HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025.07.14 CCP REGULARCITY COUNCIL
MEETING
City Hall Council Chambers
July 14, 2025
AGENDA
1. Call to Order - 7:00 p.m.
Attendees please turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. A copy of the
full meeting packet is available in the binder at the entrance to the Council
Chambers.
2. Roll Call
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Informal Open Forum
This is an opportunity for the public to address the City Council on items that are
not on the agenda. It is limited to 15 minutes. It may not be used to make personal
attacks, air personal grievances, make political endorsements, or for political
campaign purposes. Council Members will not enter into a dialogue with the
presenter. Questions from the Council will be for clarification purposes only. It will
not be used as a time for problem-solving or reacting to the comments made but
for hearing the presenter for informational purposes only. The first call will be for
those that have notified the Clerk that they would like to speak during the open
forum and then ask if anyone connected to this meeting would like to speak. When
called upon, please indicate your name and then proceed. Please be sure to state
your name before speaking.
a. Meeting Decorum
5. Invocation
Mayor Graves
6. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda
These items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted
by one motion. There isn't a separate discussion for these items unless a
Councilmember so requests, then it is moved to the end of the Council
Consideration Items.
a. Approval of Minutes
b. Approval of Licenses
c. Resolution 2025-66 Accepting Work Performed and Authorizing Final
Payment, Improvement Project No. 2023-10, I694/Dupont Ave Water Main
Crossing Replacement Project
7. Presentations/Proclamations/Recognitions/Donations
a. Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association Awards of Excellence
Presentation
Page 1 of 88
b. Proclamation Acknowledging and Proclaiming July as "Park and Recreation
Month"
8. Public Hearings/Hearings
a. Consideration of Suburban Studios Stay of Hospitality Accommodation
License Revocation Request pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 108.02 and
115.03.
9. Planning Commission Items
10. Council Consideration Items
a. Ordinance 2025-07 Establishing Chapter 23-2750 in the Brooklyn Center City
Code of Ordinances to Regulate Temporary Cannabis Events (First Reading)
11. Council Report
12. Adjournment
Page 2 of 88
COUNCIL MEETING DECORUM
To ensure meetings are conducted in a professional and courteous manner which enables the orderly
conduct of business, all persons in attendance or who participate in such meetings shall conduct
themselves in a manner that does not interfere with the ability of others to observe and, when allowed,
to participate without disruption or fear of intimidation.
A. Decorum. Persons who attend meetings must avoid conduct that disrupts, interferes with, or
disturbs the orderly conduct of the meeting or the ability of other attendees to observe and
participate as appropriate. To that end, persons who attend meetings are subject to the following:
(1) Members of the public may only speak during meetings when allowed under Council Rules
and only after being recognized by the presiding officer. The presiding officer may establish
time limits for the acceptance of public comments or testimony.
(2) Public comments or testimony must be addressed to the presiding officer and not to other
Council Members, staff, or others in attendance.
(3) All elected officials shall be referred to by their proper title and surname.
(4) Public comments should avoid personal accusations, profanity, or other improper content for
a public meeting.
(5) Intimidating behaviors, threats of hostility, or actual violence are disallowed.
(6) Audible demonstrations intended to disrupt the meeting should be avoided, including
stomping of feet, snapping of fingers, clapping of hands, and other conduct that may be
intimidating or threatening to others.
(7) Holding, displaying, or placing banners, signs, objects, or other materials in any way that
endangers others, prevents the free flow of individuals within the chamber, or obstructs or
prevents the viewing of the meeting by others is not allowed.
B. The presiding officer shall request any person(s) who disrupt, interfere with or disturb the
orderly conduct of a meeting to cease the conduct and, as necessary, shall issue an oral
warning to the individual(s) found to be in violation. If the individual(s) persists in disrupting,
interfering with, or disturbing the meeting, the presiding officer may have the individual(s)
removed or, under appropriate circumstances, temporarily clear the gallery. If for any reason
the presiding officer fails to take such action, a majority vote may be substituted for action
by the presiding officer to maintain order and decorum over the proceedings.
C. The Council Chambers capacity is 76 persons per fire code.
Page 3 of 88
Council Regular Meeting
DATE: 7/14/2025
TO: City Council
FROM: Shannon Pettit, City Clerk
THROUGH: Daren Nyquist, Deputy City Manager
BY: Shannon Pettit, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes
Requested Council Action:
- Motion to approve the meeting minutes:
• June 23, 2025, Study Session
• June 23, 2025, Regular Session
Background:
Budget Issues:
Inclusive Community Engagement:
Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect:
Strategic Priorities and Values:
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 2025.06.23 SS - unapproved
2. 2025.06.23 CC - unapproved
Page 4 of 88
6/23/25 -1-DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
STUDY SESSION
JUNE 23, 2025
CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor April Graves at
6:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor April Graves, Councilmembers Teneshia Kragness, Dan Jerzak, Kris Lawrence-Anderson,
and Laurie Ann Moore. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, Finance Director
Angela Holm, Interim City Clerk Shannon Pettit, and City Attorney Siobhan Tolar.
CITY COUNCIL MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS
Mayor Graves asked if there were any questions about the regular agenda.
Councilmember Moore stated there were some changes to the minutes; on page 12 of 184, in the
second-to-last paragraph on the page, the word "site" should be added to the phrase "Opportunity
site.”
Councilmember Jerzak asked if the Council was aware that the agenda on the table was the agenda
from the previous meeting on June 9. City Clerk Shannon Pettit responded that they were left on
the table from the last meeting and have been replaced with the correct agenda.
Councilmember Moore noted another minute's correction on page 26 of 184, referencing
properties with 19 violations, and the word "tenants" should be replaced with "violations."
Councilmember Kragness noted a correction on the minutes on page six of 184 in the fifth
paragraph, discussing lease options. The word "they" referenced the property owner, not the
Finance Director or the Liquor Store Staff.
City Manager Reggie Edwards stated he would like to remove item 10a, the cannabis presentation,
from the agenda, as the presenters would be pressed for time. This item will be moved to the
meeting in July.
Councilmember Moore stated that the Council's budget meeting is coming up and asked about the
status of financial reports or the budget for each Department. The weekly summary the Council
receives only has receipts, but does not show the Council where the budget is at. Council received
Page 5 of 88
6/23/25 -2-DRAFT
some information on year-to-date spending through February a few months ago, but has not
received anything else.
Dr. Edwards responded that the Council has received financial reports through May minus one
month; this month, the Council will receive the May and February financial reports. February
reports had been missed and will be sent out with the May report. These reports will show year-
to-date data and will always be one month behind the current calendar month.
Councilmember Moore stated she would like to discuss the content of the weekly summary email
that the Council receives and what the Council wants to include in the weekly newsletter.
Councilmember Moore addressed the cost of subscriptions for publications like Minnesota Cities
and whether the Council should continue getting them.
Councilmember Moore discussed having her picture taken a few months ago, and that photo was
turned into a canvas painting. She stated she did not know the cost of turning that picture into a
canvas painting, but she was unhappy with the outcome. She said hanging a normal photo on the
wall would have been much easier, but the canvas took her aback. She would like to know the cost
of the canvas painting and would like a photo of her hanging outside of Council chambers, not a
painting.
Councilmember Moore stated she would like a motion to add a work session after the City Council
meeting if they cannot get through all of the miscellaneous and discussion items. Mayor Graves
asked what the content of the additional conversation was. Councilmember Moore stated that the
Council would have to wait to see, but she was under the impression that if a work session needed
to be added, it had to be added at the beginning of the meeting or during the study session.
Dr. Edwards stated that the process for adding a work session is typically done before Council
meetings when Councilmembers ask that a specific item be placed or added to a work session. If
a particular item needs to be discussed, it can be added to a work session, but the purpose of the
work session is for deliberation.
Councilmember Moore stated she sent a request to Dr. Edwards about a humane pet store
ordinance being adopted, which could be discussed during a work session. Dr. Edwards asked
when Councilmember Moore envisioned discussing the pet store ordinance and if she wanted to
discuss it during tonight's meeting. Councilmember Moore stated that all Councilmembers
received emails regarding the pet store ordinance from an association and comments during an
open forum. She would like to see it discussed sooner rather than later.
Councilmember Jerzak stated he is in favor of a humane pet store ordinance, but he would like to
see an organized model ordinance presented to the Council so they can vote on it. Tonight's
meeting would be premature in discussing the ordinance without giving Dr. Edwards the time to
prepare an ordinance that the Council could discuss and vote on.
Mayor Graves asked if the City has any ordinances regarding pet stores in general, because there
are no pet stores in Brooklyn Center. If a pet store ordinance is put in place in Brooklyn Center,
where there are no pet stores due to a previous ordinance, it does not make sense to discuss.
Page 6 of 88
6/23/25 -3-DRAFT
Councilmember Jerzak stated that it would be valuable to know if there is a PUD for Shingle Creek
that is different from other areas and if there are any regulations in the City on where pet stores
can operate; they would need to have that information to discuss the ordinance on humane pet
stores.
CITY MANAGER MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS
MID-YEAR REVIEW FOR CITY MANAGER AND 360 ASSESSMENT SCHEDULING
Dr. Edwards stated that the 360 Assessment is scheduled for the Council's June 30 meeting. He
stated he was looking at doing the Mid-Year City Manager check-in on either July 14 or July 28
before the Council’s regularly scheduled Council meeting.
Mayor Graves asked if any Councilmember needed to be excused from either of those dates.
Councilmember Jerzak asked Dr. Edwards if he wanted to have the review at five p.m. before their
meeting. Dr. Edwards nodded. Councilmember Jerzak stated he would make himself available at
that time.
Councilmember Kragness stated she will be out of the country from July 12 through the 19th.
