HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021 11-22 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 via
telephone Dial: 1-312-626-
6799 Meeting I D:
81506192332# Passcode:
216824#
November 22, 2021
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 via
telephone Dial: 1-312-626-
6799 Meeting I D:
81506192332# Passcode:
216824#
November 22, 2021
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 - Ryan - 7 p.m.
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.
a.Council Norms
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 the following minutes:
11.8.21 - Study Sessi on Meeti ng
11.8.21 - Regular Session Meeting
11.8.21 - Work Session Meeting
b.Approval of L icenses
- Motion to approve the licenses as presented.
c.Resolution A ccepting Bid and Awarding a Contract, I mprovement P roject No.
2021-18, L ift Station 8 Rehabilitation P roject
- Moti on to approve the resolution accepting the lowest responsible bid and
award a contract to Pember Companies, Inc. for Improvement Project No.
2021-18, Lift Station 8 Rehabilitation Project.
d.Accepting B id and Award contract for Diesel Exhaust capture system for both
fire stations
- Moti on to approve the lowest responsible bid and award a contract to TNC
Industries, Inc. for the vehicle exhaust capture systems for both fire stations.
7.P resentations/Proclamations/Recognitions/Donations
a.Opportunity S ite Pilot P roject - Community E ngagement Update
~ Motion to accept the presentation
b.C O V I D Presentation
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.
a.Resolution Relating to the I ssuance of Conduit Revenue B onds to Finance
the Costs of a Multifamily Housing Development (The Crest A partments
Project)
- Motion to approve a resolution reciting a proposal for a Housing Finance
Program for a multiple rental housing development, approving the project
and the program and authorizing the issuance of conduit multifamily
housing revenue obligations and the execution of related documents (the
Crest Apartments Project)
b.Resolutions A pproving the 2022 Utility Rates
- Motion to:
Open the public hearing;
Take public input; and
Close the public hearing
- Motion to approve:
Resolution for 2022 Water Utility Rates
Resolution for 2022 Sanitary Sewer Utility Rates
Resolution for 2022 Storm Sewer Utility Rates
Resolution for 2022 Street Light Rates
Resolution for 2022 Recycling Rates
9.P lanning Commission Items
10.Council Consideration Items
a.Emergency Ordinance for the Curfew P rocess
~ Motion to approve the emergency ordinance regarding curfews
11.Council Report
12.Adjournment
We Agree To
Internal Council Relations – Norms for 2021 – Practiced for next 90 days
• Seek to not repeat or re-iterate points that were already shared
• Engage in discussion and sharing alternate perspectives without weaponizing other
people’s words
• Recognize others with “What I heard you say is _____, with your permission, I’d like to
move forward now.”
• Call for consensus when it’s time to make a discussion
• Allow new solutions in a time of dynamic change, process: (1) name the problem (2) find
the process to resolve (3) have the discussion (4) make a decision.
• After open discussion, close down the chat during council chamber discussion (*need to
vote on it).
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:11/22/2021
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:D r. Reggie Edwards, City Manager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk
S U B J E C T:A pproval of Minutes
Requested Council A con:
- Moon to approve the following minutes:
11.8.21 - Study Session Meeng
11.8.21 - Regular S ession M eeng
11.8.21 - Work S ession Meeng
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
I nclusive C ommunity Engagement:
None
A nracist/Equity Policy Effect:
None
S trategic Priories and Values:
O pera4onal Excellence
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip4on U pload D ate Type
11.8 S tudy S es s ion 11/15/2021 Backup M aterial
11.8 Regular S ession 11/15/2021 Backup M aterial
11.8 Work S es s ion 11/15/2021 Backup M aterial
11/08/21 -1-
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 8, 2021
VIA ZOOM
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at
6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence-
Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, City Attorney Troy
Gilchrist, and City Clerk Barb Suciu.
MISCELLANEOUS
IN-PERSON MEETINGS
City Manager Reggie Edwards explained the Council wanted more information about other cities
and if they are meeting in person and an update on COVID-19 in the City. Staff looked at a few
neighboring cities including Brooklyn Park, Columbia Heights, Fridley, Golden Valley, New
Hope, Robbinsdale, Rogers, all of which are meeting in person and one is meeting both in-person
and online for a hybrid style. Brooklyn Center was trending downward for the number of COVID-
19 cases and is ranked sixth or seventh for jurisdictions in Hennepin County. Dr. Edwards stated
Brooklyn Center used to have a high proportion of cases, but it has improved significantly. He
noted the City has installed a system that would allow for the City to have hybrid meetings where
participants could participate virtually. Dr. Edwards asked the Council when they would like to
resume meeting in person.
Councilmember Ryan stated the Council has agreed to approach the situation with abundant
caution. He stated if they continue to see a decline in cases and there are appropriate precautions
taken for in-person meetings, then they could potentially meet starting in the new year. The
holidays may affect the trend of COVID-19, including the delta variant, but he would defer to
health experts ultimately.
Mayor Elliott asked if Fire Chief Todd Berg was available to comment on the topic. Dr. Edwards
stated Chief Berg was unable to attend the meeting.
Councilmember Butler asked how the spacing would look like in the meetings or chambers. She
noted she wants to make sure they are being safe and added she wants to hear from the Fire Chief.
While Brooklyn Center had been trending down, the cases in Minnesota have been increasing as
11/08/21 -2-
a whole. Dr. Edwards stated there was plexiglass made for separation between councilmembers
and Staff will get an exact answer on numbers and capacity from the Minnesota Department of
Health.
Councilmember Graves noted her agreement with other members of the Council. She stated she
was eager to meet back in person again, but she wants to make sure it is done safely.
Councilmember Graves added it would probably be wisest to wait to meet in person again until
after the holiday season.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she concurs with her colleagues regarding their
eagerness to return to in-person meetings and waiting to start that until after the holidays. She
added the plexiglass would be a prudent move to ensure safety.
Mayor Elliott asked if Fire Chief Berg would be present at the next meeting to answer more
questions. Dr. Edwards confirmed Fire Chief Berg would attend the next meeting to further
address the topic.
MEETINGS WITH COMMON SENSE
Dr. Edwards stated that a few staff have met with Common Sense about how to move forward.
He stated he would like to establish 45 minutes to an hour for Council to meet with Common
Sense, and he noted it is preferred to meet on a day that does not already have a meeting because
it seems to be less fruitful. The meeting would provide updates on changes since the last meeting
with Common Sense. Dr. Edwards asked Council for a preferred date if they are open to the
meeting.
Councilmember Butler stated she received an email from Common Sense asking to schedule a
meeting. She asked if that referred to a different meeting than what Dr. Edwards was currently
discussing. Dr. Edwards explained Common Sense is doing follow-up meetings with individuals
and as a whole.
Mayor Elliott asked how long the meeting would be. Dr. Edwards stated it would be a maximum
of an hour.
After a short discussion, the members of the Council agreed that Thursday, December 2 would
work for a meeting with Common Sense with a backup date of Thursday, December 9 for the
meeting with Common Sense. Mayor Elliott noted the meeting would be at 6:00 p.m.
ORGAN DONATION SHOUT-OUT
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she would like to shout out her daughter’s 13th liver
anniversary and acknowledge the generous gift she received from her donor. She noted she would
like to cast a light on the success of the procedure and encourage people to be organ donors.
11/08/21 -3-
IMPROPER TRASH AND RECYCLING DISPOSAL COMPLAINT
Councilmember Ryan stated he has received multiple phone calls from a resident living in the
7000 block of Emerson expressing issues related to a group home there. He explained there were
complaints about the group home improperly disposing of trash and recycling. Councilmember
Ryan noted he had brought this issue up to staff before and hoped they could reevaluate it and
reach out to the resident. Dr. Edwards stated staff will communicate with the resident to address
the issue. He added they will add the issue to the weekly update to ensure all members of the
Council are aware of the concern.
WORK SESSION ABOUT CITY BUDGET
Mayor Elliott asked if Councilmembers were available during the week of November 15 to discuss
the City budget. He explained they should discuss the Council’s budgetary priorities for the
coming year. Mayor Elliott noted the driving reason for the meeting is the call from the community
to better fund the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence
Prevention Resolution. He suggested November 15 or November 18.
Mayor Elliott asked Dr. Edwards to send out the latest copy of the budget to the Council before
that meeting. Dr. Edwards confirmed he would provide that information to the Council. Mayor
Elliott encouraged the members to ask Dr. Edwards for any information that would aid them in the
discussion of the budget.
Following a short discussion on availability, Council consensus was reached to direct staff to
schedule a Work Session on November 15, 2021, at 6:00 p.m.
Councilmember Graves stated the Staff always tries to bring them a balanced budget, but she stated
she was curious Staff had ideas to make the budget more efficient. For example, perhaps there is
a program that is not doing as well as they would like. She added she would like to know how
much money the Police Department is spending on military-grade equipment as a part of that
discussion.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she has considered a dialogue about their succession.
She noted she is concerned they do not have a Deputy City Manager and explained there is not
anyone prepared to step in and succeed in the responsibilities of the City Manager. Mayor Elliott
asked Dr. Edwards to give that concern thought and provide input on it at a later time.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson noted they started the discussions back in June. Considering
they must approve the budget on December 6 and it is mid-November, a deep-dive would have
been more relevant a couple of months ago.
Mayor Elliott asked Dr. Edwards for a timeline update on the budget. Dr. Edwards stated there is
a public hearing on December 6 and it will also be the date for the Council to approve the budget.
Dr. Edwards asked if the Council plans on inviting the Finance Commission to the November 15
special Work Session. Mayor Elliott stated they should invite the Finance Commission to the
11/08/21 -4-
special Work Session.
Councilmember Ryan stated a few years back there was a change in the statute that the December
6 meeting is no longer called a “truth in taxation” meeting, but the function remains the same. He
stated he would appreciate it if Dr. Edwards checked with the City Attorney to ensure the statutory
limits or rules on the deadline are observed. Dr. Edwards confirmed he would do that.
Mayor Elliott asked Dr. Edwards to share that information with the Council as soon as possible.
Dr. Edwards confirmed he would share the statutory information with the Council once he receives
it.
Councilmember Graves noted her agreement with the other members of the Council that it is a late
hour to be readdressing the budget. She believes there is more space to do a deeper dive next year,
but added this special Work Session could be an opportunity to reflect on what they are approving,
how that could look different next year, and fill in the gaps and questions as identified by the
Council. Councilmember Graves explained this could be an opportunity to get an earlier start on
the budget or big changes for next year, and they should treat this meeting as a launching pad for
the future. She stated they should not make dramatic changes so close to the date they will pass
the budget, but she agrees the conversation needs to be had. If they move forward with the attitude
of looking towards the future, then they could implement more innovative strategies down the line.
Councilmember Graves added they need to have very specific communication regarding what they
are doing for the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence
Prevention Act such as who has been hired, what they are doing to work on the Resolution, the
details on the traffic stop, information on the pilot programs, and explaining what funding they
have secured. All in all, they need to make it clear they are moving forward on the Resolution
while being smart and strategic about it. She explained things cannot happen overnight because
something was written on paper.
Councilmember Graves added it would be helpful for the Council to have talking points to
reference while speaking to the public and provide the specifics to news outlets because the public
seems to misunderstand what is happening.
Councilmember Ryan stated he concurs with Councilmember Graves. He stated some pieces of
the budget deserve a high level of community engagement, similar to that of the Opportunity Site.
Mayor Elliott stated he is open to considering the budget that has been proposed, although the final
version has yet to be presented. He explained they need to carefully consider the budget and to be
open to community input. He noted he also wants to be open himself to what is possible in the
current year because another year is a long time to address disparities in policing and traffic.
Mayor Elliott stated he worries about public safety a lot, and that drives him to further consider
the budget.
Councilmember Graves stated she agrees additional resources will be needed. The funding they
have been able to obtain through outside sources should not be trivialized but instead, they should
celebrate and elevate that. She added they should consider input from staff to address potential
11/08/21 -5-
gaps in the budget. Councilmember Graves explained they could talk to Police Chief Tony
Gruenig to see the likelihood of filling the open law enforcement positions, and if they are over-
budgeting for that, then they could use that portion of the budget for something to expand mental
health response, for example. They could shift the money from holding a spot to something
tangible related to community cohesiveness, rebuilding trust and relationships, or other strategies
they are already supporting through alternative funding. Councilmember Graves stated she is not
opposed to a discussion but noted there may not be enough time to properly discuss major changes,
staff and community input on the changes, and the potential consequences of any changes.
City Attorney Troy Gilchrist stated, according to statute, the deadline for certifying the property
tax levy to the state is December 28, 2021.
ADJOURN STUDY SESSION TO INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL
Hearing no objection, Mayor Elliott closed the Study Session at 6:45 p.m.
11/08/21 -1-
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 8, 2021
VIA ZOOM
1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL
CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Informal Open Forum called to order by Mayor Mike
Elliott at 6:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence-
Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, City Engineer Mike
Albers, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, City Clerk Barb Suciu, and City
Attorney Troy Gilchrist.
Mayor Mike Elliott opened the meeting for Informal Open Forum.
Diane stated she is aware of a purchase of property for a liquor store for the City in 2021. She
asked if the public would be given information about the location and the project before the end
of the year.
City Manager Reggie Edwards stated Staff will provide more information on that. Community
Development Director Meg Beekman stated she does not anticipate that an acquisition will take
place in 2021. It was a goal of theirs to complete this year, but she does not believe it will take
place this year.
Diane asked if the public could provide input or comment on the property acquisition before it
goes through.
Mayor Elliott stated he believes that is something that would normally allow for public input. Dr.
Edwards stated it is something that has already been presented to and approved by Council. Mayor
Elliott asked if something on the matter will come before the Council again. Dr. Edwards stated
once they are ready to move forward with a site, the information will come back to the Council.
Matt stated he is reaching out as a concerned small business owner due to the lack of safety for his
employees. For the last several months, they have had a difficult time maintaining employees due
to safety. He asked for an update from Council on measures they are taking to address shoplifting,
car thefts, and public shootings to better support and retain small business employees.
11/08/21 -2-
Councilmember Ryan stated Informal Open Forum is not a time for problem-solving. He asked
Matt to provide information about his business. Matt stated he would prefer not to share the name
of his business, but he explained his business is in the realm of retail and has about 35 employees.
He added he has had problems maintaining more than 25 employees due to safety concerns.
Councilmember Ryan asked if any of Matt’s employees had been threatened. Matt confirmed his
employees have been threatened multiple times. He added there was a shooting in the parking lot
a few weeks ago which resulted in three employees leaving for that incident alone. He explained
he cannot ask them to work there because their safety is at risk. Matt noted he has had to hire
security, but he cannot afford to do that every day of the week. He added it is not a sustainable
way of keeping his employees safe. Matt stated there is not a lot of help offered when he calls to
ask for help and that concerns him as a small business owner.
Matt asked if there are any updates on how the City is trying to keep employees safe. Mayor Elliott
stated they will follow up with him on that. Matt stated it has gotten so much worse and the unsafe
environment is out of control. He added COVID-19 is the least of his staffing concerns.
Councilmember Graves stated she is very sorry that his employees feel unsafe. She stated the best
action step would be to reach out directly to one of the Councilmembers or Staff to problem-solve
with him in a different setting. She added she might have a few ideas to improve the situation.
Mayor Elliott moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at
6:56 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
Mayor Elliott called for a short recess of the meeting at 6:56 p.m. The meeting was reconvened
at 7:00 p.m. with all in attendance.
2. INVOCATION
Mayor Elliott shared a quote by Paul Wellstone, “Politics is about the improvement of people's
lives. It's about advancing the cause of peace and justice in our country and the world. Politics is
about doing well for the people.”
3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott
at 7:01 p.m.
4. ROLL CALL
Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence-
Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, City Engineer Mike
Albers, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, City Clerk Barb Suciu, and City
Attorney Troy Gilchrist.
