>
)
2
52
2*
(
*
'
2((
@3
)*(4(
*2)74(
2*
73
223@)'4
2
'
2
72((34((
7E
*
7
*
2)*(
*.
!
"
)*(
##$% &#
*3 "*
*
*
-N$3) M %'*
*
-N+
- M %'*
*
-N)3 M )(
*
-N)3 M %'*
-(
-!
M %'*
"
*
(
) 3
((
)*(
%'( **) 9 /:J
((
)*(
**) = /9
ʹǡʹͲʹͳ
ǣ ǡ
ǣ ǡ
ǣ
Background and Purpose
ǦʹͲͳͺ
ͺͲǦ
ͳͲͲ
ǡ
Ǥ
ʹͲͲͲǤ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǧǡǡ
Ǥ
ʹͲͲǡ
DzdzǤ
ǤʹͲͲ
Ǧ
Ǥ
ǯǢǡ
ǯ ͵ͳ ʹͲͲͺ
ʹͲͳ͵Ǥ
ʹͲͳͺǡǯ ͵ͷ
ͺͲǦ Ǥ
Ǥ
ʹͲͳͺǡ ǡ
Ǥ
ʹ
Ǥ
ǯ Ǥ
ǡ Ǧ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
DzdzǤ
ʹͲͳͺǡ
ǯ
Ǥ
ʹͲͳͺǡ
Ǧ͵ͷ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ ǡ
ǯʹͲͲ
ǡ ƤǤ
ʹͲͳͻǡƤ
͵ͲͲ
ƪǤ
Ǥ
Ǧ
ǡ
ǡǡ ͺͲǦ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ʹͲͳͻǡ ǡ ǡ
ǤǦ
ǡ ǡǡ
ƤǤ
ʹͲͳͻǡ ͻǦ ǡ
Ǥ ǯ ǡ
Ǥ
͵
ǯǢǡ
ǡ ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ Ǧ
ǡ Ǥ
ǣ
• ǡ Ǥ
• Ǥ
• Ǧ Ǥ
• Ǥ
• ǡ Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ ǡ Ǥ
Initial Engagement Plan: Spring-Fall 2019
ǡ Ǧ
Ǥǡ
Ǧ ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ ǡ Ǧ
ǡ Ǥ
ǡʹͲͳͻǡ
ǡǡ Ǥ
ǣ
•
•
•
•
• Ǧ
•
•
•
•Ǧ
•
•
Ǧ
ǡǡǤ ǣ
•ǡ ʹͲǡ͵ǡͳǡͳǡʹͲͳͻ
Ͷ
• ǦǡʹǡʹͲͳͻ
• ǡʹͺǡʹͲͳͻ
•Ǧǡ
ʹʹǡʹͲͳͻ
• ǡ
ͳǡʹͲͳͻ
• Ǧǡ
ͳ͵ǡʹͲͳͻ
• ǡ
ͳǡʹͲͳͻ
•
ǡ
ʹʹǡʹͲͳͻ
•ǡǡʹͲͳͻ
• ǦǡͳͶǡʹͲͳͻ
• ǡ ǡͳǡʹͲͳͻ
• ǡ ǡͳͻǡʹͲͳͻ
• ǡʹͲǡʹͲͳͻ
•ƬǡʹͳǡʹͲͳͻ
ǡ ǯ
ʹͲͳͻǤ
Ǥ ȋ
ȌǡͺͲΪ Ǥ
ǯǡ ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ ǡ Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡͳǡͲͲͲ
Ǥ ǡ
Ǥ ǡ
ͷΨǡͶͷΨȋͳͺΪȌ
ǡ ȋ ǣʹͲͳ͵ǦʹͲͳ ȌǤ
Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ
•Create indoor and outdoor spaces for community activities.
Ǥ
Ǥ
•Make housing options and small business spaces accessible and affordable to the
public. ǡ
Ǥ ǡ
Ǥ
•Build upon the asset of the city’s cultural, ethnic, and racial diversity.