Mayor Graves stated that July 28 at five o’clock p.m. would work better for the Mid-Year review
so all Councilmembers could be in attendance.
Councilmember Jerzak requested a calendar invite so he does not forget the Mid-Year review
meeting. Mayor Graves confirmed he would get a calendar invite.
Councilmember Moore asked to confirm that June 30 is Dr. Edwards’ 360 review at 5 p.m. Dr.
Edwards stated that the June 30th meeting will be used to discuss the 360 review and some budget
items.
Councilmember Moore stated that 5 o'clock is pushing it when it comes to her work schedule, so
she may be late to the June 30th meeting. If so, the budget items can be discussed with the Council
first because she does not want to miss the 360 review with Dr. Edwards.
Councilmember Moore asked if the June 30th meeting was the joint meeting with the Financial
Commission or if that meeting had to be changed to July 21. Dr. Edwards stated that two meetings
were added because the Council wanted additional meetings for deliberation. July 21 and August
14 are the two dates that were added per the Council's request.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked Dr. Edwards to repeat the dates. Dr. Edwards
confirmed the newly added dates are July 21 and August 14. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson
asked what the topics were for those two meetings.
Page 7 of 88
6/23/25 -4-DRAFT
Dr. Edwards stated they were open to discussion, but the general fund and department budget
presentations are happening on the two dates of August 4 and August 18. Dr. Edwards spaced out
the department presentations, so there were not too many in one meeting.
Councilmember Kragness asked for clarification on the date of the audit presentation and whether
it was scheduled for July 21 or June 30. Dr. Edwards confirmed it is scheduled for July 21.
Councilmember Kragness stated there should be a request from the Finance Commission to have
a joint meeting on July 21 so the Finance Commission could discuss a policy regarding the P card
while the auditor is present at the meeting. She asked Dr. Edwards if that request had been made
to him yet.
Dr. Edwards responded that he had not received that request yet, but on the date of July 21, the
scheduled agenda already included the audit presentation and some department presentations. To
add a policy presentation to that agenda might be too much for one meeting. Dr. Edwards said he
would check with the Finance Director and get back to the Council on that.
Councilmember Kragness stated that if that policy cannot fit into the agenda for the July 21st
meeting, she could speak on it and have the Finance Commission report on it later with a progress
update versus a full presentation.
Councilmember Moore asked to confirm that the mid-year review with Dr. Edwards is July 28 at
five p.m. before the Council. Mayor Graves confirmed that it is correct.
Councilmember Moore asked Dr. Edwards if the middle of July is when he has had previous mid-
year reviews since he has been City Manager. Dr. Edwards stated he has never had a mid-year
review, so this will be his first.
Councilmember Jerzak stated a document had been left out of his packet and wanted to know if he
could get a new updated one or a PDF file with additional meetings on a calendar and updated
schedules. Dr. Edwards stated that Finance Director Angela Holm could step in to discuss some
dates added to the schedule to discuss the budget.
Mayor Graves stated she would like to move on to the Northport Park discussion first and then
come back to the Finance Director.
NORTHPORT PARK DISCUSSION – ACTIVITIES IN THE PARK
Dr. Edwards stated there were previous conversations at the last Council meeting about complaints
from residents about activities occurring at Northport Park. Dr. Edwards stated that he would have
the Staff come and discuss any of those issues with the Council. Dr. Edwards introduced Parks
and Recreation Director Cordell Wiseman and Deputy Director to provide insight for the Council.
Parks and Recreation Director Cordell Wiseman stated he was there to discuss the Parks and
Recreation Department’s permit process. Mr. Wiseman displayed a slide with the number of
permits for Northport Park and the total permits. In 2025, 65 Park permits were applied for; three
Page 8 of 88
6/23/25 -5-DRAFT
were for Northport. As of June 2025, there have been nine 911 calls about Northport Park, versus
24 calls in June 2024.
Mr. Wiseman stated that the permit process has evolved with new items to avoid issues in
Northport Park. These items include an Outreach team created in 2023 to make rounds in the parks;
in the past, the Parks and Recreation Department did not have the infrastructure and staffing to
address the issues occurring in the parks. In 2024, a checklist with permit holder initials to
acknowledge park policies was added as part of the permit process. The 2024 Outreach team began
calling rentals the week before and day of the permit holder's event to remind them of park policies
and fill out forms to note any visits or policy violations if needed. The Outreach team would also
meet on-site with the permit holder at the park if there were any concerns.
Mr. Wiseman explained that prior to 2023, if a park user or resident had an issue, the only course
of action for enforcement was a Police response. After the Outreach team was created to connect
with park users and permit holders, the team handled violations and only reached out to the Police
if support was needed. Outreach Staff respond to the park and speak with those involved to rectify
the violation. Examples given of violations that Staff would respond to are turning down music
and moving cars. The 911 calls involving the parks depend on the severity of the situation, and
911 dispatch will reach out to the Outreach team to address any issues. Outreach Staff will assess
the situation once they arrive at the park and handle it accordingly. Outreach Staff has established
a relationship with the neighborhood to help address issues with the residents as well. If there is a
problem with parking or a safety threat, the Police are called. If there is a park policy violation,
and the Police are notified, the Police coordinate with the Outreach team via call or group chat
communication.
Mr. Wiseman stated he understands the community’s frustration, but there are fewer problems in
the parks now, and the number of 911 calls has decreased over the last two years with the Outreach
team in place. Another measure Parks and Recreation has taken is to increase the deposit from
$250 to $500 to rent a park. The permit holder loses their $500 if they violate the park policies,
and that has had a big impact. Outreach Staff is very clear with permit holders during the permit
process that if violations occur, such as trash, sound complaints, or breaking any other park policy,
the permit holder will lose their deposit. Another change implemented in the permit process was
the maximum capacity of 75 occupants due to Northport being a busy public park. If there are
parking violations, Outreach Staff tries to address those violations as quickly as possible. Parking
violations consist of a lot of heavy traffic, but do not include safety issues such as speeding.
Mr. Wiseman explained that from a legal standpoint, there is not a lot the Parks and Recreation
Department can do aside from the changes already implemented with their Outreach program. The
permit process has deterred a lot of violations, with the potential for a permit holder to lose the
deposit, and Outreach Staff thoroughly explaining the rules and regulations for the parks. If
violations do occur, aside from losing the deposit, the permit holder may also lose the ability to
rent a park for a year, depending on the severity of the violations and Mr. Wiseman's discretion.
The primary complaints that come from Northport Park consist of parking and noise complaints.
Mayor Graves thanked Mr. Wiseman for his presentation and asked the Council if they had any
questions.
Page 9 of 88
6/23/25 -6-DRAFT
Councilmember Jerzak stated he was contacted by several individuals specifically about an event
that occurred on Father's Day at Northport Park. Councilmember Jerzak read aloud an email sent
to him from a resident that stated, “Hi Dan, it's Father's Day, I'm aware, but if by chance you're
around, it would behoove you to drive to Northport Park and see the level of absurdity of the PA
system and the DJ screaming like a madman in the neighborhood park. It would be unfortunate to
have to make this into a full-blown issue with videos, pictures, and testimony to make public what
is allowed to happen at Northport Park. No matter how many times we call the Police, City Council
people, and the Parks and Recreation, all the while, Centennial Park, with an amphitheater built
with donated money, sits empty and unused. Not a good look and unnecessary attention on a City
already in distress and managerial economic chaos.”
Councilmember Jerzak stated he wanted to read that letter into the record because several of the
same complaints came up from different residents, not just one. Councilmember Jerzak asked if
the maximum capacity for permit holders could be lower than 75 to cut down on the noise issue.
The other issue is the PA system or soundbar, which must be addressed. He asked if permit holders
wanted to use a soundbar for their party and if the City required them to go to Centennial Park,
where permit holders could utilize the amphitheater. Using Centennial Park would also resolve
parking congestion issues at Northport. Councilmember Jerzak stated that these are things that
residents have asked him to bring up during Council meetings to try and address those complaints.
Mr. Wiseman answered that Centennial Park is also a popular park, and the Parks and Recreation
Department cannot mandate where people go. He stated that when residents pull a permit, Staff
will let the resident know there are other parks, such as Centennial Park, that can accommodate
more guests and music or a sound system better for the event, but Staff cannot dictate which park
residents pull a permit for and want to use. Mr. Wiseman said the Parks and Recreation Department
can lower the occupancy capacity for Northport Park, but the permit holders will ultimately have
to decide how many guests they want at the party. He stated that the loss of the deposit is a better
deterrent for keeping capacity below the maximum than setting a lower limit on capacity.
Mr. Wiseman noted that permit holders are not allowed to use amplified sound in the parks, and if
the Outreach Staff spots the use of sound systems, it gets shut down. Parks and Recreation has
addressed the issue with sound systems and explained those rules to permit holders beforehand,
but not all people want to cooperate and follow the rules. Outreach Staff holds those permit holders
accountable and reacts harshly when the amplified sound rules are broken.
Councilmember Jerzak stated that in another email he received, residents like that the Parks and
Recreation Department is very responsive to complaints about sound systems and noise, but stated
that as soon as Staff leaves the park, the permit holder turns the music back up.
Mr. Wiseman explained that Staff will tell permit holders not to set up sound equipment if seen
and will respond and come back to the park if a complaint comes in about sound after Staff leave
the park. The use of sound systems is dealt with harshly, and the permit holder loses the deposit.
Staff ensures the permit holder is aware that sound systems are not allowed before events happen.
The changes to the permits involving sound violations are fairly new, and it will take time to see
the effect. Despite that, he noted that there are fewer calls coming in about noise complaints.
