Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025.11.24 CCP REGULARCITY COUNCIL MEETING City Hall Council Chambers November 24, 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 - Jerzak 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 - Motion to approve the following minutes: •October 27, 2025, Study Session •October 27, 2025, Regular Session •October 27, 2025, EDA/Work Session •November 10, 2025, Study Session •November 10, 2025, Regular Session •November 10, 2025, EDA/Work Session b.Approval of Licenses - Motion to approve the licenses as presented. Page 1 of 378 c. A Resolution of Support for an Application to Minnesota Brownfields Gap Financing Program by DurDur Bakery and Grocery Inc, for 5951 Earle Brown Drive for Environmental Assessment - Motion to approve a resolution of support for an application to Minnesota Brownfields Gap Financing Program for DurDur Bakery and Grocery Inc, for 5951 Earle Brown Drive for environmental assessment. d. LOGIS Joint Funding Agreement - Motion to approve the Joint Funding Agreement with LOGIS e. Resolution Establishing Interest Rate for 2026 Special Assessments - Motion to approve a resolution establishing interest rate for 2026 special assessments. f. Resolution Establishing 2026 Street and Storm Drainage Special Assessment Rates - Motion to approve a resolution establishing the 2026 street and storm drainage special assessment rates for street and utility improvement projects. g. Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids, Improvement Project No. 2025-10, Water Treatment Plant Catwalk - Motion to approve the attached resolution approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids, Improvement Project No. 2025-10, Water Treatment Plant Catwalk. h. Resolution Approving an Interfund Loan from the Storm Drainage Utility Fund to the Water Utility Fund - Motion to approve a Resolution Authorizing an Interfund Loan from the Storm Drainage Utility Fund to the Water Utility Fund. i. Resolution Authorizing Closing of the Water Treatment Plant Construction Fund to the Water Utility Operating Fund - Motion to approve a Resolution Closing the Water Treatment Plant Construction Fund to the Water Utility Operating Fund. j. Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Letter of Engagement with a Public Accounting Firm for Audit Services - Motion to approve a Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Letter of Engagement with a Public Accounting Firm for Audit Services. k. Resolution to Act as the Legal Sponsor for the Brooklyn Center Health, Culture, and Recreation Community Center Project, as Contained in House File (Hf) No. 670 - Motion to approve a resolution to Act as the Legal Sponsor for the Brooklyn Center; Health, Culture, and Recreation Community Center Project, as Contained in House File (Hf) No. 670. Page 2 of 378 l. Brooklyn Center 2026 Legislative Priorities - Staff seeks City Council approval of the Brooklyn Center 2026 Legislative Priorities. 7. Presentations/Proclamations/Recognitions/Donations 8. Public Hearings a. Resolution Ordering Improvements and Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Improvement Project No. 2026-01, 02, 03, & 04 Humboldt Avenue (CR 57) Reconstruction - Motion to approve a resolution ordering the Humboldt Avenue (CR 57) Reconstruction Project No. 2026-01, 02, 03, & 04 and authorizing preparation of project plans and specifications. b. Resolution Ordering Improvements and Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Improvement Project No. 2026-06, 07, 08, & 09, John Martin Drive Improvement Project - Motion to approve a Resolution ordering the Improvement Project No. 2026- 06, 07, 08, & 09, John Martin Drive Improvement Project, and authorizing preparation of project plans and specifications. 9. Planning Commission Items 10. Council Consideration Items a. Resolution Awarding the Sale of $6,180,000 General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A Fixing Their Form and Specifications; Directing Their Execution and Delivery; and Providing for Their Payment - Motion to Approve a Resolution Awarding the Sale of $6,180,000 General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A, Fixing Their Form and Specifications; Directing Their Execution and Delivery; and Providing for Their Payment. 11. Council Report 12. Adjournment Page 3 of 378 COUNCIL MEETING DECORUM FOR THE PUBLIC 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 City Council has established 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. 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 4 of 378 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 11/24/2025 TO: City Council FROM: THROUGH: BY: Kat Ellgren, Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes Requested Council Action: - Motion to approve the following minutes: • October 27, 2025, Study Session • October 27, 2025, Regular Session • October 27, 2025, EDA/Work Session • November 10, 2025, Study Session • November 10, 2025, Regular Session • November 10, 2025, EDA/Work Session Background: Budget Issues: Inclusive Community Engagement: Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2025.10.27 SS Draft 2. 2025.10.27 CC Draft 3. 2025.10.27 WS Draft 4. 2025.11.10 SS DRAFT 5. 2025.11.10 CC DRAFT 6. 2025.11.10 WS DRAFT Page 5 of 378 10/27/25 -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 OCTOBER 27, 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 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor April Graves, Councilmembers Teneshia Kragness, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Dan Jerzak, and Laurie Ann Moore. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, Planning Manager Ginny McIntosh, City Clerk Shannon Pettit, and City Attorney Siobhan Tolar. CITY COUNCIL MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS Councilmember Jerzak said he had two corrections to the minutes: the ages quoted were supposed to be 14 to 18, not 4 to 18. The other was a misspelling of the word Otsego. Councilmember Kragness said she had a minor correction from October 13, on page 41 of 546, in the third paragraph; the word "seconded" should have been added to approve the motion. Councilmember Moore said she will have comments on some other items, but after reviewing the weekly email, the priorities listed were discussion items related to determining purchasing policy. She stated that two years ago, she was on the Finance Commission and had an unfounded complaint filed against her. She stated that two years ago, she and her fellow Commissioners presented a purchasing policy that was never acted on. She noted that she would like to see the purchasing policy as a Council agenda item before the end of the year. Councilmember Moore continued that she would like some clarification around a part-time Customer Service Representative position that was open. She asked if this position was being added for the end of 2025 or proposed for 2026, and the Council had not heard about it. Councilmember Moore noted that she was very ill and missed the last meeting, and wanted to thank the Fire Department, Chief Berg, and the Inspectors for coming up with a comprehensive list for food truck inspections. Page 6 of 378 10/27/25 -2- DRAFT Mayor Graves asked Dr. Edwards if he had any information regarding the Purchasing Policy. Dr. Edwards stated that the only item discussed by the Finance Commission is the Purchase Policy section related to P-card purchases, which will be presented to the Council in November. He noted that the open position Councilmember Moore mentioned is not new and is already accounted for in the 2025 budget. Councilmember Moore asked if the First Amendment Retaliation talking point is being rescheduled, as it was taken off the mentioned priorities. Dr. Edwards confirmed that the date to discuss that item is to be determined. Mayor Graves said she thought there was some clarity around that discussion when in conversations about the Council’s Code of Respect. Councilmember Moore asked if the Purchasing Policy would come before the Council after the Finance Commission has consulted with Finance Director Angela Holm. Dr. Edwards responded that the only new portion of the Purchasing Policy is the section regarding P-cards, as there was previously no policy regarding credit card use. Mayor Graves said Councilmember Moore’s question was regarding whether there would be a discussion about P-cards included in the presentation regarding the Purchasing Policy. Dr. Edwards confirmed that there would be a discussion around the new P-card policy. Councilmember Moore said there was extensive conversation about purchasing limits, and asked Dr. Edwards to confirm with Ms. Holm that all of that would be discussed as well. Dr. Edwards noted that he would verify everything with Ms. Holm and would report back to the Council. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson said her expectation was a complete overhaul of the Purchasing Policy because it has not been looked at intensely in decades. Mayor Graves said it would be beneficial to hear the game plan for the Finance Commission's review of the larger policy, as well as the timeline. Dr. Edwards said he attended the last Finance Commission meeting and spoke to them regarding that, and said the Commission cannot get through the entire policy in one sitting and will plan on going over the policy in sections over the next year. Mayor Graves said there is always the option of individual Councilmembers reviewing and bringing forward a section to the Council for discussion. Dr. Edwards said some portions of the Purchasing Policy are operational policy, and some are legislative policy. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked if it was possible to get a fresh copy of the Purchasing Policy. Dr. Edwards confirmed he could get that for them. Councilmember Kragness added that it does take a significant amount of time to go through the entire policy, while coming up with something in writing addressing P-cards, and addressing what came up in the audit. She noted that this is why the priority shifted from the original request to address what was in the audit to getting a policy in place. Councilmember Moore said she would like to remind the Council that two years ago, she was part of the Finance Commission and went through the Purchasing Policy at that time in great detail. Page 7 of 378 10/27/25 -3- DRAFT She stated she is not in favor of waiting until the Finance Commission, which is an advisory board, has a quorum to make recommendations to the Council. She noted that she would like Dr. Edwards to talk to Ms. Holm and look at what the recommendations were two years ago, and bring that forward. She continued that the Council is a steward of the taxpayer dollars, and she is not willing to wait until there is a quorum of the Finance Commission, or any Commission for that matter, because the Council is the elected representative. Councilmember Jerzak stated he would like a date assigned to bring what has been completed of the Purchasing Policy to the Council. Mayor Graves reiterated that Dr. Edwards said the presentation of the Purchasing Policy was going to be in November. She noted that part of the materials given to the Council prior to that presentation should include the entire policy for review, which Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson already requested. CITY MANAGER MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS NORTHSTAR YOUTH ACADEMY COUNCIL YOUTH DIALOGUE Dr. Edwards explained that the NorthStar Youth Academy is a youth leadership program that took place last week in Brooklyn Center. He noted that one of the group’s requests was to engage in dialogue with the Council and learn what it is like to be an elected official. He said this would be similar to what the Council has done in the past on Youth Government Day. He stated that if the Council were interested, this would take place on November 10, starting at 5:30 p.m. Councilmember Kragness said she thought this was a great idea and would be in favor. Councilmember Jerzak stated he thinks it is valuable for the exchange and potential future civil engagement. Councilmember Moore noted that for this event to happen from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. would cut into the Council's Work and Study Session time, and anything that needs to be discussed would have to be tacked on to the end of the meeting. Dr. Edwards responded that, typically, any Study Session issues revolve around issues that the Council would like to raise, and Work Session items would not be pushed back but would still happen at the end of the meeting, as they are always intended to. Councilmember Moore said it would push back half an hour of items that could be discussed during the Study Session. Dr. Edwards confirmed that she is correct. Dr. Edwards said if there were issues that the Council wanted to discuss during the Study Session, this youth group would eat into that time. Councilmember Moore asked what the hour with the youth group would entail and if that had been received in any of the communications with them. Dr. Edwards said it would consist of a round table and dialogue with the group. He noted that the group consists of 13 youth and would probably take an hour to get through two to three questions. Page 8 of 378 10/27/25 -4- DRAFT Councilmember Moore thanked Dr. Edwards for the information and for wanting to get this meeting done right after they finished their event. Councilmember Jerzak suggested the youth group provide the Council with a list of questions or items that they would like to discuss ahead of time. Dr. Edwards said he can provide that suggestion, and if the Council has any questions for the youth group, they could be provided to them as well. AUDIT PROPOSAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Dr. Edwards explained that this item is centered around a recommendation for an Audit Firm to approve. He noted that there is a process and Review Committee that is made up of a few Finance Commission members, Councilmembers, as well as the Finance Director and the City Manager. He asked if the Council would like to identify which Councilmembers would like to be on the Review Committee in order to get the process of finding a new City Audit Firm started. Mayor Graves asked who the Commission members are who volunteered to be on the Review Committee. Dr. Edwards responded that the Chair and Vice Chair of the Finance Commission have volunteered. Mayor Graves said she would like to make the recommendation for Councilmember Kragness and Councilmember Jerzak to be on the Review Committee. Mayor Graves asked if there were any objections. No one on the Council wished to object. Dr. Edwards noted that the Work Session presenter was prepared to present now if time permitted. Mayor Graves agreed that the presentation should happen during the Study Session. Dr. Edwards noted that the Bonding Tour, which is scheduled on October 30 at 4:30 p.m. at the Opportunity Site, with the Senate Bonding Committee, is a great opportunity to showcase Brooklyn Center. He stated the focus of the visit is infrastructure. Mayor Graves said she has already asked Councilmember Kragness to attend in her place, as she has a scheduling conflict. She encouraged other Councilmembers to attend to show support as well. Councilmember Jerzak asked for a calendar invite for that event. Dr. Edwards confirmed he would send a calendar invite. HOTEL ZONING DISCUSSION Dr. Edwards stated that the Council is aware that Brooklyn Center has had some challenges in the past regarding extended stay hotels regarding zoning. He stated that in order to support and help hotels moving forward, there needs to be a conversation regarding zoning, and later, a discussion Page 9 of 378 10/27/25 -5- DRAFT will happen about the hotel ordinance itself. Dr. Edwards introduced Planning Manager Ginny McIntosh to present this item. Ms. McIntosh noted that most of the hotels in Brooklyn Center are centrally located in the City on either side of I-94 and I-694 off Freeway Boulevard, James Circle, and Earl Brown Drive. She noted that there are 10 hotels and all of them, with the exception of three, are located within a planned unit development (PUD). She said that when referencing a planned unit development, each property is set up very specifically for the development area. She noted that the Fairfield Inn and Embassy Suites have shared factors but are separate PUDs. She explained that other businesses like Motel 6, Suburban Studios, and an office building are in a PUD together in that area. Ms. McIntosh gave some history and context about the hotels in the area that were devastatingly impacted by COVID-19. For 2025, the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro Hospitality Investment Forecast, which is put out each year, stated that fewer than 250 hotel rooms were under construction at the start of 2025. This is the lowest number of hotel rooms that the hotel industry has seen in the metro area since 2010. Hotel occupancy rates are expected to rise, but will still be below pre-pandemic levels. She noted that the current decline is attributed to declining Canadian tourism, inflation, tariffs, economic uncertainty, and increased labor costs throughout the industry. This not only includes hotels, but also restaurants and other entertainment industries. For 2025, the average daily rate for hotel rooms was $136; for Brooklyn Center, the average daily rate is less than half that, coming in at $50 to $60 a night. Ms. McIntosh explained the zoning aspect for hotels in Brooklyn Center. She noted that PUDs were established in the City in the 1990s as a means to promote flexibility in land development and redevelopment. Until 1990, certain uses like restaurants and hotels were not acknowledged uses in the City's former I-1 Industrial Park district. This area lies north of I-94 and I-694 and on either side of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard, where Baymont Inn, Comfort Inn, Country Inn & Suites, Suburban Studios, and Motel 6 are located. She noted that a concern at the time was that certain uses were inappropriate for development on certain I-1 properties, and a special (now conditional) use permit did not protect the interests and concerns of the City. At that time, PUDs were considered an appropriate path for considering non-industrial or service and office use type buildings. Ms. McIntosh stated that the Fairfield Inn and Suites and Embassy Suites are both zoned Planned Unit Development/Service-Office (PUD/C1A) District and are located near the City’s Heritage Center. The underlying C1A District allowed for service and office uses as well as “transient lodging and associated uses.” This C1A District was retired in January 2023. The City's new Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) contains provisions under Section 35-2103 (General District Regulations) that allow PUDs in existence prior to adoption of the UDO to remain there and are subject to all prior zoning regulations, agreements, conditions, and standards applicable to the PUD. Page 10 of 378 10/27/25 -6- DRAFT Ms. McIntosh continued that historically, PUDs in Brooklyn Center were narrowly tailored to allow for a particular use and that use only. In most cases, the City approvals and any recorded PUD agreements, or Declarations of Covenants and Restrictions (DCR), typically contain provisions that require an interested party to apply for and secure either an amendment to the PUD plan and conditions approved by City Council, or a rezoning of the subject property that allows for the requested use. She noted that Super eight, Travelodge, and Quality Inn are located off James Circle North and are not located within PUDs. They are zoned a business mixed-use (MX-B) district, which effectively replaced the I1 district, but with more flexibility. Ms. McIntosh stated that the MX-B District allows for live or work dwellings, libraries and art galleries, nonresidential education uses such as ALCs, business and trade schools, medical and health uses, animal hospitals, commercial urban agriculture, brewpubs, micro-wineries, micro- distilleries, eating establishments, indoor recreation fitness centers and clubs, grocery stores, manufacturing, wholesale trade, artisan production and sales, and auto repair shops. City Staff would estimate that the majority of the City's hotels are no longer functioning in their originally intended capacity and have transitioned to alternate uses such as temporary housing for homeless populations, unofficial shelters, and care facilities. These shifts can be attributed to factors such as prolonged economic challenges, declining tourism, government contracts, and the demand to house vulnerable populations. Ms. McIntosh explained that following communication with the Brooklyn Center Police Department, it was discovered that some of the hotels are the largest contributors to the City’s calls for service each month, surpassing other property types like apartment complexes and commercial areas. In fact, two of the City’s hotels rank in the top five addresses for calls for service from the Police Department in the last year. Hotels are a key part of any City’s tourism infrastructure, economic vitality, and overall image. When hotels become associated with criminal activity or develop a perception that they are unsafe, it deters visitors and reduces tourism and business revenue. This association can also negatively impact the ability of a City to court new developments and businesses. Ms. McIntosh stated that Community Development has had discussions with people who are interested in developing a business in the City, and they have voiced major concerns about doing so because of the hotels. She noted that City Staff has been in communication with some individuals over the past months, who have expressed interest in converting the usage of some of the City's hotels to non-hotel uses. Some hotel operators have also expressed their interest in selling. She noted that, as most of the City's hotels are located in PUDs that allow for no other use without amending the approvals and likely a rezoning of the property. She noted that at some point, with reduced occupancy and trouble staying afloat, property owners will want to sell. She stated that City Staff are requesting feedback from the Council for guidance on what to say to property owners who call and ask what can be done. She asked if the Council was open to exploring the conversion of existing hotels to non-hotel uses. Mayor Graves said she would open this question up for discussion with the Council and thanked Ms. McIntosh for her presentation. Page 11 of 378 10/27/25 -7- DRAFT Councilmember Jerzak said he would not be open to any of these conversions because he does not believe the City has the bandwidth or capacity to responsibly handle some of the issues that might come, including staff, Police, Fire, and other prevention aspects. He noted that generally if use changes, the property owner subleases the property to non-profits, which can come with additional problems regarding enforcement. He stated he is compassionate to the owners’ plight, but in his experience, the biggest benefit of changing usage of a property goes to the owners who want to bail on the property. He noted he would not be in favor of conversions of existing hotels, and for any specific uses, suggested he would have to review them one at a time. He said that these hotels came in zoned as hotels, and that is what they should remain. Councilmember Moore asked to clarify the three hotels that are not already zoned as the MX-B District. Ms. McIntosh stated that of the 10 hotels in the City, three are zoned MX-B and are off James Circle. Those three hotels are Super 8, Travelodge, and Quality Inn, and are the only ones that are zoned to allow for other uses. She explained that the other seven hotels are in their PUDs and are locked in to hotel-only use. Councilmember Moore said the Council has discussed acquiring, selling, and demolishing properties before, but the City has plenty of land that has not been developed. She asked if there was some sort of cost to acquire the seven properties that are limited to hotel-only use. Ms. McIntosh said to her knowledge, not all of the hotels have reached out to the City regarding selling. Councilmember Moore said it is important not to piecemeal together an approach in terms of hotels and rezoning different areas to accommodate. She asked if the Council opts not to allow zoning conversions, will there continue to be challenges with these hotels. Ms. McIntosh said, as far as Community Development goes, she wants to be on the offensive with this. Ms. McIntosh noted the Department has not heard from all the hotels but is aware of the challenges that the hotels are having, and when someone does call, she would like to have some type of response. She noted that, inevitably, some of the hotel owners in the area will eventually sell them, especially the lower-flag hotels like Super 8, because they will run out of other options. Ms. McIntosh stated that the calls she has received regarding potential uses for different locations include multi-family residential with commercial, senior assisted living facilities, drug rehab treatment centers, and a semi-truck stop and gas station. Ms. McIntosh said when City Staff gets those calls, they have to tell the owner that the PUD only allows that property to be a hotel, but that is why this conversation is happening to see if the Council would ever consider those properties to be allowed to be something else. She noted that at some point, no matter how badly the Council may want it to be a hotel, the reality might be that the property is not working as a hotel, and the owner may then need to offload it. Ms. McIntosh continued that if the property is offloaded to a new buyer, and that buyer does not check on the PUD and use for the property, then the City is in a whole different situation. Ms. McIntosh noted that each building is different and its use would be conducive to certain uses. She stated that a lot of the hotels that are extended stays or suites are of interest, because of the extra plumbing that would make an easy conversion for multi-family use. Page 12 of 378 10/27/25 -8- DRAFT Councilmember Moore asked about not expanding the PUD use, if the Council is limiting the ability for the owner to sell the property. She noted the same problem with the Opportunity Site, and that it has not sold and has been sitting for many years. She stated that if changing the zoning would help the property sell, then she would be in support of a change, or at least a presentation on what the best zoning would be in order to sell the property. Councilmember Kragness said she preferred the idea of the hotels remaining hotels, but recognizes that times have changed. She noted that she believes there are enough empty spaces in the City to accommodate the nuances of other options. She said she was not in favor of changing the existing hotels, but believes there do need to be changes, and there are resources to make those changes. Ms. McIntosh stated that the City is oversaturated in hotels right now, and the occupancies are not penciling in. She noted that the hotels that do have occupancy at 100 percent are not for hotel use. She said the other question to consider is if some of these hotels are on redevelopment sites, and if the Council would be open to that, or if all hotels need to stay zoned as hotels. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson said she could not get behind the whole barrage of ideas that are out there. She stated she understands the industry has changed, but she thinks City Staff can be more creative and bring some other options to the Council to better fill those spaces. Ms. McIntosh asked if a hotel owner is asking for a conversion of use, and if the Council would prefer it come as a concept review first. Mayor Graves said she thought that would be a wise way to move forward. Mayor Graves noted that she recognizes the struggles of some of the hotels that are present in the City. She stated there does need to be some type of flexibility so the City does not end up with empty hotel buildings that can never be sold as anything else. Mayor Graves continued that she has empathy for the people who do not have a place to stay and are transitioning out of the hospital and need somewhere to go, as seen before by the Council. She noted that the Council needs to think critically about how to support services in the City. Mayor Graves said she was open to the potential of multi-family commercial use of these hotels because she likes the idea of bringing in more mixed-use developments that bring in people and business. She noted that she thought the Council might be more open to that, too, versus the concept of a drug rehab treatment facility, which would require the City to help pay for it. Mayor Graves reiterated that the City is capable of putting in place organizations that can do a good job and help those who need services to get them back on their feet. She said the Council is not against supporting people who are in need, especially if there are well-managed organizations in place to do the work. Councilmember Jerzak stated he likes the idea of the concept plan review, which would allow the Council to review ideas for the hotels and not automatically dismiss them. Mayor Graves asked Ms. McIntosh if that gave her enough clarity to move forward. Ms. McIntosh said it gives her some direction, as she normally receives calls about the hotel use, as the owner is trying to close the deal to sell the property, and each property is so unique. Mayor Graves said Page 13 of 378 10/27/25 -9- DRAFT Ms. McIntosh could propose that the hotel owners put together a pitch for the Council to see if the Council would be supportive. Ms. McIntosh said she does not want to bring forward a ton of concept reviews if she does not need to. She explained that oftentimes, if the use is not currently permitted in that PUD or there is a restriction or covenant on that property, then the buyer does not want to spend the money, especially when architectural plans or civil plans cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. She noted that having the initial concept review to get a feeling from the Council would be helpful. Dr. Edwards said that at some point, the Council will have to establish a broad policy for zoning that would impact everyone, instead of hearing concept plans and treating the issue individually. Mayor Graves said City Staff could also come to the Council with potential uses to get feedback from the Council that way, as well, instead of waiting for concept plans to come forward. Ms. McIntosh said the majority of people who are calling about these properties have a very specific alternative use in mind. She said it would be helpful to have a list of uses and redevelopment options that the Council would be comfortable with, in order for her Department to have those conversations with the individual or broker who calls. Once that individual or broker has that information, they can then choose to bring forward a concept review for the Council, if that is something they want to pursue. Councilmember Moore said she does not want the Council to restrict what can and cannot come to the City, which is why she is in favor of changing the zoning regulations. She noted that if the state had not tripped over itself while legalizing marijuana, maybe Opportunity Site One could have been used for an indoor cannabis farm. She continued that it would be great if citizens could live, play, and work right in Brooklyn Center instead of having to go somewhere else. She said different parts of Brooklyn Center have become a wasteland, and she does not want to inhibit the opportunity for new businesses to come because the City is stuck with old zoning regulations. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Graves adjourned the Study Session at 6:55 p.m. Page 14 of 378 10/27/25 -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 OCTOBER 27, 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 7:00p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Mayor April Graves, Councilmembers Dan Jerzak, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Teneshia Kragness, and Laurie Ann Moore. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, Public Works Director Liz Heyman, Public Works Planner Corey Anderson, Community Development Director Jesse Anderson, Housing and Community Standards Manager Xiong Thao, 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. Lori B. stated she serves on the board for the Daunte and Kobe “No More Names” Initiative, and today would have been Daunte Wright’s 25th birthday. She stated that she was present to discuss traffic stop reforms and why they are important. On October 15, the Hennepin County Attorney's Office adopted a new policy limiting prosecutions from non-public safety traffic stops. Traffic stops like these could include a traffic stop for a broken taillight and actively harm the community, especially for people of color. These stops fail to uncover contraband about 99 percent of the time. In Minneapolis, guns are found in less than half of one percent of these traffic stops, and do not make citizens safer, but deepen racial disparities. Lori B. noted that when Ramsey County reduced these stops in 2021, total traffic stops decreased by 86 percent, and stops of Black drivers dropped by 66 percent, with no decline in public safety. Fewer traffic stops mean police can focus on more serious crimes like gun violence and domestic abuse. She asked why this policy could not be implemented in Brooklyn Center. Lori B. stated that under the new Tiger Task Force, traffic stops are up by 180 percent. She continued that the City needs to invest in detectives who solve crimes, and smart policing. Page 15 of 378 10/27/25 -2- DRAFT Mayor Graves asked Lori B. to conclude her statement, as her time was up. Lori B. continued that Daunte Wright should be here today, at 25 years old, full of life and possibility. She said the citizens owe it to him and the entire community to make sure no more names are added to the list. She thanked the Council for listening to her. Mayor Graves thanked Lori for speaking. Katie W. introduced herself to the Council. She stated she is the mother of Daunte Wright, who was killed during a traffic stop four years ago. She stated she is a co-founder of the Daunte and Kobe “No More Names” initiative, and serves as a Committee member on CopWatch. She stated she was present at the meeting to address the unnecessary traffic stops happening in Brooklyn Center. She said the Brooklyn Center Police Chief put together a Tiger Task Force, which focuses on traffic stops and theft in the City's business district. She noted that the name "Tiger" means stealth and abolish, and that is what it feels like. She said the Tiger Task Force is designed to stalk and target, not to protect and serve. She noted that traffic stops are up 180 percent, and people of color are being stopped at more than 80 percent in the City. She noted that the individuals who are stopped are stopped for minor traffic violations, the same as her son's, such as air fresheners hanging from their mirrors. She noted that these types of stops should no longer be conducted in Brooklyn Center, as they are done due to profiling. Katie W. said the City promised her after Daunte’s death that the City would be able to move forward, but with this task force in place, it is not able to move forward and is not keeping the community safe. Mayor Graves thanked Katie W. for speaking. Amity said she was there to say Daunte’s name again and is the mother of Kobe Dimock-Heisler. She noted that she, too, is part of the Daunte and Kobe "No More Names" initiative and said there was supposed to be mental health reform in her son’s honor, but they are having a difficult time finding funding for it, and nothing has happened yet. She noted that in Dante Wright's honor, nothing has been done by the City. She stated that cities around Brooklyn Center are passing laws that are doing exactly what they have been trying to do to prevent these tragedies. She said she also came to remind the Council about the permanent committee and its timeline. Mayor Graves responded that applications should be opening for that committee in December. Amity thanked Mayor Graves for the information. Emma P. introduced herself and stated that she was part of the Reinvestigation Work Group, a volunteer team that examines statistics on police violence in the state of Minnesota. She noted she is also a law student and a fellow with the American Bar Association's Legal Education and Police Practices Consortium. She continued that she understands why the Council may want to defend Brooklyn Center’s Police Department and what they are doing with the Tiger Task Force, as it is supposed to reduce crime in the City. She said that the Tiger Task Force was formed to police retail theft, moving violations, and curfew violations, but when looking at the Hennepin County Attorney's office, and what has been received in terms of cases from the Police Department, only four percent of cases relate to shoplifting. Most cases received are related to death, domestic violence, gun possession, drug, and assault cases. She noted that a third of cases submitted by the Police Department are not charged, which means that the Attorney’s office is not getting enough information from officers to follow through on prosecuting the crimes that are submitted. Emma Page 16 of 378 10/27/25 -3- DRAFT P. stated that the Council was told the Tiger Task Force was necessary to curtail shoplifting, violations, and curfews, but the ends do not justify the means. She said the outcome of the Tiger Task Force violates constitutional rights and erodes trust, when 89 percent of what the Tiger Task Force does is traffic stops. She stated that the majority of these stops are for equipment violations, not moving violations. Mayor Graves notified Emma P. that her allotted time was up and asked her to wrap up her statements. Emma P. continued that when teens in Brooklyn Center, ages 14 to 15, have been stopped by the Police Department while riding their bikes, they were searched, questioned, and told they fit a description; this behavior continues to erode trust with the Police Department, which makes citizens not want to report crimes. She reiterated that the Council needs to establish a permanent committee to prevent such incidents from happening and to refocus the Tiger Task Force. Keith M. said he was there to address the Tiger Task Force and understand their purpose. He said he looked up what their purpose was, and it stated that the Tiger Task Force's focus was on complex issues regarding specialized knowledge and operating autonomously. He continued that he read an article by the Chief of Police in CCX media that mentioned a huge drop in violent crime, and attributed this drop to the deployment of the Tiger Task Force. He said that at the end of the article, the Chief revealed the true reason behind the formation of specialized teams with no constraints was to address retail theft, curfew, and traffic violations. He said his concern is that the black population makes up 34 percent of the City's population but accounts for 52 percent of the traffic stops. He noted that 22 percent of the stops involved white people, who make up 31 percent of the City's population. Keith M. said he had questions about having a specialized team for traffic stops and why poor people are being arrested for shoplifting, but bosses are not being arrested for wage theft. He asked if armed officers are the most cost-effective way to deal with traffic law enforcement, and what percentage of the police budget is devoted to traffic enforcement, including overtime for court appearances. Mayor Graves notified Keith M. that he was over his allotted speaking time. Keith M. thanked the Council for hearing his remarks. Mayor Graves thanked everyone for coming in and addressing the Council, and wished Daunte Wright a happy heavenly birthday. Mayor Graves moved, and Councilmember Moore seconded to close the Informal Open Forum. Motion passed unanimously. 5. INVOCATION Councilmember Kragness read a quote about leadership: "Leadership is about making others better as a result of your presence and making sure that impact lasts in your absence.” Page 17 of 378 10/27/25 -4- DRAFT 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Jerzak moved and Councilmember Moore seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, as amended, with amendments to the minutes as stated during the Study Session to move the Work Session item Hotel Zoning Discussion to the Study Session, and the following consent items were approved: 6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. October 13, 2025 – Study Session 2. October 13, 2025 – Regular Session 6b. LICENSES MECHANICAL Advanced Heating and Air Conditioning 10550 County Road 81, Maple Grove 55369 JNS Co Inc. 3731 Thurston Avenue, Anoka 55303 SIGNHANGER’S Spectrum Sign Systems, Inc. 8786 W 35W Service Drive Northeast, Blaine 55449 GASOLINE SERVICE STATION Holiday #3808 5710 Xerxes Avenue North RENTAL INITIAL (TYPE IV -- six-month license) 7131 Halifax Avenue North Ayub Sharif INITIAL (TYPE III – one-year license) 6019 Camden Avenue North MASON GROUP ONE LLC INITIAL (TYPE II – two-year license) 5918 Beard Avenue North SARAH GEBREEGZIABHER 7018 France Avenue North Mason Group One LLC INITIAL (TYPE I – three-year license) 2807 65th Avenue North JESSICA V LANDI BAUTISTA RENEWAL (TYPE IV – six-month license) 4811 Lakeview Avenue North Eileen Booker Page 18 of 378 10/27/25 -5- DRAFT 5801 Xerxes Avenue North Brooklyn Center Ah I Lllp 3012 51st Avenue North Sri Lakshmi Valiveti 6765 Humboldt Avenue North Loan Nguyen RENEWAL (TYPE III – one-year license) 3701 Woodbine Lane SFR BORROWER 2021-2 LLC 5415 Emerson Avenue North Mnsf li W1 Llc 6725 Bryant Avenue North Vong Duong & Ngoc-keiu Huynh 7143 France Avenue North Caml Llc RENEWAL (TYPE II – two-year license) 5803 Xerxes Avenue North Brooklyn Center AH II LLLP 1619 73rd Avenue North SFR ACQUISITIONS 2 LLC RENEWAL (TYPE I – three-year license) 5301 Dupont Avenue North Venus Tomlinson & DeRoi Tomlinson 6742 France Avenue North Walter M. Robinson 6825 Noble Avenue North Robert Gardner Jr 2407 Ericon Drive Plia Thao 2701 65th Avenue North Trinh Quang Vu 3224 62nd Avenue North Laura A Mills 5913 June Avenue North M K Mehdi & B K Mehdi 5926 Colfax Avenue North Jack Froelke / Jessica Froelke 6242 Scott Avenue North Cosco Property I Llc 6912 Logan Avenue North Hpa Borrower 2017 1 Llc 7037 Fremont Avenue North Edwina P Mcgill Page 19 of 378 10/27/25 -6- DRAFT 7141 Newton Avenue North Ih2 Property Illinois Lp 7243 Riverdale Road Ih2 Property Illinois Lp 6c. AMENDMENT TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT REGARDING POLICE EMBEDDED SOCIAL WORKER 6d. RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING NOVEMBER 29, 2025 SMALL BUSINESS SATURDAY IN BROOKLYN CENTER 6e. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR AN IMPROVEMENT PUBLIC HEARING FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2026-06, -07, -08, & -09, JOHN MARTIN DRIVE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 6f. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR AN IMPROVEMENT PUBLIC HEARING FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2026-01, HUMBOLDT AVENUE (CR 57) RECONSTRUCTION 7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS 10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 10a. 2027 HUMBOLDT AREA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT UPDATE Dr. Edwards explained that as the City continues to address issues with roads and transportation related to Highway 252, a new issue has arisen that City Staff would like to address. He introduced Public Works Director Liz Heyman and Public Works Planner Corey Anderson to present this item. Mr. Anderson stated that the purpose of this project was for the City to improve pedestrian and vehicle safety and mobility by constructing roundabouts, reconstructing pedestrian crossings, adding new sidewalks, and adjusting the configuration and width of vehicle lanes on Humboldt Avenue, 65th Avenue, 66th Avenue, 67th Avenue, and Camden Avenue near the Brooklyn Center High School. He noted that his Department is well into the planning and design phase, and is looking at beginning construction in 2027. Mr. Anderson said his Department has worked in collaboration with Brooklyn Center Community Schools to identify challenges for kids walking, biking, and getting to school. In 2024, the City received a $2 million grant from the Metropolitan Council to support pedestrian improvements for Page 20 of 378 10/27/25 -7- DRAFT this project area. He noted that this year, his Department has had two open houses regarding this project to get feedback from the community. Mr. Anderson highlighted specific issues for this area. He noted that this area collectively averages 13 crashes annually, with 41 percent of those crashes caused by red light running and speeding, which is the most dangerous type of crash. He noted that the crossing distance at these intersections is also long, from curb to curb for someone walking to cross the street; some are as long as 90 feet, which also causes issues. There is also a projected increase in traffic in this area due to the Highway 252 project. Mr. Anderson said some key features regarding this project include roundabouts, which would eliminate red light running. He noted that planning for this feature has already begun, in conjunction with the Police and Fire Department, to ensure that EMS can get places quickly and efficiently. Planning has also been done with Metro Transit to ensure that snowplowing operations could continue through these roundabout intersections. Mr. Anderson noted that a new sidewalk would be added on 67th Avenue for the benefit of residents and students. This area is where students and staff from Brooklyn Center High School go for emergency evacuations and pickup drills. Currently, there is no sidewalk there, making it difficult to navigate during heavy snowfall in winter. He noted that on Humboldt Avenue, he is pushing to narrow the street from four lanes to three with a turning lane, to slow traffic. He noted that this project would also include the addition of rapid rectangular flashing beacons, which are signs with a pedestrian symbol on them, and a button that pedestrians push, and when flashing lights illuminate, the pedestrian has the right of way. Mr. Anderson said that he is also looking at shortening crossing distances for pedestrians, specifically on 65th and Humboldt, where there is a 90-foot crossing. A roundabout would be installed to shorten the crossing distance to two 18-foot crossings. Mr. Anderson said one thing he wanted to mention that has been brought up during public engagements is concerns about reducing the roadway from four lanes to three lanes. He noted that the roadway is currently designed with four lanes to handle 20,000 cars a day, but that section of the roadway only handles 7,000 cars a day, which contributes to the speeding issue, noise, crash risks, and additional maintenance needs for the road. When considering the potential projections of increased traffic from the Highway 252 project, the highest potential projection of traffic for this roadway is 14,000 cars a day, which is still under the 20,000 threshold. He noted that the advantage of adding a dedicated turn lane on this roadway is that it eliminates cars from impeding the flow of traffic when turning. Mr. Anderson noted that these would be the first roundabouts in Brooklyn Center. At the beginning of 2025, there were 500 roundabouts in the state of Minnesota, which provides a lot of data for the City to know what works and what does not regarding roundabouts. Roundabouts reduce fatal and serious injury crashes by upwards of 82 percent compared to traditional intersections, and reduce traffic delays by 20 to 50 percent. Mr. Anderson stated that the benefits for Brooklyn Center with this project include slower speeds and shorter crossing distances for residents who are walking and biking. Signals are due to be replaced within the next 10 years, and signal removal will save Brooklyn Center taxpayers Page 21 of 378 10/27/25 -8- DRAFT $1,500,000. This roadway project would also be prepared to handle the projected traffic from the Highway 252 project. Mr. Anderson said he would hand over the rest of the presentation to Ms. Heyman to discuss the larger implications of this project. Ms. Heyman explained that roundabouts were recommended for this project by the MnDOT project team to address safety issues the City is currently experiencing, and they would also safely handle the traffic increases that would be caused by the proposed Highway 252/I-94 project. She noted that the Humboldt project would deliver benefits faster and cheaper than waiting for MnDOT’s project, and would avoid issues of finishing this project, only to have MnDOT tear it up in the future and redo it. She said that MnDOT would pick up the full cost of the changes if the City waited, but asked how long the City is willing to wait and at what cost. This corridor, under some proposals, would be considered mitigation for the Highway 252/I-94 project because the new freeway configuration would impact this area, necessitating changes to the corridor to handle the increased traffic. She stated that she would not be here if there were not a project going on because it costs a lot to mobilize a construction crew and pay for materials. She recommended upsizing the scope of the project presented earlier this summer when she presented the Capital Improvement Program and spending the City's Municipal State Aid (MSA) cushion on these safety improvements. This would constrict the City's ability to cost-share on projects like Highway 252 and I-94, as well as a planned county project on 69th Avenue. She highlighted that the Highway 252 work is not slated to begin until 2029 at the earliest, and the Humboldt project could begin sooner, which the City can afford. She noted that this project would not drive utility rates up or change them in any way, due to this project being paid for with MSA funds. Ms. Heyman continued that she is seeking the Council's approval to expand the scope and budget of the Humboldt area project from $9.6 million to $12.2 million, which would include the critical safety improvements outlined earlier. She noted that in 2023, the City Council supported Staff in successfully securing $2 million in regional solicitation funding for the project. City Staff are now requesting the Council support them in pursuing another $1.5 million from the Local Road Improvement Program (LRIP) grant from MnDOT to add to their funding resources. Ms. Heyman asked if the Council had any questions. Mayor Graves asked if there was a way that MnDOT could pay for this project if it were done ahead of time, since most of the traffic in this area will be coming from Highway 252 anyway. Ms. Heyman said she has been having ongoing discussions with MnDOT about this, and has not received any concrete feedback, but MnDOT has shown interest in working with the City to make these improvements going forward. Councilmember Jerzak asked if there was any way to recover the costs of these improvements from MnDOT if the Highway 252 project goes forward. Ms. Heyman said she has been trying to work with the MnDOT project team on that, but MnDOT could not come to the table with a creative solution for funding in the time frame that the City would need to do the Humboldt project. She noted that for this project to become a reality in 2027, it must start, and they have waited as long as they can to hear back from MnDOT regarding funding, but they still have not heard anything. She said she is hopeful that in the future, MnDOT comes to them with a proposal, but would like to move forward in order for the project to happen. Page 22 of 378 10/27/25 -9- DRAFT Councilmember Kragness asked if there was a way to put it in writing that MnDOT would reimburse the City for this project, but she understands that MnDOT is hesitant to put anything in writing that benefits the communities in that sense. Councilmember Moore said most of the feedback she has heard from residents is not supportive of roundabouts, especially at 69th Avenue by Humboldt Square. She asked what stops residents from running through a roundabout versus a stoplight, and because there is no limit for gross vehicle weight, a semi would have to drive over the center of the roundabout to get through it. Mr. Anderson said that in Minnesota, roundabouts are designed with a rolled curb so that semis can get up on the curb to make the turn in a roundabout. He continued that a vehicle could fly through a roundabout, but it would come at a cost to the vehicle, and the likelihood of that happening is very low. Councilmember Moore asked what the speed limits are in this project area. Mr. Anderson said the speed limit on these roadways is 30 mph. Councilmember Moore asked if both Police and Fire Chiefs have weighed in and are in support of roundabouts for this project. Mr. Anderson answered that throughout this process, he has consulted with both the Fire Chief and the Police Chief to ensure the design of the roundabouts would accommodate their vehicles, particularly at the East Fire Station, where the Fire Department has its largest truck. He continued that the roundabout on that roadway would allow the fire truck to easily exit the Fire Station and enter the intersection. He noted that for the Police Department, he has ensured that there is ample roadway so that police vehicles are not impeded when exiting the Police Station. Councilmember Moore said she does not want to wait until MnDOT decides to undertake this project and wants to make the point that a decision should be made for the benefit of the Brooklyn Center community, which includes its schools and public safety for its residents. Mayor Graves said she received a letter from Brooklyn Center Community Schools stating they are very supportive of this project. Councilmember Kragness asked if there had been any research done regarding the benefits of a roundabout versus a stoplight in emergency situations. Mr. Anderson said there is data on that type of situation, and on average, it gives emergency vehicles an advantage of two to three seconds over a signal. When an emergency vehicle enters a regular intersection, it has to slow down and look for everyone to slow down or stop. When an emergency vehicle enters a roundabout, it still has to slow down, but it simplifies the traffic flow by indicating where all the traffic is coming from. Councilmember Kragness asked if there were any emergency lights around a roundabout. Mr. Anderson answered that there is no traditional roundabout around. Councilmember Kragness responded that at intersections, there are lights that flash to alert drivers that emergency vehicles are approaching. There would not be any lights to alert drivers at a roundabout. Mr. Anderson said the sound of a fire truck approaching would alert drivers. He said he did not fully understand what Councilmember Kragness’s question was. Councilmember Kragness said she is comparing Page 23 of 378 10/27/25 -10- DRAFT a traditional intersection with a stoplight to a roundabout in the event of emergencies, a stoplight would flash to let drivers know that an emergency vehicle is approaching. She continued that in a roundabout, there is nothing that would alert drivers, and depending on how close the emergency vehicle is, a driver may not hear a siren. Ms. Heyman said she understands what Councilmember Kragness is saying, and the noise of the emergency vehicle would be the only indicator that they are approaching. She stated that even in stoplight intersections with a flashing light, drivers do not always slow down, pull over, or even stop for emergency vehicles despite the warning. She noted that at least with a roundabout, it simplifies the intersection for emergency vehicles, so there is only traffic coming from one direction for the emergency vehicle to watch for. Emergencies are why the Department has worked closely with EMS to ensure that these intersections are functional. She noted that it is essential to remember that the majority of EMS situations they would respond to are accidents or issues occurring at intersections. Councilmember Moore asked if Public Works could not obtain the additional LRIP grant, and where the money would come from for the enhanced safety features of the project. Ms. Heyman responded that this was why she recommended increasing the project scope to $12.2 million, and the City can afford it with the MSA funds. Ms. Heyman stated that over the years, they have been setting aside funds to ensure that the City could cost-share with MnDOT for the Highway 252 project. Still, the City can deliver the Humboldt project faster and cheaper than MnDOT can, and thought it would be prudent to spend those MSA funds now on the Humboldt project. She noted that MSA funds are intended for local street improvements, so that is what she is recommending. Mayor Graves said MnDOT and Hennepin County have their own cost-share policies, and asked what is preventing Brooklyn Center from developing its own cost-share policies. Ms. Heyman said that it is a very interesting position and has been discussed by some other cities as well, especially as these projects continue to increase in price. Ms. Heyman continued that in 2023, MnDOT and Hennepin County received increases in their funding streams during the legislative session, while cities have not been allocated funds to keep pace with projects, making it more challenging. Ms. Heyman said this would be an interesting proposal that Staff could take back and draft some type of policy for these types of projects, because the City is responding to MnDOT regarding the Highway 252 project, as well as work on intersections at 66th Avenue and 100, which have major impacts coming in from MnDOT’s network. Councilmember Jerzak asked what type of expectations Ms. Heyman would have regarding external projects under that policy and how the City would fund its fair share of traffic infrastructure. Ms. Heyman said she would have to think about how to craft a policy like that, but after reviewing MnDOT and Hennepin County's cost-share policies, she would examine the impacts of traffic on Brooklyn Center's network and aim to design them to work together as smoothly as possible. The cost-share policy would need to consider how traffic from larger networks impacts the City's streets, as well as ongoing maintenance and cost concerns within MnDOT projects that affect the City’s projects. She said a good example of this is county and MnDOT intersections, which are divided up by sections to share the cost equitably. Page 24 of 378 10/27/25 -11- DRAFT Councilmember Jerzak asked what the harm is in asking MnDOT about developing a cost-share policy with the City. Mayor Graves agreed and said the larger issue is that the City is being held to specific standards that other cities are not being held to. She said she would rely on City Staff to come up with some ideas regarding a cost-share policy and bring it back to the Council to develop a framework to hold people accountable when regional projects are brought in with regional benefits to the City. Councilmember Kragness said she wanted to commend the Staff for setting aside funds and being in a position to be able to afford this project. Councilmember Moore moved and Councilmember Jerzak seconded to approve the expansion of the Humboldt Area Project scope and budget from $9.6 million to $12.2 million to include critical safety improvements. Motion passed unanimously. 10b. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF A LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PRORAM (LRIP) GRANT APPLICATION AND PLEDGING FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR THE HUMBOLDT AREA PROJECT Mayor Graves noted that Ms. Heyman had already spoken to this item and asked if there was any further discussion needed. Councilmember Jerzak moved and Mayor Graves seconded to approve the RESOLUTION authorizing the submittal of a Local Road Improvement Program (LRIP) Grant application pledging financial support for the Humboldt Area Project. Motion passed unanimously. 10c. ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR WK BROWN, LLC, WAYNE BROWN, PALM GROVE EVENT CENTER, 2590 FREEWAY BLVD Dr. Edwards noted this item came up to the Council at a previous meeting, and a vote failed to extend the deadline, a vote failed to deny the license altogether, and there has to be a clear, concise decision made by the Council regarding the liquor license. He said the business owner has addressed all the issues related to compliance, and the application has demonstrated that. He noted that the owner has provided documentation that there is a restaurant in the building in order to receive a liquor license. Dr. Edwards said City Clerk Shannon Pettit could provide more information if needed on what the owner has done to fulfill their obligations. Mayor Graves asked if there were any further questions from the Council. Councilmember Kragness said she was glad to hear that everything had been verified and that information was all the Council was asking for. Mayor Graves agreed and said she was glad that the business would remain open. Page 25 of 378 10/27/25 -12- DRAFT Councilmember Moore moved and Mayor Graves seconded to approve the On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Application for WK Brown, LLC, Wayne Brown, Palm Grove Event Center, 2590 Freeway Blvd, pursuant to Chapter 11, Section 11-115 and Sections 11-122 of the Brooklyn Center City Code. Motion passed unanimously. 