Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026_03-23_CCP_REGULARCITY COUNCIL MEETING City Hall Council Chambers March 23, 2026 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 - Kragness 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 meeting minutes: • March 9, 2026 Study Session • March 9, 2026 Council Meeting • March 9, 2026 Work Session b. Approval of Licenses -Motion to accept licenses as presented. c. Resolution Identifying the Need for an LCDA Application for New Generations Mixed Use Development on 1500 69th Ave N Page 1 of 87 -Motion to approve a resolution identifying the need for an application for a grant from the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) for New Generations LLC and its project at 1500 69th Avenue North. d. Resolution Identifying the Need for an Application to the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Environmental Site Investigation & Cleanup Grant Fund for Dur Dur Bakery & Grocery Inc (5951 Earle Brown Drive) -Motion to approve a resolution identifying the need for an application to the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Environmental Site Investigation & Cleanup grant program for testing and remediation of asbestos in conjunction with demolition work at 5951 Earle Brown Drive for Dur Dur Bakery & Grocery Inc. e. Resolution Accepting Quote and Awarding a Contract for the Tree Clearing portion of Improvement Project No. 2026-01, 02, 03, & 04, Humboldt Avenue Reconstruction -Motion to approve the resolution accepting the lowest responsible quote and awarding a contract to Tree Top Clearing, Incorporated for Improvement Project No. 2026-01, 02, 03, & 04, part of Humboldt Avenue Reconstruction. 7. Presentations/Proclamations/Recognitions/Donations a. Highway 252/I-94 Project Update: Presentation by the Minnesota Department of Transportation -Motion to accept the presentation from the Minnesota Department of Transportation b. Police Department Annual Report -Motion to accept the presentation. 8. Public Hearings 9. Planning Commission Items 10. Council Consideration Items 11. Council Report 12. Adjournment Page 2 of 87 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 3 of 87 03/09/26 -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 MARCH 9, 2026 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 7:05 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Mayor April Graves, Councilmembers Dan Jerzak, Teneshia Kragness, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, and Laurie Ann Moore. Also present were Interim City Manager Daren Nyquist, Interim Deputy City Manager and Public Works Director Liz Heyman, City Engineer Lydia Ener, Fire Chief Todd Berg, 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. No one wished to address the Council. Councilmember Moore moved and Councilmember Jerzak seconded to close the Informal Open Forum. Motion passed unanimously. 5. INVOCATION Mayor Graves said she was trying to think of something to read for Women's History Month, and, thinking about all of the craziness that is going on in the world, she stated she is struggling a lot, and some days she feels okay, and the next day she feels really down. She stated she wants to acknowledge that a lot of people might be struggling with those types of feelings and encouraged people to take care of themselves, lean on loved ones, be there for their friends, and spread kindness wherever they can. She stated she wrote something in her journal on her way over and thought she would share a little bit of that. She stated she wrote this segment last October, “Something Page 4 of 87 03/09/26 -2- DRAFT that has been on my mind the last few days has been revolutionary love, and, or love as a revolutionary act. An act of rebellion. I’ve been thinking about my parents getting married in 1972, just five years after the court case that ruled interracial marriage legal. My parents were pioneers in many ways. I wonder how much racism they encountered in the 19 years they remained married. I also wonder how external societal pressure may have affected their ability to stay emotionally connected and faithful to their commitment. Even though they eventually divorced, their love for one another is still evident to this day, and without question.” She thanked the Council for letting her share that. 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Moore moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, as amended, with amendments to the minutes as stated during the Study Session, and moving the Work Session City-Wide Water Meter Changeout Plan: Policy Decision Discussion to the Study Session, and the following consent items were approved: 6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. February 23, 2026 – Study Session 2. February 23, 2026 – Regular Session 3. February 23, 2026 – Work/EDA Session 6b. LICENSES RENTAL INITIAL (TYPE IV– six-month license) 4945 Zenith Avenue North SHANKAR SHRESTHA RENEWAL (TYPE IV – six-month license) 3700 55th Avenue North James Ayotunde Olatunbosun RENEWAL (TYPE III – one-year license) 5801 Xerxes Avenue North Brooklyn Center Ah I Lllp RENEWAL (TYPE II – two-year license) 700 66th Avenue North Georgetown-bc Company Lllp 6736 Perry Avenue North CCf2 N LLC RENEWAL (TYPE I – two-year license) 3319 66th Avenue North Thr Property Illinios L P 5418 70th Circle Jazz Properties 5530 James Avenue North Pro Operam Sub Iv Llc Page 5 of 87 03/09/26 -3- DRAFT 6331 Indiana Avenue North Ih3 Property Minnesota Lp 6800 Orchard Avenue North Prosperous Property Llc 7007 James Avenue North Infinite Property Llc 6c. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE REQUEST FOR COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR APPLICATION TO MINNESOTA DNR LOCAL TRAIL CONNECTIONS GRANT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT OF TRAIL CONNECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT WEST PALMER LAKE 6d. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE REQUEST FOR COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR APPLICATION TO MINNESOTA OUTDOOR RECREATION GRANT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT OF IRRIGATED SOCCER FIELDS AND NATURAL AREA RESTORATION AT WEST PALMER LAKE PARK 6e. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2026-06, 07, 08, & 09, JOHN MARTIN DRIVE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 6f. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION AND EXECUTION OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL GRANT AGREEMENT FOR INFLOW AND INFILTRATION 6g. RESOLUTION APPROVING A FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT FOR TASER 10 6h. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER, DAREN NYQUIST, FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2026 6i. RESOLUTION APPROVING FIRST AMENDMENT TO LOBBY EDGE LLC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Mayor Graves called for a five-minute recess at 7:11 p.m. Mayor Graves recalled the meeting at 7:16 p.m. 7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS 7a. PUBLIC WORKS ANNUAL REVIEW Mr. Nyquist said in continuation of the Department's annual presentations, City Engineer Lydia Ener will provide the Public Works annual report. Page 6 of 87 03/09/26 -4- DRAFT Ms. Ener explained that the Public Works Department has quite a few functional divisions: Administrative/Engineering group in City Hall, Street Maintenance (storm, sewer, traffic control, street lighting) at Central Garage, Park Maintenance and Forestry, Public Utilities (water and sanitary sewer), Central Garage, and Facilities Maintenance. Ms. Ener explained the role of Public Works in Brooklyn Center includes providing the maintenance and operations of the City’s infrastructure and facilities in a quality, cost effective manner including 105 miles of City streets and 5,100 traffic signs, 520 acres of parks and natural areas, 62 miles of trails and sidewalks, municipal-owned buildings and grounds, 88 miles of storm drains and 40 treatment facilities, and water and sewer operations. Ms. Ener noted 2025 accomplishments, including the completion of the Orchard Lane East improvements, which was a massive project for the City that lasted two years, and included street reclamation, utilities, curb and gutter, ADA improvements, sign improvements, and trail improvements. She added that they also completed the 67th Avenue and James Avenue mill and overlay project, expanded the traffic calming program, continued sidewalk improvements, utility projects, including a lift station and well houses, and continued the lead service line project. Ms. Ener stated that 2026 goals and priorities include two large street projects at Humboldt Avenue (53rd to 57th), improvements, and John Martin Drive improvements. These two street projects are both reclamation projects, one with utilities on Humboldt and one without on John Martin Drive. She stated the Department will continue with the traffic calming program, and a larger update on that will occur in two weeks on upcoming projects and recent wins. She stated that they will continue the lead service line project, park improvement projects in the Palmer Lakes area, and continue the partnership with Great River Greening to ensure the City has a good tree canopy. Ms. Ener stated that long-range goals for Public Works include the Capital Improvement Plan project areas, which are both road projects as well as utility projects. Public Works will continue with the traffic calming program, continue the Park capital improvement plan that was identified by residents as a priority, Humboldt Avenue and 65th Avenue area improvements, and lastly, Highway 252 improvements, along with MnDOT cost share and mitigations. She added that the most recent win with MnDOT is that they have agreed to move forward with a cost share that will significantly benefit the City, and mitigations will be included in their upcoming EIS that will benefit the City and the upcoming Humboldt project. Ms. Ener asked if the Council had any questions for her. Councilmember Jerzak asked for an update on the well that needs repairs. Ms. Heyman responded that the well Councilmember Jerzak is referencing is Well 11, and Public Works recently sealed Well 7 within the rules and regulations of the Minnesota Department of Health. She stated there are very strict rules, and a review was done with Public Works consultations to make sure that the well was sealed properly to protect the City's water quality. She stated they have finished test pumping and are as confident as they can be based on their tests that this is a good spot and will yield the amount of water that they are hoping for when putting forward a new well. She said they are close to moving forward with the next steps for opening up that hole, to install the pump, and then build the new pumphouse, and are on track with that project. Page 7 of 87 03/09/26 -5- DRAFT Councilmember Jerzak said in the weekly update that maybe Public Works could provide a brief update if there has been any change in the PFAS, because occasionally, he gets questions about that. Mayor Graves said there have been changes at the federal level regarding PFAS, too. Ms. Heyman said the last testing they did for PFAS did not show any significant changes, but she could talk with their consultant in terms of updates at the federal level. She said as far as she knows, none of the federal regulations would change how the City would move forward regarding how they are dealing with PFAS. Mayor Graves said she was not implying that, but it might change the levels that Public Works is dealing with over time. Councilmember Jerzak said perhaps in a weekly update, the redundant system that the Council would like information on could be addressed. Ms. Ener said Public Works just put in a grant application to move forward with the redundant water main project included in the Capital Improvement Plan, and principal engineer Hannah just helped them put together a request for a grant to help fund that project. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked about the 5,100 traffic signs and said that it seems like a lot. Ms. Ener said it is a lot of signs, but that does include all of the sign blades, including every street sign, any stop signs, delineators, and pedestrian crossing. Councilmember Lawrence- Anderson said she was thinking of just stop signs. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked about the 40 treatment facilities. Ms. Ener said those would be associated with storm water, sumps in the bottom, grit chambers, membranes, or anything that traps what the City does not want moving through the storm sewer, and work to improve water quality for the storm sewer. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson thanked Ms. Ener for her report. Councilmember Moore asked where Public Works is looking at traffic calming for the record. Ms. Ener said they are looking at a permanent installation in the Grandview neighborhood at Fremont, 58th, and Emerson. She stated they are also looking at a pilot or permanent installation along Lilac near the golf course area. Councilmember Moore said she received a notification that the Three Rivers Park District is looking at input for North Mississippi Regional Park, which is very close to her, and wondered if the City is going to be involved in those discussions with Three Rivers and what the City wants to see for North Mississippi Regional Park. Ms. Heyman said that the notification was from the Minneapolis Park Board, as they are the owners of that facility. Ms. Heyman added that Public Works has been monitoring it as it comes through, but as the owner, they are pushing out engagement and concepts along those lines; residents of Brooklyn Center are free to give any input. Councilmember Moore reiterated that Brooklyn Center residents can give input because it is on Page 8 of 87 03/09/26 -6- DRAFT the border, but Minneapolis is the owner. Ms. Heyman confirmed that was correct. Councilmember Moore said she thought she saw the Three Rivers District looking for input from Brooklyn Center residents. Ms. Heyman said she would have to check where that ownership and jurisdiction line changes over, but the large majority of that project is further south and is owned by Minneapolis, but as it moves into Brooklyn Center, the Three Rivers Park District owns the trail. Councilmember Moore said she would think that the City would want to be involved, or at least make sure that the Parks and Recreation Commission or others are there for discussion that might be happening around the regional park, and asked if that is a possibility. Ms. Heyman said it would be difficult for Staff to continually attend, but Public Works has shared that information in the past with the Parks and Recreation Commission and it has been pushed out via social media channels to keep residents informed about the project itself. Ms. Heyman added that Public Works understands it is important to maintain regional connections regarding the project. Councilmember Kragness asked about the well project, and noted it has been a $2 million project that has been underfunded, and asked how the City will pay for that, as Ms. Ener had alluded to some grant potential. Ms. Ener said Public Works applied for a grant for the redundant water main coming out of the water treatment plant, which is a separate project listed in the 2028 CIP. Ms. Ener added that the wellhouse project that is currently in progress for Well 11 is being tracked by several Staff members within Public Works to check the budget every month to make sure it is tracking properly. She added that Staff are checking invoices monthly with the contractors to ensure that they are in line with the appropriated budget. Councilmember Kragness said the project is still underfunded, so how is the City going to pay for that. Ms. Heyman said the project is not underfunded, and Well 11 is a new well that needed to be built because Well 7 failed, and Public Works found out it failed in early 2023. The project is being funded with the water utility rates, but a large majority of it is being funded with bonds that were purchased last October. Councilmember Kragness said maybe she wrote down the wrong project, but she wrote down that Ms. Heyman said there was a $2 million project that was underfunded. Ms. Heyman said that was a