Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025.06.23 CCM REGULAR6/23/25 -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 JUNE 23, 2025 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Informal Open Forum called to order by Mayor April Graves at 7:06 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Mayor April Graves and Councilmembers Teneshia Kragness, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Dan Jerzak, and Laurie Ann Moore. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, Chief of Police Garett Flesland, City Planning Manager Ginny McIntosh, City Clerk Shannon Pettit, and City Attorney Siobhan Tolar. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 4. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM Mayor April Graves opened the meeting for the purpose of Informal Open Forum and reviewed the Rules of Decorum. Julie B. called in via Zoom. She greeted the City Council and Staff. She called to address some concerns and understands that finances are tight for the City. Her concerns are regarding the role some of the City’s Departments play in public safety. She stated that public safety is not just the Police Department's responsibility, and it is unfair to put all of those concerns on one department. She stated she wanted to ensure that financial decisions are made while understanding the impact that other programs have. She thanked the Council for their time. Naheed called in via Zoom. She greeted the City Council, Staff, and residents. She thanked Councilmembers and Mayor Graves for their continued work to emphasize equity, health, and the environment, especially regarding the Highway 252 and I-94 projects. She also wanted to respectfully suggest some work on the City website to make it more user-friendly. She stated that navigating and finding the information she needs on the website is difficult. She asked if information could be relayed to residents through means other than text, and suggested using videos and music. Mayor Graves notified Naheed that her time was up. Naheed thanked the Council for their time. 6/23/25 -2- Joan D., who lives at 5422 Humboldt Avenue North, stated she received a letter from Ms. Vang regarding a shed that is on the back of her house. The first letter that was sent stated the shed is in her driveway. She clarified that the shed is not in her driveway, but rather behind her house. In the second letter sent to her, Ms. Vang stated she understood that the shed was in her backyard. The shed has been on her property for over eight years. She asked if she was expected to take down the shed and cover it with a tarp. This shed also acts as a divider between her property and her neighbor’s, even with a fence dividing the two properties. She asked if the shed could be grandfathered in, as it has been there for almost nine years. The property was her husband’s family home, and Joan and her husband have been renovating it with a lot of time and money invested. Councilmember Moore asked for Joan D.’s name and address again, and for clarification on whether Joan D. had ever received a letter regarding the shed until now. Joan D. stated she had not. Joe D. stated that the church got a letter about putting up number signs for the address. He stated the problem is that the front of their building is unnerving, and the back of the building is the real address, with an address already posted there. The letter stated that the building had to have 12- inch numbers on the front of the building. Joe D. stated that there is a sign that he would like to put the address numbers on instead of the front of the building facing Humboldt. Joe D. pointed out that a lot of other businesses and buildings do not comply with the 12-inch number signs. Mayor Graves stated that this is a new change that has not been implemented everywhere yet. She asked for the Church’s address. Joe D. responded that the property is at 5827 Humboldt. Mayor Graves stated that the Staff would follow up with Joe D. regarding his questions. Matt B. called in via Zoom and voiced concern over inspectors. He pointed out that it has rained for over a week straight, and he got a letter about his grass, even though he mows his grass weekly. He stated that the letter indicated he had seven days to comply, but he did not know if the seven- day deadline started from the time of the inspection or the postmark on the letter. He noted that the letters need to be clearer on deadlines. Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Kragness seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 7:07. Motion passed unanimously. 5. INVOCATION Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson said she generally strives to be upbeat, but addressed the violent events that occurred 10 days earlier involving Senator Hoffman and his family, and the deaths of Representative Hortman, her husband, and their family dog. She offered prayers for the Hoffmans’ recovery and noted the emotional trauma will likely outlast their physical injuries. She helped campaign for Representative Vang and Senator Pha and met both Representative Hortman 6/23/25 -3- and Senator Hoffman at that time. She expressed sorrow over the loss of Representative Hortman. She declined to name the perpetrator as she does not want to give that individual any more credence. She stated she would like to take a moment of silent reflection for this horrific event involving two elected officials. Mayor Graves thanked Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson for her remarks. Mayor Graves shared that she also worked with both Speaker Hortman and Senator Hoffman through the 252 Political Action Advisory Council. Mayor Graves described both as joyful individuals who approached difficult issues with compassion and humor. Mayor Graves emphasized the long service both provided to the community and acknowledged that public service is often a thankless role with inherent risks. The tragedy has deeply affected the victims’ families and the Council. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson added that she neglected to offer prayers to Melissa Hortman’s children and would like to do so now, and thanked the Council. 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Kragness moved and Councilmember Jerzak seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, as amended, with amendments to the minutes as stated during the Study Session and removed item 10A Under Council Consideration Items from the Agenda to the Consent Agenda, and the following consent items were approved: 6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. June 9, 2025 – Study Session 2. June 9, 2025 – Regular Session 3. June 9, 2025 – Work/EDA Session 6b. LICENSES AMUSEMENT DEVICES Dos Hermanos 1400 Shingle Creek Crossing Mi-Michoacana 1360 Shingle Creek Crossing #210 MECHANICAL A-abc Appliance & Heating Inc. 8818 7th Avenue N., Golden Valley 55427 Angell Aire, Inc. 12253 Nicollet Avenue S., Burnsville 55337 Erickson Plumbing Heating Cooling 1471 92nd Lane NE, Blaine 55449 HLT Heating & Cooling LLC 244 Richmond Street W, 6/23/25 -4- South Saint Paul 55075 Jerry Dahl Heating/Air 1933 164th Lane NE, Ham Lake 55304 MN Plumbing and Home Services 21017 Heron Way #105 Lakeville 55044 Schwantes Heating and Air Conditioning, 6080 Oren Avenue S., Inc. Stillwater, 55082 Top Tier Heating and Air Conditioning 16015 Central Avenue NE, Ham Lake 55304 RENTAL INITIAL (TYPE III – one-year license) 4201 Lakeside Avenue N #101 MEKUANINT TAYE INITIAL (TYPE II – two-year license) 6424 June Avenue N June Avenue Llc RENEWAL (TYPE III – one-year license) 7000 Oliver Avenue N P E Enohnyaket/m Enohnyaket RENEWAL (TYPE II – two-year license) 4216 Lakebreeze Avenue N LAKE BREEZE HOLDINGS LLC 5432 Dupont Avenue N Xiangming Guan & Ping He RENEWAL (TYPE I – three-year license) 5304 Vincent Avenue N Lou Yang & Pao G Vang 5319 Queen Avenue N Karen Pelak Trust 4207 Lakeside Avenue N DON STENBERG 5351 4th Street N Infinite Property Llc 5410 France Avenue N SFR BORROWER 2022-1 LLC 5611 Knox Avenue N Pro Operam Sub Xi Llc 5701 James Avenue N Sunset View Rentals Llc 6900 Regent Avenue N Houa Her & Neng Thao 6/23/25 -5- 6c. RESOLUTION 2025-061 SUPPORTING A FY 2025 SS4A GRANT APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY ACTION PLAN 6d. RESOLUTION 2025-62 IDENTIFYING THE NEED FOR LCDA DEVELOPMENT FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR ACER SHINGLE CREEK CENTER REDEVELOPMENT 6e. RESOLUTION 2025-63 ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2025-17 WEST FIRE STATION 2025 ROOF REPLACEMENT 7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8a. RESOLUTION 2025-64 REVOKING THE HOSPITALITY ACCOMMODATION LICENSE FOR BC SEVA LLC, DBA: SUBURBAN STUDIOS, 2701 FREEWAY BLVD Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Moore seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Dr. Edwards stated that the City has been dealing with a couple of hotels with license violations, as well as Hospitality Accommodation Licenses and zoning ordinances. Dr. Edwards introduced City Clerk Shannon Pettit to discuss, as well as the Planning Manager Ginny McIntosh and City Attorney Siobhan Tolar. Dr. Edwards stated that there are other Staff members in the room present for the hearing, and the owner of Suburban Studios is present and will have the opportunity to speak to the Council. City Clerk Shannon Pettit thanked Council and City Staff and explained the reasons for the possible revocation of the Hospitality Accommodation License for BC Seva LLC, DBA: Suburban Studios on 2701 Freeway Boulevard is pursuant to Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 23- 2402(C) “Any facility such as a hotel, motel, condominium, resort, or any other facility or place offering six or more lodging units to guests for periods of less than thirty days, but not including jails, hospitals, care facilities, senior living centers, residential treatment facilities, prisons, detention homes, and similar facilities.” Suburban Studios currently operates as Care Chexx, a Recuperative Care Facility. Pursuant to Brooklyn Center City Code Section 23-2413(A)(6), “Failure to continuously comply with any zoning, health, building, nuisance, or other Code requirements is grounds for license revocation, suspension, or non-renewal.” Ms. Pettit stated, as referenced in the zoning violation letter dated June 13, 2025, regarding Suburban Studios/Care Chexx, that the operation of the business as a Recuperative Care Facility violates the existing PUD, past and present Zoning Codes, and began operating without proper zoning approval. 6/23/25 -6- Ms. Pettit explained some of the background of Suburban Studios. Suburban Studios submitted a Hospitality Accommodation License renewal on March 31, 2025. The license was approved by the Council on May 5, 2025. On or about May 31, 2025, Fire Department Staff responded to a fire alarm call at Suburban Studios. Once there, Fire Department Staff observed activity that led them to believe the facility was operating as something other than a hospitality accommodation. Around June 2, 2025, the City learned of the grand opening of the new Care Chexx Recuperative Care Facility. Around June 4, 2025, a site inspection of Suburban Studios revealed the building was no longer operating as hospitality accommodation but rather as a Recuperative Care Facility. City Staff learned that there were full-time medical Staff onsite, including LPNs, RNs, and Nurse Practitioners, with a total of 32 staff. The facility operated 24 hours per day, food service was provided, and the facility was not open to the public. City Staff learned that the owner of Suburban Studios entered into a lease with Care Chexx. Care Chexx is a business in partnership with Minnesota Community Care, and Care Chexx is the identified provider operating from the Suburban Studios property. Ms. Pettit continued explaining that Care Chexx and Minnesota Community Care hold “Recuperative Care” licensure through the Department of Human Services (DHS). The Recuperative Care facility provides care to homeless individuals who are discharged from the hospital. Housing staff formerly employed by Jay Patel/BC Seva LLC are current employees of Care Chexx. Referrals come from hospitals, healthcare providers, and public health clinics. Referrals must be connected to Minnesota benefits. Patients can stay at Care Chexx for up to 21 days, but may be extended to a maximum of 60 days. Patients do not pay individually for rooms with a credit card; the facility submits claims to Minnesota Health Care Programs (MHCP)/DHS for services, and the Recuperative Care facility is eventually reimbursed. Ms. Pettit noted that the Suburban Studios property is located within a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with an underlying I-1 (Industrial Park) zoning designation. Pursuant to Section 35-2103(e) that “planned unit developments, and parcels zoned as a planned unit development, in