10d. PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE FINES/CITATIONS AND APPEALS FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DURING THE OCTOBER 13, 2025, MEETING Dr. Edwards explained that at the last meeting, the Council had directed Staff to provide more information related to assessments that came in at a particularly high dollar amount related to citations, penalties, and appeals. Dr. Edwards introduced Community Development Director Jesse Anderson and Housing and Community Standards Manager Xiong Thao to present this item. Mr. Anderson explained that a Public Hearing was conducted on October 13, 2025, for five special assessments to the Hennepin County Property Tax rolls that included administrative penalties and citations, abatements, tall grass and weed abatements, vacant properties, and tree abatements. At that meeting, four of the five assessments were approved. Tall Grass abatements were approved with two appeals removed from the list. Administrative penalties and citations were not approved, and six properties from that list were appealed. The Council requested that Staff bring back a report of all the cases that acquired penalties of $1,000 or more, with additional details. Mr. Anderson explained the process behind administrative citations and that they are the last option if voluntary compliance cannot be achieved. City Staff give a written notice to the resident at least twice, along with door postings, door knocking, phone calls, emails, and talking to neighbors. Staff frequently grant extensions if the property owner needs them. Staff try to make referrals to other agencies that do grass mowing or handyman services where possible, but there are long waiting lists. Mr. Anderson said the City also had their own agency program to help residents, which had a fund of $250,000 that was spent in seven days. He noted that he would be back to talk about that particular program at another meeting. Mr. Anderson explained that Staff review cases with the Supervisor prior to issuing $1,000 citations and discuss options and possible solutions. Administrative citations are not a revenue source for the City and are strictly used as a penalty to obtain compliance. The citations have three levels of penalties authorized by the 2025 fee schedule and are based on the violation code section. A level one citation is a $50 fine, level two is a $100 fine, level three is a $300 fine; level three, two to four-unit properties are a $500 fine; level three, five or more unit properties are a $1,000 fine. Citations may be issued daily for each violation; however, citations are issued based on the rotation of inspections, which is typically a week between citations. He noted that technically, the City can issue a $1,000 violation per day, but would never do that and normally waits a week between issuing citations. Page 26 of 378 10/27/25 -13- DRAFT Mr. Anderson continued that citations may be doubled for each occurrence and are cumulative; for example, the first citation is $100, plus a second violation is $200, equaling a $300 citation total. The maximum citation that can be issued is $1,000 per violation per day. These citations do have an appeal process, and a brochure to appeal is mailed with the citation. A written request to appeal from the resident must be sent to the City within 10 days of the citation, along with a $50 deposit. Mr. Anderson detailed the abatement process and said occupied abatements were authorized by the Council in 2024. Considerations for abatement include duration of the case, value of the item to be abated, cost of abatement, access to the abatement item, and the legal implications, especially if the abatement is of significant value. He noted that, for the most part, the City looks at trash for abatement. Vehicle abatement is also a process with considerations to be taken by the Staff before abating a vehicle, such as the type and duration of violation, and the vehicle condition. The City will only tow vehicles that are inoperable and charge the cost back to the property owner. Tow companies will not tow vehicles if the vehicle is not accessible, and there must be no obstructions, which can also complicate things. Mr. Anderson explained the trend in citations over the last four years. In 2025, the total was $219,640, but that total is closer to $209,000 because some residents have paid their citations. The four-year average total is $172,325, with a below-average citation per property at $1,066.21 versus the four-year average of $1,302 per property. The count of citations for 2025 totaled 206 versus the average of 136 over a four-year period. Mr. Anderson noted that during this time, there were 4,375 code enforcement cases and 732 rental licenses issued during the citation date range of September 2024 to September 2025, which equals four percent of cases having outstanding citations. He attributed the increases to full Staffing and a decrease in the number of rental properties due to the inability to acquire a rental license for assisted living facilities. He also noted that Staff have increased code enforcement sweeps across the City. Mr. Anderson gave the Council a summary of cases and said the Staff reviewed 45 cases with $1,000 or more citations, and every case is different with different circumstances, but nothing was atypical. A minimum of two notices were given, along with attempts to talk to someone before issuing the citations. He noted that the highest citation was given to a property located at 4110 Lakebreeze Avenue North, with $14,850 in citations for renting without a license. The rental license for this property expired on March 31, 2024, and the owner failed to renew or get a rental inspection, even after several attempts to contact the owner were made by City Staff. A complaint inspection was conducted at this property after the tenant contacted the City due to roach infestation, no gas, no heat, and property maintenance issues. This property owner did not appeal the citations. Mr. Anderson stated that eight properties in total appealed, six for administrative penalties and citations, and two for tall grass and weed abatements. Public Hearings were open and closed for each special assessment hearing, and the Staff prepared a report for each case that was appealed. Mr. Anderson introduced Mr. Thao to discuss each of the cases. Mr. Thao stated that the property at 5711 Camden Avenue North had an Appellant speak at the Public Hearing who said that the notices were not received, and the vehicle owner refused to give Page 27 of 378 10/27/25 -14- DRAFT the keys to the Appellant to move the vehicle that was in violation of the City code. The Appellant also stated they were not able to pay the citations that were issued for said vehicle. Mr. Thao explained some background on the property and said that prior to 2013, a rental license was issued, and rental property notices were also sent to the owner and property manager. The property was sold in 2013 as a contract for deed; therefore, notices were no longer sent to the property manager. City Staff were not able to verify that the sale was recorded with Hennepin County property records. Since the sale was not recorded, the owner of record remains in Alma B. Sybrant’s name. Compliance notices were then mailed to Ms. Sybrant in California and to the occupant at the current address. There are two separate cases that led to citations being issued at this property. Councilmember Kragness asked if the cases being explained now are the appeals. Mayor Graves confirmed these are the appeals that came before the Council. Councilmember Kragness said she just wanted to ensure that the Council was being respectful, and protecting people's innocence, and going through these things makes her a little bit uncomfortable to go into so much detail. Mayor Graves responded that this is what the Council asked for at the previous meeting. Councilmember Moore apologized because she was ill at the last meeting and missed the appeals, but she watched the recording, and she still has multiple questions. She agreed with Councilmember Kragness, but between the PowerPoint and what was in the packet, and asked if what the Council requested was a summary of the appeals. Mayor Graves responded that typically, the process involves putting these citations on the tax roll, and owners can come in and appeal the citations. She explained that City Staff comes back to the Council with additional information and a summary about the citation that was appealed, and Council can deliberate on whether to assess or not. Councilmember Moore thanked Mayor Graves for clarifying. Councilmember Jerzak stated that he was not trying to cut off Mr. Thao's presentation, but he had read all 546 pages and a summary of each case, and acknowledged the hard work that Staff put into this summary of all the cases. He stated he did not want to embarrass people by putting their information out there, and after reading the summaries, he has no desire to second-guess City Staff or the Inspector's decisions at this time. He stated that the citations were issued according to City policy, and for the most part were not appealed by the property owners, and there are going to be a lot of surprises for those property owners next spring when they pay their property taxes. He noted that some of these property owners are going to be incredibly impacted by this, and that is where he believes a large problem lies with the City. Councilmember Jerzak continued that Mr. Anderson spelled out the City policy and included it in tonight's memorandum, and went over the frequency and outlined how the citation amounts can double. He said that this is what needs to be revisited by the Council. He noted that the Council approved this policy and the fees which has been done every year previously. He stated that the Inspectors did their job; enforced existing ordinances and followed the City's procedures and fee schedule, which was adopted by the Council. He stated that code enforcement followed policy and did their job, and he firmly believes that the existing policy is not just or equitable. Councilmember Jerzak continued that it is the Council’s responsibility as elected officials to correct wrongs when they can, and it is his sincere hope that the Council will address this policy and the fees before more harm is imposed. He stated these are unintentional consequences in a lot Page 28 of 378 10/27/25 -15- DRAFT of cases, and he believes these fees will cause a lot of hardships and therefore will be voting not to add them to the tax rolls based on the injustice of the policy. Councilmember Moore asked Mr. Anderson if any of the assisted living homes in Brooklyn Center had any code violations. Mr. Anderson said there are 180 assisted living facilities through one of the two agencies, and the City cannot address issues inside of those properties, but can handle violations through code enforcement sweeps of the exterior of the building. Councilmember Moore said she was in agreement with Councilmember Jerzak and cannot imagine how some of the individuals, based on the assessed value of their home, along with their mortgage payment, pay an additional $800 a month to address their fines, on top of their current property taxes. She stated she appreciates the level of detail that Mr. Anderson and Staff provided for the Council regarding all of these properties. She said the Council needs to revisit these policies to determine what is a priority. She continued that the grass complaints may be coming from residents who have a perfectly manicured lawn, and the neighbor has grass that is over six inches, or there is thistle in the yard. She stated she will not support these fees going on to the tax rolls, and the residents cannot afford them. She reiterated that the Council should revisit the code enforcement guidelines to also make the process easier for Mr. Anderson's personnel as well. Councilmember Kragness said she wanted to clarify where the Council is at, and first wanted to thank City Staff for providing the Council with 2,500 pages of data, and she is not complaining because that is what the Council asked for. She stated for the record that she never doubted City Staff's expertise and trusted that they were doing their job correctly. She stated she was now confused because the Council voted for these fines to be implemented, and went through the documentation that stated the fines were purposeful and warranted, but now Councilmembers are saying these fines are not going to be assessed. She asked if the Council wants residents to pay fines or not, and is very confused as to where the Council is at now. She noted that residents cannot afford anything to begin with, but how is the Council going to balance holding people accountable, and ask people to pay fees and fines, but then not assess them. Mayor Graves recommended that the Council let City Staff finish their presentation to stay on track, and then have a discussion afterwards. Councilmember Moore said she thought the Staff was done presenting. Mayor Graves responded that this was just the first address that was read into the record that was presented on, and there should be seven more. Dr. Edwards stated that City Staff is ready and prepared to cut to the chase and make a recommendation to approve the citations, and asked if the Council would like to do that and forego the six appeals, or hear what Staff is recommending to do with the other appeals that were brought forth. Mayor Graves said that sounds good, because there are two Councilmembers who have already made up their minds about this. Councilmember Moore asked for a point of order and clarification regarding the motion that they are expected to pass to adopt a resolution certifying these special assessments to the tax rolls that did not happen at the last meeting, and if the second assessment is regarding tall grass and weeds. Page 29 of 378 10/27/25 -16- DRAFT Mayor Graves said the main issue is addressing the six appeals for administrative citations and the two weed abatement fine appeals that were not passed at the last meeting. Mayor Graves asked if that made sense to Councilmember Moore. Councilmember Moore asked Dr. Edwards to explain what the Council is supposed to be doing. Dr. Edwards said there are two actions before the Council, one to adopt the special assessment administration fees and citations to the Hennepin County tax rolls, of which there were six appeals. The second action to adopt the resolution certifying the tall grass and weed abatement cost appeals to the Hennepin County tax rolls, of which there were two. He noted that City Staff is prepared to speak about the eight total appeals that were brought before the Council and address them. Mayor Graves asked City Staff to jump to the summary for the Council to review. Mr. Anderson stated that City Staff’s recommendations are as follows: for the property at 5711 Camden Avenue North, assess the administrative citations totaling $1,000 plus the certification fee of $40 to the property tax rolls. The property at 3607 50th Avenue North, specially assess the administrative citations totaling $7,000 plus the certification fee of $40 to the property tax rolls and dismiss $1,100 based on the administrative hearing results. The property at 7201 Knox Avenue North, specially assess the administrative citations totaling $5,100 plus the certification fee of $40 to the property tax rolls and dismiss $1,900. The property at 6736 Toledo Avenue North, specially assess the administrative citations totaling $2,900 plus the certification fee of $40 to the property tax rolls. The property at 6401 Scott Avenue North, specially assess the administrative citations totaling $2,100 plus the certification fee of $40 to the property tax rolls. The property at 801 Woodbine Lane needs no action taken since the administration citation has been paid, and $50 is to be stayed based on a hearing that occurred after the last City Council meeting. The property at 5430 Morgan Avenue North, specially assess the abatement costs totaling $195 plus the certification fee of $40 to the property tax rolls. The property at 7227 Humboldt Avenue, specially assess the abatement cost totaling $120 plus the certification fee of $40 to the property tax rolls, and dismiss the $75 administrative fee. Mr. Anderson stated that there are two actions for the Council to consider. The first action is a motion to adopt the resolution certifying special assessments for administrative fines and citations to the Hennepin County property tax rolls, and the full list is updated with Staff-recommended changes. There were six appeals brought to the Council; three had no changes to the citation amount, two had reduced citation amounts, and one had no action required due to an administrative appeal and is no longer on the assessment list. He noted that if the Council prefers to adjust the amount or dismiss the citations, the resolution can be amended with the motion to approve. Mr. Anderson continued that the second action item for the Council is to make a motion to adopt a resolution certifying the two appealed citations for special assessments for tall grass and weed abatement costs and citations to the Hennepin County property tax rolls. Of the two appeals to these citations, only one had a change to the assessment amount with a reduction of abatement cost. Mayor Graves thanked Mr. Anderson for clarifying that for the Council and was prepared to make the motion, but noted that if there are Councilmembers who feel there are changes that need to be made, she is open to having those conversations. She continued that during the appeals, she Page 30 of 378 10/27/25 -17- DRAFT thought she heard residents mention that compliance could not be completed before receiving another citation from the City. She said she was not 100 percent sure residents are having the full opportunity to respond to notices from the City. She said she has experienced this herself when doing programs related to government, and things have to be submitted within a day or two after receiving all the information, and the timeline is very tight. She said the timeline could be longer to ensure that residents have the opportunity to get into compliance before receiving another citation. Mr. Anderson said his Department does try to give residents additional time, especially in cases that were appealed; those residents were given two weeks before receiving another citation. There was also one case that was given a month before receiving another citation. He said the guideline is to go once a week, but generally speaking, it ends up being longer than that before City Staff visits them again. Mayor Graves said she heard Mr. Anderson say that during his presentation, and is concerned that some people might be getting cited more often than others, and it needs to be consistent. She noted that there is also an ongoing struggle with folks who are disabled or elderly, and she understands that the City makes referrals for those people, but it is still a problem. She said she recently saw a social media post of a community in Wisconsin that puts up yard signs for elderly or disabled people who need extra help to manage either yardwork or snow removal, and the community rallies and does their part to help out those community members. She said this was an interesting idea and something to look into for Brooklyn Center to encourage support for people who are experiencing citations because of their ability level to get into compliance. Councilmember Moore asked Mr. Anderson to go back to his slides detailing the Council’s action, and said she has nothing in her packet that would suggest how she is supposed to do a motion one way or another. She said that she does not have anything in her packet, and that is why she has had so many questions on exactly what the Council is supposed to be voting on. She continued that in terms of the code violations, she saw one for tall grass that specifically stated it was on the far rear side of the property. She stated that she agrees with Councilmember Kragness that this has to be all or nothing, because how else will the Council decide who gets these citations assessed to their taxes and who does not. She said it is alarming to see how many times City Staff has gone out to some of these properties, and the challenges that the homeowners are having for a variety of reasons. She said, regardless of all this, she likes to be prepared in terms of what action she is expected to take, and it is not in her packet. Councilmember Jerzak stated that the Inspectors have a large toolbox to work with that includes education, information gathering, resident-to-Inspector discussion and compliance, persuasion, reaching out to neighbors, abatement, and towing, just to name a few. He asked why the rental property that accrued over $14,000 in fines for not having a rental license was not vigorously prosecuted by the City, or at a minimum, referred back to the Council for some type of action. He noted that the $14,000 fine will go back to the tenants because they are the ones who will end up paying for it. He said his other concern is that after so many efforts to get compliance, these fines are more than a felony, which is not just, and asked why the property was not referred to the City Attorney for a formal complaint for a nuisance. He continued that if one of these policies is not Page 31 of 378 10/27/25 -18- DRAFT just, then none of them are. He said the Council is responsible for adjusting this, and he is not against citations, but in the 15 years that he was an Inspector, he wrote less than five thousand citations because he learned to take the resident's beer money, not their food money. He continued that he believes there is a place for citations, but this is excessive. He noted that some of these citations are $8,000 or more, and the residents have to pay them off in one year, which is going to have a deep effect on a number of people. He stated that the Council needs to take this time to look inward at the policy that the Council created and, moving forward, at least try to address it. He continued that this does not mean these residents did not commit these violations, but the punishment needs to fit the alleged violation. He noted that a garbage can at the end of the road is not worth a $500 violation. Mayor Graves said she agrees with Councilmember Jerzak, and a lot of times it depends on who lives in your neighborhood and who is willing to file complaints. She noted that the Council put this policy into place last year, and if the Council is going to move forward with assessments for everyone else, then the Council should respect that City Staff did their jobs and made adjustments to those who made appeals. Mayor Graves stated that Councilmember Jerzak is asking for change, but has not specifically stated what needs to be changed. She said she does not think that the Council should change policies and not charge these fines to special assessments, because that brings up an issue of fairness as well. Councilmember Kragness said her issue is that the Council cannot put something into place and then, when it is carried out, claim that they did not realize what it was going to turn into. She stated that moving forward, she did a rough count of 189 cases, and of those, 45 cases have fines over $1,000. She stated that her recommendation is to raise the fine dollar amount threshold before it gets put on the tax roll, which in this example would reduce the 189 cases down to 45 being put on the tax roll. This would also give the homeowner more time to pay down their fines. Mayor Graves asked Mr. Anderson if the City had done something like that before, or if it was the county. Mr. Anderson responded that the City has slightly changed the policy to allow residents more time to make partial payments and the appeal process. He said that this is something that the Staff could discuss and bring an alternative amount as well as changing the threshold for the tax roll to the Council at another meeting. Councilmember Jerzak stated that he had a brief discussion with Dr. Edwards about this, and he is not picking on Mr. Anderson, but in that budget, there is a revenue line of over $100,000 expected in citation fees. He said he knows that there is no quota, and citations are not about revenue, but the problem with that being in the budget is that the perception from the average resident is that citations are used for revenue. He recommended that for residents who come forward, there is an option to make payments on their fines, and focus on the restorative aspect for those who want to take accountability. He continued that making fines cumulative is also not solving the overall problem. He acknowledged that if fines are assessed for others, they have to be assessed for all to ensure equity across the board. He stated he hopes that the Council can revisit this soon so he can participate in the conversation with Staff recommendations. He added that the Inspectors he knows Page 32 of 378 10/27/25 -19- DRAFT do not enjoy imposing these things, and in most cases, it creates an adversarial relationship between Inspectors and residents that Inspectors never recover from, and that is problematic. Councilmember Kragness asked City Attorney Siobhan Tolar what happens if these motions do not pass. Ms. Tolar asked if she meant the Council does not certify these appealed assessments to the tax roll, or if the resolution does not pass to certify any of the assessments. Councilmember Kragness asked what happens if the resolution to certify any of the assessments does not pass. Ms. Tolar said if the resolution does not pass, then the Council has to come back and do it again, or forgive all of the assessments going to the tax roll. Dr. Edwards said he had not heard the Council’s desire not to move the bulk of the assessments to the tax rolls, only the ones that had been appealed. His recommendation for the Council is to move to adopt the resolution, aside from the six that appealed, and come back with policy discussions later on, in order to move forward. Councilmember Kragness agreed with Dr. Edwards and wanted to clarify what the Council wanted to do. Ms. Tolar said during his presentation, Mr. Anderson had misread a reduction in fees of $190, but it was actually a reduction of $1,900, and she wanted to clarify that for the record. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson said she would like the Council to have a discussion soon about the fee schedule and the compounding of fees. She noted that if residents do not have the money to pay the first fee, adding more fines on top of that only makes the situation worse and more adversarial. She stated she understands that the City is paying Staff to go out multiple times to ensure compliance, but she would like to have a conversation about the fee schedule. Mayor Graves said there is consensus from the Council on revisiting compounding payments and high fees at a later time. Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Kragness seconded to adopt the RESOLUTION Certifying Special Assessments for Administrative Fines and Citations to the Hennepin County Property Tax rolls with the full list as updated with Staff recommended changes. Councilmembers Jerzak and Moore voted against the same. Motion passed. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson said for the purpose of this meeting, she does not want to change policy in the middle of the vote and will support Staff’s recommendation, but in the near future, she would like to have a robust discussion about the fee structure. Mayor Graves said City Staff has heard and understands the Council’s consensus on having an in- depth discussion at a later meeting, regarding the fee structure and policy. Page 33 of 378 10/27/25 -20- DRAFT Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Kragness seconded to adopt the RESOLUTION Certifying Special Assessments for Tall Grass and Weed and Weed Abatement Costs and Citations to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls with changes noted by Staff. Councilmembers Jerzak and Moore voted against the same. Motion passed. Mayor Graves thanked Mr. Anderson for his presentation and said the Council looks forward to their future conversation. 11. COUNCIL REPORT 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Kragness seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 8:37 pm. Motion passed unanimously. Page 34 of 378 10/27/25 -1- DRAFT 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 OCTOBER 27, 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 8:41 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President April Graves and Councilmembers/Commissioners Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Dan Jerzak, Teneshia Kragness, and Laurie Ann Moore. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, Police Chief Garett Flesland, City Attorney Siobhan Tolar, and City Clerk Shannon Pettit. ACTIVE DISCUSSION ITEMS HOSPITALITY ACCOMMODATION ORDINANCE UPDATE DISCUSSION Dr. Edwards explained that this is a continuation of a conversation related to the hotel industry and the changing landscape regarding the Hospitality Accommodation ordinance. Dr. Edwards introduced City Clerk Shannon Pettit and Deputy City Clerk Ellgren to present this item. Ms. Pettit stated that the presentation's purpose is to continue the conversation on reforming the language in the Hospitality Accommodations ordinance and to review completed work to understand what is and is not working. She stated that she is seeking general direction from the Council/EDA on the best approach regarding these issues. Ms. Pettit referenced the earlier presentation by Ms. McIntosh, in which she mentioned the number of Police calls regarding hotels, noting that in 2024, the Brooklyn Center Police Department received over 2,000 calls for service to hotels. Past inspections have indicated health, safety, and fire safety concerns, as well as long- term lodgers. Ms. Pettit displayed a slide with crime statistics from the Police Department that compared the number of service calls received by apartments and hotels. Despite there being a similar number of hotel rooms to apartments in Brooklyn Center, the number of calls is over double to hotels. She noted that the number of calls received by hotels between October 2023 and October 2025 was 4,877 calls, which accounts for 6.2 percent of the total calls to the Brooklyn Center Police Department. The Police Department also provided information about the top 10 types of calls for service at hotels, with the number one being 410 calls regarding an unwanted person at the hotel. Page 35 of 378 10/27/25 -2- DRAFT She stated that there have been 66 drug overdose calls at the hotels in the last two years, with a total of 270 overdose calls across the City for the same time period, which means that 24 percent of overdose calls occurred on hotel property. She noted that when comparing the hotels to the areas of the City that receive a lot of overdose calls, there is a lot of overlap. Ms. Pettit said there is a significant overlap between hospitality regulation and enforcement within the City, state, and county. Ms. Pettit stated that the City's goals for the hotel ordinance are to increase public safety and streamline the process for the City and the hotels. Some of the proposed updates to the ordinance that have been discussed include the calls for service and the points system. She stated that it is clear the points system is not working, and after reviewing multiple ordinances from neighboring communities, the points system should be replaced with a nuisance call system. She stated that adding definitions to reflect nuisance calls would be more effective. Ms. Pettit noted that the licensing levels could be updated with language to align with what is reasonable and enforceable for City Staff, as well as cost-effective for properties and business owners. Ms. Pettit stated that there are a lot of inspections crossover happening between county and state levels, and she would like to remove the City’s required annual inspection requirement while still allowing City Staff the ability to inspect on an as-needed basis. This would reduce strain on City Staff as well as eliminate duplicate efforts. This would not include Fire inspections. Ms. Pettit said she would also like to refine the language to provide City Staff with clearer guidelines on how to enforce ordinance violations. She noted that there have been past issues with hotels, and the ordinance is not clear on how to move forward when issues do arise. Ms. Pettit stated that Dr. Edwards would step in to finish the presentation. Dr. Edwards explained that there are several potential approaches the Council/EDA could take on this ordinance. He noted that the Council/EDA would have to come back and approve any changes made, but wanted the Council/EDA to consider the different options. The first option is to maintain the status quo, which would mean the Council/EDA would opt to maintain the current approach. Dr. Edwards stated that the current approach lacks the ability to coordinate and address strategic concerns, such as crime-related issues, while still being costly due to the intensive Staff time required. The second approach would be a more focused approach, which would limit duplicate inspection efforts, focus on nuisance calls related to public safety with new definitions, and refine language in the ordinance to address life and safety issues. The third approach would be more aggressive, expanding boundaries for calls of service, increasing fees, and reducing points allowed for levels. There would be more inspection requirements for fire, police, and Community Development. There would be increased City Staff hours to allocate to enforcement. There would also be increased property safety requirements for businesses. This approach could address some issues related to crime, but it may also put some hotels out of business and is not necessarily the most effective solution. Dr. Edwards said these are all points of discussion that the Council/EDA could think about to address some issues with the current ordinance and thanked Councilmember/Commissioner Jerzak for giving him some feedback and insight from years of experience with code enforcement. Dr. Page 36 of 378 10/27/25 -3- DRAFT Edwards stated that the Council/EDA is aware that the City is facing challenges with its hotels, related to crime and other issues. He said that, thinking about moving forward with the ordinance, the Council/EDA needs to consider how it could envision changing its approach to one of the three approaches he outlined above, and asked for the Council/EDA’s general thoughts. Mayor/President Graves thanked Dr. Edwards and Ms. Pettit for their presentation. She asked about taking the focused approach, if the City would still receive the results of the county and state inspections, and be able to track those inspections. Ms. Ellgren said part of the effort in taking that approach would be to build those relationships with the county and require results from inspections from the hotel. If the hotel cannot provide documentation of the inspection within a year, the City will reach out to the county to determine the status. She stated that if there have been multiple inspections for bed bugs and other safety- related issues, then those need to be disclosed as well, and it is on City Staff to build relationships with the county to ensure the City is getting that information while having an ordinance in place requiring that as an attention for the hotels. She noted that, currently, the ordinance also does not require a Minnesota state hotel license to be on file, and it should. Mayor/President Graves said she does not want to relinquish agency and accountability measures without ensuring that there is a more efficient way of doing so. She noted that, based on what she has heard, the focused approach seems most sensible to her. She asked if changing the calls to nuisance calls would also change the focus of the response and utilize different resources. Ms. Pettit said it is very clear what constitutes a nuisance call, and if the Police Department knows the type of call, it allows them to utilize other resources. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore asked if both the Police and Fire Chiefs weighed in on this, and if they were in support of the focused approach or some combination between that and the aggressive approach. She asked if the City planned to use this as another revenue stream, like the code enforcement. Police Chief Garett Flesland stated anecdotally that the current system is very cumbersome and is not getting the City where it should be. He stated that there is a pretty comprehensive work group working on this, with representatives from both the Fire and Police Departments. He noted that the focused approach is in alignment with a particular community located east of Brooklyn Center. He said that he also wanted to address Mayor/President Graves' previous question and note that the Police or Fire Department would not necessarily respond differently to a call. Still, they do have new resources that they did not have a couple of years ago. He stated that when it comes to holding a business accountable for the type of business it operates, he has a preference for the focused approach, as it is more common sense. He added that this approach places a lower burden on Staff to track and validate every call for service and utilizes some existing statutory language for nuisance property, spelling out the conduct. This approach would allow the Police to determine if that conduct is something they want to endorse within the community and can take action if necessary, much quicker than they have in the past. He noted that this approach could also prevent ongoing issues at hotels down the road. Page 37 of 378 10/27/25 -4- DRAFT Mayor/President Graves said her previous question was related to how to hold the hotel accountable, and how the Police would respond to a nuisance call, since a nuisance call can be for a broad range of things. She stated that her other concern was whether preventative aspects would be introduced to also reduce the number of calls. Chief Flesland said the new ordinance would allow the Police to pivot a lot faster than they have in the past, and prevent bigger problems down the road. Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson asked what the Chiefs' preference was regarding the different approaches. Chief Flesland said his recommendation is a focused approach, leveraging primarily a particular ordinance that the City does not have to adopt word-for-word, but rather adopt a substantial portion of it. This would provide flexibility, as articulated in the document, for the Police to respond effectively based on what is observed at the property. He noted that it would not involve overly policing the hotels or waiting a year to crunch the numbers, but rather addressing specific issues at specific properties when they arise. Mayor/President Graves asked Fire Chief Todd Berg to weigh in. Chief Berg said he agreed with Chief Flesland, as the focused approach would align well with the new Chapter 5 Ordinance as well. He stated that the reason the fire inspections would be left in the ordinance and the rest would not is that the state only inspects these buildings once every three years, and the City needs to conduct an annual general inspection. He added that the points system in the old ordinance does not apply to the Fire Department and is primarily for law enforcement. Mayor/President Graves said having a fire inspection annually versus every three years could also be beneficial as a last line of defense for the City if the ordinance that is crafted is not being followed, an inspection by the Fire Department could raise a red flag at the property to further investigate if other issues were to arise. Dr. Edwards highlighted that participants of the work group include Staff from Fire, Police, Community Development, Community Prevention and Health and Safety, so these ordinance changes are based on all Staff recommendations. He added that as this process moves forward, Staff will share data with the county to help make recommendations on how to draft the ordinance. Mayor/President Graves noted that this is in the beginning stages, and Staff will bring back a draft with specifics for the Council/EDA to consider in the future. Ms. Ellgren stated that even with the new ordinance, if issues should arise, code enforcement could still do inspections, but it would not be a requirement of the hotels’ licensure. If the hotel was found in really bad condition, the City would still have some options to ensure code enforcement. Councilmember/Commissioner Jerzak said he really liked the focused approach, but wanted to note that they should be careful not to discourage hotel staff from calling in for domestic incidents, and to be aware of those types of situations. He noted that this is a fair and simple ask for a very complex set of circumstances of human behaviors, present economic factors, mental health issues, addiction, shelter issues, and various other factors that are out of their control. He said the figure of 66 overdoses on hotel property is very sad, and City responders are responding to it, but not doing anything to prevent it. He continued that those individuals may be better off in a controlled Page 38 of 378 10/27/25 -5- DRAFT environment rather than on the street, and that has to be taken into consideration as well. He said that there is no one-size-fits-all ordinance, and they do not have to reinvent the wheel; however, the most important part is to allow the ordinance to adjust the policy as needed. These changes would still allow intervention if necessary. He stated that he looks forward to receiving Staff input and continuing to receive reports on what is happening with the hotels to ensure that the Council/EDA stays updated. He said the most important part of this process is the designation of who is primarily in charge, and a single point of accountability has been established, with contributions and engagement from all the Departments in the work group. Mayor/President Graves added that is what the Council/EDA wants the Departments to be doing and working together. Mayor/President Graves said there is a consensus from the Council/EDA on the Staff recommendation. ADJOURNMENT Mayor/President Graves moved and Councilmember/Commissioner Moore seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 9:09 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Page 39 of 378 11/10/25 -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 NOVEMBER 10, 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 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor April Graves, Councilmembers Teneshia Kragness, Dan Jerzak, and Laurie Ann Moore. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, Planning Manager Ginny McIntosh, and City Attorney Siobhan Tolar. Councilmember Kris Lawrence-Anderson was absent and excused. CITY COUNCIL MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS Dr. Edwards suggested removing item 7b. The NorthStar Youth Academy presentation from the regular session agenda, and replacing it with a presentation on Random Acts of Kindness. Councilmember Moore said that nominees were informed they needed to attend tonight's meeting to be recognized by the Council and asked if Mayor Graves or Councilmembers would be reading the names of the nominees. Dr. Edwards answered that there are over 50 names, and either Staff members can read through them and acknowledge them. Mayor Graves asked if the Staff had provided the Council with the list. Dr. Edwards answered that the Staff had prepared a PowerPoint with the list of names. Mayor Graves asked if the Council is reading the nomination, or just the names. Dr. Edward suggested reading the names of the nominator and the nominee. Mayor Graves said she would like to read all of them, as they have done in the past, and asked if her fellow Councilmembers had a problem with that, since tonight's meeting had a fairly light agenda. Councilmember Moore said that all the nominators and nominees were informed, and if they so chose, they were present at tonight's meeting. She said that if the Council is asking the nominees and nominators to attend the meeting, then the Council should read the names. Mayor Graves asked whether the Council was reading the nomination with the name included. Councilmember Jerzak said he was open to honoring the recognition, and Saturday is the scheduled presentation for the Random Acts of Kindness, but unfortunately, he cannot attend due to a Page 40 of 378 11/10/25 -2- DRAFT scheduling conflict. He said that for the people who showed up at tonight's meeting, it is very important that they are recognized. Dr. Edwards noted that an example was displayed on the screen before the Council, which featured Kids For A Better World, nominated by Adopt-a-Park, along with additional information. He said that there were 61 nominations, which is more than the City has ever had before. Councilmember Jerzak said he would like to acknowledge that there are more than the City has ever had, but he does not know how realistic it would be to read all the information if it is also going to be read on Saturday. Mayor Graves understood his point and said the nominations would be listed on the screen during the meeting, so residents could read them themselves. She noted that she would also be attending the Random Acts of Kindness event on Saturday. Dr. Edwards said the only other issue to add was the Storm Water rates to the 8a. Resolutions Approving 2026 Public Utility Rates Utilities, with information listed for the Council in their packets. He explained that the Council would make a motion for each of the Utility rates individually. Councilmember Moore asked Dr. Edwards if that changed the original plan to get presentations from each Utility fund. Dr. Edwards said the presentations would remain the same, but there would not be five different Public Hearings; instead, all Utility rates would be covered under one Public Hearing. Mayor Graves said on the original agenda that there was no Storm Sewer rate; it just stated the 2026 Sewer Utility rate, and she guessed that the Council needed to have a separate Sanitary Sewer and a separate Storm Sewer. Dr. Edwards confirmed that it was correct. City Attorney Siobhan Tolar said there would be one Public Hearing, but the Council still had to make motions for each of the Utility rates separately, so the record is clear. Mayor Graves stated she understood. CITY MANAGER MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS LEGISLATIVE DISCUSSION Dr. Edwards said this was a continuation of a previous conversation with the Council regarding legislative issues. He introduced Ann Lenczewski, Kate Wagner, and Alex Hassel to present the top five legislative priorities for 2026, providing clear direction to the legislative consultants. Ms. Lenczewski said she was there to present on the last session, as well as to gather feedback from the Council on the direction they would like to take as a City for legislative issues in the future. She thanked Community Development Director Jesse Anderson for all the work that he put in with them to get the Tax Increment Finance bill through legislation. She noted that several Page 41 of 378 11/10/25 -3- DRAFT issues are much bigger than the community, and she said she needs to be the Council's eyes and ears at the Capitol with their legislative delegation. Ms. Hassel said that as the Council looks ahead, she wants to hear what the Council would like her to focus on. She said she knows that bonding remains a big priority for the Council, and that she has made headway with. She noted that she was very proud that Brooklyn Center was invited to participate in the Senate Bonding Tour a few weeks ago to highlight the need for the Capital investment request. She said at the last legislative session, there was a bonding bill that passed, but it was for funding state assets, and there were no local earmarks that are traditionally part of a bonding bill. She said she is hopeful that, as Brooklyn Center continues to move up in the queue process for Capital investment, Brooklyn Center should be part of a bill this year. She said she is working on new tax legislation for the Economic Development proposals that the Council is reviewing and collaborating with the City Staff on those proposals. She noted that there is local government aid that she will continue to watch for next year, and does not believe that Brooklyn Center will face LGA cuts this upcoming session. She said that looking forward a year from now, the state will still be contending with a budgetary deficit and will seek ways to correct it. She noted that one way it will be corrected is to cut LGA funding, but she will continue to defend against that for Brooklyn Center. Ms. Hassel said she is also keeping an eye on all transportation- related matters for Brooklyn Center, including county and City cost-sharing, as well as legislative proposals for road work. Ms. Hassel said it has been an honor working with the Council, and she looks forward to hearing what else the Council would like her to focus on. Councilmember Moore said she knew the Senate had conducted a bonding tour and had heard that the House was also doing one. She asked if the House would be coming to Brooklyn Center for a bonding tour as well. Ms. Lenczewski said Brooklyn Center is not on the Minnesota House of Representatives' bonding tour and that they had previously visited the Public Works Garage last year. She said there is heavy competition for bonding, so she felt fortunate that one body came to Brooklyn Center this year. Councilmember Moore expressed concern that the Minnesota House of Representatives is not interested in visiting Brooklyn Center, despite choosing to spend $234,000 on the state office building, and will not come to the most economically disadvantaged suburb in their jurisdiction. She said she would be reaching out individually to legislators with her concerns. Councilmember Moore inquired about the delivery fees and all the taxes and fees imposed by the Democratic-controlled legislature on residents, as well as the state's expenditure of the $18 billion surplus. Ms. Lenczewski said what Councilmember Moore is referring to happened two years ago, and, indeed, the Democrats who were in charge of the House, Senate, and the Governor's office that year did increase the delivery fee in the tax component, so when residents order goods on Amazon, fees were charged that would be put towards the roads. She said she and her colleagues were not directly involved in that process and only worked on the local cashier issue. She said that most of the money received goes to MnDOT, so a state agency determines where that revenue is allocated, and there is no earmark process for the new tax. Page 42 of 378 11/10/25 -4- DRAFT Councilmember Moore said she knows there is a long list of priorities that Brooklyn Center has had for a very long time, but asked if Ms. Lenczewski had any other feedback as far as where Brooklyn Center is at now in regards to receiving bonding and any other ideas that are not on the list. Ms. Lenczewski said the Council should prioritize and direct her and Ms. Hassel's work so that their delegation knows what the Council's top priority is, along with a list of other priorities. She said the legislature has a lot more players to get things moving, so the City's best chance to move their agenda forward is to develop strong relationships with their legislators to carry the bill. She said the Council has made a lot of progress there, and the idea that the City is working on regarding taxes this year is completely new, which came from Economic Development Director Ian Alexander, but she and Ms. Hassel are on standby to do what is needed for the legislature with guidance from the Council. She noted that this will be a short legislative session, and she will take a targeted approach to spend time on the number one focus. Councilmember Moore asked Ms. Lenczewski and Ms. Hassel to lobby for work for other suburbs, such as Plymouth, which wanted a $26 million Public Works facility, as well as Robbinsdale, which asked for $20 million for a new facility. Ms. Hassel said she represents several communities seeking funding across the state, but it is essential not to view these communities as competitors, as each has its own legislative delegation to bring state resources back to their cities. She noted that she and Ms. Lenczewski are the ones carrying the message to the legislature about Brooklyn Center's priorities and facilitating the process. Councilmember Jerzak thanked Ms. Hassel and Ms. Lenczewski for their work and acknowledged the importance of establishing relationships with legislators. He said when meeting with legislators, it is not about the money but about conveying the importance of the needs of the community. He said his biggest disappointment was that no one sent a handmade thank-you card signed by all the Councilmembers to anyone on the Senate Bonding tour, thanking them for visiting Brooklyn Center, as that is part of building relationships. He told Dr. Edwards he hoped the Council could still send out that card. He continued that he thought the Senators really heard the Councilmembers on the Bonding Tour, and he was glad that there was a limited and condensed amount of priorities presented to the Senators so that they could leave Brooklyn Center with a simple memory. Mayor Graves thanked Ms. Lenczewski and Ms. Hassel for all their hard work at and outside the Capitol. She asked if the Council wanted to come back to this discussion at the end of the Council meeting. Dr. Edwards said the Council has all the information in their packet, and if the Council is comfortable with it, the issues of top priority could be determined at the next Council meeting on November 24, when they get adopted. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Graves adjourned the Study Session at 6:58 p.m. Page 43 of 378 11/10/25 -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 NOVEMBER 10, 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 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Mayor April Graves, Councilmembers Dan Jerzak, Teneshia Kragness, and Laurie Ann Moore. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, Deputy Fire Marshall Brandon Gautsch, Finance Director Angela Holm, and City Attorney Siobhan Tolar. Councilmember Kris Lawrence-Anderson was absent and excused. 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. Rose K. addressed the Council and stated that she worked for the state of Minnesota for 45 years as a Management Analyst. She stated that her job entailed making recommendations to management for improving government practices and procedures for efficiency and compliance in government, as well as managing contracts and grants with boilerplate language for assurances and certificates that were attached. She said she was there with three different requests, one of which was that the City provide deed restriction language. She said she asked five different City employees, including the City Manager, who did not respond to her, and the ones she did speak with did not know what deed restriction language the City should use. She said she then spoke with the City Clerk, who referred her to the Hennepin County Deed Office to obtain the information. She spoke with the deed office and asked how to proceed according to the City ordinance, and she was told to call the City of Brooklyn Center and speak with someone there. Rose K. continued that the reason she wanted to discuss this was due to a deed restriction regarding the installation of a stove in her basement. She said she put a stove in her basement and was told she needed to have soundproofing installed in her ceiling, so she did. She said that this was a year and a half ago, and the City told her that she was the first one expected to comply with this Page 44 of 378 11/10/25 -2- DRAFT ordinance. After she installed the stove in her basement, she was informed that she would also have to install a separate entrance to her basement. She explained that she is not using the basement as an apartment or renting it out, but using it as an entertaining space or for a caregiver to live in the basement as she gets older. She said she was informed by City Staff that there would be exceptions made to the ordinance. Mayor Graves informed Rose K. that her allotted time was up and to finish her statement. Mayor Graves said she remembered reading an email from Rose K. a few days prior. Rose K. responded that she was fined $1,000 plus a $75 registration fee for a vacant home by the City, but she has lived in her home for over a year and a half. She said the reason the City thinks her house is vacant is due to the restrictive language on her deed, but no one will tell her how to rectify the issue. Mayor Graves said she could tell that this issue has been very frustrating for Rose K. and stated that she would follow up to ensure that Rose's email and information reached the right person to be resolved. Rose K. asked Mayor Graves if City Attorney Siobhan Tolar could assist her with the deed language to ensure it is corrected. Mayor Graves confirmed that Ms. Tolar would look at the language and thanked Rose K. for addressing the Council. Steve L. addressed the Council and said he serves as the education coordinator for the Inland Sea Kayakers. Kayla S. also addressed the Council and said she was the vice president of the Rapids Riders Canoe and Kayak Club. Steve L. stated that the two clubs share a long tradition of using the Brooklyn Center Community Center pool each winter for canoe and kayak safety and skills training. This partnership has lasted for more than 30 years. Each week from November through May, more than 40 paddlers from across the region come together to learn, train, and stay connected to the water year-round. Kayla S. continued that they were concerned when they learned that the Brooklyn Center Community Center would have Sunday closures, knowing how much these sessions mean to the club members and the paddling community. She said she was grateful to hear that private rentals will continue, and looks forward to working with Parks and Recreation to ensure that their partnership continues smoothly through the coming years. She stated that the pool provides a safe solution and a welcoming environment for everyone to build confidence and skills, including individuals with disabilities and paddlers coming from historically underrepresented communities in paddle sports. She stated that they value the facility as a community resource and are thankful for the opportunity to continue this partnership. She thanked the Council for their time and continued support. Mayor Graves thanked Steve L. and Kayla S. for addressing the Council. Lam W. addressed the Council and stated that he belongs to the Inland Sea Kayak Club, noting the importance of the Community Center and the pool in training and introducing young people to kayaking. He said that due to this training, the kayakers are able to make a three-mile crossing across Lake Superior in the summer. He said he hoped the Council would reconsider opening the Community Center on Sundays so the training tradition could continue, especially for the younger people. Mayor Graves thanked Lam W. for speaking and said the Community Center is one of the City's best assets, along with all the programming partnerships that come with it. Page 45 of 378 11/10/25 -3- DRAFT Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Kragness seconded to close the Informal Open Forum. Motion passed unanimously. 5. INVOCATION Mayor Graves read a quote from the 1994 Inaugural speech of Nelson Mandela, “Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous. Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we left our own light shine, we consciously permit other people to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others." 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Moore seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, as amended, with amendments to the minutes as stated during the Study Session, to replace item 7b. Northstar Youth Academy Presentation, with the Random Acts of Kindness presentation, and move it up to item 7a.Northstar Youth Academy Presentation, and move item 7a. Minneapolis Northwest Tourism Update to become item 7b. Minneapolis Northwest Tourism Update and the following consent items were approved: 6a. LICENSES GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS Brooklyn Center Municipal Garage 6844 Shingle Creek Parkway Casey’s General Store 2101 Freeway Boulevard Holiday #3808 5710 Xerxes Avenue North LIQUOR LICENSES BC Liquor Store #1 1350 Suite A Shingle Creek Crossing Cub Foods-Brookdale 3245 County Road North 10 Davannis 5937 Summit Drive Duoos Brothers 6110 Brooklyn Boulevard Page 46 of 378 11/10/25 -4- DRAFT Embassy Suites 6300 Earle Brown Drive Pump N Munch 1505 69th Avenue North TOBACCO LICENSES Holiday #3808 5701 Xerxes Avenue North Premier Tobacco 6930 Brooklyn Boulevard Speedway 3192 6940 Brooklyn Boulevard Speedway 4503 1901 57th Avenue North Speedway 4160 6545 West River Road Winner (AM/PM Corner Market) 6501 Humboldt Avenue North RENTAL INITIAL (TYPE IV -- six-month license) 2012 Brookview Drive Mai Nhia Xiong & Lue Yang INITIAL (TYPE II – two-year license) 5308 Emerson Avenue North Catherine Williams 1713 70th Avenue North Bismuth Bridge PropCo LLC 3300 67th Avenue North Thomas A Cook 6123 Beard Avenue North ELLA CLAIBORNE RENEWAL (TYPE IV – six-month license) 1510 69th Avenue North JULIUS ASVELT COCHRAN 1701 69th Avenue North Earle Brown Farm Apartments RENEWAL (TYPE III – one-year license) 1308 68th Lane North Roth Wagner Llc1 5301 France Avenue North Juniper Land Trust Llc 5636 Irving Avenue North Bruce A Goldberg 6219 Chowen Avenue North Butterfly Bound Care Page 47 of 378 11/10/25 -5- DRAFT RENEWAL (TYPE II – two-year license) 2912 69th Lane North Lydia S. Kim 3712 53rd Place North SFR BORROWER 2022-A LLC 5357 71st Circle Randy E White 5607 Halifax Avenue North Kane M Buss 6413 June Avenue North CEL MONTON LLC RENEWAL (TYPE I – three-year license) 4201 Lakeside Avenue North #209 Robert J Morgan 5351 71st Circle Pyarali Revoc Trust 5814 Pearson Drive Ih2 Property Illinois Lp 6312 France Avenue North O OLADEJI & O OLADEJI 6506 Drew Avenue North P M ISABELL & K S ISABELL 6613 Camden Drive Mark One Resources LLC 6b. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LABOR AGREEMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES (LELS) LOCAL 86 (SERGEANTS AND COMMANDERS) AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE CALENDAR YEARS 2025, 2026, AND 2027 7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS 7a. RANDOM ACTS OF KINDNESS Dr. Edwards said the Council would review a brief presentation, and then nominees and nominators could take a photo with the City Council. A larger, more in-depth presentation will follow on Saturday, November 15, as the community celebrates and recognizes Random Acts of Kindness. Director of Community Prevention, Health and Safety LaToya Turk addressed the Council and stated she was there to make a presentation and to acknowledge all of the recipients. She asked that, as she calls the names of the recipients and they are present, they should stand to be recognized, but hold applause until the end of the presentation. Ms. Turk explained that the Random Acts of Kindness program was established in 1997, and this year marks 28 years for the Brooklyn Center Random Acts of Kindness program. The focus of Page 48 of 378 11/10/25 -6- DRAFT Random Acts of Kindness is to honor Brooklyn Center residents and/or groups that demonstrate acts of kindness, making the community a wonderful place to live and work. Ms. Turk explained that this year's process involved paper and email nominations and media promotion both on the City website and social media, along with newsletters, park signs, and community engagement promotion activities. She noted that this year there were 53 nominations, and the Random Acts of Kindness nominee celebration would be held at the Community Center in Constitutional Hall on November 15, from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. for brunch, acknowledgements, and Council photos. Ms. Turk stated she would start reading through the nominees and the nominators. She read aloud the nominees: Scott Hanson, Persephone’s Pals, TQL, The Organization of Liberian Women in Minnesota, BKBM Engineers, Jack MacMillan and Jill Dalton, Kids for a Better World, Inc., Kids on the Move Daycare, Brooklyn Center Lions Club, Brooklyn Center Lady Lions, Raven Robinson, who were all nominated by Adopt-A-Park. She stated that Taylor Oswald was also nominated by Adopt-A-Garden. Ms. Turk read aloud the 53 individual nominees: Commissioner Alexander Koenig, Alan and Darnell Hancock, the Brooklyn Center Community School Custodial Staff, B. Vang, Bill Bailey Family, The Brooklyn United Methodist Church, Caddox Herrera, Sheryl Jecarek, Christina Jones, Cindy Copaz, Denise Togbah, Derek Wolf, Diane Sannes, Dr. Amir Monzavi, Erika Lee, Erwin Heisler, Francis Bernard, Ginger and Phil Luoma Anderson, Hadi Medical Clinic, Hussein and Kaniz Walji, Ingrid Smith, Jennifer Olson, Jody Vaillancourt, Kazem Meshksar, Kelly Tomsche, Lamarion Edwards, Leonard “Lenny” Jacobsson, Lillian McDonald, Mariah Russell, Mezgebu Alemneh, Mike Mahigan, Minneapolis Elks Lodge #44, Rick Gordon, Sandy Becker, Sarah Meissner, Sheila Bear, Shelly Auld, Stella Sola, Teri Iverson, Terry Hayes, and William Schafer. Ms. Turk said that this year, there were three nominees for the Community Engagement Connector Award, recognizing leadership and commitment to engaging and connecting Brooklyn Center communities with needed resources. Ms. Turk said she would like to acknowledge those three nominees: Re-Church and Pastor Chuchi Xiong, Sports and Leadership Academy, and The Inner Hero. She thanked those three organizations for all of their service to the City of Brooklyn Center. Mayor Graves congratulated all of the nominees and said that when people stand in their own power and their own purpose and let their light shine, it opens the door for other people to do the same, and those people make up the community of Brooklyn Center. She stated that when people create their own positive ripples, it makes the City even more beautiful for everyone to live in and exist. She thanked all of the nominees for all of their work. Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Kragness seconded to accept the presentation of the Random Acts of Kindness. Motion passed unanimously. 7b. MINNEAPOLIS NORTHWEST TOURISM UPDATE Page 49 of 378 11/10/25 -7- DRAFT Mayor Graves introduced CEO and President Leslie Wright to present this item. Ms. Wright said she would like to open by talking about lodging taxes and framing this the way the convention and visitor bureau or destination marketing organization is funded. She said this enables legislation in the regulatory context per Minnesota statutes, Chapter 469, which is on Economic Development, and at Miscellaneous Economic Development Powers section 469.190, which is the local lodging taxes and funding of the local convention or visitor’s bureau, this is where some of the City's funding is taken from. She explained that when looking at common uses and restrictions of those taxes, the things that are allowed are marketing visitor guides, social media, attracting regional and national conventions and events, and hosting events that bring tourism. The City's Capital Improvement plans and public improvements, such as public space beautification, are not allowed to use those funds, so taxes really go to promoting the City. Ms. Wright explained that Northwest Tourism is a destination marketing organization representing Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park that focuses on the promotion, management, and development of a specific travel or tourism destination. She stated that their primary role is to attract visitors, improve the visitor experience, and ensure sustainable tourism growth. The organization typically represents a City or region and works in collaboration with local businesses, governments, and stakeholders to foster tourism and drive economic development. She noted that Northwest Tourism includes her and two other staff members, and there is one vacant marketing consultant position that is currently available. She said the organization is determining what to do entering 2026 to ensure they have the right strategy to move their destinations forward. She explained that the organization is funded by lodging taxes, which are the taxes paid by visitors staying at the accommodations in the cities of Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center, not by the tax-paying residents who reside there. The more people that stay at these area hotels, the more revenue the organization receives, which means more marketing. Ms. Wright said that the organization participates in data analysis of occupancy at the area hotels, to ensure that numbers stay up, and if they do not, the organization does an analysis of why and how they can increase occupancy year after year. Ms. Wright explained what Northwest Tourism is working on now, which includes media coverage for bigger events in the area, newsletters and blogs, and community engagement meetings with both Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center to understand what is happening in order to promote events. She said they are hosting quarterly hotel sales director meetings, social activities with board members and stakeholders, proactive selling, lead qualification and distribution, and the Gus Macker event. Upcoming events for Northwest Tourism include critical board training, soft rebrand of Minneapolis Northwest Tourism which includes more information about the Brooklyn’s, a familiarization tour holiday event on December 2 at the Heritage Center, updating Insider’s Guide for meeting planners because some events have changed in the community, a board newsletter, determining return on investment for the Gus Macker event, and strategizing for 2026. Ms. Wright noted that to promote tourism in the area, they primarily use social media, Google Ads, newsletters, blogs, conferences, and events, communicating with event planners, and some Page 50 of 378 11/10/25 -8- DRAFT free marketing and promotion events that the organization is able to do for businesses and restaurants. She said the next area of focus will be storytelling in 2026, where stories about residents and businesses of the area will be featured. Ms. Wright noted the importance of Councilmembers attending community events. She said she attended every neighborhood meeting in Brooklyn Center in order to hear what residents are saying, to learn more about the community. She said the focus is also on Gus Macker sponsorships and contacts, as the organization needs as many as they can possibly get, and it is important for Councilmembers to advocate for. She encouraged Councilmembers to follow the organization on social media and to be an advocate for the City and the visitors. Ms. Wright explained that the Gus Macker event is a community three-on-three outdoor basketball tournament that is a national event held throughout the country. On August 2nd through the 3rd, it was held at North Hennepin Community College, and 173 teams participated. She said there were local partnerships supported by local non-profit businesses, volunteers, and City leadership, and Mayor Graves was one of the celebrity judges. Northwest Tourism donated $20,450 to non- profit organizations and volunteer groups this year, received $21,800 in sponsorships, and had 300 shifts of volunteers that helped with the Gus Macker event. Ms. Wright highlighted how Brooklyn Center can support Minneapolis Northwest Tourism with communication about events, promoting awareness of the community, expanding amenities to attract visitors, investing in establishments, and including Northwest tourism for decision-making. She asked if the Council had any questions for her. Mayor Graves thanked Ms. Wright for her presentation. Councilmember Kragness said she looks forward to the Gus Macker event. Ms. Wright said the event will be even better next year, and it is critical to have the support from the City, even though the event is in Brooklyn Park; she wants the presence of Brooklyn Center to be there. Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Kragness seconded to accept the presentation from Northwest Tourism. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Jerzak asked if the names of the local non-profits that received funds from Northwest Tourism could be printed in the Friday update. Mayor Graves said that sounded like a great idea. Ms. Wright said she would get those names, as well as the organizations that volunteered, to City Staff to be included in the Friday update. 7c. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PROCUREMENT CARD USE POLICY Dr. Edwards introduced Finance Director Angela Holm to present this item. Ms. Holm explained that she was there to present the new Procurement Card use policy that the Finance Commission has been working on under the direction of the Council and City Staff. The Page 51 of 378 11/10/25 -9- DRAFT Finance Commission has taken time to review this policy, as it was based on research from other cities and started with the initial credit card use policy, which was out of date and no longer applicable. Ms. Holm noted the differences between a City Procurement Card (P-card) and a credit card, and said the City previously had a credit card, which allowed individuals to make charges. Receipts were required, and bills were not paid until all receipts were gathered and verified. This resulted in late fees, interest, and locked account issues. The P-card bills are set to auto-pay each month, which eliminates late fees and interest, but receipts are still required from cardholders to verify charges each month. She said the reason the Finance Commission is looking at this new policy is due to audit findings in 2023 and 2024 in an independent audit. She noted that the City needed to demonstrate corrective actions to address the findings in those audits. She said the City needed to provide guidance and expectations for cardholders, and the previous policy was directed to credit card activity and needed to be updated for the P-cards. Ms. Holm stated that the key provisions of this policy are that P-cards are considered an asset of the City and must be handled in a way to protect the City’s financial interests. There will be required purchasing card user agreements that will be maintained in the City employee’s personnel file. The P-card policy will also reference other City policies that include: Personnel policy, Business Ethics policy, the Purchasing policy, and the Progressive Discipline policy. Other key points of the policy include that purchases must be for a public purpose, no personal use of the P- card will be permitted, invoiced amounts may not be paid with a P-card, which was a specific finding by the auditors, and adequate documentation regarding the nature, purpose, and total cost of the purchase is required. P-card transactions will also be processed through the City’s accounts payable workflow system, and lost receipts will not relieve the cardholder of purchase responsibilities. Each P-card will have a credit limit of $5,000, and individual transactions will be limited to less than $1,000. She noted that this limit aligns with the current purchasing policy authorization thresholds. Adjustments to these limits can be made for specific purchases. She said that an example would be if a Staff member is traveling or needs to make a larger purchase, the P- card purchase threshold can be increased for a one-time purchase. Ms. Holm noted that a loss of privileges for the P-card would be due to failure to comply with the P-card policy, patterns of missing receipts or disputed transactions, and fact-finding investigations would be conducted prior to any disciplinary action. Disciplinary action would include cancellation of the cardholder's account for 60 days, or permanent loss of P-card privileges, and the Progressive Discipline policy may be applied. Ms. Holm noted that this policy does not restrict the use of personal credit cards for expenses that are eligible for reimbursement, but Staff must be aware that immediate reimbursement of these expenses is not possible. She noted that Staff should use their own card for City purchases cautiously. Ms. Holm asked the Council if there were any questions. Page 52 of 378 11/10/25 -10- DRAFT Councilmember Moore thanked Ms. Holm for the presentation. She asked about P-card purchase limits and said she thought previously the limit was $3,000. Ms. Holm said from historical research she did, $5,000 was the credit limit on the card, and $1,000 was the single purchase limit. Councilmember Moore asked if travel was the only example Ms. Holm could think of that would require a P-card designee to go above the purchase limit. Ms. Holm said that the example is the only one that has been presented to her. Councilmember Moore said that because all Directors report to Dr. Edwards, it would be up to Dr. Edwards to implement any investigation or disciplinary action regarding the misuse of the P-cards. Ms. Holm responded that Dr. Edwards would play a significant role in that process, but would be acting on her general recommendation due to her having access to all the P-card transactions and activities surrounding the card each month. Ms. Holm continued that she has a Staff member who specifically tracks every transaction and consults with Ms. Holm if there are any issues. Councilmember Moore thanked Ms. Holm and the Finance Commission for coming up with this policy. Councilmember Kragness thanked Ms. Holm and the Finance Commission for coming up with a thorough purchase policy. Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Kragness seconded to accept the Brooklyn Center Procurement Card Use Policy presentation. Motion passed unanimously. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8a. RESOLUTIONS APPROVING 2026 PUBLIC UTILITY RATES Dr. Edwards introduced Finance Director Angela Holm to present this item. Ms. Holm said that she would present to give some extra information about how to proceed with the 2026 Utilities rates, allow for adequate comment, and keep a clear record. She noted that any variances to the information contained in the resolutions would require modification to the language. She said one of the resolutions was not originally included in the Public Hearing, which was the Storm Sewer rates, but will be discussed tonight and will be included in the resolutions. Ms. Holm said that when proposing rates to the Council, she wants to ensure that service levels are maintained while providing cash for operating needs, Capital projects, and debt services. The 2026 proposed rates will be presented to the Council on December 1, 2025. There will be a long- term analysis to promote stabilization of rate changes. She said she included the Utility Capital projects in her presentation, just as a point of reference, so people understand what these Utility funds are used for. She explained that Capital improvements are outside of operating funds, but there are structural and infrastructure needs that have to be done to ensure that Utility services are maintained for the City as well. Page 53 of 378 11/10/25 -11- DRAFT Ms. Holm showed the Council a summary of what the proposed rate changes are for 2026, comparing them to the 2025 rates. *Rates not shown on screen.* Ms. Holm showed the Council the rates for water, and what an average residential homeowner uses for water, which is approximately 18,000 gallons of water a quarter, and water is billed on a quarterly basis. *Rates not shown on screen.* Ms. Holm said with this information in mind, she anticipated the water rates to be $289.64 per quarter in 2025. She anticipated that in 2026, the new water rates would go up to $325.39 per quarter. Ms. Holm noted the total change in recycling rates per quarter is $35.75 in 2026. She said she would like to show the Council some slides comparing Brooklyn Center's Utility rates to other cities' rates. She said she always wants to look at how comparable cities fund infrastructure, operations, maintenance, and replacement, and large construction projects. She noted that some cities have very specific funding sources that are kept out of Utility rates, and that has to be kept in mind when comparing them to Brooklyn Center. She said there are also differing policies on incurring debt or using other funding mechanisms, and organics and recycling are addressed differently in each community. Ms. Holm noted that, as far as comparison of the 2025 water Utility rates compared to 2026, the rates for 2026 are higher, and it would be an easy assumption to say that other comparable cities would have higher water rates as well. She said that the Sanitary Sewer Utility rate is very similar to other cities as far as comparable rates, with 2025 being right in the middle and increasing in 2026. She stated that the City's Storm Drainage rates are lower in comparison to other cities in both 2025 and 2026. Ms. Holm continued with a comparison of all three: Water, Sewer, and Storm Drainage across all comparable cities, excluding street lights and recycling, because not all cities charge for those. The comparison shows Brooklyn Center in the mid-to-low range compared to other cities in 2025, with the expectation to move up to the mid-range in 2026 with the rate increase. She noted that for cities that charge for recycling, Brooklyn Center is on the upper end for rates. Ms. Holm explained that the next steps would include the Council opening a Public Hearing for comments on the proposed 2026 Utility rates. Once the Public Hearing is open, she suggested that the Council take comments on each individual utility, specifically calling it out, just to keep the record clear. Once all comments have been taken and the Public Hearing is closed, there will need to be a motion for each resolution. Ms. Holm said she would address any questions from the Council prior to the Public Hearing. Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Kragness seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. No one wished to address the Council. Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Moore seconded to close the Public Hearing. Page 54 of 378 11/10/25 -12- DRAFT Motion passed unanimously. Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Kragness seconded to approve a RESOLUTION adopting the 2026 Water Utility Rates, Fees, and Charges. Councilmember Moore said she would like to discuss the Water Utility rates before voting. Mayor Graves said she thought questions and comments would have been discussed before opening the Public Hearing, since the motion had already been made to approve the resolution. Councilmember Moore said a Public Hearing is different than the Council having a discussion, and she would like to discuss the motion. Mayor Graves told Councilmember Moore to go ahead with her comments. Councilmember Moore said she would not be in support of a 25 percent increase for the Water Utility rates, and thinks there has been an oversight in the Administration of the City's Water Utility Fund. She stated that the current fund does have enough money to fund the Capital Improvement project for next year. She noted that she brought this forward in the joint Finance Commission meeting, and that by 2028, there will be $9.5 million in the Water Utility fund, and there are not enough Capital Improvement projects in the City that would need that much money. She continued that the City has a water meter fiasco, which she will not go into great detail about at tonight's meeting. She requested that there be a reduction in the 25 percent increase amount during a joint Finance Commission meeting, and she was told that this is the recommendation. Councilmember Moore continued that there was discussion about the bond rate, but she does not think that pertains to just the Utility fund, and that it will affect the bond rate. She pointed out that Golden Valley, Crystal, and New Hope buy water from Minneapolis under the Joint Water Commission and are not comparable to Brooklyn Center's Utility rates. She said due to those reasons and more that she is not willing to discuss during this meeting, she will not be supporting this resolution. Councilmember Jerzak said last year he voted not to support a Water Utility rate increase, but this year he would be voting in the affirmative because Staff has identified that there is a shortage of funds and there are several needs for the City. He noted that no one likes cost increases, but he has to be realistic about what has to be done so there are ample funds in that account. He said he is hopeful that, going forward, the Council continues to re-examine the Utility rates. He noted that as far as the water meters go, he said City Staff has presented a concrete plan to remedy them, and is securing contracts to replace the no-read water meters. He said he respectfully understands Councilmember Moore's concerns, but also wants to be realistic, and Staff have identified that an increase is needed to remain fluid and fiscally responsible. He noted that for all of those reasons, he would be voting to approve the resolution. Councilmember Moore voted against the same. Motion passed. Councilmember Moore moved and Mayor Graves seconded to approve a RESOLUTION adopting the 2026 Sanitary Sewer Utility Rates, Fees, and Charges. Page 55 of 378 11/10/25 -13- DRAFT Motion passed unanimously. Mayor Graves moved Councilmember Moore seconded to approve a RESOLUTION adopting the 2026 Storm Sewer Utility Rates, Fees, and Charges. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Kragness moved and Mayor Graves seconded to approve a RESOLUTION adopting the 2026 Street Light Rates, and Charges. Councilmember Moore said she wanted to commend Ms. Holm and other City Staff for reducing the original increase amount for Street lights from 20 percent down to 10 percent. Councilmember Jerzak said he would like to include Engineering and Public Works in that commendation, and for adopting the state statute around state specifications for better light poles and easier replacement of light bulbs, and a basis for bulbs to be stocked in inventory. He said he knows that has been a difficult issue in the past, and wanted to acknowledge the work that the Staff did to ensure that the process went smoothly. He noted that in the past, on Brooklyn Boulevard, street lights would be out for a long period of time, due to the difficulty in changing out the bulbs, and now that is no longer an issue. Motion passed unanimously. Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Moore seconded to approve a RESOLUTION establishing the 2026 Recycling Rates and Charges. Councilmember Moore acknowledged that originally there was a five percent increase in recycling, and that was reduced to three percent. She commented that she does not know why Brooklyn Center rates are still so high, but thanked the Staff for reducing them. Motion passed unanimously. Mayor Graves said Brooklyn Center was a little late to the game to sign up for recycling, which is why the City’s rates are a little bit higher. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS 10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 10a. AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REPLACING IN ITS ENTIRETY CHAPTER 5 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES, REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION WITHIN THE BROOKLYN CENTER FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOVEMBER 24, 2025 (FIRST READING) Page 56 of 378 11/10/25 -14- DRAFT Dr. Edwards introduced Deputy Fire Marshall Brandon Gautsch to present this item. Dr. Edwards said there are a few notable changes to this ordinance which includes updating the codes and standards for landscaping, allowing email corrections notices in addition to mailed notices, adding language to support safety to gated access, as well as addressing prevalent malfunctioning elevators, maintenance for alarms and sprinkler systems, vacant buildings that require maintenance, requirements for hotel life and safety inspections, regulations for electric vehicle charging stations and mobile food truck inspections. Dr. Edwards explained that all changes to the ordinance have been provided in the information the Council received, and the motion before the Council is to approve the first reading of the ordinance repealing and replacing Chapter 5. He noted that Mr. Gautsch would answer any questions that the Council may have; otherwise, the Council could make the motion. Mr. Gautsch said he appreciates the Council’s time and the fact that Chapter 5 has been updated, as it has been 20 years since its last update. Councilmember Jerzak said he thoroughly reviewed the updates and said he appreciated Mr. Gautsch considering the feedback received from the previous meeting, and noted the language changes in the code. Councilmember Moore moved and Mayor Graves seconded to approve an Ordinance Repealing and Replacing in its entirety, Chapter 5 of The Brooklyn Center City Code of Ordinances, regarding the establishment of the Fire Prevention Division within the Brooklyn Center Fire Department, and setting the Public Hearing for November 24, 2025 (First Reading). Motion passed unanimously. 11. COUNCIL REPORT 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Kragness seconded the adjournment of the City Council meeting at 8:21 pm. Motion passed unanimously. Page 57 of 378 11/10/25 -1- DRAFT 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 NOVEMBER 10, 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 8:22 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, City Planning Manager Ginny McIntosh, and City Attorney Siobhan Tolar. Councilmember/Commissioner Kris Lawrence-Anderson was absent and excused. ACTIVE DISCUSSION ITEMS GENERAL PLANNING INFORMATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION PROCESS Dr. Edwards explained that this was an item that Council had previously requested about applications that come forward for the Planning Commission, with a clear differentiation between this process and the Economic Development process. Dr. Edwards introduced City Planning Manager Ginny McIntosh to present this item. Ms. McIntosh stated she had a lot of information to get through, but would try to go as quickly as possible. She noted that City Planners are professionals who work to improve the quality of life for an entire community. She said that City Planners work with a wide range of people and groups, including government entities, attorneys, architects, landscape scape architects, urban designers, civil engineers, real estate developers, land surveyors, hydrologists, GIS specialists, real estate brokers and agents, private consultants, and community members. Ms. McIntosh explained that City planning emerged as a profession and practice in the early 1900s, as a large number of people were moving to cities at the time, which caused numerous problems. She noted that not too long ago, public health and urban Planning were synonymous professions. She stated that city planning has a lot of focus on architecture and social work. With the emergence of City Planning came the creation of laws called zoning ordinances, which were originally Page 58 of 378 11/10/25 -2- DRAFT intended to keep people, businesses, and incompatible land uses apart from one another. She noted that, until a few years ago, the City did not have mixed-use zoning due to changes that had occurred within the City's landscape over the years. Ms. McIntosh explained that City Planners are charged with translating what a community wants by helping shape what can be built and how it can be used through prioritizing long-term land-use and sustainable growth. She noted that economic developers focus on improving a community’s economic well-being by creating or retaining jobs, attracting businesses, and expanding existing ones, while boosting the tax base and enhancing the quality of life for residents. She stated that both roles involve developing a single cohesive vision that integrates long-range community plans and short-term Economic Development goals. In Brooklyn Center, the Planning Manager and Associate Planner are partially funded by the EDA and are involved in some economic activities, but not all. Ms. McIntosh detailed the review process and noted that zoning requests are typically reviewed by the City Council as either a concept review or a Planning Commission application. Brooklyn Center has historically used City Council concept reviews to vet out certain projects on the front end before having the applicant work through the full City approval process. This is to the benefit of City Staff, the applicant, the Planning Commission, and the Council because it can save time and mitigate risks or funds spent on a potential project. Depending on the scale of the project, a developer can spend anywhere between $300,000 and $500,000 on a project prior to receiving City approval. These costs are related to the preparation of engineering and architectural plans, environmental assessments, traffic studies, geotechnical reports, application preparation for the Planning Commission, and more. Ms. McIntosh asked that when she comes before the Council with a concept review, the Council give honest and direct feedback during that meeting to save time and frustration for the applicant, because she has had applicants spend $50,000 to $90,000 on a small project just for the concept review. She noted that when clear feedback is not given by the Council, problems can arise that negatively affect the applicant and the project, when the applicant did not know the Council had any issues. Ms. McIntosh stated that Planning and Zoning concept reviews are most often requested when a particular use is not clearly identified in the City's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) or outlined as an approved use in a particular zoning district. Concept reviews are considered non- binding, but they offer an opportunity for City Staff and the applicant to highlight their request to the Council and to receive feedback with respect to any concerns or considerations. She noted that even if the City Council is not supportive of the request, this does not prevent the applicant from proceeding through the Planning Commission process. Ms. McIntosh explained the Planning Commission application process. She noted that the Brooklyn Center Planning Commission consists of seven members and is the designated planning agency advisory to the City Council. The Planning Commission also serves as the City's Board of Adjustments and Appeals to hear appeals and variance requests. The primary role is to conduct Public Hearings on zoning requests like site and building plans, conditional uses, preliminary and final plats, ordinance amendments, and re-zonings, and to make recommendations to the Council. The Planning Commission also serves a variety of other functions and assists in the development Page 59 of 378 11/10/25 -3- DRAFT of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. A key distinction of the Planning Commission is that it holds Public Hearings and it does not have a designated Council liaison. Ms. McIntosh noted that when appointing Planning Commissioners, the City should be aware that appointed officials are subject to the same concerns relating to a conflict of interest as City Councilmembers. The Planning Commission is also governed by many of the same statutes as the City Council, like the Open Meeting Law. Planning Commissioners are to base their decisions on the adopted City code with the best interests of the City in mind rather than those of a particular person or group, and are directed to objectively review applications. She noted that before a Public Hearing, the Planning Commissioners should avoid advocating for or against a project, posting about a project on social media, publicly indicating a position on the matter, and contacting the applicant or neighbors. A Commissioner is required to disclose if there is a financial or direct personal interest in a matter before the Planning Commission and may be required to abstain from participating in the discussion on the matter. Ms. McIntosh stated that in 2019, the city of Roseville had to remove its Planning Commission Chair after he failed to recuse himself from a Public Hearing after signing a petition in opposition to a project. Ms. McIntosh noted that applicants are required to meet with City Staff prior to submitting an application. The Planning Commission applications generally operate within a 60-day timeline to meet state statute requirements. The first 30 days are generally set aside to submit application materials to outside agencies or other City Staff for review. This time is also spent preparing any Public Hearing notices for newspaper publication, mail notifications, maps, and addressing any outstanding questions with the applicant or obtaining other documentation, and preparing the Staff report. The remaining 30 days are set aside to move the application through the Planning Commission and City Council. Ms. McIntosh explained that the Zoning authority is in the City’s general police powers, which are the ability to act and enforce laws for the promotion and protection of the public’s general welfare. Municipal and City Planning assists in ensuring the development of lands is to the best use to serve citizens more effectively, and to make the provision of public services less costly and achieve a more secure tax base. She noted there are two main categories of zoning decisions the Planning Commission and City Council should be aware of, and those include legislative and quasi-judicial. The legislative decisions are a broader discretion because they set public policy and affect the general public. This includes land-use plans, comprehensive plans, and zoning ordinances. The quasi-judicial decisions look at applying the laws or the ordinances that have been adopted as a body and established policy. These decisions typically only affect a few individuals and are the heart of the Planning Commission applications that are related directly to a property. These types of applications could include a variance for a particular property, conditional use permits, and plats. Ms. McIntosh explained that "findings of fact" is a term used to refer to a City's written explanation of a land use decision and are critical when making quasi-judicial decisions. She noted that if the City is ever sued over a land use decision, the courts would review the record for a sufficient statement as to why the City granted or denied the request. If the City denies an application related to zoning, Minnesota's 60-day rule requires the reasons for denial to be put in writing, and this Page 60 of 378 11/10/25 -4- DRAFT should be done for approvals as well. When reviewing a Planning Commission application, it is important to make sure the reason for approval or denial is not in conflict with adopted codes and ordinances. Ms. McIntosh gave an example of an application denial for an apartment building with the reason cited as being too dense, or too many housing units, but the zoning code allows for that many housing units in that area, which would be problematic for the Planning Commission. Ms. McIntosh gave another example of an application denial for a subdivision of a property due to neighborhood opposition, but it met all the requirements for the subdivision, and stated this would also be problematic for the Planning Commission. Ms. McIntosh explained that City Attorneys were able to provide more examples of poor findings of fact. These include conclusionary statements which do not explain underlying reasons or evidence; these would include statements about the project not being in the best interest of the community. Ms. McIntosh provided another example of bad findings of fact, which is called a lack of evidentiary support, which means that findings do not reference any specific or expert testimony from a public hearing to support them. An example of this would be if a member of the public made a statement that a project would disturb the root system of existing trees with no evidence from the City's Forester or Landscape Architect to support that statement. Ms. McIntosh highlighted that another bad finding of fact is a reliance on generalized public opposition. This would include a zoning decision based solely on general, unsubstantiated fears or opinions of local residents, rather than objective evidence relating to the ordinance criteria. An example of this would be denying an application based on numerous residents' concerns regarding increased traffic and noise. Ms. McIntosh explained other problematic denial decisions, such as a failure to address specific ordinance criteria. She noted that a City resolution must explicitly reference and apply the relevant legal standards to the facts of the case. An example of this would be the denial of an application due to not meeting City code standards, but not citing the City codes or how the application fails to meet them. Other examples of problematic decision-making include inconsistent rulings without explanations. She noted that if the Planning Commission or Council denied an application based on certain facts after having approved an identical application in the past without providing a reason to reach a different conclusion, this would be extremely problematic, and the reason why City Planners are very strict on precedent for projects. She noted that when reviewing a Planning Commission application, it comes down to a zoning decision and is not based on employment methods. Ms. McIntosh noted that neighborhood opposition should never be the sole reason to deny a project, and although it can be challenging, it is important for community members to provide information related to adopted legal standards and City code. Ms. McIntosh explained that “Missing Middle” legislation has resulted in a movement that has brought private and non-profit housing developers, religious groups, and social justice organizations together. This has resulted in bills floated through the Minnesota legislature over the past couple of years that have gained bipartisan support and would effectively end single- family zoning in Minnesota. The bills contain provisions that would require an administrative Page 61 of 378 11/10/25 -5- DRAFT review approval process for residential developments with no more than one public meeting, which is not the same as a Public Hearing. Ms. McIntosh stated that the administrative review provisions under the "Missing Middle" legislation are targeted at avoiding situations where politics are brought into a zoning decision. She noted that supporters of the bill argue that because the City Council adopted their respective comprehensive plans and zoning codes, City Staff are already reviewing projects against those provisions. She said that the argument is that if a project meets a municipality’s regulations and does not require a special approval or variance, it should be approved without the need to go before a City’s Planning Commission or Council. Mayor/President Graves said that when Ms. McIntosh was reading through this, she knew of some cities that came to mind that she knows are not following these regulations. Ms. McIntosh confirmed that Mayor/President Graves was correct. Mayor/President Graves said if that was the case, there would not be so many affordable housing units built in Brooklyn Center versus the other parts of the greater Metro area. Ms. McIntosh said to Mayor/President Graves' point, the Metropolitan Council just released their 2050 Housing Plan, and has a chart with estimated numbers of affordable housing units at 30 percent AMI and below 50 to 60 AMI for each city with recommendations of what should be in each city’s comprehensive plan. She stated that despite those recommendations, it is not pushed. Ms. McIntosh continued that some cities like Rochester, Bloomington, Wayzata, Blaine, Lakeville, and Maple Grove have proactively made amendments to their zoning codes to streamline the zoning approval processes by limiting conditional uses, allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), and allowing for fully administrative review by city staff only. She noted that part of the reason this was enacted was due to damage done when applicants failed to get through the bureaucratic process of approval. She added that some cities have seen these changes as providing a competitive advantage to economic development and increasing the vitality of the city's business environment. Ms. McIntosh added that cities like Rochester, which have enacted this due to tremendous growth, would have to have their city council in session every day to approve all the applications if they did not streamline their approval process. She noted that unless it requires a variance, or something does not meet their city’s code, it never crosses their city council and goes straight through their city staff and receives a building permit. Mayor Graves said she could see how that would be advantageous, especially when trying to develop a business. Ms. McIntosh explained that there are limits to the City's zoning authority. These limits include the First Amendment, statutory limitations, the Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Minnesota state statute protections on certain uses, like group homes, which is one of the big ones, along with common law limitations that prohibit arbitrary and capricious decisions. She noted there are also limits on the conditions that can be placed on a particular permit, like a conditional or interim use permit. She said that the zoning authority also cannot attempt to manage Page 62 of 378 11/10/25 -6- DRAFT a business, so employment policies, pay, and insurance requirements. She noted that conditions that are taken too far could also be considered unconstitutional and should only stick to zoning. Ms. McIntosh said if a lawsuit is filed, the courts would review the zoning decisions to determine if there is a reasonable, rational basis. A court could also reverse a decision made by the City Council if it is determined that a zoning decision was either approved or denied for a legally insufficient reason. Ms. McIntosh told the Council to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and ordinances, and make sure that applications are denied because something does not comply with code, and make sure it is in writing. She noted that the Council does not need an expert to refute an expert but to make sure reasons for denial are based on concrete observations, and not fear or speculation. Ms. McIntosh explained the 60-day rule and said it guides a City Planner's life. She noted there are certain triggers that dictate whether or not the applicant needs to go through the Planning Commission or the Council. She said her Department tries to work through any issues with the potential use and the developer firm prior to submittal because once the application is submitted and it does not have everything required, the applicant will get an incomplete notice from the Planning Commission, and the applicant has to wait another month to resubmit. She said that if project approval is dragged out by the city, and the 60-day deadline has passed, and there is nothing in writing requesting more time to review a project, the project is automatically approved. Ms. McIntosh noted that when she receives a complete application and all fees have been paid, it has to be brought through the process, whether she agrees with the project or not. Ms. McIntosh said that after the denial of an application, there is typically not a lot of movement from that request. Certain zoning requests, like conditional use permits, do not allow the applicant to bring a new request unless there is a substantial change in the request for a period of one year from when the Council made a decision. She said that for approvals, building permits need to be obtained and enacted within one year following approval, or they expire. Extensions can be granted by the Council if a request is received in writing from the applicant. She said that within the Community Development Division, Staff are revising and requesting plans for building permit submittals, and there are multiple iterations of construction sets that come through for approval. She noted that Staff also request title commitments and revisions to plats so they can file with the county, along with land surveyors, to make revisions. She noted that City Attorneys also review documentation to ensure that easements are vacated through engineering and get any required signatures prior to filing with the county. Ms. McIntosh said that Staff work through the City Manager and Mayor to obtain the bulk of the signatures required for all the agreements, and that is for EDA and non-EDA properties, coordinate with City Engineers to ensure a construction management plan is completed, obtain financial guarantees and deposit cash, escrow or letter credit prior to a building permit being issued, and schedule pre-construction meetings with building officials and engineering. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore asked if the property across from the new CAPI development, which has been sitting vacant and went into foreclosure, had reserve funds. Ms. Page 63 of 378 11/10/25 -7- DRAFT McIntosh said that the project went into bank foreclosure, and the lender acquired the property. She noted the lender has been working on the property by installing a new curb, gutter, and pond. The lender has filed a new letter of credit, and all paperwork has to be redone because it was never filed with the county. She said that due to ongoing communication with the lender, her Department worked with them; if they had not been in communication with them, her Department would have gone straight to the bank and pulled funds to get the project cleaned up. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore said that may be one example, but ultimately, she would like the City to be made whole because there are costs to Ms. McIntosh's Department and others in terms of maintenance and upkeep that will have to be recouped from some other line item for that project. She stated she is worried about projects over time that never come to fruition and the costs associated with them. She asked for examples from Ms. McIntosh where the City may have been made whole, but things did not go exactly how she would have liked. Ms. McIntosh said there are limitations on what those funds can be used for, such as curbs and gutters, trash enclosures, landscaping, and sidewalk and concrete work. If the builder just left the site as is and did not make an effort, then City Planning would try to make the builder comply and get those things done. She said if the builder still did not comply, then City Planning has a line item set aside to find contractors to complete that work and do it for the builder. She said that it is an absolute last resort, though, and typically only happens after the builder has already walked off the project, and it is too late. Mayor/President Graves said that the line item is more like insurance. Ms. McIntosh said it really is, and the builder has their own insurance as well, but that would be her Department's own insurance policy. Ms. McIntosh noted that grant planning and management are big priorities, and Associate Planner Kristen Eldridge spends a lot of time doing that. She noted that Ms. Eldridge is also working through the preparation of zoning letters, especially for affordable housing development. She said multiple zoning letters come through from companies asking if a building burns down, if it can be rebuilt, and if properties receive any variances or conditional use permits, and when those were approved. She noted that her Department attends a lot of groundbreaking ceremonies with the Council and other City Staff, while working with the Development team and the City Attorney to file any outstanding agreements with Hennepin County. Ms. McIntosh noted that City Planning also includes obtaining project as-builds, which are difficult to chase and include civil plans that show what the site is supposed to look like and where the building is supposed to be. These plans include a lot of work with surveyors and utility lines because civil plans that the City receives are generally correct, but the as-builds are the actual plans that get used for the project. She noted that City Planning takes a financial guarantee for a project, which runs through the duration of the project until a City Building Official receives a certificate of occupancy to use the space. The developer can request a reduction, usually in landscaping and concrete work, because those have a higher failure rate. City Planning has a one-year warranty period, where they wait to ensure the build does not fall apart. After that, the City releases the rest of the financial guarantee funds. Page 64 of 378 11/10/25 -8- DRAFT Ms. McIntosh asked if there were any questions from Councilmembers/Commissioners. Councilmember/Commissioner Kragness said it was a lot of information, but Ms. McIntosh made it very easy to understand, and thanked her for the presentation. Councilmember/Commission Moore asked if the reason Ms. McIntosh made this presentation was due to this Council or previous Councils making decisions on projects based on personal preference. Ms. McIntosh said that has happened before, and Brooklyn Center is not the only City to do that. She said the big thing that comes up with Planning Commission applications is when quasi-judicial decisions are made on particular properties, and decisions are not made based on the adopted code. She said the Council/EDA may want to have a different use for the site, and then things could be looked at and revised if necessary, but in the time frame of when the application has been submitted, the Council/EDA should only be looking at what is on the books for the project. Councilmember/Commissioner Jerzak said a project will never be made completely whole, or nobody would ever be able to build anything. He said a lot of times the contractors require a bond, and they do not want a claim made against their bond, which is a good deterrent. He said a lot of times, the contractor's profit is tied up in their final escrow amount, and they want to get those funds out at the end of the project. He said he tries to be as clear as possible during concept reviews so the applicant is not spinning their wheels on a project. He said it is good to get this information, and in his opinion, variances should never be granted because it establishes a precedent that all other Councils will have to deal with later on. He said the Council should stick to the facts and keep emotions out of it, and state for the record reasons for denial. He said it is all about fairness and thinks that the “Missing Middle” legislation is going to become a high priority with legislators. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore asked how many variances have been granted by Councils over the last 10 years. Ms. McIntosh said she has worked for the City for eight years, and does not like bringing variances to the Council, but said she has brought three, and the only reason they were considered is due to changes made to the UDO in 2023. She noted that the request for variances has been an attempt to comply with the new code by the applicants. She said one of the biggest factors to apply for a variance is that it cannot be granted for something that the property owner created, and that is why she allowed those variances to come forward, because the City inflicted those issues upon the property owner. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore asked how many conditional use permits have been brought forth in the last five to eight years that Ms. McIntosh has worked for the City. Ms. McIntosh said it has been a lot, and that would be a benefit to the “Missing Middle” legislation coming through because it would cut down on the number of Planning Commission applications that would come through. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore asked about the hotels that have to be zoned as hotels forever. She asked what needs to happen in order to change that code. Ms. McIntosh responded that seven out of 10 hotels are within PUDs. In the new City UDO, PUDs are no longer rezoning; they are conditional use permits. She said she has not brought forth any new PUDs because applicants should be able to meet the City's code. The businesses that predate the new UDO, those Page 65 of 378 11/10/25 -9- DRAFT were re-zonings, paperwork has been filed with the county, and they are locked in. She stated that each PUD is different and all are unique, and would have to be changed property by property. City Attorney Siobhan Tolar thanked Ms. McIntosh for the presentation and reminded Council that when making zoning and planning decisions, they are the judge and the jury, and facts are of the utmost importance. Mayor/President Graves said that the role of City Planning versus the role of Economic Development is cyclical, and Economic Development is going to play into what is planned, and City Planning is going to play into Economic Development. She said the relationship between those two should have a good understanding of each other and a nuanced process. Ms. McIntosh said that in 2019, when the 2040 Comprehensive Plan was made, that was the first time mixed-use for future land was ever considered, and the zoning code needed to interact with that in order to make the process work. She noted that when it comes to Economic Development, having flexibility is one of the key things that have come out of the changes made to zoning ordinances. She noted that even the Industrial District has mixed-use zoning now and allows for grocery stores, restaurants, and hotels. She said the Planning Commission has to pay attention to trends that are coming through, with cannabis being the next one, to ensure that they are not reactive. Mayor/President Graves said the Staff should ensure that all Commissioners have a full breadth of understanding when they are making City Planning decisions. She thanked Ms. McIntosh for the presentation. Dr. Edwards asked what should be considered for concept approval, and what the Council would need to hear when doing a concept review, so City Staff have some consistent guidelines. Mayor/President Graves said that the Staff could come up with a list of strategic priorities that align with Economic Development, which the Council could respond to through discussion. Councilmember/Commission Jerzak said he would like to see if there is a courtship between zoning and approved uses or land uses. He said he is not interested in all the details, but wants to ensure it is not exclusionary and would fit the needs of the strategic plan and the needs of the City. ADJOURNMENT Mayor/President Graves moved and Councilmember/Commissioner Jerzak seconded the adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 9:13 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Page 66 of 378 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 11/24/2025 TO: City Council FROM: THROUGH: BY: Kat Ellgren, Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT: Approval of Licenses Requested Council Action: - Motion to approve the licenses as presented. Background: 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. Gasoline Service Station AM PM Corner Market-Winner Gas 6501 Humboldt Ave N Speedway #3192 6950 Brooklyn Blvd Speedway #4058 1901 57th Ave N Speedway #4160 6545 West River Rd Liquor License Centerbrook Golf Course On-Sale Intoxicating and On-Sale Sunday 5500 Lilac Dr N Speedway #3192 Off-sale 3.2% 6950 Brooklyn Blvd Speedway #4058 Off-sale 3.2% 1901 57th Ave N Speedway #4160 Off-sale 3.2% 6545 West River Rd Topgolf On-Sale Intoxicating and On-Sale Sunday 6420 Camden Ave N Page 67 of 378 Mechanical Tim's Qualirt Plbg. Dba A Aarts Quality Plbg 225 County Rd 81, Osseo 55369 Tobacco Licenses Brook Center Plus LLC 615 66th Ave N Casey's 2101 Freeway Blvd Family Dollar 2105 57th Ave N Sun Foods 6350 Brooklyn Blvd Budget Issues: Inclusive Community Engagement: Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Rental Criteria 2. For Council Approval 11.24.25 FOR COUNCIL 10.28 to 11.11 Page 68 of 378 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 69 of 378 Lo c a t i o n A d d r e s s L i c e n s e S u b t y p e R e n e w a l / I n i t i a l O w n e r Pr o p e r t y Co d e Vi o l a t i o n s Li c e n s e Ty p e P o l i c e C F S * Fi n a l Li c e n s e Ty p e * * Pr e v i o u s Li c e n s e Ty p e * * * Co n s e c u t i v e Ty p e I V ' s 53 1 2 6 7 t h A v e N S i n g l e I n i t i a l Ko n g M e n g T h a o & H o u a Va n g 5 T y p e I I N / A T y p e I I N / A N / A 64 1 2 I n d i a n a A v e N S i n g l e I n i t i a l C N H I n v e s t m e n t s 1 3 T y p e I V N / A T y p e I V N / A N / A 68 3 7 B e a r d A v e N S i n g l e I n i t i a l C r y s t a l T e t u 1 Ty p e I N / A T y p e I I N / A N / A 71 1 8 E w i n g A v e N S i n g l e I n i t i a l G o l d e n Y a n g 9 Ty p e I I I N / A T y p e I I I N / A N / A 58 4 3 F r e m o n t A v e N Mu l t i p l e F a m i l y 1 B l d g 7 U n i t s R e n e w a l Fr e m o n t L l c Me t R e q u i r e m e n t s 0 T y p e I 0 T y p e I T y p e I I I N / A 69 1 5 H u m b o l d t A v e N Mu l t i p l e F a m i l y 2 B l d g s 5 0 U n i t s R e n e w a l Ly n w o o d P o i n t e L l c Me t R e q u i r e m e n t s 24 0 = 4 . 8 p e r un i t Ty p e I V 1/ 6 / 2 5 P u b l i c D i s t u r b a n c e 5/ 9 / 2 5 P u b l i c D i s t u r b a n c e T y p e I V T y p e I V 3 56 3 7 - 3 9 G i r a r d A v e N T w o F a m i l y R e n e w a l Ju l i a n G u o & R u o f e i X u Me t R e q u i r e m e n t s 1 7 T y p e I V 0 T y p e I V T y p e I V 3 71 1 1 R i v e r d a l e R d T w o F a m i l y R e n e w a l A & V O l s o n 0 T y p e I 0 T y p e I T y p e I I N / A 13 1 2 6 8 t h L a N S i n g l e R e n e w a l Ma r k o n R e n t a l s L l c Di d n o t m e e t r e q u i r e m e n t s 8 Ty p e I I I 0 T y p e I I I T y p e I I I N / A 31 2 5 6 5 t h A v e N S i n g l e R e n e w a l SF R B O R R O W E R 2 0 2 1 - 2 L L C Me t R e q u i r e m e n t s 0 T y p e I 0 T y p e I T y p e I V N / A 38 0 0 B u r q u e s t L a S i n g l e R e n e w a l HE N N E P I N R P F U N D I N G L L C Di d n o t m e e t r e q u i r e m e n t s 5 Ty p e I I 0 T y p e I I I T y p e I I I N / A 57 0 6 C a m d e n A v e N S i n g l e R e n e w a l Mi d w e s t C h a l l e n g e I n c Me t R e q u i r e m e n t s 5 T y p e I I 0 T y p e I I T y p e I I I N / A 59 2 4 J u n e A v e N S i n g l e R e n e w a l AD A M V A N G Me t R e q u i r e m e n t s 0 T y p e I 0 T y p e I T y p e I I I N / A 66 1 8 C a m d e n D r S i n g l e R e n e w a l Hu s s a i n K h a n Me t R e q u i r e m e n t s 1 8 T y p e I V 0 T y p e I V T y p e I V 4 68 0 0 F r e m o n t P l N S i n g l e R e n e w a l S h a r o n M c g a r y 2 Ty p e I 0 T y p e I T y p e I I N / A 70 0 1 F r e m o n t A v e N S i n g l e R e n e w a l H p a B o r r o w e r 2 0 1 8 - 1 M l L l c 0 T y p e I 0 T y p e I T y p e I I N / A 71 2 1 K n o x A v e N S i n g l e R e n e w a l Se i g o n g h y r W K o r t i J r Di d n o t m e e t r e q u i r e m e n t s 1 3 T y p e I V 0 T y p e I V T y p e I V 2 Re n t a l L i c e n s e s f o r C o u n c i l A p p r o v a l 1 1 . 2 4 . 2 5 *C F S = C a l l s f o r s e r v i c e f o r r e n e w a l l i c e n s e s o n l y ( I n i t i a l l i c e n s e s a r e n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o C F S a n d w i l l b e l i s t e d a s N / A ) ** L i c e n s e t y p e b e i n g i s s u e d ** * I n i t i a l l i c e n s e s w i l l n o t s h o w a p r e v i o u s T y p e I = 3 y e a r , T y p e I I = 2 y e a r , T y p e I I I = 1 y e a r , T y p e I V = 6 m o n t h s Al l p r o p e r t i e s a r e c u r r e n t o n C i t y u t i l i t i e s a n d p r o p e r t y t a x e s Pa g e 7 0 o f 3 7 8 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 11/24/2025 TO: City Council FROM: Krystin Eldridge, Associate Planner THROUGH: Jesse Anderson, Community Development Director BY: Krystin Eldridge, Associate Planner SUBJECT: A Resolution of Support for an Application to Minnesota Brownfields Gap Financing Program by DurDur Bakery and Grocery Inc, for 5951 Earle Brown Drive for Environmental Assessment Requested Council Action: - Motion to approve a resolution of support for an application to Minnesota Brownfields Gap Financing Program for DurDur Bakery and Grocery Inc, for 5951 Earle Brown Drive for environmental assessment. Background: This year, the former Brown College at 5951 Earle Brown Drive ("Subject Property") went through the Hennepin County Tax Forfeited Sale and sold to DurDur Bakery and Grocery, Inc, the applicant an emerging developer, after a lengthy sale process. Currently, the developers are seeking funds to start the investigation and cleanup of the Subject Property, which includes Phase I which is an environmental review, and a possible Phase II. The Minnesota Brownfields Gap Financing Program (BGFP) offers grants to help with environmental costs for cities and developers. The developer is requesting a resolution of support from the City as required by the application for the full amount available of $25,000. Minnesota Brownfields Gap Financing Program is one of many programs offered for environmental cleanup. The Program provides grants to nonprofit organizations, local units of government, and emerging developers for environmental assessment of property in Hennepin County through funding from the County’s Environmental Response Fund (ERF). Typical grant requests are less than $25,000 and are seed money preceding redevelopment projects and the program will fund the project from environmental assessment (Phase I and Phase II) to eventual abatement/cleanup. Minnesota Brownfields partners with the ERF to complete the project from start to finish. These are competitive funds and are depleted quickly once released each November. Durdur Bakery and Grocery, Inc. is working towards a plan for two to three mixed-use buildings to transform this underutilized parcel into a high-density, mixed-use community hub, which aligns with the city's goals for new housing, commercial growth, and placemaking. They intend for these building to include active, commercial-rich ground floors (approximately 30,000–35,000 sq ft) and four to five residential stories above. The MX-C zoning permits up to 60 dwelling units per acre, permits a residential- commercial mix, and supports a walkable public realm with landscaped connections and plazas. Parking would primarily be structured, with an estimated 400 stalls. Page 71 of 378 The implementation of this project would include standard environmental due diligence, such as a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, a hazardous-materials assessment to guide demolition and abatement (e.g., asbestos, lead, universal wastes), and a Phase II investigation if recognized environmental conditions warrant it. They anticipate significant community benefits, including new housing (with the potential for mixed- income options), a strengthened neighborhood commercial node, public plazas and green spaces that enhance livability, and notable tax-base growth—all consistent with Brooklyn Center’s redevelopment objectives. Braun Intertec is the environmental consultant on the project and intends to handle the environamental concerns on the subject property to prepare the land for redevelopment. Budget Issues: Inclusive Community Engagement: Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Redevelopment Proposal 5951 2. RFQ for MN Brownfields Gap Financing Program 3. Resolution_BGFP_5951_Earle_Brown_Dr Page 72 of 378 5930 Earle Brown Drive Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 5951 EARLE BROWN REDEVELOPMENT Mohamud Noor OWNER: DUR DUR BAKERY & GROCERY INC Page 73 of 378 1 5951 Earle Brown Dr Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Page 74 of 378 2 Redevelopment Proposal – 5951 Earle Brown Drive (MX-C Zoning) Project Overview • Location & Size: ~6.4-acre site (≈278,348 sq ft) at 5951 Earle Brown Drive, Brooklyn Center, MN. • Ownership: The property is privately owned by the applicant. • Current Use: Vacant and obsolete former educational/commercial facility slated for demolition. • Vision & Goal: Redevelop the underutilized parcel into a high-density, mixed-use community hub that leverages MX-C zoning flexibility. • City Alignment: Although privately initiated, the project supports Brooklyn Center’s Opportunity Site framework by: o Catalyzing housing production with mixed-income options. o Delivering new commercial and service amenities. o Creating a walkable, vibrant activity center along a key corridor. MX-C Zoning Overview • District Intent: MX-C is Brooklyn Center’s most flexible zoning category, intended for Major Activity Centers that combine housing, jobs, and services. • Permitted Density: Up to 60 dwelling units per acre → ≈384 units maximum on this site. • Height Limit: Up to 48 feet (≈4–5 stories). • Required Mix: Residential uses must be supported by active ground-floor non- residential uses to ensure vibrancy. • Commercial Flexibility: No strict cap; proposal includes ~30,000–35,000 sq ft of retail/office space. Page 75 of 378 3 Development Concept • Redevelopment Strategy: Demolish existing structure and construct 2–3 mixed- use buildings. • Building Program: o Ground Floors: Retail, services, co-working, and small office uses. o Upper Levels: 4–5 stories of multi-family residential apartments. • Public Realm Enhancements: o Landscaped pedestrian corridors and plazas. o Gathering spaces for community events and outdoor amenities. • Parking Strategy: ~400 structured stalls (deck or ramp), shared between residents and commercial visitors. • Design Intent: A walkable “urban campus” feel, integrating green space, activated streetscapes, and strong connectivity to adjacent parcels. Site & Program Details • Total Area: ~6.4 acres (~278,348 sq ft). • Residential Program: ~384 multi-family units (≈60 units/acre). • Commercial Program: 30,000–35,000 sq ft ground-floor retail/office/service. • Building Height: 4–5 stories, within MX-C zoning allowance. • Parking: ~400 structured stalls (1.0–1.25 per unit + commercial allocation). • Standards Compliance: Project will conform to MX-C design requirements and Opportunity Site urban design standards (including sustainability and stormwater goals). Financial Summary • Estimated Development Cost: ~$108–118 million (site prep, vertical construction, structured parking, soft costs). • Stabilized Revenues: o Residential rents: ~$6.45M annually (384 units @ ~$1,400/month). o Commercial leases: ~$0.77M annually (35,000 sq ft @ ~$22/sf NNN). Page 76 of 378 4 • Net Operating Income: ~$5.1–5.4M annually (after expenses). • Projected Exit Value: ~$88–94M (at a 5.75% cap rate). • Funding Considerations: As owner-led, primary funding will be private; however, public-private tools (TIF, tax abatement, grants) may be explored to close the financing gap. Community Impact & Benefits • Housing Supply: Adds ~384 new units, including potential mixed-income housing to support regional demand. • Tax Base Growth: Substantial increase in taxable property value, replacing an obsolete site. • Economic Development: Introduces new commercial and service hub to strengthen the local economy. • Public Realm & Placemaking: Pedestrian plazas and open spaces enhance livability, foster social interaction, and activate the site day and night. • Citywide Goals: Aligns with Brooklyn Center’s Opportunity Site redevelopment vision, reinforcing the area as a catalytic anchor for reinvestment. Page 77 of 378 Page | 1 Request for Qualifications Minnesota Brownfields – as Administrator for Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Brownfields Gap Financing Program (BGFP) November 1, 2025 Introduction Minnesota Brownfields requests qualifications and fee schedules from environmental consulting firms for the assessment and cleanup of properties known or suspected of being impacted by pollutants, contaminants or hazardous wastes. The services associated with this RFQ will include, but not be limited to: pre-demolition and pre-remodeling asbestos, lead-based paint, and miscellaneous hazardous materials assessments, coordination and management of abatement of same materials, ASTM and All Appropriate Inquiry-compliant Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (Phase I ESA), Phase II ESAs, site investigation services, remedial/corrective action design plan services, site remediation and remediation monitoring/oversight, soil and groundwater sampling, and laboratory services. This RFQ process will determine with whom Minnesota Brownfields will establish a master services agreement. Under that agreement, the consultant will propose a scope and not-to- exceed budget appropriate to that for each individual project which must be approved by Minnesota Brownfields and Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services (DES). Background The Brownfield Gap Financing Program (BGFP) provides small grants to nonprofits for environmental assessment and clean-up of property in Hennepin County through funding from the Environmental Response Fund (ERF). This fund is intended to be used for unexpected environmental issues, to prepare for a larger funding request in the County funding cycle, or to identify/clarify and, in some cases, remediate suspected environmental concerns. Historically, projects have ranged in costs from $1,100 to $25,000. Projects will benefit the community through the development or clean-up of greenspace, recreation centers, affordable housing, education centers, community centers, and neighborhood level economic development opportunities. Projects have included soil characterization at community gardens. Minnesota Brownfields’ role is to assist in managing, marketing and outreach for the program. Hennepin County’s Environmental Services Department manages funds allocated for this program Page 78 of 378 Page | 2 Further questions about the BGFP and this submittal package may be emailed to: Elizabeth Kluesner, Executive Director - Minnesota Brownfields Phone: 608.577.7189 Email: ekluesner@mnbrownfields.org This Request for Qualifications addresses the environmental consulting services for the work under Minnesota Brownfields’ contract with Hennepin County to administer the BGFP. General Qualifications Companies with the following qualifications may apply: • Must have an executed Master Agreement for Professional Consulting Services with Hennepin County for the following work types: o Asbestos, Lead Paint, Regulated Building Materials Assessment and Removal Oversight, and/or o Environmental Property Assessment and Cleanup; and o Must be a member of Minnesota Brownfields General Project Area Hennepin County, Minnesota Submission Requirements Minnesota Brownfields is interested in contracting with environmental consulting firm(s) (with or without teamed partners) with demonstrated experience and expertise with the following: A) Phase I Environmental Site Assessments performed in accordance with the ASTM E1527-21 standard, All Appropriate Inquiry standard, and Minnesota Pollution Control (MPCA) guidelines. B) Preparation and implementation of plans for Phase II Investigation to determine the magnitude and extent of soil and ground water contamination on Brownfield properties. The following may be included: performance of soil vapor risk assessments, ground water receptor surveys, and evaluation of natural attenuation. Experience should demonstrate familiarity with MPCA VIC Program expectations. C) Performance of hazardous materials building surveys sufficient to plan for future building demolition or renovation work; and, design and coordination of abatement activities, and subcontracting of abatement contractors. Page 79 of 378 Page | 3 D) Development and implementation of voluntary response actions for soil and groundwater cleanup in accordance with MPCA guidelines. Experience should demonstrate coordination of cleanup with redevelopment concerns. E) Site Cleanup and Remedial/ Response Action Monitoring/Oversight including contractor oversight, intensive MPCA interaction and cooperation with the Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup Program, documentation, confirmation sample and analysis, and report preparation. F) Please note that a consultant is allowed a 10% mark-up for subcontractors. In addition to demonstrating these skill areas, the selected consultants will be expected to interact with current landowners and our non-profit partners. The Submittal Package Consulting firms must submit a complete package to be considered. The ideal submission package includes each of the sections below, in the following order: 1. Cover letter – A letter of up to two pages highlighting the proposed project team. The letter should indicate a single point of contact/overall project manager. The cover letter should also include: the Firm’s name, e-mail address, business address, telephone and fax number, Federal I.D. number and Minnesota tax I.D. number (if applicable). The cover letter must state that the firm (with teamed partners identified) has personnel with the qualifications necessary to complete work in the contract program. The letter should also explain the benefits of using your company’s/team’s services. The cover letter will be limited to 2 pages. 2. Relevant projects – Include a maximum of 5 projects that highlight the team and/or team members’ experience with Brownfield assessment and cleanup in a redevelopment/reuse context. The strongest package will demonstrate direct experience with the skill areas (A-E) listed above. This section will be limited to 3 pages in length. 