Page 10 of 88
6/23/25 -7-DRAFT
Councilmember Moore read an email from a resident who has lived in Brooklyn Center for over
30 years, "Again, I want to stress that when people are using the park properly, meaning staying
at capacity, cleaning up the garbage, no drugs, no alcohol, no blocking traffic, and no outrageously
loud music then it's wonderful. That’s what the park is for, but that’s not how these folks use it;
they simply ignore the rules.” The resident also makes a reference to beautiful Centennial Park
sitting empty. Councilmember Moore continued that the email is signed: "A very annoyed resident,
who can't leave and can't enjoy our own property, which they pay taxes for, when chaos is
happening on three sides of their home.”
Councilmember Moore asked Mr. Wiseman about his previous statement regarding Fire Chief
Berg being able to get a fire engine through traffic due to parking, and how many minutes slower
it would take the Fire Department to get there. She asked if Chief Berg had relayed that time
difference to Mr. Wiseman because that would be concerning in an emergency.
Mr. Wiseman stated he had not spoken with Fire Chief Berg but with the Deputy Fire Chief. Mr.
Wiseman did not have a specific time frame for how much longer it would take, other than it would
be a little bit slower, and traffic from the park would not prevent the Fire Department from getting
to the site of an emergency. Mr. Wiseman said he could get that information on specific response
times to the Council.
Councilmember Moore stated that two residents said there have been occasions where part of the
entrance to Northport Park has been blocked, and there is no way Brooklyn Center's oldest fire
engine could get through. This would pose a major issue if there were an emergency situation. She
asked Mr. Wiseman if he could find that information from Chief Berg.
Councilmember Moore asked Mr. Wiseman about the one deposit withheld this year, according to
his slideshow at the beginning of his presentation. Mr. Wiseman confirmed that so far this year,
only one deposit has been withheld from the permit holder.
Councilmember Moore asked how many times the Outreach Staff has had to go out to parks, and
if Northport Park is the only problem park that the Outreach Staff has had to visit. Mr. Wiseman
responded that there are issues in all the parks. One full-time Staff member and four part-time Staff
members go out in the summer as a team. This Staff must cover the whole City and can not sit in
one park to monitor all the time. Northport Park has a few more issues, and Staff knows that some
of the problems there may be more serious than in other parks, so Staff monitors Northport Park
more frequently due to those issues.
Councilmember Moore noted that due to limited Staff and funds, it is important for residents to
understand that the Parks and Recreation Department cannot continuously police adults at the park.
She also asked Mr. Wiseman about permit revenue and if it was on pace with 2024. Mr. Wiseman
did not have that data in front of him, but he would say permit revenue is on pace with 2024, if not
surpassing it.
Councilmember Moore stated that at the last Council meeting, budget priorities were discussed,
and when the Council looked at the cost of Outreach Staff and part-time Outreach Staff for the
parks, the Council will have to consider those costs when looking at the revenue brought in. She
Page 11 of 88
6/23/25 -8-DRAFT
stated that Councilmember Jerzak had brought up that there are things that the City cannot provide
any longer if the tax levy remains stagnant.
Mr. Wiseman clarified that the Outreach program came about at no additional cost to the City. Mr.
Wiseman restructured the budget to add the Outreach program to address residents' concerns in
the parks. As a result, the Outreach program has been a part of the standard budget for the Parks
and Recreation Department for a minimum of four years without any additional dollars.
Mayor Graves noted that the parks are not going to disappear in Brooklyn Center. Mr. Wiseman
noted that the Outreach program is working, and Parks and Recreation actually needs more to do
more, but the Department wants people to use the parks correctly.
Councilmember Moore appreciated that the Outreach program is already a part of the Recreation
budget that the Council will be reviewing and thanked Mr. Wiseman for his responses.
Councilmember Kragness noted that she thought it was premature and contradictory to hint at
cutting the costs of a program and state that the same program needed to respond to complaints.
She stated that she was a huge supporter of the Outreach program and appreciated that calls are
going down in volume. She was a guest at an event where the Outreach team was called, and the
professionalism that she witnessed the team exhibited was excellent. She is not diminishing any
resident’s complaints, but wants to acknowledge that progress is being made and takes time. She
thanked Mr. Wiseman and told him she appreciated all his and his team's efforts.
Mayor Graves thanked Councilmember Kragness for her comments. She noted that if there were
no Outreach Staff, the complaints made by residents would fall back on the Police Department,
which costs significantly more than the park Outreach program does.
Councilmember Jerzak asked if it was possible to suggest parking on one side of the street, which
could eliminate parking congestion and the Fire Department response time issue at Northport Park.
He also asked if there was a legal issue as to why Parks and Recreation Staff could not suggest or
direct permit holders to a certain park, and if so, he would pass that information on to the
constituents who are complaining.
Mayor Graves asked Mr. Wiseman for clarification on capacity over 75 already being sent to
Centennial Park versus Northport. Mr. Wiseman responded that any event over 75 guests would
not be able to hold a permit at Northport and would be advised to hold the event at Centennial
Park, but it is the permit holder’s choice where to hold the event.
Mayor Graves suggested Mr. Wiseman follow up with Fire Chief Berg on response time
differences and how much of a delay could potentially be caused by parking on both sides of the
street before changes are made. On-street parking is already very restrictive in the City. If the delay
was significant, she thought it would have already been flagged as an issue and brought to the
Council. For clarity, it would be beneficial to get an estimate on what the slowdown could
potentially be from the Fire Department.
Page 12 of 88
6/23/25 -9-DRAFT
Mayor Graves advised to communicating with residents who have made complaints that the
number of calls has decreased, and some protocols have been implemented to deter violations. Still,
Staff cannot sit at one park all day long. She advised that residents call 911 if they are witnesses
to issues cropping up, and if it is a safety issue, then the Police will show up.
Councilmember Jerzak asked if those park protocols could be put in the next newsletter so
residents are made aware.
Mr. Wiseman stated that Dr. Edwards will be pulling together a team to look at the permit process
and make sure that the Parks and Recreation Department permit process is running efficiently and
does not need updating.
Councilmember Kragness stated that any delay caused by parking for the Fire Department or a
medical emergency concerns her and needs to be addressed.
Mr. Wiseman stated that parking will be something the Department looks at, but restricting parking
at the park only pushes cars further into the residential neighborhoods near the park, which can
cause more problems for the residents.
Mayor Graves stated she wanted to start the regular Council meeting session and return to the CCX
agenda item at the end of the meeting.
Dr. Edwards said the CCX agenda item would take 30 seconds to discuss. Mayor Graves told Dr.
Edwards to go for it.
CCX
Dr. Edwards explained that after some time, the Council decided that the Study Session should be
broadcast along with the Regular Session. He asked to confirm that the Council still wants to
continue broadcasting everything.
Mayor Graves understood that the Council had previously agreed to broadcast the Study Session
with the Regular Session.
Councilmember Moore stated that the Council should be as transparent as possible and continue
broadcasting the Study Session.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Graves adjourned the meeting at 7:01 p.m.
Page 13 of 88
6/23/25 -1-DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
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.
Page 14 of 88
6/23/25 -2-DRAFT
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 Paw and met both Representative Hortman
Page 15 of 88
6/23/25 -3-DRAFT
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,
Page 16 of 88
6/23/25 -4-DRAFT
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
Page 17 of 88
6/23/25 -5-DRAFT
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.
Page 18 of 88
6/23/25 -6-DRAFT
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.”
Page 19 of 88
6/23/25 -7-DRAFT
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.
Page 20 of 88
6/23/25 -8-DRAFT
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.
Page 21 of 88
6/23/25 -9-DRAFT
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.
Page 22 of 88
6/23/25 -10-DRAFT
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.
Page 23 of 88
6/23/25 -11-DRAFT
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
Page 24 of 88
6/23/25 -12-DRAFT
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.
Page 25 of 88
6/23/25 -13-DRAFT
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.
Page 26 of 88
6/23/25 -14-DRAFT
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.
Page 27 of 88
6/23/25 -15-DRAFT
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.
Mr. Flesland stated that one of the reasons the City is considering the drone program is that it can
save lives. Mr. 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.
Mr. 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.
Mr. 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
Page 28 of 88
6/23/25 -16-DRAFT
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.
Mr. Flesland wants to make sure the drones are used correctly before expanding their usage. Mr.
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.
Mr. 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.
Mr. 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.
Mr. 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.
Mr. 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.
Mr. 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,
Page 29 of 88
6/23/25 -17-DRAFT
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.
Mr. 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 Mr. 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.
Mr. 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 Mr. Flesland for the presentation.
Councilmember Kragness thanked Mr. Flesland for the presentation and asked if the drones could
help manage the issues with Northport Park. Mr. 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. Mr. 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. Mr.
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 Mr. Flesland for his presentation and asked for clarification on
the budget. Mr. 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. Mr. 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
Page 30 of 88
6/23/25 -18-DRAFT
could be ready in a few weeks. Mr. 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. Mr. 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. Mr. 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. Mr. Flesland stated his understanding is that it is not mandated.
Mayor Graves asked about the authorized uses per statute. Mr. 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. Mr. 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. Mr. 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. Mr. 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. Mr. 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.
Mr. 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.
Page 31 of 88
6/23/25 -19-DRAFT
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. Mr. 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 Mr. 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 Mr. 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
Page 32 of 88
6/23/25 -20-DRAFT
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.
Mr. 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 Mr. 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
Mr. 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.
Page 33 of 88
6/23/25 -21-DRAFT
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 Mr. 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 Mr. 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 Mr. 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.
Page 34 of 88
6/23/25 -22-DRAFT
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
Page 35 of 88
6/23/25 -23-DRAFT
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.
Page 36 of 88
6/23/25 -24-DRAFT
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.
Page 37 of 88
6/23/25 -25-DRAFT
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
Page 38 of 88
6/23/25 -26-DRAFT
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
Page 39 of 88
6/23/25 -27-DRAFT
initial 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.