accordance with prior zoning regulations shall remain in effect and shall remain subject to any and all agreements, conditions, and standards applicable to the planned unit development. Amendments shall be processed in accordance with the procedures identified for planned unit developments in this UDO.” City Council Resolution No. 98-47 granted approvals for the subject property to operate as a “three-story, 104-unit efficiency hotel.” Approval of the Planned Unit Development acknowledged “efficiency or extended stay hotels offering transient lodging accommodations for periods of longer than one week as being comparable in intensity and use as a transient lodging defined in the Brooklyn Center zoning ordinance, and therefore, an allowed use in this Planned Unit Development.” Ms. Pettit explained that pursuant to the Declaration of Covenants and restrictions (of the PUD), “Lot three (where Suburban Studios is located) shall be used and developed for a 104-unit, three- story efficiency hotel of approximately 45,450 square feet without either a restaurant or a bar and for no other use unless the owners of Lot 3 secure either an amendment to the planned unit development plan and conditions approved by the City Council, or a rezoning of Lot 3 to a zoning classification which permits such other use.” 6/23/25 -7- Ms. Pettit noted that Brooklyn Center City Code Section 35-8300 outlines the processes and procedures an applicant must follow to amend a PUD, which includes undergoing a major PUD amendment akin to a new application process. Suburban Studios did not attempt to amend the existing PUD references above. Suburban Studios also did not request a zoning reclassification prior to operating outside of the intended use of the property. Ms. Pettit explained that a Recuperative Care Facility, according to the Department of Human Services (DHS), is available to eligible Minnesota Health Care Programs (MHCP) members experiencing homelessness to help prevent hospitalizations or provide medical care and support services when the individuals are unable to recover from a physical illness while living in a shelter or are otherwise unhoused. MHCP members receive recuperative care services when they do not need to be hospitalized or do not meet the severity of illness for other levels of care. An MHCP member must have a referral for recuperative care services from a hospital or clinic. The length of stay is typically less than 21 days, but it can be extended up to 60 days with authorization from a medical professional. Ms. Pettit noted that, according to Brooklyn Center's interpretation, a Recuperative Care Facility is most similar to a “Nursing Care home, Rest Home, or a Convalescent Home.” As defined by the City’s zoning code Section 35-900, a Nursing Care Home is a “Facility which provides for the accommodation of persons who are not acutely ill and not in need of hospital care, but who do require nursing care and related medical services.” Examples of nursing care include bedside care and rehabilitative nursing techniques, administration of medicines, a modified diet regimen, irrigations, catheterization, application of dressings or bandages, and other treatments prescribed by a physician. Ms. Pettit stated that the definition of “Hospitality Accommodation” under Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 23-2402(C) excludes hospitals, care facilities, senior living centers, residential treatment facilities, prisons, detention homes, and similar facilities. Suburban Studios is no longer the operator of the premises, as Care Chexx has taken over. Care Chexx is operating a Recuperative Care Facility in contravention of its Hospitality Accommodation License. As a requirement of the Level I Hospitality Accommodation License, currently held by the property owner, the licensee must have clear check-in policies that, at a minimum, require all guests reserving or renting a room to use a credit card to guarantee the reservation or rental. Ms. Pettit continued that the Recuperative Care Facility use is most similar to that of a nursing care home, rest home, or convalescent home, and Suburban Studios has violated the City’s zoning code by failing to undergo the proper rezoning process and/or PUD Amendment process. Ms. Pettit stated that the Staff is recommending revocation of Suburban Studios Hospitality Accommodation license after finding that Suburban Studios is in violation of their Hospitality Accommodation License. Ms. Pettit noted that the recommended conditions with the revocation would be to delay revocation for 21 days from June 23, 2025, to allow individuals staying on the premises to evacuate and find alternative lodging. The recommendation of 21 days is based on the length of stay at the facility as outlined by Care Chexx and DHS. Any other conditions or requirements will be as outlined in the City licensing code. 6/23/25 -8- Ms. Pettit highlighted Council options and considerations. The Council could take no action, which means that Suburban Studios retains its Hospitality Accommodation license. However, Care Chexx, operating as a Recuperative Care Facility at that location, must cease. Council could also suspend the Suburban Studios Hospitality Accommodation license with conditions for up to 90 days. The suspension would prevent the use of the building as a Hospitality Accommodation for 90 days under any assigned conditions. The operation of Care Chexx as a Recuperative Care Facility must also cease. The final option would be to revoke the license with conditions. Suburban Studios would no longer be able to operate as a Hospitality Accommodation, and Care Chexx must cease operating. Operation of the facility as a Recuperative Care Facility is in violation of the PUD and the zoning code and must cease until the business obtains proper City approvals through the submittal of a complete Planning Commission application, approval by the City Council, and the Metropolitan Council. Any questions regarding the zoning implications and process will be addressed with the Council at a later date. Councilmember Jerzak asked Dr. Edwards if the owner of Care Chexx had ever approached the City prior to starting the lease and asked whether or not this was an appropriate use of the property. City Planning Manager Ginny McIntosh stated that no one ever approached her department in advance to ask if this use would be permitted. Councilmember Jerzak asked Dr. Edwards and City Attorney Siobhan Tolar if the City was on sound legal grounds that this was a violation of zoning rules and hospitality accommodations. City Attorney Siobhan Tolar stated that the City is on sound legal ground, and Suburban Studios has violated the Hospitality Accommodations license as it is no longer operating as a Hospitality Accommodations Facility, and by violating the City’s zoning code. Mayor Graves stated she would give the owners of the property a chance to speak in front of the Council. Attorney Brian Huntington with the law firm of Lark and Hoffman, who represents the landowner BC Seva LLC, explained that he requested the public hearing pursuant to the City code and had earlier sent a letter to the Council with an enclosure of the amended management agreement that is in effect. Councilmember Moore asked for copies of the letter sent to the Council to be reviewed while he was speaking. Mr. Huntington handed Council copies of the letter. Mr. Huntington also introduced Jay Patel, the controller of BC Seva LLC, Mr. Keith Lattimore, and Mr. Cedric Lattimore, co-founder and partner with Care Chexx. Mr. Huntington asked if he could do a brief introduction and then let his clients speak and answer questions from the Council and close with a summation. Mr. Huntington stated that the ongoing use of the hotel is consistent with the PUD approval granted on March 23, 1998, which is Resolution 98-47. This resolution affirmed that an extended stay hotel is an allowed use in the PUD. To this day, the hotel is primarily used as an extended stay hotel. The enforcement letter dated June 13, 2025, contained inaccurate information about the relationship between BC Seva LLC and Care Chexx and the services being offered at the hotel. Mr. Huntington introduced Mr. Jay Patel to clarify. 6/23/25 -9- Mr. Patel is the Asset Manager or Controller of BC Seva LLC. He has worked in the hospitality industry in Minnesota since 2007 and has owned and operated hotels in Minnesota, South Dakota, and Tennessee. His company is called BC Seva. BC stands for Brooklyn Center, and Seva means to serve the people without expectations. There is a management agreement with Care Chexx, which is the governing agreement between BC Seva LLC and Care Chexx. The management agreements in paragraph one state that the primary use of the building shall remain as a hotel, providing temporary lodging and related guest services. Some of these guest services could include transportation, fishing, laundry, and medical services such as physical therapy, massage, or acupuncture. Mr. Patel stated that these guest services are offered at various Minneapolis hotels as well and named specific hotels that offer them, such as the Hilton in Bloomington, Minnesota, and the Courtyard by Marriott in Woodbury. Mr. Patel stated that all hotels offer vending machines with soda and candy for guests, as well as business centers, fitness centers, and wheelchair services equipped with ADA rooms for the disabled. Suburban Studios is aware that the property offers Recuperative Care Services and has voiced no objections, citing that other hotels in Brooklyn Center provide services such as home health care. Mr. Patel stated that the hotel continues to take reservations through their online system. He claimed it is common to have an agreement established with certain corporate customers where employees are not required to use credit cards for using hotel services. Mr. Huntington introduced Keith Lattimore, the co-founder of Care Chexx, as the second witness to give testimony to the Council. Mr. Lattimore stated he wanted to give a brief overview of what Care Chexx does and the services it provides. Care Chexx is a provider of Recuperative Care Services with DHS and is a new program launched in 2025. It is designed for individuals to work with DHS to ensure that they are eligible to receive Recuperative Care Services. The services are not only restricted to hotel settings by providers but can also be performed in homeless shelters, private residences, or rental properties. He stated that Recuperative Care is designed to help individuals who may not have a home and need a place to recover from a medical issue, but no longer need to be hospitalized. Mr. Lattimore explained that to receive Recuperative Care Services, the individual must be an adult male or female, have MA and other benefits attached, and must come to Recuperative Care Services by way of a hospital or medical clinic. Individuals in Recuperative Care must be able to take care of their own personal needs, such as basic hygiene. Care Chexx provides individuals with a place of stability, and individuals have access to a bed, phone, restroom, and food. Professional services check in with individuals to ensure they are complying with any discharge instructions from previous medical staff and that individuals meet all requirements to fully heal while in Recuperative Care. The professional services at Care Chexx are provided by medical personnel and include social workers to help the individual should they need additional assistance, as well as government benefits such as housing once discharged from Care Chexx. Mr. Lattimore explained that individuals in Recuperative Care could utilize government services through social workers at Care Chexx, which may have been disconnected previously because the individual was not in a stable place. Recuperative Care is primarily the services that the state of Minnesota is offering as a result of overcrowding in hospitals, specifically for transient individuals. 