3. Resumes – Please submit a one-page resume for each proposed team member, highlighting his or her experience in each of the above-listed skill areas. Resumes will be limited to a 10 page maximum total. 4. Personnel and materials Fee Schedule Submission Package should be sent to: ekluesner@mnbrownfields.org Page 80 of 378 Member ______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A GRANT FUND APPLICATION TO MINNESOTA BROWNFIELD GAP FINANCING PROGRAM (BGFP) BY DURDUR BAKERY AND GROCERY INC., FOR 5951 EARLE BROWN DRIVE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WHEREAS, Minnesota Brownfields administers the Brownfield Gap Financing Program ("BGFP"), which provides grants for environmental assessment of property in Hennepin County using funding from the County’s Environmental Response Fund ("ERF"); and WHEREAS, Dur Dur Bakery & Grocery, Inc. (the "Applicant") qualifies as an emerging developer under the BGFP; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has purchased 5951 Earle Brown Drive, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "Project Site") and proposes a redevelopment project that requires environmental assessment; WHEREAS, the Applicant intends to submit an application to Minnesota Brownfields seeking BGFP funds for environmental assessment activities at the Project Site; and WHEREAS, the BGFP application materials call for a City Council resolution of support from the host city; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City hereby supports the Applicant’s submission to Minnesota Brownfields for funding through the Brownfield Gap Financing Program, which is funded by the Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution of support does not constitute approval of land use, zoning, building permits, or any other City approvals or financial commitments, which, if required, will be considered under separate processes. Page 81 of 378 November 24, 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 82 of 378 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 11/24/2025 TO: City Council FROM: THROUGH: BY: Shannon Pettit, City Clerk SUBJECT: LOGIS Joint Funding Agreement Requested Council Action: - Motion to approve the Joint Funding Agreement with LOGIS Background: This agreement is between the City of Brooklyn Center and Local Government Information Systems ("LOGIS") with regard to maintaining and funding the BCPD LOGIS Data Center and correcting the misallocation of LOGIS energy bills. Budget Issues: Inclusive Community Engagement: Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: 1. DOCSOPEN-#1055283-Final-BC_LOGIS_Agreement LOGIS Comments Page 83 of 378 BR291-4-1055283.v2 JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT This Agreement (this “Agreement”), dated October ___,November 20th, 2025 is between the City of Brooklyn Center (the “City”) a Minnesota Municipal Corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, with its principal office at 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430, and Local Government Information Systems (“LOGIS”), a Minnesota Corporation, with its principal office at 5750 Duluth St, Golden Valley, MN. hereinafter each being a Party to this Agreement, and together referred to as the Parties. WHEREAS, LOGIS maintains a Data Center at City Hall within the Police Department headquarters; and WHEREAS, the existing back-up generator supporting the Police Department Headquarters facility is at the end of its life; and WHEREAS, in the event of a power failure, the backup generator is responsible for maintaining mission critical operations for both the Brooklyn Center Police Department and the LOGIS Data Center; and WHEREAS, if the backup generator fails, both organizations could experience severe losses; and WHEREAS, recent updates to the electrical meters in the LOGIS Data Center have revealed unrecorded power usage that resulted in misallocation of LOGIS energy bills; and WHEREAS, LOGIS agrees to share a percentage of the total Brooklyn Center Police Department power usage as recorded on Xcel Energy Bills dating back to July 2023; and NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements between the parties as referenced above and the mutual covenants set forth in this instrument, the parties agree as follows: 1. The undersigned Parties agree that LOGIS, upon receipt of purchase documentation, will pay $30,000.00 dollars to the City to assist in the purchase of a backup generator. 2. LOGIS agrees to pay the City ten percent (10%) of the total Brooklyn Center Police Department facility power usage as recorded on Xcel Energy bills dating from July 2023, as recorded on all monthly bills moving forward during the current and renewed lease period. a. From July 2023 to January 2025, (the term of the primary lease Agreement between the Parties), energy payments will be reconciled with what has already Page 84 of 378 been paid to the City for energy use. LOGIS agrees to reimburse the City if any difference is found up to the ten percent (10%) cap as referenced in this provision. b. From January 2026 until the end of the amended lease term or the end of subsequent lease agreements or amendments thereto, whichever is later, LOGIS will pay 10% of total Brooklyn Center Police Department facility power usage. 4. LOGIS agrees to indemnify the City against all losses, claims, damages, liability, and expenses, including, without limitation, costs or investigation and legal counsel fees which may be imposed on the City or incurred by the City in connection with the performance of its duties under this Agreement, including, without limitation, any litigation arising from this Agreement or involving the subject matter of this Agreement. 5. Wherever any notice is required or permitted under this Agreement, the notice shall be in writing and shall be deemed given either via electronic mail with read receipt requested, or via personal delivery or upon mailing in the United States Mail, registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to the addresses set out below or at other addresses as specified by written notice delivered in accordance with this Agreement: 6. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and assigns. 7. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. 8. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute the same instrument. Brooklyn Center LOGIS Contact: Reginald Edwards City Manager Contact: Chris Miller Executive Director Address: 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 redwards@brooklyncentermn.gov Address: 5750 Duluth Street Golden Valley, MN 55422 ckmiller@logismn.gov Page 85 of 378 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the LOGIS have caused this Funding Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written. CITY: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By__________________________ Its Mayor By__________________________ Its City Manager LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS: LOGIS By__________________________ Its Executive Director Page 86 of 378 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 11/24/2025 TO: City Council FROM: Elizabeth Heyman, Director of Public Works THROUGH: Lydia Ener, City Engineer BY: Lydia Ener, City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing Interest Rate for 2026 Special Assessments Requested Council Action: - Motion to approve a resolution establishing interest rate for 2026 special assessments. Background: Each year the City Council sets an interest rate for special assessments levied against properties based on the City’s Special Assessment and Internal Loan Interest Rate Policy. The objective of this policy is to establish an equitable interest rate that will not unfairly burden the property owner yet recover the cost of borrowing from outside sources, recover the cost of administering the special assessments, and protect the City from the possibility that special assessment prepayments might impair the City’s ability to service the bonds. City Council policy has been to establish the special assessment interest rate by calculating the sum of the interest rate for the most recent general obligation bond, adding two percent to cover the overhead costs described above and rounding to the nearest one-half percent in accordance with the policy. The most recent improvement bond sale by the City of Brooklyn Center was a General Obligation Improvement Bond at 4.6 percent which results in a special assessment interest rate of 6.6 percent for 2026. Budget Issues: NA Inclusive Community Engagement: NA Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: NA Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2026 Interest Rate Res - 251124 Page 87 of 378 Page 88 of 378 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO._______________ RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING INTEREST RATE FOR 2026 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, the City Council levies special assessments for certain street and utility projects, delinquent utility bills, and other services provided to property owners that go unpaid; and WHEREAS, amounts outstanding are certified to Hennepin County for collection with property taxes; and WHEREAS, by City Council policy, interest is to be charged on outstanding amounts certified to Hennepin County for collection with property taxes; and WHEREAS, the interest rate to be charged is two percent over the net interest rate for the most recent City General Obligation bond sale; and WHEREAS, the most recent General Obligation Improvement Bond sale resulted in a net interest rate of 4.6 percent. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the interest rate charged on outstanding special assessments for the year 2026 is hereby established at 6.6 percent. November 24, 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 89 of 378 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 11/24/2025 TO: City Council FROM: Elizabeth Heyman, Director of Public Works THROUGH: Lydia Ener, City Engineer BY: Lydia Ener, City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing 2026 Street and Storm Drainage Special Assessment Rates Requested Council Action: - Motion to approve a resolution establishing the 2026 street and storm drainage special assessment rates for street and utility improvement projects. Background: Each year the City Council establishes assessment rates for R1, R2, and R3 residential zoned properties based on the City’s Special Assessment Policy. Within these zoning districts, the assessment rate for street and storm drainage improvements is based on a unit amount that applies to all single-family residential properties. The unit amount represents a specific portion of the average cost for reconstructing a typical residential street and storm drainage system. Street assessments for non-residential and R4 to R7 residential properties are computed separately for each project. Special assessment rates are typically adjusted each year to reflect normal inflationary increases in construction costs. The City’s Special Assessment Policy indicates that “the unit assessment shall be adjusted annually to reflect cost of living increases as measured by the Construction Index” (City Council Code of Policies Section II – 2.10.2.B.1.a.2). The Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index has experienced an average annual percent change for 2026 of 8.0 percent, as shown in the table below. Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 20245 2025* 12-mo avg. annual % change 5.3 0.9 1.0 4.6 3.1 1.2 3.9 8.0 Source: ENR website, Note: * 24-month average November 2023 – October 2025 Based on the 2025 information above, staff recommends adjusting the special assessment rates by an increase of 8.0 percent for 2026, which will be an increase of $555 from the 2025 total assessment amount for full street and storm reconstruction projects. This rate should continue to maintain the portion of street and storm drainage costs that are assessed at approximately 33 percent of the total cost for street and storm drainage improvements. The City Council has historically targeted 33 percent as the portion of street and storm drainage improvements that are assessed to adjoining R1, R2, and R3 residential properties. Page 90 of 378 Budget Issues: The table below shows the proposed 2026 special assessment rates for R1 single-family residential lots. The attached resolution provides the corresponding adjustments for R2 and R3 zoned properties based on the proposed unit assessment rates. Project Type 2026 Street Improvements R1 Assessment Rates 2026 Storm Drainage Improvements R1 Assessment Rates Full Street Reconstruction $5,765.00 $1,729.00 Partial Street Reconstruction (full pavement replacement) $4,322.00 NA Pavement Rehabilitation (mill and overlay) $1,905.00 NA Inclusive Community Engagement: NA Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: NA Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2026 Special Assessment Res - 251124 Page 91 of 378 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO._______________ RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2026 STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT RATES WHEREAS, the residential assessment rates for street and storm drainage improvements are annually reviewed and approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the residential assessment rates should be adjusted annually to be effective January 1; and WHEREAS, the 2026 street and storm drainage assessment rates for R1, R2 and R3 zoned districts are based on a specific proportion of approximately 33 percent of the average cost for street and storm drainage improvements; and WHEREAS, the R4, R5, R6 and R7 zoned districts will continue to be assessed based on an evaluation of project cost and project benefit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The residential street and storm drainage special assessment rates for street reconstruction and pavement rehabilitation shall apply to properties in R1, R2 or R3 zoned districts. These rates shall also be applied to parcels of property in other land use zones when such parcels (a) are being used as one-family or two-family residential sites at the time the assessment roll is levied; and (b) could not be subdivided under the then-existing Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The residential assessment rates for street and storm drainage reconstruction effective January 1, 2026, shall be as follows: Land Use 2026 Assessment Rates R1 zoned, used as one-family $5,765.00 per lot (street) site that cannot be subdivided $1,729.00 per lot (storm drainage) R2 zoned, or used as a two-family $76.8667 per front foot with a site that cannot be subdivided $5,765.00 per lot minimum (street) $23.0533 per front foot with a $1,729.00 per lot minimum (storm drainage) Page 92 of 378 RESOLUTION NO. _______________ Land Use 2026 Assessment Rates R3 zoned (per unit) Assessable frontage x $76.8667 (street) Number of residential units Assessable frontage x $23.0533 (storm) Number of residential units 3. The residential assessment rates for partial street reconstruction effective January 1, 2026, shall be as follows: Land Use 2026 Assessment Rates R1 zoned, used as one-family $4,322.00 per lot (street) site that cannot be subdivided R2 zoned, or used as a two-family $57.6267 per front foot with a site that cannot be subdivided $4,322.00 per lot minimum (street) R3 zoned (per unit) Assessable frontage x $57.6267 (street) Number of residential units 4. The residential assessment rates for pavement rehabilitation effective January 1, 2026, shall be as follows: Land Use 2026 Assessment Rates R1 zoned, used as one-family $1,905.00 per lot (street) site that cannot be subdivided R2 zoned, or used as a two-family $25.4000 per front foot with a site that cannot be subdivided $1,905.00 per lot minimum (street) R3 zoned (per unit) Assessable frontage x $25.4000 (street) Number of residential units 5. The residential assessment rates for street and storm drainage reconstruction and pavement rehabilitation shall not apply to R4, R5, R6 or R7 zoned districts. The assessment rates for street reconstruction and pavement rehabilitation for R4, R5, R6 or R7 zoned property shall be based on an evaluation of the project cost and project benefit for each project. Page 93 of 378 RESOLUTION NO. _______________ November 24, 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 94 of 378 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 11/24/2025 TO: City Council FROM: Elizabeth Heyman, Director of Public Works THROUGH: Lydia Ener, City Engineer BY: Lydia Ener, City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids, Improvement Project No. 2025-10, Water Treatment Plant Catwalk Requested Council Action: - Motion to approve the attached resolution approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids, Improvement Project No. 2025-10, Water Treatment Plant Catwalk. Background: The Water Treatment Plant currently has a number of valves required for operation which are high above the ground. The current plant layout makes access to these valves difficult and dangerous for staff. The City has requested plans and specifications to construct an access catwalk in the Water Treatment Plant to improve access. Construction plans, specifications, and contract documents have been prepared for the project. The overall scope of the project includes construction of a metal grating catwalk in the filter gallery of the Water Treatment Plant to allow for access to the elevated valves. Staff is prepared to begin the project bidding process upon authorization from the City Council. The bidding process would involve the advertisement of the project in the City’s official newspaper and in Finance and Commerce. Sealed bids will be collected through in- person bidding, opened at the scheduled bid opening date, and tabulated by the City Clerk and City Engineer. Staff anticipates that the bid results will be presented to the City Council for consideration in January 2026. Budget Issues: The total project cost is estimated to be $225,000. Funding sources for the project are budgeted from the City Capital Improvement Plan previously accepted by the City Council. Inclusive Community Engagement: NA Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: NA Page 95 of 378 Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: 1. WTP Catwalk_Approve Plans and Specs Res (003) Page 96 of 378 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2025-10, WATER TREATMENT PLANT CATWALK WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Public Works Director ordered Improvement Project No. 2025-10 and authorized the preparation of plans and specifications for the improvements; and WHEREAS, said plans and specifications have been prepared under the direction of the City Engineer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The plans and specifications for Improvement Project No. 2025-10, Water Treatment Plant Catwalk are hereby approved, ordered, and filed with the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and in Finance and Commerce an advertisement for bids for the making of such improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, shall specify the work to be done, and state the time and location at which bids will be opened by the City Clerk and City Manager or their designees. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the City Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City of Brooklyn Center for five percent of the amount of such bid. 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 97 of 378 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 11/24/2025 TO: City Council FROM: THROUGH: BY: Angela Holm, Director of Finance SUBJECT: Resolution Approving an Interfund Loan from the Storm Drainage Utility Fund to the Water Utility Fund Requested Council Action: - Motion to approve a Resolution Authorizing an Interfund Loan from the Storm Drainage Utility Fund to the Water Utility Fund. Background: Local governments are allowed to make temporary loans between funds to mitigate the effects of cash flow issues within the receiving fund. These temporary loans, called interfund loans, must be managed carefully and not over-used, but are an effective tool when smaller funding amounts are needed for a short period of time. This interfund loan is between the Storm Drainage Utility Fund and the Water Utility Fund. This concept was first described in 2024 as a means to help mitigate the cost of an infrastructure improvement project, the Dupont/I-94 water main crossing, on the proposed increases to water usage rates, and included in the 2025 budget. An interfund loan operates similarly to any other loan with interest being charged and regular payments, but is much simpler in its execution. The required payments, including a moderate interest rate of 3.5%, were included in the cash flow projections presented to Council during the utility budget presentation on October 20, 2025. A recent Statement of Position from the Office of the Minnesota State Auditor regarding interfund loans is included as a reference. Budget Issues: Inclusive Community Engagement: Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: Strategic Priorities and Values: Page 98 of 378 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution - Interfund Loan to Water Fund 2. Interfund Loan OSA Statement Page 99 of 378 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO._______________ RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERFUND LOAN FROM THE STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY FUND TO THE WATER UTILITY FUND WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center operates a water utility fund and storm drainage utility fund; and WHEREAS, infrastructure improvements were needed for the water main crossing at Dupont and Interstate Highway 94 which were the financial responsibility of the water utility fund; and WHEREAS, cost analysis determined the most efficient method for funding this improvement project was an interfund loan; and WHEREAS, sufficient cash reserves and projected positive cash flow activity exists in the Storm Drainage Fund to support this interfund loan and related repayment schedule. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota approves an interfund loan between the Storm Drainage Utility Fund and the Water Utility Fund subject to the following requirements: 1. The principal amount of the loan shall be $1,900,000 2. Interest will be charged at a rate of 3.5% 3. Annual payments will be made over a period of five years commencing in 2026 4. Modifications of the terms of the interfund loan may be made at the direction of the City’s Finance Director in consultation with the City Manager and Public Works Director November 24, 2025 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Page 100 of 378 RESOLUTION NO. _______________ 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 101 of 378 Reviewed: March 2014 Revised: March 2011 2007-1009 This Statement of Position is not legal advice and is subject to revision. An Equal Opportunity Employer Statement of Position Temporary Interfund Loans Often local governments will loan resources from one fund to another fund experiencing a temporary cash shortage.1 The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) has been asked whether, under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), funds that account for reserved or dedicated monies (such as TIF funds, park dedication funds, solid waste, road and bridge funds, and others) may make temporary loans to other funds. This Statement of Position addresses the accounting requirements for temporary loans. Local governments with funds that have restricted resources, however, should also consider other applicable legal, regulatory, or contractual requirements before loaning those funds temporarily to other funds of the government. 2 Interfund loans are addressed in GASB 34, ¶112(a).1: Interfund loans—amounts provided with a requirement for repayment. Interfund loans should be reported as interfund receivables in lender funds and interfund payables in borrower funds. This activity should not be reported as other financing sources or uses in the fund financial statements. If repayment is not expected within a reasonable time, the interfund balances should be reduced and the amount that is not expected to be repaid should be reported as a transfer from the fund that made the loan to the fund that received the loan. Section 1300.120 of the Codification of Governmental Accounting and Financial Reporting Standards provides some additional guidance on interfund receivables and payables: 1 A fund is defined as a fiscal and accounting entity with a self-balancing set of accounts recording cash and other financial resources, together with all related liabilities and residual equities or balances and changes therein, which are segregated for the purpose of carrying on specific activities or attaining certain objectives in accordance with special regulations, restrictions or limitations. 2 GASB Codification § 1800.45 identifies restricted resources as resources that have constraints placed on the use that are either: a. Externally imposed by creditors (such as through debt covenants), grantors, contributors, or laws or regulations of other governments; or b. Imposed by law through constitutional provisions or enabling legislation. REBECCA OTTO STATE AUDITOR STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR SUITE 500 525 PARK STREET SAINT PAUL, MN 55103-2139 (651) 296-2551 (Voice) (651) 296-4755 (Fax) stateauditor@osa.state.mn.us (E-mail) 1-800-627-3529 (Relay Service) Page 102 of 378 Reviewed: March 2014 2 2007-1009 Revised: March 2011 Since each fund is a fiscal and accounting entity, the amounts due to one fund from other funds, as well as the amounts owed to other funds, should be reflected in the fund accounts and in fund financial statements. Interfund loans should be reported as interfund receivables in lender funds and interfund payables in borrower funds. Where money is owed from one fund to another fund and money is also owed from the latter to the former, the amounts receivable and payable should not be offset in the accounts. But for purposes of reporting, current amounts due from and due to the same funds may be offset and the net amounts shown in the respective fund balance sheets. Liabilities arising from interfund activities do not constitute general long-term liabilities and therefore should be reported in governmental funds. These references do not specifically address the temporary use of restricted resources. However, the information above provides some guidance. First, the discussion above indicates that interfund loans should be accounted for as receivables and payables in the applicable funds and that the transaction does not affect the funds’ operating statements. Generally, interfund transfers are treated as other financing sources or uses, which are operating statement accounts, but interfund loans are balance sheet only transactions. From an accounting perspective none of the loaning fund’s resources have been “used.” The impact on the loaning fund is to change its assets from one form (cash) to another form (receivable). Its fund balance remains unchanged. Second, “[i]f repayment is not expected within a reasonable time, the interfund balances should be reduced and the amount that is not expected to be repaid should be reported as a transfer from the fund that made the loan to the fund that received the loan.” Although “reasonable time” is not defined,3 it is expected that the loan will be repaid in a fairly short time frame or have a defined repayment schedule. The evaluation of a reasonable amount of time is a matter of professional judgment based on known factors. The factors to consider are:  The borrowing fund’s current financial condition;  Estimates of the borrowing fund’s future resources to repay the loan;  The purpose of the loan;  The established repayment terms, including whether interest will be paid;  The loan’s current status; and  The frequency of making loans. These factors should be considered not only by the government, but also by an auditor in judging fair presentation of the entity’s financial statements. If a loan is not repaid in a “reasonable time,” the loan becomes a transfer. Making loans of restricted resources may have other implications. Questions that arise from a temporary loan include: Does the loan affect the ability of the loaning fund to meet its 3 Some guidance on evaluating “reasonable time” is provided by ¶9.33 of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ Audit and Accounting Guide, State and Local Governments. Page 103 of 378 Reviewed: March 2014 3 2007-1009 Revised: March 2011 requirements, including the purpose for which the fund was established? Does having loaned its resources to another fund, limit the loaning fund’s ability to pay its own obligations? Are there legal or contractual restrictions that prohibit even the temporary “use” (loan) of these funds? Since a cash asset has been traded for a receivable, is the loaning fund losing interest revenue that it would normally receive? To address these issues, an entity should have an established interfund loan policy governing the requirements, including repayment provisions, for making interfund loans. Items that could be covered in such a policy include:  A requirement to analyze the ability of the borrowing fund to repay the loan;  A limit on the percentage of the loaning fund’s fund balance that can be loaned out at any time;  Whether or not interest will be charged on the interfund loans;4  Length of time for the loan, including a repayment schedule;  Which funds may make loans;  Purposes for which loans would be allowed;  Purposes, if any, for which loans would not be allowed; and  Whether or not Board/ Council action is specifically required for individual loans and, if not, how individual loans will be authorized. The following is an example of an interfund loan policy. Each local government should adopt a policy appropriate to its particular situation. SAMPLE POLICY It is the policy of the Board/Council that interfund loans between the General Fund, the _________Fund, the Capital Projects Fund, or the Debt Service Fund may be used to alleviate a temporary cash deficiency. The loan shall be accounted for as a temporary borrowing between funds or accounts and shall not be available for appropriation or be considered revenue to the borrowing fund or account. Amounts loaned shall be repaid within _____ calendar days. Borrowing shall occur only when the fund or account receiving the money will earn sufficient revenue during the current fiscal year, to repay the amount borrowed. No more than 75 percent of the maximum of moneys held in any fund or account during a current fiscal year may be loaned. 4 A common requirement for a restricted resource is that any amounts not yet used earn interest and that interest becomes part of the dedicated resources. Charging interest on the interfund loan would eliminate this loss of revenue. Page 104 of 378 Reviewed: March 2014 4 2007-1009 Revised: March 2011 Such loans shall not be used to balance the budget of the Borrowing Fund: nor shall they deter any function or project for which the Loaning Fund was established. The Board/Council must adopt a resolution before any interfund loan transaction takes place. The resolution shall contain the exact amount of the loan, the funds involved, the purpose of the loan, the specific source of funds for repayment, the schedule for repayment and the interest rate involved. In summary, temporary interfund loans, even of restricted funds, are generally not prohibited. However, applicable legal, regulatory, and contractual requirements should be reviewed before an interfund loan is made. In addition, a policy governing the requirements for making interfund loans should be in place. Page 105 of 378 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 11/24/2025 TO: City Council FROM: THROUGH: BY: Angela Holm, Director of Finance SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Closing of the Water Treatment Plant Construction Fund to the Water Utility Operating Fund Requested Council Action: - Motion to approve a Resolution Closing the Water Treatment Plant Construction Fund to the Water Utility Operating Fund. Background: When the water treatment plant was constructed, a separate fund was established to include all accounting activity for the project. This is often done to isolate and manage the expenses separate from day-to-day operations in a particular fund. No activity has occurred in this fund since December 2017. There is an existing cash balance of $69,532.49 in this fund as of November 19, 2025. This fund has been consolidated for budgeting and reporting purposes with the water utility operating fund since 2018. Closing the construction fund to the water utility operating fund simplifies reporting and allows for the cash balance to be utilized for ongoing operations. Since the cash balance has been included in budget projections for several years, there will be no noticeable change in the budgeted cash flow statements from this action. Budget Issues: There are no budget implications resulting from this action. Inclusive Community Engagement: Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution - Transferring Water Construction Fund to Water Utility Operating Fund Page 106 of 378 Page 107 of 378 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO._______________ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CLOSING OF THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT CONSTRUCTION FUND TO THE WATER UTILITY OPERATING FUND WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center constructed a water treatment plant in 2015; and WHEREAS, accounting activity of the construction project was recorded in a separate fund entitled the Water Treatment Plant Construction Fund; and WHEREAS, accounting activity has not occurred in the fund since 2017; and WHEREAS, the remaining cash balance has been reported in the City’s annual financial reports with the water utility operating fund since 2018; and WHEREAS, it is acceptable accounting practice to permanently consolidate the remaining cash balance to an operating fund. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the remaining cash balance of $69,532.49 in the Water Treatment Plant Construction Fund be transferred to the Water Utility Operating Fund and gives staff direction to proceed with the transfer. November 24, 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 108 of 378 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 11/24/2025 TO: City Council FROM: Reggie Edwards, City Manager THROUGH: BY: Angela Holm, Director of Finance SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Letter of Engagement with a Public Accounting Firm for Audit Services Requested Council Action: - Motion to approve a Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Letter of Engagement with a Public Accounting Firm for Audit Services. Background: On October 3, 2025 staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Professional Audit Services. The RFP was sent to eight CPA firms identified on the Minnesota Society of CPAs website as providing government auditing services. Of these eight firms, five submitted proposals, one declined to submit a proposal at this time, and two did not respond. According to City Council Code of Policies Section 2.80, a committee consisting of City Council Members, Financial Commission Members, the City Manager and the Finance Director are to review the proposals and rank them based on abilities, qualifications and experience. The City Manager will then make a recommendation to the City Council of a provider to be appointed to a multi-year engagement. Based on the evaluations and discussion by the Audit Proposal Review Committee members, a recommendation is being made to enter into a three-year engagement with Redpath and Company. Budget Issues: Inclusive Community Engagement: Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: Page 109 of 378 1. Resolution Awarding Audit Engagement Letter 2025 - 2027 2. Brooklyn Center City of - MultiYear - Engagement Letter - Redpath Page 110 of 378 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT WITH A PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM FOR AUDIT SERVICES WHEREAS, the City Council Code of Policies Section 2.80 requires that the City solicit proposals for audit of its financial statements no less frequently than every six (6) years; and WHEREAS, proposals were solicited in October 2025 through a Request for Proposals for Professional Auditing Services; and WHEREAS, five (5) proposals were received from eight firms solicited; and WHEREAS, a Committee appointed by the City Council following the Code of Policies Section 2.80 has reviewed the proposals and recommend award of the engagement for auditing services to Redpath and Company. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the firm of Redpath and Company is awarded an engagement letter for performing the annual audit of the City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Statement content in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and generally accepted auditing practice for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2025, 2026, and 2027. November 24, 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 111 of 378 November 11, 2025 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 This letter agreement defines the terms and objectives of our engagement and the nature and limitations of the services Redpath and Company, LLC will provide to City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota for the years ended December 31, 2025, December 31, 2026 and December 31, 2027. Audit Scope and Objectives We will audit the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information, including the disclosures, which collectively comprise the basic financial statements of City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota as of and for the years ended December 31, 2025, December 31, 2026 and December 31, 2027. Accounting standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP) provide for certain required supplementary information (RSI), such as management’s discussion and analysis (MD&A), to supplement City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota’s basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. As part of our engagement, we will apply certain limited procedures to City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota’s RSI in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS). These limited procedures will consist of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We will not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient appropriate evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. The following RSI is required by GAAP and will be subjected to certain limited procedures, but will not be audited:  Management’s Discussion and Analysis  Budgetary Comparison Schedules presented as RSI  Schedule of Changes in the Total OPEB Liability and Related Ratios  Schedules of Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability  Schedules of Pension Contributions  Schedule of Changes in Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios Page 112 of 378 City of Brooklyn Center November 11, 2025 Page 2 We have also been engaged to report on supplementary information other than RSI that accompanies City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota’s financial statements. We will subject the following supplementary information to the auditing procedures applied in our audit of the financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with GAAS, and we will provide an opinion on it in relation to the financial statements as a whole in a separate written report accompanying our auditor’s report on the financial statements or in a report combined with our auditor’s report on the financial statements:  Combining and Individual Nonmajor Fund Financial Statements and Schedules  Schedule of expenditures of federal awards In connection with our audit of the basic financial statements, we will read the following other information and consider whether a material inconsistency exists between the other information and the basic financial statements, or the other information otherwise appears to be materially misstated. If, based on the work performed, we conclude that an uncorrected material misstatement of the other information exists, we are required to describe it in our report.  Introductory Section The objectives of our audit are to obtain reasonable assurance as to whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error; issue an auditor’s report that includes our opinion about whether your financial statements are fairly presented, in all material respects, in conformity with GAAP; and report on the fairness of the supplementary information referred to in the second paragraph when considered in relation to the financial statements as a whole. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS and Government Auditing Standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. Misstatements, including omissions, can arise from fraud or error and are considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, they would influence the judgment of a reasonable user made based on the financial statements. The objectives also include reporting on:  Internal control over financial reporting and compliance with provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and award agreements, noncompliance with which could have a material effect on the financial statements in accordance with Government Auditing Standards.  Internal control over compliance related to major programs and an opinion (or disclaimer of opinion) on compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of federal awards that could have a direct and material effect on each major program in accordance with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Page 113 of 378 City of Brooklyn Center November 11, 2025 Page 3 We will also issue a report on compliance based on the Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Cities, promulgated by the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statute 6.65. Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements and Single Audit We will conduct our audit in accordance with GAAS; the standards for financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996; the provisions of the Uniform Guidance; and the minimum procedures for auditors as prescribed by Minnesota Statute 6.65, and will include tests of your accounting records, a determination of major program(s) in accordance with Uniform Guidance, and other procedures we consider necessary to enable us to express such opinions. As part of an audit in accordance with GAAS and Government Auditing Standards , we exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. We will evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management. We will also evaluate the overall presentation of the financial statements, including the disclosures, and determine whether the financial statements represent the underlying transactions and events in a manner that achieves fair presentation. We will plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether from (1) errors, (2) fraudulent financial reporting, (3) misappropriation of assets, or (4) violations of laws or governmental regulations that are attributable to the entity or to acts by management or employees acting on behalf of the entity. Because the determination of waste and abuse is subjective, Government Auditing Standards do not expect auditors to perform specific procedures to detect waste or abuse in financial audits nor do they expect auditors to provide reasonable assurance of detecting waste or abuse. Because of the inherent limitations of an audit, combined with the inherent limitations of internal control, and because we will not perform a detailed examination of all transactions, there is an unavoidable risk that some material misstatements or noncompliance may not be detected by us, even though the audit is properly planned and performed in accordance with GAAS and Government Auditing Standards. In addition, an audit is not designed to detect immaterial misstatements or violations of laws or governmental regulations that do not have a direct and material effect on the financial statements or on major programs. However, we will inform the appropriate level of management of any material errors, fraudulent financial reporting, or misappropriation of assets that come to our attention. We will also inform the appropriate level of management of any violations of laws or governmental regulations that come to our attention, unless clearly inconsequential. We will include such matters in the reports required for a Single Audit. Our responsibility as auditors is limited to the period covered by our audit and does not extend to any later periods for which we are not engaged as auditors. We will also conclude, based on the evidence obtained, whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time. Page 114 of 378 City of Brooklyn Center November 11, 2025 Page 4 Our procedures will include tests of documentary evidence supporting the transactions recorded in the accounts, tests of the physical existence of inventories, and direct confirmation of certain assets and liabilities by correspondence with selected individuals, funding sources, creditors, and financial institutions. We may also request written representations from your attorneys as part of the engagement. Audit Procedures – Internal Control We will obtain an understanding of the entity and its environment, including the system of internal control, sufficient to identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and to design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks and obtain evidence that is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinions. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentation, or the override of internal control. Tests of controls may be performed to test the effectiveness of certain controls that we consider relevant to preventing and detecting errors and fraud that are material to the financial statements and to preventing and detecting misstatements resulting from illegal acts and other noncompliance matters that have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. Our tests, if performed, will be less in scope than would be necessary to render an opinion on internal control and, accordingly, no opinion will be expressed in our report on internal control issued pursuant to Government Auditing Standards. As required by the Uniform Guidance, we will perform tests of controls over compliance to evaluate the effectiveness of the design and operation of controls that we consider relevant to preventing or detecting material noncompliance with compliance requirements applicable to each major federal award program. However, our tests will be less in scope than would be necessary to render an opinion on those controls and, accordingly, no opinion will be expressed in our report on internal control issued pursuant to the Uniform Guidance. An audit is not designed to provide assurance on internal control or to identify significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. Accordingly, we will express no such opinion. However, during the audit, we will communicate to management and those charged with governance internal control related matters that are required to be communicated under AICPA professional standards, Government Auditing Standards, and the Uniform Guidance. Audit Procedures – Compliance As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, we will perform tests of City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota’s compliance with the provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and agreements, including grant agreements. However, the objective of our audit will not be to provide an opinion on overall compliance, and we will not express such an opinion in our report on compliance issued pursuant to Government Auditing Standards. Page 115 of 378 City of Brooklyn Center November 11, 2025 Page 5 The Uniform Guidance requires that we also plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the auditee has complied with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of federal awards applicable to major programs. Our procedures will consist of tests of transactions and other applicable procedures described in the OMB Compliance Supplement for the types of compliance requirements that could have a direct and material effect on each of City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota’s major programs. For federal programs that are included in the Compliance Supplement, our compliance and internal control procedures will relate to the compliance requirements that the Compliance Supplement identifies as being subject to audit. The purpose of these procedures will be to express an opinion on City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota’s compliance with requirements applicable to each of its major programs in our report on compliance issued pursuant to the Uniform Guidance. The Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Cities requires that we test whether the entity has complied with certain provisions of Minnesota statutes. Our audit will include such tests of the accounting records and other procedures as we consider necessary in the circumstances. Other Services We will also assist with the following other services based on information provided by you:  preparation of the financial statements, the schedule of expenditures of federal awards and related notes in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and the Uniform Guidance These nonaudit services do not constitute an audit under Government Auditing Standards and such services will not be conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards. We will perform the services in accordance with applicable professional standards. The other services are limited to the services defined above. We, in our sole professional judgment, reserve the right to refuse to perform any procedure or take any action that could be construed as assuming management responsibilities. You agree to assume all management responsibilities for the financial statements, the schedule of expenditures of federal awards, and related notes, the other services listed above, and any other nonaudit services we provide. You will be required to acknowledge in the management representation letter our assistance with the nonaudit services listed above, that you have reviewed and approved those services prior to the issuance of the financial statements, and that you have accepted responsibility for them. Further, you agree to oversee the nonaudit services by designating an individual, preferably from senior management, with suitable skill, knowledge, or experience; evaluate the adequacy and results of those services; and accept responsibility for them. Page 116 of 378 City of Brooklyn Center November 11, 2025 Page 6 Responsibilities of Management for the Financial Statements and Single Audit Our audit will be conducted on the basis that you acknowledge and understand your responsibility for (1) designing, implementing, establishing, and maintaining effective internal controls relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, including internal controls over federal awards, and for evaluating and monitoring ongoing activities to help ensure that appropriate goals and objectives are met; (2) following laws and regulations; (3) ensuring that there is reasonable assurance that government programs are administered in compliance with compliance requirements; and (4) ensuring that management and financial information is reliable and properly reported. Management is also responsible for implementing systems designed to achieve compliance with applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements. You are also responsible for the selection and application of accounting principles; for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements, schedule of expenditures of federal awards, and all accompanying information in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; and for compliance with applicable laws and regulations (including federal statutes) rules, and the provisions of contracts and grant agreements (including award agreements). Your responsibilities also include identifying significant contractor relationships in which the contractor has responsibility for program compliance and for the accuracy and completeness of that information. You are also responsible for making drafts of financial statements, schedule of expenditures of federal awards, all financial records, and related information available to us; for the accuracy and completeness of that information (including information from outside of the general and subsidiary ledgers); and for the evaluation of whether there are any conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern for the 12 months after the financial statements date or shortly thereafter (for example, within an additional three months if currently known). You are also responsible for providing us with (1) access to all information of which you are aware that is relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements, such as records, documentation, identification of all related parties and all related-party relationships and transactions, and other matters; (2) access to personnel, accounts, books, records, supporting documentation, and other information as needed to perform an audit under the Uniform Guidance; (3) additional information that we may request for the purpose of the audit; and (4) unrestricted access to persons within the entity from whom we determine it necessary to obtain audit evidence. At the conclusion of our audit, we will require certain written representations from you about the financial statements; schedule of expenditures of federal awards; federal award programs; compliance with laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements; and related matters. Your responsibilities include adjusting the financial statements to correct material misstatements and confirming to us in the management representation letter that the effects of any uncorrected misstatements aggregated by us during the current engagement and pertaining to the latest period presented are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements of each opinion unit taken as a whole. Page 117 of 378 City of Brooklyn Center November 11, 2025 Page 7 You are responsible for the design and implementation of programs and controls to prevent and detect fraud, and for informing us about all known or suspected fraud affecting the entity involving (1) management, (2) employees who have significant roles in internal control, and (3) others where the fraud could have a material effect on the financial statements. Your responsibilities include informing us of your knowledge of any allegations of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the entity received in communications from employees, former employees, grantors, regulators, or others. In addition, you are responsible for identifying and ensuring that the entity complies with applicable laws, regulations, contracts, agreements, and grants. You are also responsible for taking timely and appropriate steps to remedy fraud and noncompliance with provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, or grant agreements that we report. Additionally, as required by the Uniform Guidance, it is management’s responsibility to evaluate and monitor noncompliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of federal awards; take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings; promptly follow up and take corrective action on reported audit findings; and prepare a summary schedule of prior audit findings and a separate corrective action plan. The summary schedule of prior audit findings should be available for our review upon the commencement of our audit. You are responsible for identifying all federal awards received and understanding and complying with the compliance requirements and for the preparation of the schedule of expenditures of federal awards (including notes and noncash assistance received, and COVID-19 related concepts, such as lost revenues, if applicable) in conformity with the Uniform Guidance. You agree to include our report on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards in any document that contains, and indicates that we have reported on, the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. You also agree to include the audited financial statements with any presentation of the schedule of expenditures of federal awards that includes our report thereon or make the audited financial statements readily available to intended users of the schedule of expenditures of federal awards no later than the date the schedule of expenditures of federal awards is issued with our report thereon. Your responsibilities include acknowledging to us in the written representation letter that (1) you are responsible for presentation of the schedule of expenditures of federal awards in accordance with the Uniform Guidance; (2) you believe the schedule of expenditures of federal awards, including its form and content, is stated fairly in accordance with the Uniform Guidance; (3) the methods of measurement or presentation have not changed from those used in the prior period (or, if they have changed, the reasons for such changes); and (4) you have disclosed to us any significant assumptions or interpretations underlying the measurement or presentation of the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. You are also responsible for the preparation of the other supplementary information, which we have been engaged to report on, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP). You agree to include our report on the supplementary information in any document that contains, and indicates that we have reported on, the supplementary information. You also agree to include the audited financial statements with any presentation of the supplementary information that includes our report thereon or make the audited financial statements readily available to users of the supplementary information no later than the date the supplementary information is issued with our report thereon. Your responsibilities include acknowledging to us in the written representation letter that (1) you are Page 118 of 378 City of Brooklyn Center November 11, 2025 Page 8 responsible for presentation of the supplementary information in accordance with GAAP; (2) you believe the supplementary information, including its form and content, is fairly presented in accordance with GAAP; (3) the methods of measurement or presentation have not changed from those used in the prior period (or, if they have changed, the reasons for such changes); and (4) you have disclosed to us any significant assumptions or interpretations underlying the measurement or presentation of the supplementary information. With regard to publishing the financial statements on your website, you understand that websites are a means of distributing information and, therefore, we are not required to read the information contained in those sites or to consider the consistency of other information on the website with the original document. Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining a process for tracking the status of audit findings and recommendations. Management is also responsible for identifying and providing report copies of previous financial audits, attestation engagements, performance audits or other studies related to the objectives discussed in the Audit Scope and Objectives section of this letter. This responsibility includes relaying to us corrective actions taken to address significant findings and recommendations resulting from those audits, attestation engagements, performance audits, or other studies. You are also responsible for providing management’s views on our current findings, conclusions, and recommendations, as well as your planned corrective actions for the report, and for the timing and format for providing that information. Information Requirements We will provide you with an information request, which outlines the information needed to complete our services. The terms of this engagement, including timing and estimated cost, are directly dependent on the quality and timeliness of the information and data you provide. A lack of information may also cause delays in the timely completion of the engagement. In the event that information cannot be provided, you may incur additional costs if we attempted to generate such information, or we may even be unable to continue the engagement in the absence of such information. It is in your best interest to provide accurate and timely information. Engagement Administration, Fees and Other We understand that your employees will prepare all cash, accounts receivable, or other confirmations we request and will locate any documents selected by us for testing. We will schedule the engagement based in part on deadlines, working conditions, and the availability of your key personnel. We will plan the engagement based on the assumption that your personnel will cooperate and provide assistance by performing tasks such as preparing requested schedules, retrieving supporting documents, and preparing confirmations. If, for whatever reason, your personnel are unavailable to provide the necessary assistance in a timely manner, it may substantially increase the work we have to do to complete the engagement within the established deadlines, resulting in an increase in fees over our original fee estimate. Page 119 of 378 City of Brooklyn Center November 11, 2025 Page 9 Rebecca Petersen is the engagement Director and is responsible for supervising the engagement and signing the report or authorizing another individual to sign it. At the conclusion of the engagement, we will complete the appropriate sections of the Data Collection Form that summarizes our audit findings. It is management’s responsibility to electronically submit the reporting package (including financial statements, schedule of expenditures of federal awards, summary schedule of prior audit findings, auditor’s reports, and corrective action plan) along with the Data Collection Form to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. We will coordinate with you the electronic submission and certification. The Data Collection Form and the reporting package must be submitted within the earlier of 30 calendar days after receipt of the auditor’s reports or nine months after the end of the audit period. We will provide copies of our reports to City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota; however, management is responsible for distribution of the reports and the financial statements. Unless restricted by law or regulation, or containing privileged and confidential information, copies of our reports are to be made available for public inspection. The audit documentation for this engagement is the property of Redpath and Company and constitutes confidential information. However, subject to applicable laws and regulations, audit documentation and appropriate individuals will be made available upon request and in a timely manner to oversight agencies, regulators, a federal agency providing direct or indirect funding, or the U.S. Government Accountability Office for the purposes of a quality review of the audit, to resolve audit findings, or to carry out oversight responsibilities. We will notify you of any such request. If requested, access to such audit documentation will be provided under the supervision of Redpath and Company personnel. Furthermore, upon request, we may provide copies of selected audit documentation to the aforementioned parties. These parties may intend or decide to distribute the copies or information contained therein to others, including other governmental agencies. Unless additional work is requested or required, our fee for these services will be as follows: City financial statement audit, including assistance with draft financial statement preparation: $73,500 for the year ended December 31, 2025, $77,240 for the year ended December 31, 2026, $81,200 for the year ended December 31, 2027. The fees listed here include printing and binding of 5 hard copies of the issued financial statements. The fee for a Single Audit (only if required) includes a base fee plus a charge for each major program, depending on the complexity of the program. The base fees are as follows: $2,500 for the year ended December 31, 2025, $3,000 for the year ended December 31, 2026, $3,500 for the year ended December 31, 2027. We estimate the total Single Audit fee for the year ended December 31, 2025, to be $6,500. Out-of-pocket costs, such as confirmation and courier fees, will be billed in addition to the fees stated above. We bill our fees monthly as work progresses and expect payment within thirty (30) days. Each invoice includes a detailed description of the services provided. Amounts over thirty (30) days will be considered delinquent. We reserve the right to assess a 1.5% per month service Page 120 of 378 City of Brooklyn Center November 11, 2025 Page 10 charge on any balance older than thirty (30) days. In the event it becomes necessary to refer this account to an attorney for collection (whether or not suit is commenced), you will be responsible for payment of all reasonable costs of such collections, including reasonable attorney fees. Our policy is to suspend work if your account becomes overdue by sixty (60) days or more, and work will not be resumed until your account is paid in full. Should we elect to discontinue services, you will be responsible for all time and expenses incurred through the date of termination regardless of whether we have issued a report or other final product. The above fees are based on the anticipated scope of services, anticipated cooperation from your personnel and the assumption that unexpected circumstances will not be encountered. The following circumstances may result in a change in scope of services and an increase in fees:  Significant audit adjustments, internal control deficiencies or compliance findings  New accounting standards  Failure to complete the preparation work by the applicable due dates  Inaccurate records  Turnover in your staff  Significant unanticipated or undisclosed transactions, issues, or other such unforeseeable circumstances  Delays causing scheduling changes or disruption of previously scheduled timing of work (fieldwork)  Circumstances requiring revisions to work previously completed or delays in resolution of issues that extend the period of time necessary to complete the audit  Fraud or misuse of public funds  Issues with the prior firm, prior year account balances, or disclosures that impact the current year adjustments Our fees do not include bookkeeping or accounting assistance, preparation of audit workpapers, reconciliations or similar assistance (unless otherwise noted in the sections above). Our fees for such services will be dependent on the level of effort required. Services requested by you that are not included in this engagement letter will be billed dependent on the level of effort required and will be subject to all the terms of this letter. Our fees and rates are adjusted annually for general economic factors. If we are requested or required to provide documents or testimony to support litigation proceedings as a professional service on your behalf (that is, litigation in which we are not a party as a result of our engagement), you will be billed for our time at the current standard rates and all out-of-pocket expenditures, including copying costs and legal fees. The 2026 and 2027 engagements may be terminated by either party by providing notice by September 30, 2026 and September 30, 2027, respectively. Changes in the scope of the 2026 and 2027 engagements, if any, would be addressed via engagement letter addendum(s). Generally, scope changes involve significant changes in your operations or new accounting or Page 121 of 378 City of Brooklyn Center November 11, 2025 Page 11 audit standards. If such changes result in a scope change, fees would be updated via an engagement letter addendum. Record Keeping Responsibilities The AICPA Code of Professional Conduct requires Redpath and Company, LLC to maintain our independence with regards to certain attestation services provided to City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. These rules require City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota to take responsibility for all nonattest services. Redpath and Company, LLC cannot serve as custodian for your data in such a way that your data is incomplete and accessible only through Redpath and Company, LLC or the Redpath portal. As such, any financial report, reconciliation, document, and calculation (depreciation schedules, journal entries, etc.) that we prepare or update on your behalf will be sent to you at the completion of each attest or nonattest service. You are responsible for downloading and maintaining these records as well as all supporting documents generated in the normal course of business until the retention period expires. The audit documentation for this engagement will be retained for a minimum of five years after the report release date or for any additional period requested by oversight agencies, regulators, or pass-through entities. If we are aware that a federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, or auditee is contesting an audit finding, we will contact the party(ies) contesting the audit finding for guidance prior to destroying the audit documentation. Our firm’s records retention policy will differ considerably from yours. Every entity has different record keeping requirements, because regulations vary by industry, entity structure, the state(s) of operation, and most importantly, the needs to the specific entity. Retention policies are determined by taking into consideration legal, fiscal, operational, and historical values of any given type of record. Confidentiality We may, from time to time and depending on the circumstances, use third-party service providers in serving your account. We may share confidential information about you with these service providers but remain committed to maintaining the confidentiality and security of your information. Accordingly, we maintain internal policies, procedures and safeguards to protect the confidentiality of your information. In addition, we will secure confidentiality agreements with all service providers to maintain the confidentiality of your information and we will take reasonable precautions to determine that they have appropriate procedures in place to prevent the unauthorized release of your confidential information to others. In the event that we are unable to secure an appropriate confidentiality agreement, you will be asked to provide your consent prior to the sharing of your confidential information with the third-party service provider. Furthermore, we will remain responsible for the work provided by any such third-party service providers. Page 122 of 378 City of Brooklyn Center November 11, 2025 Page 12 Privacy We have established policies and procedures obligating our employees and/or contractors with access to personal information to ensure that any non-public, personal information is protected as confidential and in conformance with security practices designed to keep it secure at all times. We maintain appropriate physical, technological and administrative controls to comply with industry standards and applicable law in safeguarding your personal information from loss, misuse, alteration or destruction (unless the destruction is according to our records retention schedule). We do not sell personal information to third parties. We do not disclose non-public information except as necessary to provide our services (see Confidentiality above) and as required by law. We do not disclose non-public, personal information we receive to our affiliates unless authorized by you, or necessary to provide our services or in the event of an assignment. Governing Law; Dispute Resolution This letter agreement and our services are governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota and applicable federal laws of the United States of America. In the event of any dispute arising out of or in connection with this letter agreement, including any question regarding its existence, validity, termination, or breach hereof, our services, or fees for our engagement (a “Dispute”), City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota and our firm mutually agree to try in good faith to resolve the Dispute through: (i) good faith discussions; and (ii) if not resolved under (i) then, upon the written request of either party, such Dispute may be resolved through mediation by selecting a third-party to help reach an agreement, in accordance with the following paragraph (Mediation). If we are unable to resolve the fee dispute through mediation, then, with the consent of both parties, such disputes may be settled by binding arbitration. We both acknowledge that should a dispute over fees arise that cannot be resolved through mediation, each of us is giving up the right to have the dispute decided in a court of law before a judge or jury. Instead, we are accepting the use of arbitration for resolution. We believe that most disagreements can be resolved to mutual satisfaction in a friendly, non- threatening environment. While we do not expect there to be any problems whatsoever with our relationship, misunderstandings can occur. Therefore, we agree that any Dispute arising under this letter agreement (including the scope, nature and quality of services to be performed by us, our fees or other terms of the engagement) shall be submitted to mediation. A competent and impartial third-party, acceptable to both parties, shall be appointed to mediate, and each disputing party shall pay an equal percentage of the mediator’s fees and expenses. No suit or arbitration proceeding shall be commenced under this letter agreement until at least sixty (60) days after the mediator’s first meeting with the involved parties. If the dispute requires litigation, the court shall be authorized to impose all defense costs against any non-prevailing party found not to have participated in the mediation process in good faith. Page 123 of 378 City of Brooklyn Center November 11, 2025 Page 13 Reporting We will issue a written report upon completion of our Single Audit and our audit of City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota’s financial statements which will also address other information in accordance with AU-C 720, The Auditor’s Responsibilities Relating to Other Information Included in Annual Reports. Our reports will be addressed to The Honorable Mayor and City Council of City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Circumstances may arise in which our report may differ from its expected form and content based on the results of our audit. Depending on the nature of these circumstances, it may be necessary for us to modify our opinions, add a separate section, or add an emphasis-of-matter or other-matter paragraph to our auditor’s report, or if necessary, withdraw from this engagement. If our opinions are other than unmodified, we will discuss the reasons with you in advance. If, for any reason, we are unable to complete the audit or are unable to form or have not formed opinions, we may decline to express opinions or issue reports, or we may withdraw from this engagement. The Government Auditing Standards report on internal control over financial reporting and on compliance and other matters will state that (1) the purpose of the report is solely to describe the scope of testing of internal control and compliance, and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control on compliance, and (2) the report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity’s internal control and compliance. The Uniform Guidance report on internal control over compliance will state that the purpose of the report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Both reports will state that the report is not suitable for any other purpose. This letter agreement supersedes all prior communications, understandings, and agreements, whether oral or written, in connection with this engagement. Amendments to this engagement must be confirmed by both parties. If you do not understand any of the terms of this letter agreement, please call me and I will be happy to review them with you. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, REDPATH AND COMPANY, LLC St. Paul, Minnesota Page 124 of 378 City of Brooklyn Center November 11, 2025 Page 14 Response If you agree to the terms of this engagement, please designate below the individual who will be overseeing our services, sign this letter and return to us a signed copy. If a designated individual is not assigned below, it will be assumed that the Finance Director will oversee our nonaudit services. The individual(s) assigned to oversee the nonaudit services is: ___________________________________________ (name and title) _____________________________________ Management signature _____________________________________ Title _____________________________________ Date _____________________________________ Governance signature _____________________________________ Title _____________________________________ Date Page 125 of 378 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 11/24/2025 TO: City Council FROM: Lydia Ener, City Engineer THROUGH: Elizabeth Heyman, Director of Public Works BY: Lydia Ener, City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution to Act as the Legal Sponsor for the Brooklyn Center Health, Culture, and Recreation Community Center Project, as Contained in House File (Hf) No. 670 Requested Council Action: - Motion to approve a resolution to Act as the Legal Sponsor for the Brooklyn Center; Health, Culture, and Recreation Community Center Project, as Contained in House File (Hf) No. 670. Background: In the 2023, the State of Minnesota granted the City of Brooklyn Center $5.1 million to, “predesign, design, and construct the renovation of a health, culture, and recreation facility.” This resolution is a required step to officially accept these funds from the state. After the resolution is passed, the City can begin submitting reimbursement claims to the State for this project. The scope of the Community Center renovation project focuses on addressing deferred maintenance identified in a 2023-24 Facility Condition Assessment, as well as making renovations to the pool and other program areas to address community feedback. There is no new construction proposed as part of the scope of this project. Budget Issues: The total project cost is estimated to be $5,265,000, including construction costs, administration, engineering and legal, and contingency costs. The State of Minnesota DEED funds are anticipated to cover $5,100,000 of the costs, and the remaining $150,000 - $200,000 will be funded through the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Inclusive Community Engagement: NA Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: NA Strategic Priorities and Values: Page 126 of 378 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Accepting State Funds Resolution Page 127 of 378 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO.______________ RESOLUTION TO ACT AS THE LEGAL SPONSOR FOR THE BROOKLYN CENTER; HEALTH, CULTURE, AND RECREATION COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT, AS CONTAINED IN HOUSE FILE (HF) NO. 670 BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Brooklyn Center act as the legal sponsor for the project contained in House File (HF) No. 670 entitled Brooklyn Center; Health, Culture, and Recreation Community Center BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Brooklyn Center has the legal authority to receive financial assistance, and the institutional, managerial, and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the sources and amounts of the local match identified in the development proposal are committed to the project identified. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Brooklyn Center has not violated any Federal, State or local laws pertaining to fraud, bribery, graft, kickbacks, collusion, conflict of interest or other unlawful or corrupt practice. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon approval of its development proposal by the state, the City of Brooklyn Center may enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota for the above-referenced project, and that the City of Brooklyn Center certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulation as stated in all contract agreements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the non-DEED sources of funds identified in the sources and uses outline in the application total the amount of $200,000 and are committed and adequate to fully fund or provide the match for the project identified in the application. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any source of the Applicant’s funds to fully fund the project shall be from the Capital Projects Fund account which has an adequate amount of funds to cover the commitment. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the City Manager, or their designee, is hereby authorized to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 128 of 378 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 129 of 378 Page 1 of 9 Adopted November 2025 City of Brooklyn Center 2026 Legislative Agenda Page 130 of 378 Page 2 of 9 Overview The City of Brooklyn Center works together with its partners to support proposals for new legislation in Minnesota designed to strengthen the community. The following list of legislative priorities and positions, along with those prepare by the Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority (EDA), constitute Brooklyn Center's legislative agenda for the 2024 legislative session. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion The City of Brooklyn Center, with our rich racial, ethnic and demographic diversity is committed to supporting local, state and federal policies and investments that advance the goals of eliminating racial and economic disparities in areas such as housing, employment, transportation, health care, safety, etc., and works towards a more inclusive economy. Many of the detailed advocated for in this document strive to achieve these goals. Page 131 of 378 Page 3 of 9 Legislative Top Priorities 1. BCLG 01-2026: Opportunity Site Phase 1 Infrastructure Bonding - The City is requesting critical legislative funding that will fill gap funding necessary for the build out of Phase 1 of the Opportunity Site. The request is for $3,000,000 that will close the remaining funding gap allowing for the construction of infrastructure to phase 1 of the opportunity site. Justification – Phase 1 of the opportunity site will bring over 700 units of multifamily housing, local-oriented commercial business spaces, an event center and public gathering spaces. The city has already received $3.4 million in grants for the infrastructure and this final piece of state bonding would allow for construction to begin on the infrastructure. 2. BCLG 02-2026: Brooklyn Center Public Works Garage – The City of Brooklyn Center supports increased state funding for transportation maintenance facilities, like the Brooklyn Center Public Works Garage, which provides critical regional services. Justification – The 50-year-old Brooklyn Center Public Works garage is outdated, creating safety risks and operational inefficiencies. Its size and design limit the safe use of large equipment like snowplows and have insufficient space for modern upgrades, such as charging stations for an electrified fleet. Renovations are cost-prohibitive, with $3.5 million in deferred maintenance. Public Works operations are essential to regional mobility, including snow and ice control for areas like Shingle Creek Crossing, and aiding the movement of Brooklyn Center's significant essential worker population. 3. BCLG 03-2026: Group Homes and Assisted Living Licensures – The City of Brooklyn Center believes current regulations for group homes disproportionately impact lower-income communities and communities of color. The City requests that the Legislature amend these regulations to address unintended consequences, including allowing certain non-first-class cities to establish density requirements and reinstituting the ability of a municipality to require a rental license. Currently, only cities of the first class (with populations over 100,000) have the authority to mandate a minimum distance of 1,320 feet (1/4 mile) from existing MDH Assisted Living facilities. There are no minimum distance requirements for DHS Community Residential Setting facilities. Justification – Our experience shows that single-family affordable housing neighborhoods attract investors looking to profit from establishing group homes. Brooklyn Center has seen a significant increase in the number of these homes. This concentration in lower-income neighborhoods limits homeownership opportunities and wealth accumulation for residents, and it can alter the character of the community. Additionally, these properties place a strain on local emergency response agencies, as they tend to generate a higher volume of service calls. According to MN Statutes 245A.11, subdivision 1, individuals residing in group homes cannot be Page 132 of 378 Page 4 of 9 excluded from the benefits of normal residential surroundings by municipal zoning ordinances or land use regulations. Group homes with a licensed capacity of 6 or fewer persons are permitted as single-family residential uses for zoning purposes, and as of May 18, 2024, state-licensed group homes with 6 or fewer persons are exempt from rental licensing requirements in Minnesota, including those licensed under Minnesota Statutes 144G.45 and 245D.02. The Commissioner of the Department of Health must consider the population, size, land use plan, availability of community services, and the number and size of existing licensed MDH Assisted Living facilities in any city where an applicant seeks to operate a facility; however, as of October 2024, Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park— the only two cities in Hennepin County with over 50% BIPOC populations—hold nearly 50% of all MDH Assisted Living licenses in Hennepin County. 4. BCLG 04-2026: City Cost Participation on State and County Roads – supports flexibility in, or exemption from, cost participation policies when a city cannot meet cost share obligations due to unique circumstances. The City calls for special or additional funding for cities that have burdens of additional cost participation in projects involving state and county roads including the placement of underground utilities due to those projects. Justification – When municipal state aid (MSA) eligible cities (those with populations greater than >5,000) face significant cost participation requirements related to state and county road projects, they commonly dedicate all or large portions of their available MSA to meet cost participation obligations. When this happens, MSA funds are not available for use on the MSA system within the city, and local taxpayers must fully fund their own local roads and stormwater infrastructure. This has been exacerbated by significant new transportation infrastructure investments on the trunk highway system authorized by the state and federal governments. Additionally, these state and county projects often present a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to replace or rehabilitate utilities under regional roadways, forcing cities to allocate resources immediately and defer more urgent utility infrastructure needs. “The one-size fits all” cost participation policies adopted by the state and counties are inequitable. They do not consider unique factors including a disproportionate number of trunk highway lane miles in some communities, the high cost of some projects, or tax base challenges that may limit the financial ability of some cities to pay. Cost participation obligations can consume the finances or debt capacity of communities for many years. Furthermore, regional agencies are mainly focused on facilitating travel and commerce through--and not into--a local community. Trends in cost share policies, including ownership and long -term maintenance of regional assets, continue to add to the local burden every time a cost share policy is updated or developed. 5. BCLG 05-2026: Economic Growth Zones - Brooklyn Center Economic Revitalization Pilot Act This is a targeted bill combining elements of capital gains deferral/exclusion, refundable credits for building conversions), and sustainable energy credits exclusively for our six Opportunity Zone tracts (27053020201, 27053020202, 27053020302, 27053020303, 270530 20304, 27053020400). Page 133 of 378 Page 5 of 9 Incentives apply only to vacant, substandard, or under-tenanted properties, with performance-based callbacks, regulatory relief, and TIF layering to ensure fiscal neutrality under static scoring while capturing dynamic growth benefits. This legislation is essential to unlock private capital for BCC-scale projects, addressing Retail Study challenges and Economic Growth Plan priorities. Page 134 of 378 Page 6 of 9 Legislative Supported Priorities Administration • Official Notifications / Information Access – The City of Brooklyn Center supports the state in eliminating outdated and unnecessary publication requirements no longer relevant or representative of the City's technological capabilities. • Funding for Cultural Centers/Museums and Other Community Building Assets- the City of Brooklyn Center encourages the Legislature to provide funding and provide new rules that will support the establishment of Cultural Museum/Centers that reflect the unique traditions and values provided by immigrants, new Americans and diverse communities; thereby enriching the lives of all Minnesotans. Business and Economic Development • Small Business Development – The city supports city and non-profit partnerships in developing small business centers, incubators, and other affordable commercial opportunities for small and BIPOC owned businesses. Agency’s such as African Career Education and Resources and CAPI USA provide support for small businesses and are critical in Brooklyn Center’s business community. • Business Tenant Protection – The city supports the state in creating more protection for tenants within commercial properties, with a focus on small lower-income businesses who are at greater risk of displacement. The City of Brooklyn Center has received more recent feedback relati ng to commercial tenants with challenging lease situation. • Youth Tax Credit – The City of Brooklyn Center supports efforts by the state to create an internship-to-work tax credit for organizations hosting young workers in Brooklyn Center. This type of tax credit program exists now but is targeted at Greater Minnesota. • Workforce Readiness – The City of Brooklyn Center supports efforts of the state to fund fully the Minnesota Job Skills Partnership and other workforce training programs. The City also supports the state in providing flexible funding to local workforce councils and pursuing creative programming and funding. Finally, the City supports efforts to design and implement programs designed to address youth employment and workforce readiness. • TIF District Flexibility - The City of Brooklyn Center generally supports efforts of the State to increase the flexibility of TIF to facilitate redevelopment and housing activities and supports creating special legislation that will allow for creation of two or more redevelopment TIF districts within the Opportunity Site. Financial • Metro Area Fiscal Disparities (4D Transition Aid) – The supports state funding for cities recovering tax losses due to 4D Transition Aid. • Metro Area Fiscal Disparities - Brooklyn Center was once a net contributor to the Fiscal Disparities pool. Today as a net recipient, fiscal disparity is a major factor contributing to the fiscal stability of the City and our taxpayers. Without Fiscal Disparities, the property tax burden in Brooklyn Center would escalate dramatically, perhaps more than 25%. We strongly encourage continued legislative support for Metro Area Fiscal Disparities. • Sales Tax Exemption Simplification - We advocate for a way to simplify the utility of the current sales tax Page 135 of 378 Page 7 of 9 exemption for construction materials. The process for using the current sales tax exemption on construction is so complicated, risky, and burdensome to contractors and cities that we are aware of no city that has decided to use this exemption. In Brooklyn Center, we estimate savings of $300-$400 thousand annually for our neighborhood street and utility construction projects if the sales tax exemption was viable. • Property Tax Relief – The City of Brooklyn Center supports efforts of the state to increase property tax relief for property owners experiencing high tax burdens due to property tax shifts. • Local Government Aid (LGA) – The City of Brooklyn Center supports the existing LGA funding formula as an appropriate mechanism to distribute LGA. The city supports adding an annual indexing factor to the formula. In addition, the city supports, adding a racial and economic equity factor to the existing formula and opposes special funding using LGA funds. Health and Well-Being • Racial Trauma Treatment - The City of Brooklyn Center supports the state supports the state adding “racial trauma” to eligible conditions for psychological condition treatment. Housing • Tenant Protections - The City of Brooklyn Center supports revising existing regulations that restrict local governments from enacting tenant protection measures. Further, the City of Brooklyn Center supports new legislation that clarifies and creates tools that support tenant protection measures, both locally and state- wide. These tools include but are not limited to, preventing discrimination based on income sources, limiting tenant screening practices, preventing non-renewals of leases without just cause, and retaliation by rental property owners. • Affordable Housing - The City of Brooklyn Center supports the creation of additional programs, tools, and funding that address the concentration of poverty and ensure the fair distribution of affordable housing opportunities across the Twin Cities metro. Specifically, the State should establish a housing tax credit contribution fund, increase funding for the Economic Development and Challenge Fund Grant program, and support dedicated funding for housing through bonding and general fund revenue. • Emergency Shelter/Transitional Housing Use in Hotels – The City of Brooklyn Center supports a more even distribution of emergency homeless shelters and transitional housing at area hotels and motels, as paid by voucher. • Building Officials – The City of Brooklyn Center supports efforts of the state to increase its efforts to train new and diverse building officials and provide sufficient education to help local officials administer and enforce construction regulations. Public Safety • Permanent Prevention and Intervention Public Safety Aid - The City supports extension and permanent funding of Public Safety Aid. Funding should also support inter-jurisdictional data sharing and real-time intelligence capabilities, such as a regional Real Time Crime Center, to enhance collaborative public safety efforts in the northwest metro. • Northwest Metro Real Time Crime Center and Crime Prevention Cooperative - The City of Brooklyn Center supports legislation to establish and fund a regional Northwest Metro Real Time Crime Center and Crime Prevention Cooperative, in partnership with the City of Brooklyn Park. This initiative would create shared real - time data analysis, technology integration, and cross-jurisdictional coordination capabilities to improve crime prevention and emergency response across municipal boundaries. Justification: The northwest metro experiences high concentrations of violent and property crime that frequently cross city boundaries. A regional Page 136 of 378 Page 8 of 9 approach leveraging data integration, technology, and shared staffing will enhance real -time coordination and situational awareness, improve officer safety, and support community -based prevention strategies. This project aligns with statewide goals of improving public safety outcomes and efficient use of resources. Permanent state funding is essential for sustainability. • Support for a Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) for Law Enforcement Officers - The City of Brooklyn Center supports the implementation of a Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) or a similar program for law enforcement officers in Minnesota. Such programs allow senior officers to retire while continuing to work and accrue retirement benefits, providing financial incentives for experienced officers to extend their careers. The City recognizes the value of maintaining a seasoned workforce and the potent ial benefits of retaining senior officers to support leadership continuity, mentorship of younger officers, and overall departmental stability. • Public Safety Workforce Pipeline and Cadet Programs - The City of Brooklyn Center supports state funding for local law enforcement cadet and internship programs that build pathways for diverse and community -rooted candidates to become licensed peace officers. Justification: Brooklyn Center’s Cadet program has shown that early exposure and tuition support help attract high -quality, community-minded officers. Dedicated state funding for such programs would enhance recruitment and retention across Minnesota, s trengthen local hiring pipelines, and expand diversity in law enforcement. • Presumption of Privacy for Body-Worn Cameras Used by Non-Licensed Police Staff - The City of Brooklyn Center supports extending the presumption of privacy for Body -Worn Camera (BWC) footage to non-sworn staff, in alignment with the current state law that protects BWC data collected by licensed peace officers. This expansion would ensure that BWC data recorded by non-licensed police staff, such as Cadets, community service officers, or professional staff, is classified as private or nonpublic data, except when specifically required by law to be released. This adjustment aligns with the b roader privacy protections afforded to licensed peace officers and supports the responsible use of technology to enhance public trust and safety without compromising individual privacy. • Race Identification on Driver’s License – The City of Brooklyn Center supports legislative efforts to improve race- related data collection by offering individuals the option to self-identify their race on their driver’s license. This option should be voluntary and include safeguards to ensure that the data is used exclusively for the purpose of improving racial equity and reducing bias in law enforcement activities. • Cop Autism Response Education and Technologies - The City of Brooklyn Center supports legislative funding for the expansion of the COP Autism Response Education (CARE) training model and the development and utilization of innovative technologies that improve public safety responses to individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). These technologies could include apps, sensory tools, or other support systems that enhance communication and understanding between first responders and individuals on the autism spectrum. • Juveniles in Municipal Jails – The City of Brooklyn Center supports efforts by the state to clarify state statutes that would allow juveniles to be held for questioning and booking in the City jail for up to six hours. • 21st Century Policing – The City of Brooklyn Center reaffirms its support for implementing the principles and strategies outlined in the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing and calls for sustained state funding to enhance training, officer wellness initiatives, and the a doption of modern policing technologies. This includes body-worn cameras, de-escalation techniques, and holistic safety approaches. The City encourages the integration of whole-of-government and whole-of-community strategies to achieve safe, healthy communities. • Appropriation: Fencing Consortium - $5,000,000 in fiscal year 2024 is appropriated from the general fund to the commissioner of public safety for a grant to the Fencing Consortium for acquisition of anti-scale fencing, Page 137 of 378 Page 9 of 9 pedestrian doors, and vehicle gates for local government facilities statewide to improve equitable access to a de-escalation and safety tool. This appropriation is available until the project is completed or abandoned, subject to Minnesota Statutes, section 16A.642. This is a onetime appropriation. • Regional Live Fire Training Facility (located in Dayton) – The city supports funding for the Dayton Regional live fire training facility. • Continued and increased funding to MNFIRE and MBFTE – The city supports continued and increased funding of MNFIRE and MBFE • Public Safety Responder Mental Health and Well-Being – The city supports creation and permanent funding for public safety responder mental health and well-being. The City also supports extending eligibility for psychological treatment coverage to include racial trauma, cumulative trauma, and secondary trauma exposure, consistent with evolving research on officer wellness. • Lithium-Ion Battery Safety - Brooklyn Center support efforts to ensure modernized firefighters training, fire suppression methods and fire codes. Lithium batteries supply power to many kinds of devices, but if not properly handled can catch fire or explode. Transportation • Highway 252/I-94 Project – The City of Brooklyn Center supports the State in addressing the long-standing safety issues on Trunk Highway (TH) 252, while at the same time protecting human health, promoting regional equity, and enhancing the livability and prosperity of Brooklyn Cente r. • MVLST Funding - The City of Brooklyn Center supports Hennepin County in the distribution of motor vehicle lease sales tax (MVLST). • BCLG 35-2025: Transportation Funding – The City of Brooklyn Center supports the state by providing more funding, including bonding, for improvements to all components of the transportation system. The City specifically supports funding for the TH 252/I-94 project and the Blue Line Light Rail Extension Page 138 of 378 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 11/24/2025 TO: City Council FROM: Elizabeth Heyman, Director of Public Works THROUGH: Lydia Ener, City Engineer BY: Lydia Ener, City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution Ordering Improvements and Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Improvement Project No. 2026-01, 02, 03, & 04 Humboldt Avenue (CR 57) Reconstruction Requested Council Action: - Motion to approve a resolution ordering the Humboldt Avenue (CR 57) Reconstruction Project No. 2026-01, 02, 03, & 04 and authorizing preparation of project plans and specifications. Background: A public hearing is scheduled on November 24, 2025 to consider ordering improvements and authorize preparation of plans and specifications for Improvement Project No. 2026-01, 02, 03, & 04 Humboldt Avenue (CR 57) Reconstruction. All potentially affected property owners will be notified by mail of the date of the improvement public hearing and the amount of proposed special assessments. To gather information from the public on the project. a neighborhood open house was held on October 1, 2025. Invitations for the meeting were mailed to properties. The goal of the meeting was to provide project information to property owners and residents, and gain input from the public on potential project upgrades. Each attendee was able to discuss how the project would impact their home. Some voiced concerns about driveway access during construction. Miscellaneous questions were asked about utilities and the assessment process. All attendees seemed satisfied with having their questions answered, and many expressed intertest in personal follow-up when construction begins. A formal presentation of the project is planned at the public hearing. In addition to the neighborhood meeting, surveys regarding the project and existing conditions will be made available to residents. Staff will review survey results and will address concerns where needed. An assessment public hearing to consider certification of proposed special assessments for street improvements for Improvement Project No. 2026-01, 02, 03, & 04 will be held in January 2026. A separate Notice of Public Hearing on proposed special assessments will be sent to properties that are proposed to be assessed in December 2025. I. Explanation of Improvements The proposed project includes roadway and utility improvements within the Humboldt CR 57 neighborhood. On October 27, 2025, the City Council received the project feasibility report and called for a public hearing to be held on November 24, 2025, to Page 139 of 378 consider these improvements. The project feasibility report provides a description of recommended improvements for the neighborhood and an estimated project budget. The proposed improvements are as follows: 1. Street Improvements – Partial street reconstruction which includes full depth pavement replacement, miscellaneous repairs of concrete curb and gutter and driveway aprons, and boulevard restoration. 2. Storm Drainage Improvements - The recommended storm sewer improvements include replacing catch basin castings as necessary within the project areas, and replacing or repairing catch basins and laterals where deteriorated or impacted by other utility work. 3. Water Main Improvements - The recommended water main improvements include replacing most of the main, along with the valves and hydrants. 4. Sanitary Sewer Improvements - The recommended sanitary sewer improvements include lining of the main, with spot replacements as necessary. II. Summary of Assessments Special assessments are proposed as one of several funding sources for the improvements located within the project area. The 2026 special assessment rates for street improvements will be established in accordance with the City’s Special Assessment Policy. The 2026 rates are anticipated to be established by the City Council on November 24, 2025. The feasibility report includes a preliminary assessment roll identifying the affected properties, as well as the zoning designations and associated preliminary assessment. See attached Pending Assessment Roll and Assessment Map from the project feasibility report. The special assessments will not exceed the amounts on the attached special assessment roll. Assessments for Partial Street Reconstruction (Full Depth Pavement Replacement) The standard 2026 residential street assessment rate is estimated to be $4,300 for R1 & R2 zoned residential property. The properties designated R4 are proposed to be assessed on an area basis set by the project costs, per the City Assessment Policy. III. Recommended Council Procedure Public Hearing to Order Improvements: Staff recommends that a presentation be provided to the City Council prior to holding the improvement public hearing. Following the presentation, a public hearing to consider ordering the improvement project should be conducted to receive public comments. Public comments concerning special assessments should be deferred to the Assessment Public Hearing in January 2026. A Page 140 of 378 resolution ordering the improvements and authorizing preparation of plans and specifications is provided for City Council consideration. Budget Issues: A public hearing iThe proposed street and utility improvements are included in the 2025 Capital Improvement Program for the City of Brooklyn Center. The total project cost is estimated to be $ 4,410,824. Funding sources for the project are budgeted from sources as described in the project feasibility report previously accepted by the City Council on October 27, 2025. The funding source amounts that were included in the October 27, 2025 Feasibility Report are listed below: Special Assessments $ 273,050.00 Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund $ 668,980.00 Water Utility Fund $ 873,018.00 Street Light Utility Fund $ 20,000.00 MSA (County Cost Share) $ 2,156,832.00 MSA (City) $ 418,944.00 Total $ 4,410,824.00 Inclusive Community Engagement: NA Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: NA Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Humboldt CR 57 Ordering Plans Res Page 141 of 378 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO.______________ RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2026-01, 02, 03 , & 04 HUMBOLDT AVENUE (CR 57) RECONSTRUCTION WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council on October 27, 2025, accepted the feasibility report for street, storm drainage and utility improvements in the area generally described as “Humboldt Avenue (CR 57) Reconstruction”, more specifically described as follows: Humboldt Avenue N from 53rd Avenue N to 57th Avenue N. WHEREAS, the City Council has received and accepted a feasibility report for said proposed improvements, as prepared under the City Engineer’s supervision; and WHEREAS, said improvements are necessary, cost effective and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report; and WHEREAS, the City Council on October 27, 2025, adopted a resolution setting a date for a public hearing regarding the proposed improvements for the described improvement area; and WHEREAS, ten days published notice of hearing will be given and the hearing will be held on November 24, 2025, at which time all persons desiring to be heard will be given the opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the City Council will considered all comments, testimony, evidence and reports offered at or prior to the November 24, 2025, hearing; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to spend monies from the Capital Improvement funds and Minnesota State Aid funds to pay the expenditures described in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to reimburse itself for such expenditures from the proceeds of taxable or tax-exempt bonds, the debt service of which is expected to be paid from property taxes, special assessments or utility fees. The maximum amount of special assessment obligations expected to be issued for such project is $273,050.00; and WHEREAS, the Engineering Division is prepared to develop plans and specifications for said public improvement project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: Page 142 of 378 1. Improvement Project No. 2026-01, 02, 03, & 04 Humboldt Avenue (CR 57) Reconstruction, are hereby ordered and the Engineering Division is authorized to prepare plans and specifications for said improvements. 2. This resolution is intended to constitute official intent to issue taxable or tax exempt reimbursement bonds for purposes of Treasury Regulations and any successor law, regulation, or ruling. This resolution will be modified to the extent required or permitted by Treasury Regulations or any successor law, regulation, or ruling. November 24, 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 143 of 378 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 11/24/2025 TO: City Council FROM: Elizabeth Heyman, Director of Public Works THROUGH: Lydia Ener, City Engineer BY: Lydia Ener, City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution Ordering Improvements and Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Improvement Project No. 2026-06, 07, 08, & 09, John Martin Drive Improvement Project Requested Council Action: - Motion to approve a Resolution ordering the Improvement Project No. 2026-06, 07, 08, & 09, John Martin Drive Improvement Project, and authorizing preparation of project plans and specifications. Background: A public hearing is scheduled on November 24, 2025, to consider ordering improvements and authorize preparation of plans and specifications for Improvement Project No. 2026-06, 07, 08, & 09, John Martin Drive Improvement Project. All potentially affected property owners have been notified by mail of the date of the improvement public hearing and the amount of proposed special assessments. An open house was held for the adjacent properties and property owners on October 6, 2025. Due to the commercial and industrial property uses, the meeting was held midday over the typical lunch hour rather than in the evening. One property owner provided responses by attending in person, representing three properties of the nine adjacent to the project. The property owner was able to discuss how the project would impact their business and access, as well as voice any concerns that could be addressed with the project. Most questions asked related to the general assessment process. No additional responses were received, and none of the property owners have expressed any concerns with this project. An assessment public hearing to consider certification of proposed special assessments for street improvements for Improvement Project No. 2026-06, 07, 08, & 09 will be held in January 2026. A separate Notice of Assessment Public Hearing on proposed special assessments will be sent to properties that are proposed to be assessed in December 2025. I. Explanation of Improvements The proposed project includes roadway and minor utility improvements on John Martin Drive from Shingle Creek Parkway to MnDOT right-of-way. On October 27, 2025, the City Council received the project feasibility report and called for a public hearing to be held on November 24, 2025, to consider these improvements. Page 144 of 378 The project feasibility report provides a description of recommended improvements for the proposed area and an estimated project budget. The proposed improvements are as follows: 1. Street Improvements – Full depth reclamation of existing bituminous pavement, miscellaneous repairs of concrete curb and gutter and driveway aprons, and boulevard restoration. 2. Storm Drainage Improvements - The recommended storm sewer improvements consist of replacing catch basin and manhole castings. 3. Water Main Improvements - The recommended water main improvements include replacing all existing valves and hydrants. 4. Sanitary Sewer Improvements - The recommended sanitary sewer improvements consist of replacing manhole castings. II. Summary of Assessments Special assessments are proposed as one of several funding sources for the improvements located within the project area. The 2026 special assessment rates for street improvements have been established in accordance with the City’s Special Assessment Policy. The 2026 rates will be established by the City Council on November 24, 2025. The feasibility report includes a preliminary assessment roll identifying the affected properties, as well as the zoning designations and associated preliminary assessment. See attached Pending Assessment Roll and Assessment Map from the project feasibility report. The special assessments will not exceed the amounts on the attached special assessment roll. The commercial and industrial properties within the project area are proposed to be assessed on an area basis. An “A” zone benefit includes the area abutting the street to be improved, extended to the depth of 200-feet and a “B” zone of lesser benefit for the remainder of the property area. The “A” zone rate is based on assessing 70 percent of the total street project cost deemed to benefit the property and the “B” zone rate is based on 30 percent. Based on cost estimates for the street improvements, the unit rate has been determined to be “A” zone rate of $0.55 per square foot and a “B” zone rate of $0.24 per square foot. It should be noted that historically the assessments have been levied based on estimated costs rather than actual costs, understanding that the project costs are levied at a reduced percentage (70 and 30 percent as indicated above). The remaining street construction costs would be funded with Municipal State Aid funds and from the Street Reconstruction Fund. A summary of the proposed special assessments for street improvements is provided in Appendix A. III. Recommended Council Procedure Public Hearing to Order Improvements: Staff recommends that a presentation be Page 145 of 378 provided to the City Council prior to holding the improvement public hearing. Following the presentation, a public hearing to consider ordering the improvement project should be conducted to receive public comments. Public comments concerning special assessments should be deferred to the Assessment Public Hearing in January 2026. A resolution ordering the improvements and authorizing preparation of plans and specifications is provided for City Council consideration upon closing of the public hearing. A four-fifths majority vote of the City Council present for the hearing is required for the improvements to proceed. Budget Issues: The total project cost for the John Martin Drive Improvement Project is estimated to be $1,126,080. Funding sources for the project are proposed from a variety of sources as described in the feasibility report. The Draft Special Assessment Levy Roll for Improvement Project No. 2026-06, 07, 08, & 09 is included in Appendix A of the feasibility report. The project funding sources, as described in the October 27, 2025, Feasibility Report are currently estimated to be: Special Assessments $ 474,315.11 Municipal State Aid Funds $ 312,974.89 Street Reconstruction Fund $ 51,750.00 Storm Drainage Utility Fund $ 57,960.00 Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund $ 8,280.00 Water Utility Fund $ 220,800.00 Total $ 1,126,080.00 Inclusive Community Engagement: NA Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: NA Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: 1. 1_John Martin Dr Improvement PH Res Page 146 of 378 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO.______________ RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2026-06, 07, 08, & 09, JOHN MARTIN DRIVE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council on October 27, 2025, accepted the feasibility report for street and utility improvements in the area generally described as “John Martin Drive Improvement Project”, more specifically described as follows: John Martin Drive from Shingle Creek Parkway to MnDOT right-of-way. WHEREAS, the City Council has received and accepted a feasibility report for said proposed improvements, as prepared under the City Engineer’s supervision; and WHEREAS, said improvements are necessary, cost effective and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report; and WHEREAS, the City Council on October 27, 2025, adopted a resolution setting a date for a public hearing regarding the proposed improvements for the described improvement area; and WHEREAS, ten days published notice of hearing was given and the hearing was held on November 24, 2025, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all comments, testimony, evidence and reports offered at or prior to the November 24, 2025, hearing; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to spend monies from the Capital Improvement funds and Minnesota State Aid funds to pay the expenditures described in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to reimburse itself for such expenditures from the proceeds of taxable or tax-exempt bonds, the debt service of which is expected to be paid from property taxes, special assessments or utility fees. The maximum amount of special assessment obligations expected to be issued for such project is $474,315.11; and WHEREAS, the Engineering Division is prepared to develop plans and specifications for said public improvement project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: Page 147 of 378 1. Improvement Project Nos. 2026-06, 07, 08, & 09, John Martin Drive Improvement Project, are hereby ordered and the Engineering Division is authorized to prepare plans and specifications for said improvements. 2. This resolution is intended to constitute official intent to issue taxable or tax exempt reimbursement bonds for purposes of Treasury Regulations and any successor law, regulation, or ruling. This resolution will be modified to the extent required or permitted by Treasury Regulations or any successor law, regulation, or ruling. November 24, 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 148 of 378 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 11/24/2025 TO: City Council FROM: Reggie Edwards, City Manager THROUGH: BY: Angela Holm, Director of Finance SUBJECT: Resolution Awarding the Sale of $6,180,000 General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A Fixing Their Form and Specifications; Directing Their Execution and Delivery; and Providing for Their Payment Requested Council Action: - Motion to Approve a Resolution Awarding the Sale of $6,180,000 General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A, Fixing Their Form and Specifications; Directing Their Execution and Delivery; and Providing for Their Payment. Background: On October 13, 2025, City Council approved Resolution 2025-90 providing for the issuance and sale of General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A in the amount of $6,180,000. At that time, the bond sale date was set for November 24, 2025. This action is often referred to as the "set-sale" resolution. By the time the regular meeting of City Council convenes on November 24, 2025, the sale will have taken place and Councilmembers will be asked to approve the sale of the Series 2025A Bond to the highest bidder. Staff from Ehlers and Associates, Inc. will present information and their recommendation concerning the sale. The resolution included in this packet does not contain information regarding the bids, interest rates, or final costs of the bond sale. An updated resolution containing details regarding the sale, bidders, and additional bond-related information will be provided to Councilmembers at the beginning of the November 24, 2025 meeting. The City received a credit rating of AA/Stable from S& P Global in relation to this bond issuance. Once the sale is approved, bond proceeds are expected to be available on or around December 18, 2025. Budget Issues: Inclusive Community Engagement: Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: Page 149 of 378 Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Brooklyn Center GO Util Rev Bond 2025A AWARD RESOLUTION - preliminary 2. Preliminary Operating Statement 2025A Issue 3. Brooklyn Center MN S&P Global Rating Page 150 of 378 4928-3805-5796.1 Extract of Minutes of Meeting of the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, was duly called and held in the City Hall in said City on Monday, the 24th day of November, 2025, commencing at 7:00 P.M. The following members were present: and the following were absent: * * * * * * * * * The Mayor announced that the next order of business was the consideration of the proposals which had been received for the purchase of the City’s $6,180,000 General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A. The City Manager presented a tabulation of the proposals that had been received in the manner specified in the Official Terms of Proposal for the Bonds. The proposals were as set forth in EXHIBIT A attached hereto. After due consideration of the proposals, Councilmember ________ introduced the following resolution, and moved its adoption: Page 151 of 378 2 4928-3805-5796.1 RESOLUTION _______ RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF $6,180,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION UTILITY REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2025A FIXING THEIR FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS; DIRECTING THEIR EXECUTION AND DELIVERY; AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “City”) as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01. The City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075 and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, as amended (collectively, the “Act”), to finance all or a portion of the cost of certain utility improvements, including without limitation various improvements to the City’s water and sewer utility systems (the “Utility Improvements”) by the issuance of general obligation bonds of the City payable from the net revenues of the water and sewer utility systems of the City. 1.03. The City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, subdivision 2(9) to negotiate the sale of the Bonds if the City has retained an independent municipal advisor in connection with such sale. The City has retained Ehlers and Associates, Inc. as an independent municipal advisor in connection with the sale of the Bonds. The actions of the City staff and the City’s municipal advisor in negotiating the sale of the Bonds are ratified and confirmed in all aspects. Section 2. Sale of Bonds. 2.01. Authorization. It is hereby determined that it is necessary to provide financing for the Utility Improvements and to finance those improvements through the issuance of the City’s $6,180,000 General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A (the “Bonds”). 2.02. Acceptance of Offer. The proposal of ______________, _______, _______ (the “Purchaser”) to purchase the Bonds of the City described in the Terms of Proposal thereof is hereby found and determined to be a reasonable offer and is hereby accepted, the proposal being to purchase the Bonds at a price of $__________ ($6,180,000.00 par amount, plus a [net] premium of $________, less an underwriter’s discount of $_________), for Bonds bearing interest as follows: Page 152 of 378 4928-3805-5796.1 3 Year of Maturity Interest Rate Year of Maturity Interest Rate 2027 % 2032 % 2028 2033 2029 2034 2030 2035 2031 2036 2.03. Purchase Contract. Any amount paid by the Purchaser over the minimum purchase price shall be credited to the Debt Service Fund hereinafter created, or deposited in the Construction Fund hereinafter created, as determined by the City Finance Director after consultation with the City’s municipal advisor. The City Finance Director is directed to retain the good faith deposit of the Purchaser, pending completion of the sale of the Bonds. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute a contract with the Purchaser on behalf of the City, if requested by the Purchaser. 2.04. Terms and Principal Amount of Bonds. The City will forthwith issue and sell the Bonds pursuant to the Act, in the total principal amount of $6,180,000, originally dated the date of delivery, in fully registered form, in denominations of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof, numbered No. R-1 and upward, bearing interest as above set forth, and maturing serially on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: Year Amount Year Amount 2027 $515,000 2032 $625,000 2028 555,000 2033 645,000 2029 570,000 2034 670,000 2030 590,000 2035 690,000 2031 605,000 2036 715,000 As may be requested by the Purchaser, one or more term Bonds (the “Term Bonds”) may be issued having mandatory sinking fund redemption and final maturity amounts conforming to the foregoing principal repayment schedule, and corresponding additions may be made to the provisions of the applicable Bond(s). 2.05. Optional Redemption. The City may elect on February 1, 2033, and on any day thereafter to prepay Bonds maturing on or after February 1, 2034. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of the City and in such manner as the City will determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC (as defined in Section 7 hereof) of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant’s interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. Prepayments will be at a price of par plus accrued interest. Page 153 of 378 4928-3805-5796.1 4 Section 3. Registration and Payment. 3.01. Registered Form. The Bonds will be issued only in fully registered form. The interest thereon and, upon surrender of each Bond, the principal amount thereof is payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein. 3.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Each Bond will be dated as of the last interest payment date preceding the date of authentication to which interest on the Bond has been paid or made available for payment, unless (i) the date of authentication is an interest payment date to which interest has been paid or made available for payment, in which case the Bond will be dated as of the date of authentication, or (ii) the date of authentication is prior to the first interest payment date, in which case the Bond will be dated as of the date of original issue. The interest on the Bonds is payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 2026, to the registered owners thereof of record as of the close of business on the 15th day of the immediately preceding month, whether or not that day is a business day. 3.03. Registration. The City will appoint, and will maintain, a bond registrar, transfer agent, authenticating agent and paying agent (the “Registrar”). The effect of registration and the rights and duties of the City and the Registrar with respect thereto are as follows: (a) Register. The Registrar will keep at its principal corporate trust office a bond register in which the Registrar provides for the registration of ownership of Bonds and the registration of transfers and exchanges of Bonds entitled to be registered, transferred or exchanged. (b) Transfer of Bonds. Upon surrender for transfer of any Bond duly endorsed by the registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney duly authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar will authenticate and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the transferor. The Registrar may, however, close the books for registration of any transfer after the 15th day of the month preceding each interest payment date and until that interest payment date. (c) Exchange of Bonds. Whenever any Bonds are surrendered by the registered owner for exchange the Registrar will authenticate and deliver one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity as requested by the registered owner or the owner’s attorney in writing. (d) Cancellation. All Bonds surrendered upon any transfer or exchange will be promptly cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City. (e) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When a Bond is presented to the Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the Bond until the Registrar is satisfied that the endorsement on the Bond or separate instrument of transfer is valid and genuine and that the requested transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar will incur no Page 154 of 378 4928-3805-5796.1 5 liability for the refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or unauthorized. (f) Persons Deemed Owners. The City and the Registrar may treat the person in whose name a Bond is at any time registered, as of the applicable record date, in the bond register as the absolute owner of such Bond, whether the Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal of and interest on the Bond and for all other purposes, and payments so made to a registered owner or upon the owner’s order will be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon the Bond to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. (g) Taxes, Fees and Charges. The Registrar may impose a charge upon the owner thereof for a transfer or exchange of Bonds, sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to the transfer or exchange. (h) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds. If a Bond becomes mutilated or is destroyed, stolen or lost, the Registrar will deliver a new Bond of like amount, number, maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of the mutilated Bond or in lieu of and in substitution for any Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon the payment of the reasonable expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case of a Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to the Registrar that the Bond was destroyed, stolen or lost, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar an appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance and amount satisfactory to the Registrar and as provided by law, in which both the City and the Registrar must be named as obligees. Bonds so surrendered to the Registrar will be cancelled by the Registrar and evidence of such cancellation must be given to the City. If the mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost Bond has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms it is not necessary to issue a new Bond prior to payment. (i) Redemption. In the event any of the Bonds are called for redemption, written notice thereof identifying the Bonds to be redeemed will be given by the Registrar by mailing a copy of the redemption notice by first class mail (postage prepaid) at least 30 days prior to the redemption date to the registered owner of each Bond to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books kept by the Registrar and by publishing the notice if required by law. Failure to give notice by publication or by mail to any registered owner, or any defect therein, will not affect the validity of the proceedings for the redemption of Bonds. Bonds so called for redemption will cease to bear interest after the specified redemption date, provided that the funds for the redemption are on deposit with the place of payment at that time. 3.04. Appointment of Initial Registrar. The City appoints Bond Trust Services Corporation, Minneapolis, Minnesota, as the initial Registrar. The Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the City, a contract with the Registrar. Upon merger or consolidation of the Registrar with another corporation, if the resulting corporation is a bank or trust company authorized by law to conduct such business, the resulting corporation is Page 155 of 378 4928-3805-5796.1 6 authorized to act as successor Registrar. The City agrees to pay the reasonable and customary charges of the Registrar for the services performed. The City reserves the right to remove the Registrar upon 30 days’ notice and upon the appointment of a successor Registrar, in which event the predecessor Registrar must deliver all cash and Bonds in its possession to the successor Registrar and must deliver the bond register to the successor Registrar. On or before each principal or interest due date, without further order of this Council, the City Finance Director must transmit to the Registrar moneys sufficient for the payment of all principal and interest then due. 3.05. Execution, Authentication and Delivery. The Bonds will be prepared under the direction of the City Finance Director and executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of the Mayor and the City Manager, provided that all signatures may be printed, engraved or lithographed facsimiles of the originals. If an officer whose signature or a facsimile of whose signature appears on the Bonds ceases to be such officer before the delivery of any Bond, that signature or facsimile will nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if the officer had remained in office until delivery. Notwithstanding such execution, a Bond will not be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under this Resolution unless and until a certificate of authentication on the Bond has been duly executed by the manual signature of an authorized representative of the Registrar. Certificates of authentication on different Bonds need not be signed by the same representative. The executed certificate of authentication on a Bond is conclusive evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this Resolution. When the Bonds have been so prepared, executed and authenticated, the City Finance Director will deliver the same to the Purchaser thereof upon payment of the purchase price in accordance with the contract of sale heretofore made and executed, and the Purchaser is not obligated to see to the application of the purchase price. 