Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021 01-25 CCPCouncil Study Session VIRTUAL meeting being conducted by electronic means in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.021 Public portion available for connection via telephone Dial: 1-312-626- 6799 Meeting ID: 92710125463# Passcode: 7635693300# January 25, 2021 AGENDA 1.City Council Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions - 6 p.m. 2.Miscellaneous 3.Discussion of Work Session Agenda Item as Time Permits 4.Adjourn CITY COUNCIL MEETING VIRTUAL meeting being conducted by electronic means in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.021 Public portion available for connection via telephone Dial: 1-312-626- 6799 Meeting ID: 92710125463# Passcode: 7635693300# January 25, 2021 AGENDA 1.Informal Open Forum with City Council - 6:45 p.m. Provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. Open Forum will be limited to 15 minutes, it is not televised, and it may not be used to make personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council Members will not enter into a dialogue with presenter. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Open Forum will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made but, rather, for hearing the presenter for informational purposes only. I will first call on those who notified the Clerk that they would like to speak during open forum, and then I will ask if anyone else connected to this meeting would like to speak. When I do, please indicate your name and then proceed when I call on you. Please be sure to state your name and address before speaking. 2.Invocation - Ryan - 7 p.m. 3.Call to Order Regular Business Meeting This meeting is being conducted electronically under Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.021 due to the pandemic. For those who are connected to this meeting, please keep your microphone muted. If there is an opportunity for public comment, you may unmute and speak when called upon. Please do not talk over others and anyone being disruptive may to ejected from the meeting. The packet for this meeting is on the City's website, which is linked on the calendar or can be found on "City Council" page. 4.Roll Call 5.Pledge of Allegiance 6.Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda The following items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at the end of Council Consideration Items. a.Approval of Minutes - Motion to approve minutes for the following meetings: January 4, 2021 Work Session January 11, 2021 Study Session January 11, 2021 Regular Session b.Approval of Licenses - Motion to approve licenses as presented. c.Resolution Appointing Brooklyn Center Representatives to Executive Committee and/or Board of Directors of the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth, Hennepin Recycling Group, Local Government Information Systems, Minneapolis Northwest Convention & Visitors Bureau, North Metro Mayors Association, Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission, Pets Under Police Security, and Twin Lake Joint Powers Organization - Motion to approve the resolution Appointing Brooklyn Center Representatives to Executive Committee and/or Board of Directors of the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth, Hennepin Recycling Group, Local Government Information Systems, Minneapolis Northwest Convention & Visitors Bureau, North Metro Mayors Association, Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission, Pets Under Police Security, and Twin Lake Joint Powers Organization d.Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids, Improvement Project Nos. 2021-01, 02, 03 and 04, Grandview South Area Street, Storm Drainage and Utility Improvements - Motion to approve the attached resolution approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids, Improvement Project Nos. 2021-01, 02, 03 and 04, Grandview South Area Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements. e.Resolution Establishing Parking Restrictions for Segments on Lilac Drive/59th Avenue from Logan Avenue to Dupont Avenue and for Segments on Humboldt Avenue from 57th Avenue to 59th Avenue - Motion to approve a resolution establishing no-parking restrictions along the north side of Lilac Drive/59th Avenue from Logan Avenue to Dupont Avenue, the south side of 59th Avenue from Lilac Drive to Fremont Avenue, and the east side of Humboldt Avenue from 57th Avenue to 59th Avenue, in accordance with Municipal State Aid (MSA) requirements. f.Resolution Approving Change Order Nos. 28-34, Improvement Project No. 2018-05, Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Project Phase 1 - Motion to approve the attached resolution authorizing Change Order Nos. 28-34 in the amount of -$15,795.67 (deduct) for Improvement Project No. 2018-05, Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Project Phase 1. g.Resolution Amending Resolution No. 2020-103 and Approving Appraised Values of Reduced Easements for Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Project Phase 2 Improvements, Project No. 2021-05 (Parcels 45 and 46) - Motion to approve a resolution amending resolution no. 2020-103 and approving appraised values of reduced easements for Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Project Phase 2 Improvements, Project No. 2021-05 (Parcels 45 and 46). h.Resolution Establishing Improvement Project No. 2021-12, 53rd Avenue Mill and Overlay (Penn Avenue to Interstate 94) - Motion to approve the resolution establishing Improvement Project No. 2021-12, 53rd Avenue Mill and Overlay (Penn Avenue to Interstate 94). i.Resolution Accepting Sanitary Sewer and Water Improvements for Continual Maintenance for Eastbrook Estates 2nd Addition - Motion to approve the resolution accepting sanitary sewer and water improvements for continual maintenance for Eastbrook Estates 2nd Addition. j.Resolution Appointing Council Members to Commissions and Outside Organizations - Approve a resolution appointing City Council Members to Serve as Liaisons to City Advisory Commissions and as City Representatives/Voting Delegates for Other Organizations for 2021 k.Extend Unused Vacation Hours for City Manager - Motion to approve the carryover of Eighty (80) unused vacation hours for use by the City Manager in 2021 or 2022. 7.Presentations/Proclamations/Recognitions/Donations 8.Public Hearings The public hearing on this matter is now open. I will first call on those who notified the Clerk that they would like to speak to this matter, then I will ask if anyone else on this meeting would like to speak during this hearing. When I do, please indicate your name and then proceed when I call on you. Please be sure to state your name and address before speaking. a.Public Hearings for Lyndale Avenue Area Pavement Rehabilitation: Resolution Ordering Improvements and Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Improvement Project No. 2021-07, Lyndale Avenue Area Pavement Rehabilitation AND Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Improvement Project No. 2021-07, Lyndale Avenue Area Pavement Rehabilitation to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls - Motion to open public hearing; - Take public input; - Motion to close public hearing; - Motion to approve the attached resolutions ordering the Lyndale Avenue Area Pavement Rehabilitation; authorizing preparation of project plans and specifications; and certifying special assessments for the project to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls. b.Public Hearings for Northwest Area Mill and Overlay Improvements: Resolution Ordering Improvements and Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Improvement Project No. 2021-06, Northwest Area Mill and Overlay Improvements AND Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Improvement Project No. 2021-06, Northwest Area Mill and Overlay Improvements to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls - Motion to open public hearing; - Take public input; - Motion to close public hearing; - Motion to approve the attached resolutions ordering the Northwest Area Mill and Overlay Improvements; authorizing preparation of project plans and specifications; and certifying special assessments for the project to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls. c.Public Hearings for Ryan Lake Industrial Park Area Improvements: Resolution Ordering Improvements and Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Improvement Project Nos. 2021-08, 09, 10 and 11, Ryan Lake Industrial Park Area Street, Storm Drainage and Utility Improvements AND Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Improvement Project Nos. 2021-08 and 2021-09, Ryan Lake Industrial Park Area Street and Storm Drainage Improvements to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls - Motion to open public hearing; - Take public input; - Motion to close public hearing; - Motion to approve the attached resolutions ordering the Ryan Lake Industrial Park Area Street, Storm Drainage and Utility Improvements; authorizing preparation of project plans and specifications; and certifying special assessments for the project to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls. 9.Planning Commission Items 10.Council Consideration Items 11.Council Report 12.Adjournment Council Regular Meeng DATE:1/25/2021 TO:City Council FROM:Curt Boganey, City Manager THROUGH:Dr. Reggie Edwards, Deputy City Manager BY:Barb Suciu, City Clerk SUBJECT:Approval of Minutes Background: In accordance with Minnesota State Statute 15.17, the official records of all mee3ngs must be documented and approved by the governing body. Budget Issues: -None. Strategic Priories and Values: Opera3onal Excellence ATTACHMENTS: Descrip3on Upload Date Type 1-4-21 Work Session 1/19/2021 Backup Material 1-11-21 Study Session 1/19/2021 Backup Material 1-11-21 Regular Council 1/20/2021 Backup Material 01/04/21 -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 WORK SESSION JANUARY 4, 2021 CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Work Session called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at 6:17 p.m. The meeting was conducted via Zoom. Mayor Mike Elliott welcomed the meeting attendees to the first meeting of 2021, including many community members. He wished everyone a Happy New Year. He recognized that 2020 was a difficult year for everyone, with the global health pandemic and ensuing financial crisis taking its toll on society. ROLL CALL Roll Call was not taken. CONTINUATION OF RETREAT PHASE 2 WITH COMMON SENSE CONSULTANTS Dr. Edwards stated this discussion is a follow-up to a City Council retreat in 2019 that was discussed at the City Council’s recent meeting. City Staff indicated that Common Sense consultants were prepared to come back and do additional work with the City Council. He introduced Janice Downing and Alicia Gelhar from Common Sense and invited them to address the City Council. Janice Downing stated Common Sense is honored to be able to continue work with the City Council and enjoyed the work that they have participated in the past few years. Ms. Downing stated she has 30 years of experience working with organizations in all sectors, including government. She added they want to partner and co-create rather than dictate, to ensure the right type of impact. She noted the goal is to help the City Council become more efficient and impactful in their work. Ms. Downing reviewed objectives and recommendations for working together with clarity and greater communication, and resolve conflict with minimal negative outcomes, using power that works for all, and not just some. She added a goal is to create a safe and confidential space for growth using a third party, increasing the City Council’s ability to understand each other and work together. 01/04/21 -2- DRAFT Alisha Gelhar, Common Sense consultant, stated a schedule of regular interaction with the City Council is proposed for 2021, to offer support and counselling. Ms. Gelhar stated the City Council can post questions in the chat function. Councilmember Butler stated messages in chat are going to Ms. Suciu but not to everyone. Ms. Downing stated issues covered during the retreat include shared values; the role of empathy; creating a culture of listening and a sense of belonging; “simple rules” for the City Council; community interaction through an intercultural agility lens; and Stephen Covey’s Decision- Making and RACI Models. Ms. Downing reviewed the new consulting schedule, including consistent meetings before every other City Council meeting in the first two quarters of 2021. She stated this will include a facilitated group meeting in February and facilitated check-in in March. She noted Councilmembers will receive an email invitation and assessment to complete, with a link to schedule individual coaching and listening sessions. Councilmember Graves requested clarification regarding the proposed schedule. Ms. Downing stated Common Sense will facilitate a group meeting during the regular City Council meeting on February 22, 2021, with one-on-one meetings scheduled during the time period February 22- March 8, 2021. A check-in is scheduled for March 9, 2021, and another between March 22 and the April meeting. Councilmember Graves stated she likes the dedicated one-on-one space to work on development of individual Councilmembers. She added she is excited to get started. Mayor Elliott stated we will commence this work, and it will be good. He added he looks forward to working with Common Sense. Mayor Elliott called for a recess at 6:45 p.m. Mayor Elliott stated the dial-in option was disabled. He added folks who were on the meeting earlier are no longer able to access the meeting by phone. He noted these are technical issues that need to be figured out. He noted we are trying to make sure that folks can call in to the meeting. The meeting resumed at 6:57 p.m. OPPORTUNITY SITE UPDATE AND DISCUSSION Mayor Elliott stated this discussion is related to the Opportunity Site, which is incredibly important to the future development of Brooklyn Center. He added he hopes that folks who have been trying to get through by phone can use the link. He noted this especially includes members of the community. Community Development Director Meg Beekman gave a review of the Opportunity Site development and introduced the panel who will facilitate the discussion. She stated the City has 01/04/21 -3- DRAFT been reviewing this area for about 20 years as an area for potential redevelopment opportunities. Not all of the site is publicly owned; the Economic Development Authority (EDA) owns approximately half of the land. This creates complications with redevelopment of the site as only portions are controlled by the City. Ms. Beekman stated tonight’s purpose is to provide an update on the master planning process for City-owned property and review some next steps toward completion. The Master Plan provides guidance for how the area will develop in the future but it is not prescriptive. Ms. Beekman stated the City entered a preliminary development agreement with Alatus developers in April 2018, allowing them to develop a master plan for the southern 35 acres of the site owned by the EDA. The City Council met with 2 other developers, and selected Alatus as the development partner as their vision aligned with the City’s plans. It was decided that the City would take the lead in redeveloping the full 80-acre site in partnership with Alatus, and Alatus would focus on the initial phase of development. The intention is to hold a City Council Work Session in February 2021 to discuss the initial development phase. Ms. Beekman introduced the project team, including Haila Maze and Mike Thompson from Bolton & Menk Consultants; Andrew Dressner with Cunningham Group, responsible for urban design aspects of the project; and Andrew Moua with Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth (BBAY); Jason Aarsvold with Ehlers Inc, who conducted a financial assessment and analysis of the Master Plan as well as traffic and stormwater studies. The goal of this evening’s discussion is to receive feedback and comments from the City Council on approaches for community engagement moving forward, and potential preferences for land use mix. Haila Maze, Bolton & Menk, reviewed engagement work that has been done to date, including Phase 1 and current Phase 2 development scenario review and impact assessment. Phase 3 will be the plan review, approvals and early implementation. Ms. Maze stated the City Council feedback that has been received from Phase 1 indicates that more work must be done on engagement with communities that are under-represented. Phase 2 partnerships are important to ensure that those involved know the community well, and are directly connected with residents, and understand the Master Plan process. Information will be provided to enhance engagement, including surveys, online interactive maps, immigrant population outreach, social media updates, and drive-in movie night. The online presence will be enhanced so residents and stakeholders can find resources. The process changed due to the pandemic and the first phase took longer than expected, which was intentional. Ms. Maze stated, in terms of engagement to date, there have been 2500 direct engagements, excluding online conversations. She added this is a good grouping for a community of 30,000 residents. She noted the Becoming Brooklyn Center webpage, which has been effective in reaching large numbers of people, had 140,000 hits. Andrew Moua, Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth (BBAY), reviewed an “equity scorecard” that was developed