Page 40 of 88
6/23/25 -28-DRAFT
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.
Page 41 of 88
6/23/25 -29-DRAFT
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.
Page 42 of 88
6/23/25 -30-DRAFT
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.
Page 43 of 88
6/23/25 -31-DRAFT
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
Page 44 of 88
6/23/25 -32-DRAFT
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.
Page 45 of 88
6/23/25 -33-DRAFT
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.
Page 46 of 88
6/23/25 -34-DRAFT
12. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Kragness seconded adjournment of the City Council
meeting at 10:09 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
Page 47 of 88
Council Regular Meeting
DATE: 7/14/2025
TO: City Council
FROM: Shannon Pettit, City Clerk
THROUGH: Daren Nyquist, Deputy City Manager
BY: Shannon Pettit, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Approval of Licenses
Requested Council Action:
The following businesses/persons have applied for City licenses as noted. Each
business/person has fulfilled the requirements of the City Ordinance governing respective
licenses, submitted appropriate applications, and paid proper fees. Applicants for rental dwelling
licenses are in compliance with Chapter 12 of the City Code of Ordinances unless comments
are noted below the property address on the attached rental report.
Mechanical
Endless Quality and Comfort
1010 Newton Ave N, Minneapolis 55411
Marsh Heating & A/C
6248 Lakeland Ave N, Brooklyn Park 55428
Mespo Heating & Cooling Inc.
1904 Glenwood Ave N, Minneapolis 55443
Owens Companie, Inc.
500 West 92nd Street, Bloomington 55420
PB Services LLC
9410 Bataan St NE, Blaine 55449
Perfection Heating & Air
1770 Gervais Ave, Maplewood 55109
Veteran Mechanical
3751 200th St E, Prior Lake 55372
Sign Hanger’s
BMS Signs & Printing
3125 84th Ln NE, Blaine 55421
Amusement Devices
Empire Foods
1200 Shingle Creek Crossing
Sun Foods
6350 Brooklyn Blvd
Background:
Page 48 of 88
Budget Issues:
Inclusive Community Engagement:
Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect:
Strategic Priorities and Values:
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Rental Criteria
2. For Council Approval 7.14.25 FOR COUNCIL 6.10 to 7.1
Page 49 of 88
Page 2 of 2
b.Police Service Calls.
Police call rates will be based on the average number of valid police calls per unit per
year. Police incidences for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include
disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in Section 12-911, and events
categorized as Part I crimes in the Uniform Crime Reporting System including
homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, auto theft and arson.
Calls will not be counted for purposes of determining licensing categories where the
victim and suspect are “Family or household members” as defined in the Domestic
Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 518B.01, Subd. 2 (b) and where there is a
report of “Domestic Abuse” as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes,
Section 518B.01, Subd. 2 (a).
License
Category
Number of
Units
Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct
Service & Part I Crimes
(Calls Per Unit/Year)
No
Category
Impact
1-2 0-1
3-4 units 0-0.25
5 or more units 0-0.35
Decrease 1
Category
1-2 Greater than 1 but not more than 3
3-4 units Greater than 0.25 but not more than 1
5 or more units Greater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50
Decrease 2
Categories
1-2 Greater than 3
3-4 units Greater than 1
5 or more units Greater than 0.50
Property Code and Nuisance Violations Criteria
License Category
(Based on Property
Code Only)
Number of Units Property Code Violations per
Inspected Unit
Type I – 3 Year 1-2 units 0-2
3+ units 0-0.75
Type II – 2 Year 1-2 units Greater than 2 but not more than 5
3+ units Greater than 0.75 but not more than 1.5
Type III – 1 Year 1-2 units Greater than 5 but not more than 9
3+ units Greater than 1.5 but not more than 3
Type IV – 6 Months 1-2 units Greater than 9
3+ units Greater than 3
Page 50 of 88
Location Address License Subtype Renewal/Initial Owner
Property
Code
Violations
License
Type Police CFS*
Final
License
Type**
Previous
License
Type***
Consecutive
Type IV's
5116 Ewing Ave N Single Initial J Sedlezky & A Faschingbauer 6 Type III N/A Type III N/A N/A
7145 Unity Ave N Single Initial Rodolfo Arturo Trijillo
1 Type I N/A Type II N/A N/A
5401 63rd Ave N
Multiple Family
1 Bldg 3 Units Renewal
Ayodeji Gbayisomore
Met Requirements
2 = 0.66 per
unit Type I 0 Type I Type III N/A
6125 Lilac Dr N
Multiple Family
1 Bldg 65 Units Renewal Lanel Crossings Ltd Ptnrshp
71 = 1.09 per
unit Type II 0 Type II Type II N/A
6740 Grimes Pl
Multiple Family
8 Bldgs 48 Units Renewal
Victoria Townhouses 1
Met Requirements
173 = 3.60 per
unit Type IV 0 Type IV Type IV 2
4214 Lakeside Ave Two Family Renewal
J E Shoultz & G R Shoultz
Met Requirements
1 Type I 0 Type I Type III N/A
4201 Lakeside Ave N, #111 Condo Renewal Yohannes Seyoum
0 Type I 0 Type I Type II N/A
4207 Lakeside Ave N, #236 Condo Renewal Judith C Spanberger
6 Type III 0 Type III Type II N/A
4207 Lakeside Ave N, #320 Condo Renewal H Pollinger & L Pollinger Tr
0 Type I 0 Type I Type I N/A
1325 68th La N Single Renewal
Roth Wagner 2 Llc
Did not meet requirements
0 Type I 0 Type III Type III N/A
2006 55th Ave N Single Renewal Pedram Nastaean 2 Type I 0 Type III Type III N/A
3519 53rd Pl N Single Renewal
Jewel Johnson
Did not meet requirements 1 Type I 0 Type IV Type IV 2
3906 61st Ave N Single Renewal
Zinfandel Properties LLC
Did not meet requirements 0 Type I 0 Type IV Type IV 2
3912 58th Ave N Single Renewal Prosperous Property Llc
1 Type I 0 Type I Type I N/A
4707 Eleanor La Single Renewal Cosco Property 4 Llc
0 Type I 0 Type I Type II N/A
5260 Twin Lake Blvd E Single Renewal
HERON VERDE LLC
Met Requirements 2 Type I 0 Type I Type IV N/A
5306 Knox Ave N Single Renewal
Antonio Vizcarra-moreno
Did not meet requirements 15 Type IV 0 Type IV Type I 0
5418 70th Cir Single Renewal
Jazz Properties MN LLC
Did not meet requirements 1 Type I 0 Type IV Type IV 2
Rental Licenses for Council Approval 7.14.25
Page 51 of 88
5556 Emerson Ave N Single Renewal
Thomas D Belting
Met Requirements 11 Type IV 0 Type IV Type IV 2
5827 Ewing Ave N Single Renewal
J C Quito-villa Et Al
Met Requirements
0 Type I 0 Type I Type III N/A
6336 Fremont Ave N Single Renewal Xample Renovations Llc
0 Type I 0 Type I Type I N/A
6628 Camden Dr Single Renewal
Wells Bovard
Did not meet requirements
0 Type I
10/4/24
5th Degree Assault Type IV Type IV 3
7085 Unity Ave N Single Renewal
I-chang Wen & Yanhua Sun
Met Requirements
2 Type I 0 Type I Type III N/A
7024 Oliver Cir Single Renewal JULIANA KOE
1 Type I 0 Type I Type II N/A
All properties are current on City utilities and taxes
*CFS = Calls for service for renewal licenses only (Initial licenses are not applicable to CFS and will be listed as N/A)
**License type being issued
***Initial licenes will not show a previous Type I = 3 year, Type II = 2 year, Type III = 1 year, Type IV = 6 months
Page 52 of 88
Council Regular Meeting
DATE: 7/14/2025
TO: City Council
FROM: Lydia Ener, Assistant City Engineer
THROUGH: Elizabeth Heyman, Director of Public Works
BY: Lydia Ener, Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Resolution 2025-66 Accepting Work Performed and Authorizing Final
Payment, Improvement Project No. 2023-10, I694/Dupont Ave Water
Main Crossing Replacement Project
Requested Council Action:
Motion to approve a resolution Accepting Work Performed and Authorizing Final
Payment, Improvement Project No. 2023-10, I694/Dupont Ave Water Main Crossing
Replacement Project.
Background:
On June 10, 2024, the City Council awarded Project No. 2023-10 to Northdale
Construction Company, Inc. for the improvements to the water main crossing at Dupont
Avenue under I-694. Northdale Construction Company, Inc. has successfully
completed the construction work and is requesting final payment for the project.
Budget Issues:
The original contract amount with Northdale Construction Company, Inc. for the project
was $1,561,669.66. The total value of work certified for final payment is $1,710,065.70.
The total project cost including contingencies/administration/engineering/legal was
budgeted to be $2,060,669.66 and was completed within 1% percent of the budget in
the amount of $2,069,598.94. The attached resolution provides a summary of the final
amended costs and funding sources for the project.
Inclusive Community Engagement:
NA
Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect:
NA
Strategic Priorities and Values:
ATTACHMENTS:
1. I-694 Final Payment Resolution
Page 53 of 88
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL
PAYMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2023-10, I694/DUPONT AVE WATER MAIN
CROSSING REPLACEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, Northdale Construction Company, Inc. of Albertville, Minnesota has
completed Improvement Project No. 2023-10, I694/Dupont Ave Water Main Crossing
Replacement Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that
1. Final payment shall be made on Improvement Project No. 2023-10,
I694/Dupont Ave Water Main Crossing Replacement Project, taking the
contractor’s receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said
improvements under said contract shall be $1,710,065.70.