long-standing placeholder for the water meter change-out that had been sitting since before Ms. Heyman joined the City, and she said it was underfunded because they are now looking at 1,000 water meters costing $500,000, so $2 million is not going to cover the 9,000 meters if they have to replace them all. Councilmember Kragness said if 1,000 meters cost $500,000 to replace them and the City is losing $300,000 roughly in revenue, then the fund is still coming up short $200,000. Ms. Heyman said the $300,000 in revenue loss is only for the no- flow meters, but the amount that it costs to replace the meters is not going to be fully covered by the revenue lost at this point. Mayor Graves said her question is about the pipeline to employment in the Public Works Department. She said she knows she has brought this up many times, but she asked if there was an update on a career pathway that is accessible and provides a good job. Ms. Heyman said that since she joined the City, there were a few years when it was really difficult to recruit seasonal members, but it is a great pipeline, and a great entry-level job, so she and Staff have been interested in supporting that type of work. She said they have done a few things in the Department, including working with the BrookLynk program, which had a few different options, including construction and trades pathways to employment through Hennepin Technical College. She added that for part Page 9 of 87 03/09/26 -7- DRAFT of the program, students are brought in to tour the facility, and Public Works does mock interviews with them and chooses the folks who are most interested and qualified. Ms. Heyman stated that one of the folks who went through that program did become a full-time Staff member with Public Works. She stated they have also connected their BrookLynk friends with the city of Minneapolis' program, because the Brooklyn Center Staff in the Public Works Department is relatively small and does not see a lot of turnover, and with that connection in Minneapolis, the BrookLynk students have the ability to work across those lines, and there is an open level of communication and more opportunity there. She stated that Public Works is also working with Charles Walker and the Outreach program through Parks and Recreation to connect with schools and the guidance counselors to bring a tour of students through the facility and teach them about Public Works equipment. She stated that the Department is doing its best to leverage resources, but they are a small team and would not have the ability to make those programs themselves, so they are partnering with BrookLynk and other technical programs and career fairs at the high schools in the City. Mayor Graves said that sounds excellent, and she is happy to hear that a student from BrookLynk was able to use that pathway to work full-time for the City. Councilmember Moore asked if the City is continuing the partnership with Great River Greening, since last year they did free tree distribution at East Palmer Lake. Ms. Heyman said the City did partner with Great River Greening, which is not just specifically trees, but this will be year two of that partnership. Ms. Heyman explained that Great River Greening won a federal grant for a coalition of cities, and Brooklyn Center is one of those cities. Ms. Heyman added that the great thing about this partnership is that the City will be able to take down a large majority of the public ash trees with that federal grant. Councilmember Moore said she knew that Green River Greening was doing removals as part of that coalition of work, and they may not have trees available this year. Councilmember Moore said she wants people to know about it because it is a great coalition and did apply to Brooklyn Center residents last year, and she was able to get some free trees along with some apartments and townhouse complex areas as well, which the residents were really thrilled about. Mayor Graves thanked Ms. Ener and Ms. Heyman for the presentation. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8a. ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REPLACING IN ITS ENTIRETY CHAPTER 23, SECTIONS 23-2400 THROUGH 23-2411 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING HOSPITALITY ACCOMMODATIONS Mr. Nyquist introduced City Clerk Shannon Pettit to present this item to the Council. Ms. Pettit said the Council has seen this information a few times now, so she will go over it quickly, but will ask questions if needed. Ms. Pettit explained that the Council previously received presentations on this item on March 14 and October 13, 205 with a first reading on February 9, 2026. She noted that Staff including the Police Department, Fire Department, Community Development, Administration, and the City Attorney, worked on updating the ordinance and opted to repeal and replace the existing ordinance with the provided updated version. She added that Page 10 of 87 03/09/26 -8- DRAFT Staff asked for feedback from the Council and updated the proposed ordinance to reflect the recommendations. Ms. Pettit added that the reason for the ordinance change is due to concerns about calls for service to the hotels, as well as past inspections done by both Hennepin County and the City of Brooklyn Center that have addressed or spotted some health, fire, and safety concerns. She added that there have also been issues seen with long-term lodgers at the hotels. Ms. Pettit explained the changes in the ordinance involve updated definitions, the application process, the language around inspections by City Staff, the ability to impose conditions on the licenses if necessary, removal of calls for service, removal of licensing levels, inclusion of nuisance call definitions, outline standards of operations, and outline clear procedures for enforcement for Staff. Ms. Pettit said for tonight, the requested Council action includes opening the Public Hearing and taking public comment, closing the Public Hearing, and allowing Council discussion and two separate motions to adopt the ordinance and adopt a resolution approving a summary publication of the ordinance. Councilmember Jerzak thanked Ms. Pettit and other Staff for all the work that has gone into this ordinance change. He noted that he hopes the Council recognizes there is no perfect ordinance, and the Council may have to come back and review, and hopefully that happens more frequently than every 12 years. He added that the questions he had were addressed through Mr. Nyquist regarding some amendments that were provided this morning. He asked City Attorney Siobhan Tolar if the ordinance passed tonight, in the way that it is written, on page 76 of 87 under section D, states that going forward, they will expire on April 30. He asked how this would work with the Council repealing the existing ordinance. He asked if the Staff will have appropriate time to prepare all necessary background checks and the information needed to gather for all the license applications, because not everybody is always timely. He asked if there would be an educational rollout for the motels to know what the new ordinance entails, and if there would be an interim period. He asked if the Council has the ability to extend that deadline from April 30 because that will be a lot of work for Staff when all of the licenses expire, and background checks are needed for new licenses. Ms. Tolar said that it is a Staff question in terms of how to get things done quickly, and the data on the ordinance can be changed, but it will push things back, and until the ordinance gets passed, the City will operate under the existing ordinance. Councilmember Jerzak asked about page 77 of 87 under section H. It states, "It is the responsibility of the business to notify the City of all interested persons after issuing of license." He added that he spent a large portion of his career trying to enforce ordinances that were unenforceable, and if these hotels have a large turnover in employment, so after they hire someone new, they are supposed to get a background check done, and that should be put on the business, but how is the business going to notify the City. He asked if the City will restrict the new employee and will not let them start working until they pass a drug test and a background check. He said this portion of the ordinance is ambiguous and needs to be clarified, because the City does not have the Staff to chase down hotel employees, and there is a lot of changeover in that industry. He added that those people are important in hotels because they are the frontline employees, and if they have felony Page 11 of 87 03/09/26 -9- DRAFT convictions or something, that could be a bad situation. He continued that it did not need to be debated tonight, but should be taken into consideration. Ms. Pettit said Staff have made a plan to notify hotel license holders of the changes with a formal letter that is ready to go if the ordinance passes. This letter will inform the license holders and the hotel properties that it will take effect mid-April, and it will be in effect when their license is renewed. She added that there will also be an invitation to them to discuss with City Staff if necessary, and possible site visits to hotels to make sure hotel staff are aware of the ordinance changes. Ms. Pettit said either way, the City would invite all license holders to go over the changes and implications that it could have on the business. Ms. Pettit continued that for background checks, the current process is that they are done every year, and if there is a change in management, it is left up to the hotel to contact the City to notify City Staff of any management changes, in which case a new background check would be run at that time. Councilmember Jerzak said that it will have to be a Staff thing; he just wanted to bring it up because it was unclear in the ordinance. Councilmember Jerzak asked about the portion on page 81 of 87 under 15, the way it is written states there is no interest in employee, manager, or contract, and may reside in a guest room, and that is problematic. He said this is problematic because oftentimes, night managers, or interim managers, or transfer managers were allowed to stay at the hotels as part of their compensation. He noted that Super 8 used to do this because they had a rental license, and that is problematic because now the City is telling private parties what they can or cannot do with their own private property. He said he thinks this portion of the ordinance needs some attention because if a night manager is living at the hotel as part of their compensation, and there are issues, they would have to figure out where the night manager could stay or potentially move to a different hotel. He said he is nervous about this part of the ordinance. Mayor Graves said she thinks Councilmember Jerzak has a point. Ms. Tolar asked for a point of clarification, because there is a difference between sleeping over during the night shift versus living at the hotel as a residence. She asked if some hotels are allowing people to live at the hotel, eat, sleep, and live at the hotel as their residence, or just sleep there during their night shift. Councilmember Jerzak said he has seen it both ways, and sometimes it is part of the employment package, particularly with front desk managers. He said this is the time to consider all of this. He added that he thinks this portion of the ordinance might be a problem for employees who are staying at the hotel, with the way it is written. Mayor Graves said she was curious what other cities do about this issue specifically. Ms. Pettit said this is a conversation that City Staff is having, and there is one rental license at the hotel, and she does not want to mispeak, but her understanding is that the hotels are not zoned for rentals. She added that it is a conversation that is being had internally to address that and move forward. Councilmember Jerzak said if it is a non-issue, that is fine. He added that it used to be part of employment packages in the past for hotels, which is why the City should be aware of it. He said Page 12 of 87 03/09/26 -10- DRAFT he would not name names, but there were some managers who were problematic in the past who were living at the hotels, and there was some criminal activity that occurred, which is why he is bringing it up now. He said he would yield to those comments. Mayor Graves asked if there were any other questions or comments from the Council. Councilmember Moore said she wanted to clarify with Councilmember Jerzak and noted that the Fire Chief Todd Berg was present as well, but the Council was presented with pictures previously, of hotel rooms filled almost to the ceiling with items, and the assumption was that someone may have been living in those rooms or was part of a contract. She asked if she was correct in that assumption and if Chief Berg could shed some light on that, because she was absent from that presentation. Chief Berg said that in a few of the hotels that he has been in, there are permanent residents who are there as part of their employment package. He noted some of those rooms were fine, and some were not. The pictures shared with the Council during the hotel update were of a room of a permanent resident and a few storage rooms that needed to be cleaned out. He asked Councilmember Moore if that answered her question. Councilmember Moore asked if there was at least one example of an employee who was living at the hotel as part of their contract that Chief Berg was aware of. Chief Berg confirmed that was correct. Councilmember Moore said she would then concur with what Councilmember Jerzak is saying, that it is a concern if a property owner has a part of their contract for employment to live there, then the ordinance would not allow that. She asked if she was correct. Councilmember Jerzak said there is a zoning consideration, so he does not want to answer that question, but he wanted to bring this up for discussion. He suggested that City Staff take this section of the ordinance out and work on it, and bring it back to the Council for modification, because there is a desire to move forward with the ordinance since it has been languishing. He said this would move the ordinance along, and the zoning experts could tell the Council how to handle this. Mayor Graves said zoning seems to be the larger question that has not been answered by Staff, and her concern is that this would set the City up for a lawsuit. Councilmember Jerzak said litigation is why he brought this issue up. Ms. Tolar asked if the Council wants to amend this ordinance today by removing section 23-2408, which are the minimum standards of operation, A.15. Councilmember Moore said that is correct. Mayor Graves said she was not sure. Ms. Tolar said someone needs to tell her, for sure. Councilmember Moore said she was correct; it is section 23-2408, subsection A, number 15 that needs to be removed. Ms. Tolar thanked Councilmember Moore for the clarification. Councilmember Kragness asked for clarity on whether the Council is removing that portion of the ordinance because it would be part of the employee's employment. She asked if it would be possible to change the ordinance to say that a person could not reside at the hotel without a work Page 13 of 87 03/09/26 -11- DRAFT contract on file, because then it would be acknowledged. Councilmember Jerzak said that would bring up the zoning question, though. Mayor Graves said she thought there was a larger question beyond someone staying there that needs clarity. She asked if that was the section identified for Ms. Tolar. Councilmember Moore confirmed that it was the section to be removed completely. Mayor Graves said Staff could get some clarity and bring it back as an amendment. Ms. Tolar asked when the Council was looking to amend this, because it does not take effect for a while. Mayor Graves asked if it could be amended before it takes effect. Ms. Tolar said it could not, and today is the day that the Council makes the final changes or decides if they want a third reading. Ms. Tolar said there is nothing in the City Charter that states they cannot have a third reading of an ordinance, but the longer it takes to approve this ordinance, the longer the Council is pushing out the effective date. Ms. Tolar explained that the Council's options are to