HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020 11-23 CCPCouncil Study Session
V I RT UA L meeting being
conducted by electronic
means in accordance with
Minnesota S tatutes, section
13D.021 P ublic portion
available for connection by
calling 1-312-535-8110
A ccess Code: 133 316
6939
November 23, 2020
AGE NDA
1.City Council Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions - 6 p.m.
2.M iscellaneous
3.Discussion of Work S ession Agenda Item as T ime P ermits
4.Adjourn
C IT Y C O UNC IL
M E E T I NG
V I RT UA L meeting being
conducted by electronic
means in accordance with
Minnesota S tatutes, section
13D.021 P ublic portion
available for connection by
calling 1-312-535-8110
A ccess Code: 133 316
6939
November 23, 2020
AGE NDA
1.Informal Open Forum with City Council - 6:45 p.m.
Provides an opportunity for the public to address the C ounc il on items which are not on the
agenda. Open Forum will be limited to 15 minutes, it is not televised, and it may not be used to
make personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for
political campaign purposes. Council Members will not enter into a dialogue with presenter.
Questions from the C ounc il will be for c larific ation only. Open Forum will not be used as a time
for problem solving or reacting to the c omments made but, rather, for hearing the presenter for
informational purposes only.
I will first c all on those who notified the Clerk that they would like to speak during open forum,
and then I will ask if any one else c onnected to this meeting would like to speak. W hen I do,
please indicate y our name and then proc eed when I call on you. Please be sure to state your
name and address before speaking.
2.Invocation - 7 p.m. - L awrence-Anderson
3.Call to Order Regular Business M eeting
This meeting is being conduc ted electronic ally under Minnesota Statutes, section 13D .021 due
to the pandemic. For those who are connec ted to this meeting, please keep your microphone
muted. I f there is an opportunity for public c omment, y ou may unmute and speak when called
upon. Please do not talk over others and any one being disruptive may to ejec ted from the
meeting. The packet for this meeting is on the City's website, whic h is linked on the calendar or
can be found on "City Council" page.
4.Roll Call
5.P ledge of Allegiance
6.Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda
The following items are c onsidered to be routine by the C ity Council and will be enac ted by one
motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so
requests, in which event the item will be removed from the c onsent agenda and considered at
the end of Council Consideration I tems.
a.Approval of Minutes
- Motion to approve minutes for the following meetings:
November 9, 2020 Study Session
November 9, 2020 Regular Session
November 9, 2020 Work Session
b.Approval of L icenses
- Motion to approve licenses as presented.
c.Extension of Audit S ervice P rofessional Contract
- Consider directing staff to enter into a one year audit contract for 2020
audit services with Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co.
(MMKR) and complete a full request for proposal for audit services in 2021
d.Resolution A uthorizing the E xecution of a Four Year Contract with Hennepin
County for Assessing S ervices
- It is recommended that the City Council consider approval/adoption of a
Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Four Year Contract with
Hennepin County for Assessing Services
e.Resolution A ccepting Work Performed and Authorizing Final P ayment,
Municipal L iquor S tore #1 Construction
- Motion to approve a resolution accepting work performed and authorizing
final payment, Municipal Liquor Store #1 Construction
f.Resolution Ratifying the A pproval of the P reliminary and F inal Plat for
Brooklyn Center E D A First A ddition and A uthorizing F inal Plat Recording
- It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the
resolution ratifying the approval of the preliminary and final plat for
BROOKLYN CENT ER EDA FIRST ADDITION and authorizing final plat
recording
g.Resolution Expressing Appreciation of the Donation of a Grill from Mills Fleet
F arm to the Brooklyn Center F ire Department
- It is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution expressing
appreciation of the donation of a grill from Mills Fleet Farm to the Brooklyn
Center Fire Department
h.An Ordinance A mending Ordinance No. 2018-08 Regarding Council S alaries
for 2021-2022
- It is recommended by the Financial Commission that the salaries for the
Mayor and City Council increase by two percent above their current
compensation levels for 2021 and 2022. Proposed action to approve the
first reading of this ordinance and set a Public Hearing for Monday,
December 14, 2020 for the second reading and final adoption
7.P resentations/Proclamations/Recognitions/Donations
a.C O V I D-19 I mpact on Hennepin County and B rooklyn Center
- Staff ask the City Council to hear a presentation on the subject of COVID-
19 and it's impact to date in Hennepin County and Brooklyn Center
b.Brooklyn Center B C T C Public A rt I nitiative
- Staff ask the City Council to hear presentation regarding the Brooklyn
Center BCTC Public Art Initiative
8.P ublic Hearings
The public hearing on this matter is now open. I will first call on those who notified the Clerk that
they would like to speak to this matter, then I will ask if anyone else on this meeting would like to
speak during this hearing. W hen I do, please indic ate your name and then proceed when I call
on you. Please be sure to state your name and address before speaking.
9.P lanning Commission Items
a.Resolution Requesting Approval of the Preliminary and Final P lat for Mound
Cemetery S econd Addition (3515 69th Avenue North and County I dentified as
6705 B eard Avenue N)
- Motion to adopt a resolution approving Planning Commission Application
No. 2020-009 for preliminary and final plat approval of Mound Cemetery
Second Addition (located at 3515 69th Avenue North and County identified
as 6705 Beard Avenue North), based on the findings of fact and submitted
documentation, as amended by the conditions of approval in the resolution
10.Council Consideration Items
11.Council Report
12.Adjournment
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:11/23/2020
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager
T H R O U G H :D r. Reggie Edwards, D eputy C ity M anager
BY:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk
S U B J E C T:A pproval of Minutes
B ackground:
I n accordance with M innesota S tate S tatute 15.17, the official records of all mee4ngs must be documented
and approved by the governing body.
B udget I ssues:
-None.
S trategic Priories and Values:
O pera4onal Excellence
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip4on U pload D ate Type
11/9 S tudy S es s ion 11/17/2020 Backup M aterial
11/9 Regular S ession 11/17/2020 Backup M aterial
11/9 Work S es s ion 11/17/2020 Backup M aterial
11/09/20 -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
NOVEMBER 9, 2020
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at
6:00 p.m. The meeting was conducted via Webex.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence-
Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Deputy City Manager
Reggie Edwards, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, City Clerk Barb Suciu, and
City Attorney Troy Gilchrist.
CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS
Mayor Elliott requested that Consent Agenda Item 6c related to Radisson Hotel Brooklyn Center
be moved from the Consent Agenda and addressed as Regular Session Agenda Item 10a. He added
the hotel’s owner plans to join the meeting.
MISCELLANEOUS
-None.
DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS
EDA-OWNED SCATTERED SITE DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION
Community Development Director Meg Beekman requested City Council feedback and comment
regarding potential divestment strategies for several EDA-owned sites around the City. She added,
for many years, the City acquired properties for neighborhood revitalization and development of
owner-occupied housing. She noted these properties were not acquired through that process.
Ms. Beekman reviewed the properties:
- 902 53rd Avenue N, a small lot that is currently zoned R-2, was acquired in 2014.
- 3401 53rd Avenue N, currently zoned R-5, was acquired in 2012. This parcel is adjacent
to the Lake Pointe Apartments.
11/09/20 -2- DRAFT
- 4800 and 4812 71st Avenue N, two separate lots zoned R-1, were created when the roadway
was diverted, would need to be combined due to street access and could be a location for a
single-family home, duplex or triplex, given the size of the lot.
- 5401, 5407, and 5415 Brooklyn Boulevard were re-platted and combined as part of the
Brooklyn Boulevard frontage realignment for nearby school access. This property,
approximately 1.5 acres, could accommodate 6 units of housing. The lots are zoned C-1
and R-2.
- A unique parcel, (PID 3311921430087) owned by the Village of Brooklyn Center, was
probably part of the City at its origination and was never developed. This parcel, near the
airport, is a legal single-family lot that is zoned R-1.
- Another unique parcel, (PID 3611921120008) owned by the Village of Brooklyn Center,
with river frontage, is zoned R-1 but was not developed by the City as it was seen as a
potential water source access. The Public Works Director has indicated it is unlikely that
this property would ever be required for water access.
Ms. Beekman stated City Staff receives regular inquiries from interested parties on these
properties, which are low priority development sites due to targeted redevelopment of other areas.
She added City Council direction is requested regarding divesting these properties. She noted City
Staff does not have the resources or capacity to complete a consolidated RFP.
Ms. Beekman stated the options available to the City are to hold off on developing these sites until
City Staff has the capacity to issue an RFP for development, to be reviewed again in one year
(Option 1); or the City Council could identify priorities and development goals for the sites to
assist City Staff in evaluating development opportunities on a case-by-case basis through the
typical development process (Option 2).
Mayor Elliott stated he would like to hold onto the properties while waiting for the results of the
Housing Study that the City has commissioned from Dr. Brittany Lewis, to assess the needs of the
community. He added one thing he hears a lot is the need for multi -generational housing. He
noted he would like to see some data to help shape policy around how to use the City’s available
land as it is a great asset.
Councilmember Graves stated she agrees with the Mayor not to go too far with these properties.
She added development of these properties does not seem like the correct use of City resources
right now, although she would be interested in hearing proposals from developers proposing
affordable housing that is below 50% AMI, which she does not believe would fit any of these
properties. She noted she is okay with waiting and being more strategic about an overall housing
policy and reviewing gaps that need to be filled.
Councilmember Ryan stated he is leaning towards Option 2, identifying development goals for
these sites. He added the number of parcels is relatively few and could return something to the
City in terms of development, with the exception of 3401 53rd Avenue that is imbedded in the Lake
11/09/20 -3- DRAFT
Pointe Apartments site. Asked whether City Staff has contacted the apartment complex about this
property. Ms. Beekman stated there have not been any discussions about selling that property.
Councilmember Ryan stated the City should consider reasonable development opportunities for
these smaller sites. He added the City’s broader housing goals can be accommodated by several
other large-scale development opportunities. He noted this is an opportunity to increase the tax
base and develop more owner-occupied units, of which the City has relatively low numbers.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she has heard from constituents that they want to see
more owner-occupied housing in Brooklyn Center. She added she would like to see the City take
advantage of opportunities to build single family homes for ownership.
Councilmember Butler stated she supports Option 2, identifying development goals and priorities.
She added she agrees with the Mayor’s comments about the Housing Study. She stressed the
importance of identifying priorities before moving forward with developing these properties. She
noted this is a combination of both options, to hold onto the properties but also identify priorities
through the Housing Study.
Mr. Boganey stated there seems to be a consensus of the City Council to hold off on establishing
priorities for these lots until after the Housing Study has been completed. Mayor Elliott agreed.
Councilmember Graves stated she mostly agrees but if City Staff comes across a developer that
they feel is too good to pass up, proposals should be brought to the City Council for review and
consideration. She added, in general, she agrees with Mayor Elliott and Councilmember Butler.
She noted she would like to wait until there is more direction, but she trusts City Staff to make
decisions and provide recommendations.
Councilmember Ryan stated infill housing through the City’s financing mechanism has been a
successful and ongoing program in Brooklyn Center. He stressed the importance of considering
all such opportunities, including multi-family housing. He added this is a relatively few numbers
of sites, and the City could gain a return, as well as acquiring housing types that are in limited
supply in Brooklyn Center.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she would support having a sit-down restaurant in
Brooklyn Center, like Manny’s or Pittsburg Blue, if land sales are being considered and an
opportunity comes along. She added she trusts City Staff to pursue potential opportunities.
Mayor Elliott stated the City Council consensus is to wait for the results of housing research by
Dr. Brittany Lewis that will guide land use policies for City-owned property, and instruct City
Staff to bring forward any really good proposals. Mr. Boganey agreed.
ADJOURN STUDY SESSION TO INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Elliott adjourned the Study Session to Informal Open Forum at 6:50 p.m.
11/09/20 -4- DRAFT
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) ss. Certification of Minutes
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER)
The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Brooklyn Center,
Minnesota, certifies:
1. That attached hereto is a full, true, and complete transcript of the minutes of a Study Session
of the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center held on November 9, 2020.
2. That said meeting was held pursuant to due call and notice thereof and was duly held at
Brooklyn Center City Hall.
3. That the City Council adopted said minutes at its November 23, 2020, Regular Session.
City Clerk Mayor
11/09/20 -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
NOVEMBER 9, 2020
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 6:50 p.m. The meeting was conducted via Webex.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence-
Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Deputy City Manager
Reggie Edwards, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, Fire Chief Tim Gannon, City
Clerk Barb Suciu, and City Attorney Troy Gilchrist.
Mayor Mike Elliott opened the meeting for the purpose of Informal Open Forum.
Simone Chambliss, Jambo Africa, stated she was informed by the City Clerk that she was on
tonight’s meeting agenda, but she is not on the agenda. She asked why she is not on the agenda.
City Clerk Barb Suciu stated she tried to call Ms. Chambliss earlier that day to inform her that
she was not on the agenda. She added Ms. Chambliss will need to work with the City Manager
regarding her request.
Mr. Boganey stated it is his understanding that the Community Development Director has been
attempting to schedule a conversation with Ms. Chambliss about this issue as well as
development of her property in general, but there has been difficulty in making that connection,
and the meeting agenda had to be completed. He noted this issue was added to the City
Council’s next Work Session Agenda.
Councilmember Graves apologized to Ms. Chambliss. She added Ms. Chambliss can speak and
address whatever she wants to since it is Open Forum. She noted Ms. Chambliss can provide the
City Council with additional information to prepare for the Work Session.
Ms. Chambliss stated she wants to have hookah in her restaurant. She added she spoke with the
City Clerk the other day, who indicated she was on tonight’s agenda, and would be able to be
heard today. She added Ms. Beekman had scheduled a meeting but had to postpone due to
conflicts, but that was pertaining her deck and other issues, and not the hookah license. She
noted she has been asking for a hookah license for years because her customers want it, and it
would bring in more daytime traffic to her restaurant.
11/09/20 -2- DRAFT
Ms. Chambliss stated she recently stopped at Casey’s and they are selling tobacco. She added
her restaurant has been in Brooklyn Center longer than Casey’s. She added she makes sure her
patrons are orderly and she follows all rules and regulations. She noted her restaurant has been
in Brooklyn Center for almost 9 years, and she would not do anything that will be disruptive for
the community.
Edmond Borboh stated he has worked with Ms. Chambliss for almost 2 years, and customers are
asking for hookah. He added they would appreciate it if the City would grant their request.
Mayor Elliott asked whether Jambo Africa has a tobacco license. Ms. Chambliss stated she does
not have a tobacco license. Mayor Elliott asked when Casey’s opened. Mr. Boganey stated
Casey’s was the last tobacco license to be issued before legislation that limited the number of
tobacco licenses that could be granted in Brooklyn Center.
Mr. Boganey stated the City Council requested that a representative from the Non-Smokers
Association should be invited to participate in this discussion. He added that is part of the delay,
and there was limited time to complete everything that was necessary to have a discussion
regarding Jambo Africa at tonight’s meeting. He noted this issue will be included on the next
Work Session agenda.
Melissa Carey stated the City often posts comments and photos in the form of PDFs and JPEGs
on social media that are not accessible for blind or visually impaired people. She asked that
important information like COVID-19 testing be shared in text form to be more inclusive of and
improve accessibility for disabled people.
Ms. Carey requested consideration of lit crosswalk signs in Brooklyn Center. She added she
crosses 67th Avenue to get to Palmer Lake which is a busy and congested road, and drivers often
do not see the crosswalk. She added installing flashing lights on the City’s crosswalks will prevent
accidents.
Nupen Patel asked whether he should speak now regarding the Radisson Hotel Brooklyn Center
Agenda Item. Mayor Elliott stated Mr. Patel will be able to speak when this issue is reviewed
under Agenda Item 10a.
Mayor Elliott moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at
7:05 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
2. INVOCATION
Councilmember Butler offered two quotes as an Invocation:
“When you see something that is not right, not fair, or not just, you have to speak
up. You have to say something. You have to do something.”
-Hon. John Lewis
11/09/20 -3- DRAFT
Councilmember Butler stated this quote speaks to the record number of voters who turned out in
Brooklyn Center but also nationally.
“Women belong in all places where decisions are being made. It shouldn’t be
that women are the exception.”
-Hon. Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Councilmember Butler stated this quote celebrates the first Woman Vice President-Elect, which is
very exciting.
3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott
at 7:00 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 Curt Boganey, Deputy City Manager
Reggie Edwards, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, Fire Chief Tim Gannon, 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 Mayor Elliott seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent
Agenda, as amended, to remove Item 6c for consideration as Item 10a, and the following consent
items were approved:
6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. October 26, 2020 – Study Session
2. October 26, 2020 – Regular Session
3. October 26, 2020 Work Session
6b. LICENSES
Gasoline Service Station
Two Rivers Investment Inc
6840 Humboldt Ave N
1525 120th Ln NE
Blaine 55449
Mechanical Licenses
C&M Heating and Air Conditioning Inc 13862 Wintergreen St.
11/09/20 -4- DRAFT
Andover 55304
Furnace Pro 290 109th Ln NW
Coon Rapids 55433
Tobacco Related Product
Two Rivers Investment
6840 Humboldt Ave N
1525 120th Ln NE
Blaine, Mn 55449
RENTAL
INITIAL (TYPE IV – one-year license)
6424 Girard Ave Rashidat Sowemimo
INITIAL (TYPE III – one-year license)
3307 Ohenry Rd Assata Sheriff /
Divine Home Care Services
6430 Toledo Ave N David Habimana /
Touchstone Properties
5949 Vincent Ave N Olaleye Olagbaju /
Royal Priesthood
INITIAL (TYPE II – two-year license)
5333 James Ave N Jacob Sphatt
5913 Vincent Ave N HPA US1 LLC
RENEWAL (TYPE IV – one-year license)
509 61st Ave N Tim Daniel ‐ met all requirements
6015 Dupont Ave N SFR Borrower LLC
5914 Fremont Ave N Alaafia Homecare
RENEWAL (TYPE III – one-year license)
3224 62nd Ave N Michael Mills
5254 Ewing Ave N My Truong / J&M Homes ‐
Met Requirements
4207 Lakeside Ave #322 Maie White
RENEWAL (TYPE II – two-year license)
4408 69th Ave N Northwest Residence Eugene & Diane Wright
4200 Lakebreeze Ave Todd Bertelson /CPP3 LLC
3024 Nash Rd James Morgan
6812 Scott Ave N Lankia Lartey
4913 Winchester La Huda Hassen ‐ missing CPTED & CFH
RENEWAL (TYPE I – three-year license)
4210 Lakebreeze Ave Bobbie & James Simons
2802 Northway Dr Gateway Commons Gary Brummer
2701 65th Ave N Trinh Vu
11/09/20 -5- DRAFT
6445 James Cir N Kasawa Hospitality Super 8
6430 Lee Ave N Infinite Property / Xian Qiang Lin
7212 Lee Ave N Qiang Fang ‐ met requirements
6736 Perry Ave N Mark Coville ‐
Missing CPTED Inspection
6c. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-108 ISSUING A HOSPITALITY
ACCOMMODATIONS LICENSE TO RADISSON HOTEL BROOKLYN
CENTER WITH CONDITIONS – This item was considered as Item 10a
6d. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-102 AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF
EASEMENTS FOR BROOKLYN BOULEVARD CORRIDOR PROJECT
PHASE 2 IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. 2021-05
6e. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-103 AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION BY
EMINENT DOMAIN AND APPROVAL OF APPRAISED VALUES OF
EASEMENTS FOR BROOKLYN BOULEVARD CORRIDOR PROJECT
PHASE 2 IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. 2021-05
6f. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-104 ESTABLISHING INTEREST RATE FOR
2021 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
6g. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-105 ESTABLISHING 2021 STREET AND STORM
DRAINAGE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT RATES
6h. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-106 DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED
AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2021-01 AND 02,
GRANDVIEW SOUTH AREA STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS.
6i. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-107 ELECTING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE
METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT
6j. MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
CALENDAR
Motion passed unanimously.
7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS
-None.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
11/09/20 -6- DRAFT
-None.
9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
-None.
10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS
10a. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-108 ISSUING A HOSPITALITY ACCOMMODATIONS
LICENSE TO RADISSON HOTEL BROOKLYN CENTER WITH CONDITIONS
City Manager Curt Boganey stated the City Council held a public hearing on September 12, 2020
regarding the issuance of a hospitality accommodations license with conditions. He added, after
a lengthy discussion and comments from the hotel owner, the City Council directed City Staff to
provide a Resolution approving the license with conditions as recommended by City Staff. He
noted the City Council also proposed modifications related to the number of units that can be made
available and the extension of the license.
Nupen Patel, the hotel’s owner, stated he would like to clarify that this is not a homeless shelter
operation. He added he does not see the point in the City using so much time and resources for
something that is not an issue. He requested that there be no restrictions placed on his hotel
operation, and hopefully an agreement can be reached. He reiterated that he is not running a
homeless shelter.
Cameron Corrigan, the hotel’s General Manager, stated there are restrictions in place at the hotel,
and 24/7 security services. He added there were only 9 police calls in October, due to strict
protocols that are in place for guests at the property.
Mr. Patel stated he does not understand the point of the limitation on the number of units he can
make available. He added his client is the State of Minnesota, and he is trying to fulfill his side of
the contract with his client. He noted the State can use the hotel for whatever needs they may
have, related to the pandemic, and the people who come to stay there are long-term guests.
Mayor Elliott requested clarification regarding the 9 police calls in October 2020, and how that
differs from other months.
Mr. Corrigan stated some of the police calls are related to trespassing or medical calls. He added
there was one call related to a weapon, but no one was there when the police officers arrived.
Mr. Patel stated there was a false alarm when a fire alarm went off accidentally.
Mr. Corrigan stated he reviewed previous records, and in October 2019 there were 8 police calls
for many of the same reasons. He added this shows there is not much change over the past year.
Police Chief Tim Gannon, stated, for purposes of clarification, he agrees that there has been a
significant reduction in calls for service to the hotel in October and November 2020. He added
11/09/20 -7- DRAFT
that is a result of fewer number of occupants that are being serviced by the third-party provider,
Second Chance. He noted, however, from June-August 2020 there was a surge in calls that were
related to crime, although the previous service provider was not acclimated to the situation. He
expressed his appreciation for Second Chance, as well as Mr. Corrigan and his staff, for doing a
great job in managing the clients over the past few months due to the low numbers.
Chief Gannon stated the hotel may not be a homeless shelter, but Second Chance is providing
services to the homeless under a State contract, and they have full control over the number of
people that are housed at the hotel at any given time. He added the Police Department expects to
continue to see improvements as long as the numbers are kept at a reasonable amount for Second
Chance to be able to provide services, which is between 30-50 clients.
Mr. Corrigan stated the hotel currently has strict protocols in place, including a “no guest” policy,
and 24/7 security. He added he believes the reduction in police calls is due to these measures and
not the number of clients.
Mayor Elliott asked whether the third-party provider has indicated their maximum capacity.
Mr. Patel stated the hotel has a contract with the State of Minnesota and is not involved in Second
Chance operations.
Mayor Elliott asked Mr. Patel what he believes will be the impact of the proposed restrictions.
Mr. Patel stated a rise in COVID-19 cases is predicted during the winter months, and the State will
probably need more rooms to put people for quarantine. He added his business will suffer if the
City restricts the number of rooms, and he will not be able to fulfill his contract with the State,
which could create legal issues for him. He noted he does not believe other cities try to tell business
owners how to run their business.
Councilmember Graves asked whether the hotel has had to turn away anyone who was sent to
them by the State. Mr. Patel stated no one has been turned away.
Councilmember Graves asked whether Mr. Patel’s contract with the State prohibits him from
renting out rooms to typical hotel guests. Mr. Patel stated the contract does not limit him from
renting out rooms.
Mr. Boganey asked Mr. Patel if his hotel is designated by the State as a COVID hotel. Mr. Patel
stated the hotel is not currently a COVID hotel, but the State can use the hotel for whatever they
need.
Councilmember Ryan asked what Mr. Patel wants to change in the Resolution, and what City
Staff’s response would be to that request.
Mr. Patel stated he would like to remove the 50-room limit.
11/09/20 -8- DRAFT
Mr. Boganey stated City Staff’s recommendation was significantly less than 50 rooms, but the
City Council, after listening to Mr. Patel, agreed to a Resolution expanding the number to 50
rooms. He added, in City Staff’s view, a higher number of rooms that are used for this purpose
will mean more difficulties and problems, and more staff resources will have to be assigned. He
noted 50 units is a significant number, and City Staff does not recommend a higher number.
Councilmember Graves asked whether the State pays the same rate for a room as a regular hotel
guest. Mr. Patel stated the State pays about $60 per room, which is a little lower than the regular
rate.
Councilmember Graves stated she supports the Resolution as proposed and the recommendations
of City Staff. She added she would be interested in having a conversation with the State and third-
party provider regarding potentially raising the cap above 50 units.
Mayor Elliott stated this issue raises serious concerns about maintaining security and safety in
Brooklyn Center, which is a priority of the City Council. He added he would also like to hear from
Second Chance regarding their capacity. He noted the hotel is making an effort to work with the
City by instituting a strict no guests policy and having 24-hour security. He expressed concern
that there may be a real need, or an emergency situation, as COVID numbers increase.
Mayor Elliott stated he is hesitant to move forward without additional information. He expressed
concern that the hotel owner feels he will be unable to legally fulfill his contract with the State.
Councilmember Butler stated she agrees with Councilmember Graves’ comments and would like
to hear from the other stakeholders. She added she feels comfortable moving forward with the
Resolution.
Councilmember Graves asked City Attorney Troy Gilchrist for clarification regarding the legal
ramifications of the Resolution restricting the number of rooms related to the hotel owner’s
contract with the State.
Mr. Gilchrist stated the hotel’s operations are subject to federal, State and local laws, by which he
is bound. He added it would be difficult for a 3rd party to say he is breaching his contract by
complying with regulations. He noted City Staff has indicated that the current use is inconsistent
with the PUD for the property and allowing this use to continue requires regulatory flexibility.
Councilmember Ryan asked to be acknowledged.
Mayor Elliott asked whether Mr. Gilchrist believes that the hotel owner is in a difficult position as
the City wants to restrict the number of individuals he can have in his hotel, but the rooms are paid
for by the State.
Mr. Gilchrist stated discussions at the staff level focused on the length of stay and not how the
rooms are paid for. He added this program tends to have people for long-term stays, which can
create issues that run contrary to local zoning. He noted the City is inclined to grant flexibility in
11/09/20 -9- DRAFT
this case due to the pandemic, allowing the use to extend 90 days past the end of the emergency
declaration, and a 50-unit cap.
Councilmember Graves stated the hotel owner has indicated that the State contract does not
prevent him from renting rooms to other guests. She added a group could rent 20 rooms which
would decrease the number of rooms that are available for the State contract. She noted there
would be no liability issues on the part of the State if the hotel owner is not prohibited from renting
to others.
Mr. Patel stated, for purposes of clarification, this is not a long-term stay arrangement. He added
people come for a few weeks, and not more than 30 days. He noted the facts need to be cleared
up.
Mayor Elliott asked Mr. Gilchrist whether a 2-3-week stay is a permitted use for this property.
Mr. Gilchrist stated, according to the record of the previous meeting at which this issue was
discussed, Mr. Patel indicated that people stay “between 1 week to 2 months”. He added,
according to City Ordinance, stays of over 30 days are not allowed.
Mr. Boganey stated City Staff believes the hotel owner has violated the City’s licensing Ordinance,
and extended stays violate the PUD. He added large numbers of individuals who are using the
hotel for extended periods have proven to be difficult and problematic in a number of ways,
including Code violations. He noted there is evidence of an extreme increase in police calls on the
property.
Mr. Boganey stated it is more than appropriate for City Council to take action with respect to
licensing violations and conditions on the property and allow the use to continue with a limit of 50
units. He added the City Council is exercising a good deal of discretion and compassion under the
current emergency situation, and the conditions are reasonable, fair and appropriate. He noted
City Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
Councilmember Ryan stated he appreciates Mr. Boganey’s comments. He added he agrees the
City Council has been more than flexible and compassionate considering the extraordinary
circumstances. He noted he supports the Resolution as written.
Mr. Patel stated there have only been a handful of people who stayed for a long time. He added
most stays are under 30 days, and he does not believe the hotel is violating any regulations.
Mayor Elliott stated there are security issues. He added he would like the City Council to receive
information from representatives from the State and the third-party provider before these
limitations are put in place. He added if the majority of the City Council wants to adopt the
Resolution, that can be done tonight, but his preference would be to review this issue with the
providers.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she supports City Staff’s recommendation on this
issue. She added she believes it is important to respect their advice and expertise.