6/23/25 -10- Mr. Lattimore stated that Care Chexx has made a proper application to become the hotel provider with the City of Brooklyn Center, and that application is pending. He also stated that the individuals being cared for at Care Chexx receive food services three times a day. The hotel has been open, and there are currently regular hotel guests. There is a 21-day maximum stay, extended up to 60 days, with approval from the state of Minnesota if they need more time to heal and recover, but individuals are not required to comply and can leave the facility at any time. If there is no longer a medical need for the individual, they are to be discharged from the facility, even if they are homeless. The social workers at Care Chexx work to get those homeless individuals the resources they need after they are discharged. Check-ins with Staff at Care Chexx and individuals are required to happen once a day. Since Recuperative Care Services have been provided at the hotel, there have been no 911 calls to the property for any Police or security assistance matters. Care Chexx has Staff there 24 hours per day to assist with any security matters if they arise. Mr. Huntington thanked the Council for allowing Mr. Patel and Mr. Lattimore the opportunity to speak. He stated that the Council has now heard that the primary use of the property has continued to be as a hotel and that there has been no change in land use. The hotel has always offered a wide range of services for guests since the time of its original permitting back in 1998, with rooms equipped with phones, restrooms, and kitchenettes. The Recuperative Care services being offered are complementary services already offered to guests with the primary hotel use. Under the law, the planned unit development resolution must be interpreted in favor of the landowner. In 1998, the PUD approved an extended-stay hotel, and the current use of the hotel fits within the definition of an extended-stay hotel. Recuperative Care Services being provided at the hotel do not render the hotel outside the definition of an extended stay hotel. The hotel is still operating under the Suburban Studios name under the Choice Hotels brand. That use is protected by Minnesota state law and may not be taken away by licensure requirements. Mr. Huntington claimed it would be problematic under state and federal law for the City to rescind the Hospitality Accommodation license because of the socioeconomic status of the users of the Recuperative Care offered at the hotel. Mr. Huntington claimed that other entities in the City of Brooklyn Center are offering similar Recuperative Care Services and that there would be a question of violation of equality if the hotel were not allowed to continue offering these services, but other entities in the City are. Mr. Huntington argued that the state of Minnesota strongly supports the continued provision of Recuperative Care at the property, and the City’s strategic plan and equity goals of Brooklyn Center support the continued provision of services. The hotel’s Recuperative Care Services increase access for the homeless to help them overcome life challenges. Mr. Huntington stated he and his clients would like the City to consider a fourth option, which is to find that the Recuperative Care Services currently offered at the hotel fit into the definition of the 1998 PUD definition of hotel and, therefore, would not be in violation of the zoning of the property. Mayor Graves thanked Mr. Huntington for his presentation and asked the Council for any questions. 6/23/25 -11- Councilmember Jerzak asked Mr. Huntington if he or any of his clients had ever contacted the City prior to beginning to operate Care Chexx to see if there would be any violations in zoning or hospitality accommodations that currently exist while operating at the hotel. Mr. Huntington conferred with Mr. Patel and Mr. Lattimore and responded that there was no prior communication with the City. Mayor Graves asked Mr. Lattimore if Care Chexx is operating in any other locations. Mr. Lattimore said this is a new program, and there are 43 state providers that have been licensed so far, but this is new in Brooklyn Center, and the hotel is their only location. Mayor Graves asked if any other organizations are offering the same Recuperative Care Services, Care Chexx, to individuals staying in hotels. Mr. Lattimore said Care Chexx has been in communication with some of the other 43 providers, and of those 43, there are corporations providing the same services in hotels in various areas around the Twin Cities. Mayor Graves asked who pays the medical personnel and social workers who are employed at Care Chexx. Mr. Lattimore stated that Care Chexx pays their own employees and personnel. There is a reimbursement for flat fees as indicated on the Recuperative Care website, and those services are reimbursed under Medicaid and Medicare, which is why individuals who come into Recuperative Care have to have an MA in order to be referred to Care Chexx. Mayor Graves asked Mr. Patel how many people are currently staying at the hotel as credit card- paying guests and how many people have come and stayed through the Recuperative Care program. Mr. Patel stated that occupancy is varied, but that last weekend, the hotel was sold out. He stated that the hotel had 73 occupied hotel rooms with regular guests. Mayor Graves asked again how many guests were staying with Care Chexx at the hotel. Mr. Patel stated there were 12 or 13 guests staying at the hotel for Recuperative Care. Mayor Graves asked Mr. Patel what made him want to go into partnership with Care Chexx. Mr. Patel responded that his company was about serving the people and wanted to help the homeless demographic. Mr. Patel also explained that his extended-stay hotel was perfect for long-time guests as it is zoned for stays over 30 days, whereas a regular hotel is zoned for a maximum stay of 29 days. Mayor Graves asked Mr. Lattimore what would happen if the social workers at the hotel could not find transitional housing for guests who were to be discharged from care at the hotel. Mr. Lattimore responded that discharge planning takes place as soon as the individual comes into care at the hotel, with coordination among hospital staff where the individual might have recently been released from, as well as the social workers employed through Care Chexx. In the event there is still no place for the individual to go, Care Chexx partners with day Shelters and homeless shelters where the individual can get continued government and county services after being discharged from Care Chexx. Councilmember Kragness stated she was confused by the letter that the Council received dated June 13, 2025, which is addressed to Mr. Patel and contradicts what the attorney stated and what was now being stated before the Council. The letter quoted Mr. Lattimore saying, “While the plan was to set up for a City Hospitality Accommodation license and operate at Suburban Studios 6/23/25 -12- location, rooms would not be available to the public as Care Chexx lease agreement stipulates the leasing of all rooms, whether occupied or not, for the contractual period.” Councilmember Kragness noted that the paragraph prior to that was another quote from Mr. Lattimore that read, “Mr. Lattimore stated, ‘That Care Chexx had rented all the rooms effective June 1, 2025, for a contractual period of 3 years.” Councilmember Kragness asked Mr. Lattimore if he could clarify the statements quoted by City Staff. Mr. Lattimore said those quotes were not his but the quotes of Cedric Lattimore, who was also present at the Council meeting. Mr. Lattimore clarified that there was a transition period where construction had to be done to prepare the rooms for the entire hotel, and there was a group of hotel rooms that Care Chexx had booked, but there were still some that were open to the public. Mr. Lattimore said that because Care Chexx had a number of rooms blocked off, Care Chexx was the renter of those rooms, but the rest of the rooms in the hotel were available to the public and could be reserved via the hotel’s online reservation system. Councilmember Kragness asked Mr. Lattimore who was to assume the liability of the individual if the individual got hurt while in the care of Care Chexx at the hotel. Mr. Lattimore responded that the individuals staying in Recuperative Care are able to take care of themselves, and the requirement for them to stay at the hotel in Recuperative Care is that the individual is able to move and not bedridden. Care Chexx has insurance and liability insurance that covers the Staff. Care Chexx provides meals for the individual while in their care, but other than that, the individual must be independent enough to care for themselves. Councilmember Kragness noted that someone who needs to be in Recuperative Care for 21 days to fully heal would not be functioning without limitations or fully independently. Mr. Lattimore stated he understood Councilmember Kragness’s position; however, the state’s website is very clear on the requirements that the individual must be ambulatory and must be able to care for themselves. Mr. Lattimore noted that sometimes homeless individuals go into a hospital for one issue and come out with a new diagnosis, like diabetes or high blood pressure, and need healthcare education after being released from the hospital, which Recuperative Care would provide. Mr. Huntington stated that Cedric Lattimore could respond to Councilmember Kragness’s earlier questions. Mayor Graves called Cedric Lattimore to the podium. Mr. Cedric Lattimore stated that on the fourth day that Care Chexx was offering services, he was dropping off supplies, and four City Staff walked into the building with clipboards. Mr. Cedric Lattimore was told by City Staff that the building inspector was there to check on room 208 about a leaky roof. City Staff continued to ask questions, and Mr. Cedric Lattimore told City Staff that Keith Lattimore was the person City Staff should speak with, but he answered questions the best he could and misspoke about several issues that were quoted by City Staff in the letter received by the Council. Mr. Cedric Lattimore is a senior partner with Care Chexx and is not aware of the business proceedings and is focused more on supplying equipment like printers and other office supplies. 6/23/25 -13- Councilmember Kragness noted that Mr. Huntington had previously commented that if an individual was receiving Recuperative Care in their own home, it would not be denied and, therefore, should not be denied in this instance at the hotel either. Councilmember Kragness said that was not a fair comparison to make since Recuperative Care received in an individual’s own home would not be for profit and is not the same as receiving care in a hotel operating as a Recuperative facility. Councilmember Moore stated that Care Chexx and Suburban Studios did not follow the proper procedures required by the Brooklyn Center City code. Councilmember Moore said she has been social working in the state of Minnesota for over 30 years and is very familiar with home healthcare services after a person is discharged from a hospital. She said it is a red flag that Care Chexx is potentially providing these services without a license, but that is a completely separate issue. The main issue is that Care Chexx and Suburban Studios did not follow proper procedures set by the Brooklyn Center for code and provide what a hospitality accommodation should be providing for the City. Councilmember Jerzak commented that the only question the Council needs to answer is whether there was a violation of zoning licenses, not the merits or background of the organization. Mayor Graves asked what the initial activity was that was observed by the Fire Department, which made City Staff question what was going on at the hotel. Fire Marshall Brandon Gauch stated that there was a fire alarm call over the weekend at 11 or 11:30 pm. The Fire Crew went into the property and saw that some remodeling was being done. In the process of addressing the alarm and sprinkler problem at the property, the Fire Crew began speaking with hotel staff at the front desk and were told that there was a change of use of the property coming. The Fire Crew called Fire Marshall Gauch and informed him of what hotel staff had disclosed during the visit to the property. Fire Marshall Gauch went back to the property the next day for another alarm call and spoke with Cedric Lattimore at the front desk. Fire Marshall Gauch was told at that visit that the property was a closed campus and was only for Care Chexx patients. Fire Marshall Gauch relayed this new information from Cedric Lattimore to City Staff. Mayor Graves thanked Fire Marshall Gauch for his comments and asked about the lodging taxes that the City collects from hotels. She wondered how that works with the hotel operating partially as a Recuperative Care facility. Dr. Edwards stated he does not know the answer to that question and will have to confer with other City Staff to get the answer. Mayor Graves asked if there were any other questions from Council members. Mr. Patel answered that the lodging taxes that are collected are no different than what other guests are paying, and the hotel has full intentions of collecting lodging taxes and remitting them to the City of Brooklyn Center and the state of Minnesota. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked who was paying the lodging tax. Mr. Patel stated that BC Seva LLC was paying for it. 6/23/25 -14- Councilmember Kragness asked how many rooms must be rented out by Care Chexx contractually. Keith Lattimore stated that the contract does not specify the number of rooms to be contracted out to Care Chexx. Mr. Lattimore stated that Care Chexx would use as many rooms as needed to accommodate their needs, so a specific number of rooms is not specified in the contract. Councilmember Kragness asked if the contract is not for the exclusive use of the hotel but is for the use of rooms at the hotel as needed. Mr. Lattimore confirmed that it is correct. Ms. McIntosh noted that City Staff did provide a copy of the management and operations agreement and wanted to point out that under item 1e. “The manager (which would be Care Chexx in this case) shall be the exclusive operator of the premises,” and under item 5 options, “The manager shall have two, three-year renewal options on the same terms subject to market rate rental adjustments.” Councilmember Jerzak moved and Councilmember Moore seconded to close the Public hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Mayor Graves asked if there needed to be further discussion on the options presented to the Council by Ms. Pettit earlier in the presentation. Councilmember Kragness asked if Ms. Pettit could put the options back up on the screen for the Council to read. Mayor Graves read the options aloud, stating option one was to take no action, option two was to suspend the Hospitality Accommodation license with conditions (up to 90 days), and option three was to revoke with conditions that Suburban Studios would no longer be able to operate as a Hospitality Accommodation, and Care Chexx operations would also cease. Mayor Graves asked for thoughts from Councilmembers. Councilmember Jerzak stated he is confused by the testimony Council received that the hotel is still operating as both Care Chexx and a hotel. He noted that according to City Attorney Siobhan Tolar, the Recuperative Care facility is in violation of the PUD and the zoning code, and that alone would be enough for him to vote to revoke the license. He asked if 21 days would be enough time to get the clients from Care Chexx out of the property, but he was happy to hear that Care Chexx had made a zoning license application. In his opinion, it is clear that the Recuperative Care Facility is in violation. He asked for legal counsel from Ms. Tolar. Ms. Tolar stated that the Council is deciding whether BC Seva LLC violated the licensing code and the zoning code by operating as a Recuperative Care facility. The Hospitality Accommodation License requires credit card payments. The PUD agreement for the property only allows them to operate as an extended-stay hotel, and if the property owner is using it for anything else, there must be a zoning amendment. The Hospitality Accommodation License ordinance only allows people to stay up to 30 days. Based on those considerations, the Council can decide if the property owner violated the licensing code, the hospitality accommodation license, and if the business is operating as a Recuperative Care facility in contravention of the PUD for the property. Ms. Tolar stated that the Council could let BC Seva LLC and Care Chexx continue operating as they are, but it would be in contravention of the City’s ordinances and agreements. 6/23/25 -15- Councilmember Jerzak asked if the Council chooses not to do anything, if that would set a precedent for other businesses not to get correct licensure. Ms. Tolar agreed that it would set the precedent for the future. Councilmember Kragness asked about option three to revoke the conditions and if one of the conditions is the 21-day deadline to vacate the property for the Care Chexx occupants. Ms. Tolar confirmed that it is one of the conditions. Councilmember Moore moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to revoke with conditions, Suburban Studios would no longer be able to operate as a Hospitality Accommodation, and the Operation of the Recuperative Care Facility must cease within the timeline of 21 days. Mayor Graves voted against the same. Motion passed. 8b. PRESENTATION AND PUBLIC COMMENTARY REGARDING UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES Dr. Edwards introduced Chief of Police Garett Flesland to speak on the matter. It is required that the Council have a public hearing to allow the public to speak on the matter as well. Police Chief Garett Flesland presented information regarding unmanned aerial vehicles, also known as drones. He noted that surveillance tools, including drones, have been used harmfully, especially in marginalized groups of people, and that history matters. Chief Flesland stated that one of the reasons the City is considering the drone program is that it can save lives. Chief Flesland displayed a news article from Florida where Florida police used a drone to locate two children. Another news article stated that a drone pilot found a missing six- year-old boy in Sherburne County in 10 minutes after a group of 600 people had searched for the boy for 10 hours. Drones can give Police Officers better situational awareness to make tactical and strategic decisions with fewer officers present at a scene. Drones can provide coverage of a much larger area in a shorter amount of time, with faster deployment than a Minnesota State Patrol aircraft. Chief Flesland stated that in the 2024 Bureau of Criminal Apprehension report, at least 153 public safety agencies in Minnesota use drone technology, and research and new programs are starting each month, providing their communities with invaluable technology. Some local agencies that currently use this technology include the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Robbinsdale, Minneapolis, Maple Grove, and Plymouth Police Departments. Looking back at previous incidents in Brooklyn Center, the Brooklyn Center Police Department used drones from other Public Safety agencies in 23 different incidents that included shootings, domestic incidents, missing persons, carjackings, and mental health incidents. Chief Flesland stated it was time Brooklyn Center caught up with all the neighboring agencies that are already using drone technology, so the Police can utilize this life-saving capability to better 6/23/25 -16- serve Brooklyn Center. He explained Brooklyn Center Police would use drones for life safety search and rescue for missing adults and children, emergencies that pose an immediate public safety risk, natural disaster response for water rescues, flood assessment and other damages, as well as crime scenes searching for evidence and documentation, and community engagement training purposes. All the uses listed above are in line with state statutes and policy. The current plan is to use drones with the Brooklyn Center SWAT team until the program is fully established. Chief Flesland wants to make sure the drones are used correctly before expanding their usage. Chief Flesland showed the Council a small, gray drone that would be used with the SWAT team primarily indoors. FAA rules for drone usage state drones must be flown at or below 400 feet, need to be kept within visual line of sight, cannot be flown in restricted airspace without a waiver from the FAA, and must yield to all other aircraft, and all pilots flying the drones will be FAA certified. Chief Flesland explained Minnesota State Statutes 626.19, which states that a search warrant is required unless one of nine specific exceptions applies. Those nine exceptions include: during an emergency, over a public event, countering the risk of a terrorist attack, aiding in natural or manmade disasters, conducting threat assessments, collecting information from a public area if there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, collecting information for crash reconstruction, over a public area for employee training or public relations, and aiding other non-law enforcement government entities. Chief Flesland explained there are four prohibited uses of the drone per Minnesota State Statute 626.19, which include: drones must comply with all FAA requirements, must not deploy with facial recognition or other biometric matching technology, must not be equipped with weapons, and must not be used to collect data on public protests or demonstrations. Other prohibited uses per the Police drafted policy include the drone not being used to conduct random surveillance activities, not being used to target a person based solely on actual or perceived characteristics, not being used to harass, intimidate, or discriminate against any individual or group, and must not be used to conduct personal business of any type. Chief Flesland stated that the Police Department takes privacy very seriously and will not use drones to conduct general surveillance to look for specific suspects or to fish for other crimes as an enforcement tool. Law enforcement will delete data collected by the drone as soon as possible, but no later than seven days after collection, unless the data is part of an active criminal investigation. Chief Flesland said all drone use will be approved by a supervisor and fully documented. Third- party software will store and upload all flight data, including dates, times, altitude, speed, and direction of the drone and camera. Any complaints can be thoroughly investigated using stored flight data. Drone flights, program costs, and additional data requirements will be sent to the BCA annually based on the statute. Chief Flesland stated that staffing oversight of the drone program would include a commander to oversee the program and ensure all policies are being followed, approve training, and ensure proper data collection and reporting to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). A sergeant would manage daily operations and reporting, 6/23/25 -17- training, documentation, and supervision of drone pilots. The lead pilots in the program would be responsible for training, maintenance, inventory of the drones, and documenting every flight. The drone program would initially be used primarily by the City’s SWAT team but would eventually expand out to use for the Fire Department, emergency management response to natural disasters, and missing persons cases, but would fall within the parameters of use per the state laws. Chief Flesland said the Police Department had discussed using drones with the community during Community Public Safety meetings, occurring twice in November of 2024 and again in February 2025. Feedback on the draft policy was solicited via the City’s website and Facebook in June 2025. Early feedback raised concerns about data being shared with ICE, and Chief Flesland wanted to take this opportunity to reiterate that the Brooklyn Center Police does not collaborate with ICE on immigration-related efforts. Other concerns were about funds coming out of the City’s general funds, but the Police Department has set aside $20,000 from its own PSA funds. The drones that the Police Department uses each cost under $2,000, and the Department has set aside $1,800 for FAA training for 10 pilots. There will be additional costs for software and other equipment. Still, from the original $20,000 earmarked for the drone program, the initial investment will be around $11,000, leaving the Police Department with $9,000 for future costs and purchases. Feedback received in June has been very positive and supportive from the community. Chief Flesland requested that the City Council provide an opportunity for public comment at this regularly scheduled meeting to keep dialogue open and be transparent with the community. Mayor Graves thanked Chief Flesland for the presentation. Councilmember Kragness thanked Chief Flesland for the presentation and asked if the drones could help manage the issues with Northport Park. Chief Flesland responded that it could potentially, but the Police Department cannot actively patrol an area with a drone; it must be in response to an event that has occurred. If a crime was reported at the park, or there was criminal suspicion or potential for bodily harm that was reported to the Police, then the drone could be used. Councilmember Kragness asked what the cost and consequence charge would be for intentional civilian damage to the drone. Chief Flesland responded that it would depend on the amount of damage. If the drone were destroyed completely, it would be a felony regardless of the value of the drone. Councilmember Kragness asked if it mattered if the drone was Police property. Chief Flesland said it would not matter since the drone is the property of the City, and destruction of City property is a felony. Councilmember Moore thanked Chief Flesland for his presentation and asked for clarification on the budget. Chief Flesland stated the $11,000 amount is broken down into three drones, screens for the SWAT team to observe drone footage, software systems, and ten pilots. When the program is expanded to outdoor uses like thermal imaging for missing persons, the Fire Department, and various other applications, an additional $9,000 could be used. Councilmember Jerzak asked how long the Police Department anticipated the program to get up and running with pilot training and all other provisions. Chief Flesland responded that the Department has seven or eight pilots who have already taken