Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025.08.11 CCM STUDY8/11/25 -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 AUGUST 11, 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 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor April Graves and Councilmembers Dan Jerzak, Teneshia Kragness, and Laurie Ann Moore. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, Interim City Clerk Shannon Pettit, and City Attorney Siobhan Tolar. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson was absent and excused. CITY COUNCIL MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS Mayo Graves discussed the Joint Finance and Council meeting on Monday, August 18, and stated she would have to leave by 7:30 p.m. She said she would also have a schedule conflict for Thursday, August 14, but would try to get a different employee to cover for her. She explained that August 14 is a scheduled training she is hosting for her full-time job. The training is at the North Regional Library, and she is hosting it but not participating. Councilmember Moore asked about the handouts in front of her. She said some handouts pertain to the Work Session items about the Community Center, and a document addressing the ordinance discussion. She asked if these documents were in addition to the previous packets the Council had received. Dr. Edwards explained that a Work Session item would be discussed, and a PowerPoint in the Council's packets contains the same information. He continued that a cover sheet for each item is missing in the packet, which might be confusing. Councilmember Moore stated that she had a work conflict for the August 14 meeting, but would be there. She asked to confirm what time the meeting started. Dr. Edwards responded that the meeting had been shifted to 5:30 p.m. to accommodate her. Councilmember Moore asked if the Council would be opposed to shifting the multiple joint meetings that are scheduled at 5:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., as it is very difficult for her to get those 8/11/25 -2- DRAFT meetings that start at 5:00 p.m. Mayor Graves asked if she meant beginning September 22, and potentially for the last five joint meetings if they could begin at 5:30 p.m. Councilmember Moore said the scheduled August 25 meeting with Dr. Edwards was already scheduled to start at 5:30 p.m., so from the September 22 meeting on she wondered if the Council would be open to joint meetings starting at 5:30 p.m. Mayor Graves said she was fine with that, and asked if other Councilmembers had any issue with starting at 5:30 p.m. No one on the Council objected to starting the joint meetings at 5:30 p.m. instead of 5:00 p.m. Dr. Edwards asked City Attorney Siobhan Tolar for confirmation, but he thought there had to be 72 hours' notice to change meeting times. Ms. Tolar asked for clarification on what they were discussing. Dr. Edwards explained that there is a special meeting on Thursday, August 14, for the Finance Commission and the Council scheduled for 5:30. He asked if, in the event there needed to be changes, there had to be a 72-hour notice. Mayor Graves asked if the rest of the meetings are already scheduled for 5:30 p.m. Dr. Edwards said they are scheduled for 5:00 p.m., and he will make the change to 5:30 p.m. for all of them. CITY MANAGER MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS COMMUNITY CENTER: NEXT STEPS FOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT Dr. Edwards explained that this is an issue that has taken an extensive amount of time over the last few years. He explained that this project is the largest investment by the state in Brooklyn Center. The state awarded Brooklyn Center over $5,000,000 for this project because the City did not have the funding for it. This has not been done before in Brooklyn Center, and he wanted the Council and residents to recognize this significant investment by the state. Dr. Edwards introduced Public Works Director Liz Heyman to present this item and noted that Director Cordell Wiseman and Deputy Director Carissa Goebel from Parks and Recreation also worked extensively on this project. Ms. Heyman stated that she is looking for feedback from the Council on how to invest the $5,100,000 funded by the state. She noted that the current status of the project is that the building was built in the 1960s, and has many structural challenges and mechanical issues. These challenges limit the way members can use the facility; for example, an AC unit failure in September 2024 and $3,500,000 in high-priority deferred maintenance items, with $1,500,000 of that allotted for a new pool liner and deck surface. The costs mentioned also do not include fitness equipment which are beyond its useful life. Ms. Heyman explained that the state funds must be spent to "design and construct the renovation of a recreation center" and that funds must be spent by December 31, 2028. She explained that there does not need to be a one-to-one City match to access the state funds. The City does need to pay for non-eligible tasks like permits, legal services, and engagement work that were done for the 8/11/25 -3- DRAFT project. To date, approximately $446,000 has been spent on design and engineering, and $377,000 of that is for eligible tasks and $69,000 for non-eligible tasks. Ms. Heyman explained investment scenarios, with one option being deferred maintenance plus a small upgrade of existing space that would use all of the state funding, plus any non-eligible costs associated with the project. There would be no bonding with this scenario and no levy impact. She explained that there was a second scenario that included two basketball courts and would have involved matching the state funding. The second scenario came in at $17,000,000 with $12,000,000 worth of bonding for the City. Ms. Heyman continued that in scenario one, deferred maintenance and upgrade to an existing space, that maintenance would include pool area fixes, partial roof fixes, chiller or A/C unit repair, and upgrades to the sauna. This would leave $400,000 to $500,000 left for a small upgrade to an existing space, like locker rooms. The total investment for the deferred maintenance and upgrade would be $5,300,000, which would include hard costs of $4,000,000, which pertains to items like the air conditioning unit, the roof, and the pool liner. Soft costs consist of design, engineering, and project management costs, which come in at $863,000. This still leaves the City with a contingency budget of $437,000 with roughly $100,000 in non-eligible costs. Ms. Heyman explained scenario two, which involved two basketball