11/09/20 -10- DRAFT
Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to adopt
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-108 Issuing a Hospitality Accommodations License to Radisson Hotel
Brooklyn Center with Conditions.
Motion passed 4-1 (Mayor Elliott voted nay).
Councilmember Graves stated she would still be willing to hear from the other stakeholders at a
Work Session, to find out what their experience has been, and their expectations for the contract.
Mayor Elliott agreed, stating that was his reason for voting against the Resolution. He requested
that representatives of the State and the third-party provider invited to an upcoming Work Session.
Mr. Boganey stated, for clarification, an amendment to the Resolution would be appropriate at any
time, if the City Council decides to modify the conditions. Mr. Gilchrist agreed.
Mr. Patel requested clarification regarding procedures and timelines for getting a modification.
Mr. Gilchrist stated the City Council can pass a Resolution at any City Council meeting modifying
the conditions, as long as there is advanced notice for City Staff to draft the amendment.
Mayor Elliott stated the City Council meets every other week, so that would be two weeks at the
earliest.
City Clerk Barb Suciu clarified that the City Council meets on 2nd and 4th Mondays.
11. COUNCIL REPORT
-None.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Elliott moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded adjournment of the City
Council meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
11/09/20 -1- DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
WORK SESSION
NOVEMBER 9, 2020
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Work Session
called to order by Mayor/President Mike Elliott at 8:27 p.m. The meeting was conducted via
Webex.
ROLL CALL
Mayor/President Mike Elliott and Councilmembers/Commissioners Marquita Butler, April
Graves, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey,
Deputy City Manager Reggie Edwards, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, City
Clerk Barb Suciu, and City Attorney Troy Gilchrist.
SNOWMOBILE AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLE ORDINANCE DISCUSSION
Community Development Director Meg Beekman stated, at a recent Work Session, the City
Council discussed a potential Ordinance restricting the use of snowmobiles and recreational
vehicles on private property. She added the City Council requested that the Housing Commission
review the proposed policy and provide feedback and comments. She noted this issue is related to
a particular property, but a review was necessary as City Code does not limit the operation or use
of snowmobiles or other recreational vehicles on private property.
Ms. Beekman stated the draft Ordinance was discussed by the Housing Commission who felt that
use of recreational vehicles should be allowed on private property with certain exceptions,
including residents who have direct lake access. She added the Housing Commission provided
recommendations and added an exemption allowing for the use of recreational vehicles on private
property between hours of 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. She noted the Housing Commission stated this
issue is related to excessive noise which can be addressed and restricted under the Noise Ordinance
Section 27-903.
Ms. Beekman stated, from City Staff’s perspective, the primary issue is that a difficult enforcement
issue could be the result of prohibiting or regulating an activity that is allowed by Code. She added
the complaint-based process puts the burden of enforcement on neighbors to call in the complaint
and provide testimony if the matter goes to court. She noted City Staff are concerned about the
language and the City’s ability to enforce it, and additional language is recommended to allow the
use of recreational vehicles on private property with additional exceptions – on lake properties, for
snow removal and landscape work.
11/09/20 -2- DRAFT
Ms. Beekman stated this issue was reviewed by the City Attorney and the City’s prosecuting
attorney, who agreed with City Staff’s concerns regarding the difficulty of enforcing a Noise
Ordinance.
Ms. Beekman requested feedback and comments from the City Council before a first reading of
the Ordinance amendment is scheduled.
Councilmember/Commissioner Graves asked what issues would not be adequately addressed by
the Housing Commission’s recommendations.
Ms. Beekman stated the Housing Commission’s recommendation was to allow use of recreational
vehicles on private property between hours of 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. She added they
acknowledged that using recreational vehicles during those hours could create a disturbance due
to noise and small lot sizes and recommended a provision within the Nuisance Ordinance that
would prohibit annoying and disturbing noises. She noted the Housing Commission felt that would
be sufficient to manage any complaints received by City Staff related to noise and annoyance.
Ms. Beekman stated, from a staff perspective, it would be difficult to enforce a Noise Ordinance
based on behavior that the City Code specifically allows. She added the burden of proof would be
upon whether the noise is annoying to neighbors, which can lead to situations where the Code is
not enforced consistently or fairly. She noted it is unclear whether the complaint would hold up
in court if the Ordinance is enforced.
Councilmember/Commissioner Graves stated she supports the Housing Commission’s
recommendation. She added she exceptions for lakeside properties would favor certain property
owners. She noted she does not feel more regulation is the route to take, especially if it can be
addressed under the Noise Ordinance.
Ms. Beekman stated, due to the Housing Commission’s discussion on this matter, they seemed to
assume their concerns regarding noise could be remedied or managed through the City’s Noise
Ordinance regulations, which City Staff and the City Attorney feel is a separate, immaterial issue.
Ms. Beekman stated it is within the City Council’s purview to allow use of recreational vehicles
on private property. She added, to be clear, it is City Staff’s opinion that it would not be the correct
path to enforce noise complaints against individuals who are exercising their right to use
recreational vehicles under the Ordinance.
Councilmember/Commissioner Graves stated she understands Ms. Beekman’s point, that it would
be difficult to prohibit something that is allowed under Ordinance. She added, however, if a
resident were making noise, their neighbors could complain about it. She noted it feels like an
overreach to prohibit activity on private property but agreed steps should be taken.
Mr. Boganey stated the threshold issue is not about exceptions but rather about whether residents
should be allowed to use recreational vehicles in residential neighborhoods. He requested
feedback and comment from the City Council regarding whether it is appropriate to introduce this
type of activity as an approved use in residential neighborhoods.
11/09/20 -3- DRAFT
Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated, with regard to Mr. Boganey’s point, the City Council
should consider whether the use of recreational vehicles is an appropriate use in a built-out, urban
community. He added homes are placed relatively close together, and there are very few areas in
the community where this type of use would be appropriate. He noted he questions why this type
of use should be allowed at all, except to plow driveways when there is a heavy snowfall. He
expressed his opposition to allowing this use in Brooklyn Center as there will be inevitable
intended nuisances.
Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson stated she respects the opinions of her peers
but feels that residents who pay property taxes should not be told what kind of motorized vehicles
they can have. She added she has a 35-foot recreational vehicle parked on her property. She noted
tax-paying citizens should have the ability to own recreational vehicles, but not drive them around
in their front yard.
Mr. Gilchrist stated, for purposes of clarification, the proposed Ordinance would prohibit the use
of recreational vehicles but not their ownership. He added operation of these vehicles on City
streets or private property, except in limited circumstances, would not be allowed.
Mayor/President Elliott asked how many resident complaints have been received by City Staff
regarding the property in question. Ms. Beekman stated there were numerous complaints about
the property in question over the past few winter seasons, and approximately 8 complaints over
the past 6 years about other properties.
Mayor/President Elliott stated he agrees with Councilmember/Commissioner Grave’s comments.
He added this is a noise issue, which could be any type of activity that people do on their property.
He added the Noise Ordinance should be drafted so that it fairly deals with noise but does not
regulate what people do in their back yards. He noted he supports the recommendations of the
Housing Commission.
Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan asked whether the use of snowmobiles on frozen lakes is a
matter of local regulation. He added he does not believe there are any other areas in Br ooklyn
Center, which is an urban community, where there is sufficient open space for snowmobiles.
Mr. Gilchrist stated the City can regulate the use of snowmobiles on the lake, under State Statute
84.87.
Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated people in outstate Minnesota can use snowmobile in
a responsible manner with regulatory restrictions. He added the City of Brooklyn Center does not
have open spaces. He noted he would add a provision for the use of recreational vehicles for the
sole purpose of landscaping or snow removal, but otherwise prohibited.
Councilmember/Commissioner Graves stated she does not disagree with
Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan’s statements, but feels that residents should be able to use
their property however they see fit. She added she understands that the noise issue could be
annoying, but this is just one household, and some neighbor complaints can be petty. She noted
11/09/20 -4- DRAFT
she is supportive of the Housing Commission’s recommendations, but she does not believe there
is a perfect solution. She noted, however, this provides a method for residents who want to make
a complaint.
Mayor/President Elliott stated he supports the Housing Commission’s recommendations.
Councilmember/Commissioner Butler stated she supports the recommendation of the Housing
Commission.
FAIR HOUSING POLICY
Ms. Beekman stated the creation of a Fair Housing policy was proposed by the City Council at
their March 9, 2020 meeting. She added the City Council requested that the Housing Commission
be instructed to review this issue and draft a Fair Housing policy.
Ms. Beekman stated a Fair Housing policy is required for the City to participate in the Metropolitan
Council’s Livable Communities account, a program that provides funding for development
projects. She added it is a good idea to have a Fair Housing policy in any event, to outline the
City’s housing policies and provide an outline for addressing fair housing complaints. She noted
the policy should identify a location or person within the City who is responsible for housing
issues, to support residents and manage the complaints process.
Ms. Beekman stated the Housing Commission reviewed housing policies from other cities
throughout Minnesota, and drafted a policy mostly based on policies from the cities of
Bloomington and Richfield, which are similarly situated cities with comparable housing stock,
capacity and community. She noted the draft policy was reviewed by Robert Alsop, an attorney
with Kennedy & Graven, at a recent Housing Commission meeting, and was found to be well-
written and comprehensive.
Ms. Beekman stated the draft policy was forwarded to multiple agencies for feedback and
comment, including ACER, the Housing Justice Center, and HomeLine. She added feedback was
received from HomeLine and reviewed by the Housing Commission. The Housing Commission
reviewed online content related to available fair housing resources, and information has been
published on the City’s website.
Ms. Beekman stated the draft policy will require staff training including complaint and referral
processes; adoption of additional policies that support fair housing practices; internal review of
existing ordinances and policies related to fair housing; and expectations for community
engagement. The proposed policy affirms the City’s commitment to fair housing and creates a
more transparent process to ensure that the necessary resources are available to residents, both
online and in person.
Ms. Beekman requested feedback and comment from the City Council regarding the draft Fair
Housing Policy.
Mayor/President Elliott asked whether the agencies who received the draft policy were given a
time frame in which to return their comments and feedback to City Staff. Ms. Beekman stated
11/09/20 -5- DRAFT
HomeLine is the only group that responded in writing. She added their comments were shared
with the Housing Commission and incorporated into the draft policy. She agreed to email
HomeLine’s comments to the City Council.
Mayor/President Elliott asked how much time the agencies were given to review the draft policy.
Ms. Beekman stated City Staff requested a response within a few months, but the Housing
Commission has been working on the draft policy for quite a while. She added she is unsure why
they did not send in any comments, but the draft policy can be resent to them.
Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan asked Ms. Beekman whether, in her opinion, the cluster of
issues around affordable and equitable housing could be considered a regional issue, requiring
regional solutions.
Ms. Beekman the issue of fair housing and the access to affordable housing is really a national
issue, as a similar pattern and trend is happening in metropolitan areas throughout the country.
She added the vast majority of funding for affordable housing comes from the federal government,
and it is an issue of supply and demand. She noted this is a complex problem and too unfair and
unrealistic to place it at any single agency’s feet.
Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated this issue has been a difficult challenge for Brooklyn
Center as well as the entire metropolitan area and is a consequence of wage inequity that has been
evolving over the last four decades. He expressed concern that the City will create a greater burden
for itself, and increase the number of lower income households, by trying to take on more than its
fair share of solutions for affordable housing. He added he hopes the City can partner with other
metro area cities to address this issue fairly and equitably. He noted he has voted in support of
every affordable housing proposal that has come before the City Council.
Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated he supports a supply of affordable housing
proportionate to the City’s needs without providing more than that which is the City’s fair and
equitable share. He added the City Council must address this issue in a fair and sustainable
manner, keeping in mind the greater interests of the City of Brooklyn Center for years to come.
Mr. Boganey stated it is important to distinguish between fair housing and affordable housing,
which is a regional and national issue. He added the City’s proposed Fair Housing policy speaks
more directly to civil rights requirements, prohibiting discrimination against those seeking
housing.
Councilmember/Commissioner Graves stated this is an important first step, although there may be
room for more nuance. She added she supports sending the draft documents to local organizations
to get some feedback on what is proposed now. She noted she is ready to move the Fair Housing
Policy forward.
Councilmember/Commissioner Graves asked whether Brooklyn Center ever had a Human Rights
Commission, and why the City does not have one now. She added Brooklyn Park has a Human
Rights Commission, and another local city just added one.
11/09/20 -6- DRAFT
Mr. Boganey stated there was Brooklyn Center Human Rights Commission. He added he is unsure
about why it was disbanded, although there was some sense that its mission and work were
duplicative of what was being offered by the State of Minnesota.
Councilmember/Commissioner Graves stated she would be interested in having a Work Session
discussion about the potential for a Human Rights Commission.
City Clerk Barb Suciu stated a Resolution was passed in 2003 establishing a Human Rights
Resources Commission. Mr. Boganey agreed to do more research. He added he believes the
Commission was dissolved by the City Council.
Mayor/President Elliott stated this is a good starting point to move forward with the Fair Housing
Policy. He expressed his appreciation for the work that has been done by the Housing Commission
and City Staff.
ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember/Commissioner Graves moved and Mayor/President Elliott seconded adjournment
of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 9:27 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) ss. Certification of Minutes
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER)
The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Brooklyn Center,
Minnesota, certifies:
1. That attached hereto is a full, true, and complete transcript of the minutes of a Work Session
of the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center held on November 9, 2020.
2. That said meeting was held pursuant to due call and notice thereof and was duly held at
Brooklyn Center City Hall.
3. That the City Council adopted said minutes at its November 24, 2020, Regular Session.
City Clerk Mayor
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:11/23/2020
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager
T H R O U G H :D r. Reggie Edwards, D eputy C ity M anager
BY:A lix Bentrud, D eputy City Clerk
S U B J E C T:A pproval of Licens es
B ackground:
The following bus inesses /persons have applied for C ity licens es as noted. Each bus iness/pers on has
fulfilled the requirements of the C ity O rdinance governing respec4ve licens es, s ubmi5ed appropriate
applica4ons, and paid proper fees.
A pplicants for rental dwelling licens es are in compliance with C hapter 12 of the City Code of O rdinances,
unless comments are noted below the property address on the a5ached rental report.
Gasoline S ervice S taon
C asey's Retail C ompany
D B A C asey's G eneral S tore #3823
211 F reew ay Blvd
1 S E Convenience Blvd
A nkeny I A 50321
Northern Tier Retail L L C
D B A S peedway - 1901 57th Ave N
500 S peedw ay D r
Enon O H 45323
Northern Tier Retail L L C
D B A S peedway - 6950 Brooklyn Blvd
500 S peedw ay D r
Enon O H 45323
Northern Tier Retail L L C
D B A S peedway - 6545 West River Rd
500 S peedw ay D r
Enon O H 45323
Y D H oldings L L C
D B A H oliday S ta4ons tore #3808
5710 Xerxes Ave N
12500 Empress C t
A pple Valley 55124
M echanical Licenses
B S I M echanical I nc 10327 F landers S t N E
Blaine 55449
Erickson P lumbing H ea4ng C ooling 1471 92nd L ane N E
Blaine 55449
N A C M echanical and Electrical S ervices 1001 L abore I ndus trial Court S te B
Vadnais H gts 55110
S econdhand G oods D ealer
G ameS top #535
6068 S hingle C reek P kw y
625 Wes tport Parkw ay
G rapevine T X 76051
Tobacco Related P roduct
Burr S t Market I nc
D B A Q uick S hop
5808 Xerxes Ave N
Brooklyn C enter 55429
C asey's Retail C ompany
D B A C asey's G eneral S tore #3823
211 F reew ay Blvd
1 S E C onvenience Blvd
A nkeny I A 50321
L eng Ku
D B A S un Foods
6350 Brooklyn Blvd
Brooklyn C enter 55429
Royal Tobacco 5625 Xerxes Ave N
Brooklyn C enter 55430
Walgreens C ompany
6390 Brooklyn Blvd
P O Box 901
D eerfield I L 60015
Y D H oldings L L C
D B A H oliday S ta4ons tore #3808
5710 Xerxes Ave N
12500 Empres s Ct
A pple Valley 55124
S trategic Priories and Values:
S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity, O pera4onal Excellence
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip4on U pload D ate Type
Rental C riteria 7/7/2020 Backup M aterial
11-23-2020 Rentals 11/17/2020 Backup M aterial
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
Property Address Dwelling
Type
Renewal
or Initial Owner
Property
Code
Violations
License
Type
Police
CFS *
Final
License
Type **
Previous
License
Type ***
5415 69th Ave N
Maranatha Place
Multi 1 Bldg 63
Units
16 inspected
Renewal Center Park Senior Apartments 7
.43 per unit I 1 valid .02 per unit
6/1/2020 theft II
5240 Drew AVE N Multi 1 Bldg 10
Units Renewal Bradley J Schumacher ‐ met
requirements
6
.6 per unit I 0 I III
6737 Humboldt Ave N
Humboldt Square
Apartments
Multi 2 Blgs 18
Units Renewal Todd Glorvick / Humboldt Square
Ventures
43
2.4 per unit III 0 III II
6915 Humboldt Ave N
Lynwood Pointe
Apartments
Multi 2 Bldgs
50 Units Renewal Steven Scott Management 5
.1 per unit I
1 valid .02 per unit
10/10/2019
disturbing peace
I III
3614‐16 50th Ave N 2 Family
2 Units Renewal William Lang / WLG Holdings LLC 7 III 0 III II
2307‐09 54th Ave N 2 Family
2 Units Renewal James Johnson 2 I 0 I I
3819 61st Ave N Single Renewal Fred Hanus 2 I 0 I II
5101 63rd Ave N Single Renewal Adedamola Ogundipe 2 I 0 I II
3224 67th Ave N Single Renewal Haymant Dasarth ‐ met requirements 0 I 0 I I
6261 Brooklyn Dr Single Renewal Ruben Zempoaltecatl 0 I 0 I II
7025 Drew Ave N Single Renewal Dave Swartout 5 II 0 II II
7048 France Ave N Single Renewal Tai Hon 0 I 0 I I
7031 Humboldt Ave N Single Renewal IH3 Property Ilinois 3 II 0 II II
2913 Nash Rd Single Renewal Chen Zhou 16 IV 0 IV II
6670 Xerxes Pl Single Renewal Dolores Ann Fischer 1 I 0 I I
* CFS = Calls For Service for Renewal Licenses Only (Initial Licenses are not applicable to calls for service and will be listed N/A.)
** License Type Being Issued
*** Initial licenses will not show
All properties are current on City utilities and property taxes
Type 1 = 3 Year Type II = 2 Year Type III = 1 Year
Rental Licenses for Council Approval on November 23, 2020
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:11/23/2020
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:M ark Ebens teiner, F inance D irector
S U B J E C T:Extens ion of A udit S ervice P rofessional Contract
B ackground:
A s part of the F inance Policies Manual ther e are adopted pr ocedur es iden0fied for reques t for proposals for
financial s ervices . The purpos e of this policy is to provide for the orderly conduct of reques 0ng propos als
for profes s ional s er vices for handling financial affairs , to ens ure that all s ervices will be periodically
review ed, and that the proper balance will be maintained between cost and quality of s ervices .
A udit S ervices
I n 2014, a9er a formal reques t for propos al pr oces s , the Council maintained audit serv ices with Malloy,
Montague, Karnowsk i, Rados evich & Co. (M M K R ) and hav e maintained that rela0 ons hip through the 2019
fis cal y ear audit. The cur rent policy dictates that audit s er vices go out for requests for proposals every six
years , w hich w as scheduled for 2020. W ith that current challenges w ith the pandemic, s taff is reques0ng
that the C ity enter into a one year contract with M M K R to provide con0 nuity w ith thes e challenges .
Considering the 0me and effort involved in transi0oning to a new audit firm, staff recommends this one year
extens ion and comple0 ng a full reques t for pr opos al proces s in 2 0 2 1 . S taff has been sa0sfied w ith the high-
quality w ork , integrity, professionalis m and indus tr y knowledge display by M M K R during the prior annual
audits.
B udget I ssues:
A udit fees are budgeted in the department budgets . Total 2020 audit cost propos al of $42,000 based on one
major federal program.
S trategic Priories and Values:
S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity, O pera0onal Excellence
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip0on U pload D ate Type
2020 M M K R A udit P roposal 11/18/2020 Backup M aterial
PROPOSAL
FOR
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
FOR
PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING
DECEMBER 31, 2020
JAMES H. EICHTEN, CPA
PRINCIPAL
E-MAIL: JEICHTEN@MMKR.COM
952.545.0424
-1-
November 17, 2020
Mr. Mark Ebensteiner
Finance Director
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
Dear Mark:
We are pleased to submit this proposal to provide auditing services for the City of Brooklyn Center,
Minnesota (the City) for the year ending December 31, 2020.
Our audits will be conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States
of America and the provisions of the Legal Compliance Audit Guide, promulgated by the Office of the State
Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 6.65. Our audits will also be conducted in accordance with the
standards for financial and compliance audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States; the Single Audit Act; the provisions of the Title 2 U.S. Code of
Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance); and any other applicable state or federal audit
guide.
We anticipate issuing the following report letters in relation to the City’s audit:
1.An opinion on the fair presentation of the City’s basic financial statements in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, with an “in relation to”
opinion on the combining and individual fund financial statements and supporting schedules.
2.A report on compliance and internal control over financial reporting based on an audit of financial
statements performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards.
3.A report on compliance with Minnesota State Laws and Regulations.
4.A report on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
5.A report on compliance with requirements applicable to each major program and internal control
over compliance with the Uniform Guidance.
C E R T I F I E D
A C C O U N T A N T S
P UBLIC
PRINCIPALS
Thomas A. Karnowski, CPA
Paul A. Radosevich, CPA
William J. Lauer, CPA
James H. Eichten, CPA
Aaron J. Nielsen, CPA
Victoria L. Holinka, CPA/CMA
Jaclyn M. Huegel, CPA
Kalen T. Karnowski, CPA
Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A.
5353 Wayzata Boulevard • Suite 410 • Minneapolis, MN 55416 • Phone: 952-545-0424 • Fax: 952-545-0569 • www.mmkr.com
Standard Letterhead-r2.qxp_167639 Letterhead-RV1 9/7/18 6:34 PM Page 1
-2-
We will also provide a management report to communicate comments and recommendations as a result of
the audit. Our management report will include the formal communications to the City’s audit/finance
committee or its equivalent as required by Statement on Auditing Standards No. 114, The Auditor’s
Communication With Those Charged With Governance, including:
•The auditor’s responsibility under auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America,
•Planned scope and timing of the audit,
•Significant findings from the audit,
•Significant accounting policies,
•Management judgments and accounting estimates,
•Significant audit adjustments,
•Other information in documents containing audited financial statements,
•Disagreements with management,
•Management consultation with other accountants,
•Major issues discussed with management prior to retention, and
•Difficulties encountered in performing the audit.
The management report will also contain a discussion of any financial reporting, internal control, and
compliance-related findings; an analysis of the City’s financial condition; recommendations to management
on improving its accounting system and financial reports; and updates on any prior year audit issues.
We understand that you will provide us with the basic information required for our audit and that you are
responsible for the accuracy and completeness of that information. The assistance to be supplied by your
personnel, including the preparation of schedules, analysis of accounts, preparation of confirmations, and
locating documentation for transactions selected for testing, will be discussed and coordinated with you.
We understand that the City will be responsible for preparing the initial draft of the City’s Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report (CAFR); as well as editing the CAFR. We understand that we will be responsible
for printing and binding the CAFR. Prior to issuance of the final audit reports, we shall review the
management report, internal control letters, and any other required state or federal compliance reports with
the City’s management.
If our audit procedures indicate that material errors, illegal acts, or other irregularities might exist, we will
make an immediate written report to the City’s management, and/or other city officials as appropriate. We
will not perform extended services at a cost to the City unless they are so authorized by the appropriate city
officials.
We believe we are best qualified to perform the engagement for the following reasons:
•Our wealth of experience providing auditing, accounting, and consulting services to Minnesota
municipalities with similar operations.
•Our proficiency performing numerous Single Audits of Federal Awards Programs for Minnesota
local governmental entities.
•Our thorough and efficient audit process, which emphasizes effective client communications and
limited disruptions to client operations.
•Experience with and expert knowledge of governmental financial reporting, including the standards
of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB); and the requirements of the
Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in
Financial Reporting Program.
-3-
•Experience with Minnesota city public finance and various municipal enterprise operations,
including, water, sewer, storm drainage, street light, liquor, event centers and a variety of other
operations.
•Experience with growing metropolitan municipalities, including those with significant development.
•Ability to communicate and work with you.
To help with your evaluation, the following is a “Summary of Key Qualifications” for quick reference. Please
refer to other sections of our proposal for more detailed information.
SUMMARY OF KEY QUALIFICATIONS
A.Quality
•Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A. (MMKR) emphasizes quality service,
accomplished by recruiting and developing high-quality personnel.
•We are a member of the Governmental Audit Quality Center of the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), which maintains standards for quality control in
governmental audits for CPA firms nation-wide.
B.Experience and Expertise
•Our firm has specialized in providing audit services to governmental entities for over 60 years.
Last year, we audited over 25 cities and approximately 30 school districts and 50 other
governmental entities of varying size.
•Because of this specialization, we have a large pool of knowledgeable and experienced
governmental auditors that possess significant knowledge of the complexities of municipal
finance in the state of Minnesota. Our governmental auditors work with many cities with
operations similar to yours. MMKR professionals also receive extensive continuing education,
with internal and external seminars specifically for governmental audits.
•MMKR is an industry leader in providing guidance to Minnesota local governments on the
accounting and reporting standards established in GASB Statements. We have assisted our
local governments with the successful and often early implementation of several complex new
GASB standards that have become effective in recent years. This process has provided us
with a practical understanding of these new standards that can only be gained by firsthand
experience.
•Our firm performs dozens of Single Audits of Federal Awards expenditures each year.
•In addition to audits, we provide our clients with a wide range of consulting services, including
management and operational reviews, budget development and monitoring, cash flow
projections, human resources consulting, and payroll tax and employee benefit-related matters.
•MMKR professionals are active members of many professional organizations and committees,
including the Minnesota Government Finance Officers Association (MnGFOA) and the
Minnesota Society of Certified Public Accountants (MNCPA). Our professionals have held
various leadership positions on the MNCPA Board of Directors, including past chairman. We
are also active in various MNCPA committees, which include planning, moderating, and
presenting at the annual city, charter school, and school district audit workshops, committee
work on Single Audit implementation, and quality reviews.
-4-
SUMMARY OF KEY QUALIFICATIONS (CONTINUED)
•On our staff, we have reviewers for both the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)
and the Association of School Business Officials (ASBO) International Certificate of Excellence
in Financial Reporting Programs. We have assisted numerous clients with obtaining certificates
on first-time submissions and with retaining certificates in subsequent years.
•MMKR professionals are also active members of the AICPA. This active role includes being a
member of the AICPA Council; a 400-member group representing members from around the
country that provides strategic planning and direction to the AICPA Board of Directors.
•Over the years, we have developed many customized audit tools, techniques, and paperless
workpaper and report formats, which allow us to perform our audits efficiently and with minimal
disruption to our clients’ operations.
C.Service
•Excellent client satisfaction supported by a very high client retention record.
•We are much more than an audit firm; our clients receive many additional benefits and services.
•Our client references are our best proof of service commitment; most additions to our
governmental client group are the direct result of recommendations from existing clientele who
are more than satisfied with our services. A listing of our governmental audit and consulting
clients is included in this proposal; please feel free to contact them.
We hope you will give our firm and proposal due consideration. We will provide the administration and City
Council with the quality and timely service you expect and demand from your auditors. If you have any
questions, please contact James H. Eichten, Principal. This proposal is a firm and irrevocable offer for
ninety (90) days covering the fiscal year ending December 31, 2020.
Sincerely,
MALLOY, MONTAGUE, KARNOWSKI, RADOSEVICH & CO., P.A.
James H. Eichten, CPA
Principal
JHE:lmb
APPENDIX A
PEER REVIEW
APPENDIX B
RÉSUMÉS
JAMES H. EICHTEN, CPA
MANAGING PARTNER
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
Since the start of his career in 1989, Jim Eichten has specialized in
providing accounting, auditing, and consulting services for clients in
governmental, nonprofit, and commercial industries, among others.
During this time, Jim has provided service to a variety of institutions;
helped organizations earn and retain industry certifications, and consulted
on financial management issues. In each of these situations, and for every
client project, his focus is to provide solutions that are thorough, tailored
to clients' unique needs, and that adhere to the most stringent standards.