11/08/21 -3-
5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson moved and Mayor Elliott seconded to approve the Agenda
and Consent Agenda, and the following consent items were approved:
6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. October 18, 2021 - Joint Council/Financial Commission
2. October 25, 2021 - Study Session Meeting
3. October 25, 2021 - Regular Session Meeting
4. October 25, 2021 - Work Session Meeting
6b. APPROVAL OF LICENSES
MECHANICAL
Climate Tech LLC 14702 Excelsior Blvd
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Deschene Enterprises, Inc. 21725 Linden Way
Rogers, MN 55374
Friendly Home Services Inc. 11792 272nd Ave NW
Zimmerman, MN 55398
Total Home Solutions 1008 Prospect Pointe Rd
Jordan, MN 55352
RENTAL
INITIAL (TYPE III — one-year license)
5144 Ewing Avenue N. Kofi Yeboah/Gracelands LLC
INITIAL (TYPE II — six-month license)
5924 Dupont Avenue N. Jonathan Miller
5524 Humboldt Avenue N. Devon Youngblood/Larkin Street
Homes LLC
6924 Scott Avenue N. Joseph Florczak/HPA US1 LLC
6931 Toledo Avenue N. Joseph Florczak/HPA US1 LLC
6218 Unity Avenue N. Ishmael Komara
RENEWAL (TYPE IV — six-month license)
5338-40 Queen Avenue N. Thanh Kim Oan
7001 Emerson Avenue N. Mara Jenson/Moses Gibson
11/08/21 -4-
6424 Girard Avenue N. Olufemi Sowemimo/Livewell Home
Care LLC
5739 James Avenue N. Douglas Wahl/Rifive Investments
LLC
7156 Unity Avenue N. Michelle Shaffer
RENEWAL (TYPE III — one-year license)
1600 71st Avenue N. FYR SFR Borrow LLC
6107 Bryant Avenue N. Daniel Yesnes
5310 Knox Avenue N. Douglas Wahl/Cel Ponton LLC
5642 Logan Avenue N. MNSFII W1 LLC
RENEWAL (TYPE II — two-year license)
5351 Irving Avenue N. Douglas Wahl/Cel Ponton LLC
5636 Irving Avenue N. Bruce Goldberg
4007 Joyce Lane John Jorgenson
RENEWAL (TYPE I — three-year license)
1113 73rd Avenue N. Mary Ellen Carroll
5325 Newton Avenue N. EE & J Investment Inc
4734 Twin Lake Avenue N. Elizabeth Becht
SIGNHANGER
Electro Neon & Design Inc 1680 99th Lane NE
Blaine, MN 55449
JDI Signs & Graphics, LLC 6451 McKinley Street NW, Suite P
Ramsey, MN 55303
TOBACCO
Burr St Market dba Quick Shop
5808 Xerxes Avenue N
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
Casey's General Stores dba Casey's General Store #3823
2101 Freeway Boulevard
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Kabalan Co dba Pump N Munch
1505 69th Avenue N
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Leng Ku dba Sun Foods
6350 Brooklyn Boulevard
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
6c. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-135 ESTABLISHING 2022 STREET AND STORM
DRAINAGE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT RATES
11/08/21 -5-
6d. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-136 ESTABLISHING INTEREST RATE OFR
2022 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
6e. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-137 DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED
AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2022-01,
WOODBINE AREA STREET IMPROVEMENTS
6f. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-138AMENDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVY
ROLL NOS. 21001 AND 21002 TO PROVIDE FOR THE DEFERRAL OF
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
6g. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-139 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
WRITE-OFF UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND
RETURNED CHECKS
6h. AN ORDINANCE 2021-04 AMENDING CHAPTER 23 TO ALLOW AND
REGULATE SPECIAL EVENTS AND RESOLUTION 2021-
140ACKNOWLEDGING THE FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE
6i. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-141 APPROVING THE CONTRACT FOR THE
LABOR AGREEMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES,
INC. (LELS NUMBER 86) AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR
THE CALENDAR YEARS 2022-2024
7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS
7a. HIGHWAY 252/I-94 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) UPDATE
Dr. Edwards introduced the topic and invited City Engineer Mike Albers to make the staff
presentation.
City Engineer Mike Albers stated the City is partnering with MnDOT, Hennepin County, the City
of Brooklyn Center, and the City of Minneapolis on an Environmental Impact Statement for the
Highway 252/I-94 corridor from Highway 610 in Brooklyn Park to 4th Street in Minneapolis. The
project partners will use the EIS to gain a better understanding of safety and transportation needs
in the area and take a closer look at how a potential construction project could affect the
environment surrounding Highway 252 and I-94. This includes the people, plants, animals, water,
air, roadways, buildings, and other structures in the area. The project is currently in the Scoping
phase and MnDOT has retained SRF Consulting Group, Inc. to provide transportation planning,
engineering, and environmental expertise. Mr. Albers invited Chris Hoberg to continue the
presentation.
Chris Hoberg, West Area Engineer with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, provided
an overview of the presentation. Mr. Hoberg explained they heard concerns and requests from
Council regarding the project, and they have made sure to integrate those items into the project.
11/08/21 -6-
He noted the Council’s request for the project to benefit the City and not just stakeholders beyond
the City’s borders. It was agreed upon that it was important to hear about health equity and its
impacts. Additionally, Council had requested a presentation on traffic flow in the region around
Brooklyn Center to better understand the origin and destinations of traffic and to understand how
Brooklyn Center plays a role in the regional transportation system. He stated they have been trying
to reach people where they live rather than inviting people to a distant venue. Knowing that pop-
up events are effective, they have been preparing for more public meetings and hosted an event
this fall. Mr. Hoberg acknowledged multimodal solutions are important.
Mr. Hoberg noted Brooklyn Park is eager to remove stoplights and build interchanges at Brookdale
Drive and 85th and, without removal of the signals, they will continue to have crashes. He added
safety and functionality of the roadway are of the utmost importance to both the Council and the
Minnesota Department of Transportation. Council had asked about the air quality impacts of
converting Highway 252 to a freeway, and Mr. Hoberg agreed environmental is a concern for both
the Council and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Regarding the mission statement or
purpose statement, they would like to see a statement that addresses reducing emissions, improving
health, and improving racial disparities. Mr. Hoberg stated they have the tools in place to help
them understand that and aid in reaching a solid decision. One of the key reasons they want to go
through the process is because success is measured by increased safety and not increasing poor air
quality concentrations. They must look at the impacts and benefits of any proposed project.
Craig Vaughn, representing Transportation Collaborative and Consultants, LLC, stated the
Environmental Impact Statement process is currently expected to span through the year 2024.
They are currently in the scoping decision document phase that should last through Summer 2022,
which is looking at a host of improvements across the corridor and potential alternatives. Mr.
Vaughn explained the technical project analysis project includes four steps of action. Step one
includes identifying project improvements, and they are currently on step two, which is combining
project improvements to develop a list of project alternatives. Step three determines which
alternatives should be studied further in the draft Environmental Impact Statement, and step four
reviews the draft Environmental Impact Statement and determines if there is a preferred
alternative.
Mr. Vaughn stated they have had community engagement updates since the last meeting. They
have expanded the Environmental Impact Statement 101 video library, completed two rounds of
open house engagement, continued to host ongoing pop-up meetings, and done targeted outreach
to faith-based, African, and African American communities. The expanded Environmental Impact
Statement 101 video library includes an overview of the project, an explanation of why Highway
252 and I-94 are being studied, the relationship between the two roadways, what design changes
are being considered, and what the design changes mean for traffic patterns in Brooklyn Park,
Brooklyn Center, and Minneapolis.
Mr. Vaughn stated the June 2021 open house series included 99 total attendees, 86 total live
comments, and 96 inline comments. They heard various comments from the community they are
taking into consideration. It was suggested they can improve the roadway without building a
freeway and they could consider an overpass and underpass at 66th Avenue instead of a full
interchange to improve safety. There were concerns about air pollution and increased traffic
11/08/21 -7-
posing safety risks to the community. Additionally, the open house addressed questions about
timelines.
Mr. Vaughn explained the October 2021 open house included 177 attendees, 134 live comments,
and 13 comment cards. Comments included questions about why the project was taking so long
and why traffic will shift to local roads. Residents expressed concerns about the freeway
negatively affecting property values and current safety issues, such as running red lights, that are
not being enforced. Some people also commented they want to see signals removed and freeway
options considered but noted they need to figure out interchange locations and traffic shifts to local
roads.
Mr. Vaughn stated there was a significant amount of pop-up engagement, meaning engaging with
people where they are at. As of a week before the presentation, there had been 962 total
impressions. One comment expressed the desire for funding to go towards transit and bikeways
rather than freeway expansion. Another shared they would like to get rid of signals and they like
the six-lane grade-separated freeway. Community members also said it was encouraging to see
the government out at an event and noted it was much better than doing focus groups on the topic.
Mr. Hoberg stated the Equity and Health Assessment is underway, and the Equity and Health
Neighborhood Advisors, a neighborhood advisory group, has met twice. He explained the focus
is on equity, health, and transportation. Community characteristics they are considering include
demographic measures, built environment, health status, and health disparities. Transportation
systems and mobility include travel behavior, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, public transit
systems, and overall safety. Mr. Hoberg noted there is also a focus on community input and
engagement.
Mr. Hoberg stated they wanted to highlight workforce initiatives. The benefits of a major highway
project are not just limited to a safer highway, but also connecting people to the investment. Heavy
highway construction tries to connect people to the trades, and forethought is required to train
people before the project begins. He explained it could be from now until the project is built. The
maintenance pathway is another potential career option hired by the Department of Transportation.
Lastly, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has an internship program and a student
worker program to connect folks in the science, technology, engineering, and math fields to
projects.
Mr. Hoberg noted they have consistently been asked how they are addressing safety concerns. The
project team has heard from the public at previous engagement events that they would like to see
improvements made now to Highway 252 to address safety concerns. Minnesota Department of
Transportation and its partners are currently investigating interim safety improvements to Highway
252 that could be implemented before major project construction in 2027. Minnesota Department
of Transportation will release a report summarizing potential interim safety improvements.
Mr. Vaughn explained the next significant community engagement will include additional
information on the relationship between speed and safety and a refined set of alternatives with a
discussion of access, pedestrian and bicycle crossing locations, transit stations, and physical impact
considerations. Spring of 2022 will be the official public comment period as part of the scoping
11/08/21 -8-
decision and Environmental Impact Statement process. He noted there is continued business
stakeholder outreach.
Mr. Vaughn noted there is always information available on the project website, and there is the
opportunity to share comments by visiting the project website contacts tab. Additionally, there is
an option to receive email updates to stay involved in the process.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she looks forward to hearing about public safety
measures they can take in the interim as this project is still a few years out from being implemented.
Councilmember Butler thanked the presenters for engaging with the community in several ways.
She noted the videos are very helpful.
Councilmember Ryan stated he has had his questions answered by the team and noted his
appreciation for the online resources. He stated he concurs with Councilmember Lawrence-
Anderson about interim safety measures.
Councilmember Graves agreed with the comments of other members of the Council. She is excited
to hear about the work for interim safety such as flashing lights to warn of an upcoming red light.
Mr. Hoberg confirmed flashing lights is one of the options they are in the process of evaluating.
Councilmember Graves asked how long that process may take. Mr. Hoberg stated the timeline
depends on the outcome of the report. He explained they will want to come back and discuss the
findings, but there is the desire to implement things as soon as they can.
Jerome Adams, Minnesota Department of Transportation Project Advisor, stated he plans to report
to the policy advisors in January 2022. From there, they will see if they can do construction in
2023 if they identify something to do.
Councilmember Graves stated she appreciates the information on the career pathways programs.
She stated it might be helpful to communicate those opportunities to communities that do not
usually receive such information. Options for outreach include Summit Academy and Job Corps.
Mr. Adams stated they have a plan to connect people to jobs, and the next step they are working
on its implementation. Implementation means doing targeted outreach starting in 2022 and yearly
through 2027 to explain the job opportunities that exist and connect people to those opportunities.
Mayor Elliott noted his excitement that they are addressing the air quality and potential health
implications for the community. This all has to do with the historical nature of transportation. He
added it is welcome news to hear about the level of community engagement and the interim
mitigation strategies. Mayor Elliott asked if the project is committed to decreasing air pollution.
Mr. Adams stated there is not a specific commitment to that, but they do study air pollution and
its changes based on projects.
Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to accept the presentation
Highway 252/I-94 Environmental Impact Statement Update.
Motion passed unanimously
11/08/21 -9-
7b. MARKET TRENDS AND DEMAND OVERVIEW
Dr. Edwards introduced the item of market trends and demand overview and invited Ms. Beekman
to make the staff presentation.
Ms. Beekman stated in 2019, the City worked with Kimble Company to take a high-level look at
market demand and regional market trends affecting Brooklyn Center. The study was initiated as
part of several initiatives focused on understanding the available land in the City and how best to
target development on them. The high-level market study considered the Opportunity Site area,
the former Sears site, and the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor. Ms. Beekman noted the study was
intended to be presented to the Council in early 2020 but was postponed as a result of the pandemic
and the City pivoted to focus on other areas of concern. Given a renewed interest from developers
on various sites in the City, Kimble Company was asked to update their study and provide their
expertise regarding where the market is currently heading and what types of development are more
probable than others. Julie Kimble will present her findings and will be available to answer any
questions that the Council may have.
Ms. Beekman explained Staff is seeking to provide information to the Council to assist with design
making in the future in regards to development sites. The presentation is designed to be fairly high
level. The Council will have an opportunity to identify if there is additional information they
would like more detail on, which can be provided as part of a future and ongoing discussion.
Julie Kimble of KimbleCo stated the purpose of the presentation is intended to provide a summary
update of commercial real estate market information to assess realistic opportunities for
development and redevelopment throughout Brooklyn Center now and in the near term. She
summarized the agenda of the presentation.
Ms. Kimble stated she founded the company KimbleCo in 2014 and it is a full-service commercial
real estate firm. They have developed and leased over six million square feet of commercial real
estate and include principals with over 65 years of diverse real estate experience locally, nationally,
and globally. Ms. Kimble added she is the chair of the Roseville Planning Commission.
Ms. Kimble explained KimbleCo was a member of a consultant team in 2019 and 2020 that
performed a variety of scope for Brooklyn Center. This work helped to inform this market update.
At that time, they assessed the retail, office & multifamily markets in Brooklyn Center resulting
in two reports, a Market Review, and a Redevelopment Analysis. The study was focused on
redevelopment sites along Brooklyn Boulevard therefore industrial was not included. The purpose
of the study was to provide a view into opportunities for development that were grounded in market
realities. She noted it is easy to create wonderful visions for sites but another to make them happen.
The analysis focused on opportunities that supported job and revenue growth in the city, provided
resources for residents, and developments that could happen now and shortly based on current
market fundamentals.
Ms. Kimble stated industrial space is in high demand. Development potential is high almost
anywhere due to the strong underlying real estate fundamentals in the market and the demand for
products and services of essential businesses, and vacancy is low across the entire Twin Cities
11/08/21 -10-
market at 4.2% with 15 million square feet of demand in the market. Rents are increasing due to
principles of supply and demand. Brooklyn Center’s current inventory is a mix of traditional office
warehouses and flex/R&D and has a slightly higher vacancy than the market overall, possibly due
to the fact much of its product is older. Ms. Kimble explained office/warehouse space is typically
24 feet clear in height or more and use is usually 20 percent for office and 80 percent for retail.
Distribution requires a ceiling clear height of more than 28 feet with a very small office component.
Lastly, flex/R&D/office showroom can be lower clear ceiling heights with closer to 40 percent
office use and 60 percent warehouse use. Other industrial product types may include truck
terminals, cross docks, cold storage, and self-storage.
Ms. Kimble stated national institutional investors and owners are interested in the Twin Cities
market and noted some now control large portfolios and are driving rents and annual escalations
up. Numerous speculative industrial developments have recently been announced and the
economics for industrial easily supports such new developments. There is a higher percentage of
local owners in comparison to institutional or national owners of industrial buildings in the
Brooklyn Center market. Ms. Kimble noted this may change with the development of a newer
product.
Ms. Kimble added industrial likes access to freeway infrastructure. Cities and residents typically
prefer that industrial production is not located in proximity to residential and retail centers but
planned for areas set aside and zoned specifically as industrial centers due to the scale of buildings,
truck traffic, and general operations. She explained current economics are strong, and incentives
should not be necessary unless there are extenuating circumstances such as necessary
environmental clean-up.
Ms. Kimble stated in thinking about the industrial market, they must consider if flex product works
in areas with commercial or residential adjacencies. This could drive up the number of new jobs
and present smaller-scale buildings that can work more easily with commercial and residential
adjacencies. If not flexible, then developers should commit to a minimum level of office finish to
drive jobs. They additionally could consider if there is an opportunity to target and attract
destination entertainment use such as brewery, interactive sporting with food & beverage, roller-
skating, or other features as a part of the industrial tenant mix and does zoning allows this. They
would need to ensure the different types of uses can coexist and query whether the Twin Cities is
nearing its limit of breweries and distilleries.
Ms. Kimble noted if there is a development agreement be careful to include important items such
as minimum finish levels or creation of jobs standards, goals for tenant mix or specific market
voids, pay careful attention to design standards, require minimum standards, especially to
commercial, residential and high traffic-facing adjacencies, materials, require buffers as needed,
pay attention to lighting zones, hours of operation if residential and commercial adjacencies,
incorporate good site planning such as green space, pedestrian connections to nearby amenities,
connections to city trail and or other city amenities as appropriate, and to ensure the property is
well lit to enhance safety and security.
Ms. Kimble explained opportunities for industrial sites include a higher office component creating
more job capacity, quality of jobs is typically higher than retail, and market demand is strong, and
11/08/21 -11-
industrial is likely to thrive. Potential challenges are that industrial spaces require a large footprint
and typical facades are a challenge if commercial or residential adjacencies, need to manage truck
traffic, light & noise, and, if higher warehouse usage in comparison to office, job counts are
reduced.
Ms. Kimble stated the current retail vacancy in Brooklyn Center is 8.7% greater than the rest of
the Twin Cities. Lease-up of existing space and development of available pad sites in the city has
been slow. Additionally, current rental rates do not support new construction except for single-
tenant, standalone projects. Lenders will require substantial pre-leasing for multi-tenant buildings,
the speculative product will be nearly impossible to finance. As always, retailers are laser-focused
on demographics, now more than ever due to the impact of the pandemic and the competition with
online shopping. Additionally, daytime population to support retail is key.