courts plus deferred maintenance. This is the most expensive option, with a total investment of $17,000,000, with $12,000,000 in bonding. Ms. Heyman explained that there would be impacts on operating costs with this scenario, as well as impacts to the levy if the City were going to go with this type of spending. Ms. Heyman discussed community feedback that was received back in 2021 about the scenarios, with the majority of feedback preferring scenario two to meet more of the community's goals. She highlighted that there is an option between scenario one and scenario two. This option would utilize a multi-use bond and add on to the bonding used for the water utility projects in 2025. The Council would determine the amount added onto the bond, and Ms. Heyman noted that adding $1,000,000 to the bond would have a 0.5 percent impact on the levy, which translates to a $9.00 increase on the median home value. Ms. Heyman continued that adding $5,000,000 to the bonding amount would result in a 2.3 percent levy impact and $42.00 to the median home value. This bonding could be used for potential renovation areas like the locker rooms and bathrooms, as well as updates to existing spaces to create new spaces. Ms. Heyman highlighted next steps for this project and noted that Public Works would look to the Council for direction on the investment scenario and needs a final decision by the fall of 2025 to make sure that the Department can hit the 2028 deadline for project delivery. Public Works will be working with its project management team to finalize the project scope and create a plan to cover the costs that are not eligible for reimbursement. Depending on the project scope, additional design work may need to be done, and the final project delivery method must be decided. She explained that the City might be working with one overall contractor or directly with vendors to try to save funding. Public Works would have to finalize the grant agreement with the state and 8/11/25 -4- DRAFT finalize the project schedule. The project schedule would determine when the best time of year would be to shut down the pool for work, as well as the pool deck and sauna, and begin construction at the least impact time for residents. Ms. Heyman stated that her Department is looking for Council feedback on the direction that Public Works should go, so they can move forward and meet this deadline. Mayor Graves thanked Ms. Heyman for her presentation and asked for questions or comments from Councilmembers. Councilmember Moore said she did not get this presentation until today, so she did not have much time to review everything and apologized for that. She asked about the money allotted for non- eligible costs, what those are considered, and where that money would come from. Ms. Heyman said Public Works would work with the Finance Director and other City Staff to figure out where those funds would come from, but one option would be to take funds from the Capital Improvement fund. Councilmember Kragness asked for clarification on the non-eligible costs being either $100,000 or $69,000. Councilmember Moore said one page in the packet shows $69,000, and another page highlights an additional $100,000 for non-eligible costs. Councilmember Jerzak stated he knew the pool needed to be repaired and would be in favor of utilizing scenario one, where deferred maintenance is the primary focus. He noted that if funds are taken from the Capital Improvement fund, then maintenance somewhere else must be deferred as a result. He stated that over time, the City has deferred a lot of maintenance, and the longer maintenance is put off, the more expensive it becomes. He understands there are priorities, and he is grateful for the grant money that the City received with no strings attached. Mayor Graves noted that a lot of City officials went to bat to get that money. Councilmember Jerzak acknowledged that Mayor Graves and Director Anderson both worked very hard to get those funds for the City. He stated he supports scenario number one because improvements are within the City's means. He noted there are a lot of other issues the City has to deal with, such as the Golf Course. Mayor Graves stated that she anticipated what the overall consensus of the Council would be, and she does not want to increase any of the taxes on City residents, which is why she thought the local area sales tax was a good option, but it did not pass legislation. She stated she might consider the multi-use bond, but she does not think there would be enough agreement on the Council to do that. She wondered if there was a possibility of going after the local area sales tax again, despite the fact that it got defeated by a thousand votes in the last election; she thought there were not enough people who knew about it ahead of time. Mayor Graves said she knew some officials were actively campaigning against the idea of the local area sales tax, which may have also contributed to it not passing legislation. She acknowledged that the Council would need a full consensus to even go after a local area sales tax option, and she has accepted that the idea will have to wait until attitudes on the Council shift. She said that, as a result, Public Works has its answer; the Council would agree to defer maintenance only, also known as scenario one. 8/11/25 -5- DRAFT Councilmember Moore said that she was not actively campaigning against the local area sales tax idea and wanted to clarify if anyone thought that she was. She noted that this is not the time to add more fees to the residents. She noted that she has been very vocal in budget meetings about the fact that there are areas within the City that have duplication, services with no outcomes, no data, and no results. She stated that even looking at the $1,000,000 in multi-use bonding is not something that the Council should pass on to the residents. Mayor Graves told Ms. Heyman that those comments further clarified where the Council stands on their decision, but asked Councilmember Kragness if she had anything else to add. Councilmember Kragness said she has always supported the Community Center, and she recognizes the position that the City is in, and thinks the youth and community that prioritize health and wellness deserve the Community Center, and it is unfortunate that the City is unable to provide that resource to the community. Dr. Edwards asked for clarity on whether the Council's consensus is to move forward with scenario one. Mayor Graves confirmed that Dr. Edwards was correct. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Graves adjourned the Study Session at 7:00 p.m.