To keep his skills current, Jim receives at least 40 hours annually of
continuing professional education, a significant portion of which are
related specifically to governmental issues. Jim holds a Bachelor of Arts
degree in business administration, with an accounting emphasis, from the
College of St. Thomas.
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
▪Present: Managing Partner – Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A., Minneapolis,
Minnesota
▪Previous: Senior Accountant – Pannell Kerr Forster, Minneapolis, Minnesota
MAJOR ASSIGNMENTS
▪Annual audits of Minnesota school districts, municipalities, and various other governmental entities
▪Audits of federal financial assistance programs of Minnesota school districts, municipalities , and various
other governmental entities
▪Assists city clients to obtain and retain the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Certificate
of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting
▪Assists school district clients to obtain and retain the Association of School Business Officials (ASBO)
International Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting
▪Management consulting services, including internal control studies, operational reviews , and cash flow
projections
▪Assistance in the development of audit manuals for cities, school districts, fire reliefs , and federal financial
assistance programs
▪Audits of various nonprofit organizations, including rural electric cooperatives, nursing homes, churches,
and educational foundations
▪Annual audits of commercial entities, including preparation of tax returns and monthly compilations
EDUCATION
▪College of St. Thomas
Bachelor of Arts in Business Administration with an Emphasis in Accounting
JAMES H. EICHTEN, CPA (CONTINUED)
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
▪Certified Public Accountant in Minnesota
▪Receives at least 40 hours per year of continuing professional education, of which a portion of those hours
are related specifically to governmental issues. This is in compliance with Government Auditing Standards
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
▪American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)
▪Minnesota Society of Certified Public Accountants (MNCPA)
▪Minnesota Association of School Business Officials (MASBO)
▪ASBO International
▪Minnesota Chapter of Government Finance Officers Association (MnGFOA)
▪GFOA of the United States and Canada
PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
▪Board Member of the MNCPA, including chairperson
▪Member of the Council of the AICPA
▪Served in many capacities on the MNCPA’s Governmental Accounting and Auditing Committee
▪Chairperson of the MNCPA’s Professional Standard Strategic Council
▪Served on committees of the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) and the Minnesota Department of
Education (MDE), including implementation issues of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB)
Statements
▪Special review committee member for the GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial
Reporting Programs
▪Has made presentations to organizations such as the MNCPA, AICPA, MnGFOA, MASBO, OSA, and
MDE on subjects such as legislative issues, compliance requirements, implementation issues of GASB
Statements, technical reviews, quality reviews, and obtaining a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence
in Financial Reporting
JACLYN M. HUEGEL, CPA
PRINCIPAL
Jackie Huegel specializes in meeting the unique accounting, auditing, and
consulting needs of school districts, municipalities, and other governmental
entities. Jackie has conducted audits of these groups, including those required for
their associated federal financial assistance programs. Jackie has also conducted
commercial audits, compiled tax returns, and performed monthly compilations.
To ensure she stays current with the latest in accounting practices, Jackie receives
at least 40 hours annually of continuing professional education, a portion of which
are focused on government auditing standards. This training is added to an
educational foundation of Jackie's Bachelor of Arts degree in accounting and
management from St. Mary's University in Winona.
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
▪Present: Principal – Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota
MAJOR ASSIGNMENTS
▪Annual audits of Minnesota school districts, municipalities, and various other governmental entities
▪Audits of federal financial assistance programs of Minnesota school districts, municipalities, and various
other governmental entities
▪Assists city and school district clients to obtain and retain the Government Finance Officers
Association (GFOA) Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting
▪Assists school district clients to obtain and retain the Association of School Business Officials (ASBO)
International Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting
▪Assistance in the development of audit manuals for cities, school districts, fire reliefs, and federal financial
assistance programs
▪Various commercial and nonprofit audits and tax returns
EDUCATION
▪St. Mary’s University – Winona, Minnesota
Bachelor of Arts in Accounting and Management
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
▪Certified Public Accountant in Minnesota
▪Receives at least 40 hours per year of continuing professional education, of which a portion of those hours
are related specifically to governmental issues. This is in compliance with Government Auditing Standards
JACLYN M. HUEGEL, CPA (CONTINUED)
PRINCIPAL
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
▪American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)
▪Minnesota Society of Certified Public Accountants (MNCPA)
▪Minnesota Association of School Business Officials (MASBO)
▪ASBO International
▪Minnesota Chapter of Government Finance Officers Association (MnGFOA)
▪GFOA of the United States and Canada
PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
▪Active member of the MNCPA, participating in various committees
▪Special review committee member for the GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial
Reporting Program
▪Has made presentations at various functions for boards, councils, and conference attendees
JESSICA A. BORGLUM
SENIOR CONSULTANT
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
▪Present: Senior Consultant – Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A., Minneapolis,
Minnesota
MAJOR ASSIGNMENTS
▪Annual audits of Minnesota school districts, municipalities, and various other governmental entities
▪Audits of federal financial assistance programs of Minnesota school districts, municipalities, and various
other governmental entities
▪Assists city clients to obtain and retain the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Certificate
of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting
▪Assists school district clients to obtain and retain the Association of School Business Officials (ASBO)
International Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting
▪Assistance in the development of audit manuals for cities, school districts, fire reliefs, and federal financial
assistance programs
EDUCATION
▪University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire
Bachelor of Arts in Business
Double Major in Accounting and Finance
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
▪Receives at least 40 hours per year of continuing professional education, of which a portion of those hours
are related specifically to governmental issues. This is in compliance with Government Auditing Standards
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
▪Minnesota Society of Certified Public Accountants (MNCPA)
▪Minnesota Association of School Business Officials (MASBO)
▪Minnesota Chapter of Government Finance Officers Association (MnGFOA)
APPENDIX C
LISTING OF GOVERNMENTAL AUDIT CLIENTS
The following is a complete list of governmental entities for which we have performed/are performing audit
and accounting services within the last year. Audit clients that have applied for or been awarded the ASBO
International or GFOA Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting are identified with an
asterisk (“*”).
* City of Apple Valley * City of Golden Valley * City of Robbinsdale
* City of Arden Hills * City of Monticello * City of Rosemount
* City of Bloomington * City of Mounds View City of Saint Peter
* City of Brooklyn Center * City of New Hope * City of Shoreview
* City of Burnsville City of Newport City of Spring Park
* City of Chaska * City of North St. Paul * City of South St. Paul
City of Circle Pines * City of Plymouth * City of St. Michael
* City of Coon Rapids City of Prior Lake City of Wayzata
* City of Farmington * City of Ramsey * White Bear Township
Andover Firefighters’ Relief Farmington Firefighters' Relief Roseville Firefighters’ Relief
Association Association Association
Apple Valley Firefighters' Relief Golden Valley Fire Department Savage Fire Department Firefighters’
Association Relief Association Relief and Pension Association
Centennial Fire District Ramsey Firefighters’ Relief St. Michael Firemen’s Relief
Centennial Fire Fighters’ Relief Association Association
Association Rosemount Firefighters’ Relief West Metro Fire-Rescue District
Chaska Fire Department Relief Association
Association
Bassett Creek Watershed Equity Alliance MN Metropolitan Library Service Agency
Management Commission Golden Valley – Crystal – New Hope Minnesota River Valley Transit
Black Dog Watershed Management Joint Water Commission Minnesota State Fair
Organization Housing and Redevelopment Authority Oak Land Cooperative Center
Centennial Lakes Police Department of South St. Paul Rum River Special Education
East Central Minnesota Local Government Information Systems Cooperative
Educational Cable Cooperative Association (LOGIS)
Achieve Language Academy El Colegio Charter School New City School
Aurora Charter School Higher Ground Academy New Heights Schools, Inc.
BlueSky Charter School, Inc.International Spanish Language Northwest Suburban
City Academy Academy Integration District
Crosslake Community School, Inc.Laura Jeffrey Academy Scitech Academy
Cyber Village Academy Lionsgate Academy St. Paul School of Northern Lights
DaVinci Academy Metro Deaf School, Inc.Twin Cities Academy
East Range Academy of Minnesota Math and Science Twin Cities Academy High School
Technology and Science Academy Universal Academy
* ISD No. 11, Anoka-Hennepin *ISD No. 279, Osseo – Maple Grove * ISD No. 728, Elk River
ISD No. 12, Centennial ISD No. 280, Richfield ISD No. 831, Forest Lake
ISD No. 15, St. Francis * ISD No. 281, Robbinsdale Area Schools * ISD No. 832, Mahtomedi
* ISD No. 16, Spring Lake Park ISD No. 283, St. Louis Park * ISD No. 833, South Washington
ISD No. 139, Rush City * ISD No. 284, Wayzata County Schools
ISD No. 197, West St. Paul ISD No. 286, Brooklyn Center * ISD No. 911, Cambridge
* ISD No. 199, Inver Grove Heights ISD No. 578, Pine City Intermediate District No. 287
ISD No. 200, Hastings * ISD No. 621, Mounds View Intermediate School District No. 917
* ISD No. 272, Eden Prairie * ISD No. 622, North St. Paul Northeast Metropolitan Intermediate
ISD No. 273, Edina * ISD No. 624, White Bear Lake School District No. 916
* ISD No. 278, Orono ISD No. 625, Saint Paul Public Schools SSD No. 6, South St. Paul
Cities
Fire Reliefs
Other Governmental Entities
Charter Schools
Independent School Districts
APPENDIX D
DOLLAR COST PROPOSAL
Single
Year Ending Basic Audit
December 31,Audit Estimate
2020 37,500$ 4,500$
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
Schedule of Professional Fees and Expenses
For Professional Auditing Services
Estimated fees for the year ending December 31, 2020
I certify that I am entitled to represent Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A., (MMKR),
empowered to submit this proposal, and authorized to sign a contract with the City of Brooklyn Center,
Minnesota (the City).
Signed: ____________________________________
James H. Eichten, CPA
Principal
Additional services hourly rates:
If it should become necessary for the City to request the auditor to render any additional service to either
supplement the services requested in this proposal or to perform additional work as a result of the specific
recommendations included in any report issued on this engagement or as a result of new standards, then
such additional work shall be performed only if set forth in an addendum to the contract between the City
and MMKR. Any such additional work agreed to between the City and MMKR shall be performed at the
same rates set forth in the Schedule of Professional Fees and Expenses included in this Dollar Cost
Proposal.
MMKR does not charge its audit clients for inquiries and technical assistance during the year that are minor
in nature (those that would not require a significant amount of research or result in the issuance of a
separate report letter or letter).
Since the Single Audit work is based on the requirements of individual grants, which can vary, the cost of
the Single Audit is stated separately, and is based on estimated minimum hours to complete a basic
Single Audit with one major program.
Standard Quoted
Hourly Hourly
Hours Rates Rates Total
Basic audit
Principals 30 280$ 240$ 7,200$
Managers and Senior Consultants 55 170 170 9,350
Senior Associates 90 120 115 10,350
Associates and Staff Accountants 115 105 85 9,775
Other – Clerical 10 55 55 550
Subtotal 300 37,225
275
37,500$
Single Audit estimate (based on one major program)4,500$
Total not-to-exceed base fee for the 2020 audit
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
Schedule of Professional Fees and Expenses
For Professional Auditing Services
Estimated fees for the year ending December 31, 2020:
Reimbursable expenses (photocopies, mileage, etc.)
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:11/23/2020
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:M ark Ebens teiner, F inance D irector
S U B J E C T:Res olu)on A uthoriz ing the Execu)on of a Four Year Contract with H ennepin County for
A sses s ing S ervices
B ackground:
O n J uly 11, 2016, the C ity C ouncil adopted Res olu)on N o. 2 0 1 6 -1 0 3 a Res olu)on A uthorizing the Execu)on
of a Four-Year C ontract with H ennepin County (the County ) for A s s es s ing S er vices for the 2017, 2018, 2019
and 2020 property as s essments. The current contract expired on J uly 31, 2020.
A;ached for your reference is a copy of the resolu)on and the July 11th s taff memorandum.
Contract for Connuaon of A ssessing S ervices with H ennepin County
H ennepin C ontract N o. A 2010403 is a con)nua)on of the as s essing services pr ovided within the current
four-year contr act and follows the C ounty standar d agreements for as s essing s erv ices which oper ate on a
four-year extens ion/renew al cycle.
The C ounty's as s essment services iden)fied in the contract includes :
1. P hysically inspect and revalue 20% of the real property, as required by law.
2. P hysically inspect and value all new cons truc)on, addi)ons and renova)on.
3. A djus t es)mated market values on thos e proper)es not physically inspected as deemed neces s ary
per s ales ra)o analys is .
4. P repare the ini)al asses s ment roll.
5. P rint and mail valua)on no)ces .
6. Res pond to taxpayers regarding as s essment or appraisal problems or inquiries .
7. C onduct valua)on review s prior to Board of Review or O pen Book Mee)ngs, as determined by the
City – approximate dates : M arch through May 15.
8. A;end Board of Review or conduct O pen Book M ee)ng. P repare all neces s ary review
appraisals . A pproximate dates: A pril 1 – May 31.
9. M aintain an updated property file – current values, classifica)on data and characteris)c data.
10. P repare divis ions and combina)ons as required.
11. A dminis ter the abatement proces s pursuant to Minn. S tat. §375.192.
12. P repare apprais als; defend and/or nego)ate all Tax Court cases .
13. P rovide all computer hardware and soHware applica)ons necessary to complete contracted
s ervices .
14. P roces s all homestead and s pecial program applica)ons .
The fee as s ociated w ith these contract s ervices is iden)fied inclusively as $248,000 for each as s essment
and includes the provision that any payment for the current year's as s essment may be increas ed or
decreas ed by that amount which exceeds or is les s than the County's es)mated cost of prin)ng /mailing
value no)ces, Chapter 278 tax court pe))ons, proces s ing all homes tead applica)ons, appraising new
cons truc)on and new parcels for the current year ’s as s essment. The amount of any increas e or decreas e
s hall be s pecified in the billing for the current year ’s asses s ment.
I n addi)on, s aid as s essments may also be increased by the County if: 1) The County determines that any
cos t to the C ounty in carrying out any aspect of this A greement has increas ed, including but not limited to
the following types of cos ts : new cons truc)on and new parcel apprais als, mileage, pos tage, s upplies, labor
(including fringe benefits ) and other types of costs, w hether similar or dissimilar; and/or 2) The C ounty
reasonably determines that other costs should be included in the cos ts of asses s ment w ork.
The payment schedule corres ponds w ith the C ity's receipt of annual property taxes w ith annual
ins tallment payments on J uly 15th and D ecember 15th.
B udget I ssues:
The propos ed contract for the con)nua)on of asses s ing services by H ennepin C ounty is consistent w ith the
City's budge)ng for the A s s essing D ivis ion. The prior es)mated budgeted cos ts for the annual asses s ment
s ervices w as $205,000. The revised annual contract budget is $248,000, w hich is a $43,000 (21%) increase
from the prior contract. The revis ed budget amount is included in the 2021 budget.
A por)on of the increas e, $8,000 involves the C ounty comple)ng the homes teading du)es on behalf of the
City, w hich is a change from the prior contract. The C ity will see an offseLng decrease in part-)me w ages
and benefits of approximately $25,000, as the posi)on that previous ly completed homes teading is no
longer necessary.
S ince the ini)al decision to transfer as s essing from City s taff to H C contract w e es )mate the total s avings at
more than $900,000.
S trategic Priories and Values:
S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity, O pera)onal Excellence
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip)on U pload D ate Type
P rior A s s essment M emo and S upport 11/17/2020 Backup M aterial
2021 - 2024 A sses s ment Contract Res olu)on 11/17/2020 Resolu)on Le;er
C ontract A 2010403 - 2021 - 2024 A s s essing S ervices 11/17/2020 Backup M aterial
[i1IJcSJ I N I I 3k'A IIYA I Dk"A (I) 1BJh'A I
DATE: July 11, 2016
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Gary Eitel, Director of Business & Development I .
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Four Year Contract with Hennepin
County for Assessing Services
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider approval/adoption of a Resolution Authorizing
the Execution of a Four Year Contract with Hennepin County for Assessing Services.
Background:
On April 14, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2014-54 a Resolution Authorizing
the Execution of a Two Year Contract with Hennepin County for Assessing Services for the
2015 and 2016 property assessments. The current contract expires on July 31, 2016.
Attached for your reference is a copy of the resolution and the April 14th staff memorandum.
Contact for Continuation of Assessing Services with Hennepin County
Hennepin Contract No. 165520 is a continuation of the assessing services provided within the
current two year contract and follows the County standard agreements for assessing services
which operate on a four year extension/renewal cycle.
The County's assessment services identified in the contract includes:
1.Physically inspect and revalue 20% of the real property, as required by law.
2.Physically inspect and value all new construction, additions and renovation.
3.Adjust estimated market values on those properties not physically inspected as
deemed necessary per sales ratio analysis.
4.Prepare the initial assessment roll.
5.Print and mail valuation notices.
6.Respond to taxpayers regarding assessment or appraisal problems or inquiries.
7.Conduct valuation reviews prior to Board of Review or Open Book Meetings, as
determined by the City approximate dates: March through May 15.
8.Attend Board of Review or conduct Open Book Meeting. Prepare all necessary review
appraisals. Approximate dates: April 1 - May 31.
9.Maintain an updated property file - current values, classification data and
characteristic data.
10.Prepare divisions and combinations as required.
11.Administer the abatement process pursuant to Minn. Stat. §375.192.
12.Prepare appraisals; defend and/or negotiate all Tax Court cases.
13'Iissioiz: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
for all people and preserves the public (lust
[IOiSJ[iJ I I I k71 U I DIh'4 0) 1WI 1IJ I
13. Provide all computer hardware and software applications necessary to complete
contracted services. (additional provision from the 2014 contract)
The City's responsibilities identified in the contract include:
1.Providing office personnel to receive, evaluate, and organize homestead applications and
to answer routine questions pertaining to homesteads and property assessment maters.
2.Provide a work space; including office equipment, supplies, and clerical/secretarial
support, for the occasional use of two County appraisers.
3. Provide for secured storage of all homestead applications and homestead data which
meets the requirements set by the County. (additional provision from the 2014 contract)
The fee associated with these contract services is identified inclusively as $205,000 for each
assessment and includes the provision that any payment for the current year's assessment may be
increased or decreased by the amount which exceeds or is less than the County's estimating cost
of printing/mailing value notices, Chapter 278 tax court petitions appraising new construction
and new parcels for the current year's assessment. The amount of the increase or decrease shall
be specified in the billing for the current year's assessment.
This provision has been modified from the previous two year contract, which identified the
assessment services of $161,000 plus the costs of printing and mailing of value notices and all
costs associated with handling Chapter 278 tax court cases. [Estimating a Total cost of $200,000
depending on postage and tax court petitions] for each assessment.
The payment schedule corresponds with the City's receipt of annual property taxes with annual
installment payments on July is th and December 15th
Budget Issues:
The proposed contract for the continuation of assessing services by Hennepin County is
consistent with the City's two year budgeting for the Assessing Division.
Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
for all people and preserves the public trust
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUHTORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A FOUR YEAR CONTRACT WITH
HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR ASSESSING SERVICES.
WHEREAS, the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.072 and
Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 permit the County Assessor to provide for the assessment of
property; and
WHEREAS, in 2012, the City of Brooklyn Center contracted with the Hennepin
County Assessor to provide appraisal reports and expert testimonies for tax court petitions; and
WHEREAS, in 2013, the City entered into an interim contract with Hennepin
County to carry out the statutory responsibilities and duties of the City Assessor's position to
complete the 2014 property assessment; and
WHEREAS, on April 14, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2014-
54, A Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Two Year Contract with Hennepin county for
Assessing Services (2015 & 2016); and
WHEREAS, Hennepin Contract No. A140394, an agreement between the cit y
of Brooklyn Center and Hennepin County provided assessing services for the 2015 and 2016
property assessments; defined the roles and responsibilities of the City and Hennepin County;
and established an estimated budget of $200,000 for the annual cost of assessment services plus
costs of printing and mailing of value notices and all Tax Court Costs; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has provided a contract to continue the roles and
responsibilities of the City of Brooklyn Center and Hennepin County for assessing services for
the 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 property assessments with an estimated annual budget of
$205,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that Hennepin Contract No. A165520, an agreement between the
City of Brooklyn Center and Hennepin County to provide assessing services for the 2017, 2018,
2019, and 2020 property assessments, is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Manager are
authorized to execute.
July 11, 2016
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.
aHennepinI
Hennepin County Assessor Department
A-21 03 Government Center
300 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0213
www.co.hennepin.mn.us
Gary Eitel
Business and Development Director
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
RE: Assessment Services Agreement
Dear Gary Eitel,
Enclosed for your review and City Council approval is our Assessment Service Agreement (plus three
copies) between the City of Brooklyn Center and Hennepin County. The approval of this agreement will
continue our relationship as your City Assessor for the next four (4) years.
In the first year of the agreement we are estimating the cost to complete your 2017 assessment at
$205,000.00. This estimate includes the costs to deliver all of the services listed in Exhibit A of the
agreement.
I want to assure you that we are making every effort to keep our costs to a minimum while still
providing the best possible customer service to your taxpayers in setting and preserving your assessed
values.
After City Council approval please return all three (3) signed original agreements by July 11, 2016, to:
James Atchison
do Hennepin County Assessor
A —2103 Government Center MC 213
Minneapolis, MN 55487-0213
I have also enclosed the "Hennepin County Assessor's Office: At a Glance" document as a reminder of
the assessment credentials and professional profile that the Hennepin County Assessor's Office brings to
our collaborative relationship.
If you have any questions, or would like to further discuss any of these items, please contact me at
James.Atchison Hennepin. us or (612)348-4567.
mes R. Atchison
Hennepin County Assessor
Enc
An Equal Opportunity Employer Recycled Paper
HENNEPIN COUNTYElPinASSESSORS OFFICE June 1, 2O6
At a G1ari::
Learn why the Hennepin County Assessor's
Office should be your choice for your
assessing needs.
Our mission is to value and classify
property, uniformly and accurately.
Customer Service
Customer service is an important core value of
Hennepin County and is an integral part of the
Hennepin County Assessor's practical vision
and office values.
• We are committed to having professional
employees that are equipped with the
training and skills needed to effectively
educate and serve our stakeholders.
o We strive for open communication with
stakeholders for an effective partnership.
o We engage and respond to customers with
care in all situations.
o We achieve excellence in valuation and
classification at a reasonable cost.
Assessment Uniformity and
Accuracy
Our informed staff are knowledgeable of
regional and local markets, rather than just
one city.
Trust and Transparency
We are committed to establishing a culture of
trust and transparency by enforcing:
• Clear expectations for measurable success
• High level of assessment standards and
professional conduct
• Required IT security training
• A commitment by staff to the function of
valuing and classifying property for
Hennepin County
o Our staff has access to tools such as
Pictometry, Marshall & Swift, RecordEase,
GIS and licensed valuation publications.
o We use Open Book resources and options
including a 'regional' Open Book with multiple
locations and times.
o Our data is digitized and secure.
• We have direct access to legal counsel.
EIPIn
HENNEPIN COUNTY
ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
Our team consists of 50 plus staff that collectively has hundreds of years of service and experience in the
assessing profession. This does not include additional years of fee appraisal, construction, property
management and other real estate experience. In addition, all of our staff receive professional education and
continuing assessment training. We have 38 team members with assessment designations through the
Minnesota State Board of Assessors, 19 of which are Senior Accredited Minnesota Assessors, the highest
level of accreditation given by the State Board of Assessors.
Our staff:
• Includes experts specializing in homesteads, exemptions, Veteran's Exclusions, Open Space, Green
Acres, Local Board of Appeal and Equalization and tax court appeals
• Is qualified to appraise all property in Hennepin County
• Is specialized in dealing with executive homes, lakeshore and agricultural properties
• Has valuation modeling & statistical analysis experts
Has direct access to IT/technical experts, legal experts, real estate tax experts, project managers, trainers
and business analysts
t*ir.s1IEIiI:
Our team consists of well-networked, well educated staff who have connections and resources with
colleagues not only in the profession of assessing, but also with other county resources such as IT, project
management, training and education. In addition:
Many of our staff members are active in professional organizations, giving them better access to
education and training resources, networking and a larger influence in guiding related state wide policies.
o You can have confidence and trust in staff that undergo background checks, driver's license validations
and data security training.
o We engage our staff by offering fair compensation, good benefits, opportunities for growth and an inviting
culture.
e We ensure stability and continuity of staff through mentoring and knowledge transfer.
0 We do not use sub-contractors for appraisal staff.
Contract No. A165520
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as
the "COUNTY", and the CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, a political subdivision of the
State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "CITY";
WHEREAS, said CITY lies wholly within the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN and
constitutes a separate assessment district; and
WHEREAS, under such circumstances, the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 273.072 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 permit the County Assessor to
provide for the assessment of property; and
WHEREAS, said CITY desires the COUNTY to perform certain assessments
on behalf of said CITY; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY is willing to cooperate with said CITY by completing
the assessment in a proper manner;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained
herein, it is agreed as follows:
The COUNTY shall perform the 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 property
assessment for the CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER in accordance with property
assessment procedures and practices established and observed by the COUNTY, the
validity and reasonableness of which are hereby acknowledged and approved by the,
CITY. Any such practices and procedures may be changed from time to time, by the
COUNTY in its sole judgment, when good and efficient assessment procedures so
require. The property assessment by the COUNTY shall be composed of those
assessment services which are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part
hereof by this reference, provided that the time frames set forth therein shall be
considered to be approximate only.
2.All information, records, data, reports, etc. necessary to allow the
COUNTY to carry out its herein responsibilities shall be furnished to the COUNTY
without charge by the CITY, and the CITY agrees to cooperate in good faith with the
COUNTY in carrying out the work under this Agreement.
3.The CITY agrees to furnish, without charge, secured office space needed
by the COUNTY at appropriate places in the CITY's offices. The keys thereto shall be
provided to the COUNTY. Such office space shall be sufficient in size to accommodate
reasonably two (2) appraiser and any furniture placed therein. The office space shall be
available for the COUNTY's use at any and all times during typical business hours, and
during all such hours the COUNTY shall be provided with levels of heat, air conditioning
and ventilation as are appropriate for the seasons.
4.The CITY also agrees to provide appropriate desk and office furniture as
necessary, clerical and secretarial support necessary and reasonable for the carrying
out of the work herein, necessary office supplies and equipment, copying machines and
fax machines and their respective supplies, and telephone and internet service to the
COUNTY, all without charge to the COUNTY.
5.It shall be the responsibility of the CITY to have available at the CITY's
offices a person who has the knowledge and skill to be able to answer routine questions
pertaining to homesteads and property assessment matters and to receive, evaluate
and organize homestead applications. The CITY shall store all homestead applications
and homestead data in secure storage meeting the requirements set by the COUNTY.
(2)
It shall also be the responsibility of the CITY to promptly refer any homestead
application which needs investigation to the COUNTY.
6.In accordance with Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the
County Commissioners' policies against discrimination, no person shall be excluded
from full employment rights or participation in or the benefits of any program, service or
activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status,
sexual orientation, public assistance status, ex-offender status or national origin; and no
person who is protected by applicable Federal or State laws, rules and regulations
against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination.
7.It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be
construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of joint venturers or
co-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting the CITY as the agent,
representative or employee of the COUNTY for any purpose or in any manner
whatsoever. Any and all personnel of CITY or other persons, while engaged in the
performance of any activity under this Agreement, shall have no contractual relationship
with the COUNTY and shall not be considered employees of the COUNTY and any and
all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of
Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and
all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of
employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of discrimination
against the CITY, its officers, agents, CITY or employees shall in no way be the
responsibility of the COUNTY, and CITY shall defend, indemnify and hold the COUNTY,
its officials, officers, agents, employees and duly authorized volunteers harmless from
any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent tribunal,
(3)
agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not require
nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the
COUNTY, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and
vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Re-employment Compensation, disability,
severance pay and retirement benefits.
8.CITY agrees that it will defend, indemnify and hold the COUNTY, its
elected officials, officers, agents, employees and duly authorized volunteers harmless
from any and all liability (statutory or otherwise) claims, suits, damages, judgments,
interest, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees, witness fees and
disbursements incurred in the defense thereof) resulting from or caused by the
negligent or intentional acts or omissions of the CITY, its officers, agents, contractors,
employees or duly authorized volunteers in the performance of the responsibilities
provided by this Agreement. The CITY's liability shall be governed by Minn. Stat.
Chapter 466 and other applicable law, rule-and regulation, including common law.