Ms. Kimble explained Brooklyn Center cannot just consider city boundaries but must look at larger
retail trade areas to understand opportunities. This is especially important as there is considerable
competition with relative nearby retail trade centers such as Maple Grove. This is even more
important as retailers are reducing the number of bricks and mortar stores placing them further
apart than they used to. Developers have extensively targeted national retailers including grocery
and entertainment venues unsuccessfully. Primary reasons include demographic mix, too close to
other operations, and just simply they are not expanding. A high percentage of tenants and building
ownership are local – there is not a strong track record of investment by national or institutional
investors/owners which usually is not a positive signal for developers. Some cities, to attract retail
uses have invested in substantial subsidies with no promise of future success.
Ms. Kimble stated considerations for retail spaces include asking how the city helps guide retail
and zoning such that there is long-term success, where retail centers belong and how does this play
into the many sites available in the City, and what concentration of retail needs to be located in the
Opportunity Site to make that a success. They need to consider if there is an opportunity to target
and attract destination entertainment use such as brewery, interactive sporting, food and beverage,
roller-skating, or other attraction as a part of the tenant mix, even in a light industrial property and
if zoning would allow this.
Ms. Kimble added they should assess if there is an opportunity for a project such as a market, be
it small scale, clustered, or niche retail, or food hall concept for locally-owned retailers along with
how much of this type of retail can realistically be supported and on what site should it be located.
The City must also consider if it can have long-term success. Before any city investment,
considerable research should be done. For example, Midtown Market on Lake Street has had ups
and downs and has had to pivot numerous times even though it is located in a prime location with
good demographics to support the concept and significant day and nighttime population. As an
alternative to encourage locally-owned retailers, the City can consider if vacant and unused
storefronts are used as an economic development tool. It is possible City subsidies create a lower
barrier to entry such as to “white-box” the space and assist with tenant improvements or to write
down some of the rent. This fills existing, vacant space and provides opportunities for new and
emerging businesses. Finally, they must incorporate good site planning such as green space,
pedestrian connections to nearby amenities, the city trail system, and or other city amenities as
11/08/21 -12-
appropriate. Ms. Kimble added they should make sure the site is well-lit to enhance safety and
security.
Ms. Kimble stated offices are currently a bit of a dismal space. Current rental rates do not support
new construction except for single-tenant, stand-alone projects. Brooklyn Center rents and sales
over the last five years are below the market averages. Known cap rates for sales are 8.0% and
above representing market risk and reducing developer returns impacting decisions to invest. Ms.
Kimble explained the pandemic has greatly influenced office use and the future of the office is
evolving. Because of this as well as increasing vacancies and considerable sublease space on the
market, development has paused. Build to suit, for lease or ownership can be designed to a budget
that fits for a business, however, competition is high for these sites, likely requiring city subsidy.
However, the pandemic has put almost all thought of this type of development on hold for now
due to changing workplace policies such as hybrid and remote work.
Ms. Kimble noted lenders will require substantial pre-leasing, speculative products will be nearly
impossible to finance. A smaller footprint, office condo project, carefully designed to meet the
market, with a competitive land purchase may be able to be developed with little to no subsidy or
redeployment of vacant storefronts as suggested in the retail overview. She added developer
owners must be capitalized up-front to fund tenant improvement allowances and transaction fees
that are typical in the market. Additionally, emerging developers of small office properties must
be well-capitalized and prepared for these costs to have long-term success.
Ms. Kimble stated, along with industrial, multifamily is the current darling of development and
investment. Despite considerable new construction over the past four years, market fundamentals
remain healthy and there is room for more development in many communities. Even with higher
construction pricing and delayed access to some materials, the market fundamentals remain strong
supporting new development. The passing of rent control policies in St. Paul and Minneapolis
will likely drive development to the suburbs.
Ms. Kimble explained there continues to be insufficient affordable housing and in many
communities a need for “missing middle” housing such as duplex and triplex properties both for
rent and for ownership. Brooklyn Center is starting to fill this gap with some of its newer
developments along Brooklyn Boulevard. Demand for missing middle housing is high and the
regional housing shortage is driving costs up. Brooklyn Center is competing for projects with
other suburban communities. Ms. Kimble noted that missing middle housing also is a key driver
to retain existing residents that are at retirement age and wish to downsize and remain in the
community.
Ms. Kimble noted the capital stack for affordable housing continues to be a challenge with limited
pools of funding which can cause long delays in development starts and the requirement for local
subsidies remains. Some communities, such as Brooklyn Center, need to update and add market-
rate apartments to diversify and expand their housing mix. Given the lower rents in this market
and rising construction costs, the subsidy is likely required in the current market, particularly if
there is structured parking. According to the Met Council, Brooklyn Center will add over 2,200
new households over the next 20 years.
11/08/21 -13-
Ms. Kimble stated industrial and multi-family are the strongest contenders. The City has great
sites available for development and redevelopment. Yet, the market for development in any one
area is not unlimited and there is at some point a finite amount of supply for the demand. Given
this, development may occur later on some sites as market fundamentals improve for asset classes
such as retail and office.
Ms. Kimble stated the City should consider where they could take advantage of current
opportunities for development such as the need for industrial products. The City plays an
important role in guiding land use across the City. Given the available land, the city will need to
be strategic about land planning so that developments and sectors can thrive once built. What uses
work best for the Opportunity Site and what works best for the Sears site or Brooklyn Boulevard,
for example. Additionally, Ms. Kimble noted the Council should consider which types of
developments have more success being near other types of “like” development such as retail
concentrations or how commercial amenities are positioned to provide live-work-play
environments.
Ms. Kimble stated they should consider guiding industrial uses to one area of the city and
concentrate multi-family, service retail, and community gathering spots to one area to create
vibrancy and a sense of place. As much as possible keep industrial uses away from densities of
housing and highly trafficked pedestrian locations. Given current land availability in the city, this
may mean directing light industrial and jobs-based opportunities to the Sears site and making sure
the city has a well-documented agreement with the developer to ensure the site and design
standards and minimum requirements for job creation.
Ms. Kimble explained the City must ask how the City attracts and diversifies its multifamily mix,
perhaps a balance of market-rate and affordable workforce and often missing middle housing such
as townhomes. Office space is currently in tremendous flux due to the pandemic. However, well-
placed office condo products may support the incubation of Brooklyn Center’s existing and new
entrepreneurs or unused and vacant storefronts can be used to support local business growth. The
development of a product with healthy underlying market fundamentals should eliminate or greatly
reduce the need for city subsidy thereby positively impacting the city’s revenue.
Ms. Kimble noted they should consider encouraging locally-owned retailers by using economic
development tools to fill unused storefronts. This fills existing, vacant space and provides
opportunities for new and emerging businesses. She recommended incorporating requirements
into developer agreements that ensure they get what was promised and to achieve a project that
will enhance the community and meet city goals.
Mayor Elliott stated some communities are being developed that have home storefronts. Some
time ago, some neighborhoods had houses but were able to have storefronts attached to them or
the lower level of it. He asked if that is a strategy Ms. Kimble was aware of. Ms. Kimble stated
that is not something she is aware of in any great density. She stated Minneapolis and St. Paul
have opportunities for sorts of neighborhood-places businesses such as Grand Avenue. However,
she is not aware of a suburban area that has been able to accomplish that.
11/08/21 -14-
Ms. Beekman stated they have been looking at codes and zoning, specifically in the Brooklyn
Boulevard corridor area. She stated the potential rezoning allows for a transition between the
corridor and neighborhoods, and they want to be mindful of the transition. The zoning would
allow for single-family homes along Brooklyn Boulevard to be used for commercial or mix-used
purposes. Ms. Beekman explained they made that distinction because those structures are already
there and it may make sense for owners of the homes to convert the spaces to businesses. She
added there are a couple of cities that have a similar type of zoning and referenced downtown
Hopkins and Grand Avenue in St. Paul as two examples. Mayor Elliott stated the method makes
sense especially in light of the pandemic driving people to work from home.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked if Ms. Kimble had any examples of what businesses
to avoid surrounding the Opportunity Site with. Ms. Kimble stated the City should be careful
about what they put around the site. When a city wants space to be for gathering and community,
then they have to be carefully surround it with industrial spaces. If industrial were to be in the
mix, it would have to be very carefully planned. While they want vibrancy in terms of product
mixes, she would be hesitant to introduce buildings with high degrees of industrial space into the
area that would primarily serve for purposes of retail and housing. Councilmember Lawrence-
Anderson stated much of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock is considered affordable and noted she
appreciates Ms. Kimble’s data related to that type of housing.
Councilmember Butler stated she believes they need a greater range of housing stock in Brooklyn
Center. She asked how they do that without pricing out people currently in homes. Ms. Kimble
asked for Councilmember Butler to clarify her question. Councilmember Butler stated she
believed Ms. Kimble recommended they have both affordable housing and market-rate housing as
they are developing the City. Councilmember Butler asked how they introduce the higher-end
options without pricing people out of their homes because it would impact taxes for people already
living in more affordable options. Ms. Kimble stated she isn’t sure she can answer the question
off the cuff. She stated she is not sure it would impact them because there is a need for more
housing in the community, and she doesn’t believe introducing market-rate housing would impact
single-family homes due to the current market. She stated she will think about that more and share
any future thoughts on the topic with Ms. Beekman. She added it is beneficial to attract
competitive-rate housing.
Councilmember Ryan stated Ms. Kimble highlighted the fact that speculative-industrial
development is desirable given a suitable site location because it would be attracting higher-paying
jobs than retail. He asked if that is analogous to building more market-rate family housing that
they are also attracting more households with more disposable income. Ms. Kimble stated
industrial is an opportunity due to current supply and demand. She explained there is less industrial
space and there are more users in the market. The pandemic has proven that essential businesses
are here to stay and necessary.
Councilmember Ryan stated it seems that if they have more market-rate housing in a community
like Brooklyn Center where the multi-family rentals are below average for the Twin Cities area, it
would ultimately attract more families with more disposable income. Household incomes in
Brooklyn Center have trended down, so the notion raises concerns about the City’s future financial
liability if that individual income trend continues. He noted one of the Council’s goals is to address
11/08/21 -15-
economic inequity, but one of the ways to approach that could be market-rate opportunity housing
as it may bring more disposable income into the City and drive the local economy. Ms. Kimble
stated she agrees everything Councilmember Ryan has said makes sense and is accurate, but she
is not sure how it relates to industrial development. Councilmember Ryan stated the market
recognizes the need for industrial spaces which would bring in more higher-paying jobs than retail.
Councilmember Graves stated the presentation was very informative. She noted there seems to be
space for industrial development. Although it is unappealing for her, she explained it can be
helpful in terms of job creation and taking on a larger burden of the tax base. Councilmember
Graves stated it is interesting the current industrial spaces are locally owned and yet those owners
aren’t upgrading and trying to stay current. She noted they could potentially be better supporting
them as she wants to prioritize supporting and leveraging local businesses.
Councilmember Graves added the idea of using smart zoning stood out to her. She stated she likes
the idea of a marketplace concept, but they need to be careful about how they build and support
that. Councilmember Graves added the presentation caused her to think about the spaces off of
Highway 280 where there have been both restaurants and industrial uses. She noted she likes the
idea of an anchor space.
Councilmember Graves stated if there is something they could be doing to better support the empty
storefronts, then the Council needs to be doing that. She added she would like more information
about supporting local businesses and current vacancies. Ms. Kimble stated it always makes sense
to think about maximizing what is already there and considering why the space is vacant. She
explained the idea of the storefronts is a concept as there has not been a study done. She noted it
could be a strip mall or a single storefront, and it could be a way to promote entrepreneurship and
give local entrepreneurs a jumpstart.
Mayor Elliott moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to accept the presentation Market Trends
& Demand Overview.
Mayor Elliott asked if Councilmember Graves meant to reference Highway 100 instead of
Highway 280. Councilmember Graves stated she meant Highway 280 because she grew up in St.
Paul. She clarified she was thinking about the Como area and the feel of those neighborhoods.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
None.
10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS
10a. AN ORDINANCE 2021-05 AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE CITY CODE OF
ORDINANCE REGARDING TENANT PROTECTION AND RESOLUTION NO.
11/08/21 -16-
2021-142 ACKNOWLEDGING THE FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE
Dr. Edwards introduced the item and then invited Ms. Beekman to continue the staff presentation.
Ms. Beekman stated this has been developed over multiple work sessions. City Staff has had
multiple discussions with the City Council relating to affordable housing policies and programs.
The City is currently working with the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs and Research in
Action on a citywide housing study. It is a priority to support current residents without alienating
them. That work is completed its engagement phase and is anticipated to be completed in early
2022. The deliverables from the study will be used to complete a Housing Policy Action Plan to
address the housing priorities in the city. Staff is anticipating moving forward with programs and
policies based on the results of that study. However, Brooklyn Center and the Twin Cities region
are facing continued and extremely low vacancy rates. Estimates show the region will be short
by 40,000 housing units by 2040, so there is a desperate need for new housing.
Ms. Beekman showed a slide with a map depicting ten core-based statistical areas with the lowest
vacancy rates. According to a recent 2020 Census Report, the Twin Cities has the lowest vacancy
rate among the 30 largest U.S. cities. She noted this disparity promotes the power gap as there are
fewer choices for renters.
Ms. Beekman noted Staff has been working closely with the City Attorney’s office to draft an
ordinance relating to tenant protections. This ordinance was created to include multiple areas of
concern from tenants such as just cause non-renewal, pre-eviction notices, maintenance fees,
damage deposits, material changes to the lease, and discrimination relating to public assistance
status. Based on the current low vacancy rates and the urgency created by the phasing out of the
pandemic’s eviction moratorium, Staff thought it to be necessary to expedite the tenant protection
ordinance relating specifically to items addressing displacement, particularly evictions and non-
renewals. Putting anti-displacement measures into effect sooner rather than later is intended to get
ahead of a growing problem and provide renters with more leverage in their negotiations with
landlords.
Ms. Beekman stated there are three provisions addressed in the ordinance. The first is a pre-
eviction filing notice which requires 30 days written notice before filing an eviction. The timeline
would allow the tenant to be notified of imminent eviction and for the tenant and landlord to come
to some sort of understanding or agreement such as fixing a behavior. Another benefit is this
process could help tenants avoid receiving a negative mark on their record for receiving an
eviction, which makes future rental more difficult down the line. Evictions would be restricted to
non-payment of rent or material breach of the lease.
Ms. Beekman explained the ordinance also includes a just cause non-renewal which establishes
requirements that prevent a property owner or property manager from non-renewing an existing
tenant lease without just cause. Non-renewals have been used instead of evictions to eliminate
less desirable tenants. She added they have seen more property maintenance violations in recent
years, so they know that is a concern for tenants. Just causes for non-renewals would include non-
payment of rent, material noncompliance, refusal to renew, occupancy by the property owner or
family member, building demolishing or conversion, rehabilitation or renovation, complying with
11/08/21 -17-
a government order to vacate, or occupancy conditioned on employment. The landlord would
have to provide evidence for which cause resulted in the non-renewal.
Ms. Beekman stated another provision includes private enforcement where a tenant or former
tenant of an affordable housing unit harmed by an owner in violation of this ordinance may bring
an action again the owner in district court. A waiver is not allowed by a tenant to waive their rights
under the new ordinance. This would allow people to remedy violations that have occurred.
Ms. Beekman stated the Brooklyn Center Housing Commission meet on October 19, 2021, and
discussed the proposed tenant protection ordinance. The Housing Commission received feedback
from multiple Housing Advocacy Groups including African Career, Education, and Resource,
HomeLine, and the Housing Justice Center as well as numerous Brooklyn Center tenants. It was
strongly recommended from all agencies and tenets to expedite and approve the ordinance
specifically relating to evictions and non-renewals. Further, the Housing Commission has
unanimously approved a recommendation to approve the proposed ordinance before the Council.
Ms. Beekman explained the recommended action is to approve the first reading of the ordinance
at the current meeting and hold a public hearing with a second reading at a later date. She added
they have been working with housing advocacy groups and a couple of the partners are present at
the meeting to answer any questions.
City Attorney Tony Gilchrist stated the actual action would be to adopt the Resolution approving
the first reading.
Mayor Elliott noted he was very proud of the work Staff has done to develop the ordinance.
Councilmember Graves stated if the Council is open to it, perhaps they could open the floor to the
public for comment. Mr. Gilchrist stated the Resolution was to approve the first reading and to set
a public hearing to include a second reading, so there is a formal hearing that will be held on
December 13. He explained they could still open public comment that evening if Council would
like.
Mayor Elliott stated he would recommend taking comments from Council first then consider
opening the floor for public comment.
Councilmember Ryan stated he can appreciate the public's comment, but he would like to
recognize the ordinances that promote effective time management for the Council. Considering
they have a work session, he recommended they leave the public comment for the public hearing
on December 13, 2021. Councilmember Ryan added he appreciates the spirit of the ordinance.
Mayor Elliott agreed it was getting late. Councilmember Graves stated she would agree to limit
the discussion of the topic by the public until a later date.
Councilmember Butler thanked everyone who had a hand in putting together the ordinance. Mayor
Elliott added they have heard from many residents that this type of policy is desperately needed.
As noted by Ms. Beekman, the condition has been made worse due to the pandemic. Mayor Elliott
11/08/21 -18-
explained he has heard from the public that there are evictions used as retaliation for requesting
basic maintenance.
Mayor Elliott moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2021-
142 approving the first reading of an Ordinance 2021-05 Amending Chapter 12 of the city code of
ordinances regarding tenant protections and hold a public hearing and second reading to be held
on December 13, 2021.