approve it with the amendment that they discussed today, and the Mayor would sign it within 48 hours with the changes, and it would take effect 30 days after publishing. She noted that after the ordinance is effective and people are on board, then the Council can amend, but the Council cannot amend something that is not effective. Ms. Tolar stated the Council has probably 40 to 50 days before this ordinance even takes effect, or bring this ordinance back at the next meeting and then push it, but the Council would be adding that additional time in. Mayor Graves asked what the preference of the Council was. Councilmember Kragness said she would be in favor of pushing the ordinance through and omitting that part for now. Mayor Graves noted there was a consensus among the Council. Mayor Graves moved, and Councilmember Moore seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Kevin S. of the Evergreen neighborhood stated he drives by these hotels often. He stated the ordinance talks about the inside of the buildings, and asked if the outside will be held to any standard. He noted that when the Baymont hotel was going through its situation, they had trash on a trailer, and it was contained. He said the Travelodge is a different story. Even before this came up at Council meetings, there were piles of trash outside the back of the building, not in a dumpster, and the back fences of the property are filthy. He said the patrons of Denny's at the time would look out the window and wonder what kind of neighborhood or City they were in, and now it is even worse. He said he has not driven by now in the last couple of weeks, but every time he takes that exit, he looks at that property, and it is a pig pen. He said he does not know if the Council has any control over the outside of the hotels. Mayor Graves said she would anticipate that the exterior would be part of the inspection, not just the inside of the building, and stated Kevin S. raised some good points. Kevin S. continued that he heard the Council bring up permanent residents, and asked how that deals with the residents that the county puts in the hotels, and if anyone tracks how long they stay Page 14 of 87 03/09/26 -12- DRAFT at the hotels, or if they are transitional. He said he would never know that there are county people in there, because they do not do anything outside the building, which is probably a good thing. He asked if the City has any control or communication with the county regarding how long those residents can stay at the hotel. Mayor Graves thanked Kevin S. for speaking. Mayor Graves moved, and Councilmember Jerzak seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Jerzak stated the City code enforcement does have jurisdiction outside of the building, such as trash and overflowing dumpsters, and maintenance items, either from a proactive standpoint or from a complaint. He said if people see it, feel free to call in to the City, and there will be a response to that. Councilmember Moore added that Community Prevention, Health and Safety Director LaToya Turk works with an Outreach provider and may have some information regarding what is going on with transitional housing, which is not permanent housing. She stated just to be clear that transitional housing that the county has authorized through a variety of ways for a variety of reasons is transitional and is not considered a permanent residence. Councilmember Jerzak moved, and Councilmember Moore seconded to adopt an Ordinance Repealing and Replacing in its entirety Chapter 23, Sections 23-2400 through 23-2411, with the noted exception, of the Brooklyn Center City Code of Ordinances, regarding Hospitality Accommodations and a Resolution. Motion passed unanimously. Mayor Graves moved, and Councilmember Moore seconded to adopt a Resolution Approving a Summary Publication of an Ordinance Repealing and Replacing in its entirety Section 23-2400, with the noted exceptions, of the Brooklyn Center City Code of Ordinances, Regarding Hospitality Accommodations. Motion passed unanimously. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS 10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 11. COUNCIL REPORT Mayor Graves reported on her attendance at the following events and provided information on the following upcoming events: • Shared that she continues to meet with state legislators, and with the Coalition of Mayors for safe and stable communities. • Attended a meeting of the Northwest Tourism board. Page 15 of 87 03/09/26 -13- DRAFT • Shared that she continues to have one-on-one meetings with Interim City and Deputy City Managers. • Attended the meet and greet for election updates with Hennepin County with Councilmember Kragness. She said there was a good turnout and a lot of questions, so she asked City Staff to come up with a frequently asked questions document, or provide that information on the City's website. She noted there were a lot of questions about people being able to vote safely and legally in the City. • She shared that she attended the Brooklyn Center Lions' meeting. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Graves moved, and Councilmember Jerzak seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 8:01 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Page 16 of 87 03/09/26 -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 MARCH 9, 2026 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor April Graves at 6:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor April Graves, Councilmembers Dan Jerzak, Teneshia Kragness, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, and Laurie Ann Moore. Also present were Interim City Manager Daren Nyquist, Interim Deputy City Manager and Public Works Director Liz Heyman, City Clerk Shannon Pettit, and City Attorney Siobhan Tolar. CITY COUNCIL MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS Mayor Graves asked if there were any questions on agenda items. Councilmember Moore said she would like to pull Consent Agenda item 6h. Resolution Approving Interim City Manager Daren Nyquist for the City of Brooklyn Center for calendar year 2026. Mayor Graves asked why Councilmember Moore would like to pull that agenda item. Councilmember Moore said she would like to discuss that agenda item. Mayor Graves asked if the Council would entertain discussing it right now. Councilmember Moore said no, the item is on the Consent Agenda, and she would like it pulled for discussion. Mayor Graves asked if other Councilmembers would like to pull that Consent Agenda item. Councilmember Jerzak said he did not need to pull that item. Mayor Graves asked if anyone else wished to pull the item. Councilmember Moore said she would like to discuss it now. Mayor Graves said the floor was Councilmember Moore's. Councilmember Moore asked about the automatic three percent cost of living increase, and she knows that came up during previous budget sessions, and considering the City is a business, she advocated ad nauseam that any employee at the City will get a mandated three percent cost of living increase. She said she knows that employees for the City have merit step increases if they meet objectives in their position, but she did not think there was an automatic three percent increase for any employee, and the only increases that could be are regarding union- negotiated contracts. She asked Interim City Manager Daren Nyquist if it was true that all employees were getting that three percent increase. Page 17 of 87 03/09/26 -2- DRAFT Mr. Nyquist said his understanding was that all full-time employees get Cost of Living Allowance (COLA), and part-time employees, for budgetary reasons, did not. He said he and Staff will be reviewing that policy for part-time Staff to get clarity on that, but all part-time employees did get a three percent increase this year. Councilmember Moore asked if all employees have gotten a three percent increase in COLA, no matter what the fiscal outlook is. Mr. Nyquist said he cannot speak to it before his time, and there may be someone with longer historical knowledge who could answer that. Councilmember Jerzak said that is not true, and there were several years that wages were frozen, but it is flexible. He said as a general rule, there is consideration for government employees, but he could not remember a single year that it kept up with the rate of inflation. He said that, having well-paid or fairly paid employees, because the City is far from being the top paying, it is then essential that the City rewards those who are doing their job. He said the three percent increase advocates for market-rate pay. Councilmember Moore said that Councilmember Jerzak said, as a past employee, it is not a guarantee that all full-time employees get a three percent increase, and it is something that would be discussed throughout the budget process. Councilmember Kragness said to go along with what Councilmember Moore is saying, maybe the document should say the salary may include the COLA increase, to give the option, versus being an obligation. Councilmember Moore said that would be perfect. Councilmember Moore said regarding the retention bonus, she knows that the previous administrator may or may not have had a $5,000 retention bonus, and asked if that was in line with the previous Interim City Manager Contract from five years ago. Mr. Nyquist said this is new to him, and he looked to his peers to see what is generally in the contract for an Interim position. He said that a lot of example contracts included car stipends, and for him, that did not fit, but a retention bonus does because having a leader leave out of the blue at this point would be a critical mistake, and that bonus was put in there as a safety net for the organization. Councilmember Moore said it is basically an incentive. Mr. Nyquist agreed and said it is to keep him in this position as a caretaker for the full-time position. Councilmember Moore said she did not disagree with his statement, and asked if that was something that was offered five years ago with the Interim City Manager position. Mr. Nyquist said he could not answer that. Councilmember Moore asked if the current salary of $170,040 per year is the current baseline of a City Manager position in the City. Mr. Nyquist said that was the salary of the previous City Manager, and across all the nearby cities, that salary is actually on the lower end. Councilmember Moore thanked Mr. Nyquist for that clarity because she does not have the chart of the City Manager salaries in front of her. She added that the vacation time is probably in line with another incentive, along with the retention bonus. She thanked Mr. Nyquist and the Council for allowing her time to ask these questions. Page 18 of 87 03/09/26 -3- DRAFT Councilmember Kragness asked if the salary is just based on position or if education and experience are taken into consideration, because Dr. Edwards had a PhD and a Master's degree, and that salary is still on the lower end. Mr. Nyquist said it is based on a pay range, and he said he could not tell the Council what the exact range of this position is right now, but the salary is on the lower end of that range. He added that he also has a Master's degree and 15 years of experience, but in terms of being in this new position himself, he said he would be lacking in that aspect. He added that, looking at similar-sized cities with similar budgets, the City Manager's salary is still on the lower end. He continued that taking him out of the Deputy City Manager and into the Interim City Manager position raises it up quite drastically, but he is willing to talk about the salary and stated that he has a Master's degree and 15 to 20 years of experience in the public sector administration. Councilmember Kragness said she was not questioning the salary itself, but was questioning the range because she knows there were issues, even with someone having a plethora of experience like Dr. Edwards had, his salary was still on the lower end, and she wanted to bring attention to that. Mayor Graves thanked Councilmember Kragness for bringing that up because she was thinking the same thing. She asked if there were any further questions regarding agenda items. CITY MANAGER MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS 2026 DEPARTMENT PRIORITY PROJECT UPDATES Mr. Nyquist explained that he wanted to repeat what the Council did last year, which was sorting and ordering topics of conversation for Council meetings. He said he and Staff put together a list of all priority projects that Departments are working on. He said the Council should be mindful of the limited time space in the agendas, as things are starting to fill up, but wanted to give the Council the opportunity to request any items they may want to see a presentation on from Staff over the next four to six months. He added that the Council will receive an email with 10 different items that they can choose to have a presentation on or hear more about. Once he gets those votes from the Council, he will rank them and propose some agendas for future presentations on topics from Staff across the Departments, and at the next Council meeting, hopefully, the Council will have some agendas to look at. Mayor Graves said that sounded good and encouraged Councilmembers to respond to that email. Councilmember Moore said she did not see an agenda item regarding rental inspections, and previously, it had been brought forward and discussed between her and Mr. Nyquist in their one- to-one meetings. She said he had mentioned that there were a few issues and some clarity was needed around finalizing that to be presented, and asked if the Council had already voted on it. Mayor Graves said the rental license is on the Work Session agenda tonight. Page 19 of 87 03/09/26 -4- DRAFT Councilmember Jerzak said the rental license discussion was on tonight's agenda. Councilmember Moore said she missed it in her Council packet because she does not have a Work Session or EDA agenda. Mayor Graves said the agenda was in the middle of the packet. Councilmember Moore said she did not see it, and her packet had part of a presentation duplicated, but it did not include the EDA agenda. She thanked the Council for clarifying that right away. Mayor Graves said she would like to move up agenda item b. City-Wide Water Meter Changeout Plan: Policy Decision Discussion from the Work Session, if the Council agreed to discuss it now. The Council unanimously agreed to discuss it now. CITY-WIDE WATER METER CHANGEOUT PLAN: POLICY DECISION DISCUSSION Mr. Nyquist introduced Public Works Director and Interim Deputy City Manager Liz Heyman to present this item. He noted that Ms. Heyman has been working with the Finance Department to put this plan together, and it is going to take both Departments collaborating to push this out successfully since Utility billing is handled under Finance, and changing water meters and procedures is under Public Works. He added that Dan Tintner from Ellers would be available to answer any technical questions about the water meters. Ms. Heyman said she was happy to finally be giving this presentation in front of the Council and give an update on this use. She said she would be covering water meters specifically in Brooklyn Center and the current status, along with a recommendation of a 10-year replacement plan and a focused plan for year one, and policy items that she would like to discuss with the Council tonight. Ms. Heyman explained that water meters measure how much water flows into the building so the water utility can bill for usage, but people might not know there are different types of ownership of the infrastructure that goes with delivering water from the water treatment plant to a private piece of property. The City owns the water main, which runs directly down the middle of the street, but the private property owner owns all of the other infrastructure from the main into the house, including the curb stop, which is privately owned. She stated the City maintains ownership of the water meter itself, despite it being inside the private property, so the City has a responsibility to maintain the water meter. She noted that the water meters are a joint responsibility between Public Works and the Finance Department, as Finance manages utility billing, which maintains water meter data, bills, and