9.COUNTY agrees that it will defend, indemnify and hold the CITY, its
elected officials, officers, agents, employees and duly authorized volunteers harmless
from any and all liability (statutory or otherwise) claims, suits, damages, judgments,
interest, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees, witness fees and
disbursements incurred in the defense thereof) resulting from or caused by the
negligent or intentional acts or omissions of the COUNTY, its officers, agents,
contractors, employees or duly authorized volunteers in the performance of the
responsibilities provided by this Agreement. The COUNTY's liability shall be governed
by Minn. Stat. Chapter 466 and other applicable law, rule and regulation, including
common law.
(4)
10.The COUNTY shall endeavor to perform all services called for herein in an
efficient manner. The sole and exclusive remedy for any breach of this Agreement by
the COUNTY and for COUNTY's liability of any kind whatsoever, including but not
limited to liability arising out of, resulting from or in any manner related to contract, tort
warranty, statute or otherwise, shall be limited to correcting diligently any deficiency in
said services as is reasonably possible under the pertinent circumstances.
11.Neither party hereto shall be deemed to be in default of any provision of
this Agreement, or for delay or failure in performance, resulting from causes beyond the
reasonable control of such party, which causes shall include, but are not limited to, acts
of God, labor disputes, acts of civil or military authority, fire, civil disturbance, changes in
laws, ordinances or regulations which materially affect the provisions hereof, or any
other causes beyond the parties' reasonable control.
12. This Agreement shall commence on August 1, 2016, and shall terminate
on July 31, 2020. Either party may initiate an extension of this Agreement for a term of
four (4) years by giving the other written notice of its intent to so extend prior to March 1,
2020. If the party who receives said notice of intent to extend gives written notice to the
other party of its desire not to extend prior to, April 15, 2020 this Agreement shall
terminate on July 31, 2020.
Nothing herein shall preclude the parties, prior to the end of this Agreement, from
agreeing to extend this contract for a term of four (4) years. Any extended term hereof shall be
on the same terms and conditions set forth herein and shall commence on August 1, 2020.
Either party may terminate this Agreement for "just cause" as determined by the Commissioner
of Revenue after hearing for such a determination is held by the Commissioner of Revenue
and which has been attended by representatives of COUNTY and CITY or which said
(5)
representatives had a reasonable opportunity to attend, provided that after such determination,
any party desiring to cancel this Agreement may do so by giving the other party no less
than 120 days' written notice. If the CITY should cancel this Agreement, as above provided,
before the completion of the then current property assessment by the COUNTY, the CITY
agrees to defend and hold the COUNTY, its officials, officers, agents, employees and duly
authorized volunteers harmless from any liability that might ensue as a result of the non-
completion of a property tax assessment.
For the purpose of this Agreement, the term "just cause" shall mean the failure of
any party hereto reasonably to perform a material responsibility arising hereunder.
13.A. In consideration of said assessment services, the CITY agrees to pay the
COUNTY the sum of Two Hundred Five Thousand Dollars ($205,000) for each
assessment, provided that any payment for the current year's assessment may be
increased or decreased by that amount which exceeds or is less than the COUNTY's
estimated cost of printing/mailing value notices, Chapter 278 tax court petitions,
appraising new construction and new parcels for the current year's assessment. The
amount of any increase or decrease shall be specified in the billing for the current year's
assessment.
1313. Regarding each assessment, in addition to being subject to adjustment in
the above manner, said assessment cost of $205,000 may also be increased by the
COUNTY if:
(1) The COUNTY determines that any cost to the COUNTY in carrying
out any aspect of this Agreement has increased, including but not
limited to the following types of costs: new construction and new
parcel appraisals, mileage, printing!maili ng value notices,
postage, supplies, labor (including fringe benefits) and other
types of costs, whether similar or dissimilar; and/or
(6)
2) The COUNTY reasonably determines that other costs should be
included in the costs of assessment work.
If the COUNTY desires to increase the assessment cost pursuant to this paragraph
13(B), it shall give written notice thereof by June 15 of any year and such increase shall
apply to the assessment for the calendar year next following the current calendar year. Any
such notification shall specifically set forth the amount of any new construction and new
parcel appraisal charges. Notwithstanding any provisions herein to the contrary, if any such
increase, exclusive of any charge for the estimated costs of new construction and new parcel
appraisals, exceeds seven and one half percent (7.5%) of the amount charged for the
assessment for the then current calendar year, exclusive of any charge for the estimated
costs of new construction and new parcel appraisals, the CITY may cancel this Agreement
by giving to the COUNTY written notice thereof, provided that said cancellation notice must
be received by the COUNTY not later than July 24 of the then current calendar year and said
cancellation shall be effective no earlier than five (5) days after the receipt of said notice by
the COUNTY and not later than July 31 of said next calendar year. Supportive records of the
cost increase will be open to inspection by the CITY at such times as are mutually agreed
upon by the COUNTY and CITY.
Failure of the COUNTY to give the CITY a price-change notice by June 15 shall
not preclude the COUNTY from giving CITY such notice after said date but prior to
September 1 of any year, provided that if such price increase exceeds said ten (10%) -
all as above set forth - the CITY may cancel this Agreement if the COUNTY receives
notice thereof not later than thirty-nine (39) days from the date of receipt by the CITY of
any said late price-change notice, provided further that any such cancellation shall be
effective not earlier than five (5) days after COUNTY's receipt of said cancellation notice
and not later than forty-six (46) days after the CITY's receipt of any said price-increase
(7)
notice.
Payment for each assessment shall be made in the following manner:
Approximately one-half (1/2) of the cost of an assessment (the amount payable
being set forth in a bill sent by the COUNTY to the CITY) shall be paid by the CITY no
later than the fifteenth (1 5 th ) day of the December which precedes the pertinent
assessment year; and the remaining portion of said cost (the amount payable being set
forth in a bill sent by the COUNTY to the CITY) shall be paid by the CITY no later than
July 15 of the pertinent year.
The COUNTY may bill the CITY after the aforesaid dates and in each such case,
the CITY shall pay such bill within thirty (30) days after receipt thereof.
14. Any notice or demand, which may or must be given or made by a party
hereto, under the terms of this Agreement or any statute or ordinance, shall be in writing
and shall be sent registered or certified mail to the other party addressed as follows:
TO CITY: Mayor, City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
TO COUNTY: Hennepin County Administrator
2300A Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487
copies to: County Assessor
Hennepin County
2103A Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487
copies to: Assistant County Assessor
Hennepin County
2103A Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487
(8)
Any party may designate a different addressee or address at any time by giving
written notice thereof as above provided. Any notice, if mailed, properly addressed,
postage prepaid, registered or certified mail, shall be deemed dispatched on the
registered date or that stamped on the certified mail receipt and shall be deemed
received within the second business day thereafter or when it is actually received,
whichever is sooner. Any notice delivered by hand shall be deemed received upon
actual delivery.
15. It is expressly understood that the obligations of the CITY under
Paragraphs 7, 8, 12, and 13 hereof and the obligations of the CITY which, by their sense
and context, are intended to survive the performance thereof by the CITY, shall so survive
the completion of performance, termination or cancellation of this Agreement.
THIS PORTION OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
(9)
Contract No. A165520
EXHIBIT t
['I I IL.] J:] SI.k1 'd 1*1 II ]
During the contract term, the County shall:
I. Physically inspect and revalue 20% of the real property, as required bylaw.
2.Physically inspect and value all new construction, additions andrenovation.
3.Adjust estimated market values on those properties not physicallyinspected as deemed necessary per sales ratio analysis.
A. Prepare the initial assessment roll.
5.Print and mail valuation notices.
6.Respond to taxpayers regarding assessment or appraisal problems or
inquiries.
7.Conduct valuation reviews prior to Board of Review or Open BookMeetings, as determined by the City - approximate dates: March through
May 15.
8.Attend Board of Review or conduct Open Book Meeting. Prepare all
necessary review appraisals. Approximate dates: April 1 - May 31.
9.Maintain an updated property file - current values, classification data and
characteristic data.
10.Prepare divisions and combinations as required.
11.Administer the abatement process pursuant to Minn. Stat. §375.192.
12.Prepare appraisals; defend and/or negotiate all Tax Court cases.
13. Provide all computer hardware and software applications necessary to
complete contracted services.
(11)
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A FOUR YEAR CONTRACT WITH
HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR ASSESSING SERVICES
WHEREAS, the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.072 and
Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 permit the County Assessor to provide for the assessment of
property; and
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2016-103, A
Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Four Year Contract with Hennepin county for Assessing
Services (2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020); and
WHEREAS, Hennepin Contract No. A165520, an agreement between the city of
Brooklyn Center and Hennepin County to provide assessing services for the 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020
property assessments; defined the roles and responsibilities of the City and Hennepin County; and
established an estimated budget of $205,000 for the annual cost of assessment services plus costs of
printing and mailing of value notices and all Tax Court Costs; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has provided a contract to continue the roles and
responsibilities of the City of Brooklyn Center and Hennepin County for assessing services for the 2021,
2022, 2023, and 2024 property assessments with an estimated annual budget of $248,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota that Hennepin Contract No. A2010403, an agreement between the City of Brooklyn
Center and Hennepin County to provide assessing services for the 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 property
assessments, is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute.
November 23, 2020
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.
Contract No. A2010403
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as
the "COUNTY", and the CITY OF “BROOKLYN CENTER”, a political subdivision of the
State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "CITY";
WHEREAS, said CITY lies wholly within the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN and
constitutes a separate assessment district; and
WHEREAS, under such circumstances, the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 273.072 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 permit the County Assessor to
provide for the assessment of property; and
WHEREAS, said CITY desires the COUNTY to perform certain assessments
on behalf of said CITY; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY is willing to cooperate with said CITY by completing
the assessment in a proper manner;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained
herein, it is agreed as follows:
1. The COUNTY shall perform the 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 property
assessment for the CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER in accordance with property
assessment procedures and practices established and observed by the COUNTY, the
validity and reasonableness of which are hereby acknowledged and approved by the
CITY. Any such practices and procedures may be changed from time to time, by the
COUNTY in its sole judgment, when good and efficient assessment procedures so
require. The property assessment by the COUNTY shall be composed of those
(2)
assessment services which are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part
hereof by this reference, provided that the time frames set forth therein shall be
considered to be approximate only.
2. All information, records, data, reports, etc. necessary to allow the
COUNTY to carry out its herein responsibilities shall be furnished to the COUNTY
without charge by the CITY, and the CITY agrees to cooperate in good faith with the
COUNTY in carrying out the work under this Agreement.
3. The CITY agrees to furnish, without charge, secured office space needed
by the COUNTY at appropriate places in the CITY's offices. The keys thereto shall be
provided to the COUNTY. Such office space shall be sufficient in size to accommodate
reasonably two (2) appraiser and any furniture placed therein. The office space shall be
available for the COUNTY's use at any and all times during typical business hours, and
during all such hours the COUNTY shall be provided with levels of heat, air conditioning
and ventilation as are appropriate for the seasons.
4. The CITY also agrees to provide appropriate desk and office furniture as
necessary copying machines and fax machines and their respective supplies, and
telephone and internet service to the COUNTY, all without charge to the COUNTY.
5. It shall be the responsibility of the CITY to have available at the CITY's
offices, or via telephone or teleconference, a person who has the knowledge and skill to
be able to answer routine questions pertaining to homesteads and property assessment
matters.
6. In accordance with Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the
County Commissioners' policies against discrimination, no person shall be excluded
from full employment rights or participation in or the benefits of any program, service or
(3)
activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status,
sexual orientation, public assistance status, ex-offender status or national origin; and no
person who is protected by applicable Federal or State laws, rules and regulations
against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination.
7. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be
construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of joint venturers or
co-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting the CITY as the agent,
representative or employee of the COUNTY for any purpose or in any manner
whatsoever. Any and all personnel of CITY or other persons, while engaged in the
performance of any activity under this Agreement, shall have no contractual relationship
with the COUNTY and shall not be considered employees of the COUNTY and any and
all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of
Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and
all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of
employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of discrimination
against the CITY, its officers, agents, CITY or employees shall in no way be the
responsibility of the COUNTY, and CITY shall defend, indemnify and hold the COUNTY,
its officials, officers, agents, employees and duly authorized volunteers harmless from
any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent tribunal,
agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not require
nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the
COUNTY, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and
vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Re-employment Compensation, disability,
severance pay and retirement benefits.
(4)
8. CITY agrees that it will defend, indemnify and hold the COUNTY, its
elected officials, officers, agents, employees and duly authorized volunteers harmless
from any and all liability (statutory or otherwise) claims, suits, damages, judgments,
interest, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorney’s fees, witness fees and
disbursements incurred in the defense thereof) resulting from or caused by the
negligent or intentional acts or omissions of the CITY, its officers, agents, contractors,
employees or duly authorized volunteers in the performance of the responsibilities
provided by this Agreement. The CITY’s liability shall be governed by Minn. Stat.
Chapter 466 and other applicable law, rule and regulation, including common law.
9. COUNTY agrees that it will defend, indemnify and hold the CITY, its
elected officials, officers, agents, employees and duly authorized volunteers harmless
from any and all liability (statutory or otherwise) claims, suits, damages, judgments,
interest, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorney’s fees, witness fees and
disbursements incurred in the defense thereof) resulting from or caused by the
negligent or intentional acts or omissions of the COUNTY, its officers, agents,
contractors, employees or duly authorized volunteers in the performance of the
responsibilities provided by this Agreement. The COUNTY’s liability shall be governed
by Minn. Stat. Chapter 466 and other applicable law, rule and regulation, including
common law.
10. The COUNTY shall endeavor to perform all services called for herein in an
efficient manner. The sole and exclusive remedy for any breach of this Agreement by
the COUNTY and for COUNTY's liability of any kind whatsoever, including but not
limited to liability arising out of, resulting from or in any manner related to contract, tort,
(5)
warranty, statute or otherwise, shall be limited to correcting diligently any deficiency in
said services as is reasonably possible under the pertinent circumstances.
11. Neither party hereto shall be deemed to be in default of any provision of
this Agreement, or for delay or failure in performance, resulting from causes beyond the
reasonable control of such party, which causes shall include, but are not limited to, acts
of God, labor disputes, acts of civil or military authority, fire, civil disturbance, changes in
laws, ordinances or regulations which materially affect the provisions hereof, or any
other causes beyond the parties' reasonable control.
12. This Agreement shall commence on August 1, 2020 and shall terminate
on July 31, 2024. Either party may initiate an extension of this Agreement for a term of
four (4) years by giving the other written notice of its intent to so extend prior to March 1,
2024. If the party who receives said notice of intent to extend gives written notice to the
other party of its desire not to extend prior to, April 15, 2024 this Agreement shall
terminate on July 31, 2024.
Nothing herein shall preclude the parties, prior to the end of this Agreement, from
agreeing to extend this contract for a term of four (4) years. Any extended term hereof shall be
on the same terms and conditions set forth herein and shall commence on August 1, 2024.
Either party may terminate this Agreement: 1) immediately for "just cause", as defined herein,
or 2) for any reason, upon providing 120 days prior written notice to the other party. If the
CITY should cancel this Agreement, as above provided, before the completion of the then
current property assessment by the COUNTY, the CITY agrees to defend and hold the
COUNTY, its officials, officers, agents, employees and duly authorized volunteers harmless
from any liability that might ensue as a result of the non-completion of a property tax
assessment, to the extent the non-completion was not directly caused by a material breach of
(6)
this agreement by the County.
For the purpose of this Agreement, the term "just cause" shall mean the failure of
any party hereto reasonably to perform a material responsibility arising hereunder.
13.A. In consideration of said assessment services, the CITY agrees to pay the
COUNTY the sum of Two Hundred Forty Eight Thousand Dollars ($248,000) for each
assessment, provided that any payment for the current year’s assessment may be
increased or decreased by that amount which exceeds or is less than the COUNTY's
estimated cost of printing/mailing value notices, Chapter 278 tax court petitions,
processing all homestead applications, appraising new construction and new parcels for
the current year’s assessment. The amount of any increase or decrease shall be
specified in the billing for the current year’s assessment.
13.B. Regarding each assessment, in addition to being subject to adjustment in
the above manner, said assessment cost of $248,000 may also be increased by the
COUNTY if:
(1) The COUNTY determines that any cost to the COUNTY in carrying
out any aspect of this Agreement has increased, including but not
limited to the following types of costs: new construction and new
parcel appraisals, mileage, postage, supplies, labor (including
fringe benefits) and other types of costs, whether similar or
dissimilar; and/or
2) The COUNTY reasonably determines that other costs should be
included in the costs of assessment work.
If the COUNTY desires to increase the assessment cost pursuant to this paragraph
13(B), it shall give written notice thereof by June 15 of any year and such increase shall
apply to the assessment for the calendar year next following the current calendar year. Any
such notification shall specifically set forth the amount of any new construction and new
parcel appraisal charges. Notwithstanding any provisions herein to the contrary, if any such
(7)
increase, exclusive of any charge for the estimated costs of new construction and new parcel
appraisals, exceeds seven and one half percent (7.5%) of the amount charged for the
assessment for the then current calendar year, exclusive of any charge for the estimated
costs of new construction and new parcel appraisals, the CITY may cancel this Agreement
by giving to the COUNTY written notice thereof, provided that said cancellation notice must
be received by the COUNTY not later than July 24 of the then current calendar year and said
cancellation shall be effective no earlier than five (5) days after the receipt of said notice by
the COUNTY and not later than July 31 of said next calendar year. Supportive records of the
cost increase will be open to inspection by the CITY at such times as are mutually agreed
upon by the COUNTY and CITY.
Failure of the COUNTY to give the CITY a price-change notice by June 15 shall
not preclude the COUNTY from giving CITY such notice after said date but prior to
August 1 of any year, provided that if such price increase exceeds said seven and one
half percent (7.5%) - all as above set forth - the CITY may cancel this Agreement if the
COUNTY receives notice thereof not later than thirty-nine (39) days from the date of
receipt by the CITY of any said late price-change notice, provided further that any such
cancellation shall be effective not earlier than five (5) days after COUNTY's receipt of
said cancellation notice and not later than forty-six (46) days after the CITY's receipt of
any said price-increase notice.
Payment for each assessment shall be made in the following manner:
Approximately one-half (1/2) of the cost of an assessment (the amount payable
being set forth in a bill sent by the COUNTY to the CITY) shall be paid by the CITY no
later than the fifteenth (15th) day of the November which precedes the pertinent
assessment year; and the remaining portion of said cost (the amount payable being set
(8)
forth in a bill sent by the COUNTY to the CITY) shall be paid by the CITY no later than
July 15 of the pertinent year.
The COUNTY may bill the CITY after the aforesaid dates and in each such case,
the CITY shall pay such bill within thirty (30) days after receipt thereof.
14. Any notice or demand, which may or must be given or made by a party
hereto, under the terms of this Agreement or any statute or ordinance, shall be in writing
and shall be sent registered or certified mail to the other party addressed as follows:
TO CITY: City Manager
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
TO COUNTY: Hennepin County Administrator
2300A Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487
copies to: County Assessor
Hennepin County
2103A Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487
Any party may designate a different addressee or address at any time by giving
written notice thereof as above provided. Any notice, if mailed, properly addressed,
postage prepaid, registered or certified mail, shall be deemed dispatched on the
registered date or that stamped on the certified mail receipt and shall be deemed
received within the second business day thereafter or when it is actually received,
whichever is sooner. Any notice delivered by hand shall be deemed received upon
actual delivery.
15. It is expressly understood that the obligations of the respective parties under
Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13 hereof and the obligations of each party which, by their
sense and context, are intended to survive the performance thereof by the same party,
(9)
shall so survive the completion of performance, termination or cancellation of this
Agreement.
THIS PORTION OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
(10)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be
executed by its duly authorized officers and delivered on its behalf, this ______ day of
_____________, 2020.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Reviewed by County
Attorney’s Office: By:
Chair of the County Board
______________________
Date: _________________ And:
Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator
ATTEST:
Deputy/Clerk of the County Board
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
By:
Its
And:
Its
City organized under:
______ Statutory ______Option A ______ Option B ______Charter
(11)
Contract No. A2010403
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
During the contract term, the County shall:
1. Physically inspect and revalue 20% of the real property, as required by
law.
2. Physically inspect and value all new construction, additions and
renovation.
3. Adjust estimated market values on those properties not physically
inspected as deemed necessary per sales ratio analysis.
4. Prepare the initial assessment roll.
5. Print and mail valuation notices.
6. Respond to taxpayers regarding assessment or appraisal problems or
inquiries.
7. Conduct valuation reviews prior to Board of Review or Open Book
Meetings, as determined by the City – approximate dates: March through
May 15.
8. Attend Board of Review or conduct Open Book Meeting. Prepare all
necessary review appraisals. Approximate dates: April 1 – May 31.
9. Maintain an updated property file – current values, classification data and
characteristic data.
10. Prepare divisions and combinations as required.
11. Administer the abatement process pursuant to Minn. Stat. §375.192.
12. Prepare appraisals; defend and/or negotiate all Tax Court cases.
13. Provide all computer hardware and software applications necessary to
complete contracted services.
14. Process all homestead and special program applications.
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:11/23/2020
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:M ark Ebens teiner, F inance D irector
S U B J E C T:Res olu)on A ccep)ng Work Performed and A uthoriz ing F inal Payment, M unicipal L iquor
S tore #1 Construc)on
B ackground:
O n June 2 4 , 2019, the City Council aw ar ded Municipal Liquor S tore #1 C ons truc)on to B2 Builders L L C, of
Burns ville, Minnes ota for cons truc)on of the M unicipal L iquor S tore. B2 Builders L L C has succes s fully
completed the cons truc)on w ork and is reques )ng final payment for the project.
B udget I ssues:
The original contract amount w ith B2 Builders L L C for the project improvements w as $2,219,000. The C ity
Council authoriz ed change orders in the amount of $82,1 1 3 .65 which increased the contract amount to be
$2,301,113.65. T he total value of w ork cer)fied for final payment is $2 ,301,1 1 3 .65. The total pr oject cost
including con)ngencies /adminis tr a)on/engineer ing /legal is $3,496,980.27 and was completed 3.1 percent
under budget in the amount of $111,019.73. The aAached resolu)on provides a summary of the final
amended cos ts and funding s ources for the project.
S trategic Priories and Values:
S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip)on U pload D ate Type
M unicipal L iquor F inal Payment Resolu)on 11/17/2020 Resolu)on LeAer
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL
PAYMENT, MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE #1 CONSTRUCTION
WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, B2 Builders LLC of Burnsville, Minnesota has completed the following
project in accordance with said contract:
Municipal Liquor Store #1 Construction at 1350A Shingle Creek Crossing,
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, that
1. Final payment shall be made on Municipal Liquor Store #1 Construction,
taking the contractor’s receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said
improvements under said contract shall be $2,301,113.65. Remaining
balance currently outstanding is $49,992.64.
2. The estimated project costs and revenues are hereby amended as
follows:
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
November 23, 2020
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.
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:11/23/2020
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager
T H R O U G H :M eg Beekman, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
BY:G inny M cI ntosh, City P lanner / Zoning A dminis trator
S U B J E C T:Res olu/on Ra/fying the A pproval of the P reliminary and F inal P lat for Brooklyn C enter
E DA F irs t A ddi/on and A uthorizing F inal P lat Recording
B ackground:
B R O O K LY N C E N T E R E DA F I RS T A D D I T I O N w ould re-plat approximately 3.1 acres of land that includes a
por/on of Registered L and S urvey No. 0 0 4 0 , H ennepin C ounty, Minnes ota, and lands contained within
A uditor ’s S ubdivis ion No. 216, H ennepin C ounty, Minnes ota. The s even proper/es encompas s ed in the re-
plat ar e under v arying ow ners hip by the C ity of Brooklyn C enter, Economic D ev elopment A uthority of
Brooklyn Center, and Robbins dale S chool D istrict No. 2 8 1 , and the plat reques t addres s es addi/onal needs
to dedicate certain right-of-way.
These reques ts w ere ini/ally dis cus s ed under P lanning Commission A pplica/on No. 2019-016 and aros e
from infrastructure improvements that took place under the P has e I Brooklyn Boulevard reconstruc/on
and moderniza/on pr oject, which res ulted in the re-alignment of the Brooklyn B oulev ar d F rontage Road in
the vicinity of 55th Avenue North to reduce confus ion, conges /on, and allow for improv ed s tacking
dis tances for motorists eastbound on 55th Avenue North.
City C ouncil approved the preliminary and final plat bas ed upon cer tain approv al condi/ons on November
25, 2019 under C ity C ouncil Resolu/on No. 2019-167.
I n an/cipa/on of the realignment and re-plat, City C ouncil adopted Resolu/on N o. 2018-25 on January 22,
2018, w hich author iz ed acquis i/on of a 0 .03 acre s liver parcel (P I D : 03-118-21-42-0024). This parcel w as
formally acquired in M ay 2 0 1 8 ; how ever, the City AGorney recommended the C ity conduct a “proceeding
s ubs equent” process, w hich is a s pecial form of quiet /tle ac/on for regis tering pr oper ty that would allow
the Regis trar of Titles to cancel the old cer/ficate and is s ue a new one in fav or of the City. A lthough the
original intent w as to record the final plat per Chapter 15 (P lang) requirements , this pr oces s took
s ubs tan/ally more /me than was originally an/cipated.
The C ity of Brookly n C enter (“the A pplicant ”) has no plans to alter the approved preliminary and final plats
for B R O O K LY N C E N T E R E DA F I RS T A D D I T I O N; how ever, as Chapter 15 (P lang) of the C ity Code of
O rdinances r equir es final plats to be r ecor ded w ithin 30 days from the date of C ity Council approval, the
City AGorney has pr ev ious ly recommended that a res olu/on be prepared to reflect the intent to record the
final plat w ith the C ounty.
S hould City Council approve the r es olu/on ra/fying the approv al of the pr eliminar y and final plat and
authoriz a/on to record the final plat, the C ity intends to br ing forward a reques t to conv ey s aid 0.0 3 acre
s liver parcel to the Economic D evelopment A uthority of B rook lyn Center prior to recording the final plat
w ith the C ounty.
Copies of the Report for P lanning C ommis s ion A pplica/on N o. 2019-016, and C ity Council Res olu/on Nos .
2018-25 and 2 0 1 9 -1 6 7 hav e been included as r eference, along w ith a copy of the draK resolu/on ra/fying
the preliminary and final plat approv als for B R O O K LY N C E N T E R E DA F I RS T A D D I T I O N and authoriza/on
for final plat recording.
B udget I ssues:
None to cons ider at this /me.
S trategic Priories and Values:
Enhanced Community I mage, Targeted Redevelopment, Key Transporta/on I nvestments
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip/on U pload D ate Type
P C S taff Report and Exhibits - Brooklyn Center E DA F irst
A ddi/on 11/17/2020 Backup M aterial
C ity C ouncil Resolu/on No. 2018-25 (A uthorizing A cquis i/on
of a Tax Forfeited Parcel as Part of the Brooklyn Boulevard
C orridor P roject P hase I )
11/17/2020 Backup M aterial
C ity C ouncil Resolu/on No. 2019-167 (D isposi/on of P lanning
C ommis s ion A pplica/on No. 2019-016 for A pproval of
P reliminary and F inal P lat of Brooklyn Center E DA F irst
A ddi/on and D edica/on of C ertain Right-of-Way)
11/17/2020 Backup M aterial
Res olu/on - Ra/fying P reliminary and F inal P lat for B R O O K LY N
C E N T E R E DA F I RS T A D D I T I O N and A uthoriz ing F inal P lat
Recording
11/17/2020 Resolu/on LeGer
________________
App. No. 2019-016
PC 11/14/2019
Page 1
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: November 14, 2019
Application No. 2019-016
Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center
Location: Vicinity of 55th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard
(Affected PIDs: 03-118-21-44-0011, 03-118-21-44-0010, 03-118-21-44-0009, 03-
118-21-44-0005, 03-118 21-44-0004, 03-118-21-44-0003, and 03-118-21-42-
0024)
Request: Preliminary/Final Plat of Brooklyn Center EDA First Addition
INTRODUCTION
The City of Brooklyn Center (“the Applicant”) is requesting review and consideration of preliminary and
final plat approval for a re-plat of an assemblage of lands (“the Subject Property”) that comprise part of
Auditor’s Subdivision No. 216, and a sliver of land that is part of Registered Land Survey No. 0040,
Hennepin County, Minnesota. These properties are commonly addressed as: 5401, 5407, 5415, 5455,
and 5459 Brooklyn Boulevard. The two remaining properties do not currently possess addresses.