Motion passed unanimously.
11. COUNCIL REPORT
None.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Elliott moved and Councilmember Graves seconded adjournment of the City Council
meeting at 9:37 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
11/08/21 -1-
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 8, 2021
VIA ZOOM
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 9:38 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor/President Mike Elliott and Councilmembers/Commissioners Marquita Butler, April
Graves, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Reggie
Edwards, and City Clerk Barb Suciu.
DISCUSSION OF PERMANENT FENCE
City Manager Reggie Edwards introduced the topic and explained during the City Council/EDA
meeting on Monday, October 25 the issue of an addition to the existing permanent fence located
at the police station was raised by a resident. The Council/EDA asked for information regarding
the fence. The City Manager indicated he would provide information to the concerned resident
and the Council/EDA. On Monday, November 1, the City Council/EDA directed staff to add the
fence to the work session as part of the agenda for the upcoming City Council/EDA meeting on
November 8, 2021.
Dr. Edwards showed a slide with a picture of the current temporary fence and another picture of
the permanent fence. Currently, the City has multiple facilities that are fenced including the water
treatment plant, public works garage, water towers, Center Brook Golf Course, and miscellaneous
park spaces. The idea of adding a fence to the Police Department has included years of discussion
totaling nearly a decade. Additionally, there were requests from the community for the fence in
April 2021.
Dr. Edwards stated currently there is permanent fencing surrounding three sides and temporary
fencing in the front of the Police Station. The proposed addition would be on the front side of the
facility and would connect the current permanent fence. The total cost of the project is estimated
to be $190,000 and there is a federal grant of $150,000 which covers 79 percent of the project. He
explained the federal grant is through the Urban Area Security Initiative Grant Program and is
administered by the State. The grant was submitted in April 2021. The remaining portion of the
project would be funded by forfeiture funds. Dr. Edwards noted the temporary fences cost about
$10,000 per month.
11/08/21 -2-
Dr. Edwards stated the rationale for the fence is to improve the safety of the public facility and
staff. The staff includes administrative staff and not just the law enforcement personnel. The
discussion about the fence has been going on for several years, but there have never been funds
available for the project. The grant funding was made available for application, so the City could
finally access funds to support the project. Additionally, the fence provides de-escalation and
prevention of law enforcement and protest interaction. The dual fencing was implemented during
the civil unrest and has allowed for improved interactions.
Dr. Edwards stated there was a request from the Police Department in April 2021 and grant funding
became available around that time. After that, there was some operational decision making and
Staff sought out community feedback from neighboring properties regarding the feel, perspective,
and appearance of a permanent fence. The comments were favorable and supportive of the
permanent fence, especially because it was replacing the current temporary fence. Staff
coordinated with replacing the inner temporary fence with a permanent fence. There was
community comment during November 1, 2021, City Council/EDA meeting and Dr. Edwards
received additional broad-based community feedback over the weekend of November 5. Based
on the additional community feedback and unforeseen impacts, the construction of the permanent
fence was suspended until after the trial of Kim Potter and further community dialogue on
November 1, 2021.
Dr. Edwards explained there were lessons learned in listening to the community and Staff. There
is a relationship of distrust currently, so the Staff needed a better understanding of assumptions
and motives. While some members of the community may dislike police and some want to defund
or make the police go away, that was not the underlying issue with the fence. Dr. Edwards stated
he heard the community hearing that they want to have a relationship with the police. The fence
could be seen as the Police Department distancing and separating from the community as well as
armed police officers protecting themselves from protesters. There was a misunderstanding that
the permanent fence was completed in preparation for the Kim Potter trial and that the construction
was meant to be completed without the public knowing. In reality, it was built because several
City facilities do include fencing and to improve safety for administrative personnel.
Dr. Edwards explained the community heard that symbols and images matter and are part of public
safety. The community spoke up and the government responded by listening and pausing the
project. Additionally, the community engaged on a routine operational matter, so Staff is
reevaluating the City’s process of communicating with the public. He noted the public likely
would not have spoken upon a matter like this in previous years.
Dr. Edwards stated there is currently suspension of construction of a permanent until after the Kim
Potter trial. The fence serves as a focal point for a deeper conversation as it is not really about the
fence. The topics for deeper conversation include addressing the reality of safety measures in a
work environment, the desire for a relationship between the public and law enforcement, and
resident ownership and say with City facilities. Dr. Edwards noted there has been a distrust around
motives for both building the fence and stopping the construction of the fence, and he looks
forward to conversations about creating safety for staff and residents and building relationships
throughout the community. Ultimately, Dr. Edwards sees this as an opportunity for the City.
11/08/21 -3-
Councilmember/Commissioner Butler thanked Dr. Edwards for the presentation. She noted Dr.
Edwards’ rationale for the project makes sense, but she stated how it was handled was not okay
because they are not in crisis. When they were in crisis, it made sense to make moves to protect
unsafe people. She explained she has never heard discussion about a fence being built during her
tenure on the Council/EDA and added comparing a fence around the Police Department to other
City facilities with a fence is unfair, especially given the current climate with a majority of the
community feeling distrust with the Police Department. There is a feeling of the City being
proactive and protecting the Police Department and its structure but left out those in the apartment
building across the street who had nothing to do with the civil unrest that was happening.
Councilmember/Commissioner Butler stated the communication about the fence was subpar. The
Council/EDA has received presentations on community art displays or other public construction
projects that do not affect the grand scheme of things, but the fence was completely off the radar
of the Council/EDA. If this grant was applied for back in May, it should have been presented to
the Council/EDA at that time. Instead, it was the public who brought the construction up to the
Council/EDA who had no working knowledge of the project. Councilmember/Commissioner
Butler stated she has the feeling that the construction of the fence was done behind the backs of
the Council/EDA. Similarly, the Police Department felt left in the dark throughout the process of
developing the Dante Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety & Violence
Prevention Act and expressed their desire to be a part of the decision-making process for that.
Councilmember/Commissioner Butler stated if Staff needs the support of the Council/EDA on
something, then they need the benefit of a presentation before decisions are made. It is
inappropriate to compare the building of a fence around the Police Department to other structures
because they are in a new time with new dynamics in the community.
Councilmember/Commissioner Butler noted she hopes there is better communication in the future.
She added she is still not in favor of the fence after hearing Dr. Edward’s presentation. She agreed
there should be a temporary fence around the Police Department throughout the Kim Potter trial,
but stated there should be further discussion before installing a permanent fence with ample
community input.
Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan asked if the immediate plan is to keep the temporary fence
up throughout the Kim Potter trial. Dr. Edwards confirmed that is correct.
Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated he can understand that measure. He added it is a real
imperative to separate protestors and law enforcement. Unfortunately, what had to be erected in
short order was not aesthetically pleasing. He noted it seems like what staff did to improve safety
for both protestors and Police Department staff in a short time has been misconstrued as something
else entirely. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated he would defer to others and noted they
could return to the topic when tensions have decreased. At that time, they could have a balanced,
informed discussion about potential options. The bottom line is the City has an obligation to
protect all of its assets.
Councilmember/Commissioner Graves stated she does not have any comments, but she would like
to hear from community members.
11/08/21 -4-
Joy stated she heard comments that law enforcement is more vulnerable and the fence has been in
the works for years. Joy asked why they waited until April 2021 to access the funding if it had
been a long-awaited project. Dr. Edwards stated several sources of funding became available
during the aftermath of the George Floyd trial and the civil unrest in Brooklyn Center that were
previously unavailable. He added he was unsure if anyone pursued funding for a fence before his
tenure.
Joy noted Dr. Edwards said there are fences around other City facilities and that employees are
vulnerable. She asked why the staff wasn’t working remotely and why they can’t move patrol
vehicles to the Public Safety Facility. Dr. Edwards stated there may be different and better
alternatives or solutions that may help build relationships and improve safety at the same time, so
he hopes those ideas will come forth in future discussions.
Joy stated it appears the Council/EDA was not aware of the decision, but subdivision 7 of Chapter
6.02 of the City Charter says the City Manager’s role is to keep the Council/EDA fully advised.
Joy asked why Council/EDA would not be fully advised on this matter. She added it begs the
question about what other conversations have been taking place without the City Council/EDA’s
knowledge. Dr. Edwards stated there are several operational matters not brought before the
Council/EDA and explained he is charged with handling the operational matters with Staff. He
noted he does so to the best of his ability while maintaining the spirit of the Charter.
Joy stated she heard earlier that budget conversations had been happening since July, and she noted
she was curious where the fence grant funding was on the line items.
Melissa stated this is the third time she has brought up the issues of grants and what it requires of
them when they accept these grants. When they say “yes” to grants, they must ask what else they
are saying “yes” to. For example, the Department of Justice grants attach a federal notice where
it requires the City and law enforcement to work with and provide information to Immigration and
Customs Enforcement. She explained they have taken those grants in the past which requires the
City to have a cooperative relationship with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Melissa
asked what having the grant for the fence requires the City to do and noted if a new presidential
group comes to power, then there could be a change in the requirements. Such changes would
seriously affect undocumented or under-documented members of Brooklyn Center. She added she
would like to see the signed paperwork for the grant to ensure that it does not require the City to
work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Additionally, she encouraged the
Council/EDA to deny engaging with grant programs that support the work of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement.
Melissa asked why this grant didn’t need to be approved by City Council/EDA when all of the
other grants have required approval from the Council/EDA. She noted it is concerning that this
grant was not presented to the Council/EDA. In the future, there could be a resolution to ensure
certain grants must be presented to and discussed by the Council/EDA.
Melissa asked where the additional $40,000 for the fence is coming from. She thanked
Councilmembers that have fielded emails from residents concerned about the fence. Melissa
explained people are very scared about going to the Police Department.
11/08/21 -5-
Melissa stated while she can only speak for herself, she explained while she and her family were
in the process of becoming documented citizens, they were extremely fearful to advocate for
themselves. There is already a barrier for immigrants to access City services and to overcome the
differences between their previous and current governments. She asked if the goal as a City is to
build bridges, then why are they building fences. The City has improved the U-Visa process which
allows victims of domestic violence to receive help in the application process, but if someone is
afraid to go to the Police Department to get those documents filed, that means the difference
between being safe or unsafe. The fence is another layer of a barrier for community members,
whether they are immigrants or domestic abuse survivors, and that is very important in promoting
public safety.
Melissa stated there was a question posed at a recent Multicultural Advisory Committee about
when the temporary barrier would go down. The response was when the permanent barrier goes
up. She explained that communicates that whoever is in that building doesn’t feel safe with the
rest of the community because the temporary barrier was brought up during civil unrest - civil
unrest which was a result of a misbehaving member of the Police Department. The chaos was
caused by someone being killed by a member of law enforcement, so it’s frightening to think of
living in a permanent war zone. She asked what the intention is behind the action and if it means
the City is going to allow the misbehavior by law enforcement to continue or that something similar
may happen again. Melissa stated she cannot stand for that option. Unless there is some new use
for the fence such as to surround a basketball court for youth to play with the police or other
creative use, then it’s unhelpful. This is the opposite of people saying they hate the police, but
they want open communication. She added knows the intent was not negative, but the impact is
negative.
Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan thanked Melissa for her comments. He stated he hopes staff
can address her wide range of comments in a report that helps the Council/EDA and the Staff to
make these decisions more seriously while respecting the various positions. While the fence was
well-intended, it was ultimately misplaced. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan asked Dr.
Edwards to have his communication staff shine more light on the positive intentions of police
officers, such as their recent trip to visit the elderly in the community. He added the extraordinary
scrutiny is understandable considering the time they are in, but the City needs to work on
addressing the impacts of its decisions on the community. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan
stated he supports Staff’s recommendation to keep the temporary fence up during the Kim Potter
trial, but he would like to defer discussion on a permanent fence to a later date.
Brett asked if a permanent fence is more cost-effective in the long-term, then should the City
consider having a permanent fence in place rather than spending more money on temporary
fencing.
Mayor/President Elliott stated he believes they should take a look at the grant agreement and asked
Dr. Edwards to email the grant agreement to the Council/EDA. He noted Melissa raised important
concerns, and he was also concerned that he hasn’t seen or signed off on the grant. He added it is
important for Dr. Edwards to bring grants of this size to the Council/EDA. This discussion
underscores the important time they are in.
11/08/21 -6-
Mayor/President Elliott noted he has read up on uprisings, and people have consistently responded
to uprisings of Black folks in America with more militarization, armor, and fortification of urban
police departments. He stated this is a sobering moment for all of them, and they need to ask how
they can continue to move forward in ways that can help the City deal with the quagmire that the
entire United States of America continues to be stuck in.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor/President Elliott moved and Councilmember/Commissioner Graves seconded adjournment
of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 10:38 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:11/22/2021
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:D r. Reggie Edwards, City Manager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:A lix Bentrud, D eputy City Clerk
S U B J E C T:A pproval of Licens es
Requested Council A con:
- Moon to approve the licenses as presented.
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 C ity C ode of O rdinances , unles s comments are noted below the property addres s on the a5ached
rental report.
Gasoline S ervice S taon
Royalty & S ons / S oad D ahdal
D B A Brooklyn B P
6044 Brooklyn Blvd
Brooklyn Center M N 55429
Liquor L icense C lub
A merican L egion Pos t 630 6110 Brooklyn Blvd
Brooklyn Center M N 55429
Liquor L icense O ff-S ale 3.2%
D iamond Lake 1994 I nc
D B A C ub Foods
3245 Co Rd No 10
Brooklyn Center M N 55429
Liquor L icense O n-S ale 3.2%
Brooklyn C enter Res taurant I nc
D B A 50's G rill
5524 Brooklyn Blvd
Brooklyn Center M N 55429
D avanni's I nc
D B A D avanni'a P izza & H ot H oagies
5937 S ummit D r
Brooklyn Center M N 55430
Liquor L icenses O n-S ale Intoxicang
A pple Minnes ota Partners I nc
D B A A pplebee's Neighborhood G rill
1400 S hingle Creek C rossing
Brooklyn Center M N 55430
Bayou Crab S hack 1360 S hingle Creek C rossing
D B A C aptain Crab Brooklyn Center M N 55430
Brooklyn H otel Partners
D B A Embassy S uites
6300 Earle Brow n D rive
Brooklyn Center M N 55430
J ambo A frica Restaurant and Bar 1601 F reeway Blvd
Brooklyn Center M N 55430
Liquor L icenses O n-S ale Intoxicang S unday
A merican L egion Pos t 630 6110 Brooklyn Blvd
Brooklyn Center M N 55429
A pple Minnes ota Partners I nc
D B A A pplebee's Neighborhood G rill
1400 S hingle Creek C rossing
Brooklyn Center M N 55430
Bayou Crab S hack
D B A C aptain Crab
1360 S hingle Creek C rossing
Brooklyn Center M N 55430
Brooklyn H otel Partners
D B A Embassy S uites
6300 Earle Brow n D rive
Brooklyn Center M N 55430
J ambo A frica Restaurant and Bar 1601 F reeway Blvd
Brooklyn Center M N 55430
Liquor O n-S ale Wine
Brooklyn C enter Res taurant I nc
D B A 50's G rill
5524 Brooklyn Blvd
Brooklyn Center M N 55429
D avanni's I nc
D B A D avanni'a P izza & H ot H oagies
5937 S ummit D r
Brooklyn Center M N 55430
M echanical Licenses
A ll P ride P lumbing 21930 H eidelberg S t N E
S tacy M N 55079
Wencl S ervices 8148 P ills bury Ave S
Bloomington M N 55420
Wenzel H ea4ng & A /C . 4145 O ld S ibley M emorial H wy
Eagan M N 55122
Tobacco Related P roducts
H oliday S ta4ons tores 6890 S hingle Creek P kwy
Brooklyn Center M N 55430
Royalty & S ons / S oad D ahdal
D B A Brooklyn B P
6044 Brooklyn Blvd
Brooklyn Center M N 55429
B udget I ssues:
I nclusive C ommunity Engagement:
A nracist/Equity Policy Effect:
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip4on U pload D ate Type
Rental C riteria 3/16/2021 Backup M aterial
Rental D w elling Licens es 11/22/2021 11/17/2021 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 ***
1800 57th Ave N Single Initial Zenaldo & Carmela Alonso Contreras 7 III N/A
1510 69th Ave N Multi
1 Bldg 4 Units Renewal Marsha Darnell 10
2.5 per unit III 0 II
7256 Unity Ave N
Unity Place
Multi II Bldgs 112
Units Renewal CHDC LTD Partnership 283
2.53 per unit III
6 valid calls
7224 Unity Ave
7/10/2021 Burglary
10/21/2021 Auto theft
5333 Ponds Dr
3/18/21 Auto Theft
5401 Ponds Dr 10/31/2021
Auto Theft 5436 Ponds Dr
4/4/2021 Burglary
5442 Ponds Dr
5/22/2021 Theft
III
2113 55th Ave N Single Renewal IH3 Property / Invitation Homes 3 II 0 I
6119 Beard Ave N Single Renewal
Konrad Wagner / Wagner Property
Rentals 5 II 0 II II
5700 Camden Ave N Single Renewal
Quality Residences / Danmark
Properties ‐ met requirements 13 IV
1 Valid call 2/31/2021 Auto
Theft IV
6430 Indiana Ave N Single Renewal
Omolooa Akinsoji / Newdoor Property
LLC 4II 0 II
5524 Knox Ave N Single Renewal Michael Ude 0 I 0 II
7148 Morgan Ave N Single Renewal Fred Hanus 8 III 0 III IV
6900 Regent Ave N Single Renewal Houa Her 3 II 0 II I
6430 Toledo Ave N Single Renewal
David Habimana / Touchstone
Properties LLC ‐ missing action plan 7 III 0 III
6937 Unity Ave N Single Renewal Wells Bovard 3 II 0 I
819 Woodbine La Single Renewal FYR SFR Borrower 4 II 0 III
5912 Xerxes Ave N Single Renewal Jesse MacDonald 1 I 0 II
* 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 22, 2021
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:11/22/2021
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:D r. Reggie Edwards, City Manager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:M ichael Marsh, A c(ng D irector of P ublic Works
S U B J E C T:Res olu(on A ccep(ng Bid and A w arding a Contract, I mprovement P roject No. 2021-18,
L i8 S ta(on 8 Rehabilita(on P roject
Requested Council A con:
- Moon to appr ove the r esoluon accepng the low est responsible bid and award a contract to Pember
C ompanies, I nc. for I mprovement P roject No. 2021-18, L i% S taon 8 Rehabilitaon P roject.