ǡ ǡǡ
Ǥ ǡǡ
Ǥ
ͷ
•Counteract disinvestment to strengthen the city’s economic and tax base.
ǡ
Ǥ
•Connect this to the community, physically and socially.
ǡǡǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
•Support environmental sustainability.
ǡ Ǥ
ǡ ǡǡǤ
ǡ
Ǥ Ǥǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
Revised Engagement Approach: Winter 2019- Spring 2020
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ ȋ ǡǡǡǡ
ǡ ǡȌǡ
Ǥ
ǡ Ǥ
Ȃ Ȃ ʹͲͳͻ ʹͲʹͲǡ
Ǥǡ
ǡ ǣ
•The need for clear understanding of the impacts of the project, particularly potential
for gentrification and displacementǤǡ
Ǥ ǡ ǡǡ
Ǥ
•The need to communicate information about the plan to the community clearly and
consistently, so people can understand what they are engaging aboutǤ
ǤDzdz
Ǥ
•The need to ensure the language of the plan is inclusive and reflects community
valuesǤǡ ǡ
Ǥ Ȃ
Ǥ
•The need for an ongoing accountability framework through plan implementation.
ǡ
ȋ ȌǤ
•The need for more and deeper engagement.
Ǧ
Ǥ Ǥ
Ǧ
ǡ
Ǧ Ǥǡ
ǡ ǡ
Ǥǡ
ǡǡ ǡǦ Ȃ
ǡǡ Ȁ ǡȀ Ǥ
Ǥǡ
Ǥ ǣ
•
Ƥ Ǥ
ǡ ͺͳǤ
ͳͶǦͳͺǡ ǯ
Ǥ
• Ȁ
Ǧ
Ǥ
Ǧ ǡǦ
ǡǤ
ͳͷ
Ȁ͵ͲͲ Ǣͳʹ Ǥ
•Ǧ
ơ
Ǥ ǡƤ
Ǥ
ǡ ǡǡ
ǡǦͳͻ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ƪ ǡ
Ǥ
ʹͲʹͲǡ
ǡ
ǡ Ǥ
Pandemic Era Engagement: Spring-Winter 2020
Ǧͳͻ
ʹͲʹͲǡ
ǡ Ǥ
ǡ Ǥ
Ǧ Ǧ ʹͲʹͲǡ
Ǧͳͻ Ǥ
Ȃ
Ǥ
ǡ Ǥ
ʹͲʹͲǡ
Ǥǡ
ʹͲʹͲǡ Ǥ
Ƥ ʹͲʹͳǤ
ǡ Ǥ
ǡ
ǯ Ǥ
ǡ
ȋ ȌǤ
ǡʹͲʹͲ ǤǦ
Ǥǡ
ǡ ǣ
•ǦǡǡȂ
Ǧ
•ǡǯ
• ǡ
•ǡ
• ǡ
ǡ ǡ ǡ
Ȃ ǦǤ
ǡͳͶͲǡͲͲͲ
Ǥ ǡ
ʹǡͷͲͲ
Ǥǡ
Ǥ
ͺ
ͶǡʹͲʹͳ ǡ
Ǥ ǡǡ
Ȃ Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
ơ Ǧ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǣ
•Determining community-based leadership for next stage engagement. ǡ
ǡ Ǧ ǤǦ
ǡ
Ǥǡ
Ǥ
•Building and maintaining trust in the city as a partner with community.
ǣ
ǡ Ǥ
ǡ Ǥ
ǡǡ
Ȃ Ǥ
•Building community capacity to understand and influence the plan and future city
actions. ǯ
Ǧ Ǥ ǡ
Ǥ ǡ
Ǥ
•Keeping the project moving forward.