This request is associated with the City’s Brooklyn Boulevard Phase I project, which resulted in the re-
alignment of the Brooklyn Boulevard frontage road in order to reduce confusion, congestion, and improve
vehicle stacking for motorists eastbound on 55th Avenue North. Previously, the alignment of the road only
allowed for the stacking of approximately two vehicles before blocking the Brooklyn Boulevard Frontage
Road from cross traffic. The new alignment, which was constructed this past year, is intended to allow for
additional stacking, which is important due to this area serving as the sole access point to Northport
Elementary as well as the main access to a number of residential, multi-residential, and office properties.
Map 1. Existing Parcels and Former Road Alignment with Overlay of New Road Alignment
• Application Filed: 10/15/2019
• Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 12/14/2019
• Extension Declared: N/A
• Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A
________________
App. No. 2019-016
PC 11/14/2019
Page 2
Public Works Director Doran Cote provided an overview of the Brooklyn Boulevard
Reconstruction/Modernization project in an email dated October 14, 2019 (Exhibit A). The land
contemplated as part of the request for a re-plat includes property previously acquired by the Economic
Development Authority of Brooklyn Center and City of Brooklyn Center for the anticipated alterations to
the Brooklyn Boulevard Frontage Road, as well as land owned by Robbinsdale School District No. 281.
The intent at this time would be to convey the north portion (0.49 acres) of the Brooklyn Center EDA
First Addition to the Robbinsdale School District. The south portion (1.13 acres) would be retained by
the Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center, with the intent to sell at a later date. The
identified 2040 future land use for this area is “Medium Density Residential (5.01-15 dwelling units per
acre).” The properties contemplated as part of the re-plat are currently zoned R1 (One Family
Residence), R2 (Two Family Residence), and C1 (Service/Office) District.
Requests for approval of the plat require that a public hearing be scheduled in accordance with Section
15-104 (Preliminary Plan) of the Platting Ordinance. An Affidavit of Publication confirmed publication of
the public hearing notice in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on October 31, 2019 (Exhibit B). Mail notices
were also sent to neighboring property owners.
REQUESTS
Preliminary/Final Plat Approval and Dedication of Certain Right-of-Way (ROW)
As part of the City Platting Ordinance requirements, preliminary and final plat approval is required to
formally re-plat the aforementioned properties located in the vicinity of 55th Avenue North and Brooklyn
Boulevard.
Per Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg, in his memorandum dated October 31, 2019 (Exhibit C), the
Applicant will ultimately need to provide a working copy of the preliminary plat for the Brooklyn EDA
First Addition that identifies all vacated easements, proposed easements, and proposed utilities, as well
as submit documentation, including legal descriptions, for any easements. Any proposed easements
would need to be dedicated as part of the preliminary and final plat process.
As a portion of the Brooklyn Boulevard Frontage Road was re-aligned as part of the Brooklyn Boulevard
Phase I reconstruction and modernization project, new City Right-of-Way will need to be dedicated as
part of the plat approval. Regarding the former alignment of the Frontage Road, there are no plans to
vacate that portion of City Right-of-Way as there is underground City infrastructure in existence.
Image 1. New Alignment of 55th Avenue North (Left) and Former Alignment of 55th Avenue North (Right)
________________
App. No. 2019-016
PC 11/14/2019
Page 3
Image 2. New Alignment of Brooklyn Boulevard Frontage Road (North of 55th Avenue North)
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
Staff recommends the following conditions be attached to any positive recommendation on the
approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2019-016 for Brooklyn Center EDA Addition:
1. Approval of the preliminary and final plats are contingent upon the addressing of comments by
Assistant City Engineer Hogg in his memorandum dated October 31, 2019.
2. Final plat and mylar shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Code of
Ordinances (Platting).
3. Any comments and/or requirements as provided by Hennepin County.
4. Any comments and/or requirements from the City Attorney’s office, and specifically regarding
an updated certified abstract of title.
5. The successful recording of said plat (mylar) with Hennepin County.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above-noted findings, staff recommends the Planning Commission recommends:
1. The Planning Commission recommends City Council approval of the requested preliminary and final
plat for BROOKLYN CENTER EDA FIRST ADDITION, subject to the Applicant complying with the
comments outlined in the Assistant City Engineer’s memorandum October 31, 2019, Chapter 15
of the City Code of Ordinances (Platting), any comments provided by Hennepin County, and the
successful recording of said plat with Hennepin County.
Attachments
Exhibit A- Planning Commission Application No. 2019-016 submittal documents.
Exhibit B- Affidavit of Publication, published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on October 31, 2019.
Exhibit C-Memorandum, prepared by Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg, dated October 31, 2019.
Exhibit A
From:Doran Cote
To:Ginny McIntosh
Subject:EDA Addition Narrative
Date:Monday, October 14, 2019 4:36:50 PM
The Brooklyn Boulevard reconstruction/modernization project will improve roadway safety, enhance
traffic operations, reduce access points to, and provide improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities for
a 1.3-mile segment of the corridor in Brooklyn Center between 49th Avenue and 59th Avenue. More
specifically, the project will enhance bicycle and pedestrian travel by adding a trail, improving
sidewalks, adding streetscaping and landscaping, and improving the functionality of intersections
with modified turn lanes. Several free right turn lanes will be reconfigured to improve sight lines.
Brooklyn Boulevard is an “A” Minor Arterial roadway, which serves as a reliever route for TH 100 and
serves as an important freight route for the northbound TH 100 to westbound I-94/694 movements.
The proposed project also provides a direct connection to the former Brookdale Mall site and
surrounding parcels, which is an identified job concentration center, as well as a manufacturing and
distribution center. It is also within the one-mile threshold for an educational institution. Existing
safety and geometric issues include the 51st Avenue and 55th Avenue intersections and insufficient
turn lane configurations at multiple other intersections. The project is located within a Racially
Concentrated Area of Poverty and will provide improvements for a range of mode choices to enable
low-income populations and people of color to access jobs. The project will improve corridor access
to Brooklyn Center Transit Center, a few blocks away from Brooklyn Boulevard, which provides
connections to 15 bus routes. The Twin Lakes Regional Trail crosses Brooklyn Boulevard with a
substandard trail crossing where the trail becomes a narrow sidewalk with insufficient ramps; the
project will install a crosswalk and widen the sidewalk to a trail.
The project will capitalize on recent and anticipated future investments within and adjacent to the
project corridor, including:
• Bus Rapid Transit Transitway improvements (Chicago-Fremont and C Line Arterial BRT lines
would run on Brooklyn Boulevard and terminate at Brooklyn Center Transit Center) would benefit
from improved multimodal connections and streetscaping.
• Brooklyn Blvd/TH 100 bridge redecking (construction completed Fall 2014), which is located
within the project area.
• The City of Minneapolis completed resurfacing of Osseo Road (CSAH 152) from 44th Ave to
49th Ave (southern project limits), which added a bike lane.
• Major redevelopment efforts in and around the former Brookdale Mall site (now Shingle
Creek Crossing).
• The project will also improve bus stop amenities, relocate problematic (mid-block) bus
stops, add streetscaping, a landscaped median, and gateway signage.
Specifically at the 55th Avenue intersection, the project will utilize previously purchased
properties near the Northport Elementary School to relocate the frontage road further to the west
to reduce confusion, congestion and improve stacking distances for eastbound motorists.
Doran M. Cote, P.E. | Public Works Director | City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway | Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199
www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org | 763.569.3328 | dcote@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us
BROOKLYN CENTER EDA FIRST ADDITION
855
8
5
5
855
855
855
8
5
5
855
860
860
860
8
6
0
8
6
0
860
860
860
8
6
0
860
860
860
860 860
860
860
8
6
0
MARKED LS 16679
1/2"X14" IRON MONUMENT
DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET
LOT 1
BLOCK 2
LOT 1
BLOCK 1
60030
SCALE IN FEET
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
301.86
2
5
7
.
5
9
37.43
39.21
N89°47'29"W
10.00
N00°09'52"E
1
5
1
.
2
1
S
8
9
°
4
7
'
2
9
"
E
N00°59'05"E
256.00
C
1
C
2
C3
C4
C5
S14°39'04"W
S19°12'35"WC1
S11°01'20"E
S32°17'16"E
S35°41'05"E
N77°19'16"E
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
CH. BEARINGCURVELENGTHRADIUSDELTACH. LENGTH
93.54
164.20
40.14
204.82
135.57
59.18
152.00
212.00
330.00
330.00
270.00
438.97
35°15'36"
44°22'38"
06°58'08"
35°33'44"
28°46'05"
07°43'27"
92.07
160.13
40.55
201.55
134.15
59.13
620.06
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
LOT 1
BLOCK 1
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
INSET "A"
NOT TO SCALE
SEE INSET "A"
1.11
33.82N07°32'16"W
C
6
RLS NO 619
AUDITORS
SUBDIVISION
NO. 216RLS NO.
40
RLS NO. 40
BEARING OF S89°47'29"E
RLS NO. 40 HAS AN ASSUMED
THE NORTH LINE OF TRACT F,
T
r
a
c
t
F 100.00
318.20
75.00 95.00 135.00
L
o
t
s
3
4
&
3
5
,
A
u
d
.
S
u
b
.
N
o
.
2
1
6
S
o
u
t
h
L
i
n
e
o
f
N
o
r
t
h
5
2
5
f
e
e
t
o
f
L
o
t
s
3
4
&
3
5
,
A
u
d
.
S
u
b
.
N
o
.
2
1
6
S
o
u
t
h
L
i
n
e
o
f
N
o
r
t
h
4
5
0
f
e
e
t
o
f
L
o
t
s
3
4
&
3
5
,
A
u
d
.
S
u
b
.
N
o
.
2
1
6
S
o
u
t
h
L
i
n
e
o
f
N
o
r
t
h
3
0
0
f
e
e
t
o
f
BROOKLYN
BOULEVARD
R
=
4
9
8
.
9
7
L
=
1
2
7
.
1
7
3
6
.
8
2
Me
a
.
3
5
.
6
8
D
e
s
c
.
2
5
6.
8
4
BALFANY'S NORTHPORT 1ST ADDN.
SE Corner of Lot 1, Block 3,
N
O
R
T
H
P
O
R
T
1
S
T
A
D
D
N.
Bl
o
c
k
3,
B
A
L
F
A
N
Y'
S
S
E'l
y
Li
n
e
of
L
ot
1,
N
E'l
y
E
xt
e
n
si
o
n
of t
h
e
R
=
4
3
8
.
9
7
L
=
1
9
6
.
6
4
L o t 3 5
L o t
3 4
Preliminary Plat
1
5
0
.
1
0
&
3
5
A
u
d
.
S
u
b
.
N
o
.
2
1
6
N
o
r
t
h
L
i
n
e
o
f
L
o
t
s
3
4
200.00
3
3
L
o
t
s
3
4
&
3
5
,
A
u
d
.
S
u
b
.
N
o
.
2
1
6
S
o
u
t
h
L
i
n
e
o
f
N
o
r
t
h
7
5
5
f
e
e
t
o
f
f
e
e
t
o
f
L
o
t
s
3
4
&
3
5
,
A
u
d
.
S
u
b
.
N
o
.
2
1
6
N
o
r
t
h
L
i
n
e
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
2
3
0
f
e
e
t
o
f
N
o
r
t
h
7
5
5
S
8
9
°
4
7
'
2
9
"
E
2
9
1
.
5
7
3
3
.
9
8
337.33N13°35'08"W
297.58N10°29'38"W
3
3
3
3
According to Aud. Sub. No. 216
Center Line of Brooklyn Boulevard
33.58
S89°47'29"E
10.18
N01°29'38"W
C
1
1
5
0
.
1
0
Utility Details.
See 2018 Brookly Blvd Construction Plans For
See Attached Draft Plat For Legal Description
Property Contains 134,925Sq. Ft. (3.10 Ac.)
R2-Two Family Residence
C1-Service/Office
R1-One Family Residence
Property Is Zoned:
New Hope, MN 55427
4148 Winnetka Avenue North
Robbinsdale School District No. 281
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
City of Brooklyn Center
Owners:
BROOKLYN CENTER EDA FIRST ADDITION
Sheet 1 of 2 Sheets
BR OOK L YN C E N TE R E DA F I R S T ADD I T I ON
M A R K E D L S 1 6 67 9
1 /2 "X 14 " I R O N M O N U M E N T
D E N O T E S I R O N M O N U M E N T S E T
L O T 1
B L O C K 2LOT 1
B L O C K 1
60030
S C A L E I N F E E T
BR OOK L YN B OU LE VA R D
301 .86
29
1
.
5
7
S8
9
°
4
7
'
2
9
"
E
3 7 .4 3
39 .21
N 8 9 °4 7 '2 9 "W
10 .00
N 00 °09 '52 "E
15
1
.
2
1
S8
9
°
4
7
'
2
9
"
E
N 00 °59 '05 "E
256 .00
C 1
C 2 C 3
C 4
C5
S 14 °3 9 '0 4 "W
S 19 °1 2 '3 5 "WC1
S 11 °0 1 '2 0 "E
S 32 °1 7 '1 6 "E
S 35 °4 1 '0 5 "E
N 77 °1 9 '1 6 "E
C 2
C 3
C 4
C 5
C 6
C H . B E A R I N GCURVELENGTHRADIUSDELTACH. L E NG T H
9 3 .5 4
1 64 .2 0
4 0 .1 4
2 04 .8 2
1 35 .5 7
5 9 .1 8
1 52 .0 0
2 12 .0 0
3 30 .0 0
3 30 .0 0
2 70 .0 0
4 38 .9 7
3 5 °1 5 '36 "
4 4 °2 2 '38 "
0 6 °5 8 '08 "
3 5 °3 3 '44 "
2 8 °4 6 '05 "
0 7 °4 3 '27 "
9 2 .0 7
1 60 .1 3
4 0 .5 5
2 01 .5 5
1 34 .1 5
5 9 .1 3
620 .06
3 3 7 .3 3N13°35'08 "W
297 .58N10°2 9 '3 8 "W
BR OOK L Y N B OU L E VA R D
L O T 1
B L O C K 1
BR OOK L YN B OU LE VA R D
I N S E T "A "
N O T T O S C A L E
S E E I N S E T "A "
1 .11
33 .82N07°3 2 '1 6 "W
C6
R L S NO 619
AUDI T O R S
S U B D I V I S I ON
NO. 216RLS NO.
40
R L S NO. 40
B E A R I N G O F S 89 °4 7 '2 9 "E
R L S N O . 4 0 H A S A N A S S U M E D T H E N O R T H L I N E O F T R A C T F ,
Tract F
100 .00
318 .20
75 .00 95 .00 135 .00
Lots 34
& 35
, Aud
. Sub. No. 21
6
Sou
th Line of North 755
fee
t of
Lots 34
& 35
,
Aud
.
Sub
.
No.
21
6
Sou
th Line of North 52
5
fee
t of
Lots 34 & 35
,
Aud.
Sub
.
No.
21
6
Sou
th Line of North 450 fee
t of
Lots 34 & 35, Aud.
Sub. No. 216
South Line of North 30
0 feet of
BR OOK L YN
B OU LE VA R D
R=49
8.97
L=127.17
36
.
8
2
M
e
a
.
35
.
6
8
D
e
s
c
.
25
6
.8
4
B A L F ANY 'S NO R T H P O R T 1 S T ADDN .S E C o r n e r o f L o t 1 , B l o c k 3 ,
NORTHPORT 1ST ADD
N
.
Block 3, BALFANY'S
SE'ly Line of Lot 1,
NE'ly Extensio
n
of the
R=43
8
.97
L=196
.64
L o t 3 5
L o t 3 4
S h ee t 2 o f 2 S h ee t s
& 35
, Aud. Sub. No. 216
North Line of Lots 34
200 .00
fee
t of
Lots 34
& 35
,
Aud
.
Sub
.
No.
21
6
North Line of Sou
th 23
0
fee
t of North 75
5
150 .00
33
33
25
7
.59
33
.
9
8
15
0
.
1
0
N10°29'38"W
33
.
5
8
S8
9
°
4
7
'
2
9
"
E
10.18
15
0
.
1
0
33
A cc o r d i n g t o A u d . S u b . D i v . 2 1 6
C e n t e r L i n e o f B r o ok l y n B o u l e v a r d
C 1
Exhibit B
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: October 31, 2019
TO: Ginny Mc Intosh, City Planner and Zoning Administor
FROM: Andrew Hogg. Assistant City Engineering
SUBJECT: Public Works – Preliminary and Final Plat Review for EDA PLAT
Public Works Department staff reviewed the preliminary plat and final plat submittals dated
September 9, 2019, for the proposed EDA PLAT and provide the following recommendations:
Preliminary and Final Plats dated September 9, 2019
Subject to final staff final plat approval, the referenced plans must be revised in accordance
with the following comments/revisions.
Preliminary Plat/Final
1. Need working copy of the preliminary plat to show all vacated easements, proposed
easements, existing and proposed utilities and provide all easement documents for the
City for review.
2. Legal descriptions and easement vacation documents must be obtained for all existing
easements. Existing public easements as determined by the City must be vacated, and
proposed easements must be dedicated as part of the preliminary and final platting
process. The formal vacation document must contain an easement vacation description
and depiction exhibit signed by a professional surveyor.
3. An updated certified abstract of title or registered property report must be provided to the
City Planner and City Attorney for review at the time of the preliminary plat application
(within 30 days of preliminary plat application). Additionally, this will need to stay
current and be updated through the approval process as required to maintain and be
current within 30 days of the release of final plat.
4.See attached plans with additional redlines
All aforementioned items, comments and recommendations are provided based on the
information submitted by the applicant at the time of this review. The preliminary plan (and final
plat must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the referenced plans,
unless modified by the staff recommended conditions above. Subsequent approval of the final
plat may require additional modifications based on the City Engineer and other public officials
having jurisdiction over approval of the final site plans.
Exhibit C
Member Dan Ryan introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-25
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF A TAX FORFEITED
PARCEL AS PART OF THE BROOKLYN BOULEVARD CORRIDOR PROJECT
PHASE I
WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized the project titled Brooklyn Boulevard
Corridor Project Phase I (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Project area includes a 1.4-mile segment of Brooklyn Boulevard
County Road 152) between 49th Avenue and Bass Lake Road (County Road 10); and
WHEREAS, the Project scope includes reconstruction and streetscape improvements
that will improve roadway and intersection safety, enhance traffic operations and provide improved
bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The Project will enhance bicycle and pedestrian travel by adding a
trail, improving sidewalks and transit stops, adding streetscaping and landscaping and improving the
functionality of intersections with modified turn lanes; and
WHEREAS, as part of the Project the City needs to cross an approximately 0.03 acre
tax forfeited parcel that is being managed by Hennepin County ("County") on behalf of the State of
Minnesota and that is legally described as follows ("Parcel"): and
Tract F, Registered Land Survey No. 40, Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that acquiring the Parcel from Hennepin County
is preferred to attempting to establish an easement over a portion of it as part of the Project; and
WHEREAS, as a tax forfeited property, under Minnesota Statutes, section 282.01,
subdivision la(b) the City may request that Hennepin County sell the Parcel to the City for market
value; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has determined the market value for the Parcel is
129.20; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to formally request Hennepin County sell the
Parcel to the City for market value.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The City Council hereby formally requests Hennepin County sell the Parcel to the
City for the identified market value of$ 129.20 to be used as part of the Project.
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-25
2. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to take such actions and execute
such documents as may be needed to accomplish the purpose of this Resolution.
January 22, 2018
Date Mayor
ATTEST: row 6k/424
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
April Graves
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Tim Willson, Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Dan Ryan
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member Ryan introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-167
RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2019-016 SUBMITTED BY
THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR THE BROOKLYN CENTER EDA
FIRST ADDITION AND DEDICATION OF CERTAIN RIGHT-OF-WAY
LOCATED IN VICINITY OF 55TH AVENUE NORTH AND BROOKLYN
BOULEVARD FRONTAGE ROAD)
WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2019-016 was submitted by
the City of Brooklyn Center, requesting preliminary and final plat approval to re -plat seven
properties with varying ownership by the City of Brooklyn Center, Economic Development
Authority of Brooklyn Center, and Robbinsdale School District No. 281, and the dedication of
certain right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the proposed re -plat would encompass approximately 134,925 square
feet or 3.1 acres of land that includes a portion of Registered Land Survey No. 0040, Hennepin
County, Minnesota; and lands contained within Auditor's Subdivision No. 216, Hennepin County,
Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, these requests arose from infrastructure improvements that took place
under the Phase I Brooklyn Boulevard reconstruction and modernization project, which resulted in
the re -alignment of Brooklyn Boulevard Frontage Road in the vicinity of 55th Avenue North to
reduce confusion, congestion, and allow for improved stacking distances for motorists eastbound
on 55th Avenue North; and
WHEREAS, the re -aligned Brooklyn Boulevard Frontage Road will require
dedication of new City right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the existing City right-of-way for the former alignment of the
Brooklyn Boulevard Frontage Road will remain in place and not be vacated due to the existence of
City infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2019, the Planning Commission of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota held a duly called public hearing, whereby this item was given due
consideration, a staff report was presented, and a public hearing was opened to allow for public
testimony regarding the plat and right-of-way dedication requests for the BROOKLYN CENTER
EDA FIRST ADDITION, which were received and noted for the record; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined during its review of the plat,
right-of-way dedication, and materials submitted with Planning Commission Application No.
2019-016, that said plat and right-of-way dedication are in general conformance with the City of
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-167
Brooklyn Center's City Code of Ordinances, and specifically Chapter 15 — Platting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota does hereby recommend that Planning Commission Application No.
2019-016, as submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center, and requesting preliminary and final plat
approval for the BROOKLYN CENTER EDA FIRST ADDITION and dedication of certain right-
of-way, may be approved based upon the following conditions:
1. Address the comments by Assistant City Engineer Hogg in his memorandum dated
October 31, 2019;
2. Final plat and associated mylar shall be subject to and must comply with the provisions
of Chapter 15 of the City Code of Ordinances (Platting);
3. Address any comments and/or requirements as provided by Hennepin County;
4. Address any comments and/or requirements from the City Attorney's office, and
specifically regarding an updated certified abstract of title for the affected properties; and
5. The successful recording of said plat (imylar) with Hennepin County.
November 25 2019
Date
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Lawrence -Anderson
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Butler, Elliott, Graves, Lawrence -Anderson, Ryan
and the following voted against the same: None
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION RATIFYING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL
PLAT FOR BROOKLYN CENTER EDA FIRST ADDITION AND AUTHORIZING
FINAL PLAT RECORDING
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center (“the Applicant”) submitted an application for
approval of a plat to be titled BROOKLYN CENTER EDA FIRST ADDITION, which would re-
plat approximately 3.1 acres of land that includes a portion of Registered Land Survey No. 0040,
Hennepin County, Minnesota; and lands contained within Auditor’s Subdivision No. 216,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, and under varying ownership by the City of Brooklyn Center,
Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center, and Robbinsdale School District No.
281, as well as the dedication of certain right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, these requests arose from infrastructure improvements that took place under
the Phase I Brooklyn Boulevard reconstruction and modernization project, which resulted in the
re-alignment of the Brooklyn Boulevard Frontage Road in the vicinity of 55th Avenue North to
reduce confusion, congestion, and allow for improved stacking distances for motorists eastbound
on 55th Avenue North; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard this matter under Planning Commission
Application No. 2019-016 on November 14, 2019 and, after the public hearing, acted to forward
the application to the City Council with a recommendation that it approve the preliminary and
final plat for BROOKLYN CENTER EDA FIRST ADDITION; and
WHEREAS, on November 25, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019-167
to approve the preliminary and final plat with certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, Section 15-105.A.4 of the City Code of the City of Brooklyn Center
indicates that a final plat must be recorded with the County within 30 days from the date of
approval or the approval of the final plat shall be considered void; and
WHEREAS, the recording of BROOKLYN CENTER EDA FIRST ADDITION was
delayed as the City of Brooklyn Center worked through the acquisition of a 0.03 acre tax
forfeited parcel and quiet title action to allow the Registrar of Titles to cancel the old certificate
in favor of a new one; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determines that requiring the Applicant to go through the
entire plat approval process when there have been no changes to the approved plat is not in the
public interest and is willing to ratify its earlier approval to allow the plat to be recorded without
further process.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota that the approval of the preliminary and final plat of BROOKLYN CENTER
EDA FIRST ADDITION is hereby ratified, and authorization to record the final plat may occur
subject to the following conditions:
1. The conditions established in the original approvals as outlined under City Council
Resolution No. 2019-167 remain in effect;
2. Prior to recording, the Applicant shall provide the City updated evidence of title
satisfactory to the City Attorney and City Planner.
November 23, 2020
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.
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:11/23/2020
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:Todd Berg, F ire Chief
S U B J E C T:Res olu*on Expressing A pprecia*on of the D ona*on of a G rill from M ills F leet Farm to the
Brooklyn C enter F ire D epartment
B ackground:
The marke*ng dir ector of the B rook lyn Park F leet Farm s tore reached out to area community fire
departments to donate a Weber smoker grill. They had four of them le4 over and the v endor wanted them
donated or des tr oyed and didn’t w ant them back. F leet Farm decided to donate them to area fire
departments in their apprecia*on of everything they do for our communi*es .
B udget I ssues:
None
S trategic Priories and Values:
S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip*on U pload D ate Type
Res olu*on Expressing A pprecia*on for D ona*on 11/17/2020 Resolu*on Le:er
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATION OF A
GRILL TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER FIRE DEPARTMENT.
WHEREAS, Mills Fleet Farm has presented to the Brooklyn Center Fire
Department a grill, and
WHEREAS, the grill will be used for on duty firefighters at the fire station in
appreciation of community first responders, and
WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of these donations, and commends
Mills Fleet Farm for its civic efforts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota:
1. Acknowledges the donations with gratitude.
November 23, 2020
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.
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:11/23/2020
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:M ark Ebens teiner, F inance D irector
S U B J E C T:A n O rdinance A mending O rdinance No. 2018-08 Regarding C ouncil S alaries for 2021-
2022
B ackground:
Every tw o y ears the F inancial C ommis s ion is required by the City C ouncil Code of Policies to review the
s alaries for the M ayor and City C ouncil and recommend any changes that may s eem appropriate. The
F inancial Commission has reviewed the s alar ies in comparis on to a specified group of comparison ci6 es as
outlined by policy. The data on comparison with those ci6es for the years 2016 through 2020 is a8ached.
The F inancial C ommis s ion met on M onday, Nov ember 16, 2020 to review the a8ached informa6 on and
make their r ecommenda6 on. Following a dis cus s ion the C ommis s ion unanimous ly recommended that the
Mayor and City C ouncil s alaries increas e by two percent for 2020 and 2021. The C ommis s ion cited that the
tw o percent incr eas es w er e consistent with recent staff w age adj us tments . The Commission als o sugges ted
an increas e would show apprecia6on to the C ity C ouncil for the 6me spent a8ending mee6ngs and their
belief that the City has func6oned well over the past two years.
A ccording to M innes ota S tatutes 415.11, s uch or dinance w ill be in effect for 1 2 months a=er w hich the
s alary r ev er ts to the previous ly des ignated amount. I n order to incr eas e salar ies for 2021 and 2022 the
Council mus t adopt a new or dinance. The a8ached ordinance propos al calls for a public hearing to be held
on Monday, D ecember 14, 2020 on a new ordinance es tablishing 2021 and 2022 salaries.
B udget I ssues:
Under the recommended proposal, the wage adjustments for the M ayor and C ity Council will increase in
total by $1 ,042 for 2021 and an addi6 onal $1,0 6 3 for 2 0 2 2 . I f approv ed, thes e amounts will be
incorporated in the 2021 and 2022 budgets .