B ackground:
Bids for the L i8 S ta(on 8 Rehabilita(on P roject were receiv ed and opened on Nov ember 12, 2 0 2 1 . F ive
bids w ere received and results are tabulated below :
B idder A mount
Pember C ompanies, I nc. $302,175.00
M agney Construc(on, I nc. $355,600.00
M eyer Contrac(ng I nc. $356,745.00
V inco, I nc. $387,300.00
Park Construc(on C ompany $432,500.00
O f the five bids r eceived, the low est bid of $302,175.00 w as submiAed by Pember Companies , I nc. of
Menomonie, W is cons in. This contractor has the experience, equipment and capacity to qualify as the
low est res pons ible bidder for the project. The city ’s cons ultant, T K DA , recommends aw ar ding a contract to
Pember Companies , I nc.
B udget I ssues:
The total es (mated budget including con(ngencies , adminis tra(on, engineering and legal w as $442,000
and is amended to $382,5 1 9 .00, an approximate 13.5 per cent decrease from the originally budgeted
amount (s ee aAached Res olu(on – Costs and Revenues tables ). F unding for this project is under the
S anitary S ewer U (lity F und.
I nclusive C ommunity Engagement:
N/A
A nracist/Equity Policy Effect:
N/A
S trategic Priories and Values:
Key Transporta(on I nvestments
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip(on U pload D ate Type
Res olu(on 11/15/2021 Cover Memo
Bid Tab 11/15/2021 Cover Memo
A ward L eAer 11/15/2021 Cover Memo
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO._______________
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING A CONTRACT,
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2021-18, LIFT STATION 8
REHABILITATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No.
2021-18, bids were received, opened and tabulated on the 12th day of November, 2021. Said
bids were as follows:
Bidder Amount
Pember Companies, Inc. $302,175.00
Magney Construction, Inc. $355,600.00
Meyer Contracting Inc. $356,745.00
Vinco, Inc. $387,300.00
Park Construction Company $432,500.00
WHEREAS, the city’s consultant, TKDA, recommends that the contract be
awarded based on the total bid;
WHEREAS, it appears that Pember Companies, Inc. of Menomonie, Wisconsin is
the lowest responsible bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that
1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter
into a contract with Pember Companies, Inc. of Menomonie, Wisconsin in
the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No.
2021-18, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by
the City Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer.
2. The estimated project costs and revenues are as follows:
Amended
COSTS Estimated per Low Bid
Construction Cost $ 360,000 $ 302,175.00
Engineering and Administrative $ 42,000 $ 40,344.00
Contingency $ 40,000 $ 40,000.00
TOTAL $ 442,000 $ 382,519.00
Amended
REVENUES Estimated per Low Bid
Sanitary Sewer Utility $ 442,000 $ 382,519.00
RESOLUTION NO._______________
November 22, 2021
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.
TABULATION OF BIDS
Lift Station No. 8 Improvements
Brooklyn Center, MN
City Project No. 2021-18
ITEM
NO.DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL AMOUNT UNIT PRICE TOTAL AMOUNT UNIT PRICE TOTAL AMOUNT UNIT PRICE TOTAL AMOUNT UNIT PRICE TOTAL AMOUNT UNIT PRICE TOTAL
AMOUNT
1 Base Bid - Lift Station Improvements 1 LS 180,000.00$ 180,000.00$ 136,000.00$ 136,000.00$ 132,000.00$ 132,000.00$ 210,000.00$ 210,000.00$ 96,775.00$ 96,775.00$ 194,300.00$ 194,300.00$
2 Furnish and Install Submersible Pump 2 EA 22,500.00$ 45,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 45,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 60,000.00$ 18,500.00$ 37,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 16,500.00$ 33,000.00$
3 Painting and Coatings 1 LS 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 28,000.00$ 28,000.00$ 29,000.00$ 29,000.00$ 26,000.00$ 26,000.00$ 26,000.00$ 26,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$
4 Electrical and Controls 1 LS 75,000.00$ 75,000.00$ 115,000.00$ 115,000.00$ 104,500.00$ 104,500.00$ 121,000.00$ 121,000.00$ 110,500.00$ 110,500.00$ 95,000.00$ 95,000.00$
5 Electrical Generator 1 LS 95,000.00$ 95,000.00$ 29,000.00$ 29,000.00$ 26,000.00$ 26,000.00$ 26,500.00$ 26,500.00$ 36,600.00$ 36,600.00$ 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$
6 Resoration 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 2,600.00$ 2,600.00$ 5,245.00$ 5,245.00$ 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 2,300.00$ 2,300.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
TOTAL BID 425,000.00$ 355,600.00$ 356,745.00$ 432,500.00$ 302,175.00$ 387,300.00$
12-Nov-21
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE Magney Construction, Inc. Meyer Contracting, Inc. Park Construction Company Pember Companies, Inc. Vinco, Inc.
November 12, 2021
Mr. Michael Weber
City of Brooklyn Center
6844 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Re: Lift Station No. 8 Improvements
City Project No. 21-18
Dear Mr. Weber:
Bids for the above referenced project were received on November 12, 2021 from five bidders; the
results are summarized in the Bid Tab attached.
Pember Companies, Inc. was the low bidder for the base bid. Based on Pember Companies
capabilities and previous project experience they are qualified to complete the work. TKDA
recommends that Brooklyn Center award the project to Pember Companies. and that the City proceed
with the Project at a cost of $302,175.
Please do not hesitate to call me if you have questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Daniel Nesler, P.E.
Project Manager
TABULATION OF BIDS
Lift Station No. 8 Improvements
Brooklyn Center, MN
City Project No. 2021-18
ITEM
NO.DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL AMOUNT UNIT PRICE TOTAL AMOUNT UNIT PRICE TOTAL AMOUNT UNIT PRICE TOTAL AMOUNT UNIT PRICE TOTAL AMOUNT UNIT PRICE TOTAL
AMOUNT
1 Base Bid - Lift Station Improvements 1 LS 180,000.00$ 180,000.00$ 136,000.00$ 136,000.00$ 132,000.00$ 132,000.00$ 210,000.00$ 210,000.00$ 96,775.00$ 96,775.00$ 194,300.00$ 194,300.00$
2 Furnish and Install Submersible Pump 2 EA 22,500.00$ 45,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 45,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 60,000.00$ 18,500.00$ 37,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 16,500.00$ 33,000.00$
3 Painting and Coatings 1 LS 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 28,000.00$ 28,000.00$ 29,000.00$ 29,000.00$ 26,000.00$ 26,000.00$ 26,000.00$ 26,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$
4 Electrical and Controls 1 LS 75,000.00$ 75,000.00$ 115,000.00$ 115,000.00$ 104,500.00$ 104,500.00$ 121,000.00$ 121,000.00$ 110,500.00$ 110,500.00$ 95,000.00$ 95,000.00$
5 Electrical Generator 1 LS 95,000.00$ 95,000.00$ 29,000.00$ 29,000.00$ 26,000.00$ 26,000.00$ 26,500.00$ 26,500.00$ 36,600.00$ 36,600.00$ 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$
6 Resoration 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 2,600.00$ 2,600.00$ 5,245.00$ 5,245.00$ 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 2,300.00$ 2,300.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
TOTAL BID 425,000.00$ 355,600.00$ 356,745.00$ 432,500.00$ 302,175.00$ 387,300.00$
12-Nov-21
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE Magney Construction, Inc. Meyer Contracting, Inc. Park Construction Company Pember Companies, Inc. Vinco, Inc.
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:11/22/2021
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:D r. Reggie Edwards, City Manager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:Todd Berg, F ire Chief
S U B J E C T:A ccep,ng Bid and A w ard contract for D iesel Exhaust capture s ystem for both fire s ta,ons
Requested Council A con:
- M oon to approve the lowest responsible bid and aw ard a contr act to T N C I ndustries, I nc. for the vehicle
exhaust capture sy stems for both fire staons.
B ackground:
Bids for the vehicle exhaus t capture s y s tem were adv er ,sed, r eceived, and opened on O ctober 29th, 2021.
O ne bid was received and lis ted below :
Bidder Amount
T NC Indus tries $119,972
There w as one bid of $1 1 9 ,972 w as s ubmi5ed by T N C I ndus tr ies , I nc. of Way z ata, M innesota. This
contractor has the experience, equipment and capacity to qualify as the low est responsible bidder for the
project. The deputy fire chief, recommends aw arding a contract to T N C I ndustries, I nc.
B udget I ssues:
The total budget for the pr oject is $11,307.64. The fir e department w as awarded a F E M A A s s is tance to
F irefighters G rant for the r emaining cos t of the pr oject for $113,076.36. T he budgeted amount of
$11,307.64 is the city ’s 1 0 % cos t s har e required of the gr ant. W hen calcula,ng the city ’s 10% cos t share,
w e end up w ith a $5,101.56 s urplus of the A F G G r ant. This s ur plus allows the depar tment to purchas e
other high-priority s afety equipment.
T N C I ndustries C ontract $119,972.00
City of Brooklyn Center 10% cos t s hare - $11,997.20
T N C I ndustries C ontract Balance $107,974.80
F E M A A F G G rant - $113,076.36
A F G G rant S urplus $5,101.56
I nclusive C ommunity Engagement:
A nracist/Equity Policy Effect:
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 emo 11/16/2021 Cover Memo
Res olu,on 11/16/2021 Resolu,on Le5er
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
for all people and preserves the public trust
DATE: 11/22/2021
TO: Reggie Edwards, City Manager
FROM: Todd Berg, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding a Contract, for Vehicle Exhaust Capture
System for Both Fire Stations.
Recommendation:
Motion to approve the lowest responsible bid and award a contract to TNC Industries, Inc. for the
vehicle exhaust capture systems for both fire stations.
Background:
Bids for the vehicle exhaust capture system were advertised, received, and opened on October 29th,
2021. One bid was received and listed below:
Bidder Amount
TNC Industries $119,972
There was one bid of $119,972 was submitted by TNC Industries, Inc. of Wayzata, Minnesota.
This contractor has the experience, equipment and capacity to qualify as the lowest responsible
bidder for the project. The deputy fire chief, recommends awarding a contract to TNC Industries,
Inc.
Budget:
The total budget for the project is $11,307.64. The fire department was awarded a FEMA
Assistance to Firefighters Grant for the remaining cost of the project for $113,076.36. The
budgeted amount of $11,307.64 is the city’s 10% cost share required of the grant. When calculating
the city’s 10% cost share, we end up with a $5,101.56 surplus of the AFG Grant. This surplus
allows the department to purchase other high-priority safety equipment.
TNC Industries Contract $119,972.00
City of Brooklyn Center 10% cost share - $11,997.20
TNC Industries Contract Balance $107,974.80
FEMA AFG Grant - $113,076.36
AFG Grant Surplus $5,101.56
Strategic Priorities:
Safe, Secure, Stable Community
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO._______________
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING A CONTRACT, FOR
VEHICLE EXHAUST CAPTURE SYSTEM FOR THE FIRE STATIONS
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for a vehicle exhaust capture
system, bids were received, opened and tabulated on the 29th day of October, 2021. Said bids
were as follows:
Bidder Amount
TNC Industries $119,972.00
WHEREAS, the deputy chief within the fire department, recommends that the
contract be awarded based on the total bid;
WHEREAS, it appears that TNC Industries, Inc. of Wayzata, Minnesota is the
lowest responsible bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that
1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter
into a contract with TNC Industries, Inc. of Wayzata, Minnesota in the name
of the City of Brooklyn Center, for vehicle exhaust capture system,
according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City
Council and on file in the fire department with the deputy fire chief.
2. The estimated project costs and revenues are as follows:
COSTS Estimated Low Bid
Installation and Equipment Cost $ 156,384 $119,972
TOTAL $ 156,384 $119,972
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:
RESOLUTION NO._______________
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:11/22/2021
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:D r. Reggie Edwards, City Manager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:M eg Beekman, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
S U B J E C T:O pportunity S ite P ilot P roject - C ommunity Engagement U pdate
Requested Council A con:
~ M oon to accept the presentaon
B ackground:
At the June 28, 2021, mee2ng, the C ity C ouncil approved moving ahead w ith a community engagement
proces s related to the O pportunity S ite. The engagement process would focus on the ini2al pilot
development project being led by developer A latus . The engagement framework and narra2ve for the
engagement process is a5ached to this memo.
The approved engagement proces s authoriz ed staff to enter into contracts w ith up to 10 local community-
based organiza2ons to lead community engagement efforts . A s part of this work, a ci2z en advisory
taskforce w as to be formed, w hich w ould dis 2ll the larger engagement efforts and w ork to iden2fy a term
s heet for the development, w hich w ould form the bas is of a community benefits plan.
The city contracted with N EO O Partners to manage the engagement effort and provide technical as s is tance
to the local community partners conduc2ng the engagement work. I n addi2on to leading their ow n
community engagement efforts, A C E R w as contracted to form and facilitate the ci2z en advisory tas kforce.
Much work has been accomplis hed since June. C ommunity partners have been out in community door
knocking, holding focus group ses s ions , and larger community lis tening s essions. A C E R has convened the
ci2zen advis ory taskforce and they have begun their w ork.
N EO O Partners and A C E R, I nc will be pres en2ng an update to the C ouncil on their w ork and discussing next
s teps this evening. They w ill be available for any ques 2ons as w ell.
B udget I ssues:
I nclusive C ommunity Engagement:
A nracist/Equity Policy Effect:
S trategic Priories and Values:
I nclusive C ommunity Engagement
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip2on U pload D ate Type
C ommunity Engagement F ramework 11/16/2021 Backup M aterial
C ommunity Engagement Narra2ve 11/16/2021 Backup M aterial
16Downtown Brooklyn Center Master Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 03/03/21
Downtown Brooklyn Center : Public Engagement Activities
In Person
12 Engagements ### people
attended On Line
name and results
Youth Engagement
81 participants ages
14-18 yrs
* Working Committee
ACER, CAPI, OLM, LIBA, Alliance
for Metropolitan Stability, Brooklyn
Bridge Alliance
2019 2020 2021
Fall 2021
January 2020
Draft Master Plan
LISC Corridor Initiative Sessions
4 Workshops 150 people attended
PAADIO Meetings 300 people attended 117 Surveys
Created by Deemak Daksinafrom the Noun Project Created by Deemak Daksinafrom the Noun Project
RESULTS AND OUTCOMES RESULTS AND OUTCOMES
COVID
R O U N D 1 E NGAGEMENT
RO U N D 2 E NGAGE
M
E
N
T
R O U N D 2 R E B O OT ENGAGEMEN
T
On Line
Project Website
WORKING COMMITTEE*
BROOK BRIDGE ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH
JUDE NNADI
> 1000 direct engagements > 30 meetings
2500 direct engagements
140,000 website hits
»Trechnical
studies
»Community
Benefits
Plan
»EAW
»Development
Agreement
Fall 2021
Master Plan
Pool of Community Partners
Engagement Manager
Phase 1 PilotPhase 1 Pilot
Master Plan
Master Plan
BC City Council
Master Plan Public Engagement Framework
NEOO Partners
Engagement Manager
•Develop master engagement strategy
and RFQ in consultation with City staff
•Track master timeline / tasks
•Train the trainers
•Orient community partners to desired
goals / metrics
•Provide technical assistance and support
to community partners
•Collate master process / info for City staff
to report to Council
Community Partners (identified via RFQ Process)•Identify appropriate engagement methods
•Design engagement tools and materials
•Develop timelines for particular engagement work
within the overall process identified by City
Council
•Implement engagement work
•Collect / collate response data
•Report on process, responses, and metrics
Pools of Engagement (TBD)
•Approve engagement process, timeline, and costs
•Define roles and responsibilities
•Identify goal metrics for the process
o % of pop reached with light touch, medium touch,
deep dive
o # of representatives from targeted demographics
•Specify content for engagement
o Elements of Master Plan
o Operationalizing Community Benefits Plan
o Blocks 11, 12 & 13
o Other?
Residents Local Business OwnersLocal AgenciesBIPOC YouthOther
Community Leaders Membership Orgs Advocacy Groups Religious Leaders
BC City Staff •Guide the public engagement
implementation strategy in
accordance with the City
Council’s identified goals.