usage, and customer service, like scheduling replacements, while Public Works installs and maintains the water meters. Ms. Heyman explained that the City uses Neptune Water meters with 9,013 total water connections, with two types of water meters. The residential water meters have a 15 to 20 year lifespan, with large industrial or commercial meters having a 10 to 15 year lifespan. The commercial water meters have a shorter lifespan due to the amount of work they do for larger-scale operations like schools, and the harder the meters work, the sooner they fail. The last major changes in the City Page 20 of 87 03/09/26 -5- DRAFT were in 2017 and 2009. There has been a long-standing CIP project as a placeholder that was set out to 2028 for a major City-wide change out, and she will discuss why the City is changing course on that, but it is important to understand that the City had always been planning a large-scale change out. She added that the CIP project fund only had $2 million dollars, and when looking at prices, the project was underfunded in that aspect, but was sitting there as a placeholder to address another City-wide change out. Ms. Heyman continued that the age distribution of the meters in the City with about 47 percent of the meters installed in 2017, with some more lifespan left, and with almost 48 percent of the meters installed in 2009, the City is behind replacement by two years, with a possible three years left on those meters depending on where they are in their lifespan for the residential meters. She noted that the commercial meters in the City that were installed in 2017 and 2009 are anywhere from two to seven years behind, where they would expect to see those meters beginning to fail. She noted that overall, there is more time left on the meters installed in 2017, and less time left on the meters installed in 2009. Mayor Graves asked about the number of commercial meters and what percentage of the total that number is. Ms. Heyman asked her which number she was referring to. Mayor Graves said Ms. Heyman had said 282. Ms. Heyman explained that the 282 is the total number of commercial meters that have been installed since 2017. Mayor Graves asked how many new commercial meters are needed. Ms. Heyman asked if she meant how many needed to be replaced immediately. Mayor Graves confirmed that is what she was asking. Ms. Heyman said she would get to that shortly, but thought the total number was 1,672, and would get into more detail, but she did not have the split out between the larger meters versus the residential. Mayor Graves asked what the 3.1 percent on her chart was indicative of. Ms. Heyman said the 3.1 percent is the percentage of commercial meters of the 9,013 total meters. Mayor Graves asked if the smaller percentages were reflecting that the City has done much less of the commercial replacements than the residential. Ms. Heyman said the chart shown is just the age distribution of the meters in the City, not the status of the change-out. Ms. Heyman noted that it is not like these meters just stop working immediately after 10 to 15 years; some can last for 20 to 25 years, but one can expect between that 10 to 15 year range to slowly start to see these meters fail. She said these meters, over time, slowly decline in accuracy and automated reads before there is any known indication that something is wrong with the meter, and all meters become less sensitive over time, which impacts revenue collection. She stated this is why the City needs to be ready to change the meters out earlier, rather than when they start to see them fail. She said it is normal to see a steady share of meters that need troubleshooting, repair, or replacement across the entire system; however, the City is at a larger name than Staff would like to see. She noted that this time, Staff estimates that 18.5 percent of meters in the City, or 1,673 meters, are currently in need of attention. She said that meters that are flagged do not necessarily mean that they are broken; it means a field check is needed to determine what is wrong with the meter. She explained that some meters may be on vacant property that the City does not know about, or a meter is an irrgigantion meter, or the resident is a snowbird on vacation, and there Page 21 of 87 03/09/26 -6- DRAFT are a lot of reasons why a meter may be registering in one way or another and the only way to understand why a meter is being flagged is with a field check. Ms. Heyman noted that once a meter is flagged, the billing on the account gets put into one of two buckets: the minimum charge or the historical average. She stated that the minimum charge is implemented after a meter has been flagged for 35 days, and the minimum charge is $35.61 per quarter, which is set in the City's fee schedule. The minimum charge is charged to meters that are reading, but not registering any water flow. She explained that all of the meters are charged quarterly, and of the 1,673 meters that were flagged, 782 (47 percent) are billed at the set minimum, and 891 (53 percent) are billed based on past account historical average. The historical average is used for meters that are not reading at all. Councilmember Moore asked what 47 percent was. Ms. Heyman said 47 percent of the 1,673 meters that were flagged are not registering any water flow. Councilmember Moore stated that half of the 1,673 meters are only paying the $35.61 bill per quarter. Ms. Heyman confirmed that it is correct. Ms. Heyman continued that 53 percent of those meters are being billed on a past historical average, and those meters are the ones that the City is getting an error reading back. She stated that, unfortunately, with the no-flow meters, there could be different reasons why that meter is not registering any flow, so the City does not have a good way to put in an estimated revenue for those. Ms. Heyman continued that there is no good way to estimate revenue loss from accounts billing at the historical average. She stated they did take a look and made some assumptions for the no flow meters specifically, so that is the ones that are still reading but not registering water flow, and the assumption is that 18,000 gallons of water are being used per quarter which is about 6.4 percent of the City’s annual water user revenue, then the City is losing $318,000 of revenue per year from accounts billing at the set minimum. She said that is the largest number that they currently know because they had the help of the Ellers team to go through the data and figure out how many meters are in each bucket being billed at the historic average or the minimum. Mayor Graves asked if the Council had any questions before Ms. Heyman continued. Councilmember Moore asked if this means that 782 households are only being billed $35.61 per quarter, and are not even being billed based on a historical estimate, and if that is included in the $318,000. She asked if this goes back to 2017, because she has a hard time believing that the lost revenue only totals $318,000 revenue a year, with both the historical average, and the households that are only paying $35.61 a quarter. Ms. Heyman said that is not what she is saying, and since 2017, the assumption would be that meters continue to fail, as that is almost the entire lifetime of a meter. She said, based on the best information that she has today, when the reports were pulled a month ago, data showed that 782 meters had no flow, but this data is not going back to 2017. Ms. Heyman stated that there is no good way to estimate the historical average because residents could be using more water or less, depending on a lot of different choices within the household. Page 22 of 87 03/09/26 -7- DRAFT Councilmember Moore said she understands not being able to estimate the historical average, but going back to 2017 or almost 10 years ago, looking at best estimates as of today would include $3.18 million of total lost revenue. Ms. Heyman said no, there was a rough analysis, and the only number that she can tell the Council as of today, without a good understanding of failure rate, and after pulling the data with the help of Ellers, is the number of meters that have no flow, and the number of meters that are not read. Ms. Heyman said she cannot tell the Council of those 1,600 meters how many failed within the last six months, or if they all failed in 2022 when the City did the last change out, and she unfortunately does not have the ability to do that because the data was not being tracked in that way. Councilmember Moore thanked Ms. Heyman for that clarification and said the Council does know that there has been significant revenue loss because, over time, there has been a failure in the actual usage of the meters. Ms. Heyman said the City has lost revenue, whether that is significant would be difficult to say, because they have not been tracking the failure rate and what the definition of significant is. She stated that the $318,000 is 6.4 percent of the City's annual revenue for water. Councilmember Moore said that $318,000 is per year, though. Ms. Heyman said that is correct, and the 2024 audited amount was approximately $4.9 million in terms of revenue brought in. Councilmember Jerzak asked if the $35.61 being billed per quarter reflects the last two years of significant increases in utility billing. Ms. Heyman said she would have to ask when the last time the minimum charge was updated. Councilmember Jerzak said he was going to come back to that for discussion later about the policy, because he wants to know if that minimum charge was reflected in the increases. He asked about the meters being charged using a historical average, and if that resident is receiving a senior citizen discount on their water bill, how they can be sure they are still getting that discount versus being charged the historical average. Ms. Heyman said the resident would receive the discount off the amount they are supposed to be billed, and would have to call in to confirm their individual account has the discount being applied. She asked if she was misunderstanding Councilmember Jerzak's question. Councilmember Jerzak said if the resident applied for the discount, was eligible and got it, but has a no-flow meter, and is assigned the historical average, that could be significantly higher than the senior citizen discount they were receiving. He said they could also read the paper where the Council opted to raise the water utilities by 20 percent, and may not be billed correctly. Ms. Heyman said she would have to rely on the Utility Billing Department and get back to the Council on that question. Councilmember Jerzak said that it is fine; he just wanted to bring it up because it is a fairness thing, and if it is offered, it should be honored. Ms. Heyman said the main question Staff have been asking throughout the entire process is whether addressing the revenue shortfall in 2026 will bring down the water utility rates that have been projected for 2027 and 2028. She said Ellers has been extremely helpful in giving a rough analysis of this, and unfortunately, even if the City assumes to inject this revenue into the 2026 or 2027 water utility fund, it will still be in the negative. She said the aggressive and substantial increases in the short term are still warranted for the water utility fund. She stated that the water utility fund would still be in this position, even if all the water meters had been fixed and they were bringing in that lost revenue. Page 23 of 87 03/09/26 -8- DRAFT Ms. Heyman said Public Works has long known that there would have to be some large change- out project after they did one in 2009, and took a look at the meters again in 2017. The perspective is not to do one large change out, because all the meters would fail at once, which is not a good spot to be in from a technical and workload revenue perspective. She stated that Staff is recommending a 10-year change-out plan instead, changing out 1,000 meters per year, with all the meters that were installed in 2009 being replaced from 2026 to 2030, because those are the oldest meters within the failure range. She continued that from 2032 to 2035, all the meters from 2017 would be replaced, with an estimated cost including a two percent inflation added on to the current cost. She added that a 10-year replacement plan, instead of one large replacement plan, avoids that future replacement cliff, creates a steady state moving forward, and reduces the number of meters that are expected to fail in any given year. It is also a better way to manage the system and keep the program within the current budget capacity. This plan would keep spending steady across those years, so there would not be a large payout that needs to be made over one to two years to change all the meters out at once, which would cause utility rates to increase. This plan would ensure that the water meter change institutional knowledge is kept current, so Staff have an understanding year after year of how this works, who the City works with, and how the process is done. She added that revenue protection is the priority, and in 2026, all meters that are billing at the minimum rate would be changed out within year one, and focus would be on the large commercial and industrial meters to be replaced that have the most potential to have the largest revenue loss. She continued that the plan would be iterative based on utility billing data that the City has, and would work out some sort of process to understand what the meter failure rate is. As these meters age, one would expect more to fail every year, but now the City would be able to track and understand that failure rate and adjust the plan as it moves forward. Ms. Heyman noted that for year one of the 2026 replacement plan, a project of this size and scope must be consulted on. Public Works does not have enough Staff to change out this many water meters and continue day-to-day operations. She stated that there is a contract between the City and the water meter vendor Ferguson, who is the lead consultant. Ferguson sub-consults with a company called RMR Services, which runs all the customer interactions like sending letters, setting up appointments, and sends a RMR staff member to change out the meter. She added that customers do not pay an additional individual fee for having their meter changed out. She said she hesitates to say that this project is free, but if a resident is chosen in 2026 to have their water meter changed out, they will not be charged an additional fee for that change-out. Ms. Heyman said a rough timeline for year one of this project, once it gets kicked off, is one to two months for customer data entry and the first notice preparation, and then three to six months for installations. She said the City will be working closely with RMR to understand what progress they are making, and how quickly this can get done, because it will impact how this project moves forward over the next 10 years of planned replacements. She continued that the total project cost in 2026 is $516,618. This total includes $395,920 for meters and radios and $120,698 for installation and consulting services with RMR and Ferguson. Page 24 of 87 03/09/26 -9- DRAFT Ms. Heyman noted the plan for property owner notification, which includes targeted letters to the property owners and the property itself. This plan includes letter one, in which the customer is notified and asked to schedule an appointment. The replacement visit typically replaces both the indoor meter and the outside radio/endpoint, and some setups require running wire to an outside mount location. The 2009 meters that do not have a radio will receive one as part of this upgrade to take in readings. If a property owner does not schedule that appointment, a second letter will be sent two weeks after the first letter, and a third letter will be sent two weeks after the second. A fourth letter plus a field notice will be sent two weeks after the third letter and includes hand delivery, a door tag, and a 24-hour warning that water service at the property will be restored if Council approves, along with a yard and curb stop flag placed. She stated that generally, after a door tag and a flag are put in the yard, that is the last notice that someone needs; however, in some cases, it has not happened. Ms. Heyman asked if the Council supports