S trategic Priories and Values:
S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip6on U pload D ate Type
C ouncil Wage Comparis on 11/17/2020 Backup M aterial
M N S tatute 415.11 11/17/2020 Backup M aterial
C ouncil Wage Considera6on 11/17/2020 Backup M aterial
A N O R D I N A N C E A M E N D I N G O R D I N A N C E N O. 2018-08
R E G A R D I N G C O U N C I L S A L A R I E S F O R 2021-2022 11/17/2020 Backup M aterial
City of Brooklyn Center
Comparative Mayor and Council Wages
2010 Census
City Population Mayor Council Mayor Council Mayor Council Mayor Council Mayor Council
Maplewood 38,018 13,618$ 11,986$ 13,479$ 11,864$ 13,958$ 12,286$ 13,958$ 12,286$ 13,958$ 12,286$
Richfield 35,228 10,379 8,070 11,350 8,809 12,012 9,323 12,012 9,323 12,372 9,603
Roseville 33,660 9,300 7,020 9,300 7,020 9,300 7,020 9,300 7,020 9,300 7,020
Brooklyn Center 30,104 11,846 9,070 12,083 9,251 12,325 9,436 12,572 9,625 12,823 9,817
Fridley 27,208 10,689 8,270 10,689 8,779 10,689 8,779 10,689 8,779 10,689 8,779
Shoreview 25,043 9,348 6,936 9,540 7,080 9,540 7,080 9,828 7,296 9,828 7,296
White Bear Lake 23,797 9,600 7,500 9,600 7,500 9,600 7,500 9,600 7,500 9,600 7,500
Crystal 22,151 10,620 8,170 10,620 8,170 10,620 8,170 10,885 8,374 10,885 8,374
Golden Valley 20,371 12,207 9,136 12,207 9,136 12,825 9,598 12,825 9,598 13,530 10,126
New Hope 20,339 12,037 8,791 12,338 9,011 12,646 9,236 13,025 9,513 13,416 9,798
Average 27,592 10,964$ 8,495$ 11,121$ 8,662$ 11,352$ 8,843$ 11,469$ 8,931$ 11,640$ 9,060$
Median 26,126 10,655$ 8,220$ 11,019$ 8,794$ 11,351$ 9,008$ 11,449$ 9,051$ 11,629$ 9,191$
Brooklyn Center as a % of:
Average 109% 108% 107% 109% 107% 109% 107% 110% 108% 110% 108%
Median 115% 111% 110% 110% 105% 109% 105% 110% 106% 110% 107%
Notes:
Golden Valley: Pays per diem of $50 per extra meeting, which is capped at a maximum of $150 per month.
Also provides city-owned tablet for Mayor/Council member use, which eliminated paper packets.
New Hope Members also receive $25 per EDA meeting and have a city issued iPad with data plan
Maplewood:Members are provided a city iPad if needed.
Fridley:Members are provided a City issued laptop.
Members are eligible for health insurance, with the same contributions as full-time employees.
Council wage is the blended rate of: At Large ($8,779) and Council ($7,761).
Crystal:Members are provided a technology allowance, which will not exceed $250 annually.
2019 20202017 20182016
VIII.a - Council Wage Comparison 11/17/2020
415.11 SECOND TO FOURTH CLASS CITIES; GOVERNING BODY SALARIES.
Subdivision 1.Set by ordinance.Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or special law, charter,
or ordinance, the governing body of any statutory or home rule charter city of the second, third or fourth
class may by ordinance fix their own salaries as members of such governing body, and the salary of the
chief elected executive officer of such city, in such amount as they deem reasonable.
Subd. 2.After next election.No change in salary shall take effect until after the next succeeding
municipal election.
Subd. 3.Temporary reductions.Notwithstanding subdivision 2 or a charter provision to the contrary,
the governing body may enact an ordinance to take effect before the next succeeding municipal election that
reduces the salaries of the members of the governing body. The ordinance shall be in effect for 12 months,
unless another period of time is specified in the ordinance, after which the salary of the members reverts to
the salary in effect immediately before the ordinance was enacted.
History: Ex1967 c 42 s 1,2; 1976 c 44 s 34; 2009 c 152 s 17
Official Publication of the State of Minnesota
Revisor of Statutes
415.11MINNESOTA STATUTES 20201
Current 1% 2% 3% 1% 2% 3%
Compensation Increase 2021 Increase 2021 Increase 2021 Increase 2022 Increase 2022 Increase 2022
Mayor 12,823$ 12,951$ 13,079$ 13,208$ 13,081$ 13,341$ 13,604$
Council Member 9,817$ 9,915$ 10,013$ 10,112$ 10,014$ 10,214$ 10,415$
Total Cost 52,091$ 52,612$ 53,133$ 53,654$ 53,138$ 54,195$ 55,263$
Difference Year 521$ 1,042$ 1,563$ 526$ 1,063$ 1,610$
Total Difference 1,047$ 2,104$ 3,172$
Proposed 2021 Proposed 2022
Proposed Mayor and City Council Compensation for 2021-22
City of Brooklyn Center
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 14th day of December 2020, at 7
p.m. or as soon thereafter as part of the regular City Council meeting. The WebEx meeting can
be accessed electronically by
https://logis.webex.com/logis/j.php?MTID=m4e2521c99a845acbd144c753f56caf69 or by calling 1-
312-535-8110 Access Code: 133 791 1584
As City Hall is currently closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we strongly encourage you to
forward your comments and questions to the City Clerk at bsuciu@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us or by
phone at 763-569-3306.
ORDINANCE NO. ____________________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2018-08 REGARDING
COUNCIL SALARIES FOR 2021-2022.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. City of Brooklyn Center Ordinance No. 2018-08 which amended the
amount of the annual compensation to be paid to the Mayor and Council Members to become
effective January 1, 2019, is hereby amended.
Section 2. Effective January 1, 2021, the annual salary for the Mayor shall be
$13,079 and the annual salary for Council Members shall be $10,013.
Section 3. Effective January 1, 2022, the annual salary for the Mayor shall be
$13,341 and the annual salary for Council Members shall be $10,214.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days
following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of , 2020.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Underline indicates new matter.)
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:11/23/2020
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:D r. Reggie Edwards, D eputy C ity M anager
S U B J E C T:C O V I D -19 I mpact on H ennepin County and Brooklyn C enter
B ackground:
H ennepin C ounty P ublic H ealth has collected data related to C O V I D -19 at various levels and has dis pers ed
s uch informa6on throughout the C ounty.
D ave Johnson, C O V I D -19 Epidemiology S urveillance & I nves 6ga6on Branch L eader, H ennepin County
P ublic H ealth s hall present C O V I D -19 related data covering the follow ing areas:
H ennepin C ounty: current situa6on and trends
Brooklyn Center: current s itua6on and trends
I mpact on residents : hospitaliz a6on and mortality
D ispari6es in impact: Race/Ethnicity and A ge
W hat are our thoughts /opinions about future s cenarios
H igh-level summary of H ennepin C ounty ’s P ublic H ealth res pons e
Mr. J ohns on w ill be able to ans w er ques6ons related to the surveillance data. D ue to his
pos i6on the C O V I D response team he w ill be able to provide answers to ques 6ons regarding contact
tracing. H e can cover other topics at a high level, but may need to bring back detailed ques 6ons to our
res pons e team that go beyond his level of know ledge and area of res pons ibility. S taff an6cipates that this
w ill be an 20 minute pres enta6on approximately. .
B udget I ssues:
N/A
S trategic Priories and Values:
S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:11/23/2020
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:D r. Reggie Edwards
S U B J E C T:Brooklyn C enter B C TC P ublic A rt I ni.a.ve
B ackground:
The C ity of Brooklyn C enter has partnered with M etro Transit and the Brooklyn C enter C ommunity S chools
to increase community engagement and build pride in our div ers e, thriv ing city through a public arts
ini.a.ve called the Brooklyn Center Transit C enter P ublic A rt C ommis s ion.
A C all for A r .s ts was r eleas ed Monday, S eptember 14, 2020 on the city webs ite and social media, as well as
online on popular ar.s t job s ites . A r.st-teachers who can facilitate an in-per s on/s ocially-dis tant, or online
art-making event for youth and adults from the community of Brooklyn Center are encouraged to apply.
The public ar t cr eated through this engagement centered on the theme of community pride and health in
res pons e to C O V I D -1 9 . Beyond engagement via w orks hops with the ar.s ts , ins talla.on of the final public
art created w ill occur this coming spring at B C TC .
The purpos e of the pr es enta.on is to s har e the proces s , ins talla.on concepts and outline of next s teps with
the C ouncil. A;ached is a dra< copy of the Power Point presenta.on.
B udget I ssues:
$25,000 C A R E S A C T F U N D I N G
S trategic Priories and Values:
Enhanced Community I mage, Resident Economic S tability, I nclusive C ommunity Engagement, S afe, S ecure,
S table Community
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip.on U pload D ate Type
P res enta.on 11/18/2020 P resenta.on
11/18/2020
1
Brooklyn Center
BCTC Public Art Initiative
Engaging Community through the Arts.
Project Goals
Beautify our community;
Address community concerns of health and safety during the
pandemic;
Encourage residents to take ownership and pride in our
diverse and thriving community.
11/18/2020
2
BC Art
Showcase
Community members and students of Brooklyn
Center were invited to submit artwork for a
special showcase to displayed on video monitors
in the BCTC.
We would like the BC Art Showcase to be an
ongoing, semi-annual collection of the latest work
of our community members.
Art in this showcase addresses one or more of the
following questions:
What makes you proud to be a part of the
Brooklyn Center community?
How can we keep ourselves and each other safe
during the pandemic?
What does belonging to a community feel/look
like?
11/18/2020
3
11/18/2020
4
BCTC Public Art
Artist‐Teacher
Commissions
Anika Schneider
Made and distributed 100 kits with
sharpies, a cotton mask, and directions
for creating a DIY mask design;
Held two online workshops on
“Pattern Making and Mask-Wearing;”
Created an online forum
(facebook.com/artatBCTC/) to share
her video tutorials and developing
public art piece, inspired by the
community members of BC.
BCTC Public Art
Artist‐Teacher
Commissions
Kao Lee Thao
Made and distributed 100 kits with wooden
silhouette cutouts paint, and paintbrush;
Held two online workshops as a space to make art
and discuss the effects of the pandemic on our
lives and communities;
Held a “Painting Workshop” in which participants
painted silhouettes along with Kao Lee;
Created an online forum to share her developing
public art piece, inspired by the input of BC
community members (innerswirlforum.com/).
11/18/2020
5
Community
Engagement
Online Workshops
Art Kits
Community Outreach
Online
Workshops
11/18/2020
6
Art Kits
Kits were distributed in the following ways:
Community Center front desk
Rec on the Go
Brooklyn Center Middle and High School STEAM from office
Community member special-delivery to students of Park Center
Delivery of over 30 kits to BC residents’ homes
Delivery to Indigenous families in BC
Delivery to essential workers and residents of The Sanctuary assisted living home
11/18/2020
7
Community
Outreach
Each artist created online forums for documenting
their public artwork and gathering community
input.
Artists also spent time physically walking and
driving around BC, taking photos, talking to
community members, and generally getting to
know the landmarks and culture of our
community.
30 high school students at Brooklyn Center
Middle and High School STEAM also gave
feedback to the artists through a google form
questionnaire, and by giving the artist’s
constructive criticism on their work in progress.
11/18/2020
8
11/18/2020
9
Anika Schneider
“Patterns for Connection”
Patterns for
Connection
Artist’s Statement
11/18/2020
10
11/18/2020
11
Kao Lee Thao
“Faces of Brooklyn Center:
At the Center”
11/18/2020
12
Faces of Brooklyn
Center:
At the Center
Artist’s Statement
11/18/2020
13
11/18/2020
14
Installation
BCTC construction estimated to be
complete by June of 2021.
Artists and project coordinator will be on-
site to oversee installation of the public
artworks,
“Faces of Brooklyn Center: At the Center,”
and
“Patterns for Connection”
Visualization
11/18/2020
15
Next Steps:
BCTC Public Art
Commissions
In the coming months before installation...
Anika will
1.Complete finishing touch ups and details on her art pieces.
2.Get her work professionally scanned and printed onto
substrates.
3.Getting work scanned.
4.Determine need for storage of pieces of the winter months if
need be.
5.Hire professional installers for June.
Kao Lee will
1.Connect with community leaders to translate words into
native languages to include in her pieces.
2.Complete finishing touches and details to each of her
pieces, incorporating community input.
3.Continue to post work’s progress to her online forum.
11/18/2020
16
Next Steps: BC
Art Showcase
submissions
We currently have 20 submissions from BC community
members for our showcase.
We will...
Keep submissions open, and continue to reach out to local
artists, teachers, and students to keep submitting their
work until the spring.
Begin to display some of the submitted work on BC social
media as "teasers" for a BC Art Showcase unveiling this
coming June (coinciding with commissioned public art
pieces).
Form a selection committee in May to choose the final
works to be displayed on monitors at the BCTC.
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:11/23/2020
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager
T H R O U G H :M eg Beekman, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
BY:G inny M cI ntosh, City P lanner / Zoning A dminis trator
S U B J E C T:Res olu/on Reques/ng A pproval of the P reliminary and F inal P lat for M ound Cemetery
S econd A ddi/on (3515 69th Avenue North and County I den/fied as 6705 Beard Avenue
N)
B ackground:
D oran Cote, on behalf of the C ity of Brooklyn Center (“the A pplicant”) is reques /ng review and
cons idera/on of preliminary and final plat approval for M O U N D C E M E T E RY S E C O N D A D D I T I O N , which
encompasses approximately 15 acres of the property located at 3515 69th Avenue North, and is C ounty
iden/fied as 6705 Beard Avenue North (“the S ubject P roperty ”).
City C ouncil mee/ng minutes dated J anuar y 5, 1 9 7 0 indicated at the /me that the “C ity AAorney and the
aAorney for M ound C emetery A ssocia/on had tenta/vely agreed upon the language of a document
through w hich the C ity of Brookly n Center w ould obtain a 75-y ear leas e of the s outhern four (4) acres of
Mound C emetery for park purpos es at a cost of $1 5 ,000.” A 75-y ear leas e w as r ecor ded in J anuary 1970
and outlined a lease expira/on of D ecember 31, 2044; how ever, in D ecember 2013, the M ound Cemetery
A s s ocia/on approached City s taff with a propos al to v acate the lease ear ly and transi/on F r eew ay Park
back to the cemetery for its originally intended purpose.
Betw een 2013 and 2018, the Mound Cemetery A s s ocia/on and C ity of Brooklyn Center met and dis cus s ed
the remaining term of lease. The City had propos ed retaining a por/on of the cemetery for park purposes ;
how ever, the M ound Cemeter y A ssocia/on ini/ally rejected the pr opos al, ci/ng financial imprac/cali/es in
having a s maller cemetery, combined with the need for public u/li/es and a maintenance facility. I n 2018,
the C ity br ought on I S G , a lands cape architecture firm, to mas ter plan F reeway Park. Following a review of
the propos ed op/ons , the Mound C emetery A s s ocia/on agreed to donate one (1 ) acr e of the cemetery to
facilitate the park master plan. C ity C ouncil Resolu/on No. 2020-21, which authorized the execu/on of a
Memorandum of Understanding (M O U) betw een the two par/es, w as approved on J anuary 27, 2020.
The P lanning Commission reviewed this request at their mee/ng via Webex on November 12, 2020, and
held a public hearing. No public comments were prov ided by the public prior to the public hearing. D uring
the public hear ing por/on, there were ques /ons regarding the impr ovements that w ould fall outs ide the
s maller one-acre park parcel, including the exis /ng bas eball field and bas ketball cour t, as w ell as the process
in w orking with I S G to develop a master plan for F reew ay Park, and the community engagement proces s .
The plat reques t w as gener ally w ell-received and the P lanning Commission ul/mately made a
recommenda/on to unanimous ly (6 -0 ) recommend City Council appr oval of P lanning Commission
A pplica/on No. 2 0 2 0 -0 0 9 for preliminary and final plat approval of M ound Cemetery S econd A ddi/on for
the property located at 3515 69th Avenue North and County iden/fied as 6705 Beard Avenue North.
AAached for your review are copies of the N ovember 1 2 , 2020 staff report and a draJ copy of the Council
res olu/on.
B udget I ssues:
None to cons ider at this /me.
S trategic Priories and Values:
Enhanced Community I mage
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip/on U pload D ate Type
P C S taff Report and Exhibits - Mound C emetery 2nd A ddi/on 11/17/2020 Backup M aterial
Res olu/on - D is pos i/on of P lanning Commission A pplica/on
No. 2020-009 11/17/2020 Resolu/on LeAer
________________
App. No. 2020-009
PC 11/12/2020
Page 1
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: November 12, 2020
Application No. 2020-009
Applicant: Doran Cote (on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center)
Location: 3515 69th Avenue North (County Identified as “6705 Beard Avenue North”)
Request: Preliminary and Final Plat for Mound Cemetery Second Addition
INTRODUCTION
Doran Cote, on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center (“the Applicant”) is requesting review and
consideration for approval of the preliminary and final plat for MOUND CEMETERY SECOND ADDITION,
which encompasses approximately 15 acres of the property located at 3515 69th Avenue North and
identified by Hennepin County as 6705 Beard Avenue North (“the Subject Property”). Refer to Exhibit A.
As the request is for a re-plat, a public hearing was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on
October 29, 2020, and mail notifications were sent to properties within vicinity of the Subject Property
per City Code and State Statute requirements (Exhibit B).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING STANDARDS
Map 1. Existing Configuration of Subject Property.
• Application Filed: 10/13/2020
• Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 12/12/2020
• Extension Declared: N/A
• Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A
________________
App. No. 2020-009
PC 11/12/2020
Page 2
2040 Future Land Use Plan: Parks, Recreation, Open Space
Neighborhood: West Palmer Lake
Current Zoning: R1 (One Family Residence) District
Surrounding Zoning: North: R1 (One Family Residence) District
East: R1 (One Family Residence) District
South: R1 (One Family Residence) District
West: R1 (One Family Residence) District
Site Area: 14.8 acres (Proposed Lots 1 and 2)
BACKGROUND
City Council meeting minutes dated January 5, 1970 indicated at the time that the “City Attorney and
the attorney for Mound Cemetery Association had tentatively agreed upon the language of a document
through which the City of Brooklyn Center would obtain a 75-year lease of the southern four (4) acres of
Mound Cemetery for park purposes at a cost of $15,000.” The Subject Property represents the last
parcel to be acquired under the 1966 HUD Open Space Program. A 75-year lease between the City and
the Mound Cemetery Association was recorded in January 1970 and outlined a lease expiration of
December 31, 2044.
Map 2. Freeway Park (Circa 1967) Map 3. Freeway Park (Circa 1971)
In December 2013, the Mound Cemetery Association approached City staff with a proposal to vacate the
lease and transition Freeway Park back to the cemetery to be used for its original purpose. The
Association indicated an emerging interest in natural burials, more families with a desire for upright
(vertical) monuments, and a growing religious community whose burial requirements vary from the
traditional East-West rotation, as reasons for the request.
The City and the Mound Cemetery Association continued to meet and discuss the termination of the
lease up until 2018. The City had proposed retaining a portion of the cemetery for park purposes, but
the Association initially rejected the proposal, citing the financial impracticality of a smaller cemetery
and the need for public utilities and a maintenance facility.
After meeting with the Mound Cemetery Association in July 2018, the City agreed to retain the services
of a consultant to master plan the future of Freeway Park. In October 2018, the City brought on ISG, a
________________
App. No. 2020-009
PC 11/12/2020
Page 3
landscape architecture firm with a strong reputation in park planning and design and community
engagement for the purposes of master planning Freeway Park.
On April 15, 2019, City staff and ISG met with the Mound Cemetery Association to discuss the outcome
of the park planning process and the recommended option for Freeway Park. In response, the Mound
Cemetery Association agreed to donate one (1) acre of the cemetery with some conditions to facilitate
the master plan. After additional discussion with the Association, the City drafted a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) to memorialize the parties’ understanding of the terms of the vacation of the
lease and the donation of the land.
On January 13, 2020, Doran Cote, Public Works Director, held a work session with the City Council and
requested direction to City staff regarding the status of Freeway Park, and overall support for entering
into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Mound Cemetery Association for a smaller
Freeway Park. A City Council Resolution (2020-21) authorizing the execution of a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the City of Brooklyn Center and the Mound Cemetery Association was
approved on January 27, 2020.
For your reference, a copy of of a Memorandum dated January 13, 2020, copy of City Council Resolution
No. 2020-21, and Memorandum outlining the history of the cemetery and Freeway Park (dated
December 20, 2019) have been attached as Exhibit C. The Memorandum dated December 20, 2019
contains additional information regarding the neighborhood engagement process to select a preferred
master plan layout. “Option 1” was recommended as the preferred option by the Parks and Recreation
Board—see below.
Image 2. Selected Option 1 Plan for the Freeway Park Master Plan.
________________
App. No. 2020-009
PC 11/12/2020
Page 4
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT REVIEW
Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg conducted a review of the application submittal and
documentation (Exhibit A). Comments regarding this application can be found in the memorandum to
City staff and dated November 6, 2020, attached hereto (Exhibit D).
It is noted within the memorandum that new right-of-way or road easement will need to be dedicated
to cover missing portions along 67th Avenue North, as identified in the attached plat details, and that
existing utility and street easements along the south portion of the Subject Property are to remain in
place. The County Engineer may need to review the plat given 69th Avenue North’s former identification
as C.S.A.H. (County State Aid Highway) 130.
Finally, the Applicant will need to provide an updated certified abstract of title or registered property
report to the City Planner and City Attorney for review.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
City staff recommends the following conditions be attached to any positive recommendation on the
approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2020-009 for the re-plat of certain property located at
3515 69th Avenue North and County identified as 6705 Beard Avenue North (“the Subject Property”) to
MOUND CEMETERY SECOND ADDITION:
1. Approval of the preliminary and final plats for MOUND CEMETERY SECOND ADDITION are
contingent upon the addressing of comments by Assistant City Engineer Hogg in his
memorandum dated November 6, 2020 and execution of a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between the City of Brooklyn Center and Mound Cemetery Association as stipulated
under City Council Resolution No. 2020-21.
2. Final plat and mylar shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Code of
Ordinances (Platting).
3. Any comments and/or requirements as provided by Hennepin County.
4. Any comments and/or requirements from the City Attorney’s office, and specifically regarding
an updated certified abstract of title.
5. The successful recording of said plat (mylar) with Hennepin County.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above-noted findings and conditions, City staff recommends:
The Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the requested preliminary and final plat for
MOUND CEMETERY SECOND ADDITION for the Subject Property located at 3515 69th Avenue North and
County identified as 6705 Beard Avenue North, subject to the Applicant complying with the Approval
Conditions as noted above.
Attachments
Exhibit A - Planning Commission Application No. 2020-009 Application and Documentation.
Exhibit B - Public Hearing Notice, published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post, and dated October 29, 2020.
Exhibit C - Memorandums regarding Mound Cemetery and Freeway Park, dated December 20, 2020, and January
13, 2020, and City Council Resolution No. 2020-21, dated January 27, 2020.
Exhibit D - Memorandum, prepared by Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg, dated November 6, 2020.
10/13/2020
2020-009
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Member Graves
moved its adoption:
introduced the following resolution and
RESOLUTION NO.2020-21
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
AND THE MOUND CEMETERY ASSOCIATION OF BROOKLYN CENTER
WHEREAS, the city has met with the Mound Cemetery Association to discuss
termination of an existing lease on 4.02 acres of Mound Cemetery for the purposes of providing a
public park called Freeway Park; and
WHEREAS, the city hired a consultant to prepare a Master Plan for Freeway Park;
and
WHEREAS, the one of the options developed by the city's consultant developed
only requires approximately one acre of cemetery property; and
WHEREAS, the Mound Cemetery Association has agreed to dedicate
approximately one acre of land to the city for park purposes subject to certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, the city agreed to draft an MOU memorializing the negotiated
agreement between the two parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Brooklyn Center
and the Mound 'Cemetery Association of Brooklyn Center is hereby
approved. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute
said lease agreement.
2. All conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding will be carried out by
the appropriate party.
January 27, 2020
Date ,,
ATTEST: I"+,I,ab iku
City Clerk
Exhibit C
RESOLUTION NO.2020-21
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Ryan
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Elliott, Graves, Ryan
and the following voted against the same: None
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
for all people and preserves the public trust
DATE: January 13, 2020
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Doran Cote, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Freeway Park – Mound Cemetery Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider providing direction to staff regarding the status
of Freeway Park.
Background:
The January 5, 1970 City Council meeting minutes indicate that the “City Attorney and the
attorney for Mound Cemetery Association had tentatively agreed upon the language of a
document through which the City of Brooklyn Center will obtain a 75 year lease of the southern
4 acres of Mound Cemetery for park purposes at a cost of $15,000.00. The subject parcel
represents the last parcel to be acquired under the 1966 HUD Open Space Program.” A 75 year
lease between the city and the Mound Cemetery Association was recorded in January, 1970. The
expiration of the lease is December 31, 2044.
In December, 2013, the Mound Cemetery Association approached staff with a proposal to vacate
the lease and transition Freeway Park back to the cemetery to be used for its original purposes.
The Association indicated an emerging interest in natural burials, more families who desire
upright monumentation, and a growing religious community whose burial requirements vary
from the traditional East-West rotation.
The city and the Mound Cemetery Association continued to meet and discuss the termination of
the lease until 2018. The city had proposed retaining a portion of the cemetery for park purposes
but the Association rejected the proposal. The Association cited the financial impracticality of a
smaller cemetery and the need for public utilities and a maintenance facility.
After meeting with the Mound Cemetery Association in July, 2018, the city agreed to retain the
services of a consultant to master plan the future of Freeway Park. In October, 2018, the city
retained the services of ISG, a landscape architecture firm with a strong reputation for park
planning and design and community engagement to prepare a Master Plan for Freeway Park.
On April 15, 2019, staff and ISG met with the Mound Cemetery Association to discuss the
outcome of the park planning process and the recommended option for Freeway Park. The
Association in response agreed to donate an acre of the cemetery with some conditions to
facilitate the master plan. After additional discussion with the Association, the city drafted a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to memorialize the parties’ understanding of the terms
of the vacation of the lease and the donation of the land.
Policy Issues:
MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
for all people and preserves the public trust
Does the City Council support entering into the MOU with the Association and creating a
smaller Freeway Park?
Does the City Council desire to let the 1970 lease run until expiration after which there would be
no Freeway Park as it exists today?
Are there any other conditions the City Council would like to see in the MOU?
Strategic Priorities:
•Enhanced Community Image
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: December 20, 2019
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Doran M. Cote, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Freeway Park – Mound Cemetery Report
This Freeway Park – Mound Cemetery Report has been prepared to document the history of the
cemetery and the park as well as provide possible direction moving forward.
Mound Cemetery History 1862 - 1970
• Mound Cemetery was established as a cemetery in 1862 by farmers and lumbermen who moved to
Brooklyn Center and the surrounding area from New England. The earliest grave markers in Mound
Cemetery are from 1855.
• The original Mound Cemetery was 2 acres in size and had 80 lots with 16 grave sites each. The first
addition to Mound Cemetery added 2 acres plus a looping road network and flagpole. The cemetery
is now 15 acres in size with a one-way road network.
• On May 14, 2012, the Brooklyn Center City Council adopted a proclamation declaring May 28, 2012,
as Mound Cemetery Sesquicentennial Day.
• Attachment 1 included with this report is a historical perspective of the cemetery from the Mound
Cemetery website.
Freeway Park 1968 - 2013
• On April 8, 1968, the City of Brooklyn Center initiated condemnation proceedings for the south 4.02
acres of Mound Cemetery for public use for park purposes (Attachment 2). Staff could not find a
resolution authorizing the condemnation proceedings, however, the attached Notice of Lis Pendens
(lawsuit pending) by the City of Brooklyn Center was recorded against the title of the property.
• The January 5, 1970 City Council meeting minutes indicate that the “City Attorney and the attorney
for Mound Cemetery Association had tentatively agreed upon the language of a document through
which the City of Brooklyn Center will obtain a 75 year lease of the southern 4 acres of Mound
Cemetery for park purposes at a cost of $15,000.00. The subject parcel represents the last parcel to
be acquired under the 1966 HUD Open Space Program.” Attachment 3 is a copy of the January 5,
1970 minutes.
• After discussion among the City Council, a motion was made and seconded authorizing the Mayor
and City Manager to execute the above referenced lease. The recorded January 27, 1970 Lease of
Cemetery Land is included as Attachment 4. The expiration of the lease is December 31, 2044.
• Historic aerial photographs indicate that Freeway Park was developed and in use in 1971 (see
below).
Freeway Park – Mound Cemetery Current Status 2013 - 2019
• In December, 2013, the Mound Cemetery Association approached staff with a proposal to vacate
the lease and transition Freeway Park back to the cemetery to be used for its original purposes. The
Association indicated and emerging interest in natural burials, more families who desire upright
monumentation, and a growing religious community whose burial requirements vary from the
traditional East-West rotation (see Attachment 5).
• The city and the Mound Cemetery Association continued to meet and discuss the termination of the
lease until 2018. The city had proposed retaining a portion of the cemetery for park purposes but
the Association rejected the proposal. The Association cited the financial impracticality of a smaller
cemetery and the need for public utilities and a maintenance facility (see Attachment 6).