•Provide feedback loops
between public engagement,
Council sessions, and
development of the Master Plan
•Inform Council on specific
interaction points and policy
making decision points
1
Citizen Advisory Task Force
•Receive engagement reports
•Distill engagement reports to
provide informed options on:
-equity development scorecard
-Community Benefits Plan
•Provide options for ongoing
engagement / oversight
processes after September
Potential Levels of Engagement / Methods
Light Touch (General informing w/ voluntary response)
•Update City Master Plan Website
o Clearinghouse of info re: engagement work
completed and in-process
o Master Plan / Community Benefits
o Option for comments via email or form
•Host Facebook Live
o Share City staff presentations / discussions from
Council work sessions
o Collect public comments
Medium Touch (Targeted sharing w/ requested input)
•Send mailers to addresses within X radius of the Opp Site
o Master Plan overview
o Link to City Master Plan Website
o QR code for survey
•Convene online forums for residents / businesses within X
radius of Opp Site
o Master Plan overview
o Gather individual comments
o Link to survey
•Door knocking within X geography
Deep Dive (Targeted conversations to shape outcomes)
•Host focus groups with identified / specified demographic
groups
•Questions / discussions around Master Plan and
Community Benefits
•Attend specific community taskforce meetings to share, ask
questions, and gather input
•School board
•Chamber of commerce
•Neighborhood associations
•Rotary
•Etc.
Public Engagement Content
History
•Land
•Process
•Master Plan
•Phase 1
Master Plan
•Uses
•Process
•Timing
•Scale
•Impact
•Public Spaces
•Programming
Community Benefits
•Jobs
•Housing
•Parks
•Infrastructure
•Revenues
•Entrepreneurship
•Others?
16Downtown Brooklyn Center Master Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 03/03/21
Downtown Brooklyn Center : Public Engagement Activities
In Person
12 Engagements ### people
attended On Line
name and results
Youth Engagement
81 participants ages
14-18 yrs
* Working Committee
ACER, CAPI, OLM, LIBA, Alliance
for Metropolitan Stability, Brooklyn
Bridge Alliance
2019 2020 2021
Fall 2021
January 2020
Draft Master Plan
LISC Corridor Initiative Sessions
4 Workshops 150 people attended
PAADIO Meetings 300 people attended 117 Surveys
Created by Deemak Daksinafrom the Noun Project Created by Deemak Daksinafrom the Noun Project
RESULTS AND OUTCOMES RESULTS AND OUTCOMES
COVID
R O U N D 1 E NGAGEMENT
RO U N D 2 E NGAGE
M
E
N
T
R O U N D 2 R E B O OT ENGAGEMEN
T
On Line
Project Website
WORKING COMMITTEE*
BROOK BRIDGE ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH
JUDE NNADI
> 1000 direct engagements > 30 meetings
2500 direct engagements
140,000 website hits
»Trechnical
studies
»Community
Benefits
Plan
»EAW
»Development
Agreement
Fall 2021
Master Plan
Pool of Community Partners
Engagement Manager
Phase 1 PilotPhase 1 Pilot
Master Plan
Master Plan
BC City Council
Master Plan Public Engagement Framework
NEOO Partners
Engagement Manager
•Develop master engagement strategy
and RFQ in consultation with City staff
•Track master timeline / tasks
•Train the trainers
•Orient community partners to desired
goals / metrics
•Provide technical assistance and support
to community partners
•Collate master process / info for City staff
to report to Council
Community Partners (identified via RFQ Process)•Identify appropriate engagement methods
•Design engagement tools and materials
•Develop timelines for particular engagement work
within the overall process identified by City
Council
•Implement engagement work
•Collect / collate response data
•Report on process, responses, and metrics
Pools of Engagement (TBD)
•Approve engagement process, timeline, and costs
•Define roles and responsibilities
•Identify goal metrics for the process
o % of pop reached with light touch, medium touch,
deep dive
o # of representatives from targeted demographics
•Specify content for engagement
o Elements of Master Plan
o Operationalizing Community Benefits Plan
o Blocks 11, 12 & 13
o Other?
Residents Local Business OwnersLocal AgenciesBIPOC YouthOther
Community Leaders Membership Orgs Advocacy Groups Religious Leaders
BC City Staff •Guide the public engagement
implementation strategy in
accordance with the City
Council’s identified goals.
•Provide feedback loops
between public engagement,
Council sessions, and
development of the Master Plan
•Inform Council on specific
interaction points and policy
making decision points
1
Citizen Advisory Task Force
•Receive engagement reports
•Distill engagement reports to
provide informed options on:
-equity development scorecard
-Community Benefits Plan
•Provide options for ongoing
engagement / oversight
processes after September
Potential Levels of Engagement / Methods
Light Touch (General informing w/ voluntary response)
•Update City Master Plan Website
o Clearinghouse of info re: engagement work
completed and in-process
o Master Plan / Community Benefits
o Option for comments via email or form
•Host Facebook Live
o Share City staff presentations / discussions from
Council work sessions
o Collect public comments
Medium Touch (Targeted sharing w/ requested input)
•Send mailers to addresses within X radius of the Opp Site
o Master Plan overview
o Link to City Master Plan Website
o QR code for survey
•Convene online forums for residents / businesses within X
radius of Opp Site
o Master Plan overview
o Gather individual comments
o Link to survey
•Door knocking within X geography
Deep Dive (Targeted conversations to shape outcomes)
•Host focus groups with identified / specified demographic
groups
•Questions / discussions around Master Plan and
Community Benefits
•Attend specific community taskforce meetings to share, ask
questions, and gather input
•School board
•Chamber of commerce
•Neighborhood associations
•Rotary
•Etc.
Public Engagement Content
History
•Land
•Process
•Master Plan
•Phase 1
Master Plan
•Uses
•Process
•Timing
•Scale
•Impact
•Public Spaces
•Programming
Community Benefits
•Jobs
•Housing
•Parks
•Infrastructure
•Revenues
•Entrepreneurship
•Others?
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:11/22/2021
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:D r. Reggie Edwards, City Manager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:M eg Beekman, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
S U B J E C T:Res olu-on Rela-ng to the I ssuance of C onduit Revenue Bonds to F inance the Costs of a
M ul-family H ousing D evelopment (The C res t A partments P roject)
Requested Council A con:
- Moon to approve a resoluon recing a proposal for a H ousing F inance P rogram for a mulple rental
housing development, approving the project and the program and authoriz ing the issuance of conduit
mulfamily housing revenue obligaons and the execuon of related documents (the C rest A partments
P roject)
B ackground:
A eon is the ow ner and operator of the Crest apartments , which purchased the property in 2012 and
completed renova-ons in 2014. The Crest is a 122-unit affordable mul-family apartment building in
Brooklyn Center.
At their J une 28, 2021, mee-ng, the City Council approved a res olu-on (2021-83) approving the
establis hment of a P lanned Unit D evelopment and amendments to the City's z oning map and 2040
Comprehensive P lan to allow for the cons truc-on of a 48-unit addi-on to the exis-ng 122-unit C res t
A partment building. A s part of that project, A eon intends to renovate the exis -ng building as w ell.
A eon is now reques -ng that the City of Brooklyn Center is s ue up to $19,000,000 of tax-exempt, conduit
H ousing Revenue Bonds to finance the rehabilita-on and new construc-on of the Crest A partments.
Conduit revenue bonds give the borrow er acces s to tax exempt financing s o the borrower realiz es lower
interest costs and the C ity achieves a public purpose, in this cas e the pres erva-on and rehabilita-on of
exis-ng affordable hous ing units.
I f authorized by the City Council, the Bonds w ill be issued as conduit revenue bonds s ecured solely by the
revenues derived from a loan agreement to be executed by Brooklyn C enter and the Borrow er and from
other s ecurity provided by the Borrower. The lender or bondholders provide the funds for the loan, either
directly or through a trus tee, and Brooklyn Center assigns its rights and obliga-ons under the L oan
A greement to the lender or the trustee.
No money actually flows through Brooklyn C enter. No money or as s ets of Brooklyn C enter would ever be
pledged or available to pay the Bonds. The Bonds w ill not cons -tute general or moral obliga-ons of
Brooklyn Center and will not be s ecured by or payable from any property or assets of Brooklyn Center and
w ill not be secured by any taxing power of Brooklyn C enter. The Bonds w ill not affect any debt limita-on
imposed on Brooklyn Center and the is s uance of the Bonds w ill not have any adverse impact on the credit
ra-ng of Brooklyn Center, even in the event that Borrow er encounters financial difficul-es w ith res pect to
the project.
I n order to proceed, Brooklyn Center needs to hold a public hearing and adopt a res olu-on authorizing the
is s uance of the Bonds , and execute various related documents , including the Bonds and the Loan
A greement. Kennedy and G raven, as bond couns el, w ill provide forms of resolu-ons and all the necessary
documents . The borrow er w ill be required to pay all the expenses of Brooklyn Center paid or incurred with
res pect to the Bonds and w ill be required to indemnify Brooklyn Center for any poten-al liability incurred by
Brooklyn Center w ith res pect to the Bonds, the project, and gran-ng necessary approvals .
B udget I ssues:
I nclusive C ommunity Engagement:
A nracist/Equity Policy Effect:
S trategic Priories and Values:
Resident Economic S tability
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip-on U pload D ate Type
Res olu-on 11/16/2021 Resolu-on LeGer
BR291-409-762205.v1
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. _____ RECITING A PROPOSAL FOR A HOUSING
FINANCE PROGRAM FOR A MULTIFAMILY RENTAL HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT, APPROVING THE PROJECT AND THE PROGRAM
AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF CONDUIT MULTIFAMLY
HOUSING REVENUE OBLIGATIONS AND THE EXECUTION OF
RELATED DOCUMENTS (THE CREST APARTMENTS PROJECT)
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the “City”) is a home rule charter
city, municipal corporation, and political subdivision duly organized and existing under the
Constitution, its Charter and laws of the State of Minnesota;
WHEREAS, the pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the “Act”),
the City is authorized to carry out the public purposes described in the Act by issuing revenue
bonds and notes or other obligations to finance or refinance multifamily housing developments
located within the City, and as a condition to the issuance of such revenue obligations, adopt a
housing program providing the information required by Section 462C.03, subdivision 1a, of the
Act;
WHEREAS, the issuance of the City’s revenue obligations and in the making of a loan to
finance a multifamily housing development, the City may exercise, within its corporate limits, any
of the powers that the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency may exercise under Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 462A, as amended, without limitation under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
475, as amended;
WHEREAS, The Crest Apartments LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (or
another entity to be formed by Aeon, the “Borrower”), has requested that the City issue its housing
revenue obligations, in one or more series (collectively, the “Note”) under the Act and lend the
proceeds thereof to the Borrower to: (i) finance the acquisition of The Crest Apartments, an
existing 123-unit rental housing facility located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway in the City, the
rehabilitation thereof to include, among other things, one additional unit, and the construction and
equipping of an approximately 48-unit building to be located on the same property in the City; (ii)
fund one or more reserve funds to secure the timely payment of the Note, if necessary; (iii) pay
interest on the Note during the construction of the Project, if necessary; and (iii) pay the costs of
issuing the Note, if necessary (collectively, the “Project”);
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a housing program (the “Housing Program”) to
authorize the issuance by the City of tax-exempt and taxable revenue bonds in one or more series
to be issued to finance the Project in an amount not to exceed $19,000,000;
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the Housing Program and the Project was held by the City
on this same date, following duly published notice in the Sun Post, a newspaper of general
circulation in the City, with respect to: (i) the required public hearing under Section 147(f) of the
BR291-409-762205.v1 2
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”); (ii) the required public hearing under
Section 462C.04, subdivision 2, of the Act; (iii) the Housing Program; and (iv) approval of the
issuance of the Note;
WHEREAS, during said public hearing a reasonable opportunity was provided for
interested individuals to express their views, both orally and in writing; and
WHEREAS, the City received Certificate of Allocation No. 408, dated July 6, 2021, from
Minnesota Management and Budget allocating volume cap bonding authority to the City in the
amount of $19,000,000 for the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota (the “Council”), as follows:
SECTION 1. LEGAL AUTHORIZATION AND FINDINGS.
1.1 Findings. The City hereby finds, determines and declares as follows:
(a) The issuance and sale of the Note by the City, pursuant to the Act, is in the
best interest of the City, and the City hereby determines to issue the Note and to sell the
Note to Bridgewater Investment Management, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, or another
financial institution selected by the Borrower (the “Lender”). The City will loan the
proceeds of the Note (the “Loan”) to the Borrower in order to finance the Project.
(b) Pursuant to a Loan Agreement (the “Loan Agreement”) to be entered into
between the City and the Borrower, the Borrower will agree to repay the Loan in specified
amounts and at specified times sufficient to pay in full when due the principal of, premium,
if any, and interest on the Note. In addition, the Loan Agreement contains provisions
relating to the construction, maintenance and operation of the Project, indemnification,
insurance, and other agreements and covenants which are required or permitted by the Act
and which the City and Borrower deem necessary or desirable for the financing of the
Project.
(c) Pursuant to an Assignment of Loan Agreement between the City, the
Borrower and the Lender, (the “Assignment of Loan Agreement”), the City will pledge and
grant a security interest in all of its rights, title, and interest in the Loan Agreement to the
Lender (except for certain rights of indemnification and to reimbursement for certain costs
and expenses).
(d) The obligations of the Borrower under the Loan Agreement and payment of
amounts due under the Note will be secured by certain security instruments required by the
Lender and in forms authorized by the Borrower to be executed by or on behalf of the
Borrower in favor of the Lender, which may include: (i) a mortgage or security agreement
granting a mortgage lien or security interest with respect to the Project or any portion
thereof to the Lender or to the City and assigned to the Lender pursuant to an Assignment
of Mortgage to be executed by the City (the “Mortgage Assignment”); (ii) one or more
collateral assignments of the contracts between the Borrower and the architect and
contractor with respect to the Project; (iii) one or more security agreements, guaranty
BR291-409-762205.v1 3
agreements, and indemnity agreements; and (iv) other security documents that are intended
to ensure timely payment of the loan and the Note (collectively, the “Security
Documents”).
(e) As determined by the Lender, the proceeds of the Note may be disbursed
pursuant to a Disbursing Agreement (the “Disbursing Agreement”) by and among the
Lender, Borrower and a title insurance company.
(f) Certain requirements of federal and state law which require that a portion
of the housing units in the Project be occupied by families of low and moderate income are
set forth in a Regulatory Agreement (the “Regulatory Agreement”) by and among the City,
Borrower and the Lender.
(g) The Note will be a special, limited revenue obligation of the City. The Note
shall not be payable from or a charge upon any funds other than the revenues pledged to
the payment thereof, nor shall the City be subject to any liability thereon. No holder of the
Note shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay
the Note or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment thereof against any property of the
City. The Note shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any
constitutional, charter or statutory limitation.
(h) It is desirable, feasible and consistent with the objects and purposes of the
Act to issue the Note for the purpose of financing the costs of the Project.
(i) The Project constitutes a “qualified residential rental project” within the
meaning of Section 142(d) of the Code, and a “multifamily housing development”
authorized by the Act, and furthers the purposes of the Act.
(j) The purpose of the Project is, and the effect thereof will be, to promote the
public welfare by the acquisition, rehabilitation and equipping of a facility for use as a
multifamily housing development designed primarily for occupancy by persons of low and
moderate income.
(k) The Act authorizes (i) the acquisition, rehabilitation and equipping of the
Project, (ii) the issuance and sale of the Note, (iii) the execution and delivery by the City
of related documents and the performance of all covenants and agreements of the City
contained therein, and (iv) the performance of all other acts and things required under the
constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to make the Note and such agreements
valid and binding obligations of the City in accordance with their terms.
(l) It is desirable that the Borrower be authorized, subject to the terms and
conditions set forth in the Loan Agreement, which terms and conditions the City
determines to be necessary, desirable and proper, to complete the acquisition, rehabilitation
and installation of the Project by such means as shall be available to the Borrower and in
the manner determined by the Borrower, and with or without advertisement for bids as
required for the acquisition and installation of municipal facilities.
BR291-409-762205.v1 4
(m) The payments under the Loan Agreement are fixed to produce revenue
sufficient to provide for the prompt payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest
on the Note, when due, and the Loan Agreement also provides that the Borrower (or its
general partner) is required to pay all expenses of the operation and maintenance of the
Project, including, but without limitation, adequate insurance thereon and insurance against
all liability for injury to persons or property arising from the operation thereof, and all taxes
and special assessments levied upon or with respect to the Project and payable during the
term of the Loan Agreement.
(n) The City hereby finds, determines and declares that it is in the public interest
of the residents of the City that the Project be undertaken in order to further the public
purposes of rehabilitating existing property and increasing the supply of decent, safe, and
sanitary rental housing units available to residents of the City.
1.2 Authorization and Ratification of Project. The City does hereby authorize the
Borrower, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and subject to the terms and conditions
imposed by the Lender, to provide for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and equipping of the Project
by such means as shall be available to the Borrower and in the manner determined by the Borrower,
and without advertisement for bids as may be required for the construction and acquisition of other
municipal facilities; and the City hereby ratifies, affirms, and approves all actions heretofore taken
by the Borrower consistent with and in anticipation of such authority.
SECTION 2. THE NOTE.