ȋ Ȍǡ
Ǥ ǡ
ǡǯ ǡǡ
ǯ Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Pilot Site Development
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 14th day of February, 2022, by and between
the Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "Authority") with its
principal office at 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430, and Alatus, LLC,
a Minnesota limited liability company ("Alatus"), Project for Pride in Living, a (“PPL”), and
Resurrecting Faith World Ministries, a Minnesota 501c3 Nonprofit Organization (“RFWM”),
collectively known as the “Developer”.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Authority is the owner of certain real property described in Exhibit A (the
"Authority Property") located in the City of Brooklyn Center (the "City"); and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2018, Alatus presented to the Authority a concept for the
development of the Authority Property through the construction of a mixed use development,
together, with related improvements including a centralized park area, new roads and storm water
ponding (the "Development"), which proposal contemplates the Authority's conveyance of the
Authority Property to the Developer; and
WHEREAS, on March 26, 2018, the Authority's Board of Commissioners reviewed the
Developer's development concept and voted to enter into a Preliminary Development Agreement
to allow the Developer time to further refine its development concept and to negotiate the sale of
Authority Property, public participation in the Development, and approval of the final development
concept; and
WHEREAS, the previous preliminary development agreement was renewed in April 2019, and
subsequently expired on April 1, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and Alatus have continued to refine the development program, which
has included the Developer narrowing the focus on the development concept from a larger master
plan to 15 acres of the Authority Property at the northeast corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and
Bass Lake Road, focusing on an initial Pilot development project within the aforementioned 15 acres
(“Pilot Site”), and expanding the development team to include Project for Pride in Living, LLC (“PPL”)
and Resurrecting Faith World Ministries (“RFWM”), each to lead a distinct portion of the
development concept; and
WHEREAS, on January 24, 2022, the Developer presented to the Authority Board of
Commissioners a revised concept development plan that included approximately 750 multifamily
housing units in a mix of affordability’s, an entrepreneurial incubator, a community event center,
childcare center, and small business suites, along with public and private roadways, plazas, utilities,
stormwater and infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, Authority’s Board of Commissioners and the Developer intend to enter into another
Preliminary Development Agreement (“Agreement”) to allow the Developer and the Authority time
to further refine master PUD plan for the Development, conduct due diligence on the property,
negotiate the purchase of the Authority Property, determine financial feasibility of the
development plan, and seek approval for a master PUD plan for the Redevelopment Property; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and Developer intend to proceed with the Development if: (i) a master
PUD plan for the Development can be agreed upon by the Authority and the Development Team;
(ii) a satisfactory agreement can be reached regarding the purchase price to be paid by the
Developer for the Authority Property; (iii) satisfactory financing for the Development can be
secured; and (iv) the economic feasibility and soundness of the Development and other necessary
preconditions have been determined to the satisfaction of the parties. (v) such necessary
preconditions to include a Community Benefits Agreement.
WHEREAS, the City Council in February, 2021 determined that insufficient public participation
had been done with the City’s diverse populations. The Authority has since hired a community
engagement manager, and multiple community partners to conduct community engagement. This
phase of engagement should be concluded by March; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has made the determination to develop 15 acres of land at the
intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and Bass Lake Rd. as a pilot site to demonstrate public
participation best practices, and to increase the diversity of uses across the entire Authority
Property. This resulted in the Pilot Site designation for the 15 acres at the aforementioned
intersection whereby the Developer will focus their development efforts. Discussions regarding
additional Authority Property are contingent upon the Developer’s performance on the Pilot Site.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Authority and the Developer
hereby agree as follows:
Section 1. Preliminary Nature of Agreement. The Authority and Developer agree that this
Agreement is intended to be preliminary in nature. Before the Authority and Developer can decide
on whether to proceed with the implementation of the Developer’s Pilot Site, it will be necessary
to assemble and consider information relative to the uses, design, economics and other aspects of
the Pilot Site development. The purpose of this Agreement is to allow the Developer and Authority
an opportunity to assemble such necessary information, to refine the above referenced Pilot Site
development concept, and to negotiate concerning the execution of a purchase and development
agreement (the "Contract") which, if executed, will set for the rights and responsibilities of the
Authority and the Developer with respect to the Pilot Site development.