2. The estimated project costs and revenues are hereby amended as follows:
Amended
COSTS Per Low Bid Final Costs
Construction Cost $1,561,669.66 $1,710,065.70
Engineering and Administrative $ 343,000.00 $ 359,533.24
Contingency $ 156,000.00 $ -0-
TOTAL $ 2,060,669.66 $ 2,069,598.94
Amended
REVENUES Per Low Bid Final Costs
Water Fund $2,060,669.66 $ 2,069,598.94
July 14, 2025
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Page 54 of 88
Council Regular Meeting
DATE: 7/14/2025
TO: City Council
FROM: Carissa Goebel, Deputy Director of Parks & Recreation
THROUGH: Cordell Wiseman, Director of Parks & Recreation
BY: Carissa Goebel, Deputy Director of Parks & Recreation
SUBJECT: Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association Awards of Excellence
Presentation
Requested Council Action:
Background:
The Awards of Excellence is an annual program of the Minnesota Recreation and Park
Association that was solely created to recognize agencies and their staff for an
exemplary project that was either implemented in 2024 or received substantial revisions
in 2024.
MRPA members may nominate a project for an Award of Excellence in seven different
categories: Administrative or Management Strategies, Communications, Park and
Facility, Programming and Events, Sponsorships and Partnerships, Sustainability and
Volunteer Initiatives. Nominations received are then reviewed, evaluated and scored by
MRPA Awards Committee members. Only the top scoring nominations are selected to
receive Award of Excellence recognition.
Brooklyn Center Parks and Recreation received two Awards of Excellence for
Sponsorships and Partnerships for the programs: Yoga for All and the Local Food
Purchase Assistance.
Budget Issues:
Inclusive Community Engagement:
Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect:
Strategic Priorities and Values:
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Page 55 of 88
Page 56 of 88
Council Regular Meeting
DATE: 7/14/2025
TO: City Council
FROM: Carissa Goebel, Deputy Director of Parks & Recreation
THROUGH: Cordell Wiseman, Director of Parks & Recreation
BY: Carissa Goebel, Deputy Director of Parks & Recreation
SUBJECT: Proclamation Acknowledging and Proclaiming July as "Park and
Recreation Month"
Requested Council Action:
Motion to approve a resolution delcaring July 2025 as "Park and Recreation Month" in
Brooklyn Center
Background:
For 40 years, the nation has celebrated Park and Recreation Month in July to promote
building strong, vibrant and resilient communities through the power of parks and
recreation. This month is dedicated to recognizing and celebrating full-time, part-time
and seasonal park and recreation professionals who serve the City of Brooklyn Center.
This year’s theme — “Build Together, Play Together” — celebrates the many ways park
and recreation professionals across the country foster a sense of belonging in their
community by providing welcoming and inclusive programs, essential services for all
ages and abilities, and safe, accessible spaces to build meaningful connections.
Brooklyn Center is celebrating Park and Recreation Month, an initiative of the National
Recreation and Park Association (NRPA), by inviting our community to share their
experiences, memories and stories about what parks and recreation mean to them.
With everything from joining us for music and movies in the park, fitness classes, or
experiencing our other special events, there are plenty of ways that you can celebrate
with us.
Budget Issues:
Inclusive Community Engagement:
Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect:
Strategic Priorities and Values:
ATTACHMENTS:
Page 57 of 88
1. 2025 Park and Rec Month Cover Sheet
2. 2025 Park and Rec Month Proclamation
Page 58 of 88
Council Regular Meeting
DATE: 7/14/25
TO: City Council
FROM: Dr. Reggie Edwards
THROUGH: Cordell Wiseman, Director of Parks and
Recreation
BY: Carissa Goebel, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Proclamation Acknowledging and Proclaiming the Month of July 2025 as " Park and Recreation Month"
Requested Council Action:
- Motion to approve a proclamation declaring July 2025 as “Park and Recreation Month” in
Brooklyn Center.
Background:
For 40 years, the nation has celebrated Park and Recreation Month in July to promote building strong,
vibrant and resilient communities through the power of parks and recreation. This month is dedicated
to recognizing and celebrating full-time, part-time and seasonal park and recreation professionals who
serve the City of Brooklyn Center.
This year’s theme — “Build Together, Play Together” — celebrates the many ways park and recreation
professionals across the country foster a sense of belonging in their community by providing
welcoming and inclusive programs, essential services for all ages and abilities, and safe, accessible
spaces to build meaningful connections.
Brooklyn Center is celebrating Park and Recreation Month, an initiative of the National Recreation and
Park Association (NRPA), by inviting our community to share their experiences, memories and stories
about what parks and recreation mean to them. With everything from joining us for music and movies
in the park, fitness classes, or experiencing our other special events, there are plenty of ways that you
can celebrate with us.
Page 59 of 88
Proclamation
DECLARING JULY AS PARK AND RECREATION MONTH IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN
CENTER
WHEREAS parks and recreation are an integral part of communities throughout this country,
including the City of Brooklyn Center; and
WHEREAS parks and recreation promote health and wellness, improving the physical and mental
health of people who live near parks; and
WHEREAS parks and recreation encourage physical activities by providing space for popular sports,
swimming pools and many other activities designed to promote active lifestyles; and
WHEREAS parks and recreation is a leading provider of healthy meals, nutrition services and
education; and
WHEREAS park and recreation programming and education activities, such as out- of-school time
programming, youth sports and environmental education, are critical to childhood
development; and
WHEREAS parks and recreation increase a community’s economic prosperity through increased
property values, expansion of the local tax base, increased tourism, the attraction and
retention of businesses, and crime reduction; and
WHEREAS parks and recreation are fundamental to the environmental well-being of our community;
and
WHEREAS the U.S. House of Representatives has designated July as Parks and Recreation Month;
and
WHEREAS the City of Brooklyn Center recognizes the benefits derived from parks and recreation
resources.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY City Council that July is recognized as Park and
Recreation Month in the City of Brooklyn Center.
___July 14th, 2025_ __________________ Date Mayor
ATTEST: __________________
City Clerk
6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy
Brooklyn Center, MN 55433
Page 60 of 88
Council Regular Meeting
DATE: 7/14/2025
TO: City Council
FROM:
THROUGH:
BY: Kat Ellgren, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Consideration of Suburban Studios Stay of Hospitality Accommodation
License Revocation Request pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 108.02 and
115.03.
Requested Council Action:
The City Council Consider the Request from Suburban Studios’ Regarding a Stay of
Revocation of their Hospitality Accommodation License.
Background:
BC Seva LLC, doing business as Suburban Studios (“Licensee”), is a business located
at 2701 Freeway Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, MN holds a Hospitality Accommodation
License.
On March 31, 2025, Suburban Studios submitted a renewal application for the
Hospitality License.
On May 5, 2025, the Brooklyn Center City Council (“Council”) approved the license
renewal.
On June 23, 2025, the City Council revoked Suburban Studios’ Hospitality
Accommodation License based on findings and violations outlined in Resolution No.
2025-064.
On or about July 2, 2025, the City received a request for Stay of Revocation of
Suburban Studios’ Hospitality Accommodation License.
On July 14, 2025, the Council will consider the request from Suburban Studios’
regarding a Stay of Revocation of their Hospitality Accommodation License. Brooklyn
Center City Staff will make some remarks, and Suburban Studios’ Legal Council would
like an opportunity to make a statement.
Attachments:
1) Stay of Revocation Request
2) Denial of Stay of Revocation Request
3) Letter of Request for Stay of Revocation
Budget Issues:
Page 61 of 88
Inclusive Community Engagement:
Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect:
Strategic Priorities and Values:
ATTACHMENTS:
1. BC Seva - Motion for Stay to Brooklyn Center 07-02-25
2. DOCSOPEN-#1037138-v3-City_Council_-_Stay_of_Revocation_Resolution
3. DOCSOPEN-#1037193-v1-City_Council_Resolution_-
_Denial_of_Stay_of_Revocation_Request
Page 62 of 88
July 2, 2025
Mayor and City Council
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN
SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY
(mayorgraves@brooklyncentermn.gov);
(councilmemberjerzak@brooklyncentermn.gov);
(councilmemberkragness@brooklyncentermn.gov);
(councilmemberlawrence-
anderson@brooklyncentermn.gov);
(councilmembermoore@brooklyncentermn.gov)
Re: Conditional Revocation of Hospitality License for Suburban Suites Hotel
Request for Stay Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 115.03 and 108.02
Dear Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council:
As you are aware, this office represents BC Seva LLC, the owner of the Suburban Suites
Hotel situated at 2701 Freeway Blvd., Brooklyn Center, MN (the “Subject Property”). This
office also now represents Care Chexx LLC. At the City Council meeting on June 23, a
majority of the City Council voted to rescind the hospitality license for the Subject Property.
BC Seva received the City’s executed resolution on Friday, June 27. The license revocation
was effectively delayed/stayed for a period of twenty-one (21) days, until July 14. This
correspondence provides notice that my clients will challenge the license revocation in the
Minnesota Court of Appeals by certiorari review. My clients will argue that the revocation
was arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, manifestly disproportionate
to the violation found, and contrary to law.1 We hereby request that the City stay its
decision in whole or in part pending judicial review pursuant to Minnesota Rules of
Appellate Procedure 115.03 Subd. 2(b) and Rule 108.02. More specifically, my clients
request that the City either continue to allow hotel operations inclusive of recuperative care
services to continue pending judicial review or, at a minimum, stay its revocation with
respect to hotel operations exclusive of recuperative care services.
In considering my clients’ request for a stay, the public interest and the potential risk to the
public must be considered. See DRJ, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 741 N.W.2d 141, 144 (Minn. Ct.
App. 2007) (citing Minnesota Practice describing the need to strike a balance between
competing interests). The City must balance my clients’ interests in preserving the status
quo during the pendency of the “appeal” so that effective relief will be available to it if the
appeal succeeds, against the interests of the City in enforcing the decision so as to be
“secure in victory” while the appeal is pending. Id. The City is to determine the form and
amount of security required to adequately protect the public. Id. “In many cases, especially
1 My clients will argue that, among other things, the City’s interpretation of its
ordinances and corresponding revocation violates the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”). The City may not apply its ordinances in violation of federal law.
Page 63 of 88
Mayor and City Council
City of Brooklyn Center
July 2, 2025
Page 2
those involving sanctions from which effective relief may be unavailable months later, when
the appeal is eventually decided on the merits, it is likely that the imposition of operating
conditions will adequately protect the public.” Id. at 145. Relevant considerations include a
history of past violations and financial impacts should a stay not be granted. See id.
Here, there is a compelling interest in granting a complete stay to the revocation pending
judicial review. Recuperative care services have been offered at the hotel by a qualified
operator, Care Chexx. These services have been offered in full compliance with state law
requirements. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. § 256B.0701. These services advance my clients’
interests in promoting the public good by allowing post-acute care to homeless persons who
are too ill or frail to recover from a physical illness or injury while living in a shelter or are
otherwise unhoused but are not sick enough to remain in the hospital, while also directly
advancing the State’s interest in broad allowance of recuperative care settings. The State’s
interest and intention is evinced by state law’s express mandate that recuperative care
“may be provided in any setting[.]” Minn. Stat. § 256B.0701, Subd. 2 (emphasis added).
There is no basis in law or fact for the City to conclude offering services in full compliance
with state law presents a threat to the public. There is no record evidence, for example, of
failure to provide appropriate supervision for recuperative care guests. Accordingly, the
stay should allow recuperative care services to continue until the court of appeals has ruled
on the legality of the revocation.
Alternatively, and at a minimum, hotel operations exclusive of recuperative care should be
allowed to continue pending appeal. The exclusive basis of the City’s revocation was the
recuperative care services. There was no assertion, much less evidence, of violations at the
hotel unrelated to recuperative care. To be sure, the economic impact of hotel operations
being shut down during the appeal would be severe, may result in dozens of staff losing
their jobs, and may result in permanent cessation of the longstanding hotel use. In fact,
Care Chexx has already had to furlough approximately 30 staff members as a direct result
of the City’s revocation. A later determination by the court of appeals that the revocation
was unlawful would be a hollow victory if the practical impact of the permit remaining
revoked for 6-plus months is permanent closure of the hotel. Allowing the twenty-plus year
hotel operation to continue during the pendency of litigation is fully consistent with the
public interest and any finding to the contrary would be an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, we ask for a stay pursuant to the following terms:
1. That the City’s revocation of the hotel license be stayed and not enforced in its
entirety pending a final judicial determination regarding the legality of the
revocation;
2. Or, alternatively, that the City’s revocation of the hotel license be stayed and not
enforced for all hotel services exclusive of recuperative care, which stay will
remain in effect pending a final judicial determination regarding the legality of
the revocation.
Additionally, a stay should be granted without requiring my clients to post a bond or other
form of security. The purpose of a bond in the context of a motion to stay is to “assure that,
pending the outcome of an appeal, the economic risk of the appeal is not borne by the party
Page 64 of 88
Mayor and City Council
City of Brooklyn Center
July 2, 2025
Page 3
that prevailed below.” See County of Blue Earth v. Wingen, 684 N.W.2d 919, 923 (Minn. Ct.
App. 2004). But here, the City bears no economic risk if the license revocation is stayed
pending appeal without a bond. The City will not be financially harmed and has no
economic/pecuniary interest in having the license revocation implemented immediately.
Therefore, a bond is not only unnecessary, but it would also be entirely inappropriate.
We appreciate that the City needs time to consider this request. However, in light of the
twenty-one day deadline, we need a prompt response to protect our clients’ rights.
Accordingly, we are asking for a response to this correspondence by noon CST on Monday,
July 7, 2025. If we do not receive a response by that time, we will deem the City’s inaction a
denial. In that event, we intend to seek relief from the Court of Appeals, requesting it grant
a stay to prevent enforcement of the revocation prior to a final decision on the merits. Our
clients take these matters very seriously and intends to protect its interests to the fullest
extent allowed under the law.
Sincerely,
/s/ Bryan J. Huntington and Katherine A. Cochran
Bryan J. Huntington and Katherine A. Cochran, for
Larkin Hoffman
Direct Dial: 952-896-3370 (Huntington)
952-896-3292 (Cochran)
Direct Fax: 952-842-1747
Email: bhuntington@larkinhoffman.com
kcochran@larkinhoffman.com
cc: Siobhan Tolar, City Attorney (stolar@kennedy-graven.com)
Reggie Edwards, City Manager (redwards@brooklyncenter.mn.gov)
4910-9804-5265, v. 1
Page 65 of 88
BR291-441-1037138.v3
Member ______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2025 - __
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
RESOLUTION STAYING THE REVOCATION OF THE HOSPITALITY
ACCOMMODATION LICENSE FOR BC SEVA LLC DBA SUBURBAN STUDIOS
WHEREAS, BC Seva LLC, doing business as Suburban Studios (“Licensee”), a business
located at 2701 Freeway Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, MN holds a Hospitality
Accommodation License;
WHEREAS, Suburban Studios submitted a renewal application for the Hospitality License on
March 31, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council (“Council”) approved the license renewal on
May 5, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2025 the City Council revoked Suburban Studios’ Hospitality
Accommodation License based on findings and violations outlined in Resolution
No. 2025-064; and
WHEREAS, on or about July 2, 2025, the City received a request for Stay of Revocation of
Suburban Studios’ Hospitality Accommodation License; and
WHERAS, the City considered Suburban Studios’ Stay of Revocation request on July 14,
2025, after a staff presentation and a statement by Suburban Studios’ legal
counsel; and
WHEREAS, based on the existing circumstances, the original facts and findings of city staff
obtained through investigation and inquiry, the fact that the property is zoned via
Planned Unit Development as an Extended Stay Hotel, and the fact that Suburban
Studios was licensed to operate as a Hospitality Accommodation pursuant to City
Code Section 23-2400;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center
hereby stays revocation of Suburban Studios’ Hospitality Accommodation License as it pertains
to the operation of a Hospitality Accommodation exclusively, pending appeal of the license
revocation and the underlying zoning determination, and Suburban Studios strictly abides by the
following terms of the stay of license revocation:
Page 66 of 88
1. BC Seva, LLC, Suburban Studios, Care Chexx, or any other company, may not operate a
Recuperative Care Facility or provide Recuperative Care, as defined in Minnesota
Statutes §256B.0701, or provide anything resembling care services at 2701 Freeway
Boulevard;
2. Suburban Studios et. al, must continue to pay lodging taxes and all utilities, and abide by
all city, state, and federal laws;
3. Suburban Studios et. al, must abide by their Level I Hospitality License requirements and
any other requirements outlined in Section 23-2400 of the Brooklyn Center City Code,
including 23-2402(C) defining hospitality accommodations as “facilities or places offering
six or more lodging units to guests for periods of less than thirty days;”
4. Suburban Studios et. al, must submit to unannounced inspections of the entire premises at
the City’s discretion;
5. The Stay of Revocation and terms/conditions thereto must be reduced to writing, signed by
the Parties, and filed with the Court. Any violation of the agreement on the part of Suburban
Studios, et.al, will result in an automatic and immediate revocation of the Hospitality
Accommodation License. At that time, the City will initiate closure of the building, and all
guests must immediately vacate the premises.
ADOPTED this14th day of July 2025, by the Brooklyn Center City Council with a vote of ___
July 14th, 2025
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Page 67 of 88
BR291-441-1037193.v1
Member ______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2025 - __
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
RESOLUTION DENYING THE STAY OF HOSPITALITY ACCOMMODATION
LICENSE REVOCATION REQUEST FOR BC SEVA LLC DBA SUBURBAN STUDIOS
WHEREAS, BC Seva LLC, doing business as Suburban Studios (“Licensee”), a business
located at 2701 Freeway Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, MN holds a Hospitality
Accommodation License;
WHEREAS, Suburban Studios submitted a renewal application for the Hospitality License on
March 31, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council (“Council”) approved the license renewal on
May 5, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2025 the City Council revoked Suburban Studios’ Hospitality
Accommodation License based on findings and violations outlined in Resolution
No. 2025-064; and
WHEREAS, on or about July 2, 2025, the City received a request for Stay of Revocation of
Suburban Studios’ Hospitality Accommodation License; and
WHERAS, the City considered Suburban Studios’ Stay of Revocation request on July 14,
2025, after a staff presentation and a statement by Suburban Studios’ legal
counsel; and
WHEREAS, based on the staff recommendations, existing circumstances, the original facts and
findings of city staff obtained through investigation and inquiry, the fact that the
property is zoned via Planned Unit Development as an Extended Stay Hotel, and
the fact that Suburban Studios was licensed to operate as a Hospitality
Accommodation pursuant to City Code Section 23-2400;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center
hereby denies the stay of Hospitality Accommodation License Revocation Request for Suburban
Studios. In weighing the interest of Suburban Studios in maintaining the status quo and the
interests of the City in protecting the public good, the Council finds as follows:
Page 68 of 88
1. Continued operation of this facility would be detrimental to the public good because
the Licensee has violated the Hospitality Accommodation License Ordinance, and
shown an inability to follow city ordinances, proper process, and proper procedure
when operating a business within the City of Brooklyn Center;
2. The City cannot trust that the business wouldn’t continue to operate a recuperative care
facility, or provide recuperative care services, especially due to Licensee belief that he
as not violated the law by providing these services without proper authorization in
contravention of city ordinance;
3. Continued operation of the Extended Stay and Recuperative Care Facility while the
issue is being appealed would put the City in the position of openly allowing violation
of its laws. This undermines the City’s ability to enforce its own laws and regulations
against others who would seek to violate city ordinances.
ADOPTED this14th day of July 2025, by the Brooklyn Center City Council with a vote of ___
July 14th, 2025
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Page 69 of 88
Council Regular Meeting
DATE: 7/14/2025
TO: City Council
FROM: Shannon Pettit, City Clerk
THROUGH: Daren Nyquist, Deputy City Manager
BY: Kat Ellgren, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Ordinance 2025-07 Establishing Chapter 23-2750 in the Brooklyn Center
City Code of Ordinances to Regulate Temporary Cannabis Events (First
Reading)
Requested Council Action:
-Motion to approve the first reading of Ordinance 2025-07 Establishing Chapter 23-2750
in the Brooklyn Center City Code of Ordinances to Regulate Temporary Cannabis
Events.
Background:
Tonight is the first reading of an ordinance regulating Temporary Cannabis Events. This
new ordinance is a result of the State Legislature legalizing cannabis. All regulations for
cannabis are in Chapter 342 of the State Statutes.
This ordinance requires a permit for any/all Temporary Cannabis Events that will be
held in Brooklyn Center. There will be an application process that all organizers must
complete before an event can be held. There could be special services incurred with the
permit, as well as documentation. The permit will be similar to our Special Events
permits.
Budget Issues:
Inclusive Community Engagement:
Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect:
Strategic Priorities and Values:
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Temp Cannabis Events Ordinance
2. Temp Cannabis Events PowerPoint
Page 70 of 88
1
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the ___ day of ___, 2025, at 7:00
p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard to consider an ordinance related to tenant
protections. Please notify the City Clerk at 763-569-3306 if there are any questions about how to
connect to the meeting.
Auxiliary aid for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance.
Please contact the City Clerk at 763-569-3300 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CHAPTER 23-2750 TO REGULATE TEMPORARY
CANNABIS EVENTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Article I. Brooklyn Center City Code, Chapter 23, is amended by adding the following double-
underlined language and deleting the following stricken language:
Section 23-2750; TEMPORARY CANNABIS EVENT REGULATIONS
Section 23-2751. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS. The City of Brooklyn Center makes the
following legislative findings:
A.Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare
in the City by implementing regulations pursuant to M.S. §342 related to cannabis and
hemp businesses within the City.
B.Findings. The City finds and concludes that these regulations are appropriate and lawful,
that the proposed amendments will promote the community’s interest in reasonable
stability in the development and redevelopment of the City for now and in the future, and
that the regulations are in the public interest and for the public good.
Section 23-2752. DEFINITIONS.
Unless otherwise noted in this section, words and phrases contained in M.S. §342.01 and the rules
promulgated pursuant to any of these acts shall have the same meaning in this ordinance.
A.Applicant means the entity with a license issued by the Office of Cannabis Management
that is applying for a Temporary Cannabis Event Permit.
Page 71 of 88
2
B. Cannabinoid Products means a cannabis product, a hemp-derived consumer product, or a
lower-potency hemp edible as defined in M.S. §342.01.
C. Residential Treatment Facility means any facility licensed or regulated by the Minnesota
Department of Human Services that provides 24-hour-a-day care, lodging, or supervision
outside a person's home and which also provides chemical dependency or mental health
services.
D. School means a public school, as defined in M.S. §120A.05, subd. 9, 11,13, and 17, or a
nonpublic school, or church or religious organization in which a child is provided with
instruction in compliance with this section and M.S. §120.24 but does not include a home
school.
E. Special Services means the exclusive allocation of city resources, including, but not limited
to, city personnel, equipment, rights-of-way, property or facilities for use in conjunction
with a specific event or activity, as requested by the host or sponsor of the event, or as
requested by or on behalf of any person attending the event, or deemed necessary by city
staff in order to maintain public safety. Special Services shall include, but not be limited
to, any of the following: street closures; requiring police officers to stop or reroute traffic;
special police protection; stationing emergency vehicles at or in the immediate vicinity of
the event; exclusive use of city streets or property as a staging area or for event parking;
additional street cleaning and garbage removal services; special signage, such as temporary
no parking signs; the use of any city building, equipment or other property for any purpose
other than the normal operations of the facilities; or the City otherwise providing exclusive
services.
F. Temporary Cannabis Event means a special event, held on public or private property,
hosted by an individual or an organization holding a Temporary Cannabis Event Organizer
license issued under M.S. §342.39.
G. Temporary Cannabis Event Organizer means an individual or an organization licensed by
the State of Minnesota to hold a Temporary Cannabis Event, as described in M.S. §342.39
and 342.40.
Section 23-2753. TEMPORARY CANNABIS EVENT, PERMIT REQUIRED.
Any person or organization desiring to hold a Temporary Cannabis Event in the City must first
obtain a Temporary Cannabis Event Permit.
Section 23-2754. PERMIT APPLICATION.
Page 72 of 88
3
A.Form. Any person or organization desiring to hold a Temporary Cannabis Event must apply
for a permit using the application provided. Incomplete applications will be returned to the
applicant with details on how to make the application complete. In addition to other relevant
information, the application must contain the following:
1.Applicant name, address, phone number;
2.Address of proposed Temporary Cannabis Event;
3.Name of property owner, if different from applicant, and signature of property owner
authorizing use of property for the Temporary Cannabis Event;
4.A copy of the application for a Temporary Cannabis Event Organizer license submitted
to the Office of Cannabis Management under, and meeting the requirements of, M.S.
§342.39, subd. 2;
5.A diagram of the Temporary Cannabis Event showing:
a. Location and description of sanitary facilities meeting federal and state
requirements;
b. Location and description of solid waste disposal facilities meeting state and local
regulations;
c. Location and description of mobile food vending to be offered at the Temporary
Cannabis Event; proof of license and permit for vending must be submitted at least
seven days prior to the event and kept on site for immediate inspection.
6.Security: In addition to meeting the requirements of M.S. §342.40, subd. 3, the City may
require the applicant to employ, at their own expense, additional security personnel
necessary to protect a maximum number of persons permitted to attend the event and to
preserve order in and around the event site as determined by the City. No permit shall
be issued unless the City police and fire departments have approved the security plan.
Pursuant to Rules 9810.1500, Subpart 9, a Cannabis Business must maintain video
surveillance of all premises associated with the business license and ensure that video
surveillance is active during the entirety of any temporary cannabis event held onsite. At
Temporary Cannabis Events, the video surveillance equipment must be mounted in a
manner to record activity occurring in the area accessible to the public, including any
designated retail areas and points of entry and exit.
Page 73 of 88
4
7.Emergency Plan: Applicant shall provide the City with an emergency plan that details
procedures for managing or responding to emergencies as required by the Minnesota
State Fire Code. In addition, for events where there is a possibility for more than 1,000
people to congregate, the applicant shall provide trained crowd managers. The minimum
number of crowd managers shall be established at a ratio of one crowd manager to every
250 persons. Where approved by the official fire code, the ratio of crowd managers may
be permitted to be reduced only when the facility is fully equipped with an approved
automatic sprinkler system or based upon the nature of the event. The emergency plan
and the number of crowd managers must be approved by the fire department.
8.Parking and Traffic Plan: The City will require the applicant to submit a parking and
traffic plan and provide, install, and remove all traffic control equipment if necessary.
Applicants are required to pay all costs for traffic control measures and traffic control
personnel. Applicants must provide individual property owner consent if the Special
Event will have off-site parking.
9.A description of any Special Services, city personnel, city equipment, and city property
which the applicant requests the City to provide, including the applicant's estimate of the
number and type needed, and the basis on which the estimate is made. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, the City retains sole discretion to determine the number and type of
Special Services required for the event.
10.Whether the Temporary Cannabis Event intends to permit on-site consumption.
11.Whether the Temporary Cannabis Event intends to charge a fee.
12.If the applicant proposes using sound amplification or a public address system or if there
will be any playing of any music or musical instruments, the identity of the designated
individual responsible for monitoring sound levels and the name and contact information
for a person on-site during the event that will be able to respond to noise complaints.
B.Time for filing. A Temporary Cannabis Event permit application must be filed with the City
at least 45 days in advance of the date in which the Temporary Cannabis Event is to occur.
Applications received less than 45 days in advance of the date of the event will be rejected.
C.Permit fee. An applicant for a Temporary Cannabis Event permit must pay a nonrefundable
permit fee in the amount established by the City's fee schedule.
Section 23-2755. PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW.
A.Special Services. The City shall determine whether Special Services may be necessary, and
the cost for such Special Services.
Page 74 of 88
5
B.Review. When a Temporary Cannabis Event will not require any Special Services, the City
Manager, or their designee, may review and approve the permit application
administratively. In cases where a. Temporary Cannabis Event requires Special Services,
the application will be presented to the City Council for review.
C.Imposition of Conditions. The City Manager, or their designee, may impose reasonable
restrictions on the issuance of a Temporary Cannabis Event permit.