2.1 Authorized Maximum Amount, Form of Note and Interest Rate.
(a) The Note is hereby approved and shall be issued pursuant to this Resolution
in substantially the form on file with the City Manager of the City with such appropriate
variations, omissions and insertions as are necessary and appropriate and are permitted or
required by this Resolution, and in accordance with the further provisions hereof. The Note
shall be issued in a denomination equal to its entire principal amount. The Note shall mature
in the year and amount and be subject to redemption as therein specified, as such may be
modified by agreement of the Lender, Borrower and the City; and the principal amount of
the Note that may be outstanding hereunder is expressly limited to $19,000,000. The actual
amount of the Note shall be determined by the agreement of the Lender and the Borrower
and the Mayor and the City Manager (the “Authorized Officers”) as evidenced by their
execution of the Note.
(b) The Note will bear interest at the fixed or variable rates determined by the
Borrower and the Lender, and set forth in the Note as executed by the Authorized Officers;
provided that such rates shall be subject to adjustment pursuant to the terms as set forth in
the Note, this Resolution, the Loan Agreement, the Assignment of Loan Agreement, a Loan
Purchase Agreement or similar agreement with respect to the purchase of the Note by the
Lender and dated as of the date of delivery of the Note, between the Borrower (or its general
partner) and the Lender, (the “Loan Purchase Agreement”), or the Security Documents.
The sale of the Note to the Lender at a purchase price equal to its stated amount is hereby
accepted.
BR291-409-762205.v1 5
2.2 The Note. The Note shall be dated as of the date of delivery to the Lender, shall be
payable at the times and in the manner and shall be subject to such other terms and cond itions as
are set forth therein.
2.3 Execution of Note. The Note shall be executed on behalf of the City by the
Authorized Officers. In case any Authorized Officer whose signature shall appear on the Note
shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Note, such signature shall nevertheless be
valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such signatory had remained in office until
delivery. In the event of the absence or disability of any Authorized Officers, such officer(s) of
the City as, in the opinion of the City Attorney, may act in their behalf, shall without further act or
authorization of the Council execute and deliver the Note.
2.4 Disposition of the Proceeds of the Note. Upon delivery of the Note to the Lender,
the Lender shall, on behalf of the City, disburse the purchase price thereof for payment of Project
costs in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement, any Disbursing Agreement and any
Loan Purchase Agreement.
2.5 Registration of Transfer. The City will cause to be kept at the office of the City
Manager of the City a Note Register for the Note in which, subject to such reasonable regulations
as it may prescribe, the City shall provide for the registration of transfers of ownership of the Note.
The Note shall be initially registered in the name of the Lender and, subject to the limitations on
transfer provided herein, shall be transferable upon the Note Register for such Note by the Lender
in person or by its agent duly authorized in writing, upon surrender of such Note together with a
written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the City Manager of the City, duly executed by the
Lender or its duly authorized agent. The City will require, as a precondition to any transfer, that
the transferee provide to the City an investor letter or certification in a form satisfactory to the City
and other evidence satisfactory to the City that the transferee is a financial institution or other
accredited investor under the securities laws. The following form of assignment shall be sufficient
for purposes of assigning the Note.
For value received ___________ hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto
________________ the attached Note of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota,
and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint ___________________
attorney to transfer said Note on the books of said City, with full power of
substitution in the premises. The undersigned certifies that the transfer is made in
accordance with the provisions of Sections 2.5, 2.7 and 2.8 of the Resolution
authorizing the issuance of the Note.
Dated:__________________
Registered Owner
Upon such transfer the City Manager of the City shall note the date of registration and the name
and address of the successor Lender in the applicable Note Register for such Note and in the
registration blank appearing on such Note; subject to receipt of a purchaser letter or certification
as required by Section 2.8 hereof.
BR291-409-762205.v1 6
2.6 Mutilated, Lost or Destroyed Note. In case the Note shall become mutilated or be
destroyed or lost, the City shall, if not then prohibited by law, cause to be executed and delivered
a new Note of like outstanding principal amount, number and tenor in exchange and substitution
for and upon cancellation of such mutilated Note, or in lieu of and in substitution for such Note
destroyed or lost, upon the payment by the Lender of the reasonable expenses and charges of the
City in connection therewith, and in the case of a Note destroyed or lost, the filing with the City
of evidence satisfactory to the City with indemnity satisfactory to it. If the mutilated, destroyed
or lost Note has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms it shall
not be necessary to issue a new Note prior to payment.
2.7 Ownership of Note. In accordance with the policy of the City, the Lender will be
required to execute and deliver an investor letter or certification to the City, confirming that the
Lender is either (a) a “qualified institutional buyer” as defined in Rule 144A pr omulgated under
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “1933 Act”), that purchases the Note for its own
account or for the account of a qualified institutional buyer, or (b) an “accredited investor” as
defined in Regulation D promulgated under the 1933 Act, that purchases the Note for its own
account and without registration under state or other securities laws, pursuant to an exemption for
such sale. The City may deem and treat the person in whose name the Note is last registered in the
Note Register and by notation on the Note, whether or not such Note shall be overdue, as the
absolute owner of such Note for the purpose of receiving payment of or on account of the Principal
Balance, redemption price or interest and for all other purposes whatsoever, and the City shall not
be affected by any notice to the contrary.
2.8 Limitation on Note Transfers. The Note will be issued to a “qualified institutional
buyer” or an “accredited investor” and without registration under state or other securities laws,
pursuant to an exemption for such sale; and accordingly the Note may not be assigned or
transferred in whole or part, except to another “accredited investor” or “qualified institutional
buyer”. The City will require, as a precondition to any transfer, that the transferee provide to the
City an investor letter or certification substantially in the form required of, and delivered upon
issuance of the Note by the Lender in accordance with Section 2.7 hereof and other evidence
satisfactory to the City that the transferee is a “qualified institutional buyer” or other “accredited
investor”.
SECTION 3. MISCELLANEOUS.
3.1 Severability. If any provision of this Resolution shall be held or deemed to be or
shall, in fact, be inoperative or unenforceable as applied in any particular case in any jurisdiction
or jurisdictions or in all jurisdictions or in all cases because it conflicts with any provisions of any
constitution or statute or rule or public policy, or for any other reason, such circumstances shall
not have the effect of rendering the provision in question inoperative or unenforceable in any other
case or circumstance, or of rendering any other provision or provisions contained herein invalid,
inoperative, or unenforceable to any extent whatever. The invalidity of any one or more phrases,
sentences, clauses or paragraphs contained in this Resolution shall not affect the remaining
portions of this Resolution or any part thereof.
BR291-409-762205.v1 7
3.2 Authentication of Transcript. The officers of the City are directed to furnish to
Bond Counsel certified copies of this Resolution and all documents referred to herein, and
affidavits or certificates as to all other matters which are reasonably necessary to evidence the
validity of the Note. All such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore
furnished, shall constitute recitals of the City as to the correctness of all statements contained
therein.
3.3 Authorization to Execute Agreements. The forms of the proposed Note, the Loan
Agreement, the Assignment of Loan Agreement, Regulator y Agreement and the Mortgage
Assignment (collectively, and together with any Loan Purchase Agreement, any Disbursing
Agreement, the Security Documents and such other documents as Bond Counsel considers
appropriate in connection with the issuance of the Note, the “Financing Documents”) are hereby
approved in substantially the forms on file with the City Manager of City, together with such
additional details therein as may be necessary and appropriate and such modifications thereof,
deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by
Bond Counsel prior to the execution of the documents, and the Authorized Officers are authorized
to execute, in the name of and on behalf of the City, the Financing Documents to which the City
is a party. In the event of the absence or disability of any of the Authorized Officers, such officers
of the City as, in the opinion of the City Attorney for the City, may act on their behalf shall without
further act or authorization of the Council do all things and execute all instruments and documents
required to be done or executed by such absent or disabled officers. The execution of any
instrument by the appropriate officer or officers of the City herein authorized shall be conclusive
evidence of the approval of such documents in accordance with the terms hereof. The electronic
signature of a party to the Financing Documents, including all acknowledgements, authorizations,
directions, waivers and consents thereto (or any amendment or supplement thereto) shall be as
valid as an original signature of such party and shall be effective to bind such party to the Financing
Documents. Any electronically signed Financing Documents shall be deemed (i) to be “written”
or “in writing,” (ii) to have been signed, and (iii) to constitute a record established and maintained
in the ordinary course of business and an original written record when printed from electronic files.
For purposes hereof, (i) “electronic signature” means (a) a manually signed original signature that
is then transmitted by electronic means or (b) a signature obtained through DocuSign, Adobe or a
similarly digitally auditable signature gathering process; (ii) “transmitted by electronic means”
means sent in the form of a facsimile or sent via the internet as a portable document format (“pdf”)
or other replicating image attached to an electronic mail or internet message; and, (iii)
“electronically signed document” means a document transmitted by electronic means and
containing, or to which there is affixed, an electronic signature.
3.4 Future Amendments. The authority to approve, execute and deliver future
amendments to the Financing Documents entered into by the City in connection with the issuance
of the Note and consents required under the Fin ancing Documents is hereby delegated to the
Authorized Officers of the City, subject to the following conditions: (a) such amendments or
consents do not materially adversely affect the interests of the City; (b) such amendments or
consents do not contravene or violate any policy of the City, (c) such amendments or consents do
not require the consent of the holder or such consent has been obtained; and (d) such amendments
or consents are acceptable in form and substance to the counsel retained by the City to review such
amendments. The authorization hereby given shall be further construed as authorization for the
execution and delivery of such certificates and related items as may be required to demonstrate
BR291-409-762205.v1 8
compliance with the agreements being amended and the terms of this Resolution. The execution
of any instrument by the City Manager shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such
instruments in accordance with the terms hereof. In the absence of the City Manager, any
instrument authorized by this paragraph to be executed and delivered may be executed by the
officer of the City authorized to act in his or her place and stead.
3.5 Governmental Program. The City has established a governmental program of
acquiring purpose investments for qualified residential rental projects. The governmental program
is one in which the following requirements of §1.148-1(b) of the federal regulations relating to
tax-exempt obligations shall be met:
(a) the program involves the origination or acquisition of purpose investments;
(b) at least 95% of the cost of the purpose investments acquired under the
program represents one or more loans to a substantial number of persons representing the
general public, states or political subdivisions, 501(c)(3) organizations, persons who
provide housing and related facilities, or any combination of the foregoing;
(c) at least 95% of the receipts from the purpose investments are used to pay
principal, interest, or redemption prices on issues that financed the program, to pay or
reimburse administrative costs of those issues or of the program, to pay or reimburse
anticipated future losses directly related to the program, to finance additional purpose
investments for the same general purposes of the program, or to redeem and retire
governmental obligations at the next earliest possible date of redemption;
(d) the program documents prohibit any obligor on a purpose investment
financed by the program or any related party to that obligor from purchasing bonds of an
issue that finances the program in an amount related to the amount of the purpose
investment acquired from that obligor; and
(e) the City shall not waive the right to treat the investment as a program
investment.
3.6 Adoption of Housing Program. The preparation of the Housing Program is hereby
ratified, confirmed, and approved in all respects. The Housing Program is hereby adopted, ratified,
and approved. The City Manager of the City is hereby authorized to do all other things and take
all other actions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the Housing Program in
accordance with the Act and any other applicable laws and regulations.
3.7 Costs; Indemnification by Borrower. The Borrower has agreed and it is hereby
determined that any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the financing of the
Project whether or not the Project is carried to completion will be paid by the Borrower, as the
case may be. It is understood and agreed that the Borrower shall indemnify the City against all
liabilities, losses, damages, costs and expenses (including attorney’s fees and expenses incurred
by the City) arising with respect to the Project, the Financing Documents, or the Note, as further
provided for and agreed to by and between the Borrower and the City in the Loan Agreement.
BR291-409-762205.v1 9
3.8 Headings; Terms. Paragraph headings in this resolution are for convenience of
reference only and are not a part hereof, and shall not limit or define the meaning of any provision
hereof. Capitalized terms used, but not defined, herein shall have the meanings given them in, or
pursuant to, the Financing Documents. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and
after its approval.
This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its approval.
November 22, 2021
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
_______________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:11/22/2021
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:D r. Reggie Edwards, City Manager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:A ndy S plinter, I nterim F inance D irector
S U B J E C T:Res olu,ons A pproving the 2022 U ,lity Rates
Requested Council A con:
- Moon to:
Open the public hearing;
Take public input; and
C lose the public hearing
- Moon to approve:
Resoluon for 2022 Water U lity Rates
Resoluon for 2022 S anitary S ewer U lity Rates
Resoluon for 2022 S torm S ewer U lity Rates
Resoluon for 2022 S treet L ight Rates
Resoluon for 2022 Recy cling Rates
B ackground:
At the O ctober 1 8 , 2021 j oint work ses s ion of the C ity Council and F inancial Commis s ion, s taff presented
the expected expenditures for opera,on of the C ity ’s u,lity s er vices for 2022. The expenditures include
total direct and indirect costs including deprecia,on of capital as s ets and adminis tra,v e costs. A long with
thos e cos ts ar e proj ec,ons of the r ev enues needed for 2022 and for the next fi8 een y ears to keep
opera,ons running s moothly and fund the infr as tr ucture improv ements needed in each of the u,lity
s ystems. The cas h flow analysis for each of the five u,li,es indicate an,cipated rate changes necessary to
maintain s ufficient cas h balances during the construc,on of the u,lity improv ements associated w ith the
City ’s 15-year C apital I mprovement P lan (C I P ).
For 2022, rate increases are propos ed Water, S anitary S ewer, Recycling, and S torm S ew er in order to
maintain cas h res erves , fund normal opera,ons , pay for debt service and finance infras tructure
improvements . Rates for the various u,li,es for 2022 are s how n in comparison to 2021 below :
F und D escripon 2021 R ate 2022 R ate C hange
Wat e r Base Charge - Res iden,al
(quarterly)$17.4 4 $19.0 1 $1.57 / quarter
Consump,on C harge -
Res iden,al M eters
T ier I (0 - 30 gallons)
Tier I I (31 - 60 gallons)
Tier I I I (61 and greater)
$2 .91
3.6 2
5.4 1
$3 .17
3.9 5
5.9 0
$0 .26 / 1 ,000 gallons
$0 .33 / 1 ,000 gallons
$0 .49 / 1 ,000 gallons
Consump,on C harge -
Non-res iden,al (Per 1,0 0 0 gallons )$3 .84 $4 .18 $0 .34 / 1 ,000 gallons
S anitary S ewer Bas e C harge (quarterly)$93.5 9 $98.2 7 $4.68 / quarter
C ons ump,on Charge -
Non-residen,al (Per 1,000 gallons )$3 .95 $4 .15 $0 .20 / 1 ,000 gallons
S torm S ewer Bas e C harge (quarterly)$15.9 8 $17.1 0 $1.12 /quarter
S treet L ight Bas e C harge (quarterly)$6 .55 $6 .55 No change
Recycling Bas e C harge (quarterly)$11.9 8 $12.1 0 $0.12 /quarter
The quarterly u,lity bill for a hous ehold us ing 1 8 ,000 gallons of water (cons idered the typical res iden,al
us er) is s how n in comparison to 2021 rates as follows:
F und 2021 B ill 2022 B ill $ C hange/quarter
Water $69.82 $7 6 .07 $6.25
S anit ary S ewer 93.59 98.2 7 4.68
S torm S ewer 15.98 17.1 0 1.12
S tre e t L ight 6.55 6 .55 -
Recycling 11.98 12.1 0 0.12
Total $197.92 $210.0 9 $12.17
The propos ed rates w ould become effec,ve on J anuary 1, 2022.
City C ode sec,ons 1 1 .02 and 11.0 6 require a no,ce and hearing prior to the C ity Council seHng new u,lity
rates. The P ublic H earing No,ce w as published in the Brooklyn C enter Post on November 4, 2021.
B udget I ssues:
I nclusive C ommunity Engagement:
A nracist/Equity Policy Effect:
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
Water Rate Resolu,on 11/16/2021 Resolu,on LeJer
S anitary Rate Resolu,on 11/16/2021 Resolu,on LeJer
S torm D rainage Rate Resolu,on 11/16/2021 Resolu,on LeJer
S treet Light Rate Res olu,on 11/16/2021 Resolu,on LeJer
Recycling Rate Res olu,on 11/16/2021 Resolu,on LeJer
U ,lity Rate P ublic H earing P res enta,on 11/16/2021 P resenta,on
Member _____________________________ introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2022 WATER UTILITY RATES, FEES AND
CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center Charter requires that municipal utilities
be self-supporting through revenue provided by a uniform schedule of rates, fees and charges;
and
WHEREAS, this uniform schedule shall be called the “Public Utility Rate
Schedule” and shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed data provided on delinquent utility
charges.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the following Water Utility rates, fees and charges are hereby adopted and
shall be effective for all billings issued on or after January 1, 2022.
2022 WATER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE
Water Rates, Fees and Charges
Base Rate
Year 2022 $4.18 per 1,000 Gallons
Quarterly Minimum Rate
Meter Size 2021 Quarterly Minimum Charge
1” $ 55.24
1 ½" $ 71.02
2” $ 138.10
3” $ 276.24
4” $ 465.65
6” $ 1,065.48
8” $ 2,017.95
10” $ 2,690.61
Water Conservation Rate
Meter Size Base Charge (minimum charge per quarter)
5/8” and 3/4” $ 19.01
Thousands of Gallons Consumption Charge (per 1,000 gallons used)
0 to 30 $ 3.17
31 to 60 $ 3.95
61 and greater $ 5.90
RESOLUTION NO. ______________
Fees
Water Meter Charge 5/8” or 3/4”
$149.00
Water Meter Charge Larger than 3/4”
Actual Cost + $2.00
Other Charges
Delinquent account, quarterly charge
No Additional Charge
Certification for collection with property taxes
(Utility accounts with an outstanding balance
owed of $200.00 or greater)
$50.00
Fire Service Line Charge $ 12.50 per quarter
November 22, 2021
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.
Member ___________________________________ introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2022 SEWER UTILITY RATES, FEES AND
CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center Charter requires that municipal utilities
be self-supporting through revenue provided by a uniform schedule of rates, fees and charges;
and
WHEREAS, this uniform schedule shall be called the “Public Utility Rate
Schedule” and shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed data provided on delinquent utility
charges.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the following Sewer Utility rates, fees and charges are hereby adopted and
shall be effective for all billings issued on or after January 1, 2022.
2022 SEWER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE
Sewer Rates, Fees and Charges
Base Rate Quarterly Residential
(Minimum quarterly charge)
Single Family Apartment Senior Citizen
Year 2022 $98.27 $68.79 $54.04
Non-Residential Rate
Year 2022 $4.15 per 1,000 Gallons
Fees
SAC Charge set by MCES Fee Established by MCES
Charges
Delinquent account, quarterly charge
No Additional Charge
Certification for collection with property taxes
(Utility accounts with an outstanding balance
owed of $200.00 or greater)
$50.00
Line cleaning charge Labor, materials, equipment and overhead
Sanitary Sewer Connection Established annually by resolution
November 22, 2021
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.
Member ________________________________ introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2022 STORM SEWER UTILITY RATES, FEES
AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center Charter requires that municipal utilities
be self-supporting through revenue provided by a uniform schedule of rates, fees and charges;
and
WHEREAS, this uniform schedule shall be called the “Public Utility Rate
Schedule” and shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed data provided on delinquent utility
charges.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the following Storm Sewer Utility rates and charges are hereby continued
and shall be effective for all billings issued on or after January 1, 2022.
2022 STORM SEWER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE
Storm Sewer Rates and Charges
Quarterly Rates per Acre
2022 Minimum Quarterly Charge
Base Rate $68.39
Cemeteries and Golf Courses $17.10
Parks $34.20
Single Family, Duplex, Townhouse $17.10/lot
School, Government Buildings $85.49
Multiple Family, Churches $205.18
Commercial, Industrial $341.97
Vacant Land As Assigned
Charges
Delinquent account, quarterly charge
No Additional Charge
Certification for collection with property taxes
(Utility accounts with an outstanding balance
owed of $200.00 or greater)
$50.00
Private facility cleaning charge Labor, materials, equipment and overhead
November 22, 2021
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.
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2022 STREET LIGHT RATES AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center Charter requires that municipal utilities
be self-supporting through revenue provided by a uniform schedule of rates, fees and charges;
and
WHEREAS, this uniform schedule shall be called the “Public Utility Rate
Schedule” and shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed data provided on delinquent utility
charges.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the following Street Light Utility rates and charges are hereby adopted and
shall be effective for all billings issued on or after January 1, 2022.
2022 STREET LIGHT UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE
Street Light Rates and Charges
Quarterly Rates
Customer 2022 Minimum Quarterly Charge
Per Dwelling Unit:
Single, Double and Multiple Family
Residential
$6.55
Per Acre:
Parks $10.90
Schools, Government Buildings, Churches $21.80
Retail and Service-Office $32.69
Commercial and Industrial $32.69
Vacant Land and Open Space As Assigned
Charges
Delinquent account, quarterly charge
No Additional Charge
Certification for collection with property taxes
(Utility accounts with an outstanding balance
owed of $200.00 or greater)
$50.00
November 22, 2021
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.
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2022 RECYCLING RATES AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is a member of the Hennepin Recycling
Group (HRG), which is a joint powers group organized pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
471.59 (1987); and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the joint powers agreement is to create an
organization by which member cities may jointly and cooperatively provide for the efficient and
economical collection, recycling and disposal of solid waste within and without their respective
corporate boundaries in compliance with the Minnesota Waste Management Act, Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 115A (1987); and
WHEREAS, the HRG has established a curbside recycling program for its
member cities to meet the requirements of Hennepin County Ordinance No. 13, Solid Waste
Source Separation for Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center must establish rates to fund the City’s
curbside recycling program and the cost for projected reimbursement of recycling charges from
the HRG along with other program operating charges; and
WHEREAS, the recycling program includes a bi-annual curbside cleanup; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed data provided on delinquent utility
charges; and
WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center Ordinance No. 89-11 authorizes the City to
establish rates for recycling services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the recycling charges shall be as follows for all billings issued on or after
January 1, 2022:
2022 RECYCLING UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE
Recycling Rates and Charges
Minimum Charge per Household per quarter: $12.10 per quarter
Charges
Delinquent account, quarterly charge
No Additional Charge
Certification for collection with property taxes
(Utility accounts with an outstanding balance
owed of $200.00 or greater)
$50.00
November 22, 2021
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.
Public Hearing
Utility Rates for 2022
City Council Meeting 11-22-21
Andrew Splinter, Acting Finance Director
Rate Considerations
r 8, 2018
•Maintain service levels
•Stabilize rate changes
•Provide cash for operating needs
•Provide cash for capital projects
•Provide cash for debt service
2
Utility Improvements
3
Total
upcoming
projects in
Utility funds:
$12,266,000
2022 Proposed Rate Changes
4
2022 Proposed Rate Changes
5
Water Utility Rate Comparison
6
Sanitary Sewer Utility Rate Comparison
7
Storm Drainage Utility Rate Comparison
8
Water, Sewer, Storm Utility Rate Comparison
9
Street Light Utility Rate Comparison
10
Recycling Utility Rate Comparison
11
Next Steps
•Open public hearing for comments on proposed 2022 utility rates
•Council consideration of:
•Resolution adopting 2022 water utility rates
•Resolution adopting 2022 sewer utility rates
•Resolution adopting 2022 storm sewer utility rates
•Resolution adopting 2022 street light rates
•Resolution adopting 2022 recycling rates
•Questions?
12
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:11/22/2021
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:D r. Reggie Edwards, City Manager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:D r. Reginald Edw ards , C ity M anager
S U B J E C T:Emergency O rdinance for the Curfew P roces s
Requested Council A con:
~ M oon to approve the emergency ordinance regarding curfews
B ackground:
B udget I ssues:
I nclusive C ommunity Engagement:
A nracist/Equity Policy Effect:
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 via
telephone Dial: 1-312-626-
6799 Meeting I D:
81506192332# Passcode:
216824#
November 22, 2021
AGE NDA
AC T I V E D I S C US S IO N I T E M S
1.Concept Review F ollow-up Discussion Regarding the F ormer Sears Site
2.F ollow Up to Budget P resentation
P E ND I NG L I S T F O R F UT URE WO RK S E S S IO NS
1.Upcoming I tems
C ouncil/E DA Work Session
DAT E:11/22/2021
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:D r. Reggie Edwards, City Manager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:M eg Beekman, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
S U B J E C T:C oncept Review Follow-up D is cus s ion Regarding the Former S ears S ite
Requested Council A con:
B ackground:
A concept review is considered advisory and is nonbinding to the C ity and the applicant. N o formal
ac1on can be taken at a w ork s ession, and the Council is not being as ked to vote on the proposal.
I f the developer choos es to s ubmit a formal applica1 on to the City to pr oceed, it w ould be s ubject to the
full review proces s , as w ith any other development applica1on.
The former S ears site has been vacant s ince 2018. The Brooklyn C enter s ite, along w ith mul1ple other
former S ear s s ites were purchas ed by Trans form Co, w ith the inten1on of redev eloping the sites .
TransformC o has been exploring redev elopment op1ons on the s ite for the last year and a half. This process
has included conduc1ng their own market s tudies and working with local brokers to iden1 fy a feas ible reus e
for the s ite. They ini1 ated an R F P proces s in late 2020 to iden1fy a redev elopment partner. Through that
proces s , S cannell P roper1 es was s elected, and they have now entered into an op1on agreement with
TransformC o for the s ite.
S cannell P roper1 es is a dev eloper of pr imarily light industr ial and commercial busines s centers. They have
most recently completed proj ects in Brook lyn Park and Maple G rove. At a Council wor k s es s ion I n May
2021, S cannell pres ented a concept plan for a redevelopment to an office/w arehouse us e w hich would
classify under the C ity's curr ent light indus trial (I 1) zoning dis trict and the 2040 C omprehens ive P lan's
future land us e des igna1on of Busines s Mixed U s e. T he office/w ar ehous e product type is in high demand in
the market and is not a product that is readily available in the Brooklyn Center mar ket. O ffice/warehous e
buildings typically provide a 24-28 foot clear ceiling height, w hich offer the most flexibility for bus inesses .
S cannell began their due diligence of the site and completed an env ironmental asses s ment of the property,
w hich iden1fied significant amounts of asbes tos in the exis1ng buildings, which w ill need to be remediated
before demoli1 on can take place. The total es1 mated cost to remediate the as bes tos in the for mer S ears
building is nearly a million dollars. This w ork w ill be required prior to demoli1on of the exis 1ng s tructures.
At their Ma y wo rk session the C ouncil provided feedback on the co ncept plan, and indicated that the proposed
concept was not sa1sfactory. C ouncilmembers provided direc1on to the develo per to go back and rework their
concept. T he C ouncil's feedback on the plan fell into four main areas:
Provide a greater mix of uses, primarily a desire to see more retail/entertainment uses on the site
P rovide an ov er all high finish level on any buildings , w ith four-s ided architecture, and a focus on
enhancing the H wy 100 frontage
P rovide a s ite layout and des ign that adds value to the adjacent S hingle C r eek C rossing s hopping
center
P rovide community benefit though opportuni1es for s pace for local bus inesses or local hiring goals
S cannell and TransformC o have been exploring the regional mar ket, s eeking oppor tuni1es to pr ovide a
greater mix of r etail and enter tainment us es . They hav e been working with a local broker, and have not had
any interest in the s ite for this type of us e. They have als o focus ed on enhancing the architectural design and
finis h lev el of the building, as w ell as the layout to beAer consider the adjacent s hopping area. They area
also exploring w ays to provide greater community benefits from the site.
TransformC o and their partner developer S cannell, have requested a work ses s ion to dis cus s the site, their
revised concept plan, and how they intend to more clos ely align w ith the City 's goals. T he S taff have as ked
Julie K imble, w ith K imbleC o, to als o par 1cipate in the discussion on behalf of the City to ens ur e a collec1ve
unders tanding of the C ity's goals as w ell as the market reali1es and constraints on the s ite.
TransformC o is r eques 1ng this dis cus s ion now as they are at a decis ion point ar ound whether to proceed
w ith a pr oject in B rook lyn Center, or to begin to focus on other s ites , and are s eeking direc1 on on their
development concept.
T he f o rmer Sears site is currently zo ned P U D-C 2. T his zoning is spec ifi c to the former B rookdale Mall, and any
reuse of the property would require a rezoning to a new P U D. However, the underlying zo ning is that o f C 2,
C ommerce, which primarily allows retail and service uses. Scannell's proposed use would require a rezoning to
P U D-B M U, which aligns more closely with the C ity's I -1 - L ight I ndustrial zoning district.
T he property is guided TO D in the 2040 C omprehensive Plan. At the 1me that the C omprehensive Plan was
adopted, it was not clear what the future for the f o rmer Sears site wo uld be, nor had a market study been
completed. T he site is near a B R T transit sto p, and TO D allows a bro ad mix of land use op1ons, including housing.
T he 2040 C o mprehensive Plan recognized that no t all of the proper1es guided for TO D would be appropriate
housing sites, and indicated that a rea s such as the O pportunity Site, would focus more on housing, while other
sites around Xerxes and B rooklyn B oulevard would focus more on commercial land uses, providing a jobs base.
That said, the 2040 Comprehensiv e P lan did not contemplate light industrial and bus iness mixed us e for the
former S ears site, and as s uch, a Comprehensiv e P lan A mendment w ould be required if this development
w ere to move forward.
Policy Discussion
A resilient community includes a bala nced approach to land use and redevelo pment. T his mea ns iden1fying
opportuni1es for adding jobs and tax base enhancing develo pment projects, as well as pro mo 1ng housing
stabiliza1on, a diverse housing stock, and mee1ng broader community goals.
Scannell has no t yet indic ated whether they will request Tax I nc rement Financing or not. Any request for T I F will
be required to meet the C ity's Public Subsidy Policy and go through formal review.
Policy I ssues:
D oes the C ouncil have any comments or direc1on related to the proposed land use concept?
I s the C ouncil comfortable with a light industrial/business mixed use pro ject, kno wing it will require a
rezoning and C omprehensive Plan Amendment?
D oes the C ity C ouncil have any ques1ons for Scannell proper1es related to their project proposal?
N ext S teps
B ased o n the discussio n with the C o uncil, Scannell pro per1es will work on a site concept, which will be brought
back to the C ity C ouncil for further considera1on before they prepare a final land use applica1on.
B udget I ssues:
There are no budget is s ues regarding this item at this 1me.
A nracist/Equity Policy Effect:
S trategic Priories and Values:
Targeted Redevelopment
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip1on U pload D ate Type
presenta1on 11/22/2021 P resenta1on
scannellproperties.com
PRELIMINARY CONCEPT REVIEW –BROOKLYN CENTER, MN
SEARS SITE
REDEVELOPMENT
PRESENTED TO:
SITE LOCATION MAP
LAND USE PLAN
RETAIL MARKET OVERVIEW
EXISTING SITE AERIAL
CONCEPT SITE PLAN
SAMPLE RENDERING #1
SAMPLE RENDERING #2
SAMPLE RENDERING #3
BUSINESS PARK JOB CREATION COMPS
Tenant Primary Use Total Size Office Office %Approximate
Employees
Jobs Per
1,000 Square
Feet
Tenant A Manufacturing 30,000 6,000 20.0%50 1.67
Tenant B Manufacturing 110,000 15,500 14.1%150 1.36
Tenant C Warehouse 30,000 2,000 6.7%30 1.00
Tenant D E-Commerce 80,000 3,500 4.4%70 0.88
Tenant E Health & Wellness 20,000 2,000 10.0%30 1.50
Tenant F Lab/Manufacturing 70,000 16,000 22.9%120 1.71
Tenant G Manufacturing 61,000 5,500 9.0%70 1.15
Tenant H Lab/Manufacturing 48,000 10,500 21.9%80 1.67
Tenant I Warehouse 36,000 2,800 7.8%40 1.11
Tenant J Warehouse 36,000 500 1.4%30 0.83
Tenant K E-Commerce 84,000 6,400 7.6%90 1.07
Tenant L E-Commerce 221,000 11,200 5.1%200 0.90
Tenant M E-Commerce 100,000 19,000 19.0%150 1.50
Tenant N Manufacturing 20,000 2,500 12.5%30 1.50
946,000 103,400 10.9%1,140 1.21
As illustrated, the property
has the potential to attract at
least 230 new , high-quality
jobs with a high likelihood of
generating of 300.
OBJECTIVES:
❖Growth of local companies
❖Attract new employers
❖Create quality jobs for residence
❖Increase tax base by over 400%
❖Employment base to support
local retailers
Summary of six (6) business park buildings in Scannell’s NorthPark Business Center in Brooklyn Park.
scannellproperties.com
THANK YOU
PRELIMINARY CONCEPT REVIEW –BROOKLYN CENTER, MN
C ouncil/E DA Work Session
DAT E:11/22/2021
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:D r. Reggie Edwards, City Manager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:D r. Reginald Edw ards , C ity M anager
S U B J E C T:Follow Up to Budget P resenta+on
Requested Council A con:
B ackground:
At the Monday, November 15, s pecial w ork s ession there w as a pres enta+on regarding the 2022 Police
D epartment budget and sugges ted realloca+ons of funds to fund Resolu+on 2021-73 S afety A ct. We w ill
pres ent a follow up to these proposed alloca+ons.
B udget I ssues:
A nracist/Equity Policy Effect:
S trategic Priories and Values:
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip+on U pload D ate Type
Res olu+on 11/22/2021 Backup M aterial
C ouncil/E DA Work Session
DAT E:11/22/2021
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:D r. Reggie Edwards, City Manager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:D r. Reginald Edw ards , C ity M anager
S U B J E C T:U pcoming I tems
Requested Council A con:
O vernight Parking D iscussion - 11/22
Earle Brow n Name Change for P ublic P roperty - 1/10/22
Council Policy for C ity C harter requirement of Mayor's s ignature on all contracts
S trategic P lans for years 2018-2020 and 2021-2023
Review S pecial A sses s ment Policy
Tobacco O rdinance
Emerald A s h Borer Policy Review
Community-W ide S urvey
A8orney R F P P rocess - Extens ion 11/22 and R F P P rocess 12/13
F ranchis e Fees
P ilot O pportunity S ite Concept Review - 12/13
B ackground:
B udget I ssues:
A nracist/Equity Policy Effect:
S trategic Priories and Values: