Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025.08.11 CCM WORK8/11 /25 -1- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WORK SESSION AUGUST 11, 2025 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Work Session called to order by Mayor/President April Graves at 8:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President April Graves and Councilmembers/Commissioners Dan Jerzak, Teneshia Kragness, and Laurie Ann Moore. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, Finance Director Angela Holm, City Attorney Siobhan Tolar, and City Clerk Shannon Pettit. Councilmember/Commissioner Kris Lawrence-Anderson was absent and excused. ACTIVE DISCUSSION ITEMS COMMERCIAL ADDRESSING ORDINANCE DISCUSSION Dr. Edwards explained that this is an ordinance that the Council had passed a year ago, and the Council has since addressed some concerns and questions about how to redo addresses on business and apartment complexes. Dr. Edwards introduced Community Development Director Jesse Anderson to update the Council on the status of this ordinance. Mr. Anderson stated that the Council adopted this ordinance change in November 2024, which required larger addresses based on the height of the structure. The original intent was to improve building identification for emergency response and code enforcement activity and uniformity among building types. City Staff did not start enforcement action until January 2025. Compliance notices were sent to commercial properties that were not in compliance, and properties were given 30 days to comply. Properties that contacted City Staff were able to work out acceptable timelines with the property owner/manager. City Staff informed multi-family properties during the rental license inspection and collaborated with property managers to create a plan of action. Mr. Anderson stated that City Staff opened 74 code enforcement cases, with 44 properties in compliance, and 30 properties have been sent notices. City Staff has paused enforcement after the last Council discussion. City Staff received reports of different options in meeting compliance, such as using Amazon, Etsy, or other online retailers to make new address signs, or making them themselves out of wood, vinyl, or other materials, or using sign companies, which is usually more 8/11/25 -2- costly for the property owner. Cost reports are a couple of hundred dollars to several thousand dollars for the cost of purchasing new signs and hiring someone to install them. Mr. Anderson stated that the City has three buildings that have 12-inch numbers, which, under the current ordinance, would not be sufficient due to the building height. Those three buildings include Public Works, the Police Department, and West Fire. Other buildings are under review until further action is taken by the Council. Mr. Anderson said there have been conversations with both the Police and Fire Chiefs, and their preference is still to have visible numbers on the properties. Mr. Anderson showed the Council pictures of buildings with 24, 18, and 12-inch address numbers. A building that is one story has 12-inch numbers, a two-story building has 18-inch numbers, and higher buildings have 24-inch numbers within the current ordinance. Mr. Anderson highlighted the potential options for the Council. Option one would be to remove the new requirements for address numbers; there are no standards in the building code, and the fire code requires four-inch numbers, which is the same as a single-family home requirement. Option number two requires six-inch numbers, which are slightly larger than what is required for single- family homes and are a common size available at most hardware stores. Option three is to standardize all commercial building address numbers to 12 inches. This option would eliminate the larger size (18 to 24 inches) requirements for multi-story buildings, and note that 12-inch numbers are also readily available online and in stores. Option four would require no changes to the current ordinance, and City Staff would start code enforcement again. Mr. Anderson asked the Council if they had any preferred option or alternative. Councilmember/Commissioner Jerzak said he voted for this ordinance originally and realizes now that his vote was a mistake. He was unaware of the unintended consequences that had occurred, such as considerable expenses to the property owners and difficulty in achieving compliance. He noticed in the updated compliance list that 22 of the properties that are not in compliance are rental properties, and anytime there are expenses incurred on rental properties, those expenses are passed on to the tenants, and he recognized that some tenants can barely afford to pay their rent as it is. He recognized that this was an unnecessary expense in his mind as he looked back on it, and received several complaints as he began to look into it. He noted that the ordinance was well- intended to begin with, to make the commercial building addresses more visible, but as he looked at several older buildings in Brooklyn Center, including churches with address numbers already carved into stone, he realized it would be problematic to meet ordinance compliance, as well as the expenses associated with that would be high. Councilmember/Commissioner Jerzak continued that there is no practical way without some type of expense to accomplish meeting this ordinance, and there is no state building code other than the residential code. He noted that from a public safety perspective, everyone uses GPS now, so they are unaware of any specific examples of serious consequences of the old ordinance. He said he should have known better, as he worked in code enforcement for 15 years, and other than being a minor inconvenience, he had never had an issue identifying a property that he could not overcome. He said he is a firm believer in correcting policies