• After meeting with the Mound Cemetery Association in July, 2018, the city agreed to retain the
services of a consultant to master plan the future Freeway Park. In October, 2018, the city retained
the services of ISG, a landscape architecture firm with a strong reputation for park planning and
design and community engagement to prepare a Master Plan for Freeway Park.
• ISG’S community engagement efforts included meeting with city staff and the Mound Cemetery
Association, neighborhood surveys, post cards, an online survey, an on-site suggestion box and in
February, 2019, a Public Open House was held at West Palmer Lake Park Building. The Open House
was also the Parks and Recreation Board Meeting. ISG presented 3 Mater Plan Options (Attachment
7). After considerable discussion, the Parks and Recreation Board recommended Option 1 as the
preferred option (see below).
Circa 1971 Circa 1967
• On April 15, 2019, staff and ISG met with the Mound Cemetery Association to discuss the
outcome of the park planning process and the recommended option for Freeway Park. The
Association in response agreed to donate an acre of the cemetery with some conditions to
facilitate Option 1 of the master plan. Attachment 8 is correspondence between staff and the
Association which ultimately resulted in the city drafting a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) to memorialize the parties’ understanding of the terms of the vacation of the lease and
the donation of the land.
Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Brooklyn Center and Mound Cemetery Association
• Attachment 9 is the final negotiated MOU between the Association and the city for the
termination of the lease and dedication of approximately 1 acre of land for Freeway Park
purposes. The text in red in the recitals and conditions were added by the Association and
agreed to by staff. The most significant provisions of the final MOU are as follows:
a. The formal termination of the lease;
b. The city's commitment to rename the park to better reflect the memory and legacy of
the families who originally donated the property to the Association, subject to city council
approval;
c. The city's willingness to pay all costs associated with the closing, including the state
deed tax, recording fees, title insurance premiums, if any, and title company closing costs;
d. The city's construction of a fence between the new city-owned park property and the
cemetery so that park visitors will not disturb the solitude of the cemetery with the
Association owning the fence; and
e. The city's restoration of the park property being returned to the cemetery with
appropriate soils and grass planting, as required in the original lease.
REVISED M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: November 6, 2020
TO: Ginny McIntosh, City Planner/Zoning Administrator
FROM: Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Preliminary/Final Plat Site Plat Review – Mound Cemetery
Public Works staff reviewed the following documents submitted for review for the proposed Mound
Cemetery 2nd Addition plat:
Preliminary/Final Plat dated October 27, 2020
Subject to final staff final plat approval, the referenced plans must be revised in accordance with the
following comments/revisions.
Preliminary Plat/Final
1. Either new right of way or road easement should be dedicated to cover missing area as identified
in Detail 2, to allow for the continuing of existing street extension & parking on 67th Ave.
2.The County Engineer may need to review plat as it is along a former C.S.A.H. 69th Avenue is
no longer CSAH 130. However the right-of-way is still shown as CSAH in the county records.
3. The utility and street easements on the southern portion of the property shall remain.
General Comments
1. An updated certified abstract of title or registered property report must be provided to the City
Planner and City Attorney for review at the time of the preliminary plat application (within 30
days of preliminary plat application). Additionally, this will need to stay current and be updated
through the approval process as required to maintain and be current within 30 days of the release
of final plat.
The aforementioned comments are provided based on the information submitted by the applicant at
the time of this review. Other guarantees and site development conditions may be further
prescribed throughout the project as warranted and determined by the City.
Exhibit D
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2020-009 SUBMITTED BY
DORAN COTE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER,
REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR
MOUND CEMETERY SECOND ADDITION (3515 69TH AVENUE NORTH
AND COUNTY IDENTIFIED AS 6705 BEARD AVENUE NORTH)
WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2020-009 was submitted by
Doran Cote on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center (“the Applicant”), requesting preliminary and
final plat approval to subdivide approximately one (1) acre of the approximately 15-acre property
located at 3515 69th Avenue North and County identified as 6705 Beard Avenue North (“the
Subject Property”) for continued use as Freeway Park; and
WHEREAS, discussions arose in 2013 between the City of Brooklyn Center and
Mound Cemetery Association regarding a 75-year lease in place on the southern four (4) acres of
the Subject Property for use as the City of Brooklyn Center’s Freeway Park; and
WHEREAS, said lease was recorded in January 1970 with an outlined lease
expiration of December 31, 2044; and
WHEREAS, the Mound Cemetery Association initially requested a complete
vacation of the lease to allow for a transition of the park land back to the cemetery for its originally
intended use due to an emerging interest in natural burials, a desire for upright monuments, and a
growing religious community whose burial requirements deviate from the traditional East-West
rotation; and
WHEREAS, the City continued negotiations with the Mound Cemetery Association
and ultimately brought on a consultant in October 2018 to develop a master plan for the future of
Freeway Park; and
WHEREAS, following a review of the completed master plan, the Mound
Cemetery Association agreed to donate one (1) acre of the Subject Property to facilitate the master
plan and the continued existence of Freeway Park; albeit on a smaller scale; and
WHEREAS, an agreement to re-plat the Subject Property to MOUND
CEMETERY SECOND ADDITION was reached between the City of Brooklyn Center and
Mound Cemetery Association through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and
memorialized on January 27, 2020 under City Council Resolution No. 2020-21, which authorized
the execution of said Memorandum of Understanding; and
WHEREAS, a review of the proposed re-plat identified the need to dedicate new
RESOLUTION NO.
right-of-way (ROW) or road easement to cover missing portions along 67th Avenue North, and that
the existing utility and street easements along the south portion of the Subject Property are to
remain in place; and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota held a duly called public hearing, whereby this item was given due
consideration, a staff report was presented, and a public hearing was opened to allow for public
testimony regarding the plat requests for MOUND CEMETERY SECOND ADDITION, which
were received and noted for the record; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined during its review of the plat
and materials submitted with Planning Commission Application No. 2020-009, that said plat is
in general conformance with the City of Brooklyn Center’s City Code of Ordinances, and
specifically Chapter 15 – Platting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota does hereby recommend that Planning Commission Application No. 2020-009,
as submitted by Doran Cote on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center, and requesting preliminary
and final plat approval for MOUND CEMETERY SECOND ADDITION, and dedication of
certain easements and/or right-of-way, may be approved based upon the following conditions:
1. Approval of the preliminary and final plats for MOUND CEMETERY SECOND
ADDITION are contingent upon the addressing of comments by Assistant City Engineer
Hogg in his memorandum dated November 6, 2020 and execution of a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the City of Brooklyn Center and Mound Cemetery
Association as memorialized under City Council Resolution No. 2020-21;
2. Final plat and Mylar shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Code of
Ordinances (Platting);
3. Any comments and/or requirements as provided by Hennepin County;
4. Any comments and/or requirements from the City Attorney’s office, and specifically
regarding an updated certified abstract of title; and
5. The successful recording of said plat (Mylar) with Hennepin County.
RESOLUTION NO.
November 23, 2020
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.
Council/E D A Work
S ession
V I RT UA L meeting being
conducted by electronic
means in accordance with
Minnesota S tatutes, section
13D.021 P ublic portion
available for connection by
calling 1-312-535-8110
A ccess C ode: 133 316
6939
November 23, 2020
AGE NDA
AC T I V E D IS C US S I O N IT E M S
1.Discussion of Tobacco L icense f or J ambo Africa
2.Civilian R eview Board
3.Tobacco Ordinance Follow Up
P E ND I NG L IS T F O R F UT URE WO RK S E S S IO NS
1.P ending I tems
Council Retreat Follow-up
Council Policy f or City C harter requirement of Mayor's signature
on all contracts
S trategic Plans f or years 2018-2020 and 2021-2023
NOAH Preservation Program
Review S pecial A ssessment Policy
O pportunity Site Update
E arle B rown Name
M EM OR ANDUM - COU N C IL WORK SESSION
DAT E:11/23/2020
TO :C ity C ounc il
F R O M:C urt Bo ganey, C ity Manager
T HR O UG H:N/A
B Y:C o rnelius L. Bo ganey, C ity Manager
S UBJ E C T:Dis cus s io n o f To b acc o Lic ens e for Jamb o Africa
Recommendation:
- D irection to staff reg a rd ing the a d option of a resolution auth orizing a tob a cco licen se a p p lica tion from
Jambo Africa a s a n exception to cu rrent 15 tobacco license cap
B ackground:
O n November 9, 2020, the C ity C ounc il rec eived a s econd reques t fro m Ms . S imone C hamb lis s to be heard
regarding her des ire fo r a tobac co licens e so that s he may provid e outdoor ho o kah s ervice at her res taurant,
Jamb o Africa.
T he C ounc il agreed to hear Ms. C hamb lis s req ues t at the No vember 23rd C o uncil meeting. T he C o uncil
as ked the staff to p ro vide a c hrono lo gy of the events which affec ted the dec is ion of the C ity not to issue a
tobac co licens e fo r Jambo Afric a.
I have enclosed a p acket o f info rmation that p ro vides a c hrono lo gy and supporting doc uments related to the
d ecision no t to is s ue a tobac co licens e to Jamb o Africa to d ate.
T he pac ket pro vides fo r twelve events /doc uments related to the s ubjec t q ues tion. T he C ounc il will want to
review eac h of thes e doc uments; but b as ed o n my review I wo uld as k the C o unc il to fo cus on the 6/26/18
emails between C ity P lanner Mc Intosh and Attorney G ilc hrist; the 8/8/19 emails b etween C ity P lanner and the
C ity Atto rney and finally the Augus t 8, 2019 emails b etween C ity Manager Boganey and C ity P lanner
Mc Intosh.
In my opinion thes e d o cuments provid ed the bes t evid enc e as to what "p robably" hap p ened regarding the
d ecision no t to is s ue a tobac co licens e to Jamb o Africa.
T he June 26, 2018, memo acknowled ges that the C ity was c o ntacted by Jamb o Africa expressing an interes t in
an o utd o o r hookah b ar at the res taurant. T he c onc lus io n fro m the C ity Attorney was that "my initial impres s io n
is that providing hookahs to tho s e who wish to s mo ke in the outdoor area may c ons titute a use that needs to be
examined und er the zo ning o rd inance to d etermine if it is allo wed."...." It s trikes me that such an ac tivity may
very well no t be within the s cope o f a res taurant us e. At a minimum, a tobac c o lic ens e would be req uired, b ut
we s hould loo k to s ee ho w the us e fits under the c ode."
If we lo o k at the Augus t 9, 2019, email to C urt Boganey from the C ity P lanner, to the best of her recollec tio n
s he d es cribes what s he remembers fro m her d is c us s io ns with Ms. C hamblis s b ack in June o f 2018. T he C ity
P lanner disc us s ed numerous issues verb ally with Ms . C hambliss p res umab ly. Ac cording to Ms. Mc Intos h,
fo llo wing this June meeting(s ) there was no further dis c ussion about a to bac c o licens e until after the T-21
o rd inance too k effect in Dec emb er. If this ac c o unt is reasonab ly acc urate, it is q uite understandable why Ms .
C hambliss did not s ub mit a to b acc o lic ense applic ation at the time.
O n August 8, 2019, the C ity Atto rney advis ed s taff that after reviewing the zoning is s ue in greater d etail than
his o riginal 2018 "impression" the atto rney c onc lud ed that an outdoor hookah bar with a to b acc o lic ense in all
likely wo uld be lawful under the C ity zo ning c o d es .
Unfortunately, this opinio n was too late to be a c o ns idered in any dec is io n making of Ms. C hamb lis s . It is my
o p inion that if the initial first impression from the atto rney had c o nc luded, the propos ed use was likely to be
lawful under the C ity zoning c o d e, it may have s haped a different res p o nse from s taff as well as fro m the
ap p licant. It is imp o rtant to keep in mind that the atto rney stated at the time this was a matter whic h req uired
further analys is .
G iven all of the ad d itional c o nc erns rais ed with Ms . C hamb lis s during this period regarding the site plan, the
p ro p o s ed struc ture, fire acc es s , p arking is s ues , ADA c o mp lianc e issues etc . alo ng with the zo ning uncertainty,
it is impossible to know that a tobac co licens e ap p licatio n would have b een s ub mitted in June o f 2018.
Yet, it seems that had s taff known that the pro p o s ed us e wo uld indeed b e allo wable und er the zo ning code the
ap p licant would have been so ad vised o f that fac t. T he applic ant wo uld have b een in a better p o s ition to make
an info rmed d ec is ion in a timely manner. In light o f this as s es s ment, I have as ked the C ity Attorney to
p rep are a res olution allowing the ap p licant to make applic ation for a to b acc o lic ens e for the purp o s e of
o p erating an outdoor hookah s ervic e.
Policy Issues:
1. Is the C ity's b es t interes t s erved b y allo wing Jambo Afric a to apply for a to b acc o lic ense.
S trategic Priorities and Values:
R es id ent Ec ono mic S tability, Targeted R edevelo p ment
AT TAC HME N T S :
Desc rip tion Up lo ad Date Typ e
R esolution to ac c ep t ap p licatio n 11/17/2020 C o ver Memo
Jambo Do cuments C hrono lo gy 11/17/2020 C o ver Memo
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-___
RESOLUTION APPROVING A TOBACCO LICENSE FOR JAMBO AFRICA
RESTAURANT
WHEREAS, Ms. Simone Chambliss (“Owner”), owner of the Jambo African Restaurant
(“Restaurant”), inquired to the City in June 2018 about obtaining a tobacco license so customers
can smoke hookah on the patio of the Restaurant; and
WHEREAS, staff was unclear whether hookah was allowed as it is not specially
addressed in the City Code, and so engaged in internal discussions over whether the use is
allowed; and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2018 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2018-14
amending Chapter 23 of the City Code regarding tobacco; and
WHEREAS, the ordinance added language to Section 23-103 restricting the number of
licenses the City may issue in a year to 15, but allowing those with licenses obtained as of
October 1, 2018 to continue to renew them even if they are in excess of 15 license cap; and
WHEREAS, after the ordinance went into effect, the Owner once again inquired about
obtaining a tobacco license to allow hookah at the Restaurant, but the cap prohibited the issuance
of any additional licenses;
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds as follows:
a. The Owner did not submit an application for a tobacco license;
b. The Owner was clearly interested in obtaining a license prior to the adoption of the cap on
the number of such licenses;
c. Had the Owner applied for a tobacco license prior to the imposition of the cap it would have
been issued;
d. The uncertainty over whether hookah was allowed as part of a restaurant use under the City
Code is likely why the Owner did not submit an application when she made her initial
inquiry in June 2018;
e. The City has determined the hookah use is currently not distinguishable from other tobacco
uses allowed to occur at a restaurant with a tobacco license and would be allowed but for the
cap on the number of licenses;
f. Under the Clean Indoor Air Act, the use of tobacco is limited to outdoor spaces;
g. While there was ample notice of the proposed amendments to the tobacco regulations,
including the proposed cap, the City Council recognizes the Owner had sought out a license
prior to the adoption of the cap and if the City had immediately responded to her about
hookah being allowed at the Restaurant she would have likely obtained a license before the
cap went into effect;
h. The City Council supports the stricter regulations in Ordinance No. 2018-14, but does not
want the timing of its adoption to result in the unfair treatment of the Owner in her on-going
efforts to obtain a tobacco license for the Restaurant; and
i. This is a unique situation and the approval of a tobacco license for the Restaurant does not
serve as a basis for issuing a license to any other business in the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center as follows:
1. The City may accept an application for a tobacco license from the Owner for the Restaurant
and, if the Owner is eligible for the license, is authorized to issue the license notwithstanding
the limit on the number of licenses allowed in the City.
2. If issued, the license will have the same status under Section 23-103(11) of the City Code as a
license issued as of October 1, 2018 and is eligible for renewal in the same manner as other
tobacco licenses.
3. The issuance of a tobacco license for the Restaurant does not relieve the Owner from having
to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations, codes, and
ordinances regarding the Restaurant and the use of the patio for hookah.
4. This approval does not affect the status of any other tobacco license in the City and does not
authorize the issuance of any other additional licenses.
5. The City Clerk is authorized to take such actions as may be needed to carry out the intent of
this Resolution.
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.
M EM OR ANDUM - COU N C IL WORK SESSION
DAT E:11/23/2020
TO :C ity C ounc il
F R O M:C urt Bo ganey, C ity Manager
T HR O UG H:N/A
B Y:Tim G anno n C hief o f P olic e
S UBJ E C T:C ivilian R eview Board
Recommendation:
- C ity C ouncil to p rovid e direction to staff after receiving informa tion a nd b a ckg round ma terial.
B ackground:
Earlier in 2020, the C ity C o uncil ad vised p olic e s taff to researc h and evaluate loc al and national models for a
civilian review b o ard . S taff has p rep ared a P owerP o int presentatio n which will b e presented b y C o mmand er
G abler, who o vers ees the c o mmunity services unit within the polic e department. T he informatio n gathered
inc ludes b o th lo c al and natio nal mo d els for s uc h boards. It will als o outline the roles and res p o nsibilities o f the
various styles of review. Als o includ ed are links and referenc es to the Natio nal As s oc iation for C ivilian
O vers ight o f Law Enforc ement.
Policy Issues:
Do es the C ity C o uncil d es ire to see a C ivilian R eview Board b e implemented in Bro o klyn C enter? If so what
mo d el and what p urpos e is that Bo ard to be tas ked with?
S trategic Priorities and Values:
Inclus ive C ommunity Engagement, S afe, S ec ure, S table C o mmunity
AT TAC HME N T S :
Desc rip tion Up lo ad Date Typ e
P owerp o int 11/18/2020 P res entation
Additio nal material 11/16/2020 C o ver Memo
Civilian
Review Boards
Police Department
Brooklyn Center City Council Meeting, November 23, 2020
Richard Gabler, Commander
Background
•There are approximately 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States.
•As of 2019 there were estimated to be about 150-200 Civilian Review Boards in
the United States.
•There are approximately 422 law enforcement agencies in Minnesota.
•Only three Civilian Review Boards were found in Minnesota.
•National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) is the
leading professional organization identifying best practices and resources for
review boards.
2
Goals of Review Boards
1.To improve public trust in law enforcement
2.Ensuring public input in the police complaint process
3.Promoting fair and thorough investigations
4.Increased transparency in the complaint process
5.Deterring police misconduct
(Office of Justice Programs, 2016)
3
Types of Review Boards
1.Investigation Focused
2.Review Focused
3.Auditor/Monitor Focused
4
Investigation Focused
Review Board Model
•Conducts independent investigations of police complaints.
o Investigations may parallel or replace Internal Affairs (IA) investigations.
•Investigations typically completed by civilian investigators.
•Organization typically operates separately of Law Enforcement.
Examples: San Francisco, CA; Washington, D.C.; and San Diego County, CA
5
Review Focused
Review Board Model
•Generally made up of a citizen-volunteer review board and often include police
officers.
•Typically reviews completed IA and complaint investigations.
•Usually makes complaint finding recommendations to Chief.
•May receive complaints from the community.
•This is the most common type of review board.
Examples: St Paul, MN; Indianapolis, IN; and Albany, NY
6
Auditor/Monitor Focused
Review Board Model
•May participate in the IA investigation process.
•May evaluate and review police policies and practices and make
recommendations for change.
•May also evaluate for larger patterns of misconduct.
•Members are typically well-trained in analytics and tend to be experts in policing.
Examples: San Jose, CA; Los Angeles, CA; and New Orleans, LA
7
Types of Review Boards
8
Investigation Focused
Agencies
Review Focused
Agencies
Auditor/Monitor
Agencies
Receive Complaints Frequently Frequently Frequently
Decide How to Handle
a Complaint
Frequently Rarely Sometimes
Review Police
Investigations
Sometimes Frequently Frequently
Conducts Independent
Investigations
Frequently Rarely Sometimes
Types of Review Boards
9
Investigation Focused
Agencies
Review Focused
Agencies
Auditor/Monitor
Agencies
Recommend Findings Frequently Frequently Frequently
Recommend Discipline Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes
Have Civilians on a
Board
Frequently Frequently Frequently
Have Paid Professional
Staff
Frequently Sometimes Frequently
Costs Most Expensive Least Expensive 2nd Most
Expensive
Continued
Term: 3-Year terms; no members can serve more than two
terms in lifetime.
Other Duties:Advise on department policy and prepare an annual
report.
Budget:About $16,000 (2019) and members receive $50 per
meeting attended.
Meeting Frequency:Minimum of quarterly and up to twice a month.
Meetings are subject to open meeting law.
10
City of St. Paul
Agency Size: 629 Officers
Review Board Type:Review Focused
Authority: Ordinance; Ord. No. 102
Dept. Responsibility:Human Rights Department (full-time Review
Coordinator)
Final Discipline Authority:Chief of Police
Board Size: 9 Community Members. Officers were removed from
the panel in late 2017/early 2018
11
City of St. Paul
Continued
•Complaints can be received through the Police Department or the Human Rights
Department.
•Initial complaints are reviewed by a Senior Commander and assessed for
completeness and a policy violation.
•Investigations are completed by St. Paul Internal Affairs.
12
St. Paul Complaint Process
Police Civilian Internal Affairs Review Board (PCIARC)
•Review Board reviews all IA investigations involving external complaints
regardless of nature and internal complaints related to:
o Excessive Use of Force
o Inappropriate Use of Firearms
o Discrimination
o Racial Profiling
o Improper Conduct/Procedures
o Poor Public Relations
o Any other complaints referred to the group by Human Right Department,
Mayor or Chief of Police
13
St. Paul Complaint Process
Police Civilian Internal Affairs Review Board (PCIARC)
Continued
•Review Board reviews the investigative file to include body-worn video and makes a
recommendation to the Chief for complaint disposition and discipline, if any. Recommendation
then forwarded to the Chief of Police. Board does not receive the IA Investigators
recommendation. If the board sustains a complaint they are provided access to the officer’s file
to help inform a discipline decision.
•Complainant may offer testimony during the hearing. If this occurs the officer(s) may also offer
testify.
•In 2019 the Chief of Police modified the PCIARC’s discipline recommendation 7 times.
14
St. Paul Complaint Process
Police Civilian Internal Affairs Review Board (PCIARC)
Continued
•Possible Dispositions include
•Unfounded-Allegation is false or not factual
•Exonerated-Incident complained of occurred, but was lawful and proper
•Not Sustained-Insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the allegation
•Sustained-The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence
•Policy Failure-The allegation is factual. The officer followed proper department procedures, which have been proven to be faulty.
•Recommended discipline may include:
•Oral Reprimand
•Retraining
•Written Reprimand
•Suspension-not more than 30 days
•Demotion
•Termination
15
St. Paul Complaint Process
Police Civilian Internal Affairs Review Board (PCIARC)
Continued
•Board Member Selection
•Made by the Mayor based off recommendations from the Human Rights Department.
•Training (prior to assuming board duties):
o Topics related to police work
o Investigation
o Relevant Law
o Cultural Competency
o Racial Equity
o Implicit Bias
o Participate in Ride Along with Patrol Officers
16
St. Paul PICARC Board Selection
Police Civilian Internal Affairs Review Board (PCIARC)
St. Paul PICARC Board Selection
Police Civilian Internal Affairs Review Board (PCIARC)
•Failure to complete the required training, data practices violation or missing more
than three trainings will result in removal from the Board.
17
Continued
18
Agency Size: Approx. 800
Review Board Type:Investigative and Review-focused
Authority:Ordinance Ord. No. 172
Dept. Responsibility:Department of Civil Rights
Final Discipline Authority:Chief of Police
Board Size:Minimum of seven members; four appointed by Council,
and three appointed by mayor. Individual review panels
consist of two citizen and two officers at Commander level.
Panels rotate members based off meeting availability.
City of Minneapolis
19
Term:2-4 years
Other Duties:Prepares Annual Report
Budget:Members receive $50 per meeting, OPCR budget is
$1,036,000. OPCR consists of 5-6 full-time staff.
Meeting Frequency:Minimum once per month and may meet more as
necessary.
City of Minneapolis
Continued
Minneapolis Complaint Process
Office of Police Conduct Review (OPCR)
•Complaints may be made through the OPCR or Minneapolis PD.
•Complaints internal and external are then forwarded to MPD IA.
•A preliminary investigation is conducted. This primarily consists of collecting data
such as body-worn camera, CAD data etc.…
•Preliminary investigation is forwarded to IA Commander and Director of OPCR
(civilian) for review.
•Complaints may be either dismissed, result in non-disciplinary coaching,
mediation (rare) or to an Investigation.
20
Minneapolis Complaint Process
Office of Police Conduct Review (OPCR)
•If the complaint is investigated then the complaint may be investigated by sworn
MPD investigators or non-sworn OPCR investigators.
•OPCR will not investigate:
o Complaints involving an officer(s) and/or civilian staff related protected class
discrimination (such as harassment based on gender, race, sexuality etc.…).
o Complaints that are more than 270 days old or more.
o Complaints only involving civilian Minneapolis Staff.
•Complaints are decided to either go to a civilian or sworn investigator based on
background experience and any subject matter expertise the investigator
possesses.
21
Continued
Minneapolis Complaint Process
Office of Police Conduct Review (OPCR)
•After an investigation is completed the following can occur:
o Complaint may be dismissed, result in mediation or sent to the Precinct
Commander for Coaching or;
o The case may go to the OPCR review panel if the complaint involves:
22
Continued
▪Use of excessive force
▪Inappropriate language or attitude
▪Harassment
▪Discrimination of police services based
on color, creed, religion
▪Theft
▪Failure to provide timely police
protection
▪Retaliation
▪Criminal Misconduct (non-review for
criminal charges)
Minneapolis Complaint Process
Office of Police Conduct Review (OPCR)
•Review panel determines merit or no merit on the complaint and
forwards to the Office of the Chief of Police or the investigation may be
sent back to IA for further investigation.
•Merit-Recommendation indicating that a preponderance of the evidence
supports an allegation in a complaint.
•No Merit-Recommendation indicating that a preponderance of the evidence
does not support an allegation in a complaint.
•Discipline recommendation is decided by police personnel usually at the
Chief/Deputy Chief level.
23
Continued
Minneapolis Review Board
Board Member Selection
Seven members are appointed by the Council (4) and Mayor (3).
Training
Failure to complete the required training, by majority of City Council vote,
incompetence, misconduct or neglect of duty will result in removal from the board.
24
Minneapolis Review Board
Training Continued…
•Attend annual training session arranged by Civil Rights Department
•Police Use of Force Training
•Data Practices Act
•Open Meeting Law
•Ethics and Conflict of interest
•Public Employee Labor Relations Act (PELRA)
•Complete portions on Minneapolis PD Citizen’s Academy within two years of
appointment.
25
Continued
26
Agency Size: 111
Review Board Type:Review-focused
Authority:Ordinance; Ord. No. 260
Dept. Responsibility:Police Department
Final Discipline Authority:Chief of Police
Board Size:9 (6 Citizens and 3 Officers)
Term:Three years for both citizens and officers. No officer may
serve more than two terms.
City of St. Cloud
27
Other Duties:Annual Report
Budget:Board members are not paid.
Meeting Frequency:As Needed (Board met three times in 2019)
City of St. Cloud
Continued
St. Cloud Complaint Process
•Civilian Review Board will review all external complaints and internal complaints
related to:
•Excessive Force
•Inappropriate Use of Firearms
•Discrimination
•Other cases presented to the board at the discretion of the Chief of Police
•The Board does not review internal complaints unless they meet the above
categories.
28
Continued
St. Cloud Complaint Process
Complaints are filed with the police department.
•A preliminary investigation is done and then given to the Chief of Police.
•If the Chief determines more information is needed then an IA is completed.
•If the Chief determines no further information is needed then the complaint and
preliminary findings go to the review board.
•The board then may concur with the Chief or send back the complaint for further
investigation.
29
St. Cloud Complaint Process
•Review board does not recommend discipline. They only propose a complaint
finding.
•Review board does not have access to the officer’s file.
•In the past 5 years the review board and Chief of Police have agreed on all complaint
findings.
30
St. Cloud Complaint Process
Board Member Selection
•Citizen members are appointed by the Mayor and approved by the Council. All
officers shall be recommended to the Mayor for appointment. Two members must
represent Law Enforcement Labor Services (LELS). At least one officer and one
supervisor.
•Chief appoints a review coordinator to prep for meetings.