During the term of this Agreement, the Authority agrees that it will not (i) subject to the
Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, without the prior
written consent of the Developer, discuss the terms of the Development, or (ii) enter into or
negotiate a similar agreement or any other proposals with any party other than the Developer to
develop the Authority Property.
Section 2. Present Intent of Parties. It is the intention of the parties that this Agreement
document their present understanding and commitments and that if the following conditions can
be fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Authority and Developer that the parties will proceed in an
orderly and timely manner attempt to formulate a mutually satisfactory Contract:
(a) the Developer demonstrates the feasibility of the Pilot Site Development as refined
pursuant to this Agreement;
(b) the Developer provides such documentation regarding the economic feasibility of the
Development as the Authority may wish to receive during the term of this Agreement;
(c) the completion of all undertakings required by this Agreement in a satisfactner;
(d) the satisfaction of such other conditions as are determined to be appropriate by either
party; and
(e) the Development is generally consistent with the proposal submitted to the
Authority’s Board of Commissioners on December 13, 2021.
(f) The Contract (together with any other agreements entered into between the parties
hereto contemporaneously therewith) when executed will supersede all
understandings and obligations of the parties hereunder.
Section 3. Development Design. The Developer’s concept for the Pilot Site development on
the Pilot Site is preliminary in nature and must be refined before implementation. The concept as
proposed involves the construction of several mixed-use developments; defined in Exhibit B,
together with related improvements including a centralized plaza area, new roads and storm water
management improvements.
Section 4. Developer Undertakings. During the term of this Agreement the Developer shall do
the following:
(a) Continue to refine the site and building plans for the Pilot Site of the Pilot Site
Development.
(b) Seek land use approvals from the City for the Pilot Site of the Pilot Site Development
in coordination with the approval of a master PUD plan for the Development
(c) Collaborate and cooperate with the Authority, the City, or their consultants to refine
and complete the Pilot Site master plan for the Pilot Site Development in alignment
with the goals and objectives laid out by the Authority and the City’s comprehensive
plan.
(d) Undertake preliminary engineering, soil testing/borings and geotechnical analysis of
the Pilot Site Property, in the form of an Environment Assessment Worksheet, with a
scope mutually agreed upon by the Authority, the City, and their consultants. For this
purpose, the Developer and its contractors shall have the right to enter upon the
Authority Pilot Site Property at reasonable times and after at least 72 hours prior
notice to the Authority.
(e) The Developer shall indemnify, defend and hold the Authority harmless from and
against any claims or damage, of whatsoever nature, arising out of the entry onto the
Authority Property and shall repair any damage caused to the Authority Property.
(f) In coordination with the Authority, develop a proposed schedule for the undertaking
of the Pilot Site Development including phasing and the timing of the purchase,
financial closing of each phase, and tax increment financing.
(g) Use title information and surveying provided by the Authority to update evidence of
title to the Authority Property and provide to the Authority any objections to title.
(h) Secure a commitment for financing sufficient for construction of Pilot Site’s initial
phase and subsequent additional improvements of the overall Pilot Site development.
(i) Submit to the Authority a complete set of Pilot Site financials to include but not
limited to; a project pro forma detailing all development costs associated with the
Pilot Site development, a complete sources and uses of all funds to be raised to
finance development of the the Pilot Site, and a 10-year project cash flow projections,
a proposed purchase price for the Pilot Site including justification, a list of committed
capital for the project.
(j) Submit to the Authority a complete Pilot Site phasing Plan that will detail the construction,
funding and completion of all Pilot Site improvements, buildings, roadways, utilities,
storm water infrastructure, and all connections to the existing grid network.