the FAA test and passed. The software system still needs to get up and running, and the drones must be on board, but the program 6/23/25 -18- could be ready in a few weeks. Chief Flesland has the draft policy, and any feedback received at this meeting or via the website could change that policy, but the drone program could be ready for the SWAT team to use within the month. Councilmember Jerzak asked if anything else prevented the Police Department from starting the drone program immediately. Chief Flesland stated that having public comment at a regularly scheduled meeting is the last statutory requirement before getting everything up and running. Mayor Graves asked if it does not matter if the Council has given notice of that requirement or if the Police Department has already met it with the previous two public meetings. Chief Flesland said the Police Department has met all the requirements once a regularly scheduled meeting is open to public comment. Mayor Graves asked if the Council needs to give two weeks’ notice, like the Council does for any other issue. Chief Flesland stated his understanding is that it is not mandated. Mayor Graves asked about the authorized uses per statute. Chief Flesland pulled up the slide with the nine authorized drone uses per Minnesota statute and explained that these nine uses do not require obtaining a search warrant before drone use. Mayor Graves asked if that included the drone entering a physical house or building, or searching for a particular person with a search warrant. Chief Flesland explained that when the Police have probable cause, they obtain a search warrant, and the Judge gives the Police authorization to look in a specific area for specific evidence. A search warrant can be used for a particular person. If Police have probable cause to believe said person has committed a crime inside a house, the Police would obtain a search warrant to authorize Police to enter that house. Chief Flesland gave an example of a domestic abuse situation where individuals could be hurt. The Police have an exception there; they do not need a search warrant and could deploy a drone to help resolve the situation. Mayor Graves asked if Police were called to a domestic situation, and the person being violent ran off into the neighborhood, if the drone could be used to search for said person. Chief Flesland confirmed the drone could be used in that situation. Mayor Graves asked if the drone could be used at a public event like Juneteenth, a parade, or baseball in the park. Chief Flesland said the drone could be used for any of those public events if there was suspicion of danger or concern for public safety at said events. Police use this same threshold of suspicion to make a traffic stop, and Police need an articulable suspicion that a crime was committed or that there was a violation. The Police cannot proactively deploy the drone over a public event; it has to be deployed in response to a specific suspicion or piece of information that the Police can articulate. Mayor Graves asked about using the drone to aid other non-law enforcement government entities. Chief Flesland said that aid could be given to any other department in the City, such as Parks and Recreation. For example, Parks and Recreation could ask the Police to use the drone to make a promotional video for their own Department, but the use of the drone would have to be fully under the overarching umbrella of state law policy. Any deployment of the drone would have to be approved by a Police supervisor. Any requests for use of the drone by any department in the City would have to be made to the Police Department for use in writing. 6/23/25 -19- Mayor Graves asked if statutes change at the state level, and specifically had concerns about the use of facial recognition if state laws were to change. Her hope is that Brooklyn Center ordinances and laws have an extra layer of protection for City residents from Police using drone facial recognition, regardless of what may change with state statutes. Chief Flesland said the Police Department could include some language in Brooklyn Center’s policies to set the stage for maintaining a more restrictive use policy for drones than state law. Councilmember Moore moved and Councilmember Jerzak seconded to open the public hearing on the use of unmanned aerial vehicles. Motion passed unanimously. A.J. B. stated he did not know anything about the drone program in the City of Brooklyn Center and wished there had been more information presented to the public about it prior to this. His concern is about using drones by any non-law enforcement agency, so the drone could be used for property tax assessments, code enforcement, or to harass residents and increase property tax values. He stated that drones should only be allowed for law enforcement use and nothing else. Keisha H. stated she was at the last community meeting regarding the use of drones and heard concerns from the community that there needs to be checks and balances in place and not to give Police a blank check to use the drones at will when Police desire. She asked when the community would see an updated drone policy based on community feedback and what measures are being taken to ensure oversight and accountability are in place. Jeff L. thinks the drone program is a tremendous opportunity to help the City. It is cost-effective, will cut down on time looking for people, and will save the City money and resources. He hopes that if there is excess money in the budget, the Police department will buy more drones. Kevin S. stated he likes the idea of having an eye in the sky and asked if the drone would be labeled as a Police drone. With the proper safeguards, the drone could be a huge time saver, especially in cases of missing persons. He noted that in the recent shooting in Brooklyn Park, a drone was essential to identify the suspect in tight quarters. Julie B. called in via Zoom and thanked Chief Flesland for his presentation and had questions about clarification about using the drone without a warrant, which would be helpful for the community. She stated it would be helpful to know who would be trained to use the drone in the Police Department to show transparency to the public. She had questions about how data would be tracked around drone use to ensure equitable use. The other concern she had was about targeted engagement in the community because she felt like the community did not know drones were a topic of use for Police in Brooklyn Center, and a larger reach should have been made to educate the public to dispel concerns about the use of drones. She noted that drones have done incredible work for law enforcement in other communities, but the Brooklyn Center Police need to remain transparent to continue building community trust. Gretchen I. stated that she appreciated the presentation by Chief Flesland and noted that the search for a missing child was cut down to minutes with the use of a drone. She appreciated that there 6/23/25 -20- was proactive outreach by the Police to educate the community and consideration for commentary and the guardrails that have been put in place to keep use more restrictive than state law requires. She keeps hearing from community members questions about where to get information about the City, and it should be discussed with the Council where this information should be located, whether it is on the City's website or Facebook page. She stated this is a great start to something that could be really beneficial for the community. A.J. B. came back up to the podium and stated he wondered if information regarding the drone program could be posted in the City newsletter because that is what he usually reads. Chief Flesland did not know if information regarding the program was in the newsletter last fall. The feedback from the community has all come from three community meetings and neighborhood meetings. Mayor Graves stated she was surprised that the Council did not have to give notice to the community about the use of drones. She agreed that there should be more space for community input because it affects so many people. Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Jerzak seconded to close the open hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Jerzak agreed that there should be community involvement, but policies can always be adjusted with feedback, and the program will benefit the City. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson thanked Chief Flesland for the presentation and had previously stated three years ago that Brooklyn Center needed to get drones and cameras to help the Police Department, especially when the Police Department is not fully staffed. She requested that, in a separate email or weekly updates, particularly on social media, keep the Council and the public educated. She agreed that drones can be a great tool, and Brooklyn Center is one of the few cities in the area that does not have them. Councilmember Moore stated that many surveys over the years show that public safety is a priority. Drones are another tool the City can use, and Brooklyn Center is more restrictive than the state statutes. She said there was an individual in East Palmer Lake, and a Robbinsdale drone located the individual so the Fire Department could get to them before it was a DOA. If any medical event or emergency is prevented with drones, and the price is only $11,000, that is a drop in the bucket when considering the entire City budget. Councilmember Jerzak stated it would be helpful for the Council to have a drone demonstration in a public park for education purposes. Mayor Graves said this reminded her of the comment from Chief Flesland about community engagement and what that means to the Police Department. She understands the work and importance of drones, but there should have been more community engagement on the Police Department’s part and an announcement with a two-week timeline. She appreciated the comments of the Councilmembers and the community at this meeting. 6/23/25 -21- Dr. Edwards stated that what is required is a public hearing, but not a particular action, and drones would be used as a tool within the Police Department. The Police Department typically does not come to the Council for authorization of a tool. He wanted to express to the public and the Council that he and Police Chief Flesland had very in-depth conversations about being intentional with community engagement and going to communities that distrust the Police or have been harmed or marginalized historically. Those places are not places that the Police get to by the website of the Police Department or the City newsletter. The Police Chief also coordinated with Community Prevention Health and Safety to reach some of those populations. Some of those conversations with those populations were sparse with attendance, but when there is distrust amongst those groups with the Police, attendance will be low, especially when the topic is tools that have been used to harm said groups in the past. Police Staff were very intentional about going to spaces to share information, acknowledge past harms, and try to engage with communities. This is part of an ongoing effort to build trust within the community. He stated there is not enough Police and the City can do in the short term to overcome that distrust, but that there was a good faith effort to begin to do that, and that effort will continue. Dr. Edwards commended Chief Flesland on his presentation, and the acknowledgment and recognition in the presentation of the distrust that some groups may have towards Police, and that recognition is worth noting. Mayor Graves pointed out that she noticed the aforementioned acknowledgment in Chief Flesland’s presentation right away. She asked about how much information would be shared with the Council and how and where the drones were used by the Police. She noted that Chief Flesland mentioned traffic stops in his presentation, but there are ways within the law for traffic stops that Police use separately. Her concern is what the City is putting into policy and practice, and what the City will be held accountable for. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson wondered if the Chief of Police and the Department would hold a drone launch community event with a demonstration, maybe in Centennial Park, so the community can see and learn more about it. Dr. Edwards stated that in conversation with the Chief of Police, the drone program is about being very strategic with contentious issues, and in communities where there is distrust, sometimes it is more problematic to try to bring people in for events. The approach has to be different in different communities with multiple strategies of communication in order to engage effectively with very diverse populations, and what that entails. Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Moore seconded to approve the presentation and public commentary regarding unmanned aerial vehicles. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Tolar stated she thought the Council needed to revisit item 8a because she thought the Council accurately adopted the motion to revoke, but did not also adopt the findings of fact and resolution. Council would need a motion to reconsider made by someone in the affirmative vote to amend the original motion. 6/23/25 -22- Councilmember Moore moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to reconsider item 8A RESOLUTION NO. 2025-64 revoking the Accommodation License for BC Seva LLC doing business at Suburban Studios, 2701 Freeway Boulevard. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Tolar stated that the original motion needs to move to accept the resolution, but it also needs to adopt the written findings of fact and reasons for revocation. Mayor Graves stated that having that on the agenda would be helpful. Ms. Tolar stated it is on the agenda, but the findings of fact are not expressly stated, and the findings of fact are in the resolution. Ms. Tolar clarified that the Council needed to move to adopt Resolution No. 2025-64 revoking the Accommodation Hospitality License and also the findings of fact and reasons for revocation. Councilmember Moore moved and Councilmember Jezak seconded to amend the Council’s previous motion on the regular RESOLUTION NO. 2025-64 revoking the Hospitality Accommodation License for BC Seva LLC doing business at Suburban Studios 2701 Freeway Boulevard and adopting the finding of facts and reasons for revocation. Mayor Graves voted against the same. Motion passed. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS 9a. RESOLUTION 2025-65 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2025-005 FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 780-SQUARE-FOOT EXPANSION OF THE BROOKLYN BLVD DENTAL CLINIC AND ASSOCIATED VARIANCES (5831 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD) Dr. Edwards introduced Planning Manager Ginny McIntosh to explain this item. Planning Manager Ginny McIntosh stated she was aware of the time and would move as quickly as possible. She stated there was a planning commission application number 2025-005, MMS Properties LLC, up for review. MMS Properties LLC is requesting review and consideration of a proposal that would renovate the existing Brooklyn Boulevard Dental Clinic property at 5831 Brooklyn Boulevard and construct a 780-square-foot addition to accommodate a larger patient waiting and reception desk area, three patient operatories, and an ADA-compliant restroom. As the existing building is non-conforming with respect to setbacks, certain variances are requested from Sections 35-2302 and 35-5100 of the City Code. The property in question is 1.03 acres, zoned neighborhood mixed-use 2 (MX-N2), and 2040 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Designation: N-MU. The building is on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard near the intersection 6/23/25 -23- of Brooklyn Boulevard and County Road 10, Bass Lake Road. This is one of the few properties in the City with a grade change. Ms. McIntosh stated that City Staff have been in ongoing discussions with project representative Josh Juaire of Calco Comprehensive Development regarding plans for the expansion of the Brooklyn Blvd Dental Clinic since last year. The property originally received site and building plan approval in 1968 under Planning Commission Application No. 68048 for a commercial building in what was formerly the City’s C1(Service/Office) District. The existing building has always operated as a dental clinic, and the current practice has been in operation since 2000. It provides dental care to hundreds of patients in and around Brooklyn Center. The clinic has reached the point where it requires additional space and has proposed the construction of an addition as well as interior renovation. The owners would also undertake an exterior refresh of the building. Ms. McIntosh showed a slide of the proposed addition that would be built towards Brooklyn Boulevard. The Applicant proposed a buildout of a walkout basement, which would serve as a staff lounge, break room, and new office space. Exterior updates would include new windows, landscaping, and brick painting. Existing sidewalks would be rerouted to accommodate the addition, and a new entrance would comply with ADA requirements. There are no plans to alter the existing parking lot, which is surrounded by three sides of the building. The existing parking lot provides 41 parking spaces, and the provided plans identify two dedicated ADA parking spaces with shared loading spaces. Section 35-5506 requires the following for “medical and dental clinics: ‘Three spaces for each doctor or dentist, plus one space for every two employees or one space for every 150 square feet of gross floor area, whichever is the greater.’” If there are three dentists, 12 clinic staff, and a total square footage of 4,785 feet after the renovation, a maximum of 31 parking spaces would be required under the current code. The Applicant plans to reconfigure the layout of the existing sidewalk to better serve the addition and front entrance. City Staff noted a gap in the sidewalk connection from the front entrance to the sidewalk. City Staff requests that the Applicant tie the private sidewalk to the public multi-use trail. Ms. McIntosh stated that a photometric plan was not provided with the application submittal, but in review, the existing site lighting is non-conforming building lighting. The building currently provides floodlight lighting around the building with what appear to be security cameras. Wall pack and flood light lighting are not permitted except for loading and service areas per Section 35- 5400. City Staff requested that the Applicant provide a photometric plan with a lighting fixture schedule identifying any new building or site lighting. Site lighting should provide consistent levels of illumination, avoiding pockets of high or low levels of illumination. The minimum requirements apply for primary entrances and exits, pedestrian pathways, and sidewalks: 10.0 fc within five feet of the entrance/exit. Ms. McIntosh said the building’s existing trash enclosure is in fair condition, and no corrections are required at this time. All ground-mounted equipment over 30 inches in height or greater than 12 cubic feet, such as transformers or mechanical equipment, should be screened from the public. Any existing or new roof-mounted equipment shall also be screened from view through the use of parapets, wall/fencing materials, or paint complementary to the building. 6/23/25 -24- Ms. McIntosh stated the Applicant is interested in using an LP or Hardie board-type of siding in a board and batten configuration; any brick would be painted to match the siding product. City Code requires the exterior wall finishes to have no less than 60 percent face brick, natural, or colored stone. The building is currently mostly comprised of brick and glazing. Section 35-2302 requires each ground floor facade for non-residential use facing a public right-of-way to have transparent windows or glazed areas with no heavily tinted or black glass windows. The Applicant notes that the glazed area percentage of the proposed front facade is 55 percent of the identified ground floor facade area. Ms. McIntosh discussed landscaping for the building and said that City Staff has been unable to find any approved landscape plan. The current standards use a project valuation system to determine minimum landscaping. The Applicant did provide some proposed plantings and some trees that would need to be removed. It was noted by City Staff that applicants should revise the plan to include all existing and new landscaping to utilize existing plantings for evaluation. The Applicant's plan has no specific signage requests at this time; if the Applicant wanted to change signage, they would have to go through the sign permit process. Ms. McIntosh stated that City Engineers reviewed the plans in May 2025 and provided commentary regarding the expansion, but no major concerns were identified. A Building Official conducted a cursory review on June 10 and provided the following comments: fire sprinkler/monitoring system requirements, ADA regulations need to be met with sidewalk reconfiguration and ADA parking, and SAC determination from the Metropolitan Council. Ms. McIntosh noted that the Applicant is requesting approval for variances to forward their request for expansion. Variance request one being that at least 50 percent of the first floor of the front facade of each primary building shall be located not more than ten feet from the front lot line. When the building was constructed and given the location adjacent to a major thoroughfare, the City had a very large setback minimum requirement of 50 feet from the property line. To meet the code today, the building would have to be doubled in size, which is not what the Applicant needs to do at this time. The second variance request is for the front build-to-line. This is in line with the first variance request. There is a minimum and maximum building setback requirement of between five and 20 feet. The Applicant is proposing the building at about 24.3 feet, so the building is off by a little over four feet and is requesting a deviation for that. Ms. McIntosh explained that variances may only be granted when the Applicant for the variance establishes there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance provisions. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statues 462.357, subdivision six, the City Council may only grant approval of a variance where “practical difficulties” exist as to the strict compliance for the City’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and each of the following criteria must be satisfied: the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City’s UDO, the variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this UDO, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. 6/23/25 -25- Ms. McIntosh noted that a public hearing was held at the Planning Commission meeting on June 12, 2025. City Staff did not receive public comments prior to the meeting, and no members of the public spoke during the hearing. Project Representative Josh Juaire of Calco Comprehensive Development was present at the meeting and available to answer questions. Planning Commissioners inquired about the necessity of the sidewalk connection to the public trail and if alternative building materials had been contemplated for the building addition and exterior renovation. Commissioners noted that the City and surrounding owners have put a lot of time and money into improving Brooklyn Boulevard over the past years, and the Applicant should continue that level of effort by making the expansions as aesthetically pleasing and functional as possible. Commissioners noted that the Dental Clinic has been in the City for a long time as a loyal citizen, even when the area was not well-kept. The Applicant’s Dental Clinic serves a need, and the Commissioners wanted to make sure the City provides a way for the Applicant to make improvements and remain in Brooklyn Center. The Planning Commission unanimously (5-0) recommended City Council approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2025-005. Mayor Graves asked Councilmembers for any questions. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated the expansion sounded like a good idea. Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Kragness seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2025-65, Planning Commission Application No. 2025-005 for an approximately 780-square-foot expansion to the Brooklyn Blvd Dental Clinic located at 5831 Brooklyn Boulevard and associated variances, based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, as amended by the Conditions of Approval. Motion passed unanimously. 10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 10a. ORDINANCE 2025-07 ESTABLISH CHAPTER 23-2750 IN THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES TO REGULATE TEMPORARY CANNABIS EVENTS (FIRST READING) This item was rescheduled for the next meeting. 10b. LIQUOR STORE #2 DISCUSSION Dr. Edwards explained that the Council is aware that the lease for liquor store #2 is about to expire, and City Staff has worked diligently with the property owner to negotiate a new lease option at liquor store #2 located on Brooklyn Boulevard, and would present those options to the Council for discussion and approval. Dr. Edwards introduced Finance Director Angela Holm. Finance Director Angela Holm stated that the last time she was before the Council, there were questions that she wanted to address. For example, she asked what impact “shrink” has on operations. Shrink can be either on paper or in actual missing products. Between 2017 and 2024, other than in 2021, shrink represents less than 0.5 percent of total gross sales, with several years below 0.2 percent. Another question the Council had was whether there was enough cash to pay 6/23/25 -26- the bond for the Liquor Stores. Ms. Holm stated there is not enough cash in the liquor fund to pay the bond fully should the Municipal Liquor operations cease entirely. The bond principal is $2 million; the fund currently has $1 million in cash. Cash from ongoing operations will be used to make the bond payment each year. The Council also asked about the financial impact of focused purchasing, and Ms. Holm explained that focused purchasing enables Staff to make larger purchases, often of highly desirable products at a reduced item price. The reduced supplier cost enables Staff to place items on sale or have lower shelf pricing and maintain a profit margin on the item. There is not one single price point, profit margin, or pricing structure as the items purchased change in response to consumer demand. Ms. Holm continued with the lease information for Store #2. The current lease was intended as a “bridge” while the Staff evaluated options for the purchase of a building for Store #2. This lease expires June 30, 2025. Building a new building or buying an existing building is not a viable option at this time. Staff proposes staying at the current location and entering into a new lease agreement. Staff have negotiated several amendment options to the existing lease. Ms. Holm explained that lease option number one is a 10-year term lease with a five-year initial rent lock and an increase in lease cost of two percent annually for the remaining five years. Rent credits offset the cost of air conditioner replacement, which would replace all five rooftop units in year one and allow for longer-term strategic planning while promoting Liquor Store Staff stability. The drawback to this option is that the longer term may be concerning if operational results do not perform as forecasted. Ms. Holm explained that lease option number two is a five-year initial term with a five-year initial rent lock and a five-year renewal option. The rent for this lease option is higher than the 10-year term lease. The disadvantages to this lease option are the increase in the rental rates and reduced rent credits for air conditioner replacement, so only two to three units could be replaced. This option would also involve an increase in lease cost of three percent annually for the remaining five years if renewing for an additional five years. Ms. Holm explained that lease option number three is a three-year initial term with a rent lock for the initial three years and a seven-year renewal option with a three percent annual lease increase for the remaining seven years. The disadvantages to this lease option are an increase in the current rental rates and reduced rent credits for the air conditioner units. This would limit air conditioner unit replacement to two or three units versus all five. Ms. Holm explained lease option number four, which is a one-year term lease. This short-term lease would allow for flexibility in the event operational results are not as forecasted, but comes with no base rent lock for future amendments. The rent rate is higher for this option. There is an unknown lease cost for additional lease renewals. No rent credits for air conditioner replacement are included in this option. There are Liquor Store Staff retention concerns with this option, and ongoing lease negotiations would be required every six months. Ms. Holm displayed a slide with the rental rates for each option. Lease option number one, with a 10-year lease term, has a monthly rate of $7,780 or an annual rate of $93,360 for the first five years, with full rent credits of $70,000 in year one. Lease option number two, with a five-year initial 6/23/25 -27- term and five-year renewal option, has a monthly rate of $8,640 or an annual rate of $103,680 for the first five years, with rent credits of $50,000 with a portion of that being allotted in the first five-year term and the $20,000 remainder in the second five years. Lease option number three, with the three-year initial term and seven-year renewal option, has the same rent rates both monthly and annually as lease option number two, with rent credits of $30,000 allotted in the first three years and $40,000 in the remaining seven years. Lease option number four, with a one-year lease term and no renewal options, also has the same rent rates as lease options two and three and no rent credit. Ms. Holm displayed a slide with a lease option total cost comparison, with the difference between a 10-year lease total cost and a five-year lease total cost of $123,000. The difference between a 10-year lease and a three-year lease is $167,000. The shorter the lease, the more expensive the lease is. Ms. Holm showed the Council Liquor Store #2 its projected net income for years 2025 through 2028 based on multiple-year lease proposals. With the 10-year lease option, the proposed 2025 income is $6,234. The other lease options all have a proposed 2025 net income of $1,314. For 2026, the proposed net income for all the lease options is as follows: 10-year lease option: $53,466, five and three-year lease options: $43,146, one-year lease option: $40,035.60. For 2027, the proposed net income for all the lease options is as follows: the 10-year lease option: $56,231; the five and three-year lease options: $45,911; and the one-year lease option: $38,850. For the year 2028, the proposed net incomes for all the lease options are as follows: 10-year lease option: $58,262, five-year lease option: $47,942, three-year lease option: $46,387, and the one-year lease option: $36,812. All lease costs are calculated using the projected net income. Ms. Holm stated that the Staff recommends the 10-year lease term as it is the most cost-effective option. The one-year lease option is not recommended as the instability and uncertainty of this lease may be counter-productive to long-term improvements. The three or five-year lease, with the related renewal option, should provide sufficient time for the Staff to determine if the operational changes made at both stores will produce sustained positive results. Ms. Holm stated that there is a requested Council action to approve a resolution authorizing one of the four lease options presented to the Council for Liquor Store #2. Once a lease term is determined, Ms. Holm will bring that lease back as a consent item at the next Council meeting. Councilmember Moore thanked Ms. Holm for the detailed presentation on the lease options and terms. Councilmember Moore stated there is one option missing from the presentation, as it was the consensus of the Councilmembers present at the last meeting to present a plan if the Council were to opt to close Liquor Store #2. She noted there was also a discussion by the Council at the last meeting to give Liquor Store #2 a year to continue operation, but the Council had requested more specifics regarding closing Liquor Store #2. Ms. Holm stated that if the Council chose not to act on any of the lease options presented to them, there was an alternate choice available that would address the closure of Liquor Store #2. 6/23/25 -28- Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated that Liquor Store #2 has been losing money and asked what would change if the Council opted to keep it open. Ms. Holm stated that Liquor Store #2 has reduced one full-time Staff member, which is a savings of $90,000 a year. That alone makes the store profitable. Focused purchasing has been implemented, and right-sized part-time hours at both stores have been established to save money. Staffing has also been adjusted at Liquor Store #1 for cost savings. The entire enterprise has been overhauled to make it more profitable. The documents regarding staffing changes can be provided to the Council if needed. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she was confused about all the issues the store was having and asked why the Council was just now hearing about said issues when the lease expires in ten days. She applauded Ms. Holm for separating Liquor Store #1 and #2 into two entities to look at the budgets between stores separately, but she is frustrated that Liquor Store #2 was losing money, and the Council did not know. Councilmember Jerzak stated he was not comfortable with the landlord of Liquor Store #2 using the City as a private banker to fund maintenance projects that should be the landlord’s responsibility. He stated that Liquor Store #2 has such a low potential for return; he does not understand why it should stay open. He does not support any of the renewal options presented at the meeting. Councilmember Moore thanked Ms. Holm for letting the Council know that there is an alternative option should the Council opt to close Liquor Store #2. Councilmember Moore agreed with Councilmember Jerzak’s previous comments about the landlord using the City to pay for new air conditioning units, as it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure there is a working HVAC system in the building, and stated that the City should be paid to be in that rental location. She does not support any lease option moving forward. She stated she had been clear about her feelings about whether the City should be in a Municipal Liquor business at all in previous Council meetings. She noted that Liquor Store #1 has been profitable since its opening, but would not consider Liquor Store #2 an asset to the community, and the numbers do not add up. She does not support anything but closing Liquor Store #2. Mayor Graves stated she does not agree with that opinion at all. She commended Ms. Holm on the changes Staff has made to make Store #2 profitable and noted that Ms. Holm demonstrated previously in other Council meetings that not having Store #2 could reduce the profitability of Store #1 because Staff would no longer have access to discounts in bulk purchasing. Mayor Graves noted that it is helpful to have money from the liquor stores come back into the community to use for other programs like the Community Center. Liquor Store #1 was a contentious conversation before the City built that store as well, and she fought hard for it; it has been a good investment for the City. She stated that she was outvoted by her Councilmembers once again and told Ms. Holm to let the employees at Liquor Store #2 know that she tried to keep the store open and that she was sorry. 6/23/25 -29- Councilmember Kragness stated that she had a question about the rent credits and how those would be applied. She has issues with the tenant having to do maintenance work on a rental property, especially as there is an increase in rent. She asked if a two percent increase is typical of what the City has had before with the previous ten-year lease with the landlord. Ms. Holm stated that three percent is more common, and a commercial lease is very different from an apartment lease. She spoke with the Community Development Department, and with a commercial lease, the lessee gets four walls, a roof, and a working bathroom. The maintenance of the air conditioning units has been the City’s responsibility for many years. The total cost of five air conditioning units is $70,000, and the way the rent credits would work is that the City would have the work done on the air conditioning units and receive a credit of the rent each month until the $70,000 is paid. She explained the City is not really paying for the air conditioning units; the landlord is ultimately paying for it in lost rent up to the amount of $70,000. The City would pay for the work to be done on the air conditioning units, but would receive those credits on the rent. In the longer-term lease options, the City gets more opportunity with those rent credits up front. Councilmember Kragness stated she was not aware that a commercial lease operates differently, and the Council should be privy to that information so the Council does not assume how things work in a different setting. She continued that with the 10-year lease option, the City would receive a $70,000 savings in rent instantly in the first year. She also noted that she was present for the previous presentation done by Ms. Holm, and it was excellent. It clearly spelled out that Liquor Store #2 would be profitable, the benefits of having two stores, and would not involve losing employment for people and their families. Councilmember Kragness stated she is still in support of keeping both stores open because of the benefits presented by Ms. Holm and trusts City Staff and the numbers provided to the Council. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked Ms. Holm in the rent calculation if the City is paying Common Area Maintenance (CAM) and rent. Ms. Holm confirmed that this is correct. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson continued that if the City is already paying CAM, the City should not be responsible for new HVAC units for the property and retiling the floor. She stated that this does not seem like a good landlord and that she would like to have two stores, but the building is dilapidated and has not been maintained by the landlord. Mayor Graves stated that the building would be there whether it was a liquor store or not. If the City renewed the lease, the City could help improve that building with the rent credits provided. If the owner decides to sell it, it would be in better shape to be sold or rented to someone else if it is not in such a dilapidated state. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked why the City should pay for those improvements. Mayor Graves responded that the City is not paying for the improvements; the City would get a reduction in the rent in lieu of the improvements. She also noted that improvements have been required in past leases, so the City is responsible to a certain extent for letting it go so long. 6/23/25 -30- Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson noted that the City was not aware of the improvements needed, and even though the City is paying CAM and will get a reduction in rent to pay for HVAC in a building that does not belong to the City, it is not logical. Ms. Holm stated that she wanted the Council to have a good definition of what CAM is. CAM covers plowing, parking lots, utilities, and taxes. The City does not pay the property taxes on the building, but the building owner has a number of things to take care of that the lessee is not responsible for. City Staff spent a lot of time negotiating CAM and knocking it down to a reasonable amount of money for the services the City receives. CAM is also paid for at Store #1 and is not unique to Store #2. CAM is in addition to rent, so the rent credit would be for the large HVAC replacement. She confirmed with City Staff how a commercial lease works, and things like flooring, paint, and other interior things are the tenant's responsibility. The building owner is essentially paying for the HVAC system because the City is receiving reduced rent, but the landowner is letting the City contract the work. Councilmember Kragness asked what the penalty would be if the City signed a 10-year or five- year lease and decided to vacate the contract. Ms. Holm stated she was uncertain what the penalty would be to get out of the contract, but there is a provision that addresses the discontinuation of operations. Councilmember Kragness asked if the time period would be a 30, 60-day, or one-year notice that the City would have to give the landlord. Ms. Holm stated the City must give the landowner a 6-month notice if it were to stop operations. Councilmember Kragness noted that if the City signed the 10-year lease and, at six months, broke the contract, that would be $46,000, which would still be less than the $70,000 that the City would get instantly in rent credit and is still a benefit. Councilmember Kragness asked if the $70,000 rent credit was calculated into the profitability of having both stores open. Ms. Holm stated it was not. Councilmember Kragness noted that there is an additional $70,000 in profitability, and the information the Council received is forecasting that the City would be profitable with both locations. Now, looking at this contract, there is an additional $70,000 that is guaranteed within the first year. Ms. Holm stated the City would pay for the air conditioning units and get the credit. Councilmember Kragness continued that in the worst case, if the Council chose the 10-year lease option and later changed its mind, the City would still come out ahead if it had to pay six months of rent, as it is still less than the credit that the City would receive back. Councilmember Moore stated that she wanted to bring the Council back to reality and that this is cash the Council is talking about, not shells or pebbles. Mayor Graves noted that the comment by Councilmember Moore was rude. Councilmember Moore said, “Excuse me?” Mayor Graves continued that talking about coming back to reality and the phrase moving pebbles was rude. Councilmember Moore asked Mayor Graves to clarify how that statement was rude. Mayor Graves stated she thought it sounded rude. Councilmember Moore asked for a point of order and asked if she could finish her comments. Mayor Graves stated that Councilmember Moore could continue. 6/23/25 -31- Councilmember Moore stated that, as the Mayor suggested, improving the facade at Humboldt Square in that particular area, the City would have to come up with the money to improve that small section of leased space for a property owner. In past years, the City has had money to do something to the facade at Humboldt Square, but it still looks like something out of the 1970s. She stated she does not care what the forecast is for Store #2. It is not money in the bank. She will not make a policy decision that could affect the bottom line of the City based on a forecast when the Council knows that Store #1 has been profitable and will likely continue to be profitable without Store #2. Mayor Graves stated that she thinks the Council makes decisions based on forecasts all the time. Councilmember Moore called for a point of order. Councilmember Kragness stated that Councilmember Moore had just forecast herself. Councilmember Moore called for a point of order again and asked Councilmember Kragness if she was correcting what Councilmember Moore said. Councilmember Kragness stated that she was repeating what Councilmember Moore said. Councilmember Kragness continued by saying that Councilmember Moore said that Store #1 would be profitable without Store #2 in her previous statement, and pointed out that the statement is a forecast. Mayor Graves asked the Council to vote. Councilmember Moore asked what the resolution was to vote on because there was nothing in the packet that she could see except a lease option, and the majority of the Council at the last meeting did not want that. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked for clarification on the timeline for when the Council will choose to vacate the lease. She asked if it was correct that the Council would have six months to vacate the lease. Ms. Holm responded that there are four lease term options to vote on, and there is an alternative option if the Council chooses to vote on none. The alternative option would be a six-month lease term that the landlord has already, in principle, agreed to. If the six-month lease option is decided upon, it will be activated, and the City will begin operation termination activities. The resolution available to the Council has blanks in the term; there are ways that the Council can vote or not vote, but the Council chooses. Depending on the Council’s vote, additional action may be brought to the Council regarding liquor store operations in the future. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked if the landlord had indicated that he would accept six months if the Council chose not to renew. Ms. Holm stated that if operations were discontinued, the landlord would agree to a short-term lease that would allow the City to terminate the operation and get all City assets out of the building. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked if operations would be terminated if inventory ceased to be ordered for that store, and if it would deplete and force people to go to Store #1. Ms. Holm stated that Store #2 would sell the current inventory and discontinue ordering any new inventory; when specific items sold out, customers could go elsewhere. Ms. Holm stated she has been in contact with the Minnesota Municipal Beverage Association (MMBA), and it has provided some guidance in that they could move stock to Store #1, but that could inflate Store #1’s inventory and impact the books. She stated the Liquor Store would work with their distributors to see if returns could be made, but that is uncertain. Store #2 would not liquidate all inventory, and as inventory 6/23/25 -32- sells down, Staff would be reduced very quickly. Ms. Holm stated that the timeline to completely shut down the store and move everything is six months, but it may or may not take that long. However, that is the agreement in place with the landlord. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked if the City owned the interior fixtures. Ms. Holm confirmed that this is correct. Councilmember Moore asked for clarification on the resolution and asked if she would motion to approve a resolution authorizing a lease amendment for the alternative option. Ms. Holm responded that what the Council would need to do is not act on the four options available to the Council at this point, but introduce a new action with the six-month option. Dr. Edwards stated that a template resolution was prepared for the Council if they chose one of the four options that could be filled in. The first paper handed to the Council is for the 6-month option if the other four options are not what the Council wants to vote for. Councilmember Kragness asked how many employees this would affect. Ms. Holm responded that three full-time employees would be laid off, as well as probably ten part-time employees. Councilmember Moore asked Dr. Edwards if she could read the resolution that he passed to her. Dr. Edwards confirmed she could. Councilmember Moore read a motion for a resolution, but Dr. Edwards stated there was a different one on another page to be brought forth. Councilmember Moore stated this was the only page she had and asked if she could have the other page to see what the difference was. Dr. Edwards stated that the line the Councilmember Moore needed to read. Councilmember Moore moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded a RESOLUTION approving a new lease term to be resolved by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center for a new lease term period of six months. Councilmember Moore asked Ms. Tolar if the language of the motion was correct. Councilmember Kragness asked Ms. Tolar if there could be some clarification on what they are doing. Councilmember Moore stated that they should not be in this position as Councilmembers, as they are questioning how to make a motion on the dais. Ms. Tolar asked Ms. Holm about the resolution and the two decisions being made. Ms. Holm confirmed with Ms. Tolar that the first decision to be made was that the Council was to approve any one of the four options presented and make a motion not to approve the options laid before the Council. Councilmember Moore moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to not approve any of the lease term options available for Liquor Store #2. 6/23/25 -33- Mayor Graves and Councilmember Kragness voted against the same. Motion passed. Ms. Tolar explained that the Council now needs to approve the resolution to continue the lease for a six-month period to dissolve Store #2. Councilmember Kragness asked for a point of clarification. She noted that now the vote is for a six-month lease to close the store. She asked what a nay vote would signify. Ms. Holm explained that because the vote by the Council was not to accept any of the four lease term options, the six-month lease option does need to pass because the Council must pass something in order for the Liquor Store to have a lease with the landlord. Mayor Graves asked if it had to pass unanimously. Ms. Holm said this decision does not necessarily need Council approval, but the Liquor Store wanted to memorialize the decision to close Store #2; the value of the six-month lease option would not require Council approval, but they are asking this resolution to pass in order to activate termination of operations at Store #2. Councilmember Jerzak asked for the purpose of clarification. She pointed out that there was a motion and a second that had not been withdrawn earlier. Mayor Graves stated that the motion for the six-month lease was made before the motion was made not to accept the four lease options presented to the Council. Ms. Tolar stated that Council members did not vote on that motion, though, and someone should have withdrawn that motion, but it was too late. The Council had already voted not to accept any of the lease options presented to them. Ms. Tolar stated that Council now needed to vote on the six-month lease option in order to terminate operations at Store #2. Councilmember Moore stated she wished the motions were clearer in the documents provided to the Council. Councilmember Moore moved Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded, to approve the new lease term for six months in order to terminate operations for Liquor Store #2. Mayor Graves voted against the same. Motion passed. 11. COUNCIL REPORT This item was not considered. 6/23/25 -34- 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Kragness seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 10:09 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.