to ensure accountability by the City to its communities for responsible development. The score card is a public use tool created by the Alliance for Metropolitan Stability 01/04/21 -4- DRAFT and Community Organizations, to measure principles and ensure that standards are being met. City Staff reached out to BBAY staff to request support for developing the score card and provide input on a Community Benefits Document (CBA). Mr. Moua stated the BBAY conducted workshops for youth to determine what they want to see in Brooklyn Center in 2040, and what will help them reach their fullest potential and stay in Brooklyn Center. It was clear that young people were unaware of the effects of large-scale development, and more robust informing is necessary to inform youth on the Opportunity Site development. Mr. Moua stated BBAY is involved in an outreach effort to design and implement a Task Force, with 4-6 engagement sessions that would target approximately 80 youth, to get input and feedback for the scorecard. The goal is to build capacity for long-term change and develop a tool and procedure that can be used in the future. The Task Force will be comprised of four youth leaders from BBAY, Planning Commissioners and community stakeholders. The role of the Task Force will be to build an equity scorecard that reflects the values of the community. Ms. Maze reviewed values that have been noted throughout this process as important to the community: affordability; diversity and inclusivity; health and wellness; fiscal responsibility; flexibility; local benefit; community pride; environmental sustainability; and counteracting displacement. Guiding principles that have been identified are creation of a vibrant and distinctive destination; embrace the growing diversity of the community; consider sustainability in design; and produce places that bring the community together. Ms. Maze stated the focus of Phase 3 will be to review the content and recommendations of the draft Master Plan; establish an ongoing accountability framework; and lead into discussions on early implementation. Intended outcomes are an informed and empowered community; broad support for the plan; and feasible implementation approach. Ms. Maze stated the main question is what will be considered “enough” engagement, given the level of engagement to date. Should every resident be engaged, or a representative sample of the community, including broad outreach to historically under-represented groups. She asked whether broader engagement efforts should be considered. She added there is not a recommendation but rather it is the City’s strategic decision for public engagement. Ms. Maze requested the City Council’s input on priorities that should be the focus, and what approach or blend of approaches is most appropriate to ensure both meaningful and responsible use of City resources. Ms. Beekman requested City Council comment and feedback on aspects of the Master Plan that they feel are more important than others, in terms of gathering community input. She asked where the engagement focus should be, and what approaches to engagement should be sought. She stressed the importance of getting a City Council consensus and developing strategies that meet their expectations, so that the end result is a plan that is reflective of what the community wants and can ultimately be approved by the City Council. 01/04/21 -5- DRAFT Councilmember Graves stated, in response to which aspects of engagement would be the highest priority, she believes values and principles are representative of what she has heard and would like to see as a City Council. She added she would like more clarity around community benefits, which is work that is being led by the BBAY. She noted she hopes they have support and assistance from other organizations that suggested that additional tool to the process. Councilmember Graves stated land use is another area where good community input will be required. She added she wants to know how engagement will continue as the City moves through the development process. She noted engagement has been slow to start, and City Staff have made an effort to do better, and work with the community. She noted it is not easy, even under normal circumstances, and things have not been normal for the past year, but she would like to hear more about specific things, like what is going to be built, and the community will still need to be engaged. Councilmember Graves stated, regarding some issues, it may be necessary to try to speak to every resident, but that can be time sensitive, and not necessary in every situation. A representative sample may be sufficient, with a focus on those who are under-represented or not engaged, and there has been some effort to do that. She stressed the importance of being intentional about how to continue engagement moving forward. She expressed her appreciation for the presentation. Councilmember Butler stated her thoughts are similar to what Councilmember Graves said. She added she has spoken with many residents who had no idea about the Opportunity Site. She noted, with this big of a project, the City has to do a better job of getting information out to people, which may include going door-to-door. The 252 Task Force went door-to-door with their survey, and were successful in obtaining over 100 responses. She stressed the importance of engaging as many people as possible so they are aware of what is going on and can get involved if they would like to. Councilmember Butler stated she agrees with a lot of the values that were outlined. She added she is interested in community benefits, which relates to the City’s current housing study. She noted she would love to say that we engage with every resident directly, which would take time, but it is possible. Her preference would be engaging with a representative sample of the community. Dr. Edwards stated Councilmember Ryan has been unable to join the meeting on his tablet, so he will be speaking into the meeting recording via Dr. Edward’s speakerphone. Councilmember Ryan stated he appreciate all the efforts that are being made to overcome these technology obstacles. He added, with regard to communication of the Master Plan, he is pleased that community-based organizations have been involved in soliciting information from what have formerly been marginalized communities. Every resident’s input was valued, and their voices were heard. The Opportunity Site development has always been intended to provide a broad-based community benefit. He stressed the importance of not overlooking essential aspects of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and provide a broad range of housing choices. Councilmember Ryan stated he is interested in seeing low cost per space business incubators, much like the project that was brought forward at the old Olive Garden site. He added that concept was 01/04/21 -6- DRAFT also brought forward for the second phase of the Opportunity Site. He noted the City Council must be cognizant of how much market value property needs to be developed to support the costs of sustaining that effort. Mayor Elliott stated Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson joined the meeting for 20 minutes but had to go deal with a family emergency. Mayor Elliott stated there are a number of folks from the community who have joined this work session and he is going to give them an opportunity to speak about community engagement. Kamaty Diem, Organization of Liberians in Minnesota (OLM), stated the OLM was part of the original group that started this process some time ago. He added there has been disengagement from the current OLM and reorganization. He stressed the importance of a more robust engagement with OLM community members. He noted the pandemic has been challenging for their community, and focus has been on sustenance of the community. Mr. Diem stated OLM can renew its engagement in this process and become more involved. Community members can be a part of the project and understand what is at stake as these decisions will affect them or benefit them. Alfreda Daniels, a resident, thanked City Staff and the BBAY for the work that has been done so far. She added she has been part of the committee and has followed this process for a while. She noted she feels confused being a part of the committee as Meg has said that the plan has been collecting dust since 2006, but the site was not considered an Opportunity Zone at that time. She asked what was the initial thought when it was created. Ms. Daniels stated the committee developed the scorecard, and the BBAY was assisting with that process. She added she is surprised because the committee sent out an email requesting that the work be put on pause due to the pandemic. She noted the committee has not come together to do any work, although they were mentioned in the presentation. Ms. Daniels stated she is confused about how the score card got into the hands of the Youth Alliance, and how did that transition happen. She asked why the committee has not been called back since they were created, to do the engagement work that they were set up to do. She noted they have not been called back to figure out how to engage the community. Ms. Daniels stated there was a work session after Phase 1, and there were many questions because it did not seem that Phase 1 was complete. There was no demographic data, and no sign-in sheets, and we were told that Phase 2 would be better. As a member of the committee, she does not know how Phase 2 could have been completed during the pandemic. She added, if there was any email communication, she was not included. She asked how Phase 3 can be started without the committee being engaged. Ms. Daniels stated the “meeting in a box” concept was created by and pushed out by City Staff. She added she voiced that she felt there was a lot wrong with the “meeting in a box” because the 01/04/21 -7- DRAFT questions it contained and the entire process was facilitated by City Staff. She noted the committee was concerned that people should understand the project, rather than us just talking at them. Ms. Daniels stated she is confused because today she received an email communication from someone at the Alliance for Youth. She added she believes it was Andrew. Councilmember Ryan stated he appreciates the comments that the citizen is making about these issues, but this is not the time. He added it is not germane to the discussion, and it is diverting us from the official business we have tonight. He noted this has been very difficult due to technical problems. A resident stated the woman is still speaking. You do not cut off any woman, in any scenario. Councilmember Ryan stated run the meeting however you want, you are the mayor. Philip Gray, a resident, stated the discussion was regarding community engagement, and Councilmember Ryan made a comment about the price of housing. He added that was not as germane as what Ms. Daniels was speaking about. Mayor Elliott asked Ms. Daniels to continue. Ms. Daniels stated as someone who has participated in local government, if this makes her uncomfortable and she can only imagine what will happen if this is someone’s first time participating in a City Council meeting. Ms. Daniels stated she is going to move forward to her next point, which is regarding the CBA (Community Benefits Agreement). She added the committee brought up the idea of a CBA. She noted she has participated in writing a CBA before, and the CBA should not come from the City or City Staff but rather from the community and presented to the City Council. The City Council can then use the CBA as a bargaining chip for development. She expressed concern about that the CBA is being limited to one organization to discuss and create it. She asked why the City is so interested in creating a CBA, and why is it not being generated by the community, and why the committee is being shut down. Philip Gray thanked everyone who is working on this, including the City Council and City Staff, and especially thanks to the public. He added everyone is looking to put together what is best for Brooklyn Center. It should be an exchange of ideas without animosity or disrespect or talking down to someone. This is an opportunity to put something together that the City can be proud of and pass on to future generations. Mr. Gray stated he has been asked by several people to attend these meetings, and he is not sure why, but he believes he makes sense and adds clarity. He added he is listening to everything that is being said, and it is obvious this is a situation where the City has not engaged citizens. There are multiple communities within the City, and they are made up of citizens. If the citizen participation rate is less than 10% that is not very good. Engagement methods should be either/or choices. 10% to him is not enough. There is an opportunity to ensure that as many citizens as possible have knowledge, if not input. The goal of everything the City does, as far as engaging citizens, should be to make sure that all citizens know about the Opportunity Zone. 01/04/21 -8- DRAFT Mr. Gray stated he loves the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance, and he and Mayor Elliott worked together on its formation. He added, however, they are young people with a different perspective, and they should not be in charge of the engagement process. Mr. Gray stated the final percentage of participation should be whatever we have dictated, and whether we have done a good enough job. We need to get to our purpose, which is to put together a development that shows who we are as a city and what it is that we want to pass on to future generations. Mayor Elliott stated Mr. Gray was instrumental in the formation of Brooklyn Bridge Alliance. He added Mr. Gray’s dedication to the community is greatly appreciated. He noted he is surprised, after Mr. Gray’s experience with the process, that he was not aware of Opportunity Site proposals. Randy Christensen, resident, stated he was not prepared to speak as he was not aware that this was a public hearing. He added, after serving on the Planning Commission, he is aware that there have been several plans for the Opportunity Site presented at different times. He noted how much community engagement is enough is a very big question. A door-knocking campaign would take time, money and volunteers, and it will be difficult to explain the Opportunity Site, how it will affect the City, what should happen, and how you are representing us as the City Council. Mr. Christensen stated City Staff provided assistance along the way, and ultimately a lot of these things won’t happen without a developer. He stressed the importance of understanding what motivates the developer to be here, and the City’s vision and expectations. He thanked the City Council for their time, and added he looks forward to seeing the results. Nelima Sitati Munene, Executive Director of ACER (African Career, Education and Resources) stated her organization works within African immigrant communities in the northwest suburban Twin Cities, including Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. She added, based on our engagement in the process, there is concern about the need for deeper community engagement. She noted it is recognized that some work has been done, and there are challenges with comprehensive outreach due to the pandemic. Ms. Munene stated, with regard to Question 1, all issues are important, and the community must benefit when a development is to be done, especially in areas where there is significant public investment. Ms. Munene stated, with regard to Question 2, this is not an “either/or” process, and everyone must be directly engaged. She added other forms of engagement can be used successfully, and door-to-door engagement is not necessary but rather a blend of approaches is best and a robust strategy must be employed. In terms of values and principles, the historically under-represented groups must be at the table. Some people may need more extended outreach due to barriers but we do not have to knock on every door. Melissa Carey, a resident, stated she has spoken with Councilmember Ryan twice and he hung up on her twice. She added she told him he should be listening to the community, but he said he was 01/04/21 -9- DRAFT busy. She reminded him that it is his duty as an elected official to be on this meeting. She noted a lot of the discussion has to do with equity, racism and engaging communities that have not been engaged. She noted it is ironic that he would demand to be heard, but when a black woman gets on here he interrupts her and hangs up in a hissy fit, and that is not okay. Ms. Carey stated she appreciates the values and principles that have been touched on. She added she does not appreciate the tokenization of different groups that have been engaged, as it seems that City Staff have used a checklist and checked items off and then they are good. She added she was in groups of people of color that were engaged by City Staff, but she does not feel that they were heard. She stressed the difference between receiving information vs. being listened to and having plans implemented. Ms. Carey stated City Staff has hardly engaged the Latino community. She added there was a survey for the incubator microbusiness development, and she asked if it could be translated into Spanish, but City Staff apparently used Google Translate. She noted City Staff does not engage with her community the entire time. They sent out a survey and gave less than 1 week to fill it out, and then say they have engaged the community. Ms. Carey stated she does