(k) Submit to the Authority a comprehensive Pilot Site Master PUD Plan that the Developer
has coordinated with Authority, City, and their consultants to include the following topic
areas that must be addressed by the Development:
• Infrastructure Plan
• Stormwater
• Phasing Plan
• Housing Plan
• Commercial / Retail Plan
• Green / Sustainability Plan
• Planned Social Impact / Social Benefits Plan Public /
• Any and all Communal Ownership Plans
• Public and Private Safety Plan
• Plans for Parks and Green Space
• Public and Private Financing Plan
• Multi-Modal Transportation and Pedestrian Plan
• Community Benefits Agreement
(l) Seek to secure tenants for the Development; provided that the Developer has no
authority by virtue of this Agreement to lease or otherwise encumber the Authority
Property.
(m) Obtain environmental reports and studies provided by the Authority and such other
studies and testing deemed necessary, to determine the acceptability of the
environmental condition of the Authority Property and any Additional Property.
(n) Conduct and participate in all community open house(s), and/or other related
community engagement activities, to solicit public input regarding the proposed Pilot
Site development and such other neighborhood meetings as may reasonably be
requested by the Authority.
(o) Work with the Authority or City to provide information necessary to apply for funding
grants from governmental grant sources.
(p) Obtain any market studies for the Pilot Site development to assess overall feasibility
and to refine the scope of the Development and complete a traffic impact assessment
study to assess the overall traffic impact resulting from the development.
(q) Make all required presentations to the City Council of the City, the Authority's Board
of Commissioners and the City Planning Commission in connection with approvals of
the Development.
(r) Submit to the Authority a Final Draft of the Community Benefits Agreements between
the City, Authority and General Public.
All of the information described above shall be prepared or collected at the sole expense of
the Developer. The Developer agrees that it will provide the Authority with monthly status reports
on progress made with respect to its activities under this Agreement. The Developer shall have no
obligation to provide the Authority or City any reports, tests, analyses or any other due diligence it
has prepared internally or obtained from any third party except as specifically provided herein.
Section 5. Authority Undertakings. During the term of this Agreement, the Authority will
undertake the following:
(a) Refine and complete the master PUD plan for the Pilot Site Property in cooperation
with the Developer; including, identifying a land use and transportation framework
for the site, a phasing plan, entitlement process, and shared community amenities.
(b) Refine and complete a Master Infrastructure Plan that identifies necessary public
infrastructure related to the Pilot Site.
(c) Identify, and lead the design and engineering of, any off-site public improvements
expected or required to be completed as part of the Development.
(d) Identify any on-site public improvements expected or required to be completed as
part of the Development, including any centralized plazas, public spaces, new roads
and storm water ponding.
(e) Identify construction, permit, application, utility and any other fees and the amount
of such fees that the Developer may be expected to pay in connection with the
Development.
(f) Identify the approval process and timeframes for development approvals that may be
expected for the Development.
(g) Identify the sources of public financial assistance that may be made available to the
Developer in connection with the Development such as tax increment financing, state,
local and federal grants and land write down assistance. If any such financial
assistance is actually provided in connection with the Development, the amount,
timing and terms of such assistance will be set forth in the definitive Contract and no
commitment is being made in this Agreement that any such assistance will be
provided to the Developer.
(h) Provide to the Developer any title information and any 3rd party reports the Authority
has on hand regarding the Authority Property.
(i) Cause to be prepared drafts of the Contract upon satisfaction of the conditions in
Section 2.
(j) Provide to the Developer any surveys and environmental reports related to the
Authority Property that are in the possession of the Authority. The Authority will, at
the Developer’s expense, cooperate with the Developer in pursuing any federal or
State environmental approvals, permits, program enrollments or determinations
requested by the Developer with respect to the Authority Property.
(k) Analyze information provided by the Developer to determine if the conveyance of the
Authority Property for the Developer proposed purchase price is justified.
(l) Notwithstanding any provisions or understanding to the contrary, neither the City nor
the Authority will exercise its condemnation powers to acquire any additional
property in connection with the Development.