3.06. Form of Bonds. The Bonds will be printed or typewritten in substantially the form set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. 3.07. Approving Legal Opinion. The City Finance Director is authorized and directed to obtain a copy of the proposed approving legal opinion of Kutak Rock LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, which will be complete except as to dating thereof and will cause the opinion to be printed on or accompany each Bond. Section 4. Payment; Security; Pledges; and Covenants. 4.01. Debt Service Fund. For the convenience and proper administration of the moneys to be borrowed and repaid on the Bonds, and to provide adequate and specific security for the Purchaser and holders from time to time of the Bonds, there is hereby created a special fund to be designated the “General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A Debt Service Fund” (the “Debt Service Fund”). The Debt Service Fund shall be administered and maintained by the Finance Director as a bookkeeping account separate and apart from all other funds maintained in the official financial records of the City. The Debt Service Fund will be maintained in the manner herein specified until all of the Bonds and the interest thereon have been fully paid. The City will continue to maintain and operate its water and sewer utility fund or funds, to which will be credited all gross revenues of the water and sewer utility systems (collectively, the “Utility Systems”), and out of which will be paid all normal and reasonable expenses of current operations of such Utility Systems. Any balances therein Page 156 of 378 4928-3805-5796.1 7 are deemed net revenues (the “Net Revenues”) and will be transferred, from time to time, to the Debt Service Fund in an amount sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds, which will be used to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds, and any other bonds similarly authorized. There is also appropriated to the Debt Service Fund (i) any collections of taxes hereafter levied for the payment of the Bonds and interest thereon, (ii) any amount over the minimum purchase price paid by the Purchaser, to the extent designated for deposit in the Debt Service Fund in accordance with Section 2.03 hereof, (iii) all investment earnings on funds in the Debt Service Fund; and (iv) any and all other moneys which are properly available and are appropriated by the City Council to the Debt Service Fund or in the availability of Net Revenues to pay principal of and interest, when due, on the Bonds and any other bonds similarly authorized. The Finance Director must report to the City Council any current or anticipated deficiency in the Debt Service Fund in the amount necessary to pay principal of and interest on all of the Bonds when due. If a payment of principal or interest on the Bonds becomes due when there is not sufficient money in the Debt Service Fund to pay the same, the City Finance Director is directed to pay such principal or interest from the general fund of the City, and the general fund will be reimbursed for the advances out of the proceeds of Net Revenues and taxes when collected. 4.02. Construction Fund. The City hereby creates the “General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A Construction Fund” (the “Construction Fund”) to be administered and maintained by the Finance Director as a bookkeeping account separate and apart from all other funds maintained in the official financial records of the City. Proceeds of the Bonds, less the appropriations made in Section 4.01 hereof, will be deposited in the Construction Fund to be used solely to defray expenses of the Utility Improvements. Any balance remaining in the Debt Service Fund after the Utility Improvements are completed and the cost thereof have been paid may be used as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 475.65, under the direction of the City Council. Thereafter, the Construction Fund is to be closed and any balance remaining therein is to be deposited in the Debt Service Fund. 4.03. City Covenants with Respect to the Bonds. The City Council covenants and agrees with the holders of the Bonds that so long as any of the Bonds remain outstanding and unpaid, the City will keep and enforce the following covenants and agreements: (a) The City will continue to maintain and efficiently operate the Utility Systems as public utilities and conveniences free from competition of other like municipal utilities and will cause all revenues therefrom to be deposited in bank accounts and credited to the accounts of the Utility Systems as hereinabove provided, and will make no expenditures from those accounts except for a duly authorized purpose and in accordance with this resolution. (b) The City will also maintain the Debt Service Fund as a separate account in the accounts for the Utility Systems and will cause money to be credited thereto from time to time, out of Net Revenues from the Utility Systems in sums sufficient to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds when due. (c) The City will keep and maintain proper and adequate books of records and accounts separate from all other records of the City in which will be complete and correct Page 157 of 378 4928-3805-5796.1 8 entries as to all transactions relating to the Utility Systems and which will be open to inspection and copying by any bondholder, or the bondholder's agent or attorney, at any reasonable time, and it will furnish certified transcripts therefrom upon request and upon payment of a reasonable fee therefor, and said account will be audited at least annually by a qualified public accountant and statements of such audit and report will be furnished to all bondholders upon request. (d) The City Council will cause persons handling revenues of the Utility Systems to be bonded in reasonable amounts for the protection of the City and the bondholders and will cause the funds collected on account of the operations of the Utility Systems to be deposited in a bank whose deposits are guaranteed under the Federal Deposit Insurance Law. (e) The City Council will keep the Utility Systems insured at all times against loss by fire, tornado and other risks customarily insured against with an insurer or insurers in good standing, in such amounts as are customary for like plants, to protect the holders, from time to time, of the Bonds and the City from any loss due to any such casualty and will apply the proceeds of such insurance to make good any such loss. (f) The City and each and all of its officers will punctually perform all duties with reference to the Utility Systems as required by law. (g) The City will impose and collect charges of the nature authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075 at the times and in the amounts required to produce Net Revenues adequate to pay all principal and interest when due on the Bonds and to create and maintain such reserves securing said payments as may be provided in this resolution. (h) The City Council will levy general ad valorem taxes on all taxable property in the City, when required to meet any deficiency in pledged Net Revenues. (i) The City hereby determines that the estimated collection of Net Revenues herein pledged for the payment of principal and interest on the Bonds will produce at least 5% in excess of the amount needed to meet, when due, the principal and interest payments on the Bonds. 4.04 Registration of Resolution. The City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Auditor/Treasurer of Hennepin County and to obtain the certificate required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.63. 4.05. Debt Service Coverage. It is hereby determined that the Net Revenues herein pledged will produce at least 5% in excess of the amount needed to pay when due the principal and interest payments on the Bonds. 4.06. General Obligation Pledge. For the prompt and full payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds, as the same respectively become due, the full faith, credit and taxing powers of the City will be and are hereby irrevocably pledged. If the balance in the Debt Service Fund is ever Page 158 of 378 4928-3805-5796.1 9 insufficient to pay all principal and interest then due on the Bonds and any other bonds payable therefrom, the deficiency will be promptly paid out of monies in the general fund of the City which are available for such purpose, and such general fund may be reimbursed with or without interest from the Debt Service Fund when a sufficient balance is available therein. 4.07. State Credit Enhancement. (a) Pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on October 13, 2025, the City Council authorized and directed City staff to enter the City into a Credit Enhancement Program Agreement (the “Credit Agreement”) with the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority (the “Authority”). Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 446A.086, as amended (the “Credit Enhancement Act”), the State of Minnesota, acting through the Authority, may provide a guarantee of any deficiency of debt service payments on the Bonds. Pursuant to the Credit Enhancement Act, the City makes the following representations and covenants: (i) the City will notify the Authority of any default or potential default in the payment of principal or interest due on the Bonds; (ii) the City will deposit with the Registrar all payments of principal and interest due on the Bonds at least three (3) business days prior to the payment due date; (iii) the agreement the City enters into with the Registrar will include all provisions required by the Credit Enhancement Act; and (iv) the City will comply with all provisions of the Credit Agreement and with the Credit Enhancement Act. (b) Pursuant to subdivision 3 of the Credit Enhancement Act, the City acknowledges and agrees that the Registrar is required to inform the Minnesota Commissioner of Management and Budget and the Authority if the Registrar becomes aware of a default or potential default in the payment of principal or interest on the Bonds or if, on the day 2 business days before the date a payment is due on the Bonds, there are insufficient funds to make the payment on deposit with the Registrar. Section 5. Authentication of Transcript. 5.01. City Proceedings and Records. The officers of the City are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Purchaser and to the attorneys approving the Bonds, certified copies of proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds and to the financial condition and affairs of the City, and such other certificates, affidavits and transcripts as may be required to show the facts within their knowledge or as shown by the books and records in their custody and under their control, relating to the validity and marketability of the Bonds and such instruments, including any heretofore furnished, may be deemed representations of the City as to the facts and representations stated therein as it relates to the City. 5.02. Certification as to Official Statement. The Mayor, City Manager and Finance Director, or any of them, are hereby authorized and directed to certify that they have examined the Page 159 of 378 4928-3805-5796.1 10 Official Statement prepared and circulated in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and that to the best of their knowledge and belief the Official Statement is, as of the date thereof, a complete and accurate representation of the facts and representations made therein as of the date of the Official Statement as it relates to the City. 5.03. Other Certificates. The Mayor, City Manager, and Finance Director, or any of them, are hereby authorized and directed to furnish to the Purchaser at the closing such certificates as are required as a condition of sale. Unless litigation shall have been commenced and be pending questioning the Bonds or the organization of the City or incumbency of its officers, at the closing the Mayor, City Manager, and Finance Director, or any of them, shall also execute and deliver to the Purchaser a suitable certificate as to absence of material litigation, and the Finance Director shall also execute and deliver a certificate as to payment for and delivery of the Bonds. 5.04. Payment of Costs of Issuance. The City authorizes the Purchaser to deposit the amount of Bond proceeds allocable to the payment of issuance expenses being paid on the closing date in accordance with the closing memorandum prepared by City’s municipal adviser, Ehlers and Associates, Inc. for further distribution by Ehlers and Associates, Inc. 5.05 Electronic Signatures. The electronic signature of the Mayor, the City Manager, and the Finance Director, or any of them, to this resolution and to any certificate authorized to be executed hereunder shall be as valid as an original signature of such party and shall be effective to bind the City thereto. For purposes hereof, (i) “electronic signature” means (a) a manually signed original signature that is then transmitted by electronic means or (b) a signature obtained through DocuSign or Adobe or a similarly digitally auditable signature gathering process; and (ii) “transmitted by electronic means” means sent in the form of a facsimile or sent via the internet as a portable document format (“pdf”) or other replicating image attached to an electronic mail or internet message. Section 6. Tax Covenants. 6.01 Tax-Exempt Bonds. The City covenants and agrees with the holders from time to time of the Bonds that it will not take or permit to be taken by any of its officers, employees, or agents any action which would cause the interest on the Bonds to become subject to taxation under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder, in effect at the time of such actions, and that it will take or cause its officers, employees or agents to take, all affirmative action within its power that may be necessary to ensure that such interest will not become subject to taxation under the Code and applicable Treasury Regulations, as presently existing or as hereafter amended and made applicable to the Bonds. To that end, the City will comply with all requirements necessary under the Code to establish and maintain the exclusion from gross income of the interest on the Bonds under Section 103 of the Code, including without limitation requirements relating to temporary periods for investments and limitations on amounts invested at a yield greater than the yield on the Bonds. 6.02. Rebate. The City will comply with requirements necessary under the Code to establish and maintain the exclusion from gross income of the interest on the Bonds under Section 103 of the Code, including without limitation requirements relating to temporary periods for investments, limitations on amounts invested at a yield greater than the yield on the Bonds, and the Page 160 of 378 4928-3805-5796.1 11 rebate of excess investment earnings to the United States (unless the City qualifies for any exception to the rebate requirements based on timely expenditure of proceeds of the Bonds, in accordance with the Code and applicable Treasury Regulations). 6.03. Not Private Activity Bonds. The City further covenants not to use the proceeds of the Bonds, or the Utility Improvements financed by the Bonds, or to cause or permit them or any of them to be used, in such a manner as to cause the Bonds to be “private activity bonds” within the meaning of Sections 103 and 141 through 150 of the Code. 6.04. Qualified Tax Exempt Obligations. In order to qualify the Bonds as “qualified tax- exempt obligations” within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code, the City makes the following factual statements and representations: (a) the Bonds are not “private activity bonds” as defined in Section 141 of the Code; (b) the City hereby designates the Bonds as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code; (c) the reasonably anticipated amount of tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds, that are not qualified 501(c)(3) bonds) which will be issued by the City (and all subordinate entities of the City) during calendar year 2025 will not exceed $10,000,000; and (d) not more than $10,000,000 of obligations issued by the City during calendar year 2025 have been designated for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code. 6.05. Procedural Requirements. The City will use its best efforts to comply with any federal procedural requirements which may apply in order to effectuate the designations made by this section. Section 7. Book-Entry System; Limited Obligation of City. 7.01. DTC. The Bonds will be initially issued in the form of a separate single typewritten or printed fully registered Bond for each of the maturities set forth in Section 2.04 hereof. Upon initial issuance, the ownership of each Bond will be registered in the registration books kept by the Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, and its successors and assigns (DTC). Except as provided in this section, all of the outstanding Bonds will be registered in the registration books kept by the Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC. 7.02. Participants. With respect to Bonds registered in the registration books kept by the Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, the City, the Registrar and the Paying Agent will have no responsibility or obligation to any broker dealers, banks and other financial institutions from time to time for which DTC holds Bonds as securities depository (the “Participants”) or to any other person on behalf of which a Participant holds an interest in the Bonds, including but not limited to any responsibility or obligation with respect to (i) the accuracy of the records of DTC, Cede & Co. or any Participant with respect to any ownership interest in the Page 161 of 378 4928-3805-5796.1 12 Bonds, (ii) the delivery to any Participant or any other person (other than a registered owner of Bonds, as shown by the registration books kept by the Registrar,) of any notice with respect to the Bonds, including any notice of redemption, or (iii) the payment to any Participant or any other person, other than a registered owner of Bonds, of any amount with respect to principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds. The City, the Registrar and the Paying Agent may treat and consider the person in whose name each Bond is registered in the registration books kept by the Registrar as the holder and absolute owner of such Bond for the purpose of payment of principal, premium and interest with respect to such Bond, for the purpose of registering transfers with respect to such Bond, and for all other purposes. The Paying Agent will pay all principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds only to or on the order of the respective registered owners, as shown in the registration books kept by the Registrar, and all such payments will be valid and effectual to fully satisfy and discharge the City’s obligations with respect to payment of principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. No person other than a registered owner of Bonds, as shown in the registration books kept by the Registrar, will receive a certificated Bond evidencing the obligation of this resolution. Upon delivery by DTC to the City Manager of a written notice to the effect that DTC has determined to substitute a new nominee in place of Cede & Co., the words “Cede & Co.,” will refer to such new nominee of DTC; and upon receipt of such a notice, the City Manager will promptly deliver a copy of the same to the Registrar and Paying Agent. 7.03. Representation Letter. The City has heretofore executed and delivered to DTC a Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations (the “Representation Letter”) which will govern payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds and notices with respect to the Bonds. Any Paying Agent or Registrar subsequently appointed by the City with respect to the Bonds will agree to take all action necessary for all representations of the City in the Representation Letter with respect to the Registrar and Paying Agent, respectively, to be complied with at all times. 7.04. Transfers Outside Book-Entry System. In the event the City, by resolution of the City Council, determines that it is in the best interests of the persons having beneficial interests in the Bonds that they be able to obtain Bond certificates, the City will notify DTC, whereupon DTC will notify the Participants, of the availability through DTC of Bond certificates. In such event the City will issue, transfer and exchange Bond certificates as requested by DTC and any other registered owners in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution. DTC may determine to discontinue providing its services with respect to the Bonds at any time by giving notice to the City and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. In such event, if no successor securities depository is appointed, the City will issue and the Registrar will authenticate Bond certificates in accordance with this resolution and the provisions hereof will apply to the transfer, exchange and method of payment thereof. 7.05. Payments to Cede & Co. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution to the contrary, so long as a Bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, payments with respect to principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bond and all notices with respect to the Bond will be made and given, respectively in the manner provided in DTC’s Operational Arrangements, as set forth in the Representation Letter. Page 162 of 378 4928-3805-5796.1 13 Section 8. Continuing Disclosure. 8.01. City Compliance with Provisions of Continuing Disclosure Certificate. The City hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all of the provisions of the Continuing Disclosure Certificate. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution, failure of the City to comply with the Continuing Disclosure Certificate is not an event of default with respect to the Bonds; however, any Bondholder may take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate, including seeking mandate or specific performance by court order, to cause the City to comply with its obligations under this section. 8.02. Execution of Continuing Disclosure Certificate. “Continuing Disclosure Certificate” means that certain Continuing Disclosure Certificate executed by the Mayor and City Manager and dated the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds, as originally executed and as it may be amended from time to time in accordance with the terms thereof. Section 9. Defeasance. When all Bonds and all accrued interest thereon have been discharged as provided in this section, all pledges, covenants and other rights granted by this resolution to holders of the Bonds will cease, except that the pledge of the full faith and credit of the City for the prompt and full payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds will remain in full force and effect. The City may discharge all Bonds which are due on any date by depositing with the Registrar on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full or by depositing irrevocably in escrow, with a suitable institution qualified by law as an escrow agent for this purpose, cash or securities which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America, or any other security authorized under Minnesota law for such purpose, bearing interest payable at such times and at such rates and maturing on such dates and in such amounts as shall be required and sufficient, subject to sale and/or reinvestment in like securities, to pay said obligation(s), which may include any interest payment on such Bond and/or principal amount due thereon at a stated maturity (or if irrevocable provision shall have been made for permitted prior redemption of such principal amount, at such earlier redemption date). If any Bond should not be paid when due, it may nevertheless be discharged by depositing with the Registrar a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full with interest accrued to the date of such deposit. November 24, 2025 Date April Graves, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember __________ and, after full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Page 163 of 378 4928-3805-5796.1 14 and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Page 164 of 378 A-1 4928-3805-5796.1 EXHIBIT A PROPOSALS Page 165 of 378 4928-3805-5796.1 B-1 EXHIBIT B FORM OF BOND No. R-_____ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA $__________ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER GENERAL OBLIGATION UTILITY REVENUE BOND, SERIES 2025A Rate Maturity Date Date of Original Issue CUSIP % February 1, 20____ December 18, 2025 Registered Owner: Cede & Co. The City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, a duly organized and existing municipal corporation in Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “City”), acknowledges itself to be indebted and for value received hereby promises to pay to the Registered Owner specified above or registered assigns, the principal sum set forth above on the Maturity Date specified above, unless called for earlier redemption, with interest thereon from the date hereof at the annual Rate specified above (calculated on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months), payable February 1 and August 1 in each year, commencing August 1, 2026, to the person in whose name this Bond is registered at the close of business on the 15th day (whether or not a business day) of the immediately preceding month. The interest hereon and, upon presentation and surrender hereof, the principal hereof are payable in lawful money of the United States of America by check or draft by Bond Trust Services Corporation, National Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, as Registrar, Paying Agent, Transfer Agent and Authenticating Agent, or its designated successor under the Resolution described herein. For the prompt and full payment of such principal and interest as the same respectively become due, the full faith and credit and taxing powers of the City have been and are hereby irrevocably pledged. This Bond is one of an issue in the aggregate principal amount of $6,180,000, all of like original issue date and tenor, except as to number, denomination, maturity date, redemption privilege, and interest rate, all issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on November 24, 2025 (the “Resolution”), for the purpose of providing monies in part for various utility improvements in the City and pursuant to and in full conformity with its home rule charter, the Constitution, and the laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 444 and 475. The principal hereof and interest hereon are payable from net revenues of the water and sewer utility systems and from ad valorem taxes, as set forth in the Resolution to which reference is made for a full statement of rights and powers thereby conferred. The full faith and credit of the City are irrevocably pledged for payment of this Bond and the City Council has obligated itself to levy additional ad valorem taxes on all taxable property in the City in the event of any deficiency in net revenues and ad valorem taxes pledged, which additional taxes may be levied without limitation Page 166 of 378 4928-3805-5796.1 B-2 as to rate or amount. The Bonds of this series are issued only as fully registered Bonds in denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof of single maturities. The City may elect on February 1, 2033, and on any date thereafter to prepay Bonds maturing on or after February 1, 2034. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of the City and in such manner as the City will determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant’s interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. Prepayments will be at a price of par plus accrued interest. The City Council has designated the Bonds as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) relating to disallowance of interest expense for financial institutions and within the $10 million limit allowed by the Code for the calendar year of issue. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that in and by the Resolution, the City has covenanted and agreed that it will continue to own and operate the water and sewer systems free from competition by other like municipal utilities; that adequate insurance on said systems and suitable fidelity bonds on employees will be carried; that proper and adequate books of account will be kept showing all receipts and disbursements relating to the water and sewer utility funds, into which it will pay all of the gross revenues from the water and sewer systems; that it will also create and maintain a General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A Debt Service Fund, into which it will pay, out of the net revenues from the water and sewer systems, a sum sufficient to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds when due; and that it will provide, by ad valorem tax levies, for any deficiency in required net revenues of the water and sewer systems. As provided in the Resolution and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Bond is transferable upon the books of the City at the principal office of the Registrar, by the registered owner hereof in person or by the owner’s attorney duly authorized in writing upon surrender hereof together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner or the owner’s attorney; and may also be surrendered in exchange for Bonds of other authorized denominations. Upon such transfer or exchange the City will cause a new Bond or Bonds to be issued in the name of the transferee or registered owner, of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same date, subject to reimbursement for any tax, fee or governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. The City and the Registrar may deem and treat the person in whose name this Bond is registered as the absolute owner hereof, whether this Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment and for all other purposes, and neither the City nor the Registrar will be affected by any notice to the contrary. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, Page 167 of 378 4928-3805-5796.1 B-3 to exist, to happen and to be performed preliminary to and in the issuance of this Bond in order to make it a valid and binding general obligation of the City in accordance with its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened and have been performed in regular and due form, time and manner, that prior to the issuance of this bond the City Council of the City has provided funds for the payment of principal and interest on the bonds of this issue as the same become due, but the full faith and credit of the City is pledged for their payment and additional taxes will be levied, if required for such purpose, without limitation as to the rate of amount; and that this bond, together with all other indebtedness of the City outstanding on the date of its issuance, does not exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation of indebtedness. This Bond is not valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under the Resolution until the Certificate of Authentication hereon has been executed by the Registrar by manual signature of one of its authorized representatives. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota, by its City Council, has caused this Bond to be executed on its behalf by the facsimile or manual signatures of the Mayor and City Manager and has caused this Bond to be dated as of the date set forth below. Dated: December 18, 2025 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA City Manager Mayor CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to the Resolution mentioned within. BOND TRUST SERVICES CORPORATION By Its Authorized Representative Page 168 of 378 4928-3805-5796.1 B-4 ________________________ ABBREVIATIONS The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond, will be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM -- as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT _____ Custodian _______ (Cust) (Minor) under Uniform Gift or Transfer to Minors Act of…………………….. (State) TEN ENT -- as tenants by entireties JT TEN -- as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. _______________________ ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto _______________________________________ the within Bond and all rights thereunder, and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint ____________________ attorney to transfer the said Bond on the books kept for registration of the within Bond, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Notice: The assignor’s signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration or any change whatever. Signature Guaranteed: Page 169 of 378 4928-3805-5796.1 B-5 NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a financial institution that is a member of the Securities Transfer Agent Medallion Program (“STAMP”), the Stock Exchange Medallion Program (“SEMP”), the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. Medallion Signatures Program (“MSP”) or other such “signature guarantee program” as may be determined by the Registrar in addition to, or in substitution for, STAMP, SEMP or MSP, all in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Registrar will not effect transfer of this Bond unless the information concerning the assignee requested below is provided. Name and Address: (Include information for all joint owners if this Bond is held by joint account) Please insert social security or other identifying number of assignee PROVISIONS AS TO REGISTRATION The ownership of the principal of and interest on the within Bond has been registered on the books of the Registrar in the name of the person last noted below. Date of Registration Registered Owner Signature of Registrar December 18, 2025 Cede & Co. Federal ID #13-2555119 Page 170 of 378 4928-3805-5796.1 STATE OF MINNESOTA CERTIFICATE OF COUNTY AUDITOR/TREASURER AS TO COUNTY OF HENNEPIN TAX LEVY AND REGISTRATION I, the undersigned Auditor/Treasurer of Hennepin County, Minnesota, hereby certify that a certified copy of a resolution adopted by the governing body of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, on November 24, 2025, levying taxes for the payment of $6,180,000 General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A, of said municipality, dated December 18, 2025 has been filed in my office and said bonds have been registered on the register of obligations in my office and that such tax has been levied as required by law. WITNESS My hand and official seal this _____ day of _______, 2025. Auditor/Treasurer Hennepin County, Minnesota (SEAL) Deputy County Auditor Page 171 of 378 Th i s P r e l i m i n a r y O f f i c i a l S t a t e m e n t a n d t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n a r e s u b j e c t t o c o m p l e t i o n a n d a m e n d m e n t . T h e s e s e c u r i ti e s m a y n o t b e s o l d n o r m a y o f f e r s t o b u y b e a c c e p t e d p r i o r t o t h e t i m e t h e O f f i c i a l S t a t e m e n t i s d e l i v e r e d i n f i n a l f o r m . U n de r no c i r c u m s t a n c e s s h a l l t h i s P r e l i m i n a r y O f f i c i a l S t a t e m e n t c o n s t i t u t e a n o f f e r t o s e l l o r t h e s o l i c i t a t i o n o f a n o f f e r t o b u y t he s e s e c u r i t i e s n o r s h a l l t h e r e b e a n y s a l e o f t h e s e s e c u r i t i e s i n a n y j u r i s d i c t i o n i n w h i c h s u c h o f f e r , s o l i c i t a t i o n o r s a l e w ou l d b e u n l a w f u l pr i o r t o r e g i s t r a t i o n o r q u a l i f i c a t i o n u n d e r t h e s e c u r i t i e s l a w s o f a n y s u c h j u r i s d i c t i o n . T h i s P r e l i m i n a r y O f f i c i a l S t a t e m e n t i s i n a f o r m d e e m e d f i n a l a s o f i t s d a t e f o r p u r p o s e s o f S E C R u l e 1 5 c 2 - 1 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) , b u t i s s u b j e c t t o r e v i s i o n , a m e n d m e n t a n d c o mp l e t i o n in a F i n a l O f f i c i a l S t a t e m e n t . PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 18, 2025 In the opinion of Kutak Rock LLP, Bond Counsel to the Issuer, based on present federal and Minnesota laws, regulations, rulings and decisions (which excludes any pending legislation which may have a retroactive effect), and assuming accuracy of certain representations and continuing compliance with certain covenants set forth in the resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, interest to be paid on the Bonds is excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes and is not an item of tax preference for purposes for the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals. Further, and to the extent of the aforementioned federal income tax exclusion, interest on the Bonds is excludable from taxable net income of individuals, trusts and estates for Minnesota income tax purposes, and is not a preference item for purposes of computing Minnesota alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals, trusts, and estates. However, interest on the Bonds may affect the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on such certain corporations and is subject to Minnesota franchise taxes on certain corporations (including financial institutions) measured by income. No opinion will be expressed by Kutak Rock LLP, regarding other state or federal tax consequences caused by the receipt or accrual of interest on the Bonds or arising with respect to ownership of the Bonds. For a more detailed description of such opinions of Bond Counsel, see "Tax Exemption" herein. The City will designate the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, relating to the ability of financial institutions to deduct from income for federal income tax purposes, interest expense that is allocable to carrying and acquiring tax-exempt obligations. New Issue Rating Application Made: S&P Global Ratings CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA (Hennepin County) (Minnesota City Credit Enhancement Program) $6,180,000* GENERAL OBLIGATION UTILITY REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2025A PROPOSAL OPENING: November 24, 2025, 10:00 A.M., C.T. CONSIDERATION: November 24, 2025, 7:00 P.M., C.T. PURPOSE/AUTHORITY/SECURITY: The $6,180,000* General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A (the "Bonds") are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 444 and 475, as amended, by the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "City"), for the purpose of financing the construction of various utility system improvements within the City. The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which its full faith and credit and taxing powers are pledged. Delivery is subject to receipt of an approving legal opinion of Kutak Rock LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota. DATE OF BONDS: December 18, 2025 MATURITY: February 1 as follows: Year Amount* Year Amount* Year Amount* 2027 $515,000 2031 $605,000 2035 $690,000 2028 555,000 2032 625,000 2036 715,000 2029 570,000 2033 645,000 2030 590,000 2034 670,000 *MATURITY ADJUSTMENTS: The City reserves the right to increase or decrease the principal amount of the Bonds on the day of sale, in increments of $5,000 each. Increases or decreases may be made in any maturity. If any principal amounts are adjusted, the purchase price proposed will be adjusted to maintain the same gross spread per $1,000. TERM BONDS: See "Term Bond Option" herein. INTEREST: August 1, 2026 and semiannually thereafter. OPTIONAL REDEMPTION: Bonds maturing on February 1, 2034 and thereafter are subject to call for prior optional redemption on February 1, 2033 or any date thereafter, at a price of par plus accrued interest to the date of optional redemption. MINIMUM PROPOSAL: $6,105,840. GOOD FAITH DEPOSIT: A good faith deposit in the amount of $123,600 shall be made by the winning bidder by wire transfer of funds. PAYING AGENT: Bond Trust Services Corporation. BOND COUNSEL: Kutak Rock LLP. MUNICIPAL ADVISOR: Ehlers and Associates, Inc. BOOK-ENTRY-ONLY:See "Book-Entry-Only System" herein (unless otherwise specified by the purchaser). Page 172 of 378 REPRESENTATIONS No dealer, broker, salesperson or other person has been authorized by the City to give any information or to make any representation other than those contained in this Preliminary Official Statement and, if given or made, such other information or representations must not be relied upon as having been authorized by the City. This Preliminary Official Statement does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any of the Bonds in any jurisdiction to any person to whom it is unlawful to make such an offer or solicitation in such jurisdiction. This Preliminary Official Statement is not to be construed as a contract with the Underwriter (Syndicate Manager). Statements contained herein which involve estimates or matters of opinion are intended solely as such and are not to be construed as representations of fact. Ehlers and Associates, Inc. prepared this Preliminary Official Statement and any addenda thereto relying on information of the City and other sources for which there is reasonable basis for believing the information is accurate and complete. Bond Counsel has not participated in the preparation of this Preliminary Official Statement and is not expressing any opinion as to the completeness or accuracy of the information contained therein. Compensation of Ehlers and Associates, Inc., pay able entirely by the City, is contingent upon the delivery of the Bonds. COMPLIANCE WITH S.E.C. RULE 15c2-12 Certain municipal obligations (issued in an aggregate amount over $1,000,000) are subject to Rule 15c2-12 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Rule"). Preliminary Official Statement: This Preliminary Official Statement was prepared for the City for dissemination to potential investors. Its primary purpose is to disclose information regarding the Bonds to prospective underwriters in the interest of receiving competitive proposals in accordance with the sale notice contained herein. Unless an addendum is posted prior to the sale, this Preliminary Official Statement shall be deemed nearly final for purposes of the Rule subject to completion, revision and amendment in a Final Official Statement as defined below. Review Period: This Preliminary Official Statement has been distributed to prospective bidders for review. Comments or requests for the correction of omissions or inaccuracies must be submitted to Ehlers and Associates, Inc. at least two business days prior to the sale. Requests for additional information or corrections in the Preliminary Official Statement received on or before this date will not be considered a qualification of a proposal received from an underwriter. If there are any changes, corrections or additions to the Preliminary Official Statement, interested bidders will be informed by an addendum prior to the sale. Final Official Statement: Copies of the Final Official Statement will be delivered to the Underwriter (Sy ndicate Manager) within seven business days following the proposal acceptance. Continuing Disclosure: Subject to certain exemptions, issues in an aggregate amount over $1,000,000 may be required to comply with provisions of the Rule which require that underwriters obtain from the issuers of municipal securities (or other obligated party) an agreement for the benefit of the owners of the securities to provide continuing disclosure with respect to those securities. This Preliminary Official Statement describes the conditions under which the City is required to comply with the Rule. CLOSING CERTIFICATES Upon delivery of the Bonds, the Underwriter (Syndicate Manager) will be furnished with the following items: (1) a certificate of the appropriate officials to the effect that at the time of the sale of the Bonds and all times subsequent thereto up to and including the time of the delivery of the Bonds, this Preliminary Official Statement did not and does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; (2) a receipt signed by the appropriate officer evidencing payment for the Bonds; (3) a certificate evidencing the due execution of the Bonds, including statements that (a) no litigation of any nature is pending, or to the knowledge of signers, threatened, restraining or enjoining the issuance and delivery of the Bonds, (b) neither the corporate existence or boundaries of the City nor the title of the signers to their respective offices is being contested, and (c) no authority or proceedings for the issuance of the Bonds have been repealed, revoked or rescinded; and (4) a certificate setting forth facts and expectations of the City which indicates that the City does not expect to use the proceeds of the Bonds in a manner that would cause them to be arbitrage bonds within the meaning of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or within the meaning of applicable Treasury Regulations. ii Page 173 of 378 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT .........................1 THE BONDS .........................................1 GENERAL.......................................1 OPTIONAL REDEMPTION .........................1 AUTHORITY; PURPOSE...........................2 ESTIMATED SOURCES AND USES ..................2 SECURITY.......................................2 RATING.........................................3 STATE OF MINNESOTA CREDIT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM..................................3 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE........................4 LEGAL OPINION .................................4 TAX EXEMPTION.................................5 QUALIFIED TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS ...........7 MUNICIPAL ADVISOR ............................7 MUNICIPAL ADVISOR AFFILIATED COMPANIES.....7 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS ........................8 RISK FACTORS...................................8 VALUATIONS.......................................10 OVERVIEW.....................................10 CURRENT PROPERTY VALUATIONS...............11 2024/25 NET TAX CAPACITY BY CLASSIFICATION . . 12 TREND OF VALUATIONS.........................12 LARGEST TAXPAYING PARCELS..................13 DEBT..............................................13 DIRECT DEBT...................................13 DEBT PAYMENT HISTORY.......................14 FUTURE FINANCING.............................14 DEBT LIMIT ....................................14 SCHEDULES OF BONDED INDEBTEDNESS .........15 OVERLAPPING DEBT............................21 DEBT RATIOS...................................22 TAX LEVIES, COLLECTIONS AND RATES ..............22 TAX LEVIES AND COLLECTIONS .................22 TAX CAPACITY RATES..........................23 THE ISSUER........................................23 CITY GOVERNMENT .............................23 EMPLOYEES; PENSIONS; UNIONS.................24 POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS...................24 LITIGATION....................................24 MUNICIPAL BANKRUPTCY .......................25 FUNDS ON HAND................................25 ENTERPRISE FUNDS .............................26 SUMMARY GENERAL FUND INFORMATION........27 GENERAL INFORMATION............................28 LOCATION .....................................28 LARGER EMPLOYERS ...........................28 BUILDING PERMITS.............................29 U.S. CENSUS DATA..............................29 EMPLOYMENT/UNEMPLOYMENT DATA...........30 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS...........................A-1 FORM OF LEGAL OPINION..........................B-1 BOOK-ENTRY-ONLY SYSTEM .......................C-1 FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE . . . D-1 TERMS OF PROPOSAL.............................. E-1 PROPOSAL FORM iii Page 174 of 378 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL Term Expires April Graves Mayor January 2027 Dan Jerzak Council Member January 2027 Teneshia Kragness Council Member January 2027 Kris Lawrence-Anderson Council Member January 2029 Laurie Ann Moore Council Member January 2029 ADMINISTRATION Dr. Reginal Edwards, City Manager Angela Holm, Finance Director PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, City Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota Kutak Rock LLP, Bond Counsel, Minneapolis, Minnesota Ehlers and Associates, Inc., Municipal Advisors, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Other office located in Waukesha, Wisconsin) iv Page 175 of 378 INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT This Preliminary Official Statement contains certain information regarding the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "City") and the issuance of its $6,180,000* General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A (the "Bonds"). Any descriptions or summaries of the Bonds, statutes, or documents included herein are not intended to be complete and are qualified in their entirety by reference to such statutes and documents and the form of the Bonds to be included in the resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of the Bonds ("Award Resolution") to be adopted by the City Council on November 24, 2025. Inquiries may be directed to Ehlers and Associates, Inc. ("Ehlers" or the "Municipal Advisor"), Minneapolis, Minnesota, (651) 697-8500, the City's municipal advisor. A copy of this Preliminary Official Statement may be downloaded from Ehlers' web site at www.ehlers-inc.com by connecting to the Bond Sales link and following the directions at the top of the site. THE BONDS GENERAL The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form as to both principal and interest in denominations of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof, and will be dated, as originally issued, as of December 18, 2025. The Bonds will mature on February 1 in the years and amounts set forth on the cover of this Preliminary Official Statement. Interest will be payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 2026, to the registered owners of the Bonds appearing of record in the bond register as of the close of business on the 15th day (whether or not a business day) of the immediately preceding month. Interest will be computed upon the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months and will be rounded pursuant to rules of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board ("MSRB"). The rate for any maturity may not be more than 1.00% less than the rate for any preceding maturity. (For example, if a rate of 4.50% is proposed for the 2027 maturity, then the lowest rate that may be proposed for any later maturity is 3.50%.) All Bonds of the same maturity must bear interest from the date of issue until paid at a single, uniform rate. Each rate must be expressed in an integral multiple of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Unless otherwise specified by the purchaser, the Bonds will be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York ("DTC"). (See "Book-Entry-Only System" herein.) As long as the Bonds are held under the book-entry system, beneficial ownership interests in the Bonds may be acquired in book-entry form only, and all payments of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be made through the facilities of DTC and its participants. If the book-entry system is terminated, principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be pay able as provided in the Award Resolution. The City has selected Bond Trust Services Corporation, Minneapolis, Minnesota ("BTSC"), to act as paying agent (the "Paying Agent"). BTSC and Ehlers are affiliate companies. The City will pay the charges for Paying Agent services. The City reserves the right to remove the Paying Agent and to appoint a successor. *Preliminary, subject to change. OPTIONAL REDEMPTION At the option of the City, the Bonds maturing on or after February 1, 2034 shall be subject to optional redemption prior to maturity on February 1, 2033 or any date thereafter, at a price of par plus accrued interest to the date of optional redemption. 1 Page 176 of 378 Redemption may be in whole or in part of the Bonds subject to prepayment. If redemption is in part, the selection of the amounts and maturities of the Bonds to be redeemed shall be at the discretion of the City. If only part of the Bonds having a common maturity date are called for redemption, then the City or Paying Agent, if any, will notify DTC of the particular amount of such maturity to be redeemed. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interest in such maturity to be redeemed. Notice of redemption shall be sent by mail and not less than 30 days prior to the date fixed for redemption to the registered owner of each Bond to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books. AUTHORITY; PURPOSE The Bonds are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 444 and 475, as amended, by the City, for the purpose of financing the construction of various utility system improvements within the City. ESTIMATED SOURCES AND USES* Sources Par Amount of Bonds $6,180,000 Total Sources $6,180,000 Uses Total Underwriter's Discount (1.200%)$74,160 Costs of Issuance 84,000 Deposit to Construction Fund 6,018,396 Rounding Amount 3,444 Total Uses $6,180,000 *Preliminary, subject to change. SECURITY The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which its full faith and credit and taxing powers are pledged without limitation as to rate or amount. The City anticipates that the debt service on the Bonds will be paid entirely from net revenues of the water and sewer systems ("utility revenues") which are owned and operated by the City. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, receipt of utility revenues will be sufficient to provide not less than 105% of principal and interest on the Bonds. Should the utility revenues and/or ad valorem property taxes pledged for payment of the Bonds be insufficient to pay the principal and interest as the same shall become due, the City is required to pay maturing principal and interest from moneys on hand in any other fund of the City not pledged for another purpose and/or to levy a tax for this purpose upon all the taxable property in the City, without limitation as to rate or amount. 2 Page 177 of 378 RATING The City will be participating in the State of Minnesota Credit Enhancement Program ("MNCEP") for this issue and is requesting a credit enhanced rating from S&P Global Ratings ("S&P"). S&P has a policy which assigns a rating of "AAA" to issuers participating in the MNCEP. The "AAA" rating is based on the State of Minnesota's current "AAA"/Stable outlook rating from S&P. See "STATE OF MINNESOTA CREDIT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM" for further details. The City currently has a "AA"/Stable outlook rating from S&P and will be requesting an underlying rating on this issue. Such rating reflects only the views of such organization and explanations of the significance of such rating may be obtained from the rating agency furnishing the same. Generally, a rating agency bases its rating on the information and materials furnished to it and on investigations, studies and assumptions of its own. There is no assurance that such rating will continue for any given period of time or that it will not be revised downward or withdrawn entirely by such rating agency, if in the judgment of such rating agency circumstances so warrant. Any such downward revision or withdrawal of such rating may have an adverse effect on the market price of the Bonds. Such rating is not to be construed as a recommendation of the rating agency to buy, sell or hold the Bonds, and the rating assigned by the rating agency should be evaluated independently. Except as may be required by the Disclosure Undertaking described under the heading "CONTINUING DISCLOSURE" neither the City nor the underwriter undertake responsibility to bring to the attention of the owner of the Bonds any proposed changes in or withdrawal of such rating or to oppose any such revision or withdrawal. STATE OF MINNESOTA CREDIT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM By resolution adopted for this issue on October 13, 2025 (the "Resolution"), the City has covenanted and obligated itself to be bound by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 446A.086 (the "Act"), which provides for payment by the State of Minnesota in the event of a potential default of certain obligations. The City has entered into a Credit Enhancement Program Agreement (the "Agreement") with the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority (the "Authority"), which is acting on behalf of the State of Minnesota. The provisions of the Agreement shall be binding on the City as long as any obligations of the issue remain outstanding. The City covenants in the Agreement to deposit with the paying agent for the issue three business day s prior to the date on which a payment is due an amount sufficient to make that payment. Under the Agreement, if the City believes it may be unable to make a principal or interest payment for this issue on the due date, it must notify the Authority not less than 15 business days prior to the date a payment is due on the Bonds if the City will be unable to make all or a portion of the payment. The City’s agreement with the Paying Agent for the Bonds requires the Paying Agent to immediately inform the Minnesota Commissioner of Management and Budget, with a copy to the Authority, if the Paying Agent becomes aware of a default or potential default in the payment of principal or interest on the Bonds, or if, on the day two business days before the date a payment is due on the Bonds, there are insufficient funds on deposit with the Paying Agent to make the payment. If the City is unable to make any portion of the payment on the Bonds on or before the date due, the State of Minnesota, acting through the Authority, shall make such payment in its place pursuant to the Act, providing that funds are available in the State General Fund. The obligation to make a payment under the Act is not a general obligation of the State of Minnesota. The Act does not obligate the Minnesota legislature to provide for the availability of funds in the General Fund for this purpose. 3 Page 178 of 378 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE In order to assist brokers, dealers, and municipal securities dealers, in connection with their participation in the offering of the Bonds, to comply with Rule 15c2-12 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Rule"), the City shall agree to provide certain information to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board ("MSRB") through its Electronic Municipal Market Access ("EMMA") system, or any system that may be prescribed in the future. The Rule was last amended, effective February 27, 2019, to include an expanded list of m aterial events. On the date of issue and delivery, the City shall execute and deliver a Continuing Disclosure Certificate, under which the City will covenant for the benefit of holders including beneficial holders, to provide electronically, or in a manner otherwise prescribed, certain financial information annually and to provide notices of the occurrence of certain events enumerated in the Rule (the "Disclosure Undertaking"). The details and terms of the Disclosure Undertaking for the City are set forth in Appendix D. Such Disclosure Undertaking will be in substantially the form attached hereto. A failure by the City to comply with any Disclosure Undertaking will not constitute an event of default on the Bonds. However, such a failure may adversely affect the transferability and liquidity of the Bonds and their market price. Prior continuing disclosure undertakings entered into by the City included language stating that the City's audited financial statements would be filed "as soon as available." Although the City did not always file "as soon as available," the audited financial statements were timely filed within the required twelve-month timeframe as provided for in each undertaking. Except to the extent that the preceding is deemed to be material, the City believes it has not failed to comply in the previous five years in all material respects with its prior undertakings under the Rule. The City has reviewed its continuing disclosure responsibilities along with any changes to the Rule, to ensure compliance. Ehlers is currently engaged as dissemination agent for the City . LEGAL OPINION An opinion as to the validity of the Bonds and the exemption from taxation of the interest thereon will be furnished by Kutak Rock LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Bond Counsel to the City ("Bond Counsel"), and will be available at the time of delivery of the Bonds. The legal opinion will state that the Bonds are valid and binding general obligations of the City; provided that the rights of the owners of the Bonds and the enforceability of the Bonds may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium, and other similar laws affecting creditors' rights and by equitable principles (which may be applied in either a legal or equitable proceeding). See "FORM OF LEGAL OPINION" found in Appendix B. 4 Page 179 of 378 TAX EXEMPTION General Matters. In the opinion of Kutak Rock LLP, Bond Counsel, under existing laws, regulations, rulings and judicial decisions, interest on the Bonds [(including any original issue discount properly allocable to the owner of a Bond)] is excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes and is not a specific preference item for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals. Further, and to the extent of the aforementioned federal income tax exclusion, interest on the Bonds is excludable from taxable net income of individuals, trusts, and estates for Minnesota income tax purposes, and is not a preference item for purposes of the computation of the Minnesota alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals, trusts, and estates. The opinions described above assume the accuracy of certain representations and compliance by the City with covenants designed to satisfy the requirements of the Code that must be met subsequent to the issuance of the Bonds. Failure to comply with such requirements could cause interest on the Bonds to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes and in taxable net income for Minnesota income tax purposes, retroactive to the date of issuance of the Bonds. The City has covenanted to comply with such requirements. Interest on the Bonds (a) may affect the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on certain corporations, and (b) is subject to Minnesota franchise taxes on certain corporations (including financial institutions) measured by income. Bond Counsel has expressed no opinion regarding other federal tax consequences arising with respect to the Bonds. The accrual or receipt of interest on the Bonds may otherwise affect the federal income tax liability of the owners of the Bonds. The extent of these other tax consequences will depend on such owners' particular tax status and other items of income or deduction. Bond Counsel has expressed no opinion regarding any such consequences. Purchasers of the Bonds, particularly purchasers that are corporations (including S corporations, foreign corporations operating branches in the United States of America, and certain corporations subject to the alternative minimum tax imposed on corporations for tax years beginning after December 31, 2022), property or casualty insurance companies, banks, thrifts or other financial institutions, certain recipients of social security or railroad retirement benefits, taxpayers entitled to claim the earned income credit, taxpayers entitled to claim the refundable credit in Section 36B of the Code for coverage under a qualified health plan or taxpayers who may be deemed to have incurred or continued indebtedness to purchase or carry tax-exempt obligations, should consult their tax advisors as to the tax consequences of purchasing or owning the Bonds. A copy of the form of opinion of Bond Counsel is attached hereto as Appendix B. Original Issue Discount. The Bonds that have an original yield above their respective interest rates, as shown on the inside cover of this Official Statement (collectively, the "Discount Bonds"), are being sold at an original issue discount. The difference between the initial public offering prices of such Discount Bonds and their stated amounts to be paid at maturity (excluding "qualified stated interest" within the meaning of Section 1.1273-1 of the Regulations) constitutes original issue discount treated in the same manner for federal income tax purposes as interest, as described above. The amount of original issue discount that is treated as having accrued with respect to a Discount Bond is added to the cost basis of the owner of the bond in determining, for federal income tax purposes, gain or loss upon disposition of such Discount Bond (including its sale, redemption or payment at maturity). Amounts received on disposition of such Discount Bond that are attributable to accrued or otherwise recognized original issue discount will be treated as tax-exempt interest, rather than as taxable gain, for federal incom e tax purposes. 5 Page 180 of 378 Original issue discount is treated as compounding semiannually, at a rate determined by reference to the yield to maturity of each individual Discount Bond, on days that are determined by reference to the maturity date of such Discount Bond. The amount treated as original issue discount on such Discount Bond for a particular semiannual accrual period is equal to (a) the product of (i) the yield to maturity for such Discount Bond (determined by compounding at the close of each accrual period) and (ii) the amount that would have been the tax basis of such Discount Bond at the beginning of the particular accrual period if held by the original purchaser, less (b) the amount of any interest payable for such Discount Bond during the accrual period. The tax basis for purposes of the preceding sentence is determined by adding to the initial public offering price on such Discount Bond the sum of the amounts that have been treated as original issue discount for such purposes during all prior periods. If such Discount Bond is sold between semiannual compounding dates, original issue discount that would have been accrued for that semiannual compounding period for federal income tax purposes is to be apportioned in equal amounts among the days in such compounding period. Owners of Discount Bonds should consult their tax advisors with respect to the determination and treatment of original issue discount accrued as of any date and with respect to the state and local tax consequences of owning a Discount Bond. Subsequent purchasers of Discount Bonds that purchase such bonds for a price that is higher or lower than the "adjusted issue price" of the bonds at the time of purchase should consult their tax advisors as to the effect on the accrual of original issue discount. Original Issue Premium. The Bonds that have an original yield below their respective interest rates, as shown on the inside cover of this Official Statement (collectively, the "Premium Bonds"), are being sold at a premium. An amount equal to the excess of the issue price of a Premium Bond over its stated redemption price at maturity constitutes premium on such Premium Bond. A purchaser of a Premium Bond must amortize any premium over such Premium Bond's term using constant yield principles, based on the purchaser's yield to maturity (or, in the case of Premium Bonds callable prior to their maturity, generally by amortizing the premium to the call date, based on the purchaser's yield to the call date and giving effect to any call premium). As premium is amortized, the amount of the amortization offsets a corresponding amount of interest for the period, and the purchaser's basis in such Premium Bond is reduced by a corresponding amount resulting in an increase in the gain (or decrease in the loss) to be recognized for federal income tax purposes upon a sale or disposition of such Premium Bond prior to its maturity. Even though the purchaser's basis may be reduced, no federal income tax deduction is allowed. Purchasers of the Premium Bonds should consult their tax advisors with respect to the determination and treatment of premium for federal income tax purposes and with respect to the state and local tax consequences of owning a Prem ium Bond. Bank Qualified. The City has represented that it does not reasonably anticipate issuing greater than $10,000,000 of tax-exempt obligations in calendar year 2025 (excluding certain private activity and refunding bonds) and that it has designated the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code. Accordingly, assuming the accuracy of such representations, in the case of certain banks, thrift institutions or other financial institutions owning the Bonds, a deduction is allowed for 80 percent of that portion of such institutions' interest expense allocable to interest on such bonds. Bond Counsel has expressed no opinion with respect to any deduction for federal tax law purposes of interest on indebtedness incurred or continued by an owner of the Bonds or a related person to purchase or carry such bonds. Backup Withholding An owner of a Bond may be subject to backup withholding at the applicable rate determined by statute with respect to interest paid with respect to the Bonds if such owner fails to provide to any person required to collect such information pursuant to Section 6049 of the Code with such owner's taxpayer identification number, furnishes an incorrect taxpayer identification number, fails to report interest, dividends or other "reportable payments" (as defined in the Code) properly, or, under certain circumstances, fails to provide such persons with a certified statement, under penalty of perjury, that such owner is not subject to backup withholding. 6 Page 181 of 378 Changes in Federal and State Tax Law From time to time, there are legislative proposals in the Congress and in the states that, if enacted, could alter or amend the federal and state tax matters referred to under this heading "TAX MATTERS" or adversely affect the market value of the Bonds. It cannot be predicted whether or in what form any such proposal might be enacted or whether if enacted it would apply to bonds issued prior to enactment. In addition, regulatory actions are from time to time announced or proposed and litigation is threatened or commenced which, if implemented or concluded in a particular manner, could adversely affect the market value of the Bonds. It cannot be predicted whether any such regulatory action will be implemented, how any particular litigation or judicial action will be resolved, or whether the Bonds or the market value thereof would be impacted thereby. Purchasers of the Bonds should consult their tax advisors regarding any pending or proposed legislation, regulatory initiatives or litigation. The opinions expressed by Bond Counsel are based on existing legislation and regulations as interpreted by relevant judicial and regulatory authorities as of the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds, and Bond Counsel has expressed no opinion as of any date subsequent thereto or with respect to any pending legislation, regulatory initiatives or litigation. Prospective purchasers of the Bonds are advised to consult their own tax advisors prior to any purchase of the Bonds as to the impact of the Code upon their acquisition, holding or disposition of the Bonds. QUALIFIED TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS The City will designate the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code relating to the ability of financial institutions to deduct from income for federal income tax purposes, interest expense that is allocable to carrying and acquiring tax-exempt obligations. MUNICIPAL ADVISOR Ehlers has served as municipal advisor to the City in connection with the issuance of the Bonds. The Municipal Advisor cannot participate in the underwriting of the Bonds. The financial information included in this Preliminary Official Statement has been compiled by the Municipal Advisor. Such information does not purport to be a review, audit or certified forecast of future events and may not conform with accounting principles applicable to compilations of financial information. Ehlers is not a firm of certified public accountants. Ehlers is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the MSRB as a municipal advisor. Ehlers makes no representation, warranty or guarantee regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information in this Preliminary Official Statement, and its assistance in preparing this Preliminary Official Statement should not be construed as a representation that it has independently verified such information. MUNICIPAL ADVISOR AFFILIATED COMPANIES BTSC and Ehlers Investment Partners, LLC ("EIP") are affiliate companies of Ehlers. BTSC is chartered by the State of Minnesota and authorized in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Illinois to transact the business of a limited purpose trust company. BTSC provides paying agent services to debt issuers. EIP is a Registered Investment Advisor with the Securities and Exchange Commission. EIP assists issuers with the investment of bond proceeds or investing other issuer funds. This includes escrow bidding agent services. Issuers, such as the City, have retained or may retain BTSC and/or EIP to provide these services. If hired, BTSC and/or EIP would be retained by the City under an agreement separate from Ehlers. 7 Page 182 of 378 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS The basic financial statements of the City for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 have been audited by Abdo, Mankato, Minnesota, independent auditors (the "Auditor"). The report of the Auditor, together with the basic financial statements, component units financial statements, and notes to the financial statements are attached hereto as "APPENDIX A – FINANCIAL STATEMENTS". The Auditor has not been engaged to perform and has not performed, since the date of its report included herein, any procedures on the financial statements addressed in that report. The Auditor also has not perform ed any procedures relating to this Preliminary Official Statement. RISK FACTORS The following is a description of possible risks to holders of the Bonds without weighting as to probability. This description of risks is not intended to be all-inclusive, and there may be other risks not now perceived or listed here. Taxes: The Bonds are general obligations of the City, the ultimate payment of which rests in the City's ability to levy and collect sufficient taxes to pay debt service should other revenue (utility revenues) be insufficient. In the event of delayed billing, collection or distribution of property taxes, sufficient funds may not be available to the City in time to pay debt service when due. State Actions: Many elements of local government finance, including the issuance of debt and the levy of property taxes, are controlled by state government. Future actions of the State of Minnesota (the "State") may affect the overall financial condition of the City , the taxable value of property within the City, and the ability of the City to levy and collect property taxes. Future Changes in Law: Various State and federal laws, regulations and constitutional provisions apply to the City and to the Bonds. The City can give no assurance that there will not be a change in or interpretation of any such applicable laws, regulations and provisions which would have a material effect on the City or the taxing authority of the City. Ratings; Interest Rates: In the future, the City's credit rating may be reduced or withdrawn, or interest rates for this type of obligation may rise generally, either possibility resulting in a reduction in the value of the Bonds for resale prior to maturity. Tax Exemption: If the federal government or the State of Minnesota taxes all or a portion of the interest on municipal obligations, directly or indirectly, or if there is a change in federal or state tax policy, the value of the Bonds may fall for purposes of resale. Noncompliance following the issuance of the Bonds with certain requirements of the Code and covenants of the Award Resolution may result in the inclusion of interest on the Bonds in gross income of the recipient for United States income tax purposes or in taxable net income of individuals, estates or trusts for State of Minnesota income tax purposes. No provision has been made for redemption of the Bonds, or for an increase in the interest rate on the Bonds, in the event that interest on the Bonds becomes subject to federal or State of Minnesota income taxation, retroactive to the date of issuance. Continuing Disclosure: A failure by the City to comply with the Disclosure Undertaking for continuing disclosure (see "CONTINUING DISCLOSURE") will not constitute an event of default on the Bonds. Any such failure must be reported in accordance with the Rule and must be considered by any broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer before recommending the purchase or sale of the Bonds in the secondary market. Such a failure may adversely affect the transferability and liquidity of the Bonds and their market price. 8 Page 183 of 378 Levy Limits: The State Legislature has periodically imposed limitations on the ability of municipalities to levy property taxes. While these limitations have expired, the potential exists for future legislation to limit the ability of local governments to levy property taxes. All previous limitations have not limited the ability to levy for the payment of debt service on bonded indebtedness. For more detailed information about Minnesota levy limits, contact the Minnesota Department of Revenue or Ehlers and Associates. State Economy; State Aids: State of Minnesota cash flow problems could affect local governments and possibly increase property taxes. Book-Entry-Only System: The timely credit of payments for principal and interest on the Bonds to the accounts of the Beneficial Owners of the Bonds may be delayed due to the customary practices, standing instructions or for other unknown reasons by DTC participants or indirect participants. Since the notice of redemption or other notices to holders of these obligations will be delivered by the City to DTC only, there may be a delay or failure by DTC, DTC participants or indirect participants to notify the Beneficial Owners of the Bonds. Economy: A combination of economic, climatic, political or civil disruptions or terrorist actions outside of the control of the City, including loss of major taxpayers or major employers, could affect the local economy and result in reduced tax collections and/or increased demands upon local government. Real or perceived threats to the financial stability of the City may have an adverse effect on the value of the Bonds in the secondary market. Secondary Market for the Bonds: No assurance can be given that a secondary market will develop for the purchase and sale of the Bonds or, if a secondary market exists, that such Bonds can be sold for any particular price. The underwriters are not obligated to engage in secondary market trading or to repurchase any of the Bonds at the request of the owners thereof. Prices of the Bonds as traded in the secondary market are subject to adjustment upward and downward in response to changes in the credit markets and other prevailing circumstances. No guarantee exists as to the future market value of the Bonds. Such market value could be substantially different from the original purchase price. Bankruptcy: The rights and remedies of the holders may be limited by and are subject to the provisions of federal bankruptcy laws, to other laws, or equitable principles that may affect the enforcement of creditors' rights, to the exercise of judicial discretion in appropriate cases and to limitations on legal remedies against local governments. The opinion of Bond Counsel to be delivered with respect to the Bonds will be sim ilarly qualified. Cybersecurity: The City is dependent on electronic information technology systems to deliver services. These systems may contain sensitive information or support critical operational functions which may have value for unauthorized purposes. As a result, the electronic systems and networks may be targets of cyberattack. There can be no assurance that the City will not experience an information technology breach or attack with financial consequences that could have a material adverse impact. The foregoing is intended only as a summary of certain risk factors attendant to an investment in the Bonds. In order for potential investors to identify risk factors and make an informed investment decision, potential investors should be thoroughly familiar with this entire Preliminary Official Statement and the Appendices hereto. 9 Page 184 of 378 VALUATIONS OVERVIEW All non-exempt property is subject to taxation by local taxing districts. Exempt real property includes Indian lands, public property, and educational, religious and charitable institutions. Most personal property is exempt from taxation (except investor-owned utility mains, generating plants, etc.). The valuation of property in Minnesota consists of three elements. (1) The estimated market value is set by city or county assessors. Not less than 20% of all real properties are to be appraised by local assessors each year. (2) The taxable market value is the estimated market value adjusted by all legislative exclusions. (3) The tax capacity (taxable) value of property is determined by class rates set by the State Legislature. The tax capacity rate varies according to the classification of the property . Tax capacity represents a percent of taxable market value. The property tax rate for a local taxing jurisdiction is determined by dividing the total tax capacity or market value of property within the jurisdiction into the dollars to be raised from the levy. State law determines whether a levy is spread on tax capacity or market value. Major classifications and the percentages by which tax capacity is determined are: Type of Property 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Residential homestead1 First $500,000 - 1.00% Over $500,000 - 1.25% First $500,000 - 1.00% Over $500,000 - 1.25% First $500,000 - 1.00% Over $500,000 - 1.25% Agricultural homestead1 First $500,000 HGA - 1.00% Over $500,000 HGA - 1.25% First $1,890,000 - 0.50% 2 Over $1,890,000 - 1.00% 2 First $500,000 HGA - 1.00% Over $500,000 HGA - 1.25% First $2,150,000 - 0.50% 2 Over $2,150,000 - 1.00% 2 First $500,000 HGA - 1.00% Over $500,000 HGA - 1.25% First $3,500,000 - 0.50% 2 Over $3,500,000 - 1.00% 2 Agricultural non-homestead Land - 1.00% 2 Land - 1.00% 2 Land - 1.00% 2 Seasonal recreational residential First $500,000 - 1.00% 3 Over $500,000 - 1.25% 3 First $500,000 - 1.00% 3 Over $500,000 - 1.25% 3 First $500,000 - 1.00% 3 Over $500,000 - 1.25% 3 Residential non-homestead:1 unit - 1st $500,000 - 1.00% Over $500,000 - 1.25% 2-3 units - 1.25% 4 or more - 1.25% Small City4 - 1.25% Affordable Rental: First $174,000 - .75% Over $174,000 - .25% 1 unit - 1st $500,000 - 1.00% Over $500,000 - 1.25% 2-3 units - 1.25% 4 or more - 1.25% Small City 4 - 1.25% Affordable Rental: First $100,000 - .75% Over $100,000 - .25% 1 unit - 1st $500,000 - 1.00% Over $500,000 - 1.25% 2-3 units - 1.25% 4 or more - 1.25% Small City 4 - 1.25% Affordable Rental – .25% Industrial/Commercial/Utility5 First $150,000 - 1.50% Over $150,000 - 2.00% First $150,000 - 1.50% Over $150,000 - 2.00% First $150,000 - 1.50% Over $150,000 - 2.00% 1 A residential property qualifies as "homestead" if it is occupied by the owner or a relative of the owner on the assessment date. 2 Applies to land and buildings. Exempt from referendum market value tax. 3 Exempt from referendum market value tax. 4 Cities of 5,000 population or less and located entirely outside the seven-county metropolitan area and the adjacent nine-county area and whose boundaries are 15 miles or more from the boundaries of a Minnesota city with a population of over 5,000. 5 The estimated market value of utility property is determined by the Minnesota Department of Revenue. 10 Page 185 of 378 CURRENT PROPERTY VALUATIONS 2024/25 Economic Market Value $3,543,540,308 1 2024/25 Assessor's Estimated Market Value Real Estate $3,347,965,100 Personal Property 13,382,600 Total Valuation $3,361,347,700 2024/25 Net Tax Capacity Real Estate $38,281,883 Personal Property 257,230 Net Tax Capacity $38,539,113 Less: Captured Tax Increment Tax Capacity2 (690,489) Fiscal Disparities Contribution 3 (4,787,429) Taxable Net Tax Capacity $33,061,195 Plus: Fiscal Disparities Distribution3 11,035,214 Adjusted Taxable Net Tax Capacity $44,096,409 1 According to the Minnesota Department of Revenue, the Assessor's Estimated Market Value (the "AEMV") for the City was about 94.93% of the actual selling prices of property sold in the City. The sales ratio was calculated by comparing the selling prices with the AEMV. Dividing the AEMV of real estate by the sales ratio and adding the AEMV of personal property and utility, railroads and minerals, if any, results in an Economic Market Value ("EMV") for the City of $3,543,540,308. 2 The captured tax increment value shown above represents the captured net tax capacity of tax increment financing districts in the City. 3 Each community in the seven-county metropolitan area contributes 40% of the growth in its commercial- industrial property tax base to an area pool which is then distributed among the municipalities on the basis of population, special needs, etc. Each governmental unit makes a contribution and receives a distribution-- sometimes gaining and sometimes contributing net tax capacity for tax purposes. 11 Page 186 of 378 2024/25 NET TAX CAPACITY BY CLASSIFICATION 2024/25 Net Tax Capacity Percent of Total Net Tax Capacity Residential homestead $20,335,954 52.77% Commercial/industrial 13,206,065 34.27% Public utility 116,736 0.30% Railroad operating property 25,880 0.07% Non-homestead residential 4,585,912 11.90% Commercial & residential seasonal/rec.3,041 0.01% Other 8,295 0.02% Personal property 257,230 0.67% Total $38,539,113 100.00% TREND OF VALUATIONS Levy Year Assessor's Estimated Market Value Assessor's Taxable Market Value Net Tax Capacity1 Adjusted Taxable Net Tax Capacity2 Percent Increase/Decrease in Estimated Market Value 2020/21 $2,606,518,800 $2,468,226,455 $30,938,877 $30,738,953 6.47% 2021/22 2,749,369,500 2,617,105,233 32,170,609 36,686,382 5.48% 2022/23 3,168,007,300 3,060,549,290 37,033,662 41,448,937 15.23% 2023/24 3,278,893,900 3,173,049,695 38,655,323 43,403,262 3.50% 2024/25 3,361,347,700 3,194,183,565 38,539,113 44,096,409 2.51% 1 Net Tax Capacity is before fiscal disparities adjustments and includes tax increment values. 2 Adjusted Taxable Net Tax Capacity is after fiscal disparities adjustments and does not include tax increment values. 12 Page 187 of 378 LARGEST TAXPAYING PARCELS1 Taxpayer Type of Property 2024/25 Net Tax Capacity Percent of City's Total Net Tax Capacity Luther Company LLLP Commercial $535,050 1.39% Molasky Group Commercial 507,250 1.32% Medtronic, Inc.Industrial 493,450 1.28% Marvin F. Poer and Company Commercial 429,750 1.12% TLN Lanel A Ltd. Partnership Apartments 387,500 1.01% Lake Point Apartments LLC Apartments 367,750 0.95% Mkt Eqts-Gateway Common Apartments 354,925 0.92% Brookdale Corner LLC Commercial 316,450 0.82% Melrose Gates LLC Apartments 315,250 0.82% Erg-CP France Ave. BP Industrial 270,620 0.70% Total $3,977,995 10.32% City's Total 2024/25 Net Tax Capacity $38,539,113 Source:Current Property Valuations, Net Tax Capacity by Classification, Trend of Valuations and Largest Taxpaying Parcels have been furnished by Hennepin County. DEBT DIRECT DEBT2 General Obligation Debt (see schedules following) Total G.O. debt secured by special assessments and taxes $16,210,000 Total G.O. debt secured by tax increment revenues 1,410,000 Total G.O. debt secured by utility revenues (includes the Bonds)*36,180,000 Total General Obligation Debt*$53,800,000 *Preliminary, subject to change. 1 Hennepin County has provided only the ten largest taxpaying parcels which appear on the tax rolls of Hennepin County, and therefore the information stated above may not be reflective of the entire valuation of all parcels and may not include all classifications of property. 2 Outstanding debt is as of the dated date of the Bonds. 13 Page 188 of 378 Lease Purchase Obligations (see schedule following) Total lease purchase obligations paid by annual appropriations (EDA)1 $1,845,000 DEBT PAYMENT HISTORY The City has no record of default in the pay ment of principal and interest on its debt. FUTURE FINANCING The City plans to issue approximately $3,000,000 debt for the purchase of three fire trucks in the next 12 m onths. DEBT LIMIT The statutory limit on net debt of Minnesota municipalities other than school districts or cities of the first class (Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.53, subd. 1) is 3% of the Assessor's Estimated Market Value of all taxable property within its boundaries. "Net debt" means the amount remaining after deducting from gross debt the amount of current revenues which are applicable within the current fiscal year to the payment of any debt and the aggregate principal of certain obligations enumerated under Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.51, subd.4, including the following: (1) obligations issued for improvements payable wholly or partly from special assessments levied against benefitted property; (2) warrants or orders having no definite or fixed maturity; (3) obligations payable wholly from the income of revenue producing conveniences (includes the Bonds); (4) obligations issued to create or maintain a permanent improvement revolving fund; (5) obligations issued to finance any revenue producing public convenience; (6) funds held as sinking funds for payment of principal and interest on debt other than those deductible under Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.51, subd. 4; (7) obligations to repay energy conservation investment loans under Minnesota Statutes, Section 216C.37; (8) obligations issued to pay certain postemployment benefit liabilities; (9) obligations issued to pay certain judgments against the City; and (10) all other obligations which are not to be included in computing the net debt of a municipality under the provisions of the law authorizing their issuance. 2024/25 Assessor's Estimated Market Value $3,361,347,700 Multiply by 3%0.03 Statutory Debt Limit $100,840,431 Less: Long-Term Debt Outstanding Being Paid Solely from Taxes 0 Less: Long-Term Debt Outstanding Being Paid Solely from Annual Appropriations (EDA)(1,845,000) Unused Debt Limit $98,995,431 1 Non-general obligation debt has not been included in the debt ratios. 14 Page 189 of 378 Ci t y  of  Br o o k l y n  Ce n t e r ,  Mi n n e s o t a Sc h e d u l e  of  Bo n d e d  In d e b t e d n e s s Ge n e r a l  Ob l i g a t i o n  De b t  Se c u r e d  by  Sp e c i a l  As s e s s m e n t s  an d  Ta x e s (A s  of  12 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 5 ) Da t e d Am o u n t Ma t u r i t y Ca l e n d a r   Ye a r  En d i n g P r i n c i p a l I n t e r e s t P r i n c i p a l I n t e r e s t P r i n c i p a l I n t e r e s t P r i n c i p a l I n t e r e s t P r i n c i p a l I n t e r e s t 20 2 6 55 0 , 0 0 0 6 , 8 7 5 1 9 5 , 0 0 0 5 , 9 5 0 3 9 0 , 0 0 0 2 4 , 2 3 8 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 4 7 , 3 5 0 3 6 5 , 0 0 0 7 8 , 9 2 5 20 2 7 20 0 , 0 0 0 2 , 0 0 0 3 9 5 , 0 0 0 1 3 , 9 4 4 4 1 0 , 0 0 0 3 1 , 2 0 0 3 7 5 , 0 0 0 6 0 , 4 2 5 20 2 8 40 0 , 0 0 0 4 , 7 5 0 4 1 5 , 0 0 0 1 8 , 8 2 5 3 8 5 , 0 0 0 4 1 , 4 2 5 20 2 9 42 0 , 0 0 0 6 , 3 0 0 3 9 5 , 0 0 0 2 3 , 9 0 0 20 3 0 40 0 , 0 0 0 8 , 0 0 0 20 3 1 20 3 2 20 3 3 20 3 4 20 3 5 55 0 , 0 0 0 6 , 8 7 5 3 9 5 , 0 0 0 7 , 9 5 0 1 , 1 8 5 , 0 0 0 4 2 , 9 3 1 1 , 6 4 5 , 0 0 0 1 0 3 , 6 7 5 1 , 9 2 0 , 0 0 0 2 1 2 , 6 7 5 1) T h i s  re p r e s e n t s  th e  $5 , 2 4 0 , 0 0 0  Im p r o v e m e n t  po r t i o n  of  th e  $6 , 9 0 0 , 0 0 0  Ge n e r a l  Ob l i g a t i o n  Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  Re f u n d i n g  an d  Im p r o v e m e n t  Bo n d s ,  Se r i e s  20 1 5 A . 2) T h i s  re p r e s e n t s  th e  $1 , 8 2 0 , 0 0 0  Im p r o v e m e n t  po r t i o n  of  th e  $5 , 4 2 5 , 0 0 0  Ge n e r a l  Ob l i g a t i o n  Im p r o v e m e n t  an d  Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  Bo n d s ,  Se r i e s  20 1 6 A . 3) T h i s  re p r e s e n t s  th e  $3 , 7 3 5 , 0 0 0  Im p r o v e m e n t  po r t i o n  of  th e  $8 , 3 6 0 , 0 0 0  Ge n e r a l  Ob l i g a t i o n  Im p r o v e m e n t  an d  Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  Bo n d s ,  Se r i e s  20 1 7 A . 4) T h i s  re p r e s e n t s  th e  $3 , 8 3 5 , 0 0 0  Im p r o v e m e n t  po r t i o n  of  th e  $8 , 1 8 5 , 0 0 0  Ge n e r a l  Ob l i g a t i o n  Im p r o v e m e n t  an d  Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  Bo n d s ,  Se r i e s  20 1 8 A . Im p r o v e m e n t  Bo n d s  5) Se r i e s  20 1 9 A  Bo n d s 09 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 9 $3 , 3 5 5 , 0 0 0 02 / 0 1 Im p r o v e m e n t  Bo n d s  4) Se r i e s  20 1 8 A 07 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 8 $3 , 8 3 5 , 0 0 0 02 / 0 1 Im p r o v e m e n t  Bo n d s  3) Se r i e s  20 1 7 A 06 / 0 8 / 2 0 1 7 $3 , 7 3 5 , 0 0 0 02 / 0 1 Im p r o v e m e n t  Bo n d s  2) Se r i e s  20 1 6 A 10 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 6 $1 , 8 2 0 , 0 0 0 02 / 0 1 Im p r o v e m e n t  Bo n d s  1) Se r i e s  20 1 5 A  Bo n d s 07 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 5 $5 , 2 4 0 , 0 0 0 02 / 0 1 ‐‐ Co n t i n u e d  on  ne x t  pa g e 5) Th i s  re p r e s e n t s  th e  $3 , 3 5 5 , 0 0 0  Im p r o v e m e n t  po r t i o n  of  th e  $8 , 1 4 5 , 0 0 0  Ge n e r a l  Ob l i g a t i o n  Im p r o v e m e n t  an d  Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  Bo n d s ,  Se r i e s  20 1 9 A . 15 Pa g e 1 9 0 o f 3 7 8 Ci t y  of  Br o o k l y n  Ce n t e r ,  Mi n n e s o t a Sc h e d u l e  of  Bo n d e d  In d e b t e d n e s s  co n t i n u e d Ge n e r a l  Ob l i g a t i o n  De b t  Se c u r e d  by  Sp e c i a l  As s e s s m e n t s  an d  Ta x e s (A s  of  12 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 5 ) Da t e d Am o u n t Ma t u r i t y Ca l e n d a r   Ye a r  En d i n g P r i n c i p a l I n t e r e s t P r i n c i p a l I n t e r e s t P r i n c i p a l I n t e r e s t P r i n c i p a l I n t e r e s t T o t a l  Pr i n c i p a l T o t a l  In t e r e s t T o t a l  P & I Pr i n c i p a l   Ou t s t a n d i n g %  Pa i d Ca l e n d a r   Ye a r   En d i n g 20 2 6 21 0 , 0 0 0 1 8 , 4 0 0 2 9 5 , 0 0 0 5 9 , 1 5 0 1 9 0 , 0 0 0 7 7 , 2 5 0 4 6 5 , 0 0 0 2 4 0 , 3 2 5 3 , 0 6 0 , 0 0 0 5 5 8 , 4 6 3 3 , 6 1 8 , 4 6 3 1 3 , 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 1 8 . 8 8 % 20 2 6 20 2 7 21 5 , 0 0 0 1 4 , 1 5 0 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 4 7 , 2 5 0 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 6 7 , 5 0 0 4 6 0 , 0 0 0 2 1 7 , 2 0 0 2 , 5 5 5 , 0 0 0 4 5 3 , 6 6 9 3 , 0 0 8 , 6 6 9 1 0 , 5 9 5 , 0 0 0 3 4 . 6 4 % 20 2 7 20 2 8 22 0 , 0 0 0 9 , 8 0 0 3 1 0 , 0 0 0 3 6 , 6 0 0 2 0 5 , 0 0 0 5 7 , 3 7 5 4 8 0 , 0 0 0 1 9 3 , 7 0 0 2 , 4 1 5 , 0 0 0 3 6 2 , 4 7 5 2 , 7 7 7 , 4 7 5 8 , 1 8 0 , 0 0 0 4 9 . 5 4 % 20 2 8 20 2 9 22 0 , 0 0 0 6 , 5 0 0 3 1 5 , 0 0 0 2 7 , 2 2 5 2 1 5 , 0 0 0 4 6 , 8 7 5 4 9 5 , 0 0 0 1 6 9 , 3 2 5 2 , 0 6 0 , 0 0 0 2 8 0 , 1 2 5 2 , 3 4 0 , 1 2 5 6 , 1 2 0 , 0 0 0 6 2 . 2 5 % 20 2 9 20 3 0 22 5 , 0 0 0 4 , 1 0 6 3 2 0 , 0 0 0 1 7 , 7 0 0 2 2 0 , 0 0 0 3 6 , 0 0 0 5 1 5 , 0 0 0 1 4 4 , 0 7 5 1 , 6 8 0 , 0 0 0 2 0 9 , 8 8 1 1 , 8 8 9 , 8 8 1 4 , 4 4 0 , 0 0 0 7 2 . 6 1 % 20 3 0 20 3 1 22 5 , 0 0 0 1 , 4 0 6 3 2 0 , 0 0 0 9 , 7 0 0 2 3 0 , 0 0 0 2 4 , 7 5 0 5 3 5 , 0 0 0 1 1 7 , 8 2 5 1 , 3 1 0 , 0 0 0 1 5 3 , 6 8 1 1 , 4 6 3 , 6 8 1 3 , 1 3 0 , 0 0 0 8 0 . 6 9 % 20 3 1 20 3 2 32 5 , 0 0 0 3 , 2 5 0 2 3 5 , 0 0 0 1 4 , 3 0 0 5 5 0 , 0 0 0 9 0 , 7 0 0 1 , 1 1 0 , 0 0 0 1 0 8 , 2 5 0 1 , 2 1 8 , 2 5 0 2 , 0 2 0 , 0 0 0 8 7 . 5 4 % 20 3 2 20 3 3 24 0 , 0 0 0 4 , 8 0 0 5 7 5 , 0 0 0 6 2 , 5 7 5 8 1 5 , 0 0 0 6 7 , 3 7 5 8 8 2 , 3 7 5 1 , 2 0 5 , 0 0 0 9 2 . 5 7 % 20 3 3 20 3 4 59 5 , 0 0 0 3 6 , 3 0 0 5 9 5 , 0 0 0 3 6 , 3 0 0 6 3 1 , 3 0 0 6 1 0 , 0 0 0 9 6 . 2 4 % 20 3 4 20 3 5 61 0 , 0 0 0 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 1 0 , 0 0 0 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 2 2 , 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 % 20 3 5 1, 3 1 5 , 0 0 0 5 4 , 3 6 3 2 , 1 8 5 , 0 0 0 2 0 0 , 8 7 5 1 , 7 3 5 , 0 0 0 3 2 8 , 8 5 0 5 , 2 8 0 , 0 0 0 1 , 2 8 4 , 2 2 5 1 6 , 2 1 0 , 0 0 0 2 , 2 4 2 , 4 1 9 1 8 , 4 5 2 , 4 1 9 6) T h i s  re p r e s e n t s  th e  $1 , 9 5 5 , 0 0 0  Im p r o v e m e n t  po r t i o n  of  th e  $4 , 7 8 5 , 0 0 0  Ge n e r a l  Ob l i g a t i o n  Im p r o v e m e n t  an d  Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  Bo n d s ,  Se r i e s  20 2 0 A . 7) T h i s  re p r e s e n t s  th e  $2 , 0 9 5 , 0 0 0  Im p r o v e m e n t  po r t i o n  of  th e  $4 , 3 3 5 , 0 0 0  Ge n e r a l  Ob l i g a t i o n  Im p r o v e m e n t  an d  Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  Bo n d s ,  Se r i e s  20 2 2 A . 8) T h i s  re p r e s e n t s  th e  $5 , 2 8 0 , 0 0 0  Im p r o v e m e n t  po r t i o n  of  th e  $1 0 , 8 2 0 , 0 0 0  Ge n e r a l  Ob l i g a t i o n  Im p r o v e m e n t  an d  Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  Bo n d s ,  Se r i e s  20 2 4 A . Im p r o v e m e n t  Bo n d s  8) Se r i e s  20 2 4 A 06 / 1 3 / 2 0 2 4 $5 , 2 8 0 , 0 0 0 02 / 0 1 Im p r o v e m e n t  Bo n d s  7) Se r i e s  20 2 2 A 12 / 1 5 / 2 0 2 2 $2 , 0 9 5 , 0 0 0 02 / 0 1 Im p r o v e m e n t  Bo n d s Se r i e s  20 2 1 A 09 / 2 2 / 2 0 2 1 $3 , 0 0 5 , 0 0 0 02 / 0 1 Im p r o v e m e n t  Bo n d s  6) Se r i e s  20 2 0 A 11 / 2 4 / 2 0 2 0 $1 , 9 5 5 , 0 0 0 02 / 0 1 16 Pa g e 1 9 1 o f 3 7 8 Ci t y  of  Br o o k l y n  Ce n t e r ,  Mi n n e s o t a Sc h e d u l e  of  Bo n d e d  In d e b t e d n e s s Ge n e r a l  Ob l i g a t i o n  De b t  Se c u r e d  by  Ta x  In c r e m e n t  Re v e n u e s (A s  of  12 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 5 ) Da t e d Am o u n t Ma t u r i t y Ca l e n d a r   Ye a r  En d i n g P r i n c i p a l I n t e r e s t T o t a l  Pr i n c i p a l T o t a l  In t e r e s t T o t a l  P & I Pr i n c i p a l   Ou t s t a n d i n g %  Pa i d Ca l e n d a r   Ye a r   En d i n g 20 2 6 34 0 , 0 0 0 2 9 , 7 0 0 3 4 0 , 0 0 0 2 9 , 7 0 0 3 6 9 , 7 0 0 1 , 0 7 0 , 0 0 0 2 4 . 1 1 % 20 2 6 20 2 7 35 0 , 0 0 0 2 1 , 9 3 8 3 5 0 , 0 0 0 2 1 , 9 3 8 3 7 1 , 9 3 8 7 2 0 , 0 0 0 4 8 . 9 4 % 20 2 7 20 2 8 35 5 , 0 0 0 1 3 , 5 6 3 3 5 5 , 0 0 0 1 3 , 5 6 3 3 6 8 , 5 6 3 3 6 5 , 0 0 0 7 4 . 1 1 % 20 2 8 20 2 9 36 5 , 0 0 0 4 , 5 6 3 3 6 5 , 0 0 0 4 , 5 6 3 3 6 9 , 5 6 3 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 % 20 2 9 1, 4 1 0 , 0 0 0 6 9 , 7 6 3 1 , 4 1 0 , 0 0 0 6 9 , 7 6 3 1 , 4 7 9 , 7 6 3 Ta x  In c r e m e n t  Fi n a n c i n g   Re f u n d i n g  Bo n d s Se r i e s  20 1 6 B 12 / 0 8 / 2 0 1 6 $2 , 0 7 5 , 0 0 0 02 / 0 1 17 Pa g e 1 9 2 o f 3 7 8 Ci t y  of  Br o o k l y n  Ce n t e r ,  Mi n n e s o t a Sc h e d u l e  of  Bo n d e d  In d e b t e d n e s s Ge n e r a l  Ob l i g a t i o n  De b t  Se c u r e d  by  Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e s (A s  of  12 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 5 ) Da t e d Am o u n t Ma t u r i t y Ca l e n d a r   Ye a r  En d i n g P r i n c i p a l I n t e r e s t P r i n c i p a l I n t e r e s t P r i n c i p a l I n t e r e s t P r i n c i p a l I n t e r e s t P r i n c i p a l I n t e r e s t 20 2 6 1, 0 4 3 , 0 0 0 9 7 , 7 0 0 3 8 5 , 0 0 0 1 1 , 7 5 0 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 3 1 , 4 4 4 4 6 5 , 0 0 0 5 7 , 0 7 5 5 4 5 , 0 0 0 1 2 4 , 6 7 5 20 2 7 1, 0 5 3 , 0 0 0 8 7 , 2 7 0 3 9 5 , 0 0 0 3 , 9 5 0 5 1 0 , 0 0 0 1 8 , 2 0 6 4 9 0 , 0 0 0 3 8 , 1 0 0 5 8 0 , 0 0 0 9 6 , 5 5 0 20 2 8 1, 0 6 4 , 0 0 0 7 6 , 7 4 0 5 2 5 , 0 0 0 6 , 2 3 4 5 0 5 , 0 0 0 2 3 , 1 7 5 6 0 5 , 0 0 0 6 6 , 9 2 5 20 2 9 1, 0 7 5 , 0 0 0 6 6 , 1 0 0 52 0 , 0 0 0 7 , 8 0 0 6 3 5 , 0 0 0 3 9 , 1 0 0 20 3 0 1, 0 8 5 , 0 0 0 5 5 , 3 5 0 66 0 , 0 0 0 1 3 , 2 0 0 20 3 1 1, 0 9 6 , 0 0 0 4 4 , 5 0 0 20 3 2 1, 1 0 7 , 0 0 0 3 3 , 5 4 0 20 3 3 1, 1 1 8 , 0 0 0 2 2 , 4 7 0 20 3 4 1, 1 2 9 , 0 0 0 1 1 , 2 9 0 20 3 5 20 3 6 9, 7 7 0 , 0 0 0 4 9 4 , 9 6 0 7 8 0 , 0 0 0 1 5 , 7 0 0 1 , 5 3 5 , 0 0 0 5 5 , 8 8 4 1 , 9 8 0 , 0 0 0 1 2 6 , 1 5 0 3 , 0 2 5 , 0 0 0 3 4 0 , 4 5 0 1) T h i s  re p r e s e n t s  th e  $3 , 6 0 5 , 0 0 0  Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  po r t i o n  of  th e  $5 , 4 2 5 , 0 0 0  Ge n e r a l  Ob l i g a t i o n  Im p r o v e m e n t  an d  Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  Bo n d s ,  Se r i e s  20 1 6 A . 2) T h i s  re p r e s e n t s  th e  $4 , 6 2 5 , 0 0 0  Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  po r t i o n  of  th e  $8 , 3 6 0 , 0 0 0  Ge n e r a l  Ob l i g a t i o n  Im p r o v e m e n t  an d  Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  Bo n d s ,  Se r i e s  20 1 7 A . 3) T h i s  re p r e s e n t s  th e  $4 , 3 5 0 , 0 0 0  Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  po r t i o n  of  th e  $8 , 1 8 5 , 0 0 0  Ge n e r a l  Ob l i g a t i o n  Im p r o v e m e n t  an d  Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  Bo n d s ,  Se r i e s  20 1 8 A . 4) T h i s  re p r e s e n t s  th e  $4 , 7 9 0 , 0 0 0  Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  po r t i o n  of  th e  $8 , 1 4 5 , 0 0 0  Ge n e r a l  Ob l i g a t i o n  Im p r o v e m e n t  an d  Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  Bo n d s ,  Se r i e s  20 1 9 A . ‐‐ Co n t i n u e d  on  ne x t  pa g e Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  Bo n d s  4) Se r i e s  20 1 9 A  Bo n d s 09 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 9 $4 , 7 9 0 , 0 0 0 02 / 0 1 Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  Bo n d s  3) Se r i e s  20 1 8 A 07 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 8 $4 , 3 5 0 , 0 0 0 02 / 0 1 Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  Bo n d s  2) Se r i e s  20 1 7 A 06 / 0 8 / 2 0 1 7 $4 , 6 2 5 , 0 0 0 02 / 0 1 Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  Bo n d s  1) Se r i e s  20 1 6 A 10 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 6 $3 , 6 0 5 , 0 0 0 02 / 0 1 Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  Bo n d s Se r i e s  20 1 5 01 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 5 $1 9 , 6 6 2 , 3 5 2 08 / 2 0 18 Pa g e 1 9 3 o f 3 7 8 Ci t y  of  Br o o k l y n  Ce n t e r ,  Mi n n e s o t a Sc h e d u l e  of  Bo n d e d  In d e b t e d n e s s  co n t i n u e d Ge n e r a l  Ob l i g a t i o n  De b t  Se c u r e d  by  Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e s (A s  of  12 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 5 ) Da t e d Am o u n t Ma t u r i t y Ca l e n d a r   Ye a r  En d i n g P r i n c i p a l I n t e r e s t P r i n c i p a l I n t e r e s t P r i n c i p a l I n t e r e s t P r i n c i p a l I n t e r e s t P r i n c i p a l Es t i m a t e d   In t e r e s t T o t a l  Pr i n c i p a l T o t a l  In t e r e s t T o t a l  P & I Pr i n c i p a l   Ou t s t a n d i n g %  Pa i d Ca l e n d a r   Ye a r   En d i n g 20 2 6 28 0 , 0 0 0 2 4 , 6 6 3 4 7 5 , 0 0 0 1 0 0 , 3 5 0 1 9 5 , 0 0 0 8 3 , 9 7 5 4 4 5 , 0 0 0 2 5 2 , 5 2 5 0 1 2 8 , 6 9 6 4 , 3 3 3 , 0 0 0 9 1 2 , 8 5 2 5 , 2 4 5 , 8 5 2 3 1 , 8 4 7 , 0 0 0 1 1 . 9 8 % 20 2 6 20 2 7 29 0 , 0 0 0 1 8 , 9 6 3 4 9 5 , 0 0 0 8 0 , 9 5 0 2 1 0 , 0 0 0 7 3 , 8 5 0 4 6 0 , 0 0 0 2 2 9 , 9 0 0 5 1 5 , 0 0 0 1 9 9 , 6 4 9 4 , 9 9 8 , 0 0 0 8 4 7 , 3 8 8 5 , 8 4 5 , 3 8 8 2 6 , 8 4 9 , 0 0 0 2 5 . 7 9 % 20 2 7 20 2 8 29 0 , 0 0 0 1 3 , 1 6 3 5 2 0 , 0 0 0 6 3 , 2 5 0 2 2 0 , 0 0 0 6 3 , 1 0 0 4 8 5 , 0 0 0 2 0 6 , 2 7 5 5 5 5 , 0 0 0 1 8 2 , 9 3 5 4 , 7 6 9 , 0 0 0 7 0 1 , 7 9 7 5 , 4 7 0 , 7 9 7 2 2 , 0 8 0 , 0 0 0 3 8 . 9 7 % 20 2 8 20 2 9 30 0 , 0 0 0 8 , 7 6 3 5 3 5 , 0 0 0 4 7 , 4 2 5 2 3 0 , 0 0 0 5 1 , 8 5 0 5 1 0 , 0 0 0 1 8 1 , 4 0 0 5 7 0 , 0 0 0 1 6 5 , 4 9 8 4 , 3 7 5 , 0 0 0 5 6 7 , 9 3 5 4 , 9 4 2 , 9 3 5 1 7 , 7 0 5 , 0 0 0 5 1 . 0 6 % 20 2 9 20 3 0 30 0 , 0 0 0 5 , 5 3 8 5 5 0 , 0 0 0 3 1 , 1 5 0 2 4 0 , 0 0 0 4 0 , 1 0 0 5 3 5 , 0 0 0 1 5 5 , 2 7 5 5 9 0 , 0 0 0 1 4 7 , 3 7 0 3 , 9 6 0 , 0 0 0 4 4 7 , 9 8 3 4 , 4 0 7 , 9 8 3 1 3 , 7 4 5 , 0 0 0 6 2 . 0 1 % 20 3 0 20 3 1 30 5 , 0 0 0 1 , 9 0 6 5 6 5 , 0 0 0 1 7 , 2 5 0 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 2 7 , 8 5 0 5 6 0 , 0 0 0 1 2 7 , 9 0 0 6 0 5 , 0 0 0 1 2 8 , 3 9 8 3 , 3 8 1 , 0 0 0 3 4 7 , 8 0 4 3 , 7 2 8 , 8 0 4 1 0 , 3 6 4 , 0 0 0 7 1 . 3 5 % 20 3 1 20 3 2 58 0 , 0 0 0 5 , 8 0 0 2 6 5 , 0 0 0 1 6 , 3 0 0 5 9 0 , 0 0 0 9 9 , 1 5 0 6 2 5 , 0 0 0 1 0 8 , 4 0 5 3 , 1 6 7 , 0 0 0 2 6 3 , 1 9 5 3 , 4 3 0 , 1 9 5 7 , 1 9 7 , 0 0 0 8 0 . 1 1 % 20 3 2 20 3 3 27 5 , 0 0 0 5 , 5 0 0 6 2 0 , 0 0 0 6 8 , 9 0 0 6 4 5 , 0 0 0 8 7 , 1 2 8 2 , 6 5 8 , 0 0 0 1 8 3 , 9 9 8 2 , 8 4 1 , 9 9 8 4 , 5 3 9 , 0 0 0 8 7 . 4 5 % 20 3 3 20 3 4 65 5 , 0 0 0 4 0 , 3 0 0 6 7 0 , 0 0 0 6 4 , 4 3 8 2 , 4 5 4 , 0 0 0 1 1 6 , 0 2 8 2 , 5 7 0 , 0 2 8 2 , 0 8 5 , 0 0 0 9 4 . 2 4 % 20 3 4 20 3 5 68 0 , 0 0 0 1 3 , 6 0 0 6 9 0 , 0 0 0 4 0 , 1 2 0 1 , 3 7 0 , 0 0 0 5 3 , 7 2 0 1 , 4 2 3 , 7 2 0 7 1 5 , 0 0 0 9 8 . 0 2 % 20 3 5 20 3 6 71 5 , 0 0 0 1 3 , 7 6 4 7 1 5 , 0 0 0 1 3 , 7 6 4 7 2 8 , 7 6 4 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 % 20 3 6 1, 7 6 5 , 0 0 0 7 2 , 9 9 4 3 , 7 2 0 , 0 0 0 3 4 6 , 1 7 5 1 , 8 8 5 , 0 0 0 3 6 2 , 5 2 5 5 , 5 4 0 , 0 0 0 1 , 3 7 5 , 2 2 5 6 , 1 8 0 , 0 0 0 1 , 2 6 6 , 3 9 8 3 6 , 1 8 0 , 0 0 0 4 , 4 5 6 , 4 6 1 4 0 , 6 3 6 , 4 6 1 * Pr e l i m i n a r y ,  su b j e c t  to  ch a n g e . 5) T h i s  re p r e s e n t s  th e  $2 , 8 3 0 , 0 0 0  Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  po r t i o n  of  th e  $4 , 7 8 5 , 0 0 0  Ge n e r a l  Ob l i g a t i o n  Im p r o v e m e n t  an d  Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  Bo n d s ,  Se r i e s  20 2 0 A . 6) T h i s  re p r e s e n t s  th e  $2 , 2 4 0 , 0 0 0  Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  po r t i o n  of  th e  $4 , 3 3 5 , 0 0 0  Ge n e r a l  Ob l i g a t i o n  Im p r o v e m e n t  an d  Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  Bo n d s ,  Se r i e s  20 2 2 A . 7) T h i s  re p r e s e n t s  th e  $5 , 5 4 0 , 0 0 0  Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  po r t i o n  of  th e  $1 0 , 8 2 0 , 0 0 0  Ge n e r a l  Ob l i g a t i o n  Im p r o v e m e n t  an d  Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  Bo n d s ,  Se r i e s  20 2 4 A . Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  Bo n d s Se r i e s  20 2 5 A 12 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 5 $6 , 1 8 0 , 0 0 0 * 02 / 0 1 Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  Bo n d s  7) Se r i e s  20 2 4 A 06 / 1 3 / 2 0 2 4 $5 , 5 4 0 , 0 0 0 02 / 0 1 Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  Bo n d s  6) Se r i e s  20 2 2 A 12 / 1 5 / 2 0 2 2 $2 , 2 4 0 , 0 0 0 02 / 0 1 Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  Bo n d s Se r i e s  20 2 1 A 09 / 2 2 / 2 0 2 1 $5 , 0 0 5 , 0 0 0 02 / 0 1 Ut i l i t y  Re v e n u e  Bo n d s  5) Se r i e s  20 2 0 A 11 / 2 4 / 2 0 2 0 $2 , 8 3 0 , 0 0 0 02 / 0 1 19 Pa g e 1 9 4 o f 3 7 8 Br o o k l y n  Ce n t e r  Ec o n o m i c  De v e l o p m e n t  Au t h o r i t y ,  Mi n n e s o t a Sc h e d u l e  of  Bo n d e d  In d e b t e d n e s s No n ‐Ge n e r a l  Ob l i g a t i o n  De b t  Se c u r e d  by  An n u a l  Ap p r o p r i a t i o n (A s  of  12 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 5 ) Da t e d Am o u n t Ma t u r i t y Ca l e n d a r   Ye a r  En d i n g P r i n c i p a l I n t e r e s t T o t a l  Pr i n c i p a l T o t a l  In t e r e s t T o t a l  P & I Pr i n c i p a l   Ou t s t a n d i n g %  Pa i d Ca l e n d a r   Ye a r   En d i n g 20 2 6 16 0 , 0 0 0 5 5 , 4 0 0 1 6 0 , 0 0 0 5 5 , 4 0 0 2 1 5 , 4 0 0 1 , 6 8 5 , 0 0 0 8 . 6 7 % 20 2 6 20 2 7 16 5 , 0 0 0 4 8 , 9 0 0 1 6 5 , 0 0 0 4 8 , 9 0 0 2 1 3 , 9 0 0 1 , 5 2 0 , 0 0 0 1 7 . 6 2 % 20 2 7 20 2 8 17 0 , 0 0 0 4 3 , 0 5 0 1 7 0 , 0 0 0 4 3 , 0 5 0 2 1 3 , 0 5 0 1 , 3 5 0 , 0 0 0 2 6 . 8 3 % 20 2 8 20 2 9 17 5 , 0 0 0 3 7 , 8 7 5 1 7 5 , 0 0 0 3 7 , 8 7 5 2 1 2 , 8 7 5 1 , 1 7 5 , 0 0 0 3 6 . 3 1 % 20 2 9 20 3 0 18 0 , 0 0 0 3 2 , 5 5 0 1 8 0 , 0 0 0 3 2 , 5 5 0 2 1 2 , 5 5 0 9 9 5 , 0 0 0 4 6 . 0 7 % 20 3 0 20 3 1 18 5 , 0 0 0 2 7 , 0 7 5 1 8 5 , 0 0 0 2 7 , 0 7 5 2 1 2 , 0 7 5 8 1 0 , 0 0 0 5 6 . 1 0 % 20 3 1 20 3 2 19 5 , 0 0 0 2 1 , 3 7 5 1 9 5 , 0 0 0 2 1 , 3 7 5 2 1 6 , 3 7 5 6 1 5 , 0 0 0 6 6 . 6 7 % 20 3 2 20 3 3 20 0 , 0 0 0 1 5 , 4 5 0 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 5 , 4 5 0 2 1 5 , 4 5 0 4 1 5 , 0 0 0 7 7 . 5 1 % 20 3 3 20 3 4 20 5 , 0 0 0 9 , 3 7 5 2 0 5 , 0 0 0 9 , 3 7 5 2 1 4 , 3 7 5 2 1 0 , 0 0 0 8 8 . 6 2 % 20 3 4 20 3 5 21 0 , 0 0 0 3 , 1 5 0 2 1 0 , 0 0 0 3 , 1 5 0 2 1 3 , 1 5 0 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 % 20 3 5 1, 8 4 5 , 0 0 0 2 9 4 , 2 0 0 1 , 8 4 5 , 0 0 0 2 9 4 , 2 0 0 2 , 1 3 9 , 2 0 0 Le a s e  Re v e n u e  Bo n d s Se r i e s  20 1 9 B 09 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 9 $2 , 5 2 0 , 0 0 0 02 / 0 1 20 Pa g e 1 9 5 o f 3 7 8 OVERLAPPING DEBT1 Taxing District 2024/25 Adjusted Taxable Net Tax Capacity % In City Total G.O. Debt2 City's Proportionate Share Hennepin County $2,835,449,560 1.5552%$1,149,000,000 3 $17,869,248 I.S.D. No. 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)415,039,402 1.3846%223,625,000 4 3,096,312 I.S.D. No. 279 (Osseo Area Schools)304,897,242 4.5742%358,685,000 4 16,406,969 I.S.D. No. 281 (Robbinsdale Area Schools)165,630,794 6.0180%194,150,000 4 11,683,947 I.S.D. No. 286 (Brookly n Center)14,435,202 100.0000%41,308,000 4 41,308,000 Metropolitan Council 6,330,160,332 0.6966%235,750,000 5 1,642,235 Three Rivers Park District 2,073,090,874 2.1271%49,625,000 1,055,573 City's Share of Total Overlapping Debt $93,062,284 1 Overlapping debt is as of the dated date of the Bonds. Only those taxing jurisdictions with general obligation debt outstanding are included in this section. It does not include non-general obligation debt, self-supporting general obligation revenue debt, short-term general obligation debt, or general obligation tax/aid anticipation certificates of indebtedness. 2 Outstanding debt is based on information in Official Statements obtained on EMMA and the Municipal Advisor's records. 3 Hennepin County also has General Obligation Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Ballpark Project) outstanding which are payable entirely from the proceeds of a dedicated 0.15% county-wide sales tax; and General Obligation Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Transportation Sales Tax) which are expected to be paid from a 0.50% sales and use tax and a $20 per vehicle excise taxes. These issues have not been included in the overlapping debt or debt ratios. 4 Minnesota School Districts may qualify for aid from the State of Minnesota through the Debt Service Equalization Formula, School Building Bond Agricultural Credit and Long Term Facilities Maintenance Revenue programs. While some of the districts listed may receive these aids, Ehlers has not attempted to estimate the portion of debt service payments that would be financed by State aids for the purposes of the Bonds. 5 The above debt includes all outstanding general obligation debt supported by taxes of the Metropolitan Council. The Council also has general obligation wastewater revenue, grant anticipation notes and certificates of participation outstanding all of which are supported entirely by revenues and have not been included in the overlapping debt or debt ratios sections. 21 Page 196 of 378 DEBT RATIOS G.O. Debt Debt/Economic Market Value $3,543,540,308 Debt/ Per Capita 34,4091 Direct G.O. Debt Secured By: Special Assessments & Taxes $16,210,000 Tax Increment Revenues 1,410,000 Utility Revenues*36,180,000 Total General Obligation Debt*$53,800,000 Less: G.O. Debt Paid Entirely from Revenues2 (36,180,000) Tax Supported General Obligation Debt*$17,620,000 0.50%$512.08 City's Share of Total Overlapping Debt $93,062,284 2.63%$2,704.59 Total*$110,682,284 3.12%$3,216.67 *Preliminary, subject to change. TAX LEVIES, COLLECTIONS AND RATES TAX LEVIES AND COLLECTIONS Tax Year Net Tax Levy3 Total Collected Following Year Collected to Date % Collected 2020/21 $20,346,243 $20,146,371 $20,346,243 100.00% 2021/22 21,770,826 21,578,048 21,750,157 99.91% 2022/23 23,212,340 23,040,217 23,178,719 99.86% 2023/24 24,947,082 24,743,282 24,743,282 99.18% 2024/25 26,978,976 In process of collection Property taxes are collected in two installments in Minnesota--the first by May 15 and the second by October 15.4 Mobile home taxes are collectible in full by August 31. Minnesota Statutes require that levies (taxes and special assessments) for debt service be at least 105% of the actual debt service requirem ents to allow for delinquencies. 1 Estimated 2024 population. 2 Debt service on the City's general obligation revenue debt is being paid entirely from revenues and therefore is considered self-supporting debt. 3 This reflects the Final Levy Certification of the City after all adjustments have been made. 4 Second half tax payments on agricultural property are due on November 15th of each year. 22 Page 197 of 378 TAX CAPACITY RATES1 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Hennepin County 38.210%38.535%34.542%34.681%37.081% City of Brooklyn Center 66.260%57.109%55.969%58.155%62.192% I.S.D. No. 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)16.087%16.341%13.671%13.592%13.598% I.S.D. No. 279 (Osseo Area Schools)22.123%21.933%19.640%23.002%23.640% I.S.D. No. 281 (Robbinsdale Area Schools)25.529%26.507%24.092%24.209%25.379% I.S.D. No. 286 (Brooklyn Center)45.987%33.393%32.839%38.110%39.118% Hennepin County HRA 0.722%0.771%0.663%0.624%0.797% Hennepin County RRA 1.323%1.329%1.188%1.153%1.205% Metropolitan Council 0.631%0.659%0.576%0.614%0.567% Metro Mosquito 0.381%0.377%0.331%0.312%0.328% Metro Transit 1.256%1.204%1.066%0.927%1.134% Park Museum 0.707%0.722%0.647%0.694%0.744% Three Rivers Park District 2.793%2.787%2.473%2.399%2.471% Referendum Market Value Rates: I.S.D. No. 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)0.23763%0.22763%0.21184%0.20707%0.19635% I.S.D. No. 279 (Osseo Area Schools)0.23168%0.21478%0.25595%0.25276%0.24216% I.S.D. No. 281 (Robbinsdale Area Schools)0.24121%0.21608%0.21763%0.22058%0.21036% I.S.D. No. 286 (Brooklyn Center)0.19085%0.16944%0.15741%0.18569%0.17836% Source: Tax Levies and Collections and Tax Capacity Rates have been furnished by Hennepin County. THE ISSUER CITY GOVERNMENT The City was organized as a municipality in 1911. The City operates under a home rule charter form of government consisting of a five-member City Council of which the Mayor is a voting member. The City Manager and Finance Director are responsible for administrative details and financial records. 1 After reduction for State aids. Does not include the statewide general property tax against commercial/industrial, non-homestead resorts and seasonal recreational residential property. 23 Page 198 of 378 EMPLOYEES; PENSIONS; UNIONS The City currently has 167 full-time, 137 part-time, and 47 seasonal employees. All full-time and certain part-time employees of the City are covered by defined benefit pension plans administered by the Public Employee Retirement Association of Minnesota (PERA). PERA administers the General Employees Retirement Fund (GERF) and the Public Employees Police and Fire Fund (PEPFF) which are cost-sharing multiple-employer retirement plans. PERA members belong to either the Coordinated Plan or the Basic Plan. Coordinated members are covered by Social Security. See the Notes to Financial Statements in Appendix A for a detailed description of the Plans. Recognized and Certified Bargaining Units Bargaining Unit Expiration Date of Current Contract IUOE Local 49 December 31, 2025 IUOE Local 70 December 31, 2026 LELS Local 82 December 31, 2024 LELS Local 86 December 31, 2027 LELS Local 512 December 31, 2024 LELS Local 520 December 31, 2024 Status of Contracts Contracts which expired on December 31, 2024 are currently in negotiations. POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS The City has obligations for some post-employment benefits for its employees. Accounting for these obligations is dictated by Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 75 (GASB 75). The City's most recent actuarial study shows a total OPEB liability of $4,013,370 as of December 31, 2024. The City has been funding these obligations on a pay -as-you-go basis. Source: The City's most recent actuarial study. LITIGATION There is no litigation threatened or pending questioning the organization or boundaries of the City or the right of any of its officers to their respective offices or in any manner questioning their rights and power to execute and deliver the Bonds or otherwise questioning the validity of the Bonds. 24 Page 199 of 378 MUNICIPAL BANKRUPTCY Municipalities are prohibited from filing for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 (reorganization) or Chapter 7 (liquidation) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532) (the "Bankruptcy Code"). Instead, the Bankruptcy Code permits municipalities to file a petition under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code, but only if certain requirements are met. These requirements include that the municipality must be "specifically authorized" under State law to file for relief under Chapter 9. For these purposes, "State law" may include, without limitation, statutes of general applicability enacted by the State legislature, special legislation applicable to a particular municipality, and/or executive orders issued by an appropriate officer of the State's executive branch. As of the date hereof, Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.831, authorizes municipalities to file for bankruptcy relief under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code. A municipality is defined in United States Code, title 11, section 101, as amended through December 31, 1996, but limited to a county, statutory or home rule charter city, or town; or a housing and redevelopment authority, economic development authority, or rural development financing authority established under Chapter 469, a home rule charter or special law. FUNDS ON HAND (as of October 28, 2025) Fund Total Cash and Investments General $6,703,284 Special Revenue 8,285,055 Debt Service 2,399,219 Capital Projects 11,338,117 Enterprise Funds 12,819,402 Internal Service Fund 5,095,466 Total Funds on Hand $46,640,543 25 Page 200 of 378 ENTERPRISE FUNDS Revenues available for debt service on the City's enterprise funds have been as follows as of December 31 each year: 2022 Audited 2023 Audited 2024 Audited Water Total Operating Revenues $4,629,601 $4,916,296 $4,968,351 Less:Operating Expenses (4,582,503)(4,672,984)(4,888,937) Operating Income $47,098 $243,312 $79,414 Plus:Depreciation 1,970,439 1,980,486 1,989,268 Revenues Available for Debt Service $2,017,537 $2,223,798 $2,068,682 Sanitary Sewer Total Operating Revenues $5,117,729 $5,293,565 $5,560,917 Less:Operating Expenses (4,584,487)(5,219,531)(5,627,601) Operating Income $533,242 $74,034 ($66,684) Plus:Depreciation 1,092,596 1,094,978 1,116,576 Revenues Available for Debt Service $1,625,838 $1,169,012 $1,049,892 Storm Drainage Total Operating Revenues $1,887,218 $2,021,084 $2,105,576 Less:Operating Expenses (2,285,594)(2,451,472)(2,410,968) Operating Income ($398,376)($430,388)($305,392) Plus:Depreciation 1,493,669 1,507,679 1,464,622 Revenues Available for Debt Service $1,095,293 $1,077,291 $1,159,230 26 Page 201 of 378 SUMMARY GENERAL FUND INFORMATION COMBINED STATEMENT 2021 Audited 2022 Audited 2023 Audited 2024 Audited 2025 Adopted Budget1 Revenues Taxes $18,432,435 $20,304,982 $21,887,077 $23,329,835 $23,905,128 Special assessments 40,766 34,393 40,774 66,982 100,000 Licenses and permits 774,592 872,456 1,080,983 913,266 1,021,195 Intergovernmental 2,043,721 2,091,518 1,974,117 2,356,113 2,200,313 Charges for services 387,295 571,510 656,095 700,913 560,965 Fine and forfeitures 161,915 175,901 333,467 361,302 188,000 Lodging taxes 732,538 0 0 0 900,000 Interest on investments (19,188)(403,158)510,641 488,405 200,000 Miscellaneous 373,580 159,983 304,285 284,538 405,944 Total Revenues $22,927,654 $23,807,585 $26,787,439 $28,501,354 $29,481,545 Expenditures Current: General government $3,701,073 $5,058,806 $5,227,996 $5,607,768 $6,197,556 Public safety 12,750,786 12,261,979 14,189,305 14,884,269 16,058,942 Public works 2,309,155 2,588,110 2,912,920 3,107,609 3,366,789 Community services 210,488 70,958 180,657 131,795 130,000 Parks and recreation 3,276,003 3,761,762 3,998,649 4,201,372 4,313,442 Economic development 625,866 654,896 709,363 627,263 552,397 Nondepartmental 981,670 452,822 559,725 508,534 579,708 Capital outlay 11,752 306,920 42,941 4,996 0 Total Expenditures $23,866,793 $25,156,253 $27,821,556 $29,073,606 $31,198,834 Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures ($939,139)($1,348,668)($1,034,117)($572,252)($1,717,289) Other Financing Sources (Uses) Administrative services reimbursement $0 $1,437,048 $1,771,717 $1,765,095 $2,047,289 Transfers in 108,410 0 0 123,992 0 Transfers (out)(215,000)(210,000)(180,000)(166,700)(330,000) Total Other Financing Sources (Uses)(106,590)1,227,048 1,591,717 1,722,387 1,717,289 ($1,045,729)($121,620)$557,600 $1,150,135 $0 General Fund Balance January 1 $14,205,568 $13,159,839 $13,038,219 $13,595,819 Prior Period Adjustment 0 0 0 0 Residual Equity Transfer in (out)0 0 0 0 General Fund Balance December 31 $13,159,839 $13,038,219 $13,595,819 $14,745,954 DETAILS OF DECEMBER 31 FUND BALANCE Nonspendable $69,152 $76,485 $188,428 $190,099 Unassigned 13,090,687 12,961,734 13,407,391 14,555,855 Total $13,159,839 $13,038,219 $13,595,819 $14,745,954 1 The 2025 budget was adopted on December 2, 2024. Net changes in Fund Balances The following are summaries of the revenues, expenditures and fund balances for the City's General Fund. These summaries are not purported to be the complete audited financial statements of the City, and potential purchasers should read the included financial statements in their entirety for more complete information concerning the City. Copies of the complete statements are available upon request. Appendix A includes the 2024 audited financial statements. FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31 27 Page 202 of 378 GENERAL INFORMATION LOCATION The City, with a 2020 U.S. Census population of 33,782 and a 2024 population estimate of 34,409, and comprising an area of 8.5 square miles, is located approximately 20 miles northwest of St. Paul, Minnesota. LARGER EMPLOYERS1 Larger employers in the City include the following: Firm Type of Business/Product Estimated No. of Employees Promeon, Inc. (a division of Medtronic) Medical devices 901 Luther Auto Group Automobile dealership 591 2 ISD No. 286 (Brookly n Center)Elementary and secondary education 430 The City Municipal government and services 351 Maranatha Assisted living & nursing home 185 Hennepin County County government and services 155 Cub Groceries 153 North Memorial Health Clinic Healthcare 150 Careview Home Health Home health care services 137 Caribou Coffee Coffee shop & headquarters 125 Source:The City, Data Axle Reference Solutions, written and telephone survey, and the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. 1 This does not purport to be a comprehensive list and is based on available data obtained through a survey of individual employers, as well as the sources identified above. 2 Includes four dealership locations in the City . 28 Page 203 of 378 BUILDING PERMITS (as of October 28, 2025) 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 New Single Family Homes No. of building permits 2 1 3 1 0 Valuation $460,000 $300,000 $967,880 $310,236 $0 New Multiple Family Buildings No. of building permits 2 0 1 0 0 Valuation $719,872 $0 $16,529,132 $0 $0 New Commercial/Industrial No. of building permits 1 0 0 1 1 Valuation $1,093,000 $0 $0 $1,843,000 $375,000 All Building Permits (including additions and remodelings) No. of building permits 826 820 954 1,089 873 Valuation $35,369,057 $19,268,609 $40,882,974 $19,247,004 $22,252,401 Source:The City. U.S. CENSUS DATA Population Trend: The City 2010 U.S. Census population 30,104 2020 U.S. Census population 33,782 Percent of Change 2010 - 2020 12.22% 2024 Metropolitan Council Population Estim ate 34,409 29 Page 204 of 378 Income and Age Statistics The City Hennepin County State of Minnesota United States 2023 per capita income $29,996 $57,633 $46,957 $43,289 2023 median household income $72,009 $96,339 $87,556 $78,538 2023 median family income $79,400 $131,862 $111,492 $96,922 2023 median gross rent $1,345 $1,439 $1,235 $1,348 2023 median value owner occupied units $261,100 $376,500 $305,500 $303,400 2023 median age 32.8 yrs.37.4 yrs.38.6 yrs.38.7 yrs. State of Minnesota United States City % of 2023 per capita income 63.88%69.29% City % of 2023 median family income 71.22%81.92% Housing Statistics The City 2020 2024 Percent of Change All Housing Units 11,309 11,592 2.50% Source:2010 and 2020 Census of Population and Housing, and 2023 American Community Survey (Based on a five-year estimate), U.S. Census Bureau (https://data.census.gov), and 2024 Population Estimates, Metropolitan Council (https://metrocouncil.org/). EMPLOYMENT/UNEMPLOYMENT DATA Rates are not compiled for individual communities within counties. Average Employment Average Unemployment Year Hennepin County Hennepin County State of Minnesota 2021 681,260 3.6%3.7% 2022 692,548 2.3%2.5% 2023 695,992 2.5%2.8% 2024 696,300 2.8%3.0% 2025, August 693,201 4.1%4.2% Source: Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. 30 Page 205 of 378 APPENDIX A FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Potential purchasers should read the included financial statements in their entirety for more complete information concerning the City's financial position. Such financial statements have been audited by the Auditor, to the extent and for the periods indicated thereon. The City has not requested or engaged the Auditor to perform, and the Auditor has not performed, any additional examination, assessments, procedures or evaluation with respect to such financial statements since the date thereof or with respect to this Preliminary Official Statement, nor has the City requested that the Auditor consent to the use of such financial statements in this Preliminary Official Statement. Although the inclusion of the financial statements in this Preliminary Official Statement is not intended to demonstrate the fiscal condition of the City since the date of the financial statements, in connection with the issuance of the Bonds, the City represents that there have been no material adverse change in the financial position or results of operations of the City, nor has the City incurred any material liabilities, which would make such financial statements misleading. Copies of the complete audited financial statements for the past three years and the current budget are available upon request from Ehlers. A-1 Page 206 of 378 Page 207 of 378 Page 208 of 378 Page 209 of 378 Page 210 of 378 Page 211 of 378 Page 212 of 378 Page 213 of 378 Page 214 of 378 Page 215 of 378 Page 216 of 378 Page 217 of 378 Page 218 of 378 Page 219 of 378 Page 220 of 378 Page 221 of 378 Page 222 of 378 Page 223 of 378 Page 224 of 378 Page 225 of 378 Page 226 of 378 Page 227 of 378 Page 228 of 378 Page 229 of 378 Page 230 of 378 Page 231 of 378 Page 232 of 378 Page 233 of 378 Page 234 of 378 Page 235 of 378 Page 236 of 378 Page 237 of 378 Page 238 of 378 Page 239 of 378 Page 240 of 378 Page 241 of 378 Page 242 of 378 Page 243 of 378 Page 244 of 378 Page 245 of 378 Page 246 of 378 Page 247 of 378 Page 248 of 378 Page 249 of 378 Page 250 of 378 Page 251 of 378 Page 252 of 378 Page 253 of 378 Page 254 of 378 Page 255 of 378 Page 256 of 378 Page 257 of 378 Page 258 of 378 Page 259 of 378 Page 260 of 378 Page 261 of 378 Page 262 of 378 Page 263 of 378 Page 264 of 378 Page 265 of 378 Page 266 of 378 Page 267 of 378 Page 268 of 378 Page 269 of 378 Page 270 of 378 Page 271 of 378 Page 272 of 378 Page 273 of 378 Page 274 of 378 Page 275 of 378 Page 276 of 378 Page 277 of 378 Page 278 of 378 Page 279 of 378 Page 280 of 378 Page 281 of 378 Page 282 of 378 Page 283 of 378 Page 284 of 378 Page 285 of 378 Page 286 of 378 Page 287 of 378 Page 288 of 378 Page 289 of 378 Page 290 of 378 Page 291 of 378 Page 292 of 378 Page 293 of 378 Page 294 of 378 Page 295 of 378 Page 296 of 378 Page 297 of 378 Page 298 of 378 Page 299 of 378 Page 300 of 378 Page 301 of 378 Page 302 of 378 Page 303 of 378 Page 304 of 378 Page 305 of 378 Page 306 of 378 Page 307 of 378 Page 308 of 378 Page 309 of 378 Page 310 of 378 Page 311 of 378 Page 312 of 378 Page 313 of 378 Page 314 of 378 Page 315 of 378 Page 316 of 378 Page 317 of 378 Page 318 of 378 Page 319 of 378 Page 320 of 378 Page 321 of 378 Page 322 of 378 Page 323 of 378 Page 324 of 378 Page 325 of 378 Page 326 of 378 Page 327 of 378 Page 328 of 378 Page 329 of 378 Page 330 of 378 Page 331 of 378 Page 332 of 378 Page 333 of 378 Page 334 of 378 Page 335 of 378 Page 336 of 378 Page 337 of 378 Page 338 of 378 Page 339 of 378 Page 340 of 378 Page 341 of 378 Page 342 of 378 Page 343 of 378 Page 344 of 378 Page 345 of 378 Page 346 of 378 Page 347 of 378 Page 348 of 378 Page 349 of 378 Page 350 of 378 Page 351 of 378 Page 352 of 378 Page 353 of 378 APPENDIX B FORM OF LEGAL OPINION (See following pages) B-1 Page 354 of 378 4937-0710-9225.1 Kutak Rock LLP 60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3400, Minneapolis, MN 55402-4018 office 612.334.5000 $6,180,000 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds Series 2025A We have acted as bond counsel to the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the “Issuer”) in connection with the issuance by the Issuer of its General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A (the “Bonds”), originally dated the date hereof, and issued in the original aggregate principal amount of $6,180,000. In such capacity and for the purpose of rendering this opinion we have examined certified copies of certain proceedings, certifications and other documents, and applicable laws as we have deemed necessary. Regarding questions of fact material to this opinion, we have relied on certified proceedings and other certifications of public officials and other documents furnished to us without undertaking to verify the same by independent investigation. Under existing laws, regulations, rulings and decisions in effect on the date hereof, and based on the foregoing we are of the opinion that: 1. The Bonds have been duly authorized and executed, and are valid and binding general obligations of the Issuer, enforceable against the Issuer in accordance with their terms. 