that have caused unintended outcomes or do not justify the costs, and this is one of those examples. He stated this issue needs to be corrected as it 8/11/25 -3- caused unnecessary harm, and would like to hear from other Councilmembers/Commissioners, and depending on their input, he would like to make a motion to accept option one, which returns to the old ordinance and served the City for many years. Councilmember/Commissioner Kragness said Councilmember/Commissioner Jerzak’s statement highlights the importance of making informed decisions before voting on them. She noted that it is unfair for the Council to change the ordinance when a lot of the citizens have already made the changes to follow the ordinance. She noted that if the Council is trying to be consistent, the ordinance cannot change halfway through the process. She said the Council should acknowledge if something is not working and be mindful of that, but it is important for the Council to make informed decisions for this exact reason. She noted that GPS is not a reliable source when it comes to identifying buildings for emergency purposes and favors the larger signs. She said that the Council needs to figure out what to do, stick with that decision, and determine what is going to be best for the City. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore said she is the only sitting Councilmember/Commissioner who did not vote for this ordinance change. She stated she has a picture of a property at Bryant and 55th, which she could not send to the rest of the Council, but the address was done in brick, and it is atrocious. This building is only a four-plex, and she has gotten emails and phone calls complaining about this sign and how gaudy it is. She noted that the Council made this decision based on Staff recommendations, and it sounded great for fire and rescue purposes. The Council went with the Staff's recommendations and did not know the unintended consequences it would have. She stated that she thinks the requirement should be removed, and it is unfortunate that the City was so diligent in getting this code enforced that some of these buildings incurred a property violation, or already got their address numbers in compliance. She asked Mr. Anderson if he could confirm that properties received a violation if the address numbers were not in compliance. She continued that it was startling to hear that some residents have spent thousands to put new address numbers on their buildings to meet this ordinance. She said she would vote for option one to remove the requirements for address numbers. Mr. Anderson said there were maybe two or three properties that received a citation of $75, but for the most part, most places just received letters and phone calls from the City. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore thanked him for that information. Councilmember/Commissioner Kragness asked Mr. Anderson for clarity on how much citizens had to pay in fines. Mr. Anderson said two properties received a level one violation that incurred a $75 citation for the ordinance. Councilmember/Commissioner Kragness asked to date if those fines have been corrected. Mr. Anderson said no, because those fines were cited shortly before the Council told City Staff to pause enforcement. Councilmember/Commissioner Kragness asked if the Council chose to reverse this ordinance and if those fines could be reimbursed to the residents. Mr. Anderson confirmed that it would be an option. Councilmember/Commissioner Kragness said that it would only be fair to reimburse those residents. 8/11/25 -4- Mayor/President Graves asked what would happen if residents asked for the money back that was incurred to meet this ordinance, now that the Council was going to change the ordinance back to its original state. Councilmember/Commissioner Jerzak said he understands Mayor/President Graves' thought process, and if the two properties request to be reimbursed for their citations, that is one thing, and it makes sense. He continued that laws are repealed all the time, so reimbursement for the changes to the addresses is unlikely, and it is unfortunate, but he owns his part in this. He stated that GPS is important, and he has never heard of an incident where he was not able to find a property. He mentioned that years ago, citizens had to take their vehicles in for CO2 testing and spend a lot of money to bring all vehicles into compliance, and then Governor Ventura repealed that law. He understood the concern, and after receiving so many complaints about it, he wanted to pause enforcement until this could be addressed. He noted that with 22 rental properties that would still need to comply with this ordinance, the cost would have to go somewhere, and the landlords would pass that cost on to the tenants. Mayor/President Graves asked Councilmember/Commissioner Kragness what option she would prefer to go with. Councilmember/Commissioner Kragness said she would just go with the majority because it was the least costly. Mayor/President Graves said her preference would have been option three. Councilmember/Commissioner Jerzak asked if this ordinance would be repealed if the Council had to bring back the old ordinance and vote on it, or put it in the Consent Agenda. Dr. Edwards said the old ordinance would have to be brought back. Councilmember/Commissioner Jerzak asked if there would be entries made into IMS because property violations follow the property. He asked that the record be corrected so that it would not show that there were property violations for any of the properties. Mr. Anderson confirmed that those changes would be made, and it would be clear that those cases would be closed. ADJOURNMENT Mayor/President Graves moved and Councilmember/Commissioner Kragness seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 8:19 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.