(m) Cooperate with the Developer, at the Developer’s expense, in completing the traffic
study as required.
(n) Coordinate with the Developer in pursuing any grants that may assist with
environmental analysis, brownfield remediation, gap financing, and/or others that
may be identified that would assist the Development.
Section 5.5 Community Benefits Agreement. The parties acknowledge and agree that as a
requirement of the Development is for the Developer to enter into a Community Benefits
Agreements with the City, and the Authority for the Pilot Site Project. The intent of the Community
Benefits Agreement is to codify the planned and intentional community, economic and social
impacts of the Development Project. The community, economic and social impacts are intended to
focus on Brooklyn Center residents, businesses and students through intentional hiring,
contracting, programming, and funding partnerships to be further defined in the Community
Benefits Agreement. The Community Benefits Agreement will be a part of the Final Development
Agreement and such agreement cannot proceed prior to the completion of the Community Benefits
Agreement.
Section 6. Contingencies. The parties acknowledge and agree that proceeding with the
Development is subject to a number of contingencies, including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) The acquisition of all or part of the Authority Property by direct purchase, on such
terms and conditions as are acceptable to the Authority in its sole and absolute
discretion.
(b) The acceptance by the Developer of its environmental and geotechnical assessments
and all other environmental and wetland reports and surveys certified to the
Developer and its lender, deemed necessary by the Authority and the Developer for
all of the property to be encompassed by the Development, which reports and surveys
must be satisfactory to the Authority and the Developer.
(c) The Authority and the Developer having obtained all necessary approvals for the
Development from any participating governmental authority including, but not
limited to, any necessary watershed district approvals.
(d) The Developer having obtained such zoning modifications, rezoning, planned unit
development approvals, conditional use permits and such other approvals as are
necessary to allow the Development to move forward.
(e) Title to the Pilot Site having been found acceptable to the Developer in its sole
discretion.
(f) The Developer having conducted such soils, well, engineering, hazardous waste,
environmental and other testing as it determines necessary.
(g) The Developer having obtained financing for, at a minimum, the initial Phase of the
Development acceptable to Developer and satisfactory to the Authority.
(h) The Developer having reached an agreement with the City, the Authority, and
Community Partners as to the nature and extent of the Community Benefits
Agreement.
Section 7. Negotiation of Contract. During the term of this Agreement, the Authority and the
Developer shall proceed with the negotiation of a Contract relative to the Development. The
decision to enter into a Contract shall be in the sole discretion of each of the parties. If prior to
execution of the Contract either party determines in its sole discretion that it is not in its best
interest, for whatever reason, to proceed with the Development or the Contract, it shall so notify
the other party, whereupon this Agreement shall terminate and neither party shall have any rights
or obligations to the other or to any third party under or with respect to this Agreement, except as
provided in Section 9 regarding Authority costs incurred prior to such termination. If the Developer
determines during the term of this Agreement that undertaking the Development is not financially
feasible, it will promptly notify the Authority of such determination and the parties will terminate
this Agreement.
Section 8. Effect of Approvals. No approval given by the Authority hereunder or in connection
herewith shall be deemed to constitute an approval of the Development for any purpose other than
as stated herein and the process outlined in this Agreement shall not be deemed to supersede any
concept review, conditional use permit, vacation, subdivision, or other zoning or planning approval
process of the Authority or the City relative to the development of real estate.
Section 9. Payment of Authority Costs. In consideration of the Authority's covenants and
agreements set forth herein, the Developer agrees that it will pay costs incurred by the Authority
in the manner and to the extent provided in this Section 9.
(a) The Developer agrees to pay costs incurred by the Authority in connection with the
Pilot Site master plan. The Developer shall deposit $200,000 with the Authority to
pay costs in connection with the planning, review, and design of the Pilot Site
development concept. These costs include consulting fees for design and
engineering of on-site infrastructure, review of environmental documents,
preparation of this Agreement, financial analysis, the negotiation, preparation and
implementation of the Contract. The Authority shall have the right to draw upon
these amounts to pay such costs, both future and those costs which have already
been incurred. If the amount on deposit becomes fully depleted or the Authority
wishes to incur a cost that would cause the deposit to be fully depleted, the
Authority shall have the right to request that the Developer replenish such funds.