31
Continued
St. Cloud Complaint Process
Training (prior to assuming board duties)
•Topics related to police work
•Investigations
•Relevant Law
•Cultural Diversity
•Officer Ride Along
32
Continued
St. Cloud Complaint Process
Training Continued…
Failure to complete necessary training, violating data practices or non-attendance of
three or more meetings may cause termination of appointment as recommended by
the Chief of Police and concurred by the mayor.
33
Continued
Department Comparison
34
St. Paul Minneapolis St. Cloud Brooklyn Center
Agency Size 629 Officers Est. 800 111 49
Ordinance Yes; Ord. No. 102 Yes; Ord. No. 172 Yes; Ord. No. 260 * None as of yet
Department of
Responsibility
Human Rights Civil Rights Police Department Police Department
Final Discipline
Authority
Chief of Police Chief of Police Chief of Police Chief of Police
Size of Board 9 7 (2 Civilians and
2 Officers)
9 (3 Officers)7 (2 officers and
selection by each
council member)
Term Lengths 3-Year Terms or
2 Lifetime Terms
2-4 Years 3 Years TBD
Department Comparison
35
St. Paul Minneapolis St. Cloud Brooklyn Center
Frequency of
Meetings
Quarterly
(Min. or Twice per
Month (Max.)
Once per Month or
More as Necessary
As Needed As needed
Training Required Yes Yes Yes Yes
Other Duties Advise on Policy and
Annual Report
Prepares Annual
Report
Annual Report Annual Report (other
TBD)
Budget $16,000 / $50 per
member per meeting
$50 per meeting
OPCR $1,036,000
Unpaid TBD
Type of Board Review-focused Investigative and
Review-focused
Review-focused Review-focused
Continued
Notable Findings
1.St. Cloud and St. Paul both require the Chief and review board chair to meet within
5 days if the Chief disagrees with the boards complaint findings. Goal of this is an
attempt to understand each others concerns.
2.Approximate national citizen complaint sustain rate is about 10%. No research was
found to conclude that review boards sustain complaints at a higher rate than
departments do. (Walker)
3.The Minnesota Police Officers Discipline Procedures Act (PODPA, MN. Stat. 626.89
Subd. 17) prohibits review boards from making a finding of fact on a complaint or
imposing a discipline. Review boards recommendations are not binding.
36
Continued…
Notable Findings
4.The complaints St. Cloud, Minneapolis and St Paul’s review board look at appear
consistent with what other national review boards handle.
•If a Brooklyn Center review board were to have the same criteria. 23 complaints
would have been reviewed in 5.4 years or just over 4 complaints a year (External
complaints only).
•If you were to include internal complaints the board would have reviewed 27
complaints over 5.4 years or about 5 complaints a year.
5.Actual case discussions in Minneapolis, St. Paul and St. Cloud are closed to the
public (Mn. Stat. 13D.05 Subd. 2).
37
Continued
•Must be willing to be impartial to ensure fairness.
•Communicate effectively with others.
•Make group decisions.
•Maintain confidentiality and be trusted with sensitive data.
•Commit time to attend meetings, attend trainings and review documentation.
•No minimum education needed.
•Resident of city.
•Complete background check (necessary in order to review sensitive CJIS data).
38
Board Member Selection Criteria
•At least 18 years of age.
•Must be willing to handle public scrutiny when making decisions.
•Complete application and potential interview or supplemental questions.
(St Paul PCIARC, Mpls)
39
Board Member Selection Criteria
Continued
Staff Time
•All cities have a board coordinator. In Minneapolis and St. Paul this person is
outside the police department and prepares meetings, handles administrative
tasks during meetings, prepares recommendations and finding letters and assists
with outreach and the annual report. In St. Cloud this appears to be a collateral
duty for a department employee.
•Officer time to attend review board meetings (Complaint investigator or an
officer speaking on his/her behalf).
•Minneapolis and St. Paul pay their commissioners $50 a meeting. Overall costs to
be determined by amount of meetings and number of commissioners. St. Cloud
does not pay commissioners.
40
Anticipated Costs
Training Costs
To be determined based on identified training criteria and training time.
Equipment
St. Paul provides commissioners with laptops two weeks prior to the meeting. All
investigative material is pre-loaded onto the laptop for commissioner review prior
to the meeting. This is more efficient than printing multiple copies of a file. Cost
per computer is about $1,000-1,500 (BC IT).
41
Anticipated Costs
Continued
•Ordinance should be well defined to explain role of review board and what
complaints they will review. This has been an issue in other cities.
•Given the low volume of complaints what other tasks would a review board
perform?
•Policy Recommendations (non-binding)?
•Community Outreach?
•Public reading of Annual Report and overview/explanation of complaint
process?
42
Additional Consideration
•Trust is Paramount
o Officers, even in a minority role, should be on the panel in order to ensure buy-in
with this process. Without officers on the panel increased police-community
relations and cross dialogue becomes difficult to achieve. (21st Century Policing)
•Current Brooklyn Center Policy requires all complaint investigations be completed within
three months of the department becoming aware of the allegation. Extensions may be
granted by the Chief of Police (Personnel Complaints, 1010.6.5).
o Does the added step of a review board give a perception of a delay in accountability?
o Does the delay in complaint resolution adversely impact complainant/officer
satisfaction?
43
Additional Consideration Continued
Resources
NACOLE Website
https://www.nacole.org/about_us
Recommended Training Criteria
https://www.nacole.org/recommended_training_for_board_and_commission_members
44
Resources
45
Review Board Agency Websites
•Albany, NY
https://www.albanycprb.org/
•Indianapolis, IN
https://www.indy.gov/agency/citizens-police-
complaint-office
•Los Angeles, CA
https://www.oig.lacity.org/
•New Orleans, LA
http://nolaipm.gov/main/?page=home
•San Diego County, CA
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/clerb/
•San Francisco, CA
https://sfgov.org/dpa
•San Jose, CA
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-
government/appointees/independent-police-auditor
•St. Paul, MN
https://www.stpaul.gov/departments/human-rights-equal-
economic-opportunity/police-civilian-internal-affairs-
review-3
•Washington, D.C.
https://policecomplaints.dc.gov/
Continued
Resources
Ordinances
•St. Paul
https://library.municode.com/mn/st._paul/codes/c
ode_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIIIADCO_TITVCOCO_
CH102POVIINAFRECO
•Minneapolis
http://minneapolis-
mn.elaws.us/code/coor_title9_ch172
•St Cloud
https://ci.stcloud.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/36
7/260-St-Cloud-Police-Citizens-Review-
Board?bidId=
Statutes
•PELRA
https://npelra.org/
•PODPA
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/626.89
46
Continued
M EM OR ANDUM - COU N C IL WORK SESSION
DAT E:11/23/2020
TO :C ity C ounc il
F R O M:C urt Bo ganey, C ity Manager
T HR O UG H:N/A
B Y:C o rnelius L. Bo ganey, C ity Manager
S UBJ E C T:Tobac co O rdinanc e F ollow Up
Recommendation:
- S taff seeks C ouncil d irection regardin g a prop osed amendment to the Tob a cco L icensing O rdin a n ce
relating to a proh ibition or restriction on the sale of a ll flavored tobacco p roducts a n d /or the p rohib ition of
tob a cco coup ons and p rice discou n ts and th e establish men t of min imum prices for cig a rettes a n d chewin g
tob a cco
B ackground:
O n June 8, 2020, the C ounc il rec eived a pres entation from Emily And ers on, Directo r of P o licy for the
As s o ciatio n for non s mokers -MN, regarding to initiatives related to tobac c o c o ntro l in Bro o klyn C enter. T he
initiatives were:
1. P ro hibit o r res trict to adult-only s hops the s ale of ALL flavo red to bac c o p ro d uc ts, includ ing menthol
tobac co .
2. P ro hibit the redemptio n o f to b acc o c oup o ns and p rice d is counts and s et a minimum p rice fo r
s tand ard ized tobac co p ro d uc ts (cigarettes and c hewing tobac co)
At the meeting individ ual C o uncilmembers exp res s ed varying d egrees o f support and c o nc erns ab o ut the
p ro p o s ed ord inanc e amendments inc luding the fo llo wing;
· T here was a req uest for further information related to the $753 per ho us eho ld annual c o s t.
· Is there data that tracks results in cities that have taken these typ es of meas ures ?
· A reques t for ad d itional info rmation on the is s ue around the flavo red tobac co and the us e of
coup o ns
· W hat flavored p ro d uc ts are c urrently b anned in Bro o klyn C enter?
· C oncerns regarding the financ ial impac t on loc al bus inesses
· Data related to the impac t o f these p rohib itions or p rice inc reas es on s p ec ific c o mmunities
not stric tly s tate wide d ata.
· C oncerns ab o ut ho w the proposed actions may inad vertently lead to an inc reas e in smoking
rather than a reductio n
· How do we as s ure that the res tric tions will lead to the intended res ults ?
· T here was an interes t in revisiting the is s ue of cheap c igars p ricing to determine if increasing
thes e pric es will b e beneficial/effective.
S ubsequent to the meeting Emily Anderson has p ro vided the following add itional info rmation to ans wer as
many ques tions as pos s ible rais ed as concerns o r ques tions of the C ounc il. T he exhib its are attac hed.
Healthy Lifestyle and B ehavior Tables 46- 49 - T his d o cument desc ribes S mo king S tatus b y C o mmunities
within Hennep in C o unty
Public Health Law Center, P oint of Sale – T his 25 p age d o cument pres ents a very c o mp rehens ive model
o rd inance p roduc ed b y the Law C enter regard ing regulatio ns that may b e ad o p ted in the S tate o f Minnes ota.
T his doc ument inc lud es sec tions on S ales of F lavored P ro d uc ts, Individ ual Low C ost C igars and P roduc t
Dis counts alo ng with the p o licy basis fo r suc h regulations .
Price Discount FAQ - T his d o cument provides a res pons e to many relevant ques tions includ ing ques tio ns
regarding, pric e d is counting, the value o f inc reas ed pric ing, why coup o n redemptio n s hould be p ro hibited,
d is p arate effec ts o n communities of color, low-inc o me and other communities .
U.S. born African American Tobacco Pre-S urvey Data Highlights - T his 2016 s urvey p ro d uc ed by the
African-Americ an Lead ers hip F o rum and Hennepin C ounty P ublic Health ind ic ates ind icate the ap p eal and
imp act of mentho l to b acc o spec ifically as it relates to African Americans in Minnes ota.
U.S. born African American Menthol Tobacco P ost S urvey Data Highlights – T his doc ument p rovid es
res ults the ind ic ate s up p o rt amo ng Minnes ota African American S mokers fo r polic ies to restrict sale and
availability o f tobac co.
Death on a Discount: regulating Tobacco P ricing – T his p ublic ation explains why and ho w cities may
regulate Tobac c o P roduct C oup o ns and R etail P romotio ns.
B YC – City of Brooklyn Center Tobacco P olicy Recommendation – T he rep o rt s ubmitted to the C ity
b y BYC in 2018 o utlines the find ings and rec ommend ations made to the C ity C ounc il regard ing the regulatio n
o f to b acc o to b enefit yo uth.
S inc e our meeting with the C ity C o uncil the C ity of Ed ina has b een s ued after vo ting to b an the sale o f
flavored tobac c o products . A c o p y o f the artic le ab o ut the law s uit is attached. It s ho uld als o be noted the
C ities o f G olden Valley, Mendota Heights , Lilyd ale and Ard en Hills have all p as s ed the s ame kind o f flavored
tobac co p ro hib itions , with Arden Hills facing legal ac tion.
As antic ip ated , the c o urts have affirmed the loc al flavo red to b acc o polic ies in d is tric t court. O n August 31,
2020, the distric t c ourt d enied R .J. R eynolds ’ motio n fo r a p reliminary injunc tion (to prevent Edina’s flavored
tobac co regulatio n fro m go ing into effect) and granted the C ity o f Edina’s mo tion to dismiss. T his is a major
win for p ublic health in Minnesota and ac ros s the c o untry. It sho uld p ro vid e reas s uranc e to other Minnes o ta
communities c ons id ering or currently working o n flavored tobac co regulatio n. No tably, the judge said in the
Ed ina d ecisio n that “[t]he fed eral go vernment has —thro ugh inac tion [on menthol]—left countles s matters to be
regulated b y s tate and lo cal governments.”
R .J. R eynold s and the o ther ind ustry p laintiffs d id appeal the c as e to the 8th C irc uit C ourt o f Ap p eals on
S ep tember 4, 2020. A d ecision from the app ellate cas e may b e antic ip ated by the end o f this year o r early next
year, d ep ending on the p arties’ actio ns. T he law is c lear that flavo red to b ac c o regulation is p ermis s ib le und er
the law. We are c onfid ent the case law will c o ntinue to be upheld . T he city of Arden Hills was als o sued fo r
its flavored to b ac c o regulatio n b y the to b acc o indus try—a vape s hop and gas s tation. T hat litigatio n involves
arguments similar to the Ed ina case and a “kitc hen s ink” o f state law claims . T he d ecision from the distric t
court o ut of the Ed ina d ecision, o ther relevant c as e law, and a lac k o f found ation s ho uld reas s ure communities
that Arden Hills need no t b e a d eterrent fo r c ontinuing the wo rk o n flavored to b acc o regulatio n.
A q uestio ns was as ked if o ur current ordinanc e regulates the sale o f flavo red tobac co p ro d uc ts. O ur o rdinanc e
d o es no t b an the s ale of flavored tobac co produc ts in Bro o klyn C enter. It does limit the sale o f e-liquid
p ro d uc ts whic h inc ludes flavors to Tobac co S ho p s as d efined in the ordinanc e.
With regard to the reques t fo r more d ate regard ing the $753 per hous ehold tax b urden, the impac t o n lo cal
retailers, yo uth ac c es s and use and p reventing unintend ed c o nsequenc es , Ms . And ers o n has p ro vided the
fo llo wing info rmation.
$753 Tax burden per household: Hennepin County Tobacco Profile, MN Dept of Health
Data sources: C amp aign for Tobac co-free Kids : Toll o f To b acc o in Minnes ota
Smoking-C aused Monetary Costs in Minnesota*
Annual health c are c o s ts in Minnesota direc tly caus ed by smoking $2.51 billion
Medic aid c os ts c aus ed b y s mo king in Minnes o ta $563.2 millio n
R es id ents ' s tate & federal tax burd en from s mo king-c aused government
expend itures
$767 p er ho usehold
S mo king-c aus ed productivity lo s s es in Minnes ota $1.54 billion
*Amounts d o not inclu d e health costs caused b y exposure to secondhand smoke, smokin g -ca u sed fires,
smokeless tobacco use, or cig a r a n d pip e smoking. Tob a cco u se a lso imposes a d d ition a l costs su ch as
workpla ce productivity losses a n d damage to p roperty.
Methods for Hennepin County Specific Data: S tate tax b urden equals s tate res idents’ fed eral & state tax
p ayments nec es s ary to c o ver all state government to b acc o -caus ed c o s ts plus the res id ents ’ pro-rated share,
b as ed on state populations , o f all fed eral tobac c o-c aus ed costs . T his estimate was c alculated at the state level,
and thus, c o unty es timates match the s tatewid e figure. S ee Xu, X et al., “Annual Healthc are S pend ing
Attrib utab le to C igarette S mo king: An Update,” Am J P rev Med, 2014, with o ther s tate government tobac c o
costs taken to b e 3% of all state s mo king-c aus ed health c o s ts, as in C DC , “Medic al C are Expend itures
Attrib utab le to S mo king—United S tates, 1993,” MMW R 43(26):1-4, July 8, 1994. C ost data are b as ed o n
2009 dollars.
Impact of flavored tobacco restrictions: economics for local retailers, youth access and use, and
preventing unintended consequences
E conomic Impact for Retailers Data S ources and Avoiding Unintended C onsequences :
1. Institute for G lobal Tobac co C o ntrol. S tate o f the Evidence: F lavored To b acc o P roduct Bans o r
R es tric tio ns . January 2020.
Economic res earc h indic ates that the imp ac t of a ban on flavo red tobac c o p ro d uc ts would be relatively
narrow, fo r three reas o ns: 1. Mo s t retailers s elling flavored tobac co products do not rely on these
p ro d uc ts as their only o r primary sourc e of their revenue, 2. C ons umers are likely to spend money
o riginally intend ed for a banned tobac c o product on other p urc hases , inc luding tobac co p ro d uc ts and
o ther goods and s ervic es , and 3. Labo r and other res o urc es no t used in the s upply and sale o f a banned
p ro d uc t tend to b e redirec ted to o ther us es .
P o licies that includ e exemp tions to partic ular flavors, such as mentho l/mint, or to p artic ular p ro d uc ts ,
s uc h as c igars , ris k lo s ing their effectivenes s (e.g., yo uth e-cigarette us ers may s witch to mentho l flavor
o nly) o r ris k funneling c urrent users to exemp ted p ro d uc ts (e.g., adult e-c igarette users may s witch to
cigars ).
2. T he P o tential Impac t o f a Mentho l R es tric tion on C onvenienc e S tores , ANS R , Ap ril 2019. (attac hed )
National rep o rts s how that c o nvenienc e s to res make more mo ney fro m prepared fo o d , s nac ks and
p ackaged beverages than tobac co. P urc has ing thes e items is the primary reas o n cus tomers s hop at
convenienc e s tores. If Minnes o ta res tric ts mentho l to adult-only tobac c o s ho p s , convenienc e sto res
would lo s e an es timated $1,519 per s to re per mo nth. In contrast, average mo nthly profits for
convenienc e s tores for non-tobac co items are: S alty snacks $2,669, C andy $2,662, P ac kaged
b everages $10,272. T he es timated c os t of a mentho l restrictio n in Minnes o ta is small compared to the
harmful effec ts of menthol tobac co.
Youth Access and Use Data S ources: F lavored Tobac co S ales R es tric tions : P romising Evidenc e F or
R ed uc ing Youth Acc es s And Tobac co Us e, C ampaign fo r To b acc o F ree Kids, May 2020.
“Becaus e it is a relatively new strategy, data on the imp act of flavored to b acc o sale res tric tions is s till
emerging. However, the available data indicate that strong laws can be easily implemented and
can help reduce youth access to and use of tobacco by removing from store shelves the products
that are most attractive to youth and the products that youth use most often. A 2020 S urgeon
G eneral rep o rt conclud ed that, “P rohibiting flavo rs , inc luding mentho l, in tobac co p ro d uc ts can benefit
p ublic health b y red uc ing initiatio n among young people and p ro moting c es s ation among ad ults .”1
T he ab o ve linked fac tsheets s ummarizes data on both retailer complianc e and yo uth use rates fro m S an
F ranc is c o , New York C ity, P ro videnc e, R I, Bo s ton, MA, Minneapolis , S aint P aul and Duluth, and
O ntario , C anada. Together, these findings indicate that not only are retailers complying with the
New York City ordinance, it is effectively reducing youth access to and use of these products.
Policy Issues:
Are best interes ts o f the res id ents served by the adoptio n o f additio nal tobac c o s ale regulations ?
S hould additional regulatio ns inc lude:
1. P rohib ition o r res trictio n to ad ult-o nly shops the s ale o f All flavo red to bac c o p ro d uc ts. includ ing menthol
tobac co
2. P rohib ition o n the redemptio n o f to b acc o c oup o ns o n p rice d is counts and s et a minimum p rice fo r
s tand ard ized tobac co p ro d uc ts
S trategic Priorities and Values:
S afe, S ecure, S tab le C ommunity
AT TAC HME N T S :
Desc rip tion Up lo ad Date Typ e
Exhibit 1 11/18/2020 Exhib it
Exhibit 2 6/8 P o werpoint 11/18/2020 Exhib it
Brooklyn Center City Council
June 8, 2020
Emily M. Anderson, Director of Policy
The Association for
Nonsmokers-Minnesota (ANSR)
is a nonprofit organization
dedicated to reducing the human
and economic costs of tobacco
use in Minnesota. Our core
commitments are to reduce the
number of young smokers and to
continuously advocate for the
rights and health of nonsmokers.
»Tobacco Use and Regulations: Today vs. 2018
»Two policy initiatives: ⋄Flavored/Menthol Tobacco⋄Price Discounting
Agenda
Youth Tobacco Use -MN 2017
Brooklyn Center’s Tobacco
Regulations: 2014-2018
»First city in the state to set a minimum price for
cigars at $2.10. Since then many MN communities
have also set a minimum price for cigars.
»Raised the tobacco sales age to 21 and restricted
where e-cigarettes and other vaping products could
be sold.
»Put a cap on the total number of tobacco licenses.
Brooklyn Center:
Ahead of the Curve
»State leader on minimum cigar
pricing.
»Increased the tobacco sales age to
21 before federal and state law did
the same.
Tobacco Regulations: 2020
What’s different?
»Tobacco 21 is now federal and state law
»There are some new, temporary federal restrictions
on flavored vaping products.
What’s the same?
»Flavored and menthol tobacco is largely unregulated
»Many types of flavored vaping products are still
available
Tobacco 21 is Now the Law of the Land.
Gov. Walz Signs T21 Law
Minnesota Tobacco 21
Flavored Products Temporarily Unavailable
Mango Cucumber Creme’ Fruit
Mint, Classic Tobacco, Virginia Tobacco, Menthol
Federal flavor restriction -These e-cigarette flavors are not
included in the temporary ban.
Disposable
flavored
e-cigarettes
Source: Campaign for Tobacco-Free-Kids-1/20
15,000+ flavored
e-liquids
Popular open
systems including
refillable Juul-
compatible pods
Juul and other
menthol-flavored
pods
Tobacco Regulations: What’s left?
Price
AgeFlavors
PRICE
AGEFLAVORS
Flavored Tobacco
Flavored Tobacco and Youth
What can communities do?
What about menthol...
•Is a chemical compound extracted from the peppermint or corn
mint plant or created synthetically.
•Has anesthetic or numbing qualities.
•Is used to relieve throat irritation and produces a cooling feeling.
Menthol is used as an additive in nearly all cigarettes to make them
more palatable, but only some are promoted as menthol-flavored
cigarettes.
MN Youth Tobacco Survey, 2014
Source: Fallin, Goodin, King (2015). Menthol cigarette smoking among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender adults. Am J Prev Med.
African Americans Use Menthol More
Other Racial/Ethnic Groups
Smoking Incidence from NHIS 2009; menthol preference from NSDUH 2009; Giovino GA, Villanti
AC, Mowery PD, et al. Differential trends in cigarette smoking in the USA: Is menthol slowing
African Americans Adult Smokers Who Use Menth
Menthol = Harder to Quit
•Menthol increases nicotine absorption, leading to
greater dependence.
•Among high school smokers, those who smoke menthols
are more likely to smoke within one hour of waking and
more likely to report cravings compared to high school
smokers of non-menthols.
Wackowski & Delnevo, 2007. Menthol cigarettes and indicators of tobacco dependence among adolescents. Addictive
Behaviors, 32(9), 1964-1969.
Percent of Smokers Who Quit
Gandhi et al, (2009). Lower quit rates among African American and Latino menthol cigarette smokers at a tobacco treatment clinic. Int J Clin Pract.
Menthol: Tobacco Industry Targeting
•There is sufficient research to confirm that tobacco
companies targeted youth, women, and African
Americans with menthol marketing
•Research also suggests that tobacco companies targeted
Latinos, Asians, and Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders
TPSAC Report
“We don’t smoke that s_ _ _. We just sell
it. We reserve the right to smoke for the
young, the poor, the black and stupid.”
RJ Reynolds Executive, 1971
R.J. Reynolds executive’s reply when asked why he didn’t smoke according to Dave Goerlitz,
lead Winston model for seven years for R.J. Reynolds.] Giovanni, J, “Come to Cancer Country;
USA; Focus,” The Times of London, August 2, 1992.
1975 2015
Sources: http://tobacco.stanford.edu/Sources: http://tobacco.stanford.edu/ and
t i k t dt h
2004Source: www.trinketsandtrash.org
2004Source: www.trinketsandtrash.org
Targeting started in 1960s with these five approaches:
1.Collect data about Black consumers
2.Use mobile marketing vans
3.Develop special promotions for inner city tobacco
retailers
4.Engage with local Black organizations to improve
corporate image
5.Advertise in Black magazines
Yerger et al. (2007)
If menthol were banned…
•Of MN Adults who smoke menthol, about half
said they would quit smoking if menthol
cigarettes were no longer sold in the United
States. (MATS, 2014)
The Price of Tobacco
A $1.50 per pack increase would:
○Keep 15,900 Minnesota kids from becoming addicted adults
○Decrease youth smoking by 15 percent
○Help 26,600 current smokers to quit
○Save 11,500 Minnesotans from premature smoking-related deaths
○Prevent almost $900 million dollars in long-term health care costs
Increasing the price of tobacco will prevent kids from
smoking, help smokers quit and save lives.
WHAT IS PRICE
DISCOUNTING?
•Tobacco products are reduced to a
lower price through coupons and in-
store price promotions.
•Tobacco companies use various
marketing strategies to keep prices low
for consumers.
WHAT ABOUT
PRICE?
“A high cigarette price, more than any other
cigarette attribute, has the most dramatic
impact on the share of the quitting
population...price…is the main driving force for
quitting.”
-Philip Morris Executive, 1993
HOW MUCH DO
TOBACCO COMPANIES
SPEND ON DISCOUNTING?
•Companies spend the vast majority of their
marketing budget on price discounting.
•In 2017, tobacco companies spent $8.2 billion
•(87% of total marketing budget) on price
discounting
•That is more than $1 million per hour or $18,000
per minute!
WHAT HAPPENS AT THE
RETAIL LEVEL?
•Tobacco companies work with retailers
and wholesalers to offer in-store specials
•Examples:
•Buy-one-get-one free or multipack
discounts
•Cents-or dollars-off promotions
HOW DO PEOPLE
RECEIVE COUPONS?
•Emails that direct you to websites
•Mail
•Phone apps
•In-store or at events/bars
When coupons are redeemed, retailers
are reimbursed by tobacco companies
WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF
TOBACCO COUPONS?
Among Minnesota smokers, about 50%
have used coupons or promotions in the
past year to save money on cigarettes.
Choi, et al. (2013). Receipt and redemption of cigarette coupons, perceptions of cigarette companies and smoking cessation. Tobacco Control; 22(6): 418-22.
MN young adult nonsmokers who
receive tobacco coupons are twice as
likely to becomes smokers.
Sources:
Choi & Forster (2014). Frequency and Characteristics Associated with Exposure to Tobacco Direct Mail Marketing and Its Prospective Effect on Smoking Behaviors
among Young Adults from the US Midwest. American Journal of Public Health; 104(11), 2179-2183.
White, et al. (2006). Cigarette promotional offers: Who takes advantage? Am J Prev Med; 30(3):225–231.
ARE COUPONS EFFECTIVE?
A third of adult smokers use tobacco
coupons or discounts every time they
see one.
HOW DO TOBACCO
COUPONS WORK?
Original price: $19.98 for 2 packs
Discounted Price: $2.00 for 2 packs
HOW DO DISCOUNTS
IMPACT USE?
•Coupons foster nicotine addiction in young smokers
and keep heavy smokers addicted.
•Minnesota adult smokers who redeemed cigarette
coupons were much less likely to quit smoking than
those who didn’t use coupons.
Sources:
Henriksen, et al. (2012). DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntrl22, Choi, et all. (2012). DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntr300
Choi, K. & Forster, J. Tobacco Direct Mail Marketing: Frequency, Content, and Prospective Effect on Smoking Behaviors of Young Adults.
WHAT IMPACT WOULD
REGULATION HAVE?
•Studies have shown that a $10 per-pack
retail price and regulating discounts
could result in:
✔637,270 fewer smokers aged 12-17
years
✔4,186,954 fewer smokers aged 18-25
years
✔7,722,460 fewer smokers aged >26
years
Source: Marynak, et al. (2016). DOI: 10.1177/0033354916662211
Cost of Tobacco Regulations
Cost of Tobacco Regulations
The COST of Tobacco
Questions?
Emily M. Anderson, MA
Association for Nonsmokers-MN
emily@ansrmn.org
M EM OR ANDUM - COU N C IL WORK SESSION
DAT E:11/23/2020
TO :C ity C ounc il
F R O M:C urt Bo ganey, C ity Manager
T HR O UG H:N/A
B Y:C o rnelius L. Bo ganey, C ity Manager
S UBJ E C T:P ending Items
Recommendation:
C ouncil R etreat F ollow-up
C o uncil P olic y fo r C ity C harter requirement o f Mayor's s ignature
on all contrac ts
S trategic P lans fo r years 2018-2020 and 2021-2023
N O AH P reservation P rogram
R eview S pec ial As s es sment P o licy
O pportunity S ite Up d ate
Earle Bro wn Name
B ackground: