Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023.11.13 CCM STUDY SESSION11/13/23 -1- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION NOVEMBER 13, 2023 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in a Study Session called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Marquita Butler at 6:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Pro Tem Marquita Butler and Councilmembers Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Dan Jerzak, and Teneshia Kragness. Mayor April Graves was absent. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, Assistant City Manager/City Clerk Barb Suciu, and City Attorney Jason Hill. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Mayor Pro Tem Butler asked if there were any questions regarding the agenda or agenda items. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson requested the removal of Regular Session Consent Agenda Item 6a—approval of Minutes from the agenda for further review. Councilmember Jerzak requested Consent Agenda Item 6c. Resolution Regarding Planning Commission Application No. 2023-006, Submitted by AWC Holdings LLC, for Conversion of an Existing Two-Tenant Building to an Approximately 10,200-square restaurant and Bar (Nightclub) and 704-square outdoor Patio (5927 John Martin Drive), be removed from the Consent Agenda and added to Planning Commission Items as 9b. Resolution Regarding Planning Commission Application No. 2023-006, Submitted by AWC Holdings LLC, for Conversion of an Existing Two-Tenant Building to an Approximately 10,200-square restaurant and Bar (Nightclub) and 704-square outdoor Patio (5927 John Martin Drive). MISCELLANEOUS Councilmember Jerzak noted his disagreement with correspondence received from Phu Bia. He doesn’t believe the Council wanted Staff to negotiate a payment plan. Even if that were true, the Council should have reviewed any payment plan before agreeing. City Manager Reggie Edwards stated the motion before the Council was to amend the lease 11/13/23 -2- DRAFT agreement to waive the $65,000. The Council was opposed to amending the agreement or waiving the $65,000. Then, staff determined a payment plan was the best option to get the $65,000. The Council didn’t want the business to fail or to receive a payment of less than $65,000. Councilmember Kragness stated the business previously said they couldn’t come up with any more money. She asked if the $65,000 was paid. Dr. Edwards explained staff worked with the business to pay the $65,000 over time. Councilmember Kragness asked why the Council didn’t have an opportunity to approve the payment plan. Dr. Edwards stated the Council denied amending the agreement or waiving the $65,000. The Council asked staff to obtain a method to receive $65,000, and there wasn’t a policy issue to bring back to the Council. Instead, staff completed the direction of the Council. Councilmember Jerzak stated he made the original motion, and it was clear. He understood that a legal process would begin if the loan were to default. There is no sense in going after personal guarantees. His expectation was for Phu Bia to be treated like any other business. He asked if the Council was misled to believe the business owner couldn’t afford additional monthly payments. Dr. Edwards stated he listened to the recording of the meeting in question. The motion made by Councilmember Jerzak was specific not to forgive the past due amount and directed staff to reach an agreement with the business owner. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated her perspective was that the debt would not be forgiven, and the eviction process was to begin. She wants the Council to be involved in whatever payment plan is in place. She asked how the business could afford a payment plan suddenly. Councilmember Jerzak noted his agreement with Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson. He hoped for the default to be cured and avoid any punitive action. Councilmember Kragness stated she is concerned for the business and doesn’t want the City to set them up to fail. The owner indicated they couldn’t afford additional payments, and she didn’t want to encourage the owner to pour more money into a failing business. Councilmember Jerzak explained that although he stands by what he said, he would consider the payment plan if the Council could review the plan. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she wants the Council to review the payment plan structure. It was concerning that the business was allowed to default in the amount of $65,000 under the supervision of staff. Dr. Edwards suggested staff return to the Council with the payment plan and its details. He requested that the Council allow staff to do the work they are directed to do. 11/13/23 -3- DRAFT Mayor Pro Tem Butler explained the Council seemed to be on the same page, but she understands how Dr. Edwards could have come to his conclusion. She wants the business to thrive but also to recoup the money. It is unlikely the City would see the money through an eviction process. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated because the Council was uninformed about missing payments for several months, they must be involved in the payment plan process. The staff didn’t perform adequately. Councilmember Kragness added if there was potential for a payment plan with the business, it should have been done before the issue was brought to the Council for a vote. The Council believed all other options besides eviction had been exhausted. Councilmember Jerzak noted his agreement with Councilmember Kragness. He insisted on the implementation of the consensus of the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Butler stated the Council wants the Council to approve the payment plan during a public meeting formally and then regular updates on the payment plan. Councilmember Kragness stated the process is abnormal because the ball was dropped multiple times in the process already. Dr. Edwards stated the business likely felt pressure to consider alternative options they hadn’t considered after the Council wasn’t willing to forgive the loan. It doesn’t mean the Staff wasn’t diligent in their responsibilities. Councilmember Kragness added the business may have come off as disingenuous. It was the consensus of the Council to approve the payment plan during a public meeting and then regular updates on the payment plan. Councilmember Jerzak stated he is confused about the staff’s ability to make recommendations with variable reasoning. The Council needs to rely on staff’s recommendations due to their expertise. He referenced waiving the necessary 59 parking spaces from a development project. He asked for clarity on why Staff cannot make recommendations. Dr. Edwards explained staff doesn’t generally provide recommendations. It is their role to provide options and related pros and cons. The staff doesn’t want to bias the procedure in any way to allow the Council to make a decision based on neutral presentations. If the Council asks for recommendations, staff may return to the Council with an additional presentation as appropriate. Dr. Edwards added that staff tries to avoid political spaces as it isn’t their role. Dr. Edwards stated the options related to the parking spots were presented as a way to improve the development process. They wanted the Council to be aware of all options. City Attorney Jason Hill noted any application received by the City will ultimately be brought up 11/13/23 -4- DRAFT to the Council. The Planning Commission has a legal obligation to make a recommendation to the Council for items they review. The staff has to bring the item to the Council, whether or not they support the application. Planning Commission items are initially presented to the Council in an informational format before requiring a final yes or no vote. It allows for more discussion and questions to be addressed. The informational formatted item usually results in the Council directing Staff to prepare a resolution approving or denying the application. If unanimous, the resolution may be added to the Consent Agenda. Otherwise, it would be on the Regular Session agenda for discussion. Councilmember Jerzak stated the item was on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Hill stated it was not a Consent Agenda item. Councilmember Jerzak stated he is still befuddled with the new process and wishes it was explained more fully to the Council. As for the parking variance, approving the request would set an inappropriate precedent. The lack of parking would ultimately lead to police issues. There were other issues with the application as well. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson noted her appreciation that the Staff doesn’t want to bias the Council. However, the City hired professionals in their respective fields, and the Council expects to hear their professional recommendations. She has been on the Council for 11 years, and Staff has always given their input when asked. Therefore, she requested Consent Agenda Item 6c. Resolution regarding Planning Commission Application No. 2023-006, Submitted by AWC Holdings LLC, for Conversion of an Existing Two-Tenant Building to an Approximately 10,200-square restaurant and Bar (Nightclub) and 704-square outdoor Patio (5927 John Martin Drive) be removed from the Consent Agenda. They are added to Planning Commission Items as 9b. Resolution regarding Planning Commission Application No. 2023-006, Submitted by AWC Holdings LLC, for Conversion of an Existing Two-Tenant Building to an Approximately 10,200- square restaurant and Bar (Nightclub) and 704-square outdoor Patio (5927 John Martin Drive). Councilmember Kragness agreed she relies on the expertise of Staff in the voting process. Staff should disclose any potential issues to the Council during presentations. Mayor Pro Tem Butler agreed she didn’t appreciate how the item was handled in the previous meeting. If staff is going to change processes on how they handle presentations, it should first be discussed in a Work Session. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pro Tem Butler adjourned the Study Session at 6:34 p.m.