D.Permit Denial. The City may deny an application for a Temporary Cannabis Event permit
if it determines from a consideration of the application or other pertinent information that:
1.The information contained in the application or supplemental information requested
from the applicant is false or nonexistent in any material detail;
2.The applicant fails to supplement the application after having been notified by the City
of additional information or documents needed;
3.The applicant fails to agree to abide by or comply with all the conditions and terms of
the Temporary Cannabis Event permit, including payment of all costs and expenses;
4.The Temporary Cannabis Event would substantially or unnecessarily interfere with
traffic in the City, would interfere with access to the fire station or fire hydrants, or would
interfere with access to businesses or residences in the immediate vicinity of the event
and there are not sufficient city resources available at the time of the event to mitigate
the disruption;
5.The Temporary Cannabis Event is of the size or nature that requires the diversion of so
many law enforcement officers to properly police the event, site and contiguous areas
that allowing the Temporary Cannabis Event would unreasonably deny law enforcement
protection to the remainder of the City and its residents;
6.The proposed date and time of the Temporary Cannabis Event conflicts with a previously
scheduled event and there are not available at the time of the proposed Temporary
Cannabis Event sufficient city resources to provide services for both events without
substantially or unnecessarily interfering with police, fire, water, public works, or other
services to the City as a whole;
7.The location of the Temporary Cannabis Event will substantially interfere with any
construction or maintenance work scheduled to take place upon or along public property
or right-of-way;
8.The Temporary Cannabis Event would likely endanger the public safety or health;
Page 75 of 88
6
9.The Temporary Cannabis Event would substantially or unnecessarily interfere with
police, fire, water, public works, or other services to the City as a whole and there are
not available at the time of the proposed event sufficient city resources to mitigate the
disruption;
10.The applicant fails to comply with the liability insurance requirements, or the applicant's
insurance lapses or is canceled; and
11.The applicant has, on prior occasions, made material misrepresentations regarding the
nature and extent of Special Services required for a Temporary Cannabis Event in the
City or has violated the terms of a prior Temporary Cannabis Event permit.
E.Right of Appeal. If the Temporary Cannabis Event permit application has been denied, the
applicant may appeal the decision to the City Council. The applicant must provide the City
Manager with a written notice of appeal within five business days of the date of denial.
Section 23-2756. FEES FOR SPECIAL SERVICES.
A.Special Services Fee. The applicant must pay the costs of all Special Services used during
the Temporary Cannabis Event. Such costs will be established in the City's Fee Schedule.
At the discretion of the City Manager, the applicant may be required to pay a Special
Services fee deposit based on estimated costs of the Special Services to be provided at the
Temporary Cannabis Event, Deposits are due at the time of application.
Section 23-2757. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE.
A.If the Temporary Cannabis Event requires Special Services, prior to the issuance of a
Temporary Cannabis Event permit, the permit applicant and authorizing officer of the
sponsoring organization, if any, must sign an agreement to indemnify, defend and hold the
City, its officials, employees, and agents harmless from any claim that arises in whole or in
part out of the Temporary Cannabis Event, except any claims arising solely out of the
negligent acts or omissions of the City, its officials, employees and agents.
B.General Liability Insurance Required. The applicant must possess or obtain General Liability
insurance to protect against loss and damages on account of bodily injury or property damage
arising from the Temporary Cannabis Event. A certificate of insurance must be filed with the
City prior to issuance of the Temporary Cannabis Event permit. The certificate of insurance
must name the City, its officials, employees and agents as additional insured. Insurance
coverage must be maintained for the duration of the Temporary Cannabis Event. Any
company hired or working on behalf of the applicant or sponsor must also present the City
Page 76 of 88
7
with a certificate of insurance naming the City, its officials, its employees, and agents as
additional insurers.
C.Minimum Limits. Insurance coverage must be a commercial general liability policy. The
minimum limit must be at least $2,000,000 for any single occurrence. If on-site consumption
is permitted at the Temporary Cannabis Event, the policy must also include an endorsement
for such consumption. The City may require additional endorsements depending upon the
type of Temporary Cannabis Event and the proposed activities. The liability policy must
include the City as an additional insured.
D.Waiver or Reduction of Required Limits. The City may waive or reduce insurance
requirements of this section under circumstances, including but not limited to, the inability of
the applicant of officer of the sponsoring organization to secure insurance coverage, or the
insurance requirements are more than the reasonable risk presented by the proposed
Temporary Cannabis Event.
Section 23-2758. TEMPORARY CANNABIS EVENT REGULATIONS.
A. Location Restrictions.
1.May not be held on City-owned property or school property;
2.If held outdoors, it may not be held on property within 500 feet of a residential
property or a residential treatment facility;
3.May not be held at any single location more than four (4) times in a calendar year.
A.A Temporary Cannabis Event may not be held for longer than three (3) consecutive days;
B.Hours Restrictions: Temporary cannabis events shall only be held between the hours of
7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
C.On-site consumption of edible cannabinoid products and lower-potency hemp products is
permitted.
D.Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 342.40 Subdivision 8(d), on-site consumption of alcohol or
tobacco is not permitted.
E.No person holding a permit for a Temporary Cannabis Event shall allow, and no participant
in a Temporary Cannabis Event shall camp overnight at the location of a Temporary
Cannabis Event, except for a reasonable number of persons required to maintain security.
F.No person shall make or cause to be made any distinctly and loudly audible noise that
Page 77 of 88
8
unreasonably annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace,
safety or welfare of any person, or precludes their enjoyment of property or affects their
property's value. This general prohibition is not limited by the specific restrictions
contained in the City Code, Section 19-1200. If amplified music and/or speaking is
utilized, the following requirements must be met:
1.The applicant must have designated a person affiliated with the Temporary Cannabis
Event that is responsible for monitoring sound levels and has the authority to ensure
that sound does not exceed 80 decibels as measured 50 feet from the property line, or
50 feet from the source, whichever is more restrictive.
2.The amplified music and/or speaking can only be for a period of four hours or less
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. Monday-Friday, and 9:00 a.m. - 9:00
p.m. on weekends and legal holidays. Amplified speakers are required to be
positioned in a way to limit noise to the surrounding residential areas.
3.The applicant must have provided at least two names and valid and current contact
information for on-site contacts at the event that will be able to respond to noise
complaints and ensure that noise generated at the site complies with this chapter.
G.Smoking and vaping are prohibited. No person shall smoke or vape any product, including
cannabis flower, cannabis products, and lower-potency hemp products, or use any
cannabis or lower-potency hemp-related or electric delivery devices at a temporary
cannabis event.
H.Cleanup: Applicant shall, at no cost to the City, immediately clean up, remove, and dispose
of all litter or materials of any kind that are placed or left on the premises because of the
event, or be charged the hourly rate of the employee for cleanup.
I.Notice to Residents: Applicant must provide a 10-day notice to residents within 500 feet
of the event. For events that occur over a course or a route, the applicant shall attempt to
notify the public. The City will provide the applicant with the mailing list. If amplified
music and/or speaking are utilized, such notification must include the name and contact
information of the person on-site during the event that will be able to respond to noise
complaints.
J.All Temporary Cannabis Events must follow all requirements of M.S. §342.01, et seq., and
all city policies related to special events.
Section 23-2759. ENFORCEMENT.
A.Misdemeanor: Any person who violates this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon
conviction, is subject to a fine and imprisonment as prescribed by state law. Each day each
Page 78 of 88
9
violation continues or exists constitutes a separate offense.
B.Administrative fine: Any person who violates this chapter is subject to administrative fines
in an amount set forth in the City fee schedule. Each 24-hour period each violation
continues or exists constitutes a separate offense.
C.Violation of any provision of this Chapter shall also be grounds for revocation of the
Temporary Cannabis Event Permit, denial of any future application for a Temporary
Cannabis Event permit, and action against any City-issued business license held by the
Temporary Cannabis Event Organizer.
Section 23-2760. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall take effect following its passage and publication in accordance with state law.
_____________ __
Date April Graves, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________
City Clerk
(Strikeout indicates matter to be deleted, double-underline indicates new matter.)
Page 79 of 88
Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 23-2750 of
the City Code to
Regulate Temporary Cannabis Events
(Minnesota Statutes Chapter 342)
1st Reading
City Council Meeting, June 23, 2025
Page 80 of 88
Background
2
•The State established the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) to
create statutes and licensing processes. The OCM released the Local
Guide for Adult-Use Cannabis in August 2024 and held the Licensing
Lottery on June 5 for social equity and general applicants.
•City Council approved the Cannabis Business Licensing Ordinance,
which was effective June 7, 2025.
•Staff continues working on ordinance creation and changes to comply
with the OCM statutes and licensing processes.
Page 81 of 88
Background
3
•City Staff and the City Attorney worked together to update the
ordinance to comply with all OCM standards and regulations while
keeping the requirements and language similar to that of the Special
Event permits and requirements.
Page 82 of 88
Licensing Parameters:
4
•Any person or organization desiring to hold a Temporary Cannabis
Event in the City of Brooklyn Center must apply for a permit.
•Application must be filed a minimum of 45 days prior to the event.
•Events with an anticipated attendance of 1,000 people or must apply
a minimum of 90 days prior to the event
•One week (7 days) prior to the event, the organizer must submit proof
of state licensure.
•Organizer must provide proof of liability insurance and automobile
insurance (if required).
Page 83 of 88
Licensing Parameters:
5
•Required documentation:
ü Application/Form
ü Diagram of Event Site
ü Security and Emergency Plan
ü Parking and Traffic Plan
ü Special Services (if any)
ü Sound Amplification (if any)
Page 84 of 88
Licensing Regulations:
6
•May not be held on City-owned property or school property.
•If held outdoors, may not be held on property within 500 feet of a
residential property or treatment facility. (Measurement to be made
from the entrance of each building or tenancy.)
•May not be held at any single location more than four (4) times in a
calendar year or for more than three (3) consecutive days.
•Events can only be held between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.m.
Page 85 of 88
Licensing Regulations:
7
•On-site consumption of edible cannabinoid products and lower-
potency hemp products is permitted; however, on-site consumption
of alcohol or tobacco is not permitted pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec.
342.40, Sub. 8(d).
•Applicant must provide a 10-day notice to residents within 500 feet of
the event.
Page 86 of 88
Proposed Fee Schedule
8
•Cannabis Temporary Event Permit Application Fee - $100.00
Cannabis Enforcement and Violation Fees will
mirror those which was approved for the
Cannabis Retail Registration Fines as shown in
the diagram.
Page 87 of 88
9
Questions?
Page 88 of 88