Upon such request, the Developer shall remit to the Authority additional funds to
be held on deposit and used to pay costs. If the Developer fails to make such a
deposit within 3 business days, the Authority may terminate this Agreement. The
Authority shall not incur any cost unless it has sufficient funds on deposit to pay for
such costs. Upon completion of the project, any funds remaining on deposit shall
be returned to the Developer.
(b) Upon request by the Developer, the Authority shall provide an accounting of the
use of any funds deposited with the Authority. If this Agreement is terminated in
accordance with the terms hereof, any sums. remaining on deposit with the
Authority, after the Authority pays or reimburses itself for costs incurred to the date
of termination, shall be returned to the Developer. No other financial obligations
shall exist between the parties, other than those that may be negotiated and
contained in the Contract.
Section 10. Modifications. This Agreement may be modified and the term hereof may be extended
only through written amendments hereto signed by both of the parties to this Agreement.
Section 11. Exclusive Rights. In consideration of the time, effort and expenses to be incurred by
Developer in pursuing the undertakings set forth herein and in further consideration of the funds
paid to the Authority, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Authority hereby agrees
that for the term of this agreement it will not: (i) provide or enter into an agreement for provision
of financial assistance to any third pru1y in connection with any proposed development of the
Authority Property. During such period the Developer shall have the exclusive right to work with
the Authority in establishing a definitive Contract for the Redevelopment Property. Said exclusive
rights shall continue, unless earlier terminated as provided herein, for the period described within
Section 12 of this agreement.
Section 12. Termination. This Agreement shall be effective until October 30, 2022, unless
terminated earlier in accordance with Section 7. If for any reason a Contract has not been entered
into by the pat1ies by such date or any mutually approved extension thereof, this Agreement shall
be null and void and neither party shall have any liability or obligations to the other, except as
provided in Section 9 regarding Authority costs incurred prior to the termination of this Agreement.
Section 13. Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of any remaining portion of this
Agreement.
Section 14. Notices. Notice, demand, or other communication from one party to the other
shall be deemed effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested or
delivered personally to a party at its address in the first paragraph of this Agreement, or at such
other address as such party may designate in writing to the other party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its
name and behalf and the Developer has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its name
and behalf on or as of the date first above written
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
By__________________________________
Its __________________________________
By__________________________________
Its __________________________________
ALATUS, LLC
By__________________________________
Its __________________________________
PROJECT FOR PRIDE IN LIVING, LLC
By__________________________________
Its__________________________________
RESURRECTING FAITH WORLD MINISTRIES
By___________________________________
Its___________________________________
EXHIBIT A
Authority Property
Exhibit B
Development Program
The Development Design contemplates the following development programming:
(a) Approximately 750 units of housing in a mixed-use building type
a. Whereas, 50% of the units will be restricted to those who earn less than 60% of
the Area Median Income.
b. Whereas, 50% of the units will be available for general occupancy at prevailing
“market rent” levels.
c. Whereas, there will be a 25,000 SF Entrepreneurship Market and Plaza, (“EMP”)
to be sold to the City of Brooklyn Center’s EDA upon completion.
d. Whereas, there will be a community event center with the capacity for single
events up 1,000 persons, and that will be available to the community for rent
no less than 200 days per year.
e. Whereas, there will be 25,000 SF of commercial space throughout the pilot site,
not including the “EMP”.
f. Whereas, the Developer agrees to park the opportunity at a ratio of 1.25 to 1
unit across the opportunity through a combination of street parking,
underground parking. Parking reduction will be considered through the use of
multimodal planning to include but not limited to;
i. Mass Transit
ii. Bicycle Infrastructure