2. The principal of and interest on the Bond are payable in part from revenues of the water and sewer systems of the Issuer, if necessary for the payment thereof ad valorem property taxes are required by law to be levied on all taxable property of the Issuer, which taxes are not subject to any limitation as to rate or amount. 3. Interest on the Bonds is excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes and is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals. Interest on the Bonds is excludable, to the same extent, from taxable net income of individuals, trusts, and estates for Minnesota income tax purposes and is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the Minnesota alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals, trusts and estates. The opinion set forth in the preceding sentences is subject to the condition that the Issuer comply with all requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, that must be satisfied subsequent to the issuance of the Bonds in order that the interest thereon be, and continue to be, excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes and taxable net income for Minnesota income tax purposes. The Issuer has covenanted to comply with all such requirements. Failure to comply with certain of such requirements may cause interest on the Bonds to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes retroactively to the date of issuance of the Bonds. Interest on the Bonds may affect the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on certain corporations and such interest is subject to Minnesota franchise taxes on certain corporations (including financial institutions) measured by income. We express no opinion regarding tax consequences arising with respect to the Bonds other than as expressly set forth herein. 4. The rights of the owners of the Bonds and the enforceability of the Bonds may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium, and other similar laws affecting creditors’ rights generally and by equitable principles, whether considered at law or in equity. We have not been asked and have not undertaken to review the accuracy, completeness or B-2 Page 355 of 378 4937-0710-9225.1 sufficiency of the Official Statement or other offering material relating to the Bonds, and accordingly we express no opinion with respect thereto. This opinion is given as of the date hereof and we assume no obligation to update, revise, or supplement this opinion to reflect any facts or circumstances that may hereafter come to our attention or any changes in law that may hereafter occur. Dated _______, 2025 at Minneapolis, Minnesota. B-3 Page 356 of 378 APPENDIX C BOOK-ENTRY-ONLY SYSTEM 1.The Depository Trust Company ("DTC"), New York, New York, will act as securities depository for the securities (the "Securities"). The Securities will be issued as fully-registered securities registered in the name of Cede & Co. (DTC's partnership nominee) or such other name as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC. One fully-registered Security certificate will be issued for [each issue of] the Securities, [each] in the aggregate principal amount of such issue, and will be deposited with DTC. [If, however, the aggregate principal amount of [any] issue exceeds $500 million, one certificate will be issued with respect to each $500 million of principal amount, and an additional certificate will be issued with respect to any remaining principal amount of such issue.] 2. DTC, the world's largest securities depository, is a limited-purpose trust company organized under the New York Banking Law, a "banking organization" within the meaning of the New York Banking Law, a member of the Federal Reserve System, a "clearing corporation" within the meaning of the New York Uniform Commercial Code, and a "clearing agency" registered pursuant to the provisions of Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. DTC holds and provides asset servicing for over 3.5 million issues of U.S. and non-U.S. equity issues, corporate and municipal debt issues, and money market instruments (from over 100 countries) that DTC's participants ("Direct Participants") deposit with DTC. DTC also facilitates the post-trade settlement among Direct Participants of sales and other securities transactions in deposited securities, through electronic computerized book-entry transfers and pledges between Direct Participants' accounts. This eliminates the need for physical movement of securities certificates. Direct Participants include both U.S. and non-U.S. securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, clearing corporations, and certain other organizations. DTC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation ("DTCC"). DTCC is the holding company for DTC, National Securities Clearing Corporation and Fixed Income Clearing Corporation, all of which are registered clearing agencies. DTCC is owned by the users of its regulated subsidiaries. Access to the DTC system is also available to others such as both U.S. and non-U.S. securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, and clearing corporations that clear through or maintain a custodial relationship with a Direct Participant, either directly or indirectly ("Indirect Participants"). DTC has a Standard & Poor's rating of AA+. The DTC Rules applicable to its Participants are on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. More information about DTC can be found at www.dtcc.com. 3. Purchases of Securities under the DTC system must be made by or through Direct Participants, which will receive a credit for the Securities on DTC's records. The ownership interest of each actual purchaser of each Security ("Beneficial Owner") is in turn to be recorded on the Direct and Indirect Participants' records. Beneficial Owners will not receive written confirmation from DTC of their purchase. Beneficial Owners are, however, expected to receive written confirmations providing details of the transaction, as well as periodic statements of their holdings, from the Direct or Indirect Participant through which the Beneficial Owner entered into the transaction. Transfers of ownership interests in the Securities are to be accomplished by entries made on the books of Direct and Indirect Participants acting on behalf of Beneficial Owners. Beneficial Owners will not receive certificates representing their ownership interests in Securities, except in the event that use of the book-entry system for the Securities is discontinued. 4. To facilitate subsequent transfers, all Securities deposited by Direct Participants with DTC are registered in the name of DTC's partnership nominee, Cede & Co., or such other name as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC. The deposit of Securities with DTC and their registration in the name of Cede & Co. or such other DTC nominee do not effect any change in beneficial ownership. DTC has no knowledge of the actual Beneficial Owners of the Securities; DTC's records reflect only the identity of the Direct Participants to whose accounts such Securities are credited, which may or may not be the Beneficial Owners. The Direct and Indirect Participants will remain responsible for keeping account of their holdings on behalf of their customers. C-1 Page 357 of 378 5. Conveyance of notices and other communications by DTC to Direct Participants, by Direct Participants to Indirect Participants, and by Direct Participants and Indirect Participants to Beneficial Owners will be governed by arrangements among them, subject to any statutory or regulatory requirements as may be in effect from time to time. [Beneficial Owners of Securities may wish to take certain steps to augment the transmission to them of notices of significant events with respect to the Securities, such as redemptions, tenders, defaults, and proposed amendments to the Security documents. For example, Beneficial Owners of Securities may wish to ascertain that the nominee holding the Securities for their benefit has agreed to obtain and transmit notices to Beneficial Owners. In the alternative, Beneficial Owners may wish to provide their names and addresses to the registrar and request that copies of notices be provided directly to them.] 6. Redemption notices shall be sent to DTC. If less than all of the Securities within an issue are being redeemed, DTC's practice is to determine by lot the amount of the interest of each Direct Participant in such issue to be redeemed. 7. Neither DTC nor Cede & Co. (nor any other DTC nominee) will consent or vote with respect to Securities unless authorized by a Direct Participant in accordance with DTC's MMI Procedures. Under its usual procedures, DTC mails an Omnibus Proxy to City as soon as possible after the record date. The Omnibus Proxy assigns Cede & Co.'s consenting or voting rights to those Direct Participants to whose accounts Securities are credited on the record date (identified in a listing attached to the Omnibus Proxy). 8. Redemption proceeds, distributions, and dividend payments on the Securities will be made to Cede & Co., or such other nominee as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC. DTC's practice is to credit Direct Participants' accounts upon DTC's receipt of funds and corresponding detail information from the City or Agent, on payable date in accordance with their respective holdings shown on DTC's records. Payments by Participants to Beneficial Owners will be governed by standing instructions and customary practices, as is the case with securities held for the accounts of customers in bearer form or registered in "street name," and will be the responsibility of such Participant and not of DTC, Agent, or the City, subject to any statutory or regulatory requirements as may be in effect from time to time. Payment of redemption proceeds, distributions, and dividend payments to Cede & Co. (or such other nominee as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC) is the responsibility of the City or Agent, disbursement of such payments to Direct Participants will be the responsibility of DTC, and disbursement of such payments to the Beneficial Owners will be the responsibility of Direct and Indirect Participants. 9. A Beneficial Owner shall give notice to elect to have its Securities purchased or tendered, through its Participant, to [Tender/Remarketing] Agent, and shall effect delivery of such Securities by causing the Direct Participant to transfer the Participant's interest in the Securities, on DTC's records, to [Tender/Remarketing] Agent. The requirement for physical delivery of Securities in connection with an optional tender or a mandatory purchase will be deemed satisfied when the ownership rights in the Securities are transferred by Direct Participants on DTC's records and followed by a book-entry credit of tendered Securities to [Tender/Remarketing] Agent's DTC account. 10.DTC may discontinue providing its services as depository with respect to the Securities at any time by giving reasonable notice to the City or Agent. Under such circumstances, in the event that a successor depository is not obtained, Security certificates are required to be printed and delivered. 11.The City may decide to discontinue use of the system of book-entry-only transfers through DTC (or a successor securities depository). In that event, Security certificates will be printed and delivered to DTC. 12.The information in this section concerning DTC and DTC's book-entry system has been obtained from sources that the City believes to be reliable, but the City takes no responsibility for the accuracy thereof. C-2 Page 358 of 378 APPENDIX D FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE (See following pages) D-1 Page 359 of 378 4904-1811-9529.1 $6,180,000 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds Series 2025A CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE _______, 2025 This Continuing Disclosure Certificate (the “Disclosure Certificate”) is executed and delivered by the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the “Issuer”) in connection with the issuance of its General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A (the “Bonds”) in the original aggregate principal amount of $6,180,000. The Bonds are being issued pursuant to resolutions adopted by the City Council of the Issuer (the “Resolutions”). The Bonds are being delivered to ________________, ________, ______ (the “Purchaser”) on the date hereof. Pursuant to the Resolutions, the Issuer has covenanted and agreed to provide continuing disclosure of certain financial information and operating data and timely notices of the occurrence of certain events. The Issuer hereby covenants and agrees as follows: Section 1. Purpose of the Disclosure Certificate. This Disclosure Certificate is being executed and delivered by the Issuer for the benefit of the Holders (as defined herein) of the Bonds in order to provide for the public availability of such information and assist the Participating Underwriter(s) (as defined herein) in complying with the Rule (as defined herein). This Disclosure Certificate, together with the Resolutions, constitutes the written agreement or contract for the benefit of the Holders of the Bonds that is required by the Rule. Section 2. Definitions. In addition to the defined terms set forth in the Resolutions, which apply to any capitalized term used in this Disclosure Certificate unless otherwise defined in this Section, the following capitalized terms shall have the following meanings: “Annual Report” means any annual report provided by the Issuer pursuant to, and as described in, Sections 3 and 4 of this Disclosure Certificate. “Audited Financial Statements” means annual financial statements of the Issuer, prepared in accordance with GAAP as prescribed by GASB. “Bonds” means the General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A, issued by the Issuer in the original aggregate principal amount of $6,180,000. “Disclosure Certificate” means this Continuing Disclosure Certificate. “EMMA” means the Electronic Municipal Market Access system operated by the MSRB and designated as a nationally recognized municipal securities information repository and the exclusive portal for complying with the continuing disclosure requirements of the Rule. “Final Official Statement” means the deemed final Official Statement, dated _______, 2025, which constitutes the final official statement delivered in connection with the Bonds, which is available from the MSRB. D-2 Page 360 of 378 4904-1811-9529.1 “Financial Obligation” means a (a) debt obligation; (b) derivative instrument entered into in connection with, or pledged as security or a source of payment for, an existing or planned debt obligation; or (c) guarantee of a Financial Obligation as described in clause (a) or (b). The term “Financial Obligation” shall not include municipal securities as to which a final official statement has been provided to the MSRB consistent with the Rule. “Fiscal Year” means the fiscal year of the Issuer. “GAAP” means generally accepted accounting principles for governmental units as prescribed by GASB. “GASB” means the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. “Holder” means the person in whose name a Bond is registered or a beneficial owner of such a Bond. “Issuer” means the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, which is the obligated person with respect to the Bonds. “Material Event” means any of the events listed in Section 5(a) of this Disclosure Certificate. “MSRB” means the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board located at 1300 I Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005. “Participating Underwriter” means any of the original underwriter(s) of the Bonds (including the Purchaser) required to comply with the Rule in connection with the offering of the Bonds. “Purchaser” means ________________, ________, ______. “Repository” means EMMA, or any successor thereto designated by the SEC. “Rule” means SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5) promulgated by the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as the same may be amended from time to time, and including written interpretations thereof by the SEC. “SEC” means Securities and Exchange Commission, and any successor thereto. Section 3. Provision of Annual Financial Information and Audited Financial Statements. (a) The Issuer shall provide to the Repository not later than 12 months after the end of the Fiscal Year commencing with the year that ends December 31, 2025, an Annual Report which is consistent with the requirements of Section 4 of this Disclosure Certificate. The Annual Report may be submitted as a single document or as separate documents comprising a package, and may cross-reference other information as provided in Section 4 of this Disclosure Certificate; provided that the Audited Financial Statements of the Issuer may be submitted separately from the balance of the Annual Report. (b) If the Issuer is unable or fails to provide to the Repository an Annual Report by the date required in subsection (a), the Issuer shall send a notice of that fact to the Repository and the MSRB. (c) The Issuer shall determine each year prior to the date for providing the Annual Report the name and address of each Repository. D-3 Page 361 of 378 4904-1811-9529.1 Section 4. Content of Annual Reports. The Issuer’s Annual Report shall contain or incorporate by reference the following sections of the Final Official Statement: 1. Current Property Valuations 2. Direct Debt 3. Tax Levies and Collections 4. U.S. Census Data/Population Trend 5. Employment/Unemployment Data In addition to the items listed above, the Annual Report shall include Audited Financial Statements submitted in accordance with Section 3 of this Disclosure Certificate. Any or all of the items listed above may be incorporated by reference from other documents, including official statements of debt issues of the Issuer or related public entities, which have been submitted to the Repository or the SEC. If the document incorporated by reference is a final official statement, it must also be available from the MSRB. The Issuer shall clearly identify each such other document so incorporated by reference. Section 5. Reporting of Material Events. (a) This Section 5 shall govern the giving of notice of the occurrence of any of the following events (“Material Events”) with respect to the Bonds: 1. Principal and interest payment delinquencies; 2. Non-payment related defaults, if material; 3. Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties; 4. Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties; 5. Substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform; 6. Adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of proposed or final determinations of taxability, Notices of Proposed Issue (IRS Form 5701–TEB), or other material notices or determinations with respect to the tax status of the security, or other material events affecting the tax status of the security; 7. Modifications to rights of security holders, if material; 8. Bond calls, if material, and tender offers; 9. Defeasances; 10. Release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the securities, if material; 11. Rating changes; 12. Bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the obligated person; D-4 Page 362 of 378 4904-1811-9529.1 13. The consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving an obligated person or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the obligated person, other than in the ordinary course of business, the entry into a definitive agreement to undertake such an action or the termination of a definitive agreement relating to any such actions, other than pursuant to its terms, if material; 14. Appointment of a successor or additional trustee or the change of name of a trustee, if material; 15. Incurrence of a Financial Obligation of the obligated person, if material, or agreement to covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms of a Financial Obligation of the obligated person, any of which affect security holders, if material; and 16. Default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification of terms, or other similar events under the terms of a Financial Obligation of the obligated person, any of which reflect financial difficulties. (b) The Issuer shall file a notice of such occurrence with the Repository or with the MSRB within ten (10) business days of the occurrence of the Material Event. (c) Unless otherwise required by law and subject to technical and economic feasibility, the Issuer shall employ such methods of information transmission as shall be requested or recommended by the designated recipients of the Issuer’s information. Section 6. EMMA. The SEC has designated EMMA as a nationally recognized municipal securities information repository and the exclusive portal for complying with the continuing disclosure requirements of the Rule. Until the EMMA system is amended or altered by the MSRB and the SEC, the Issuer shall make all filings required under this Disclosure Certificate solely with EMMA. Section 7. Termination of Reporting Obligation. The Issuer’s obligations under the Resolutions and this Disclosure Certificate shall terminate upon the redemption in full of all Bonds or payment in full of all Bonds. Section 8. Agent. The Issuer may, from time to time, appoint or engage a dissemination agent to assist it in carrying out its obligations under the Resolutions and this Disclosure Certificate, and may discharge any such agent, with or without appointing a successor dissemination agent. Section 9. Amendment; Waiver. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Resolutions or this Disclosure Certificate, the Issuer may amend this Disclosure Certificate, and any provision of this Disclosure Certificate may be waived, if such amendment or waiver is supported by an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel to the effect that such amendment or waiver would not, in and of itself, cause a violation of the Rule. The provisions of the Resolutions requiring continuing disclosure pursuant to the Rule and this Disclosure Certificate, or any provision hereof, shall be null and void in the event that the Issuer delivers to the Repository an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel to the effect that those portions of the Rule which impose the continuing disclosure requirements of the Resolutions and the execution and delivery of this Disclosure Certificate are invalid, have been repealed retroactively or otherwise do not apply to the Bonds. The provisions of the Resolutions requiring continuing disclosure pursuant to the Rule and this Disclosure Certificate may be amended without the consent of the Holders of the Bonds, but only upon the delivery by the Issuer to the Repository of the proposed amendment and an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel to the effect that such amendment, and giving effect thereto, will not adversely affect the compliance with the Rule. D-5 Page 363 of 378 4904-1811-9529.1 Section 10. Additional Information. Nothing in this Disclosure Certificate shall be deemed to prevent the Issuer from disseminating any other information, using the means of dissemination set forth in this Disclosure Certificate or any other means of communication, or including any other information in any Annual Report or notice of occurrence of a Material Event, in addition to that which is required by this Disclosure Certificate. If the Issuer chooses to include any information in any Annual Report or notice of occurrence of a Material Event in addition to that which is specifically required by this Disclosure Certificate, the Issuer shall have no obligation under this Disclosure Certificate to update such information or include it in any future Annual Report or notice of occurrence of a Material Event. Section 11. Default. In the event of a failure of the Issuer to comply with any provision of this Disclosure Certificate any Holder of the Bonds may take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate, including seeking mandamus or specific performance by court order, to cause the Issuer to comply with its obligations under the Resolutions and this Disclosure Certificate. A default under this Disclosure Certificate shall not be deemed an event of default with respect to the Bonds and the sole remedy under this Disclosure Certificate in the event of any failure of the Issuer to comply with this Disclosure Certificate shall be an action to compel performance. Section 12. Beneficiaries. This Disclosure Certificate shall inure solely to the benefit of the Issuer, the Participating Underwriters, and the Holders from time to time of the Bonds, and shall create no rights in any other person or entity. (The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.) D-6 Page 364 of 378 4904-1811-9529.1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have executed this Disclosure Certificate in our official capacities effective as of the date and year first written above. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA Mayor City Manager D-7 Page 365 of 378 APPENDIX E TERMS OF PROPOSAL $6,180,000* GENERAL OBLIGATION UTILITY REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2025A CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA Proposals for the purchase of $6,180,000* General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A (the "Bonds") of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "City") will be received at the offices of Ehlers and Associates, Inc. ("Ehlers"), 3001 Broadway Street, Suite 320, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413, municipal advisors to the City, until 10:00 A.M., Central Time, and ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS will be received via PARITY, in the manner described below, until 10:00 A.M., Central Time, on November 24, 2025, at which time they will be opened, read and tabulated. The proposals will be presented to the City Council for consideration for award by resolution at a meeting to be held at 7:00 P.M., Central Time, on the same date. The proposal offering to purchase the Bonds upon the terms specified herein and most favorable to the City will be accepted unless all proposals are rejected. AUTHORITY; PURPOSE; SECURITY The Bonds are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 444 and 475, as amended, by the City, for the purpose of financing the construction of various utility system improvements within the City. The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which its full faith and credit and taxing powers are pledged. DATES AND MATURITIES The Bonds will be dated December 18, 2025, will be issued as fully registered Bonds in the denomination of $5,000 each, or any integral multiple thereof, and will mature on February 1 as follows: Year Amount*Year Amount*Year Amount* 2027 $515,000 2031 $605,000 2035 $690,000 2028 555,000 2032 625,000 2036 715,000 2029 570,000 2033 645,000 2030 590,000 2034 670,000 ADJUSTMENT OPTION The City reserves the right to increase or decrease the principal amount of the Bonds on the day of sale, in increments of $5,000 each. Increases or decreases may be made in any maturity. If any principal amounts are adjusted, the purchase price proposed will be adjusted to m aintain the same gross spread per $1,000. TERM BOND OPTION Proposals for the Bonds may contain a maturity schedule providing for any combination of serial bonds and term bonds, subject to mandatory redemption, so long as the amount of principal maturing or subject to mandatory redemption in each year conforms to the maturity schedule set forth above. All dates are inclusive. E-1 Page 366 of 378 INTEREST PAYMENT DATES AND RATES Interest will be payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 2026, to the registered owners of the Bonds appearing of record in the bond register as of the close of business on the 15th day (whether or not a business day) of the immediately preceding month. Interest will be computed upon the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months and will be rounded pursuant to rules of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. The rate for any maturity may not be more than 1.00% less than the rate for any preceding maturity. (For example, if a rate of 4.50% is proposed for the 2027 maturity, then the lowest rate that may be proposed for any later maturity is 3.50%.) All Bonds of the same maturity must bear interest from date of issue until paid at a single, uniform rate. Each rate must be expressed in an integral multiple of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. BOOK-ENTRY-ONLY FORMAT Unless otherwise specified by the purchaser, the Bonds will be designated in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York ("DTC"). DTC will act as securities depository for the Bonds, and will be responsible for maintaining a book-entry system for recording the interests of its participants and the transfers of interests between its participants. The participants will be responsible for maintaining records regarding the beneficial interests of the individual purchasers of the Bonds. So long as Cede & Co. is the registered owner of the Bonds, all payments of principal and interest will be made to the depository which, in turn, will be obligated to remit such payments to its participants for subsequent disbursement to the beneficial owners of the Bonds. PAYING AGENT The City has selected Bond Trust Services Corporation, Minneapolis, Minnesota ("BTSC"), to act as paying agent (the "Paying Agent"). BTSC and Ehlers are affiliate companies. The City will pay the charges for Paying Agent services. The City reserves the right to remove the Paying Agent and to appoint a successor. OPTIONAL REDEMPTION At the option of the City, the Bonds maturing on or after February 1, 2034 shall be subject to optional redemption prior to maturity on February 1, 2033 or any date thereafter, at a price of par plus accrued interest to the date of optional redemption. Redemption may be in whole or in part of the Bonds subject to prepayment. If redemption is in part, the selection of the amounts and maturities of the Bonds to be redeemed shall be at the discretion of the City. If only part of the Bonds having a common maturity date are called for redemption, then the City or Paying Agent, if any, will notify DTC of the particular amount of such maturity to be redeemed. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interest in such maturity to be redeemed. Notice of redemption shall be sent by mail not less than 30 days prior to the date fixed for redemption to the registered owner of each Bond to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books. DELIVERY On or about December 18, 2025, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the winning bidder at DTC. On the day of closing, the City will furnish to the winning bidder the opinion of bond counsel hereinafter described, an arbitrage certification, and certificates verifying that no litigation in any manner questioning the validity of the Bonds is then pending or, to the best knowledge of officers of the City, threatened. Payment for the Bonds must be received by the City at its designated depository on the date of closing in immediately available funds. E-2 Page 367 of 378 LEGAL OPINION An opinion as to the validity of the Bonds and the exemption from taxation of the interest thereon will be furnished by Kutak Rock LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Bond Counsel to the City ("Bond Counsel"), and will be available at the time of delivery of the Bonds. The legal opinion will state that the Bonds are valid and binding general obligations of the City; provided that the rights of the owners of the Bonds and the enforceability of the Bonds may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium, and other similar laws affecting creditors' rights and by equitable principles (which may be applied in either a legal or equitable proceeding). See "FORM OF LEGAL OPINION" found in Appendix B. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Proposals must not be for less than $6,105,840 plus accrued interest on the principal sum of $6,180,000 from date of original issue of the Bonds to date of delivery. Prior to the time established above for the opening of proposals, interested parties may submit a proposal as follows: 1)Electronically to bondsale@ehlers-inc.com; or 2) Electronically via PARITY in accordance with this Terms of Proposal until 10:00 A.M., Central Time, but no proposal will be received after the time for receiving proposals specified above. To the extent any instructions or directions set forth in PARITY conflict with this Terms of Proposal, the terms of this Terms of Proposal shall control. For further information about PARITY, potential bidders may contact IHS Markit (now part of S&P Global) at https://ihsmarkit.com/products/municipal-issuance.html or via telephone (844) 301-7334. Proposals must be submitted to Ehlers via one of the methods described above and must be received prior to the time established above for the opening of proposals. Each proposal must be unconditional except as to legality. Neither the City nor Ehlers shall be responsible for any failure to receive a facsimile submission. A good faith deposit ("Deposit") in the amount of $123,600 shall be made by the winning bidder by wire transfer of funds. Such Deposit shall be received by Ehlers no later than two hours after the proposal opening time. Wire transfer instructions will be provided to the winning bidder by Ehlers after the tabulation of proposals. The City reserves the right to award the Bonds to a winning bidder whose wire transfer is initiated but not received by such time provided that such winning bidder's federal wire reference number has been received by such time. In the event the Deposit is not received as provided above, the City may award the Bonds to the bidder submitting the next best proposal provided such bidder agrees to such award. The Deposit will be retained by the City as liquidated damages if the proposal is accepted and the Purchaser fails to comply therewith. The City and the winning bidder who chooses to so wire the Deposit hereby agree irrevocably that Ehlers shall be the escrow holder of the Deposit wired to such account subject only to these conditions and duties: 1) All income earned thereon shall be retained by the escrow holder as payment for its expenses; 2) If the proposal is not accepted, Ehlers shall, at its expense, promptly return the Deposit amount to the winning bidder; 3) If the proposal is accepted, the Deposit shall be returned to the winning bidder at the closing; 4) Ehlers shall bear all costs of maintaining the escrow account and returning the funds to the winning bidder; 5) Ehlers shall not be an insurer of the Deposit amount and shall have no liability hereunder except if it willfully fails to perform or recklessly disregards, its duties specified herein; and 6) FDIC insurance on deposits within the escrow account shall be lim ited to $250,000 per bidder. No proposal can be withdrawn after the time set for receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. E-3 Page 368 of 378 AWARD The Bonds will be awarded to the bidder offering the lowest interest rate to be determined on a True Interest Cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. In the event of a tie, the sale of the Bonds will be awarded by lot. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to waive any informality in any proposal. BOND INSURANCE If the Bonds are qualified for any bond insurance policy, the purchase of such policy shall be at the sole option and expense of the winning bidder. Any cost for such insurance policy is to be paid by the winning bidder, except that, if the City requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any rating agency fees not requested by the City are the responsibility of the winning bidder. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after the Bonds are awarded to the winning bidder shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the winning bidder to accept delivery of the Bonds. CUSIP NUMBERS The City will assume no obligation for the assignment or printing of CUSIP numbers on the Bonds or for the correctness of any numbers printed thereon, but will permit such numbers to be printed at the expense of the winning bidder, if the winning bidder waives any delay in delivery occasioned thereby. QUALIFIED TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS The City will designate the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. CONTINUING DISCLOSURE In order to assist the Underwriter (Syndicate Manager) in complying with the provisions of Rule 15c2-12 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 the City will enter into an undertaking for the benefit of the holders of the Bonds. A description of the details and terms of the undertaking is set forth in Appendix D of the Prelim inary Official Statement. NEW ISSUE PRICING The winning bidder will be required to provide, in a timely manner, certain information necessary to compute the yield on the Bonds pursuant to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and to provide a certificate which will be provided by Bond Counsel upon request. (a)The winning bidder shall assist the City in establishing the issue price of the Bonds and shall execute and deliver to the City at closing an "issue price" or similar certificate satisfactory to Bond Counsel setting forth the reasonably expected initial offering price to the public or the sales price or prices of the Bonds, together with the supporting pricing wires or equivalent communications. All actions to be taken by the City under this Terms of Proposal to establish the issue price of the Bonds may be taken on behalf of the City by the City's municipal advisor identified herein and any notice or report to be provided to the City may be provided to the City's municipal advisor. (b)The City intends that the provisions of Treasury Regulation Section 1.148-1(f)(3)(i) (defining "competitive sale" for purposes of establishing the issue price of the Bonds) will apply to the initial sale of the Bonds (the "competitive sale requirements") because: E-4 Page 369 of 378 (1)The City shall disseminate this Terms of Proposal to potential underwriters in a manner that is reasonably designed to reach potential investors; (2)all bidders shall have an equal opportunity to bid; (3)the City may receive proposals from at least three underwriters of municipal bonds who have established industry reputations for underwriting new issuances of municipal bonds; and (4)the City anticipates awarding the sale of the Bonds to the bidder who submits a firm offer to purchase the Bonds at the highest price (or lowest interest cost), as set forth in this Term s of Proposal. Any proposal submitted pursuant to this Terms of Proposal shall be considered a firm offer for the purchase of the Bonds, as specified in this proposal. (c)If all of the requirements of a "competitive sale" are not satisfied, the City shall advise the winning bidder of such fact prior to the time of award of the sale of the Bonds to the winning bidder. In such event, any proposal submitted will not be subject to cancellation or withdrawal and the City agrees to use the rule selected by the winning bidder on its proposal form to determine the issue price for the Bonds. On its proposal form, each bidder must select one of the following two rules for determining the issue price of the Bonds: (1) the first price at which 10% of a maturity of the Bonds (the "10% test") is sold to the public as the issue price of that maturity or (2) the initial offering price to the public as of the sale date as the issue price of each maturity of the Bonds (the "hold-the-offering-price rule"). (d)If all of the requirements of a "competitive sale" are not satisfied and the winning bidder selects the hold-the- offering-price rule, the winning bidder shall (i) confirm that the underwriters have offered or will offer the Bonds to the public on or before the date of award at the offering price or prices (the "initial offering price"), or at the corresponding yield or yields, set forth in the proposal submitted by the winning bidder and (ii) agree, on behalf of the underwriters participating in the purchase of the Bonds, that the underwriters will neither offer nor sell unsold Bonds of any maturity to which the hold-the-offering-price rule shall apply to any person at a price that is higher than the initial offering price to the public during the period starting on the sale date and ending on the earlier of the following: (1) the close of the fifth (5th) business day after the sale date; or (2) the date on which the underwriters have sold at least 10% of that m aturity of the Bonds to the public at a price that is no higher than the initial offering price to the public. The winning bidder will advise the City promptly after the close of the fifth (5th) business day after the sale whether it has sold 10% of that maturity of the Bonds to the public at a price that is no higher than the initial offering price to the public. The City acknowledges that in making the representation set forth above, the winning bidder will rely on: (i) the agreement of each underwriter to comply with requirements for establishing issue price of the Bonds, including, but not limited to, its agreement to comply with the hold-the-price rule, if applicable to the Bonds, as set forth in an agreement among underwriters and the related pricing wires, (ii) in the event a selling group has been created in connection with the initial sale of the Bonds to the public, the agreement of each dealer who is a member of the selling group to comply with the requirements for establishing issue price of the Bonds, including, but not limited to, its agreement to comply with the hold-the-offering-price rule, if applicable to the Bonds, as set forth in a selling group agreem ent and the related pricing wires, and E-5 Page 370 of 378 (iii) in the event that an underwriter or dealer who is a member of the selling group is a party to a third-party distribution agreement that was employed in connection with the initial sale of the Bonds to the public, the agreement of each broker-dealer that is party to such agreement to comply with the requirements for establishing issue price of the Bonds, including, but not limited to, its agreement to comply with the hold-the-offering-price rule, if applicable to the Bonds, as set forth in the third-party distribution agreement and the related pricing wires. The City further acknowledges that each underwriter shall be solely liable for its failure to comply with its agreement regarding the requirements for establishing issue price rule of the Bonds, including, but not limited to, its agreement to comply with the hold-the-offering-price rule, if applicable to the Bonds, and that no underwriter shall be liable for the failure of any other underwriter, or of any dealer who is a member of a selling group, or of any broker-dealer that is a party to a third-party distribution agreement to comply with its corresponding agreement to comply with the requirements for establishing issue price of the Bonds, including, but not limited to, its agreement to comply with the hold-the-offering- price rule as applicable to the Bonds. (e) If all of the requirements of a "competitive sale" are not satisfied and the winning bidder selects the 10% test, the winning bidder agrees to promptly report to the City, Bond Counsel and Ehlers the prices at which the Bonds have been sold to the public. That reporting obligation shall continue, whether or not the closing date has occurred, until either (i) all Bonds of that maturity have been sold or (ii) the 10% test has been satisfied as to each maturity of the Bonds, provided that, the winning bidder's reporting obligation after the Closing Date may be at reasonable periodic intervals or otherwise upon request of the City or bond counsel. (f)By submitting a proposal, each bidder confirm s that: (i) any agreement among underwriters, any selling group agreement and each third-party distribution agreement (to which the bidder is a party) relating to the initial sale of the Bonds to the public, together with the related pricing wires, contains or will contain language obligating each underwriter, each dealer who is a member of the selling group, and each broker-dealer that is party to such third-party distribution agreement, as applicable, to: (A) report the prices at which it sells to the public the unsold Bonds of each maturity allocated to it, whether or not the Closing Date has occurred until either all securities of that maturity allocated to it have been sold or it is notified by the winning bidder that either the 10% test has been satisfied as to the Bonds of that maturity, provided that, the reporting obligation after the Closing Date may be at reasonable periodic intervals or otherwise upon request of the City or bond counsel. (B) comply with the hold-the-offering-price rule, if applicable, in each case if and for so long as directed by the winning bidder and as set forth in the related pricing wires, and (ii) any agreement among underwriters or selling group agreement relating to the initial sale of the Bonds to the public, together with the related pricing wires, contains or will contain language obligating each underwriter, each dealer who is a member of the selling group and each broker dealer that is a party to a third-party distribution agreement to be employed in connection with the initial sale of the Bonds to the public to require each broker-dealer that is a party to such third-party distribution agreement to: (A) to promptly notify the winning bidder of any sales of Bonds that, to its knowledge, are made to a purchaser who is a related party to an underwriter participating in the initial sale of the Bonds to the public (each such term being used as defined below), and (B) to acknowledge that, unless otherwise advised by the underwriter, dealer or broker-dealer, the winning bidder shall assume that each order submitted by the underwriter, dealer or broker-dealer is a sale to the public. (g)Sales of any Bonds to any person that is a related party to an underwriter participating in the initial sale of the Bonds to the public (each term being used as defined below) shall not constitute sales to the public for purposes of this Terms of Proposal. Further, for purposes of this Terms of Proposal: E-6 Page 371 of 378 (i)"public" means any person other than an underwriter or a related party , (ii)"underwriter" means (A) any person that agrees pursuant to a written contract with the City (or with the lead underwriter to form an underwriting syndicate) to participate in the initial sale of the Bonds to the public and (B) any person that agrees pursuant to a written contract directly or indirectly with a person described in clause (A) to participate in the initial sale of the Bonds to the public (including a member of a selling group or a party to a third-party distribution agreement participating in the initial sale of the Bonds to the public), (iii)a purchaser of any of the Bonds is a "related party" to an underwriter if the underwriter and the purchaser are subject, directly or indirectly, to (A) more than 50% common ownership of the voting power or the total value of their stock, if both entities are corporations (including direct ownership by one corporation of another), (B) more than 50% common ownership of their capital interests or profits interests, if both entities are partnerships (including direct ownership by one partnership of another), or (C) more than 50% common ownership of the value of the outstanding stock of the corporation or the capital interests or profit interests of the partnership, as applicable, if one entity is a corporation and the other entity is a partnership (including direct ownership of the applicable stock or interests by one entity of the other), and (iv)"sale date" means the date that the Bonds are awarded by the City to the winning bidder. PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT Bidders may obtain a copy of the Preliminary Official Statement relating to the Bonds prior to the proposal opening by request from Ehlers at www.ehlers-inc.com by connecting to the Bond Sales link. The Underwriter (Syndicate Manager) will be provided with an electronic copy of the Final Official Statement within seven business days of the proposal acceptance. Up to 10 printed copies of the Final Official Statement will be provided upon request. Additional copies of the Final Official Statement will be available at a cost of $10.00 per copy . Information for bidders and proposal forms may be obtained from Ehlers at 3001 Broadway Street, Suite 320, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413, Telephone (651) 697-8500. By Order of the City Council City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota E-7 Page 372 of 378 PROPOSAL FORM The City Council November 24, 2025 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "City") RE:$6,180,000* General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A (the "Bonds") DATED:December 18, 2025 For all or none of the above Bonds, in accordance with the Terms of Proposal and terms of the Global Book-Entry System (unless otherwise specified by the Purchaser) as stated in this Official Statement, we will pay you $__________________ (not less than $6,105,840) plus accrued interest to date of delivery for fully registered Bonds bearing interest rates and maturing in the stated y ears as follows: % due 2027 % due 2031 % due 2035 % due 2028 % due 2032 % due 2036 % due 2029 % due 2033 % due 2030 % due 2034 The City reserves the right to increase or decrease the principal amount of the Bonds on the day of sale, in increments of $5,000 each. Increases or decreases may be made in any maturity. If any principal amounts are adjusted, the purchase price proposed will be adjusted to maintain the same gross spread per $1,000. The rate for any maturity may not be more than 1.00% less than the rate for any preceding maturity. (For example, if a rate of 4.50% is proposed for the 2027 maturity, then the lowest rate that may be proposed for any later maturity is 3.50%.) All Bonds of the same maturity must bear interest from date of issue until paid at a single, uniform rate. Each rate must be expressed in an integral multiple of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. A good faith deposit ("Deposit") in the amount of $123,600 shall be made by the winning bidder by wire transfer of funds. Such Deposit shall be received by Ehlers no later than two hours after the proposal opening time. Wire transfer instructions will be provided to the winning bidder by Ehlers after the tabulation of proposals. The City reserves the right to award the Bonds to a winning bidder whose wire transfer is initiated but not received by such time provided that such winning bidder's federal wire reference number has been received by such time. In the event the Deposit is not received as provided above, the City may award the Bonds to the bidder submitting the next best proposal provided such bidder agrees to such award. The Deposit will be retained by the City as liquidated damages if the proposal is accepted and the Purchaser fails to comply therewith. We agree to the conditions and duties of Ehlers and Associates, Inc., as escrow holder of the Deposit, pursuant to the Terms of Proposal. This proposal is for prompt acceptance and is conditional upon delivery of said Bonds to The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, in accordance with the Terms of Proposal. Delivery is anticipated to be on or about December 18, 2025. This proposal is subject to the City's agreement to enter into a written undertaking to provide continuing disclosure under Rule 15c2-12 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as described in the Preliminary Official Statement for the Bonds. We have received and reviewed the Official Statement, and any addenda thereto, and have submitted our requests for additional information or corrections to the Final Official Statement. As Underwriter (Syndicate Manager), we agree to provide the City with the reoffering price of the Bonds within 24 hours of the proposal acceptance. This proposal is a firm offer for the purchase of the Bonds identified in the Terms of Proposal, on the terms set forth in this proposal form and the Terms of Proposal, and is not subject to any conditions, except as permitted by the Terms of Proposal. By submitting this proposal, we confirm that we are an underwriter and have an established industry reputation for underwriting new issuances of municipal bonds. YES: ____ NO: ____. If the competitive sale requirements are not met, we elect to use either the: _____10% test, or the _____hold-the-offering-price rule to determine the issue price of the Bonds. Account Manager:By: Account Members: Award will be on a true interest cost basis. According to our computations (the correct computation being controlling in the award), the total dollar interest cost (including any discount or less any premium) computed from December 18, 2025 of the above proposal is $_______________and the true interest cost (TIC) is __________%. The foregoing offer is hereby accepted by and on behalf of the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, on November 24, 2025. By:By: Title:Title: Page 373 of 378 Research Update: Brooklyn Center, MN GO Utility Revenue Bonds Assigned 'AA' Rating; Outlook Is Stable November 14, 2025 Overview •S&P Global Ratings assigned its 'AAA' long-term rating (credit enhancement) and 'AA' underlying rating to Brooklyn Center, Minn.'s anticipated $6.2 million series 2025A general obligation (GO) utility revenue bonds. •At the same time, we affirmed our 'AA' rating on the city's outstanding GO debt and our 'AA-' rating on the city's outstanding series 2019B lease revenue bonds. •The outlook is stable. Rationale Security Series 2025A bond proceeds will be used to finance utility system improvements. The bonds are secured by the city's full faith and credit pledge and ability to levy unlimited ad valorem property taxes. The city has also pledged net revenue from its utility systems; however, the rating is based on the unlimited ad valorem tax pledge because the bond provisions supporting the other pledges are insufficient to rate pursuant to our other criteria. The outstanding lease revenue bonds are secured by lease payments made by the city to the economic development authority pursuant to the lease, which is subject to annual appropriation. We rate the lease revenue bonds one notch lower than the city's GO rating to account for annual appropriation risk. The long-term enhanced rating reflects our assessment of the city’s eligibility for, and participation in, Minnesota's Credit Enhancement Program. The stable outlook on the long-term enhanced rating mirrors the outlook on our Minnesota GO rating and moves in tandem with it (see "Minnesota Credit Enhancement Programs," July 10, 2024. Primary Contact Emily Powers Santa Fe 1-312-233-7030 emily.powers @spglobal.com Secondary Contact Emma Drilias Madison 1-312-233-7132 emma.drilias @spglobal.com www.spglobal.com/ratingsdirect November 14, 2025 1 Page 374 of 378 Credit highlights The rating reflects our view of Brooklyn Center's steady finances, supported by stable revenue and conservative budgetary estimates, its robust available reserves at more than 50% of operating revenue, the city's steadily growing tax base and its moderately limited debt burden. Constraining the rating, in our view, is local incomes that are significantly low when compared to peers, as well as the city’s recent difficulty filling positions in the police department due to historical events. Encompassing an area of roughly 8.5 square miles, the city is a mature community that attracts many first-time homebuyers and redevelopment, benefitting from its favorable location. Fiscal 2024 ended with a general fund surplus driven primarily by budgeted but unfilled positions within the city's police department. Management aims to fill these positions, so they remain in the fiscal 2025 and 2026 budgets, both of which are expected to be breakeven, with no planned use of reserves. Capital needs are limited and the debt burden is likely to remain manageable even given an additional $2 million in planned issuance. We believe well-embedded management practices and conservative budgeting will continue to support balanced financial operations and healthy fund balance levels Credit fundamentals supporting the rating include our opinion of the city's: •Growing tax base and convenient location within thriving Hennepin County, roughly nine miles from downtown Minneapolis/St. Paul, however with local per capita income that are well below the county and national averages; •Steady operational performance with growth in available reserves in each of the last two fiscal years, totaling 51.1% of general fund revenue in fiscal 2024; •Solid managerial policies and practices, highlighted by thorough two-year budgeting for all departments, revenue, and funds, monthly reporting to the council on budget-to-actual performance, a 15-year capital plan and formalized investment, debt and reserve policies. The city does not maintain a formal long-term financial plan. •Manageable debt burden with front-loaded payments that rapidly amortize; •Limited exposure to pension and other postemployment benefit (OPEB) liabilities, with per capita net pension liabilities that are low and current costs for retirement benefits that, while increasing, will remain a small share of the city's budget. •For more information on our institutional framework assessment for Minnesota municipalities, see "Institutional Framework Assessment: Minnesota Local Governments," Sept. 10, 2024. Environmental, social, and governance We view Brooklyn Center's environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors as neutral within our credit rating analysis. Outlook The stable outlook reflects our expectation that Brooklyn Center will maintain balanced financial operations as officials adjust the budget match expenditures within its recurring revenue, and that available fund balance will be sustained at its historically robust levels. www.spglobal.com/ratingsdirect November 14, 2025 2 Brooklyn Center, MN GO Utility Revenue Bonds Assigned 'AA' Rating; Outlook Is Stable Page 375 of 378 Downside scenario We could lower the rating if the city's budgetary performance were to worsen, leading to significant deterioration in available fund balance. Upside scenario We could raise the rating if Brooklyn Center's incomes improve to levels more comparable at a higher rating level, and if the city is able to show budget stability once its public safety staffing has been filled, all other credit factors remaining equal. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota--credit summary Institutional framework (IF)1 Individual credit profile (ICP)2.10 Economy 3.0 Financial performance 2 Reserves and liquidity 1 Management 2.00 Debt and liabilities 2.50 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota--key credit metrics Most recent 2024 2023 2022 Economy Real GCP per capita % of U.S. 181 -- 181 183 County PCPI % of U.S. 136 -- 136 138 Market value ($000s) 3,543,540 3,422,383 3,355,633 3,021,576 Market value per capita ($) 104,139 100,578 98,388 93,023 Top 10 taxpayers % of taxable value 10.3 10.0 9.9 10.0 County unemployment rate (%) 3.0 2.8 2.5 2.5 Local median household EBI % of U.S. 93 93 95 95 Local per capita EBI % of U.S. 66 66 69 74 Local population 34,027 34,027 34,106 32,482 Financial performance Operating fund revenues ($000s) -- 28,501 26,787 25,245 Operating fund expenditures ($000s) -- 29,074 27,822 25,366 Net transfers and other adjustments ($000s) -- 1,722 1,592 -- Operating result ($000s) -- 1,149 557 (121) Operating result % of revenues -- 4.0 2.1 (0.5) Operating result three-year average % -- 1.9 (1.0) 0.6 Reserves and liquidity Available reserves % of operating revenues -- 51.1 50.1 51.3 Available reserves ($000s) -- 14,556 13,407 12,962 Debt and liabilities Debt service cost % of revenues -- 7.8 7.5 14.5 Net direct debt per capita ($) 1,637 1,656 1,532 1,794 Net direct debt ($000s) 55,695 56,358 52,248 58,277 www.spglobal.com/ratingsdirect November 14, 2025 3 Brooklyn Center, MN GO Utility Revenue Bonds Assigned 'AA' Rating; Outlook Is Stable Page 376 of 378 Direct debt 10-year amortization (%) 95 97 97 -- Pension and OPEB cost % of revenues -- 5.0 5.0 5.0 NPLs per capita ($) -- 275 377 764 Combined NPLs ($000s) -- 9,370 12,846 24,822 Financial data may reflect analytical adjustments and are sourced from issuer audit reports or other annual disclosures. Economic data is generally sourced from S&P Global Market Intelligence, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Claritas, and issuer audits and other disclosures. Local population is sourced from Claritas. Claritas estimates are point in time and not meant to show year-over-year trends. GCP--Gross county product. PCPI--Per capita personal income. EBI--Effective buying income. OPEB--Other postemployment benefits. NPLs--Net pension liabilities. Ratings List New Issue Ratings US$6.18 mil GO util rev bnds ser 2025A due 02/01/2036 (Minnesota City Credit Enhancement Program) Long Term Rating AAA/Stable Underlying Rating for Credit Program AA/Stable New Rating Local Government Brooklyn Center, MN State Standing Appropriation Program AAA/Stable Ratings Affirmed Local Government Brooklyn Ctr MN Unlimited Tax Lease Appropriation AA-/Stable Brooklyn Ctr, MN Unlimited Tax General Obligation and Dist 5 Income Tax Increment Revenues AA/Stable Brooklyn Ctr, MN Unlimited Tax General Obligation and Water, Sewer, and Storm Water System AA/Stable Brooklyn Ctr, MN Unlimited Tax General Obligation, Water and Sewer System, and Special Assessments AA/Stable Brooklyn Ctr, MN Unlimited Tax General Obligation, Water, Sewer, and Storm Water System, and Special Assessments AA/Stable The ratings appearing below the new issues represent an aggregation of debt issues (ASID) associated with related maturities. The maturities similarly reflect our opinion about the creditworthiness of the U.S. Public Finance obligor's legal pledge for payment of the financial obligation. Nevertheless, these maturities may have different credit ratings than the rating presented next to the ASID depending on whether or not additional legal pledge(s) support the specific maturity's payment obligation, such as credit enhancement, as a result of defeasance, or other factors. Certain terms used in this report, particularly certain adjectives used to express our view on rating relevant factors, have specific meanings ascribed to them in our criteria, and should therefore be read in conjunction with such criteria. Please see Ratings Criteria at https://disclosure.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/ratings-criteria for further information. A description of each of S&P Global Ratings' rating categories is contained in "S&P Global Ratings Definitions" at https://disclosure.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/504352. Complete ratings information is available to RatingsDirect subscribers at www.capitaliq.com. All ratings referenced herein can be found on S&P Global Ratings' public website at www.spglobal.com/ratings. www.spglobal.com/ratingsdirect November 14, 2025 4 Brooklyn Center, MN GO Utility Revenue Bonds Assigned 'AA' Rating; Outlook Is Stable Page 377 of 378 www.spglobal.com/ratingsdirect November 14, 2025 5 Brooklyn Center, MN GO Utility Revenue Bonds Assigned 'AA' Rating; Outlook Is Stable STANDARD & POOR’S, S&P and RATINGSDIRECT are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC. S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.spglobal.com/ratings (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.spglobal.com/usratingsfees. S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain non-public information received in connection with each analytical process. To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw or suspend such acknowledgment at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof. Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses. Some of the Content may have been created with the assistance of an artificial intelligence (AI) tool. Published Content created or processed using AI is composed, reviewed, edited, and approved by S&P personnel. No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages. Copyright © 2025 by Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC. All rights reserved. Page 378 of 378