not appreciate the tokenization, when the survey asked for her race and ethnicity, and City Staff says that they have engaged with black and brown people. She added they do that a lot and she does not appreciate it. Ms. Carey stated the City uses all the buzz words, but she was there and has seen the efforts and that it is not community engagement. She added she is asking for true, meaningful community engagement that will reach residents, and the City has not done that. She added she will go door- to-door with City Staff in her community and translate for them. She noted that is the only way to get people to know about this. You are not reaching communities of color. Matt Branch, a resident, stated the only reason he knows about the Opportunity Site is because he chose to start attending meetings for his own personal reasons. He added he is a black citizen, and has a wife who is a Mexican citizen, and neither of them have been contacted about this on any level. He added he looks forward to all levels of engagement. He noted door-to-door contact is a must. Mr. Gray stated everyone is echoing that to engage a citizen you have to have a multi-pronged approach. He added Ms. Carey stressed the point that you cannot have everything printed in English, and a community navigator can be enlisted to find places where citizens are located. He added he is not saying that you have to go door-to-door for everyone, but many different approaches can be used. He noted it is time consuming but does not have to be expensive. It just has to be purposeful. Ms. Daniels stated everything that has been proposed here by residents are things that the committee had proposed. She added she wants to know if the committee’s input is being considered, and whether City Staff have the option of taking or leaving what was suggested to them by the Committee. She added the committee members attending this meeting worked very 01/04/21 -10- DRAFT hard and were ignored in the beginning, and all of these issues have already been discussed and proposed at the very beginning of the process. Dina Angelique, a resident, stated she has never participated in a meeting before and she has lived in the City for 20.5 years. She added she was encouraged by a friend to participate in this meeting. She noted she is shocked and embarrassed that a Councilmember who willingly chooses to run for office and be elected would disrespect a member of the community and disrespect the Mayor and then hang up. She noted she felt that needed to be noted, as someone who has never participated in a Council meeting before. Mayor Elliott stated many community members expressed their opinions on this issue tonight and expressed much of what he feels about engagement around this project. He thanked residents for their comments and for coming to speak about this project and what it means for the community. He noted the question is, who is this an opportunity for. He stressed the importance of engaging every resident. Mayor Elliott stated many residents who have lived in Brooklyn Center for decades are not aware of this project and that is concerning. The project will be upwards of $500 million, with apartments proposed at $1,500 a month for a 1-bedroom. The City Council has not discussed or begun to understand what this will mean for the community, and there are too many questions. He stressed the importance of property engagement to ensure the project is driven by the community and will ensure that the best possible project is completed for the community. The sheer amount of acreage under consideration is important, considering the impact on surrounding properties in terms of value and cost of living. Mayor Elliott stated we do not have answers to these questions. We need to tap into the rich resource that is the community, including people who have lived here for 40-50 years, and people who represent the diversity of the community. The opportunity should be for the residents of Brooklyn Center to engage and shape what comes out of this, and what gets developed. Mayor Elliott thanked everyone for their contributions tonight. He added he is dismayed by the comments of Councilmember Ryan, and his interaction with a community member. It is important as elected officials that we are listening to community when they raise their voice, whether or not we agree with them. Mayor Elliott stated Councilmember Ryan wishes to speak. He added he thinks the discussion should be left here and have the rest of the presentation on another night. He added he will be signing off soon. Councilmember Ryan stated he is having technical problems. A resident said we can’t hear him. Councilmember Ryan stated my comment was that the City Council was trying to discuss difficult issues during the Work Session earlier, and it is important to keep the topics germane to the agenda. 01/04/21 -11- DRAFT He added he is interested in hearing from community members on a wide range of pertinent issues, and this was a misunderstanding. Councilmember Ryan stated full responses can be provided for the residents’ questions and concerns at another time. It is inappropriate for someone to make a personal attack on any Councilmember who is expressing their opinion that a caller does not approve of. He has issues with the way this work session and other work sessions have been conducted. There are open work sessions where residents are invited to participate, but tonight’s meeting was not the best time for that type of interaction. He stated he expressed his feelings on this point, and that was how the misunderstanding got started. He added he can understand how people who are not familiar with Council procedures could misinterpret that. He noted he has been on the call the whole time and has listened to everyone’s comments. A resident said we can’t hear him. Councilmember Ryan stated that is because of technical problems. He added he did not hang up and he has been on the meeting the whole time and listened to everyone’s comments. Ms. Daniels stated if that is an attempt at an apology from Councilmember Ryan, he failed horribly. If this is an attempt at excuse, it is a failed attempt. This is a meeting with participation of 30 people who heard what happened. I was rudely interrupted and have been interrupted by Councilmember Ryan in person before, when he was in my face and almost physically hit me. If that was an apology or excuse, it is not accepted. This is unacceptable. I am used to this type of behavior every day as a black woman. Accountability processes need to be put in place. Mayor Elliott asked whether the City Council is okay with adjourning the meeting at this point and scheduling a time to it on another night. Councilmember Butler thanked everyone that is on the call. She apologized on behalf of the City Council for what has taken place tonight. She stated it is not acceptable to interrupt a community member who is speaking, and it is not acceptable to tell the person in charge how the meeting should be ran. Councilmember Butler stated she has been taken aback by the defensiveness about community engagement from some Councilmembers as well as City Staff, and she does not condone the behavior displayed tonight. She added this is a difficult and complex project and community engagement is of the utmost importance. Many people are invested in this project, and the City Council is inundated with information, as well as a lot of other big things on their plate. She noted she is impressed with community members who take the time to look into the details and bring issues to light. Councilmember Butler stated she is fine with scheduling additional meetings, although it gets draining the more meetings we have. She added, however, with this project she is not okay with going with the status quo and pushing things forward. Mayor Elliott requested feedback and comment from Councilmember Graves. 01/04/21 -12- DRAFT Councilmember Graves stated she is triggered on several different levels right now and does not have the capacity to continue this meeting. She added this discussion is much larger than the Master Plan. She stressed the importance of being clear about community engagement and outreach specific to the Master Plan and specific to the Opportunity Site, which are two different things that are connected. Councilmember Graves stated she is okay with ending the meeting. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Elliott moved and Councilmember Butler seconded of the City Council Work Session at 9:00 p.m. Motion passed 3-0 (Councilmembers Ryan and Lawrence-Anderson did not respond). Dr Edwards stated Councilmember Ryan would like to speak. Mayor Elliott stated, as a point of order, the meeting has been adjourned. Mayor Elliott stated, for the record, Councilmember Ryan posted in a chat to Dr. Edwards that he voted aye for the adjournment. 01/11/21 -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 JANUARY 11, 2021 CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was conducted via Zoom. ROLL CALL Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence- Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Finance Director Mark Ebensteiner, City Clerk Barb Suciu, and City Attorney Troy Gilchrist. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Councilmember Ryan requested that Agenda Item 6d be removed from the Consent Agenda to be read during the meeting. He added it has long been the practice that the Resolution in support of the City Charter is read aloud at the first meeting of the year. Mayor Elliott stated that will be moved to Item 10d. City Manager Curt Boganey stated the discussion on the fire truck has been removed from the Agenda under Miscellaneous, as this will be addressed on the Regular Session Agenda. Mayor Elliott he would like to move Consent Agenda item 6i, Resolution requiring signatures for official City financial transactions, to the Regular Session as Agenda Item 10e for additional discussion. Mr. Boganey stated this time during the Study Session is reserved to answer questions about items on the Agenda, so the Mayor’s questions can be addressed at this time. Mayor Elliott agreed. He asked whether the City Council have any Miscellaneous items. MISCELLANEOUS Acquisition of Easements Councilmember Graves stated Consent Agenda Item 6e relates to acquisition of easements. She added she lives on Brooklyn Boulevard, and has done some research related to the City’s offer for her easement, which she feels is a fair price. She noted, however, the process has been cumbersome and difficult, working with SRF consultants, completing paperwork, and obtaining 01/11/21 -2- DRAFT approvals and agreements from her bank. She noted, as far as she knows, the City is still waiting for final approval from her mortgage company. Councilmember Graves stated the entire process is a lot of work for the homeowner and could perhaps be made less complicated. She added she wanted to draw City Staff’s attention to this issue. Mr. Boganey stated City Staff will review this issue and report back to the City Council on how the process works, and where there may be ways to improve it. January 4, 2021 Work Session – Public Comment Councilmember Graves stated she would like to make a few comments about the January 4, 2021 Work Session. She added it would be helpful moving forward and staying on track to ensure that the City Council is notified when there will be public input. She noted public hearings should be listed on the Agenda so all constituents know about it, so they can come and comment. She noted this will also ensure that City Staff are able to get through their presentation without interruption. Councilmember Graves stated City Councilmembers should be made aware that public comment will be taken so they can be prepared to receive public comment and have a robust conversation amongst each other. Councilmember Graves stated everyone loses their cool sometimes and makes mistakes and says the wrong thing. She stressed the importance of being willing to accept constructive feedback with grace and extend understanding and grace to those who make mistakes. She noted, as a reminder to herself and to everyone, we all want to see what is best for the City of Brooklyn Center and its residents. Mayor Elliott stated the City Council should have a discussion about public comment during meetings. He added he was operating under the notion that public comment is allowed during work sessions, and that the consensus was that public comment would be taken after the City Council had spoken, so that is the approach he has taken. He noted people are coming to a meeting because of what is on the agenda and should be allowed to comment. Consent Agenda Item 6i, Resolution Granting Corporate Authority for Signing Checks and Transactions of Financial Business Matters Mayor Elliott stated he would like to comment on the Resolution in the Consent Agenda related to signatures for official transactions, as the Resolution does not follow the City Charter. City Attorney Troy Gilchrist stated he believes Mayor Elliott is referring to City Code Section 6.05, Purchases and Contracts, which states, “the City Council shall by Resolution establish and maintain a purchasing policy for the City of Brooklyn Center. All contracts bonds and instruments of any kind to which the City is a party shall be signed by Mayor and City Manager on behalf of the City and shall be executed in the name of the City.” 01/11/21 -3- DRAFT Mayor Elliott stated the Resolution states “Treasurer and City Manager”. He added he thinks it should be Treasurer, City Manager and Mayor. He noted he thinks that edit should be made. Mr. Gilchrist stated Section 7.10 pertains to reimbursements, and specifically mentions the City Manager and Treasurer, or Finance Director. He added, in his opinion, that would be the genesis of this Resolution, which pertains to processing of City financial investments, and falls under Section 7.10. He noted Section 6.05 refers to debt instruments that would be issued by the City. Finance Director Mark Ebensteiner agreed, adding the Resolution is in line with requirements regarding City council authority for disbursements to the City Manager and Treasurer, which is the Finance Director, and does not necessarily refer to large contracts or bonds. He added the Resolution relates to compliance requirements designated by the City Council and giving authority to the City Manager and Finance Director. Mayor Elliott asked what the difference between the reference to bonds in the Resolution and those is, as mentioned in the City Charter. He asked whether the disbursements could be done to purchase bonds that have already been signed in contract. Mr. Ebensteiner stated the Resolution gives the City Manager and Finance Director the authority to make investment transactions for treasury notes and other securities, on behalf of the City, as required by Statute. Mayor Elliott asked whether these are things that Mr. Ebensteiner would need to act quickly on. Mr. Ebensteiner stated this Resolution is presented to the City Council at the beginning of every year as one of the first steps the City Council takes, to give authority and eliminate delay. Mayor Elliott stated he does not see the difference articulated in this Resolution in terms of bonds. He asked whether there are bonds that would require the Mayor’s signature. Mr. Gilchrist stated the bonds referred to in the Resolution are bonds that are being sought on the market as an investment. He added that point can be clarified in the Resolution. Mayor Elliott stated the Charter says, “all bonds of any kind” and does not make a distinction. He added he believes he should sign off on these bonds unless it would cause an issue for Mr. Ebensteiner in terms of being able to act quickly to purchase bonds. Mr. Ebensteiner stated that would be a procedural change that he is unfamiliar with, and it may have an impact on existing procedures. He added he is charged with investing the City’s cash and investments to ensure that they are good investments, and the City gets the best rates. He added City Staff works with brokers, and receives information on opportunities for investments, and there are times when City Staff must act quickly. Mayor Elliott stated he would like to be added to the people who are signing off on his. He added if it becomes an issue where you need to act quickly, he can give his approval and sign off after the fact. 01/11/21 -4- DRAFT Mr. Boganey stated that change is not consistent with the Charter, Section 7.10, which deals with disbursements as opposed to other types of contracts. He added these two types of items are segregated in the Charter, due to the importance of City administration being able to make disbursements and ensure that day-to-day financial operations of the City can occur in an efficient and necessary manner. He noted, in the Resolution, the regular conduct of City business would be in the domain of City administration, and the addition of language that interferes with the daily operations of the City would not be consistent with the City Charter. Mr. Boganey stated City administration should be able to conduct day-to-day operational business without risk of undue delays. He added, for instance, weekly payroll checks must be authorized and approved by the City Manager and Treasurer. He noted authorization of weekly payroll checks by the Mayor would not be in line with the intent of the Charter. Mayor Elliott stated he is not talking about authorizing payroll. He added the section he is talking about is Purchases and Contracts, and it does not make a distinction. He added, in his mind, it will not be a hindrance or slow anything down, if he can give authorization and City Staff can let him know after the fact. Mr. Boganey stated, while this arrangement may not result in an unreasonable delay, in his opinion, there is no reason to take that risk, if the City Attorney agrees that this section of the Charter does not apply. Mayor Elliott stated he does not know how you can read this and say that it doesn’t. He added it says, “all contracts and bonds of any kind”. Mr. Gilchrist stated Section 7.10 relates to disbursement, giving the City Manager and Treasurer the authority to issue checks or make disbursements on behalf of the City. He added, in his experience, this is an administrative issue that is handled by City Staff and is consistent with how cities typically operate. He noted he is not aware of a mayor ever getting involved in signing off on City investments. Mr. Gilchrist stated the last line of Section 7.10 states, “the City Council may by Ordinance make further regulations for the safekeeping and disbursement of the funds of the City.” He added Chapter 10 of the City Code refers to investments but does not mention authority. He noted there may be more information in the policies, but he has not had a chance to look into it further. Mayor Elliott stated cities are different and Brooklyn Center is unique. He added he does not see how it would cause a problem or consternation if he authorizes Mr. Ebensteiner to keep him informed. He noted it would be the easiest way to be in alignment with the Charter. Mayor Elliott asked Mr. Ebensteiner whether it would be a hindrance to notify him about purchases. Mr. Ebensteiner stated purchasing bonds is only a small part of the portfolio. He added the intent of the Resolution is to delegate authority to City administration to pay claims. He expressed concern about establishing an additional precedent for future transactions. He noted he would need to look into it further. 