using a water shutoff as the enforcement backstop when a customer does not provide access for a required meter replacement. She said her follow-up for Council to discuss is whether, if the shut-off valves fail during changeouts, the City should pay for plumber services to repair or replace broken valves so a change-out can proceed. Ms. Heyman said she will discuss these options one at a time before the Council discusses. She noted that if there is still no response after the final notice, the City has the authority to shut off water services until the account holder schedules a meter change-out. She noted that without running water, a dwelling may be considered uninhabitable under common health and safety standards. If the nonresponsive property is an apartment, hotel, or commercial building, Public Works Staff will coordinate with the Fire Department before shutting the water off. She stated she does not think those types of properties will be as likely to have issues, since the City has more ways to get in contact with those property owners or the property managers. If it is a residential property, it is sometimes more difficult. She added that after the water is shut off, the customers must call RMR to schedule a meter change-out, and RMR prioritizes scheduling these shut-off cases to minimize time without water. The customer would have to pay water restoration fees, which are $31 Monday through Friday from 7:30 AM to 3 PM and $83 after hours, weekends, and holidays. She stated that if the Council supports this as a backstop, Public Works would coordinate with RMR to schedule a shut-off at a time during the week, so the water is not shut off on a Friday at 4:30 PM. She noted that considerations are made for a rental property if the landlord is not responding, and anyone over the age of 18 can schedule a meter replacement, and does not have to be the account holder. Rental properties will also be addressed by sending notices to the property address and the property owner's address. The City will be pulling county property records and address data in order to mail notices to both the property and the owner, if the addresses do not match up. Ms. Heyman said she would stop there and ask the Council what they would like to enforce as part of the change-out process. Councilmember Moore said she is in full support of using a water shut-off as a backup for the customer. She asked if Ms. Heyman would like her to weigh in on the second question now as well, or just the water shut off. Mayor Graves said the Council should address one at a time. Page 25 of 87 03/09/26 -10- DRAFT Councilmember Jerzak said he respectfully disagrees and thinks there are better alternatives, having a lot of experience shutting off water in vacant properties. He said his concern is that in the times that they are living in, people may be very afraid to come to their door. He said the quickest way he can think of for people to schedule a change-out is to tell them the minimum rate will rise to $150 if they do not schedule a change-out. He stated that doing that still gives the City the opportunity to change the meter, versus shutting off the water, which is pretty drastic, especially if a resident is a snowbird or in rehabilitation, or there is the rental aspect that was discussed, or there is a sprinkler system or a warning or flow system involved. He said for those reasons, there are other ways to accomplish getting the water meter replaced. He said the Council also needs to discuss reinspection fees, and the average cost of a plumber is $600 to $700 to repair the shut-off valve if it breaks. He said he wanted to hear thoughts from the rest of the Council before he continued, but he is not in favor of shutting off the water and thinks there are other ways that the City can accomplish this. Ms. Heyman said other cities have used fines to accomplish this; unfortunately, under the City's current ordinance, they do not have the authority to levy a fine in this situation. She stated that the Council could propose an ordinance change, but that would take time and delay the start of the project. Councilmember Jerzak asked if the Council would have the authority to raise the minimum charge. Ms. Heyman said she would have to defer to the City Attorney on that. City Attorney Siobhan Tolar asked Councilmember Jerzak to specify what he means by minimum charge. Councilmember Jerzak said he understands that the fees are set in January. Ms. Tolar asked if he meant the minimum charge in the fee schedule for water rates. Councilmember Jerzak said yes and asked if the City could add a line to the bill that states that if the customer does not schedule a water meter change, then the minimum fee will be changed. Ms. Tolar said that would be a punishment and a fine, not a fee, and she would have to do some research on that. She stated she does not think the City can raise the fee schedule for people who do not pay their water utility without some type of legislative action, such as a resolution or an ordinance. Mayor Graves said she had not thought of the fee or fine idea, but the idea of shutting off somebody’s water does not resonate with her at all because residents should have a right to water. Mayor Graves said there does not need to be a debate about her opinion, and she does not support this personally. Councilmember Kragness said she does not support turning water off, but would be more in support of a fine or something along those lines. She said she wanted to reiterate that the loss of revenue right now is lower than the potential failure rate of doing a mass meter change, and that is the reason that the City is doing this in cycles, versus all at once. Ms. Heyman said that just like the CIP, where they build streets in different years to avoid a mass infrastructure failure all at once. Ms. Heyman said the City would spread out the installation date for these meters, so they do not all fail at once ten years after installation, and there would be a larger spread of meters of different ages. Page 26 of 87 03/09/26 -11- DRAFT Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson said she would like to find a better way than to shut off the water, and she is all about cause and effect. Residents need to schedule the replacement, but shutting off the water is a bit drastic. Councilmember Moore said the City has been looking at 10 years of individuals charged $35.61 a quarter, and as Ms. Heyman said, once the resident receives their final notice, they actually call. She asked if the Council is going to continue to let x number of people pay the minimum, and not get their water shut off or have some consequence if the City cannot fine them. Mayor Graves said the Council is talking about potential other consequences. Councilmember Moore asked why Mayor Graves is interrupting her. Mayor Graves said she is trying to debate the topic. Councilmember Moore asked for a point of order. Mayor Graves said she has heard the consensus of the Council, and Councilmember Moore is trying to relitigate something that she already had the chance to say. Councilmember Moore said she heard Mayor Graves say under her breath that the Council does not get to have a disagreement. Mayor Graves said she is not disagreeing with Councilmember Moore. Councilmember Moore asked if she could continue to make her point. Mayor Graves asked if it was a new point or the same point that was already made. Councilmember Moore asked if Mayor Graves is telling her what she can and cannot say on the dais. Mayor Graves asked if Councilmember Moore was going to restate the same thing. Councilmember Moore said she would yield, but this is inappropriate for the Mayor. Mayor Graves said Councilmember Moore is not going to keep bringing up something again and again. Councilmember Moore asked for a point of order and for the Mayor to move on. Mayor Graves said she was moving on to question number two and called on Councilmember Jerzak. Councilmember Moore said this is unbelievable. Mayor Graves asked Councilmember Moore to stop talking and interrupting. Councilmember Moore told Mayor Graves to stop talking. Councilmember Jerzak asked Ms. Heyman to restate what the second question was, for the record, and would follow up with his thoughts. Ms. Heyman asked the Council, before moving on, if there is going to be a fine set, and how much the fine should be. She said she could share that when St. Louis Park did their meter change-out a fair bit ago, they were charging $300 per quarter for the fine itself. She said she is interested in what the Council would like to do, so there does not need to be another Work Session on that, and Staff can work on that ordinance change. Mayor Graves said she would defer to Staff to do the research around fines in other cities that are comparable. Councilmember Jerzak said he would not be against that, and the City does not have Page 27 of 87 03/09/26 -12- DRAFT to reinvent the wheel on that. If it is going to take one to two months to get the letters ready to be sent out, he thinks the Council can get an ordinance back or a resolution in time to establish what the fine would be. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson said she would defer to the Staff's expertise and recommendation regarding the fines, and the whole purpose is to get into a property and replace the water meters, and the City does not want to penalize, but if the penalty is significant enough, it will get the resident's attention. She said her hope is that the message to residents will be that they are given a number of days to get the water meter changed, or they will be charged a fine. Councilmember Krangess said whatever the fine is, it will likely be a lot more than what the resident would be paying for water, so it would make more sense to get the meter changed out versus paying a $300 fine. Ms. Heyman added that St. Louis Park also stated that if the resident scheduled the change-out within a certain amount of time, then the fee would be waived. She said her point is that this is not going to be a massive revenue generator, but the City has to make sure that the infrastructure that they own is in working order and get into these properties to make the changes, and that is the goal. Councilmember Moore said one question Councilmember Jerzak brought up was whether the utility water increases applied to the minimum charge and the estimates. She stated that the City has been aware of the challenges with the water meters, and for two years has increased the water utility rate by 20 percent each year. From a common-sense perspective, why would the minimum rate charged not increase by 20 percent each year, as well. She stated this was not brought to the Council last year, and it may be a drop in the bucket in the lost revenue, but it would have been about treating everyone in the City equally when it came to paying for water, if everyone got the increase. Mayor Graves said the Council should address the second question regarding shut-off valve failures. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson said the City owns the water meters, and if something fails in the process of installing a new meter, she does not like it, but it would not be the resident’s fault for it failing unless it was abused or damaged. She said to make it brief, the City should pay for it. Councilmember Jerzak said he respectfully disagrees. He noted that the valve in question is inside the home, and should be part of home maintenance, and this is not about the valve in the yard. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson said she knows, but the City owns that meter. Councilmember Jerzak said when looking at the provided diagram, the responsibility of the shut- off valve, which is on the opposite side of the meter, is with the homeowners. He said his only point is that he has paid the $600 fee when he had to hire a plumber, and this is part of maintenance, and the City cannot be paying for all of these, and it is part of owning a home. He added that the City does own the meter, but the meter is inside the home, and the shut-off valve is like plumbing Page 28 of 87 03/09/26 -13- DRAFT in the house and is the homeowner's responsibility. He said if the shut-off valve fails, he does not think the City should be paying for that, but maybe there could be some type of payment plan set up, or the worst thing is the City could also assess it at the end of the year. He said he does not know what kind of exposure the City has; these shut-off valve systems could be 70 to 90 years old, and some of them have never been touched and would be an unfair exposure to the City. Councilmember Moore said two years ago that her shut-off valve failed, and she paid $780, and it was her responsibility. She said the City was very clear that the valve was leaking, and with the corrosion, it was her responsibility to pay for the plumber. She said it could certainly be assessed, but it is the homeowner's responsibility, and she was clearly told that when she had to replace hers. Councilmember Kragness asked how the City can enforce that. She stated that as a homeowner, if a part breaks, the City cannot force them to get it fixed, and if the homeowner does not get it fixed, it will interfere with the City's water meter. She said that unless the City assesses that charge, they cannot force someone to get anything repaired in their home. Ms. Heyman agreed and said the City cannot force the homeowner to repair it, but in this specific alternative, if the valve is stuck in the off position, the homeowner does not have water, so the homeowner would almost certainly have to call a plumber. Ms. Heyman said if a water meter change is scheduled and RMR comes out, and the valve does not turn and gets stuck in the on position, then staff could use a freeze kit, which freezes the pipe for a small amount of time, make the change out, and it is done. She added that RMR would turn to the homeowner and tell them that during the change-out process, the valve is now broken, but is in the on position, so the homeowner would still have water. In most cases, RMR would leave because the meter is changed, and it now becomes the homeowner's responsibility to fix the valve. She added that in some cases, though, the valve gets stuck in the off position, and the meter can still be changed, but RMR would walk out, and if the homeowner has taken off work and now has no water and has to call a plumber or potentially reschedule the meter change out, the City would be receiving a lot of calls. She stated she wanted the Council to be aware of what the implications are for that. She said both Councilmembers Moore and Jerzak are correct, that the valve is owned by the property owner. Mayor Graves said she has replaced the shut-off valve in her house, and it was one of the first things she did when she moved in. She said she would be a bit more nervous about the valve out in the street, because that one is a lot more expensive, but the Council is not talking about those. Ms. Heyman confirmed that those are not the types of valves that they are discussing. Mayor Graves said she does not think the City should foot the bill for this, although she hopes that the valve does not break and it does not happen to too many people. She asked if the valve had gotten stuck in the on position, and RMR used the freeze method and got the job done without having to pay the full $600. Ms. Heyman said the freeze kit is an option, but there is no guarantee that it would work every single time. Mayor Graves said she recognizes that, but at least that would be an option, and at a lower cost. Ms. Heyman said she would need to work with RMR and confirm that their staff is trained in the freeze kits and have them available, or it may be an instance where Public Works sends out Staff to take care of it. Mayor Graves said she wanted to ensure that if it is an option, it is available for folks who may be struggling with finances, and could get Page 29 of 87 03/09/26 -14- DRAFT the valve replaced when they are in a better financial position, but if a lower cost option is available, it should be offered. Mayor Graves said that was all the time they had for the Study Session. She said she would call the Regular Session to order and may take a quick break later. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Graves adjourned the Study Session at 7:05 p.m. Page 30 of 87 03/09/26 -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 MARCH 9, 2026 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 8:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President April Graves, Councilmember/Commissioners Teneshia Kragness, Dan Jerzak, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, and Laurie Ann Moore. Also present were Interim City Manager Daren Nyquist, Interim Deputy Manager and Public Works Director Liz Heyman, Housing Community Standards Manager Xiong Thao, City Clerk Shannon Pettit, and City Attorney Siobhan Tolar. ACTIVE DISCUSSION ITEMS Councilmember/Commissioner/Commissioner Moore asked if the water meter conversation was finished. Mayor/President Graves said she thought so. Mayor/President Graves asked Ms. Heyman if she got the answers that she needed on the water meters, or if there were any lingering questions she needed answered. Ms. Heyman said she thought so, and the plan would be to come back to the Council with an ordinance change regarding a fine structure, and the City will not be paying for any valve improvements. Ms. Heyman said she did want to bring something up that the Interim Finance Director, Dan Tinter, brought up, that the Council can discuss when the ordinance draft is brought forward, but there would be an option for the property owner to agree to put a valve replacement on the assessment roll right when it happens. Mayor/President Graves said she thinks more options are better than fewer options. Ms. Heyman said if Council is supportive of that, it can be brought forward the next time they discuss it with Council. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore asked to clarify that there is no consensus to shut off the water. The Council agreed it was not the consensus. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore asked in terms of process, then there would be a fourth letter and a field notice two weeks after the third letter, a hand delivery, and some door tag, and then what, since the consensus is not to shut the water off or at least threaten to shut it off, then what will happen. Page 31 of 87 11/10/25 -2- DRAFT Ms. Heyman said the consensus of the Council was to look into a new ordinance that would allow the City to levy a fine, in the absence of shutting the water off. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore asked what the timeline is to get that into place and do the research. Mayor/President Graves said it would be discussed at the next meeting. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore thanked the Mayor/President for clarification. RENTAL LICENSE PROGRAM CHANGES Mr. Nyquist introduced Xiong Thao, Housing Community Standards Supervisor, to discuss the next iteration of proposed rental license program changes. He noted that Staff heard feedback at the last meeting and will go over updates and have further conversations. Mr. Thao noted that Staff has brought this issue to Council over the last several months, and at the last meeting on January 12, 2026, specific questions were asked regarding the rental license program. He added that the purpose of this Work Session is to go through the requested changes in the form of a proposed ordinance amendment, which is in front of Council. Mr. Thao explained that currently there are 551 active rental licenses at the City, and these do not include the different milestones for the rental programs, such as expired or pending licenses. He added that under the proposed amendment, type one licenses would lose one year off their licenses and pay more frequently, while type three and four licenses would gain additional time on their licenses and pay less frequently. This would increase the number of inspections for 210 licenses by going to the two-year license program. He noted that Staff expect to see an increase in complaints and property code violations for type three and type four licenses due to increased time between inspections. Mr. Thao continued that the proposed ordinance eliminates the performance-based rental license program and implements a rental license that is valid for two years. The rental license would be issued administratively by City Staff and would no longer go to City Council for approval. The license would be issued prior to passing the rental license inspection, which was discussed at the last Work Session. He explained that after the rental license is issued, the property owner will have 90 days to pass the rental license inspection. He added that the proposed ordinance changed the transfer license language to allow licenses to transfer to a new owner as long as the owner passed inspection and the license is issued within six months. Mr. Thao added that after discussion with Council, the proposed ordinance removes the eight-hour Crime Free Housing training requirement, the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) inspection requirement, the submission of an Action or Mitigation Plan requirement, and the Police calls for service in determining the license type. He explained that Staff are proposing that the ordinance keep section 12-911, which allows the City to enforce conduct on the property for Police calls for service, and the City would retain the ability to ask a property owner to act against tenants who continue to violate section 12-911. He continued that language would also be changed to address licenses that do not complete the application process within the 90-day Page 32 of 87 11/10/25 -3- DRAFT inspection period will be considered an incomplete application and will be required to reapply for a new license. Mr. Thao explained that the City would still be sending license renewal reminders at 120, 90, 60, and 30 days before the license expires, and this does not prevent the owner from renewing outside of those dates, as long as they renew, the Staff will schedule the inspection and get a new license before the license expires. Mr. Thao explained the next steps and said Staff plans to meet with the Housing Commission on March 17 to provide an overview of changes to the rental license program. He noted that at this time, Staff has not met or presented the proposed amendments to rental property owners or tenant advocates. The earliest that he could bring the amendments to Council would be April 13, given the notice requirements, and because it is an ordinance amendment, it requires a first and second reading with a Public Hearing. He added that if the ordinance is adopted, it will go into effect 30 days following publication. He asked if the Council had any questions or updates for consideration. Councilmember/Commissioner Jerzak said Mr. Nyquist introduced Mr. Thao as a Supervisor, but said his title is Manager now, so out of respect, that needs to be corrected. He said he is not opposed to the police calls for service under section 12-911 and thinks it can be effective, but it was problematic when police calls were not tied to rental tiers and did not affect the tiers. He asked Mr. Thao to explain to the Council how this would work then. Mr. Thao said Staff are proposing to leave section 12-911 titled Conduct on License Premises, and this essentially means that if a 911 call goes into the system and police go to the property and validate the call for one of the violations in the ordinance chapter, then the police would send a first notice to the property manager informing them. He continued that if there is a second 911 call and the police validate, then a second notice is sent to the property manager to take enforcement action against the tenant. He noted that if police are called to the property a third time, then the police would notify the property owner and ask the owner to consider lease termination. Mr. Thao said this would reserve the right for the City to continue those processes if it is kept in the ordinance, without it, there is no way to enforce police calls for service that have been validated under section 12-911. Councilmember/Commissioner Jerzak thanked Mr. Thao for that explanation and said he assumed this has been run through the Police Department, and they are on board because it is an effective tool. Mr. Thao confirmed the Police Department is on board. Councilmember/Commissioner Jerzak asked if there was an option in there to write administrative citations. Mr. Thao said there is no section regarding administrative citations, but the City can still issue administrative citations for property and license violations. Councilmember/Commissioner Jerzak said he understands that there is not a final ordinance yet, which is why this has not gone to the Housing Commission yet, but his understanding was that the Housing Commission is not able to make a quorum, and he is not interested in delaying this ordinance change anymore. He added that there have been meetings both with tenants and landlords, so they know, and it has been made public. He said he understands they have the Housing Commission for feedback, but this delay will affect rental licenses that are upcoming, and if it is a larger building that goes into the old tier system, they may defer maintenance costs because it has to be brought back for license renewal under the new ordinance. He noted his other concern Page 33 of 87 11/10/25 -4- DRAFT is that, because it is IPMC-related, and just shuffling the chairs on the deck will not do any good, this is meant to be a balance between the tenant and those things. He said regarding more complaints from tenants, if the landlord is not repairing or doing things that have always been the role of the rental license. He said he does not think the City will see much of an increase in violations if they are inspecting these buildings more than every three years. Inspectors are going to see better-maintained properties. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore said she concurred with Councilmember/Commissioner Jerzak, the Housing Commission has talked about rental guidelines for the past few years, and she does not want to delay it and go to the Housing Commission. She apologized to Mayor/President Graves and said she had meant to mention that the Council needs to discuss the quorum status of meetings of the Commissions. She added that this is advisory, and she does not think this should be delayed any longer, since they have been talking about this for a long time. She thanked Staff for being diligent and doing the work to update this ordinance and get this in place, and it is a balance between Staff going out to make sure these properties are up to code, so to speak, and providing clarity for the tenants and property owners with the inspection process. She reiterated that she does not want to delay this ordinance change and would like to see it at the next meeting if that is possible. She said she does not know what Mr. Nyquist has on the agenda for the next meeting this month, but she does not want to see this delayed any further. Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson said she was concerned that some of the problematic properties are going to have a two-year license. She said she has read the information and heard that the six-month provisional was intended to be somewhat punitive by nature, and it is probably very problematic for City Staff to be in those properties that frequently. She said they will all see how this goes. Councilmember/Commissioner Jerzak said he anticipated Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson's question, and it is a fair question, but removing the tiered section for rentals would not matter anyway because the type four rentals kept repeating and never had them come for revocation, which has been discussed and is not the option they wanted to take. He continued that oftentimes, these type four rentals would continue to repeat and would become an administrative burden because the license would expire before the next one would happen. He said that it is a fair question and they do not know the answer, but if this is not working Staff should bring it back to the Council. He said everyone has put a lot of work into this, and it is time to move forward. Mayor/President Graves said she has some of the same concerns that were already voiced, especially when the changes are just bullet points, and there is no nuance to them, which sounds kind of crazy. She said changing the language to issue the rental license prior to passing the rental license inspection sounds crazy, but there is a good reason to do that. She stated she always wants to get as much input in decisions that are going to affect them as possible, and there has been a lot of work with tenants and landlords as part of this ongoing discussion that has been ongoing for a while. She said it is important to be clear on why these changes are being made in the ordinance, because the bullet points may not make sense. She added that when Staff are communicating about Page 34 of 87 11/10/25 -5- DRAFT it, it is important to have that additional context and nuance explained. She said that may make things harder, but it is important for people to buy into the new system. Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson asked if they could request a presentation and update on this ordinance change six months after it goes into effect. Councilmember/Commissioner Jerzak said he would agree with a follow-up presentation, and if it helps, he brought all 60 pages that have been previously discussed with this ordinance in case he needed them, because oftentimes, people forget the reasons for changing the ordinance. He said Brooklyn Park does the inspection after issuing the license, and there seems to be a balance there, and no one hears a lot of problems about rentals. He added that Brooklyn Center is not doing this alone, and the IPMC is in Brooklyn Park, where they also have a two-year license, and the difference is that Brooklyn Center added a deadline of 90 days. He continued that as far as he is aware, there is one property which everyone is aware of that has changed hands now, and there have not been significant problems, and that came out during discussions that Staff had regarding the number of landlords. He said he understands going back to the Housing Commission, but he would like to make a motion. Mayor/President Graves said she is not suggesting it go to the Housing Commission, and normally she would want as much input as possible, but because she knows there has been a collaborative effort over an extended period of time, she is encouraging that there is a clear message and context and nuance explaining the changes as this gets rolled out. Councilmember/Commissioner Jerzak said he would also like to be clear that they are not revisiting tenant protections for the record; this is for the rental license process, because there was concern about that. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore asked if Mr. Nyquist could confirm that this could be an item on the next meeting's agenda, because this is just a Work Session item, and there is no motion on the table for the ordinance changes. Mayor/President Graves said it was a Study Session item. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore asked if Mr. Nyquist could confirm that it can be on the agenda for the March 23 meeting. Mayor/President Graves said that might be too fast for Staff to turn around the ordinance. Mr. Nyquist said they missed the notice and said Ms. Tolar may need to look over some more drafted language, so two weeks would be tight. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore asked if Mr. Nyquist could confirm that it would be discussed during the first meeting in April, then, because Staff will have plenty of time for notice, changes will be made. Mr. Nyquist said that would be a safer bet. Mayor/President Graves said that the meeting would be on April 13. Mr. Thao confirmed that April 13 would be the earliest, because of the public notice requirements, and there will be a public Page 35 of 87 11/10/25 -6- DRAFT notice and a Public Hearing on April 13. He added that the second reading will include the adoption of the ordinance changes. Mayor/President Graves said since they are waiting that long anyway, she encouraged Staff to go ahead with their plans and meet with the Housing Commission, and if there is additional feedback from tenants and landlords, she would be interested in hearing it. Councilmember/Commissioner Moore thanked Mr. Thao for the presentation and his work on this. CITY-WIDE WATER METER CHANGEOUT PLAN: POLICY DECISION DISCUSSION This item was moved to the Study Session. ADJOURNMENT Mayor/President Graves moved, and Councilmember/Commissioner/Commissioner Jerzak seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 8:24 p.m. Page 36 of 87 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 37 of 87 Location Address License Subtype Renewal/Initial Owner Property Code Violations License Type Police CFS* Final License Type** Previous License Type*** Consecutive Type IV's 407 70th Ave N Multiple Family 3 Bldgs 128 Units Initial River Glen TKRE LLC 74 = 0.58 per unit Type I N/A Type II N/A N/A 3012-18 51st Ave N Two Family Initial Sri Lakshmi Valiveti 2 Type I N/A Type II N/A N/A 1409 63rd La N Single Initial Shelly Evans 5 Type II N/A Type II N/A N/A 5524 Aldrich Dr N Single Initial DREDRICK COX 6 Type III N/A Type III N/A N/A 6415 James Cir N Single Initial SIYA LLC 0 Type I N/A Type II N/A N/A 6900 Toledo Ave N Single Initial M BOSIRE & B B NYANGENA 1 Type I N/A Type II N/A N/A 4700 Lakeview Ave N Two Family Renewal PETER NGUYEN & LILY PHAM 2 Type I 0 Type I Type II N/A 4207 Lakeside Ave N, #234 Condo Renewal Cynthia Patrick 3 Type II 0 Type II Type II N/A 2006 Brookview Dr Single Renewal Mnsf Ii W1 LLC 1 Type I 0 Type I Type I N/A 2107 70th Ave N Single Renewal Infinite Property, LLC 0 Type I 0 Type I Type I N/A 2804 67th Ln N Single Renewal Bryan D Aitkens 7 Type III 0 Type III Type II N/A 3519 53rd Pl N Single Renewal Jewel Johnson Did not meet requirements 4 Type II 0 Type IV Type IV 3 3707 61st Ave N Single Renewal Cel Monton Llc 9 Type III 0 Type III Type II N/A 4416 69th Ave N Single Renewal Dmow Llc 4 Type II 0 Type II Type I N/A 5250 Lakeside Pl Single Renewal TMJ PROPERTIES LLC Met Requirements 0 Type I 0 Type I Type III N/A 5316 Colfax Ave N Single Renewal CAG Minnesota Fund II LLC Met Requirements 0 Type I 0 Type I Type IV N/A 5808 Fremont Ave N Single Renewal Cosco Property 5 Llc 0 Type I 0 Type I Type I N/A Rental Licenses for Council Approval 3.23.26 Page 38 of 87 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 3/23/2026 TO: City Council FROM: Ian Alexander, Economic Development Manager, Amy Loegering, Economic Development Coordinator THROUGH: Jason Aarsvold, Ehlers BY: Krystin Eldridge, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Resolution Identifying the Need for an LCDA Application for New Generations Mixed Use Development on 1500 69th Ave N Requested Council Action: -Motion to approve a resolution identifying the need for an application for a grant from the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) for New Generations LLC and its project at 1500 69th Avenue North. Background: In 2023, New Generation LLC was awarded a grant from the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account for its proposed mixed-use development project located at 1500 69th Avenue North. New Generations LLC has worked diligently to complete pre-development work for the development, but faced delays when they were required to retain a new architect, among other factors. The gap funds would be used to continue completing pre- development work, including the preparation of plans for City submittal as a Planning Commission application, and for construction. Without assistance to close the financing gap, the project cannot close. Therefore, New Generations LLC is seeking additional grant funding from the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account in the amount of $135,000. Staff recommends that City Council approve a resolution in support of an application for a grant from the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account for New Generations LLC and its project at 1500 69th Avenue North. Budget Issues: None Inclusive Community Engagement: Page 39 of 87 Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution — Identifying Need for LCDA Application for New Generations LLC (1500 69th Avenue North) Page 40 of 87 Member ________________introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2026- ________ RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING NEED FOR AN APPLICATION FOR A GRANT FROM THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT (LCDA) FOR NEW GENERATIONS LLC AND ITS PROJECT AT 1500 69TH AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center supports the New Generations LLC project for 1500 69th Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account (the “Program”) permits funding for, among other things, predevelopment and development work; and WHEREAS, New Generations LLC has identified a gap in its financing and needs assistance to complete assembly of their financing, complete predevelopment and develop the project; and WHEREAS, New Generations LLC desires to obtain funding for pre-development and development work related to their project located at 1500 69th Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to adequately manage a Program grant; and WHEREAS, the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the grant agreement; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, after appropriate examination and due consideration, the governing body of the City: 1. Finds that it is in the best interests of the City’s development goals and priorities to apply for a Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant to fund pre-development and development work for New Generations LLC for its project at 1500 69th Avenue North. 2. Finds that the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant funds may be used for this purpose. 3. Authorizes the Economic Development Coordinator to submit on behalf of the City an application to the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account for grant funds for this purpose. Page 41 of 87 March 23, 2026 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 42 of 87 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 3/23/2026 TO: City Council FROM: Ian Alexander, Economic Development Manager, Amy Loegering, Economic Development Coordinator THROUGH: Jason Aarsvold, Ehlers BY: Amy Loegering, Economic Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Resolution Identifying the Need for an Application to the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Environmental Site Investigation & Cleanup Grant Fund for Dur Dur Bakery & Grocery Inc (5951 Earle Brown Drive) Requested Council Action: -Motion to approve a resolution identifying the need for an application to the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Environmental Site Investigation & Cleanup grant program for testing and remediation of asbestos in conjunction with demolition work at 5951 Earle Brown Drive for Dur Dur Bakery & Grocery Inc. Background: In 2025, Dur Dur Bakery & Grocery Inc. (the “Developer”) purchased from tax forfeiture the property located at 5951 Earle Brown Drive (the “Subject Property”). The Subject Property includes the former Brown College building on an approximately 6.46 acre site. The Developer proposes to demolish the former Brown College building to construct a mixed- use housing and commercial development on the site. The Developer is seeking funding to assist with cleanup and demolition of the former Brown College Building, as the building likely contains asbestos. The Developer is seeking financial assistance for testing and remediation of any asbestos building materials. Without this assistance, demolition of the building for future development is likely cost prohibitive. The City would coordinate with Developer to apply for the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Environmental Site Investigation & Cleanup grant program. The grant program application period closes on April 15, 2026. Staff recommends that City Council approve a resolution identifying the need for an application of up to $2,000,000 to the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Environmental Site Investigation & Cleanup grant program for testing and remediation of asbestos in conjunction with demolition of the former Brown College Building located at 5951 Earle Brown Drive. Budget Issues: None Inclusive Community Engagement: Page 43 of 87 Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution — Met Council Environmental Site Investigation (5951 Earle Brown Drive) Page 44 of 87 Member ________________introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2026- ________ RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING NEED OF AN APPLICATION FOR A GRANT FROM THE MET COUNCIL LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL SITE INVESTIGATION & CLEANUP GRANT PROGRAM FOR 5951 EARLE BROWN DRIVE WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center supports the Dur Dur Bakery & Grocery Inc project proposed for 5951 Earle Brown Drive; and WHEREAS, the MET Council Livable Communities Environmental Site Investigation & Cleanup Grant (the “Program”) permits funding for, among other things, building demolition; and WHEREAS, Dur Dur Bakery & Grocery Inc desires to obtain funding of up to $2,000,000 for assessment of asbestos conditions in, and demolition of, the building located at 5951 Earle Brown Drive through the Program, to clear the way for future mixed-use development. WHEREAS, without the requested assistance, the cost for assessment and abatement of asbestos conditions would be cost prohibitive, and WHEREAS, the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to adequately manage a Program grant and; WHEREAS, the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the grant agreement; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, after appropriate examination and due consideration, the governing body of the City: 1. Finds that it is in the best interests of the City’s development goals and priorities to apply for a MET Council Livable Communities Environmental Site Investigation & Cleanup Grant to fund assessment and abatement of asbestos in conjunction with demolition of the building located at 5951 Earle Brown Drive for Dur Dur Bakery & Grocery Inc. 2. Finds that the MET Council Livable Communities Environmental Site Investigation & Cleanup grant funds may be used for this purpose. 3. Authorizes the City Manager to submit on behalf of the City an application for up to $2,000,000 to the MET Council Livable Communities Environmental Site Investigation & Cleanup program for grant funds for this purpose. Date: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 45 of 87 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution as declared duly passed and adopted. Page 46 of 87 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 3/23/2026 TO: City Council FROM: Lydia Ener, City Engineer THROUGH: Elizabeth Heyman, Director of Public Works BY: Lydia Ener, City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Quote and Awarding a Contract for the Tree Clearing portion of Improvement Project No. 2026-01, 02, 03, & 04, Humboldt Avenue Reconstruction Requested Council Action: -Motion to approve the resolution accepting the lowest responsible quote and awarding a contract to Tree Top Clearing, Incorporated for Improvement Project No. 2026-01, 02, 03, & 04, part of Humboldt Avenue Reconstruction. Background: One Quote for Improvement Project 2026-01, 02, 03, & 04, Humboldt Avenue Tree Clearing was received and opened on March 10, 2026. The results are as shown below: Bidder Total Base Bid Tree Top Clearing, Inc. $23,996.00 Quotes were requested from six (6) reputable tree removal contractors on 2/24/2026. The quote of $23,996.00 was submitted by Tree Top Clearing, Inc. of Delano, Minnesota. Tree Top Clearing, Inc. has the experience, equipment, and capacity to qualify as the lowest responsible quoter for the project. Budget Issues: Quotes for clearing of the trees along the project corridor were requested prior to the Humboldt Avenue Reconstruction (Project No. 2026-01, 02, 03, & 04) to follow State of Minnesota wildlife protection recommendations for tree removal prior to April 14th. The quote amount of $23,996.00 is within the 2026 budgeted amount. The total estimated budget including construction, contingencies, administration, engineering, and legal is $ 4,956,611.00 (see attached Resolution – Costs and Revenues tables). Inclusive Community Engagement: NA Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: NA Strategic Priorities and Values: Page 47 of 87 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Humboldt Tree Clearing - Bid Award - Res Page 48 of 87 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE TREE CLEARING PORTION OF IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2026- 01, 02, 03, & 04, HUMBOLDT AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION WHEREAS, pursuant to a Request for Quotations associated with Improvement Project No. 2026-01, 02, 03, & 04, one quote was received, opened and tabulated on the 10th day of March, 2026. Said quote was as follows: Bidder Total Base Bid Tree Top Clearing, Inc. $23,996.00 WHEREAS, it appears that Tree Top Clearing, Incorporated of Delano, Minnesota is the lowest responsible quoter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Tree Top Clearing, Inc of Delano, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for the tree clearing portion of Improvement Project No. 2026-01, 02, 03, & 04, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer. 2. The estimated project costs and revenues for the full are as follows, with said tree removal quote costs being included in the overall contract, COSTS Estimate (1/26/26) Overall Contract $ 4,291,438.00 Contingency $ 214.572.00 Subtotal Construction Cost $ 4,506,010.00 Admin/Legal/Engr. $ 450,601.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 4,956,611.00 Page 49 of 87 RESOLUTION NO. _______________ REVENUES Estimate (1/26/26) Special Assessments $ 225,435.50 Municipal State Aid Funds (County) $ 2,634,425.00 Municipal State Aid Funds (City) $ 409,082.50 County Fiber (County) $ 80,846.00 Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund $ 690,386.00 Water Utility Fund $ 896,436.00 Street Light Utility Fund $ 20,000.00 Total $ 4,956,611.00 March 23, 2026 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 50 of 87 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 3/23/2026 TO: City Council FROM: Elizabeth Heyman, Director of Public Works THROUGH: Elizabeth Heyman, Director of Public Works BY: Kory Andersen Wagner, Public Works Planner SUBJECT: Highway 252/I-94 Project Update: Presentation by the Minnesota Department of Transportation Requested Council Action: -Motion to accept the presentation from the Minnesota Department of Transportation Background: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is leading a multi-year Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process to evaluate improvements along the Hwy 252 corridor between Brooklyn Park and Minneapolis. The study is examining options to improve safety, mobility, and reliability for both the highway and surrounding local streets. Since the City Council’s last update, MnDOT has completed additional technical evaluations comparing the no build alternative to build alternatives along the corridor. MnDOT utilized the recommended access combination in these evaluations. MnDOT has communicated preliminary safety and air quality results to the public. MnDOT is working to identify a preferred design concept in the draft EIS that best meets the project’s safety, mobility, and community objectives while minimizing property impacts and disruptions to surrounding neighborhoods. MnDOT has also indicated it will continue evaluating potential impacts to surrounding communities and incorporating equity and community considerations as the environmental review process moves forward. Budget Issues: Inclusive Community Engagement: Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: 1. I-94 EIS Policy Advisory Committee #12 Page 51 of 87 Page 52 of 87 Hwy 252 / I-94 EIS Workshop Cover Hwy 252 / I-94 EIS Project Update Brooklyn Center Council Amber Blanchard, MnDOT 3/23/2026 Page 53 of 87 Our conversation today 1. Introductions 2. Project Overview 3. Phase 1 Recap 4. Phase 2 Preliminary Results – Mobility and Safety 5. Outstanding Topics 5/27/2025 Page 54 of 87 Purpose of Presentation •MnDOT has been and will continue to be in the community which has helped build relationships and get more in depth on the issues •We acknowledge Brooklyn Center City Council, and the community have concerns about some of the recommendations •Not a perfect plan, there are tradeoffs with the recommendations of Phase 1A and 1B; there will be tradeoffs with Phase 2 •Draft EIS may identify a preferred alternative and mitigation of impacts •Final EIS may select a preferred alternative and more mitigation of impacts •Welcome questions and here to help you assess the data 05/20/2025 DRAFT Pre-Decisional, Subject to Change, Part of NEPA. Page 55 of 87 Project Overview 5/27/2025 Hwy 252/I-94 EIS Page 56 of 87 Project Location •Hwy 252 between Hwy 610 in Brooklyn Park and I-94/I-694 in Brooklyn Center •I-94 between I-94/I-694 in Brooklyn Center and N. 4th St. and N. 3rd St. in downtown Minneapolis 5/27/2025 Page 57 of 87 Hwy 252/I-94 EIS Process Overview Purpose and need Does an alternative address the problems? Scoping Phase Measure benefits and impacts Draft EIS Technical Evaluations Phase 1A: Over/Under Hwy 252 Phase 1B: Hwy 252 Access Combinations Phase 2: Hwy 252/I-94 Mainline Options Preferred Alternative Detailed project impacts, factors, and cost 5/27/2025 Page 58 of 87 Hwy 252/I-94 Existing Funding •Hwy 252/I-94: $114 million (Mobility funds) •Brooklyn Center received: $17 million for 66th Ave interchange (Regional Solicitation and Freight grants) •Brooklyn Center received: $ 1.9 million for 70th Ave pedestrian overpass (Regional Solicitation grant) •Hennepin County received: $7 million for 85th Ave roadway interchange (Regional Solicitation grant) •Brooklyn Park received: $10 million for Brookdale Dr interchange (Regional Solicitation grant) More funding will be needed to construct the project, however that is to be determined 05/20/2025 DRAFT Pre-Decisional, Subject to Change, Part of NEPA. Page 59 of 87 Phase 1 Recap 5/27/2025 Hwy 252/I-94 EIS Page 60 of 87 Hwy 252 Over is Recommended •Less impacts to properties, including relocations. •Fewer direct impacts on community facilities. •Reduces stormwater impacts and potential biological resources impacts in many locations. •Consistent with PAC stated objectives. 5/27/2025 *Image is an example of a conceptual design at 73rd. Design at each potential interchange will evolve throughout EIS process. Why was “over” recommended? Hwy 252 Over Rendering DRAFT Pre-Decisional, Subject to Change, Part of NEPA What is the trade-off? •Generally, Hwy 252 over the local road increases noise Page 61 of 87 Determining access combination Access Combination 1 is Recommended 5/27/2025 DRAFT Pre-Decisional, Subject to Change, Part of NEPA. Page 62 of 87 Access Combination Performance Summary 5/27/2025 DRAFT Pre-Decisional, Subject to Change, Part of NEPA. Access Combination Summary AC 1 AC 2 AC 3 AC 4 AC 5 Safety​Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Vehicle mobility​Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Transit Travel Time Best Worst Worst Best Mid Likely Transit Users - Accessibility Best Best Worst Mid Worst Bike/pedestrian safety Mid Worst Mid Best Best Bike/pedestrian mobility and comfort​Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Improved emergency response time Best Mid Worst Mid Worst Consistency with proposed future land uses and function of access location cross street Best Mid Mid Mid Worst Potential impacts to businesses/commercial activities (accessibility)Best Best Worst Worst Worst Potential property relocations Best Mid Mid Worst Mid Potential project cost ​Mid Worst Best Worst Best Community Facilities (Relocation/ROW)Mid Worst Best Best Best Acreage of potential right-of-way acquisition​Mid Worst Mid Mid Best Potential property tax impacts​Mid Worst Mid Mid Best Bold items indicate key criteria that helped to differentiate across all access combinations Page 63 of 87 Phase 2 Preliminary Results – Mobility and Safety 5/27/2025 Phase 1B Page 64 of 87 Draft EIS Alternative: Option 5 Alternatives (both Hwy 252 and I-94) Hwy 252: Four-lane freeway with bus shoulders A G J 5 No change on I-94 Build one additional southbound managed lane (from I-694 to Dowling Ave) Convert one southbound lane to managed lane (from Dowling Ave to N 4th St. with direct connection) Build one additional northbound lane and one additional southbound lane as managed lanes (from I-694 to Dowling Ave) Convert one northbound and one southbound lane to managed lanes (from Dowling Ave to N 4th St. with direct connection) DRAFT Pre-Decisional, Subject to Change, Part of NEPA. Jan. 2026 Page 65 of 87 Draft EIS Alternative: Option 6 Alternatives (both Hwy 252 and I-94) Hwy 252: Six-lane freeway with bus shoulders A G J No change on I-94 Build one additional southbound managed lane (from I-694 to Dowling Ave) Convert one southbound lane to managed lane (from Dowling Ave to N 4th St. with direct connection) Build one additional northbound lane and one additional southbound lane as managed lanes (from I-694 to Dowling Ave) Convert one northbound and one southbound lane to managed lanes (from Dowling Ave to N 4th St. with direct connection) 6 DRAFT Pre-Decisional, Subject to Change, Part of NEPA. Jan. 2026 Page 66 of 87 Draft EIS Alternative: Option 7 Alternatives (both Hwy 252 and I-94) Hwy 252: Six lane freeway with managed lanes B D G Convert one southbound lane to managed lane (from I-694 to N 4th St. with direct connection) Convert one northbound and one southbound lane to managed lanes (from I-694 to N 4th St. with direct connection) Build one additional southbound managed lane (from I-694 to Dowling Ave) Convert one southbound lane to managed lane (from Dowling Ave to N 4th St. with direct connection) Build one additional northbound lane and one additional southbound lane as managed lanes (from I-694 to Dowling Ave) Convert one northbound and one southbound lane to managed lanes (from Dowling Ave to N 4th St. with direct connection) J 7 DRAFT Pre-Decisional, Subject to Change, Part of NEPA. Jan. 2026 Page 67 of 87 Hwy 252/I-94 Average Daily Volumes Corridor Existing (vehicles per day) 2050 No Build (vehicles per day) 2050 All Build Alternatives (vehicles per day) Hwy 252 – North of 85th Ave 58,000 63,000 90,000 – 104,000 Hwy 252 – North of Brookdale Dr 54,300 63,000 96,000 – 116,000 Hwy 252 – North of 66th Ave 56,600 62,000 99,000 – 120,000 Hwy 252 – North of I-694 59,700 69,000 102,000 – 124,000 I-94 – North of 57th Ave 105,100 118,000 123,000 – 134,000 I-94 – North of 49th Ave 94,200 108,000 112,000 – 121,000 I-94 – North of Dowling Ave 106,600 120,000 124,000 – 132,000 I-94 – South of Lowry Ave 105,900 121,000 124,000 – 130,000 I-94 – North of Plymouth Ave 99,900 97,000 98,000 – 100,000 Nov. 2025 DRAFT Pre-Decisional, Subject to Change, Part of NEPA. Page 68 of 87 What Safety and Mobility Data Did We Evaluate? Vehicle safety and mobility DRAFT Pre-Decisional, Subject to Change, Part of NEPA. Bicyclist/pedestrian mobility Transit mobility •Transit Travel Time •Transit Travel Time Reliability •Transit Accessibility •Pedestrian and Bicyclist Comfort •Safety •Corridor Crashes •Mobility •Corridor Travel Time •Travel Time Reliability •Segment Level of Service (LOS) •Used for freeways, based on segment flow •Intersection Level of Service (LOS) •Used for signalized corridors, based on delay at intersections Nov. 2025 •There are dozens of criteria we are evaluating, but today we are only presenting safety and mobility criteria identified in the Purpose & Need Page 69 of 87 Hwy 252/I-94: 20-Year Vehicle Crash Prediction Changes are compared to the No Build. DRAFT Pre-Decisional, Subject to Change, Part of NEPA. Increase in crashes compared to No Build Decrease in crashes compared to No Build Nov. 2025 No Build Hwy 252: 4 Lane Freeway with Bus Shoulders Hwy 252: 6-Lane Freeway with Bus Shoulders Hwy 252: 6-Lane Freeway with Managed Lanes Crash description No Build 5.A 5.G 5.J 6.A 6.G 6.J 7.B 7.D 7.G 7.J Total Crashes 12,600 7,496 6,928 8,155 8,229 10,578 10,964 9,195 8,180 11,916 10,473 Change in crashes - -5,104 -5,672 -4,445 -4,371 -2,022 -1,636 -3,405 -4,420 -684 -2,127 % change in crashes - -41% -45% -35% -35% -16%-13% -27% -35% -5% -17% Total Fatal/Serious Injury Crashes 214 161 154 177 158 211 218 167 160 232 210 Change in Fatal/Serious Injury crashes - -53 -60 -37 -56 -3 4 -47 -54 18 -4 % change in Fatal/Serious Injury crashes - -25% -28% -17% -26% -1% 2% -22% -25% 8% -2% Page 70 of 87 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 No Build 5.A 5.G 5.J 6.A 6.G 6.J 7.B 7.D 7.G 7.J Tr a v e l T i m e ( m i n u t e s ) Southbound AM Travel Time Hwy 252/I-94 Corridor Travel Time: Vehicles And Buses Congested, < 45 mph average speed Possibly Congested, 45 – 56 mph average speed Not Congested, > 56 mph average speed Nov. 2025 Vehicle Travel Time Bus Travel Time DRAFT Pre-Decisional, Subject to Change, Part of NEPA. 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 No Build 5.A 5.G 5.J 6.A 6.G 6.J 7.B 7.D 7.G 7.J Tr a v e l T i m e ( m i n u t e s ) Northbound PM Travel Time Vehicle Travel Time Bus Travel Time Page 71 of 87 Hwy 252/I-94 Travel Time Reliability: Vehicles And Buses Congested, TTI > 1.25 Possibly Congested, TTI 1.0 – 1.25 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 No Build 5.A 5.G 5.J 6.A 6.G 6.J 7.B 7.D 7.G 7.J Tr a v e l T i m e I n d e x ( T T I ) Northbound Peak Period PM Reliability (TTI) Northbound PM Travel Time Northbound PM Transit Travel Time 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 No Build 5.A 5.G 5.J 6.A 6.G 6.J 7.B 7.D 7.G 7.J Tr a v e l T i m e I n d e x ( T T I ) Southbound Peak Period AM Reliability (TTI) Southbound AM Travel Time Southbound AM Transit Travel Time Not Congested, TTI < 1.0 Vehicle Reliability Bus Reliability Nov. 2025 Vehicle Reliability Bus Reliability DRAFT Pre-Decisional, Subject to Change, Part of NEPA. Page 72 of 87 What is Level of Service (LOS)? •Measures how efficiently vehicles move. •For segments, this is based on vehicle density/flow •For intersections, this is based on delay (how long each vehicle waits at the intersection) •Developed using 2050 forecasted volumes for the peak hour only •What is considered an acceptable LOS? •LOS D or better in urban areas •LOS E for short distance and durations Nov. 2025 LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F DRAFT Pre-Decisional, Subject to Change, Part of NEPA. Intersection Level of Service Traffic Signal Delay (seconds/vehicle) Stop Control/Roundabout Delay (seconds/vehicle) A 0-10 0-10 B 10-20 10-15 C 21-35 16-25 D 36-55 26-36 E 56-80 36-50 F >80 >50 Page 73 of 87 Hwy 252/I-94 Mainline Level of Service Southbound AM Peak Hour Location No Build 5.A 5.G 5.J 6.A 6.G 6.J 7.B 7.D 7.G 7.J Hwy 610 Off Ramps D CCCCCCCCCC BDCCCCCCBBB 85th Avenue F*DDDCCCDCCC Humboldt Avenue D* D EEDCC E DCC Brookdale Drive D* EEEF DD FFE D 73rd Avenue A* 70th Avenue A* DDD F EEFFE D66th Avenue C* I-94/I-694/ Hwy 252 Interchange DCCDBCCBCCC CDDE CCDCCDD C EEDCCDCCCC 53rd Ave CDCCCCCCCCC 49th Ave CDCCDCCDDCC Dowling Ave CDCCDCCDDCC CDCCDCCDDCC Lowry Ave CDCCCCCCCCC 26th Ave C CCCCDDCCDD Broadway BBCDBE DBC E D *Hwy 252 Intersection Level of Service all others segment Level of Service DRAFT Pre-Decisional, Subject to Change, Part of NEPA. Page 74 of 87 Hwy 252/I-94 Mainline Level of Service Northbound PM Peak Hour Location No Build 5.A 5.G 5.J 6.A 6.G 6.J 7.B 7.D 7.G 7.J Hwy 610 Off Ramps B CCCDDDDDDD CCCCCCCCDDD 85th Avenue D* B B B C C C C C C C Humboldt Avenue E*DDDCCCDDDD Brookdale Drive C* DDDCCDDDDD 73rd Avenue A*EEEDDDDDDD 70th Avenue A* EEECDDDDDD66th Avenue D* I-94/I-694/ Hwy 252 Interchange BCDCCCCCCDC BCDDCCCCCDC B CCCDDCDCDC F CCDCCBCBCB 53rd Ave F DDCD E C E D E C 49th Ave F DDCD F C F D F C Dowling Ave DDDCDDCDDDC C CCCCCCCCCC Lowry Ave C CCCCCCCCCC 26th Ave B BBBBBBBBBB Broadway B BBBBBBBBBB *Hwy 252 Intersection Level of Service all others segment Level of Service DRAFT Pre-Decisional, Subject to Change, Part of NEPA. Page 75 of 87 Hwy 252 Intersection Level of Service Intersection Existing* 2050 No Build* 2050 All Build Alternatives + AM PM AM PM AM PM Hwy 252 & 85th Ave F (F)D (E)F (F)D (F)B (C) / A (D) C (C) / C (D) Hwy 252 & Humboldt Ave C (F)C (F)D (F)E (F)-- Hwy 252 & Brookdale Dr C (F)B (F)D (F)C (F)A (B) / A (B) A (B) / B (C) Hwy 252 & 73rd Ave A (F)B (F)A (F)A (F)-- Hwy 252 & 70th Ave A (C) A (C) A (D) A (D)-- Hwy 252 & 66th Ave B (F)D (F)C (F)D (F)A (C) / A (A) A (A) / A (A) *Results based off Vissim modeling +Results based off highest volume Build Alternative modeled in Synchro (signals) or Arcady (roundabouts) DRAFT Pre-Decisional, Subject to Change, Part of NEPA. Overall Intersection LOS (Worst Approach LOS) •The Exiting and 2050 No Build represents the delay at the existing local road intersections with Hwy 252, the Build Alternatives represent the intersection delays at the Hwy 252 ramps (2) and the crossroads at proposed interchanges Page 76 of 87 What is Bicyclist and Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS)? Nov. 2025 LOS Score Definition A or B Conditions should be generally acceptable for users C or D Some issues exist that may make users uncomfortable. E or F Significant issues exist that will make a majority feel uncomfortable. Likely that this intersection will deter users from using it completely or from certain paths. •Posted speed limit •Vehicle volumes •Number of vehicle lanes •Sidewalk width •Bike lane width A grading system using the letters A to F to measure pedestrian and bicyclist perceptions of the overall travel experience. •Buffer or separation type •Turning conflicts •Pavement markings •Crossing distance LOS is influenced by several factors, including: DRAFT Pre-Decisional, Subject to Change, Part of NEPA. Page 77 of 87 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety and Comfort Nov. 2025 No B u i l d Al l B u i l d Al t e r n a t i v e s Number of intersections and bridges in the project area scoring Level of Service: A B C D E F 2 11 2 4 66 2 7 332 8 5 17 3 2 1 3Al i 6 11 5 2 1 0 Intersections & Bridges: Bicyclists Intersections & Bridges:Pedestrians ABCDEF ABCDEF ABCDEF ABCDEF DRAFT Pre-Decisional, Subject to Change, Part of NEPA. Page 78 of 87 Pedestrian Safety And Comfort At Bus Stops Near Hwy 252 And I-94 Nov. 2025 Pedestrian LOS at Transit Stops – No Build Pedestrian LOS at Transit Stops –Build (All Alternatives) DRAFT Pre-Decisional, Subject to Change, Part of NEPA. Page 79 of 87 Mobility and Safety Summary •All Build Alternatives perform better than the No Build, in the following ways: •Total crashes •Vehicle and bus peak hour travel time •Vehicle and bus travel time reliability •Pedestrian and bicyclist comfort •Accessibility to bus stops •Intersection level of service •Most Build Alternatives perform better than the No Build, in the following ways: o Fatal and serious injury crashes o Segment level of service Nov. 2025 Page 80 of 87 Outstanding Topics 5/27/2025 Hwy 252/I-94 EIS Page 81 of 87 Topics for Future Discussions •Air Quality •Freight •Parkway concept •Distance between 66th Ave and 252/94/694 interchange •Other? 05/20/2025 DRAFT Pre-Decisional, Subject to Change, Part of NEPA. Page 82 of 87 Next steps 5/27/2025 Hwy 252/I-94 EIS Page 83 of 87 ArcGIS Storymap Update •Highway 252/I-94 environmental impact study 05/20/2025 DRAFT Pre-Decisional, Subject to Change, Part of NEPA. Page 84 of 87 Anticipated Schedule •DEIS Publication – Q4 2026 •DEIS Public Hearing – Q4 2026 •DEIS Public Comment Period (60 days) – Q4 2026 •Noise wall voting (same time as DEIS public comment period) – Q4 2026 05/20/2025 DRAFT Pre-Decisional, Subject to Change, Part of NEPA. Page 85 of 87 Thank you! Hwy 252/I-94 EIS Amber Blanchard Project email:Highway252andI94.DOT@state.mn.us Project hotline:952-944-5555 5/27/2025 Page 86 of 87 Council Regular Meeting DATE: 3/23/2026 TO: City Council FROM: Garett Flesland, Chief of Police THROUGH: Daren Nyquist, Interim City Manager BY: Garett Flesland, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Police Department Annual Report Requested Council Action: -Motion to accept the presentation. Background: Annual report of 2025 crime data and general trends. Budget Issues: Inclusive Community Engagement: Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: Strategic Priorities and Values: ATTACHMENTS: None Page 87 of 87