01/11/21 -5- DRAFT Mayor Elliott stated it is his goal to be in alignment with the City Charter. January 4, 2021 Work Session Councilmember Ryan stated he appreciates the earlier comments of Councilmember Graves. He added he wanted to make a brief statement about what occurred at the January 4, 2021 Work Session. He apologized to the City Council, City Staff, and our guests, especially those citizens who were present, for the disruption that occurred. He noted technology problems were causing confusion for him, and he was using his phone as a microphone. He expressed his regret and apologized for speaking over anyone, which was not his intention. Councilmember Ryan stated he is sorry that he let his frustrations show, which were directed at technology resulting from the communications failure. He sincerely apologized to everyone and hopes we can move on. He noted he accepts responsibility for what occurred. Mayor Elliott thanked Councilmember Ryan for his comments. Removal of Consent Agenda Item Mayor Elliott stated he would like to remove Consent Agenda Item 6I, Appointments to Various Committees, to be addressed at the next City Council meeting. ADJOURN STUDY SESSION TO INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL Mayor Elliott moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Study Session at 6:50 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 01/11/21 -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 JANUARY 11, 2021 1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Informal Open Forum called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at 6:50 p.m. The meeting was conducted via Zoom. ROLL CALL Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence- Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Deputy City Manager Reggie Edwards, Finance Director Mark Ebensteiner, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, Fire Chief Todd Berg, City Clerk Barb Suciu, and City Attorney Troy Gilchrist. Mayor Mike Elliott opened the meeting for the purpose of Informal Open Forum. Melissa Carey, resident, stated she does not appreciate the disingenuous apology as that is not the situation that occurred, and Councilmember Ryan is gaslighting. She added he specifically said that Alfreda Daniel’s comments were not germane to the conversation and continued to interrupt her while she was speaking. She noted he did not like the way the meeting was being run, and he hung up the phone. Ms. Carey stated she knows he hung up the phone because she called his house and he told her he had a problem with how the meeting was being run. She added we all saw and heard what happened and she does not appreciate the narrative being switched around. She noted he interrupted her purposefully and those words need to be said. An interpreter stated he was told to join the meeting at 7:00 p.m. City Clerk Barb Suciu stated this is related to the Economic Development Authority (EDA) meeting after tonight’s Regular Session meeting. Mayor Elliott asked the interpreter to remain on the meeting until the EDA portion of the meeting. Councilmember Graves asked whether Assistant City Manager Dr. Reggie Edwards can give any insight about technical difficulties that occurred during the January 4, 2021 Work Session, as he was Acting City Manager at the time. Dr. Reggie Edwards stated, during the Work Session, Mayor Elliott opened up the discussion to members of the public. There were difficulties with technology, and Councilmember Ryan was 01/11/21 -2- DRAFT joining the meeting from his cell phone through Dr. Edwards’ phone which he had on speaker and propped next to his computer. Dr. Edwards added he could not see Councilmember Ryan. Dr. Edwards stated, if Councilmember Ryan wanted to speak or be acknowledged, or interact with the City Council, he had no means of doing that except through Dr. Edwards’ phone. When the conversation happened during which Councilmember Ryan wanted to raise a point, he stated, “Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor,” and then proceeded with his point of order. Due to technology problems, there was no other way for him to flag or signal to Mayor Elliott or anyone else on the City Council that he wished to speak. Dr. Edwards stated he told Councilmember Ryan he had the floor, and Councilmember Ryan began to speak via Dr. Edwards’ phone. Dr. Edwards stated while Councilmember Ryan was speaking, Mayor Elliott called him out twice, and there was a pause, and then a male audience member made a comment directed at Councilmember Ryan about interrupting the speaker. Dr. Edwards added he does not know whether Councilmember Ryan even knew who was speaking, and Councilmember Ryan made a statement that the Mayor should run the meeting however he wants. Dr. Edwards stated Councilmember Ryan did not have the technological capability of interacting with the City Council. He added he could not hear or understand what was going on at his end. Dr. Edwards noted he tried to facilitate the conversation from his phone for Councilmember Ryan. Alfreda Daniels, resident, expressed her disappointment in the City Council and leadership of the City, to sit on this call and make excuses for what happened and how she was treated and disrespected by Councilmember Ryan. She added it is upsetting and adds insult to injury. Ms. Daniels stated she reviewed emails from 2019 related to another meeting when he almost attacked her physically, which other people had witnessed. She added this should not be blamed on technology, as Councilmember Ryan heard her and interrupted her and then hung up because he was not satisfied with her comments or the way the meeting was being run. She noted, if Councilmember Ryan takes full responsibility and apologizes, she will accept that. But he is making excuses, and Dr. Edwards is making excuses for him. Ms. Daniels added that Councilmember Graves heard what happened, and it is very upsetting that she is asking for confirmation about it when she already knows what happened. Randy Christensen, resident, thanked the City Council for addressing some of his concerns at tonight’s meeting, that he expressed in his recent email to the City Council. Alfreda Daniels asked whether the City has a Code of Conduct for holding Councilmembers accountable. Mayor Elliott stated City Staff can look into that and get back to Ms. Daniels. Mr. Boganey stated he does not believe the City has a Code of Conduct but agreed to look into it and provide information the City Council as well as Ms. Daniels. 01/11/21 -3- DRAFT Councilmember Graves asked whether there is an ethics document that is provided for employees or new City Councilmembers when they go through orientation. Mr. Boganey stated the City Council renews its commitment to the City Charter, which is an item on tonight’s agenda. He added there are conduct-related elements within the context of that Resolution, which may be the closest thing the City Council has in terms of an official policy related to Code of Conduct. Councilmember Butler stated the City Council plans to continue working with the consulting firm, and this issue could be reviewed through that work, related to developing community standards for interacting with the community. She added this is not the first time this has come up, and one of the reasons she ran for office was because she felt offended at community meetings, not by Councilmember Ryan, and she understands how that feels. She noted it is the City Council’s responsibility as leaders of the community to ensure that things are handled properly, and to check themselves and each other. Mr. Boganey stated City Staff can share that request with Common Sense so they can build it into their process, if there is consensus. Councilmember Graves stated she likes that idea. She added the City Council received some tips from Common Sense when they initially worked together, that were specific to culture and interactions of the City Council, but that could apply to interactions with the community as well. She noted City Staff could include that in regular meeting information and add a reference on the agenda for meeting attendees to be used as a blueprint in the meantime for interacting with each other and the community. Mr. Boganey agreed. Mayor Elliott stated thank you to all of us for being here and holding this space and holding ourselves and each other accountable. We have a lot of work to do as a community – kids are falling behind in school; families are struggling financially; small businesses and entrepreneurs are struggling. At the same time, the community faces big opportunities. Everything he has heard here tonight moves us closer to realizing the vision for improving and creating opportunities for a better community for the residents of Brooklyn Center. He applauded everyone for the discussion that has taken place tonight. 2. INVOCATION Mayor Elliott stated this month we celebrate the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. We owe a lot to leaders like Dr. King, and the Civil Rights Movement. Dr. King said, “The time is always right to do what is right;” and “In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends.” Mayor Elliott stated it is important that we put the emphasis on holding each other and this community to account so that we can move forward collectively, but also hold each other with love. As we move forward as a community, let us do it together. 01/11/21 -4- DRAFT Mayor Elliott stated he hopes to schedule some time to discuss racism in America and in the community as a City Council. Research related to a recent City Group report showed that the U.S. lost $16 trillion over the last 3 decades due to racism and another $5 trillion is expected to be lost over the next 5 years. This relates to measurable terms – closing the wage gap, improving access to housing credits, and providing businesses and entrepreneurs with equitable opportunities. Mayor Elliott stressed the importance of identifying ways to improve the community and put resources to that effect in an intentional way. This will be moving all members of the community forward. He wants the City Council, as an elected body, and the community to take a step back in 2021, as community is an integral part of this work, and all voices matter. Let’s move forward together, hold each other accountable, and do the hard work to ensure that the people who live in Brooklyn Center have self-determination and have agency, and are the ones that are moving and building this community in a way that is going to benefit the folks who call Brooklyn Center home. Councilmember Graves moved and Mayor Elliott seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 7:15 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Graves requested a 5-minute recess before the Invocation. Mayor Elliott stated that was the Invocation. The City Council went into recess at 7:15 p.m. The City Council meeting reconvened at 7:20 p.m. Councilmember Graves led the meeting attendees through a series of deep breathing exercises. She stressed the importance of creating space for people to show up as they are and honor where they are at and have some compassion. She added a lot has happened in the last week, and she is not alone in feeling the weight of it. She urged everyone to show love for each other and themselves. 2. INVOCATION (continued) Mayor Elliott stated he already gave the Invocation during the Study Session, but he repeated his main points. He added he referenced a few quotes from Dr. King, honoring his legacy and the Civil Rights Movement: “The time is always right to do the right thing.” “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends.” -Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 01/11/21 -5- DRAFT Mayor Elliott stated those two quotes are instructive in these times. We must remember to always do the right thing and to always speak and address the injustices we see in our community. In recent events, we have been called on to speak and speak truthfully, regarding where we are as a community. There are a lot of great opportunities but also immense challenges. The City of Brooklyn Center has one of the worst reading rates and that is unacceptable for our children and their future. The City has businesses, including micro-entrepreneurs, that are struggling, and have been hit hard by the financial crisis. The community is experiencing serious issues involving a lack of access to food and health care. Mayor Elliott stressed the importance of being intentional and measured in actions that are taken to increase the agenda of those who live in our community and help them rise up. The City Group expert found that the United States lost $16 trillion over the last 20 years to racism, and could lose an additional $5 trillion over the next 5 years. Mayor Elliott was only partially audible and did not respond to Councilmember Grave’s repeated requests to be acknowledged. Mayor Elliott stated, as we move forward in 2021, he would like to reiterate that we are doing this work together, holding each other accountable, doing it with love, but with intention of all of us being able to grow together. Mayor Elliott stated he could not hear anyone, but he can hear them now. He noted his earpiece was controlling his computer speaker while he was talking. Administer Ceremonial Oath of Office Councilmembers Marquita Butler and Kris Lawrence-Anderson were sworn in by City Clerk Barb Suciu. Question Relating to Adoption of a Fair Housing Policy Mayor Elliott stated he has a question regarding Consent Agenda Item 6f, Adoption of a Fair Housing Policy. He asked whether the Policy was reviewed by the professor from the University of Minnesota who was a presenter at a previous meeting. Community Development Director Meg Beekman stated City Staff sent the policy to Dr. Goetz, who indicated he would provide comments, but he did not. Comments were received from Acer, Homeline and the Housing Justice Center, which are included in the meeting packet, and have been incorporated into the Fair Housing Policy. 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at 7:42 p.m. 4. ROLL CALL 01/11/21 -6- DRAFT Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence- Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Deputy City Manager Reggie Edwards, Finance Director Mark Ebensteiner, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, Fire Chief Todd Berg, City Clerk Barb Suciu, and City Attorney Troy Gilchrist. 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Elliott moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, as amended, with Agenda Item 6d to be addressed as Item 10d; removal of Appointment of City Council Representatives to Various Committees, and Agenda Item 6l to be addressed as Item 10e, and the following consent items were approved: 6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. December 7, 2020 - Special Session 2. December 14. 2020 - Study Session 3. December 14, 2020 - Regular Session 6b. APPROVAL OF LICENSES GASOLINE SERVICE STATION AM PM Corner Market 6501 Humboldt Ave DBA: Winner Gas Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Holiday Station Store 420 66th Ave N DBA: Holiday Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Kabalan 1505 69th Ave N DBA: Pump & Munch Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Royalty and Sons, Inc 6044 Brooklyn Boulevard DBA: Brooklyn BP Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 LIQUOR - INTOXICATING Captain Crab 1360 Shingle Creek Parkway DBA: Bayou Crab Shack, Inc. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Top Golf USA 6420 N. Camden Ave DBA: Top Golf Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 01/11/21 -7- DRAFT LIQUOR – SUNDAY SALES Captain Crab 1360 Shingle Creek Parkway DBA: Bayou Crab Shack, Inc. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Top Golf USA 6420 N. Camden Ave DBA: Top Golf Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 MECHANICAL LICENSES Bettin Inc. 3208 1st Street So dba Ecowater Systems Waite Park MN 56387 Blue Rain Plumbing 8821 Woodland Rd Bloomington MN55437 Modern Heating & A/C 2318 First Street NE Minneapolis 55418 Professional Mechanical Service 18983 York St New Suite C Elk River MN 55330 Regency Plumbing Inc. 3414 Louisiana Avenue North Crystal MN 55427 St. Paul Plumbing & Heating 640 Grand Ave St. Paul, MN 55105 Tarbek Company 910 121st Ave NE Blaine MN 55434 SIGN HANGER LICENSE Jaycal, LLC 6098 Shingle Creek Pkwy dba Fastsigns of Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Rose City 3102 County Road 71 Eagle Bend MN 56446 SECONDHAND GOODS DEALER GameStop #535 6068 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center MN 55430 TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCT AM PM Corner Market 6501 Humboldt Ave N DBA: Winner Gas Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Family Dollar 2105 57th Ave N Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 01/11/21 -8- DRAFT Holiday Station Store 420 66th Ave N DBA: Holiday Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Holiday Station Store 6890 Shingle Creek Parkway DBA: Holiday Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Kabalan 1505 69th Ave N DBA: Pump & Munch Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Royalty and Sons 6044 Brooklyn Blvd DBA Brooklyn BP Brooklyn Center, 55429 RENTAL INITIAL (TYPE III – one-year license) 3125 65th Ave N HP Minnesota I LLC/Pathlight Mgmt 5807 Bryant Ave N Obafemi Oladeji/Koladex Venture INITIAL (TYPE II – two-year license) 3306 62nd Ave N Samuel Adejuwon/Delight Property Mgmt LLC 2607 65th Ave N Oluwaferanmi Amusan 4207 Lakeside Ave #235 Ammar Abdulrahman 5833 Pearson Dr Buster Fallah/Angel Health & Home Care Services RENEWAL (TYPE II – two-year license) 6305 Camden Ave N James Soderberg/Soderberg Apt Specialists 7119 Major Ave N David Bannister RENEWAL (TYPE I – three-year license) 6807 Humboldt Ave N Mindy Jean Brummer/B & V Properties 6c. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-01 DESIGNATING OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER 6d. RESOLUTION DECLARING COMMITMENT TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER – moved to Item 10d 6e. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-02 RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF ETHNIC POPULATIONS AND HERITAGE CELEBRATIONS 6f. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-03 APPROVING THE 2021 FEE SCHEDULE 6g. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-04 AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS FOR BROOKLYN BOULEVARD CORRIDOR PROJECT PHASE 2 IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. 2021-05 01/11/21 -9- DRAFT 6h. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-05 APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF A FAIR HOUSING POLICY 6i. RESOLUTION APPOINTING BROOKLYN CENTER REPRESENTATIVES TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AN/OR BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH, HENNEPIN COUNTY RECYCLING GROUP, LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, MINNEAPOLIS NORTHWEST CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU, NORTH METRO MAYORS ASSOCIATION, NORTHWEST SUBURBSCABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, PETS UNDER POLICE SECURITY, AND TWIN LAKE JOINT POWERS ORGANIZATION– Pulled from agenda 6j. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-06 DESIGNATING DEPOSITORIES OF CITY FUNDS FOR 2021 6k. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-07 OPTING NOT TO WAIVE LIMITED TORT LIABILITY FOR 2021 6l. RESOLUTION GRANTING CORPORATE AUTHORITY FOR SIGNING OF CHECKS AND TRANSACTIONS OF FINANCIAL BUSINESS MATTERS – Moved to Item 10e 6m. RESOLUTION 2021-08 APPOINTING MUNICIPAL TRUSTEES TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION BOARD OF TRUSTEES Motion passed unanimously. 7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS -None. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8a. ORDINANCE NO. 2021-09 AMENDING CHAPTER 27 AND 19 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING THE OPERATION OF SNOWMOBILES, ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES, OFF-HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLES AND OTHER RECREATIOINAL VEHICLES WITHIN THE CITY Community Development Director Meg Beekman reviewed background information related to the Snowmobile and Recreational Vehicle Ordnance, for which a public hearing and second reading are to be held at this meeting. She stated the City Council instructed the Housing Commission to review this issue in October 2020, and their recommendations were presented to City Council in 01/11/21 -10- DRAFT November 2020. The City Council approved the proposed Ordinance’s first reading on December 14, 2020 and called for a public hearing. Ms. Beekman stated the City’s existing Ordinance for these uses does not indicate regulations for use of recreational vehicles on private property. The use of these types of vehicles on private property is allowed, but generally prohibited on public streets with certain exceptions, including emergency services. The proposed Ordinance places restrictions on the use of these vehicles related to length of use, noise, speed and odor, as well as proper equipment. Ms. Beekman stated City Staff reviewed the proposed Ordinance and recommended removal of the noise portions of the Ordinance from Chapter 27 to be moved to Chapter 19, to have all noise-related requirements in the same section. She added City Staff recommends that the City Council hold the public hearing and adopt the Ordinance amending Chapter 27 and 19 of the City Code of Ordinances, as well as summary publication. Mayor Elliott moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Randy Christensen thanked City Staff and the City Council for taking on this issue and seeing it through. He added this support is very important for residents who are dealing with noise issues in the neighborhoods. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson acknowledged the work of the Housing Commission in their review of this issue. She thanked them for their hard work and recommendations. Councilmember Graves moved and Mayor Elliott seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 2021-09 Amending Chapter 27 and 19 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding the Operation of Snowmobiles, All-Terrain Vehicles, Off-Highway Motorcycles and Other Recreational Vehicles Within the City. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Graves moved and Mayor Elliott seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2021- 09 Approving a summary publication of the above Ordinance. Motion passed unanimously. 8b. 2021 PROPOSED UTILITY RATES Finance Director Mark Ebensteiner reviewed proposed utility rates for 2021. The proposed rates take into consideration maintenance of service levels; stabilization of rate changes; and ensure 01/11/21 -11- DRAFT adequate cash for operations, capital projects, and debt service. Capital improvement projects have the biggest impact on revenue needs for the City, and some bonding is planned to ease the burden. Mr. Ebensteiner stated the proposed rate increases for 2021 are 5% for water, 5% for sewer and 3% for storm. A tiered consumption charge is used for residential meters, and most residential properties fall under Tier 1. In an effort to smooth water increases, City Staff proposes a debt issuance for projects which will reduce the impact to residents. He gave a comparison of 9 area cities’ utilities, with a typical user amount of 18,000 gallons of water per quarter. Brooklyn Center compares favorably in terms of next year’s projected amounts. Mayor Elliott stated he received a call from a senior Brooklyn Center resident who expressed concern about the increased rates. He added the woman asked whether the City Council could consider establishing a program to provide support for seniors on a fixed income who are struggling financially to make ends meet. Mr. Boganey the City of Brooklyn Center is perhaps be the only City in the State of Minnesota that has a senior discount rate for utility charges, that has been in place for at least 20 years. Mayor Elliott asked what the discounted rate for seniors is. Mr. Ebensteiner stated he does not have the information readily available but he can provide it for the City Council. Councilmember Graves moved and Mayor Elliott seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Randy Christensen stated he loves recycling, and he knows it is a County requirement, but he would be in favor of finding a different contractor than the Hennepin County group. He added they seem to be disrespectful in many ways, including their actions. He noted he has complained about it but wanted to get it on record. Councilmember Graves moved and Mayor Elliott seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Boganey stated the recycling program is required by Hennepin County, but services are contracted with a private provider. He added the three cities in the recycling group – Crystal, New Hope and Brooklyn Center – take bids collectively and hire a private contractor for recycling services. Councilmember Graves asked why it is done this way. Mr. Boganey stated the group can get a more competitive price with larger volume of recycling demand and establish greater efficiencies. Councilmember asked whether the collective organizes the community curbside pick-up every other year. Mr. Boganey confirmed this. 01/11/21 -12- DRAFT Councilmember Graves moved and Mayor Elliott seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2021-10 Water Utility Rates; RESOLUTION NO. 2021-11 Sanitary Sewer Utility Rates; RESOLUTION NO. 2021-12 Storm Sewer Utility Rates; RESOLUTION NO. 2021-13 Street Light Rates; and, RESOLUTION NO. 2021-14 Recycling Rates. Motion passed unanimously. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS -None. 10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 10a. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-15 REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR A NEW FIRE TRUCK PURCHASE Fire Chief Todd Berg reviewed City Staff’s recommendation to purchase a new Rosenbauer aerial tower truck. The Fire Department’s Engine #3, a 1992 Spartan, was due to be replaced in 2017, originally purchased to put out fires in strip malls and at Brookdale Mall. The current fleet replacement schedule is a 25-year rotation for aerial trucks. Chief Berg stated the landscape of the community and available firefighting technology has changed. The City has transformed to high density, multi-floor housing. A replacement truck will be pivotal to the safety of citizens and firefighters. The aerial bucket will be important for escapes from multi-story buildings, and the platform will hold up to 4 people, as well as have many new safety features for firefighter protection. A committee of firefighters and City Public Works mechanics reviewed vendors and options and chose Rosenbauer from Wyoming, MN, which was the cheapest option with the most positive reviews, and the only locally built truck. Mr. Ebensteiner reviewed funding and financing options for the new fire truck, working with financial advisor. The $1.4 million cost will come out of cash reserves in the Capital Replacement Fund, as recommended by City Staff. Chief Berg reviewed opportunities for discounts on the total truck price of $1,417,543 if action were to be taken tonight, reducing the total price to $550,000 due upon delivery and acceptance of the truck in spring of 2022. He added he understands the timing is not the best, but he believes now is the time for the City to purchase this truck, as prices go up annually by 3-7%, or $42,000- 98,000. He noted fleet purchases are typically made through the Central Garage in the General Budget, but this truck is being brought for separate approval due to its age of 28 years. Councilmember Graves stated she remembers seeing this presentation recently. Mr. Boganey stated this information was presented during the Capital Improvement Plan process. Councilmember Graves stated a fire truck was donated early in her tenure. She requested clarification. Mr. Boganey stated both Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park donated fire trucks to cities in Liberia several years ago. 01/11/21 -13- DRAFT Councilmember Graves stated maybe other sister cities could be considered to receive the fire truck that is being replaced. She added she wanted to put the idea out there, to consider some alternatives to auction. Mayor Elliott asked whether there are opportunity costs for purchasing the truck outright. Mr. Ebensteiner stated there is not much rate of return on investment in this case, and no opportunity costs would be gained by utilizing the City’s existing cash balance and strategize going forward to minimize impact on taxpayers. Chief Berg stated there is another aerial in the fire truck fleet that is 13 years old. He added the City probably does not need two aerial trucks at 100 feet, but when that truck is up for replacement, it can be replaced with an engine which would cost approximately 50% of what is currently being proposed. Mayor Elliott moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2021-15 Authorizing City Manager Boganey to Sign a Purchase Agreement for a New Fire Truck. Motion passed unanimously. 10b. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-16 SELECTING PRESIDING OFFICERS – MAYOR PRO TEM AND ACTING MAYOR PRO TEM Mayor Elliott nominated Councilmember Marquita Butler as Mayor Pro Tem. He added she has done a great job in this role, filling in for him when he was not available. The nomination was seconded by Councilmember Graves. The nomination passed unanimously. 10c. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-17 AMENDING THE HOSPITALITY LICENSE FOR RADISSON HOTEL Mr. Boganey reviewed a Resolution amending the current hospitality accommodations license with the Radisson Hotel. On November 9, 2020, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving a license for the Radisson Hotel with certain conditions, allowing no more than 50 lodging units to be used as part of a homeless shelter use. City Staff have had discussions with the service provider and the licensee about increasing the number of available units, which has been deemed appropriate at this time, as conditions have improved under current management. The licensee and service provider both agree that an incremental increase would be appropriate. Mr. Boganey stated City Staff recommends approval of the Resolution authorizing an increase in the number of available lodging units from 50 units to 75 units, effective on the date of approval. He added this approval would also revoke the previously approved lodging unit cap of 50 units. Mayor Elliott asked why there is a limit on the number of units if the operation is running smoothly. Mr. Boganey stated it is his understanding that the incremental increase was agreed upon by the 01/11/21 -14- DRAFT service provider and licensee, which will create a more manageable situation for the service provider. He stressed the importance of ensuring that the increase would not have any detrimental impacts. Mayor Elliott asked whether the licensee was notified of this meeting. Ms. Beekman stated both the licensee and service provider were notified and had joined the call. She added the increase in the number of available units is in line with a staffing increase, to ensure that the transition is successful. She noted the license runs with the hotel, and not the service provider, which could prove to be an issue if the service provider leaves, at which time the City would have more control over the number of available units. Mr. Nupan Patel, owner of Radisson Hotel Brooklyn Center stated he and his staff have been in talks with the service provider and City Staff. C.J. Jessup, representing Second Chance, stated he and his staff have been working closely with City Staff and the hotel to ensure appropriate staffing and security. He added the agreement for 100 rooms is appropriate and will allow the partnership to continue to be successful. He thanked the City of Brooklyn Center for supporting this project. Mr. Jessup, stated Second Chance had an opportunity to see the concerns raised by the City and the hotel atmosphere and wanted to do better for the community. He added his intention is to do something about what is happening in the community, by decreasing police calls, providing a safe place for people to stay, and creating quieter, better communities. He noted they have gotten a lot of praise from other communities who hope to develop similar programs. Mr. Jessup stated Second Chance can easily handle up to 100 units, but is willing to start with 75 units, to show that they value the community. He noted they are operating on CARES funding, which will run out at the end of February, and additional funding will need to be sought. He expressed his gratitude and the appreciation of his staff for being able to do this work with City Staff to solve everyday problems for people who need their help. Mayor Elliott asked whether the CARES funds are sufficient. C.J. stated the funds are not sufficient, but an extension of CARES funding has just been announced, and that is scheduled to last through the end of February. Mayor Elliott stated he would be interested in talking to C.J. about how the City can get involved in the project and provide financial support. He added many community members are experiencing displacement due to the pandemic and financial crisis. He noted he would like C.J to come back and discuss this issue with the City Council in the near future, so the City Council can understand the needs of the community and how to partner to solve problems and address issues. Councilmember Ryan stated all the City Councilmembers are concerned about doing everything possible to address homelessness. He added other hotels in Brooklyn Center may be willing to participate in this type of program. He noted the difficulty is finding funding. He stressed the 01/11/21 -15- DRAFT importance of having a constructive conversation regarding the issue of how funding will be provided, and how to expand the program. Mayor Elliott stated he met today with other mayors, and many of them are considering requests from hotels to convert to long-term housing. He added the City Council must look at opportunities and challenges, and how to meet the needs of the community. Councilmember Graves extended her thanks to C.J. for the work he is doing, and City Staff and everyone working together to support the people that call that space home right now. She added she is excited to hear that the number of units will be increased and more people will be helped through this collaboration. Councilmember Graves offered to lead C.J. and his team in a meditation or yoga practice some time. Mr. Jessup agreed and thanked Councilmember Graves. Mayor Elliott stated he fought for an increase in the number of units the first time this came to the City Council. He added he knows how great the need is, and he is happy to hear things are going well and parties are working together. Mr. Patel thanked everyone for coming together on this project. He added he only wishes it could have been different from the beginning. Mayor Elliott dropped off the meeting at 9:28 p.m. He rejoined the meeting at 9:30 p.m. 10d. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-18 DECLARING COMMITMENT TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER Councilmember Ryan stated it has been the practice of the City Council that at the first meeting of the New Year, the City Council reads the Resolution regarding commitment to the City Charter and then votes its approval. He added, considering the late hour, the Resolution does not need to be read to declare commitment. He urged members to revisit the Resolution and be mindful as they undertake duties throughout the year, and to always be aware that Brooklyn Center is a Charter city. He stressed the importance of abiding by that fundamental law of the City. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2021-18 Declaring Commitment to the Brooklyn Center City Charter. Discussion during the motion: Mayor Elliott stated the City Council has an ongoing commitment to the City Charter and this item does not need to be added to the Agenda every year. He added, in his view, it is redundant. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she does not disagree, but it is helpful information that serves as a reminder to the public. She added she is fine with leaving it on the Consent Agenda on an annual basis. Motion passed unanimously. 01/11/21 -16- DRAFT 10e. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-19 GRANTING CORPORATE AUTHORITY FOR SIGNING OF CHECKS AND TRANSACTIONS OF FINANCIAL BUSINESS MATTERS Mr. Gilchrist stated, since the initial discussion on this topic earlier during the Study Session, he did some research and wanted to add another piece of information. He added the City Council’s Investment Policy, Section 2.22, states that authority to manage investments programs is derived from is granted to the City Manager, City Treasurer and Assistant Finance Director. The responsibility for operation of investment programs may be delegated by the City Manager to the City Treasurer who shall carry out the program consistent with this policy. No person may engage in any transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy. Mayor Elliott stated that is City Council policy, but the Charter controls everything, so Council policy should be revised. Mr. Gilchrist stated Chapter 605 states that the City Council shall by Resolution establish and maintain a purchasing policy, and by Ordinance, can dictate the safe keeping and disbursement of City funds. The Charter, in this case, does not address everything, so the City Council can fill in the gaps with City Council policy. He added, in his opinion, if the City Council agrees to amend the Resolution to include some reference to the Mayor participating, that is the City Council’s decision. Mayor Elliott stated Section 6.04 of the City Charter states that all contracts and bonds of any kind that the City is a party to shall be signed by the Mayor and City Manager on behalf of the City. He added he feels strongly that the City Charter should be followed. He noted he is not going to belabor this but if the section needs to be amended, the City Council should do that, and live out the Charter in the City Council’s actions. Mayor Elliott stated his amendment to the Resolution is that the Mayor should sign for bonds as well, but not for payroll checks or anything like that. Mayor Elliott stated he has to step away for a few minutes. He requested that Mayor Pro Tem Butler take over the meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Butler recognized that Councilmember Ryan wished to speak. Councilmember Ryan stated this Resolution is added to the Consent Agenda every year as it is an established administrative process according to standing policy. If there are good reasons to change a policy, then it should be considered further, but not in the late hours of a long meeting, and the City Council should not summarily pass an amendment to a Resolution without addition City Staff feedback and comment. He added this is an administrative matter, and there is a distinction between policy and administration. He noted he does not see a reason that this process should be changed, other than potentially that a member of the Council wants to sign more documents. He expressed his belief that this issue should be deferred pending further recommendations from City Staff. He asked whether Mr. Boganey would care to comment. 01/11/21 -17- DRAFT Mr. Boganey stated there is a difference of opinion about the interpretation of the City Charter. The City Attorney just read the policy that the City Council has adopted that would apply in this particular case, which is consistent with the Resolution that has been prepared. He added the City Council can determine appropriate interpretation, and also the authority to modify policies, and both conversations would be appropriate if the City Council wishes. He noted he agrees that it would be premature to modify the Resolution which is based upon previous City Council policy. Councilmember Ryan moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2021-19 Requiring Signature for Official City Financial Transactions. Mayor Elliott stated he already had a motion on the floor. He added he will withdraw his motion so the City Council can have this discussion on another day. Councilmember Ryan apologized if he overlooked the fact that the Mayor already made a motion. He added he appreciates that the Mayor has withdrawn his motion, as this could end up being somewhat of an extended discussion. Mayor Elliott seconded the motion. Discussion during the motion: Mayor Elliott stated Councilmember Ryan characterized this as another member just wanting to sign documents, and that is not the case. He added there are many reasons why multiple signatures should be required on financial documents, including transparency and accountability. He added the City Charter is extremely clear on this issue. Mr. Gilchrist stated, for purposes of clarification, Councilmember Ryan made a motion to adopt the Resolution as presented. He added Mayor Elliott seconded the motion. Mayor Elliott stated yes, he is aware. He added he seconded the motion in the interests of having this discussion on another day. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Elliott thanked Councilmember Butler for presiding over the meeting in his absence. 11. COUNCIL REPORT Mayor Elliott stated he attended a legislative breakfast that morning hosted by the Robbinsdale School District. He added many elected officials were in attendance, including School Board members. It was a very productive meeting at which legislative priorities of the School District and key issues related to education were reviewed. The School Board will be voting on moving to the Community School model. Mayor Elliott stated he attended a Regional Mayor’s meeting that day, which featured a presentation from a University of Minnesota professor regarding changing land use, development and transportation. The City Council had talked about having a discussion with him. 01/11/21 -18- DRAFT Mayor Elliott stated he serves on the Regional Mayor’s equity and inclusion committee. He added he will keep the City Council updated. Mayor Elliott stated he met with the City’s financial auditor that day to talk about the City’s finances. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Elliott moved and Councilmember Graves seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 9:54 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Council Regular Meeng DATE:1/25/2021 TO:City Council FROM:Curt Boganey, City Manager THROUGH:Dr. Reggie Edwards, Deputy City Manager BY:Alix Bentrud, Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT:Approval of Licenses Background: Strategic Priories and Values: Safe, Secure, Stable Community, Opera1onal Excellence ATTACHMENTS: Descrip1on Upload Date Type License Informa1on 1/19/2021 Backup Material Rental Licenses 1/19/2021 Backup Material Rental Criteria 7/7/2020 Backup Material Business Licenses for Council Approval Liquor-Off-Sale 3.2 Malt Kalaban, LLC 1505 69th Ave N dba: Pump n’ Munch Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Liquor – On-Sale Intoxicating Brooklyn Hotel Partners, LLC 6300 Earle Brown Dr dba: Embassy Suites Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Irie Vybz Jamaican Restaurant 6056 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Liquor – On-Sale Sunday Sales Brooklyn Hotel Partners, LLC 6300 Earle Brown Dr dba: Embassy Suites Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Irie Vybz Jamaican Restaurant 6056 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Mechanical Licenses Metro Heating and Cooling 1220 Cope Ave E Maplewood MN 55109 Minneapolis Heating & Air 10701 93rd Ave N Ste B Maple Grove MN 55369 St Marie Sheet Metal 8380 Pleasant View Dr Mounds View MN 55112 Property AddressDwellingTypeRenewalor Initial OwnerPropertyCodeViolationsLicenseTypePoliceCFS *Final License Type **Previous License Type ***7148 Morgan Ave N Single Initial Fred Hanus 10 IV 0 IV4216 Lakebreeze AveMulti 1 Bldg 4 UnitsRenewal Daniel Tan ‐ met requirements 7 III1 valid, 8/21/2020 disturbing peaceIII3012‐18 51st Ave N2 Family 2 UnitsRenewal Sri Lakshmi Valiveti ‐ met requirements 6 III 0 IV* CFS = Calls For Service for Renewal Licenses Only (Initial Licenses are not applicable to calls for service and will be listed N/A.)** License Type Being Issued*** Initial licenses will not showAll properties are current on City utilities and property taxesType 1 = 3 Year    Type II = 2 Year      Type III = 1 YearRental Licenses for Council Approval on January 25, 2021 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 Council Regular Meeng DATE:1/25/2021 TO:City Council FROM:Curt Boganey, City Manager THROUGH:Dr. Reggie Edwards, Deputy City Manager BY:Barb Suciu, City Clerk SUBJECT:Resolu,on Appoin,ng Brooklyn Center Representa,ves to Execu,ve Commi0ee and/or Board of Directors of the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth, Hennepin Recycling Group, Local Government Informa,on Systems, Minneapolis Northwest Conven,on & Visitors Bureau, North Metro Mayors Associa,on, Northwest Suburbs Cable Communica,ons Commission, Pets Under Police Security, and Twin Lake Joint Powers Organiza,on Background: The City of Brooklyn Center has entered into several Joint and Coopera,ve Agreements with various organiza,ons. Each of the joint powers agreements have been reviewed and the organiza,ons whose agreements provide that appointment of directors be made by the governing body or by City Council resolu,on have been iden,fied. Some of the agreements require annual appointment, some provide that a director is appointed un,l succeeded, and some provide that a certain posi,on serve as the representa,ve. Here is the purpose for each Joint Powers Agreement: Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth The purpose is to create a collabora,ve ini,a,ve through which the par,es may coopera,vely create a community-wide vision that will focus on developing a detailed ac,on plan to collaborate in support of posi,ve youth development opportuni,es for all you in Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. The Alliance will concentrate on encouraging community partnerships that will improve the factors building posi,ve youth development and diminish or eliminate influences that limit healthy youth development. Hennepin Recycling Group The purpose is for the par,es jointly and coopera,vely provide for the efficient and economical collec,on, recycling and disposal of solid waste within and without their respec,ve corporate boundaries, all in compliance with the Minnesota Waste Management Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 115A. Local Government Informa,on Systems The purpose is to provide for an organiza,on through which the par,es may jointly and coopera,vely provide for the establishment, opera,on and maintenance of data processing facili,es and management informa,on systems for the use and benefit of the par,es and others. Minneapolis Northwest Conven,on& Visitors Bureau The government and policy-making responsibili,es of Minneapolis Northwest shall be vested in the Board of Directors, which shall control its property, be responsible for its finances, direct its affairs and establish policy. I t shall be the obliga,on of the Board of Directors to insure representa,on on the Board and its commi0ees from all appropriate stakeholders within its service area. North Metro Mayors Associa,on The purpose of the Coali,on is to promote transporta,on and economic development and to assist governmental units in providing government services and conduc,ng government func,ons effec,vely and efficiently. Northwest Suburbs Cable Communica,ons Commission The general purpose is to establish an organiza,on to study, prepare, adopt, grant, transfer, renew, administer and enforce a cable commission franchise(s), and to study and make recommenda,ons as necessary, regarding other telecommunica,ons issues, in member municipali,es in the Northwest Suburbs of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Pets Under Police Security The purpose is to create an organiza,on by which the par,es may jointly and coopera,vely provide for the efficient and economical impoundment of animals coming into their possession in the course of the conduct of municipal animal control programs in a jointly owned and operated animal control impound facility. Twin Lake Joint Powers Organiza,on The purpose is for all par,es find that there is a need for local regula,on of ac,vi,es on Twin Lakes and for coordinated and coopera,ve law enforcement on the Lakes. The appointments for 2021 will be forthcoming. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Strategic Priories and Values: Enhanced Community Image, Opera,onal Excellence ATTACHMENTS: Descrip,on Upload Date Type Resolu,on 1/20/2021 Resolu,on Le0er Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPOINTING BROOKLYN CENTER REPRESENTATIVES TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND/OR BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH, HENNEPIN RECYCLING GROUP, LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, MINNEAPOLIS NORTHWEST CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU, NORTH METRO MAYORS ASSOCIATION, NORTHWEST SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, PETS UNDER POLICE SECURITY, AND TWIN LAKES JOINT POWERS ORGANIZATION WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center entered into a Joint Powers Agreement for the establishment of the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth on November 24, 2008, and Article III, Section 3.2, of the joint powers agreement states that each member appoints one member of its governing body as a voting Director, one Alternate Director, one Director from the City’s Police Department, and one Director from the City’s Parks and Recreation Department; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center entered into a Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the establishment of Hennepin Recycling Group on August 1, 1988, and Article IV, Section 2, of the joint powers agreement states that the governing body of a member appoints directors; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center entered into a Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the establishment of Local Government Information Systems (LOGIS), on May 1, 1972, and Article IV, Section 1, of the joint powers agreement states that the governing body of a member appoints directors; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center entered into a Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the establishment of the North Metro Convention and Tourism Bureau, now known as Minneapolis Northwest Convention & Visitors Bureau, on September 8, 1986, and Article IV, Section 2, of the bylaws states that each member City may appoint one Director and one Alternate Director to the Board of Directors. WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center entered into a Joint Powers Agreement for the establishment of the North Metro Mayors Association on June 26, 1989, and the joint powers agreement states that the governing body of a member appoints two directors, one of whom shall be the City Manager or other designee; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center entered into a Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the establishment of the Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission on September 24, 1979, and Article VI, Section 1, of the joint powers agreement states that the City Council of a member appoints Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center entered into a Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the establishment of Pets Under Police Security (PUPS) on September 10, 1990, and Article IV, Section 2, of the joint powers agreement states that the governing body of a member appoints directors; and RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center entered into a Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the establishment of the Twin Lakes Joint Powers Organization on January 14, 1991, and Article IV, Section 2, of the joint powers agreement states that the governing body of a member appoints directors; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the following appointments are hereby approved: Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth, Member Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth, Alternate Member Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth, Police Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth, Parks and Recreation Hennepin Recycling Group, Director Hennepin Recycling Group, Alternate Director Local Government Information Systems (LOGIS), Director Local Government Information Systems (LOGIS), Alternate Director Minneapolis Northwest Convention & Visitors Bureau, Director Minneapolis Northwest Convention & Visitors Bureau, Alternate Director North Metro Mayors Association, Director – City Manager North Metro Mayors Association, Director Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission, Council Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission, Resident Pets Under Police Security, Director Pets Under Police Security, Alternate Director Twin Lakes Joint Powers Organization, Director Twin Lakes Joint Powers Organization, Alternate Director January 25, 2021 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. Council Regular Meeng DATE:1/25/2021 TO:City Council FROM:Curt Boganey, City Manager THROUGH:Doran M. Cote, P.E., Director of Public Works BY:Mike Albers, P.E., City Engineer SUBJECT:Resolu,on Approving Plans and Specifica,ons and Authorizing Adver,sement for Bids, Improvement Project Nos. 2021-01, 02, 03 and 04, Grandview South Area Street, Storm Drainage and U,lity Improvements Background: On September 28, 2020, the City Council received a Feasibility Report regarding the proposed Grandview South Area Street, Storm Drainage, and U,lity Improvements. An Improvement Public Hearing to consider ordering the improvements was held on October 26, 2020. At that mee,ng, the City Council ordered the improvements and directed staff to prepare plans and specifica,ons for the project. Construc,on plans, specifica,ons, and contract documents have been prepared for the project. The overall scope of the project remains consistent with improvements outlined in the feasibility study. Staff is prepared to begin the project bidding process upon authoriza,on from the City Council. The bidding process would involve adver,sement of the project in the City’s official newspaper and in Finance and Commerce. Sealed bids will be collected, opened on a scheduled bid opening date, and tabulated by the City Clerk and City Engineer. Staff an,cipates that the bid results will be presented to the City Council for considera,on in March 2021. Budget Issues: The total project cost is es,mated to be $11,800,000. Funding sources for the project are budgeted from sources as described in the project feasibility report previously accepted by the City Council on September 28, 2020. The special assessment rates were adopted by the City Council on November 9, 2020, and the funding sources were amended and presented to the City Council at the Assessment Public Hearing on December 14, 2020. Strategic Priories and Values: Key Transporta,on Investments ATTACHMENTS: Descrip,on Upload Date Type Resolu,on 1/19/2021 Cover Memo Title Sheet 1/19/2021 Cover Memo Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2021-01, 02, 03 AND 04, GRANDVIEW SOUTH AREA STREET, STORM DRAINAGE AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council, by Resolution No. 2019-74, ordered Improvement Project Nos. 2021-01, 02, 03 and 04 and authorized the preparation of plans and specifications for the Grandview South Area Street, Storm Drainage and Utility Improvements; and WHEREAS, said plans and specifications have been prepared under the direction of the City Engineer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The plans and specifications for Improvement Project Nos. 2021-01, 02, 03 and 04 are hereby approved, ordered and filed with the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and in Finance and Commerce an advertisement for bids for the making of such improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, shall specify the work to be done and state the time and location at which bids will be opened by the City Clerk and City Manager or their designees. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the City Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City of Brooklyn Center for five percent of the amount of such bid. January 25, 2021 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. Council Regular Meeng DATE:1/25/2021 TO:City Council FROM:Curt Boganey, City Manager THROUGH:Doran M. Cote, P.E., Director of Public Works BY:Mike Albers, P.E., City Engineer SUBJECT:Resolu,on Establishing Parking Restric,ons for Segments on Lilac Drive/59th Avenue from Logan Avenue to Dupont Avenue and for Segments on Humboldt Avenue from 57th Avenue to 59th Avenue Background: Street improvements are currently being coordinated and considered for the south half of the Grandview Neighborhood in accordance with the 2021 Capital I mprovements Program (see a9ached figure). Lilac Drive, 59th Avenue and Humboldt Avenue are designated as a MSA routes, which allows the City to expend MSA gas tax funding for a por,on of the construc,on costs for this project. The MSA approval process includes certain standards for street widths and on-street parking that must be followed as prescribed in Minnesota Rule 8820.9936. The state aid routes listed above as proposed will be 32-feet wide. This street width is sufficient to allow on-street parking on only one side of the street based on MSA design standards. Parking along Humboldt Avenue is currently allowed on both sides between 57th Avenue and 59th Avenue. However, it should be noted that the current roadway and parking widths are substandard and the proposed improvements would trigger these same roadway modifica,on considera,ons. The proposed resolu,on would officially establish No-Parking Zones along the east side of Humboldt Avenue between 57th Avenue and 59th Avenue (see a9ached figure). This ac,on is required as a condi,on of plan approval from the Minnesota Department of Transporta,on. Parking along Lilac Drive/59th Avenue is currently not allowed on both sides between Logan Avenue and Fremont Avenue adjacent to the elementary school. The proposed resolu,on would officially establish No- Parking Zones along the north side of Lilac Drive/59th Avenue from Logan Avenue to Dupont Avenue and the south side of 59th Avenue from Lilac Drive to Fremont Avenue (see a9ached figure). This ac,on is required as a condi,on of plan approval from the Minnesota Department of Transporta,on. Budget Issues: Installa,on of new No-Parking signs is included in the project cost for the street improvement project. Rou,ne replacement of the new signs that occurs approximately every 14 years will be input into our asset management system and will be included in future opera,ng budgets. No addi,onal budget issues are involved with officially adop,ng the current parking restric,ons. Strategic Priories and Values: Safe, Secure, Stable Community ATTACHMENTS: Descrip,on Upload Date Type Resolu,on 1/19/2021 Cover Memo Parking Restric,ons Map 1/19/2021 Cover Memo Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARKING RESTRICTIONS FOR SEGMENTS ON LILAC DRIVE/59TH AVENUE FROM LOGAN AVENUE TO DUPONT AVENUE AND FOR SEGMENTS ON HUMBOLDT AVENUE FROM 57TH AVENUE TO 59TH AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has planned the improvement of Lilac Drive/59th Avenue between Logan Avenue and Dupont Avenue and Humboldt Avenue between 57th Avenue and 59th Avenue within the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota in 2021; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center may expend Municipal State Aid Funds on the future improvements of said streets; and WHEREAS, the proposed street improvements do not provide adequate width for parking on both sides of the street on Lilac Drive, 59th Avenue and Humboldt Avenue; and WHEREAS, approval of the planned construction improvements as a Municipal State Aid Street project must therefore be conditioned upon certain parking restrictions to meet the minimum roadway design standards in accordance with Minnesota Rule 8820.9936. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the City shall ban the parking of motor vehicles at all times on the following street segments: 1. The north side of Lilac Drive from Logan Avenue to 59th Avenue 2. The north side of 59th Avenue from Lilac Drive to Dupont Avenue 3. The south side of 59th Avenue from Lilac Drive to Fremont Avenue 4. The east side of Humboldt Avenue from 57th Avenue to 59th Avenue January 25, 2021 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. 57TH AVE N 58TH AVE N 59TH AVE N DUPONT AVE NKNOX AVE NFREMONT AVE NEMERSON AVE NJAMES AVE NIRVING AVE NLOGAN AVE NHIGHWAY 100HUMBOLDT AVE NGIRARD AVE NCOLFAX AVE NLILACDRNSUMMIT DR NHIGHWAY 100COLFAX AVE NPublic Works - Engineering January 5, 2021No Parking Zones Grandview South Area Reconstruction Project Ü0250500125Feet Legend Proposed No Parking Zone Existing No Parking Zone PerCity Council Resolution 1988-99 Council Regular Meeng DATE:1/25/2021 TO:City Council FROM:Curt Boganey, City Manager THROUGH:Doran M. Cote, P.E., Director of Public Works BY:Mike Albers, P.E., City Engineer SUBJECT:Resolu,on Approving Change Order Nos. 28-34, Improvement Project No. 2018-05, Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Project Phase 1 Background: On August 13, 2018, the City Council awarded a Contract to C.S. McCrossan Construc,on Inc., of Maple Grove, Minnesota for the above referenced improvement. The a:ached Change Order Nos. 28-34 were necessary during construc,on of the street and u,lity improvements for the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Project Phase 1 Improvements. Change Order 28 in the amount of $1,400.00 is for addi,onal traffic control devices used during final bituminous wearing course paving along Brooklyn Boulevard. Change Order 29 in the amount of $2,558.05 is for addi,onal pavement markings along southbound Brooklyn Blvd south of Lilac Ave and addi,onal crosswalk markings at 49th Avenue. Change Order 30 in the amount of -$12,680.53 (deduct) is for non-conforming concrete strength and bituminous tack material. Change Order 31 in the amount of -$130,000.00 (deduct) is for addi,onal construc,on oversight during the extended construc,on period in 2020. Change Order 32 in the amount of $67,832.29 is for repairing vehicular accident damage to various hardscape features including bollards, ligh,ng poles, and banner poles which occurred aEer the project substan,al comple,on. Change Order 33 in the amount of $55,097.52 is for furnishing and installing twelve (12) replacement flag poles with a banner height of 23 feet tall adjacent to turn lanes. Change Order 34 in the amount of $0.00 is for revising the Plant Establishment Period which extends the warranty for the landscape plan,ngs beyond the one year project warranty period. Budget Issues: The a:ached resolu,on authorizes Change Order Nos. 28-34 for the project. The original contract amount was $13,234,131.05. Change Orders 1-8, approved by the City Council on May 13, 2019, increased the contract amount to $13,254,673.11. Change Orders 9-18, approved by the City Council on September 9, 2019, increased the contract amount to $13,286,655.42. Change Order Nos. 19-27, approved by the City Council on June 22, 2020, increases the contract amount to $13,305,309.52. The total amount of Change Order Nos. 28-34 is -$15,792.67 which decreases the contract amount to $13,289,516.85. The total value of Change Order Nos. 1-34 is $55,385.80 which represents an increase of 0.42 percent to the original contract amount. This falls within the con,ngency amount of $662,000 that was included in the project budget for items of this nature. Strategic Priories and Values: Key Transporta,on Investments ATTACHMENTS: Descrip,on Upload Date Type Resolu,on 1/19/2021 Cover Memo Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO._______________ RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NOS. 28-34, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2018-05, BROOKLYN BOULEVARD CORRIDOR PROJECT PHASE 1 WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, C.S. McCrossan Construction Inc. of Maple Grove, Minnesota, was instructed to complete additional work as itemized on Change Order Nos. 28-34 for Improvement Project No. 2018-05, Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Project Phase 1; and WHEREAS, Change Order 28 in the amount of $1,400.00 is for additional traffic control devices used during final bituminous wearing course paving along Brooklyn Boulevard; and WHEREAS, Change Order 29 in the amount of $2,558.05 is for additional pavement markings along southbound Brooklyn Blvd south of Lilac Ave and additional crosswalk markings at 49th Avenue; and WHEREAS, Change Order 30 in the amount of -$12,680.53 (deduct) is for non- conforming concrete strength and bituminous tack material; and WHEREAS, Change Order 31 in the amount of -$130,000.00 (deduct) is for additional construction oversight during the extended construction period in 2020; and WHEREAS, Change Order 32 in the amount of $67,832.29 is for repairing vehicular accident damage to various hardscape features including bollards, lighting poles, and banner poles which occurred after the projects substantial completion; and WHEREAS, Change Order 33 in the amount of $55,097.52 is for furnishing and installing twelve (12) replacement flag poles with a banner height of 23 feet tall adjacent to turn lanes; and WHEREAS, Change Order 34 in the amount of $0.00 is for revising the Plant Establishment Period which extends the warranty for the landscape plantings beyond the one year project warranty period; and WHEREAS, said additional work was not included in the original contract, but was deemed necessary to properly complete the improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Change Order No. 28 through 34 in the amount of -$15,792.67 for Improvement No. 2018-05 is hereby approved. The revised contract amount is as follows: Original Contract Amount $13,234,131.05 Change Order Nos. 1-8 $ 20,542.06 Change Order Nos. 9-18 $ 31,982.31 Change Order Nos. 19-27 $ 18,654.10 Change Order Nos. 28-34 $ -15,792.67 Revised Contract Amount $13,289,516.85 January 25, 2021 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. Council Regular Meeng DATE:1/25/2021 TO:City Council FROM:Curt Boganey, City Manager THROUGH:Doran M. Cote, P.E., Director of Public Works BY:Mike Albers, P.E., City Engineer SUBJECT:Resolu,on Amending Resolu,on No. 2020-103 and Approving Appraised Values of Reduced Easements for Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Project Phase 2 Improvements, Project No. 2021-05 (Parcels 45 and 46) Background: On March 25, 2019, the City Council directed staff to proceed with the preliminary design, environmental documenta,on, easement acquisi,on and final design work for the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Project Phase 2 Improvements (Bass Lake Road to Interstate 94), Project No. 2021-05. This project is scheduled to be constructed in 2021. The proposed reconstruc,on and streetscape improvements will improve roadway and intersec,on safety, enhance traffic opera,ons, reduce access points and provide improved bicycle and pedestrian facili,es for a one-mile segment of the corridor in Brooklyn Center between Bass Lake Road (County Road 10) and Interstate 94. The project will enhance bicycle and pedestrian travel by adding a trail, improving sidewalks, transit stops, adding streetscaping and landscaping and improving the func,onality of intersec,ons with modified turn lanes and access control throughout the corridor. In order to construct the improvements, permanent drainage, u,lity, sidewalk and trail easements and/or temporary construc,on easements are required from 47 separate parcels adjacent to the corridor. On November 9, 2020, the City Council, by Resolu,on 2020-103, determined that the acquisi,on of certain permanent easements and temporary construc,on easements is necessary and for a public purpose, specifically to facilitate the construc,on of Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Project Phase 2 Improvements, Project No. 2021-05; authorized and directed the law firm of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, to take all steps necessary on behalf of the City to acquire through eminent domain the easements that are not acquired by voluntary nego,a,on; and found that certain appraised values for the easements reflected the fair market value thereof and approved the same for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 117.042. In December 2020, discussions with the interested par,es on Parcels 45 and 46 resulted in modifica,ons to the design of the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Project Phase 2 I mprovements that reduced the scope of the easements needed from Parcels 45 and 46. Amended appraisals of the reduced easements were also obtained. Budget Issues: The original total appraised value for easements on Parcels 45 and 46 were es,mated to be approximately $66,200. The amended appraisals for the reduced easements on Parcels 45 and 46 reflect the fair market values and are es,mated to be approximately $27,800. Strategic Priories and Values: Key Transporta,on Investments ATTACHMENTS: Descrip,on Upload Date Type Resolu,on 1/19/2021 Cover Memo Easement Status 1/19/2021 Cover Memo RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2020-103 AND APPROVING AMMENED APPRAISED VALUES OF REDUCED EASEMENTS FOR BROOKLYN BOULEVARD CORRIDOR PROJECT PHASE 2 IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. 2021-05 (PARCELS 45 AND 46) WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 2020-103, dated November 9, 2020, determined that the acquisition of certain permanent easements and temporary construction easements is necessary and for a public purpose, specifically to facilitate the construction of Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Project Phase 2 Improvements, Project No. 2021-05; authorized and directed the law firm of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, to take all steps necessary on behalf of the City to acquire through eminent domain the easements that are not acquired by voluntary negotiation; and found that certain appraised values for the easements reflected the fair market value thereof and approved the same for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 117.042; and WHEREAS, discussions with the interested parties on Parcels 45 and 46 resulted in modifications to the design of the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Project Phase 2 Improvements that reduced the scope of the easements needed from Parcels 45 and 46 (“Reduced Easements”); and WHEREAS, appraisals of the damages caused by the Reduced Easements were obtained (“Amended Appraisals”); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the damages amounts in the Amended Appraisals, as indicated below, reflect fair market value. Parcel 45 $13,000 Parcel 46 $14,800 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The Amended Appraisals for the Reduced Easements on Parcels 45 and 46 reflect the fair market values and are approved for the purposes of Minn. Stat. § 117.042. 2. Resolution 2020-103 is amended to replace the appraisers’ opinions of damages for Parcels 45 and 46 with the values in the Amended Appraisals, as listed above. January 25, 2021 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. EXHIBIT A Legal descriptions of easements [attached] PARCEL 45 A perpetual easement for drainage, utility, sidewalk and trail purposes over, under, across and through part of the following described property: Lot 2, Block 1, RAINBOWS GARDEN CITY SECOND ADDITION Said perpetual easement being the West 55.00 feet of the most southerly 8.00 feet of said Lot 2. A temporary easement for construction purposes over, under, across and through part of the following described property: Lot 2, Block 1, RAINBOWS GARDEN CITY SECOND ADDITION Said temporary easement being the West 35.00 feet of the North 10.00 feet of the most southerly 18.00 feet of said Lot 2. Together with a temporary easement for construction purposes over, under, across and through that part of the West 16.00 feet of said Lot 2 lying northerly of the northerly line of Lot 1, said Block 1 and lying southerly of the south line of Lot 1, Block 1, RAINBOWS GARDEN CITY ADDITION. Together with a temporary easement for construction purposes over, under, across and through that part of said Lot 2 described as commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 2; thence southeasterly along the west line of said Lot 2 a distance of 51.00 feet to the point of beginning of said temporary easement; thence northeasterly deflecting to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 14.50 feet; thence southeasterly deflecting to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 61.00 feet to the northerly line of said Lot 1, Block 1, RAINBOWS GARDEN CITY ADDITION; thence southwesterly along said northerly line a distance of 14.50 feet to the west line of said Lot 2; thence northerly along said west line a distance of 61.00 feet to the point of beginning. Said temporary easement to expire November 30, 2022. PARCEL 46 A perpetual easement for drainage, utility, sidewalk and trail purposes over, under, across and through part of the following described property: Lot 1, Block 1, RAINBOWS GARDEN CITY ADDITION Said perpetual easement being the Northeasterly 10.00 feet of the Southwesterly 20.00 feet of said Lot 1. Together with a perpetual easement for drainage, utility, sidewalk and trail purposes over, under, across and through that part of said Lot 1 described as commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence northeasterly along the southerly line of said Lot 1 a distance of 28.71 feet to the point of beginning of said perpetual easement; thence northwesterly, parallel with the southwesterly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 26.25 feet; thence northwesterly deflecting to the left 25 degrees 49 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 18.54 feet to the northeasterly line of the Southwesterly 20.00 feet of said Lot 1; thence southeasterly along said northeasterly line a distance of 42.96 feet to the southerly line of said Lot 1; thence northeasterly along said southerly line a distance of 7.94 feet to the point of beginning. A perpetual easement for roadway and utility purposes over, under, across and through part of the following described property: Lot 1, Block 1, RAINBOWS GARDEN CITY ADDITION Said perpetual easement being the Southwesterly 10.00 feet of said Lot 1. A temporary easement for construction purposes over, under, across and through part of the following described property: Lot 1, Block 1, RAINBOWS GARDEN CITY ADDITION Said temporary easement being that part of said Lot 1 described as commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence northeasterly along the southerly line of said Lot 1 a distance of 28.71 feet to the point of beginning of said temporary easement; thence northwesterly, parallel with the southwesterly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 26.25 feet; thence northeasterly deflecting to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 19.90 feet; thence southeasterly deflecting to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 26.73 feet to the southerly line of said Lot 1; thence southwesterly along said southerly line a distance of 19.93 feet to the point of beginning. Together with a temporary easement for construction purposes over, under, across and through that part of said Lot 1 described as beginning at the intersection of the northwesterly line of said Lot 1 with the northeasterly line of the Southwesterly 20.00 feet of said Lot 1; thence southeasterly along said northeasterly line a distance of 143.20 feet; thence northeasterly deflecting to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 4.50 feet; thence northwesterly deflecting to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 89.71 feet; thence northerly deflecting to the right 21 degrees 53 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 46.85 feet; thence northeasterly parallel with the northwesterly line of said Lot 1 a distance of 13.00 feet; thence northwesterly deflecting to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 10.00 feet to the northwesterly line of said Lot 1; thence southwesterly along said northwesterly line a distance of 35.21 feet to the point of beginning. Said temporary easement to expire November 30, 2022. JOYCE LN HALIFA X DR 66TH AVE N DREW AVE NCHOWEN AVE NEWING AVE NGR I MESAVENEWING AVE NFRANCE AVE N47-3501 45-6350 26-6503 27-4020 43-6250 46-6390 16-6215 24-6415 50-6520 44-6300 48-6500 49-6510 53-3801 25-6437 18-6301 17-6245 52-6538 23-6357 22-6331 21-6325 20-6319 19-6315 51-6532 Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Project Phase 2 Easement Status Ü 1/4/21 Legend Easement Completed Easement Pending Eminent Domain - Signed Pending Mortgage Consent Eminent Domain - Easement Negotiations On Going No Easement Required BASSLAKERDBEARD AVE NADMIRAL LN N NORTHPORT DRCOMMODORE DR 58 1/2 AVE N 59TH AVE NEWING AVE NDREW AVE NEWING AVE NAD MIRALLN N 61ST AVE NCHOWEN AVE NDREW AVE N3-5929 14-6121 16-6215 43-6250 31-6000 45-6350 37-6120 28-5920 2-5901 15-6201 1-5831 30-5950 29-5930 36-611013-6107 10-6037 35-22 38-6136 44-6300 12-6101 42-6234 9-6031 34-6100 33-610132-6044 11-6045 39-6142 8-6025 17-6245 4-6001 5-6007 7-6019 6-6013 54-5836 18-6301 41-6206 40-6200 Council Regular Meeng DATE:1/25/2021 TO:City Council FROM:Curt Boganey, City Manager THROUGH:Doran M. Cote, P.E., Director of Public Works BY:Mike Albers, P.E., City Engineer SUBJECT:Resolu,on Establishing Improvement Project No. 2021-12, 53rd Avenue Mill and Overlay (Penn Avenue to Interstate 94) Background: In accordance with the City’s Capital Improvements Plan (CI P), the area referred to as the 53rd Avenue Mill and Overlay from Penn Avenue to Interstate 94 (I-94) has been programmed for improvements in 2021 (see a=ached map for specific street loca,ons). 53rd Avenue is the border between Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis and is designated as a Municipal State Aid (MSA) Route. The 53rd Avenue Mill and Overlay project consists of approximately 6,125 linear feet of roadway length. This roadway was reconstructed in 1985. 53rd Avenue consists of approximately 27 residen,al proper,es, one mul,-family property and two business proper,es. None of the proper,es will receive a special assessment because the most of the proper,es were previously assessed with adjacent street construc,on projects. At this ,me, staff requests that the City Council establish this street improvement project so inves,ga,ve engineering work may begin. The CI P calls for this roadway to be improved with a full depth pavement replacement with minor concrete curb and gu=er replacements, minor sidewalk replacements, lining or replacement of the VCP sanitary sewer main as necessary, and replacing approximately 50 percent of the exis,ng hydrants and gate valves. Minneapolis is recommending a 2-inch mill and overlay rather than a full depth pavement. The funding for the project is through a variety of sources as described in the CI P which are an,cipated to include MSA revenues and u,lity funds. Typically, in order for a project to be completed within a specified calendar year, preliminary design must commence almost one year in advance. This includes ini,a,on of the public no,fica,on and par,cipa,on process that consists of informing affected property owners, conduc,ng field surveys and an extensive amount of informa,on and data collec,on. Ini,al design also includes detailed technical engineering work, underground infrastructure inspec,ons and assessments and soil/geotechnical inves,ga,ons. Upon authoriza,on by the City Council the following ac,ons would take place: Collect data, including field surveys, review traffic counts and review maintenance records. Conduct televised inspec,ons of the sanitary and storm sewers and soil/geotechnical inves,ga,ons. Authorizing prepara,on of plans and specifica,ons for u,lity and concrete maintenance improvements to be completed in 2021. Staff conferred with Minneapolis staff and both agreed to do the u,lity and concrete work in 2021 in advance of the 2022 pavement rehabilita,on. Authorizing nego,a,on for a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Minneapolis for the pavement rehabilita,on of 53rd Avenue from Penn Avenue to I nterstate 94 to be completed in 2022. Authorizing nego,a,on for a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Minneapolis for the con,nuous maintenance of 53rd Avenue upon comple,on of the improvements. Budget Issues: The 53rd Avenue Mill and overlay improvements are iden,fied in the City’s 2021 CI P. The total project cost is es,mated to be $2,330,000. Funding sources for the project are budgeted from sources as described in the Capital Improvement Program. The funding source amounts that are included in the CIP report are listed below: CIP Amounts Sanitary Sewer U,lity Fund $130,000.00 Water U,lity Fund $90,000.00 Storm Drainage U,lity Fund $70,000.00 Street Light U,lity Fund $120,000.00 Municipal State Aid Fund $780,000.00 City of Minneapolis Funding $1,140,000.00 Total $2,330,000.00 Strategic Priories and Values: Key Transporta,on Investments ATTACHMENTS: Descrip,on Upload Date Type Resolu,on 1/19/2021 Cover Memo CI P Map 1/19/2021 Cover Memo Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2021-12, 53RD AVENUE MILL AND OVERLAY (PENN AVENUE TO INTERSTATE 94) WHEREAS, the City’s Capital Improvement Program identifies specific streets for proposed infrastructure improvements in 2021; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the scope of proposed improvements for the 53rd Avenue Mill and Overlay (Penn Avenue to Interstate 94); and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to begin the process of information gathering and solicitation of public comments; and WHEREAS, the total project cost for the 53rd Avenue Mill and Overlay from Penn Avenue to Interstate 94 is estimated to be $2,330,000 and the project funding sources are currently estimated to be: Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund $ 130,000.00 Water Utility Fund $ 90,000.00 Storm Drainage Utility Fund $ 70,000.00 Street Light Utility Fund $ 120,000.00 Municipal Sate Aid Fund $ 780,000.00 City of Minneapolis Funding $ 1,140,000.00 Total $ 2,330,000.00 WHEREAS, said utility improvements are necessary, cost effective and feasible as detailed in the Capital Improvements Plan; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to spend monies from the Infrastructure Construction Fund on a temporary basis to pay the expenditures described in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to reimburse itself for such expenditures from the proceeds of taxable or tax-exempt bonds, the debt service of which is expected to be paid from property taxes, Municipal State Aid funds and utility funds; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer is prepared to develop plans and specifications for said public utility improvements in 2021. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ 1. Improvement Project No. 2021-12, 53rd Avenue Mill and Overlay (Penn Avenue to Interstate 94) is hereby established. 2. Staff is directed to begin field work and contact property owners in the neighborhood to obtain comments from the property owners in the neighborhood where improvements are proposed. 3. The City Engineer is authorized to prepare plans and specifications for said utility and concrete improvements to be completed in 2021. 4. The Director of Public Works is authorized to negotiate a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Minneapolis for the pavement rehabilitation improvements of 53rd Avenue from Penn Avenue to Interstate 94 to be completed in 2022. 5. The Director of Public Works is authorized to negotiate a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Minneapolis for the continual maintenance of 53rd Avenue upon completion of the improvements. 6. This resolution is intended to constitute official intent to issue taxable or tax exempt reimbursement bonds for purposes of Treasury Regulations and any successor law, regulation, or ruling. This resolution will be modified to the extent required or permitted by Treasury Regulations or any successor law, regulation, or ruling. January 25, 2021 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. Project Summaries Page | 16 2021-2035 Capital Improvement Program 53rd Avenue Improvements (Penn Avenue to Lyndale Avenue) Mill and Overlay- 2021 The 53rd Avenue project area extends on 53rd Avenue from Penn Avenue to Lyndale Avenue. The project area includes a total of 6,323-feet of local streets. The neighborhood consists of approximately 27 residential properties, one multi-family property and two business properties. We estimate that none of the properties will receive a special assessment because the most of the properties were previously assessed with adjacent construction projects. Streets 53rd Avenue is designated as a MSA Route. 53rd Avenue is also the border between Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis. Minneapolis is responsible for maintenance of 53rd Avenue from Lyndale Avenue to Humboldt Avenue and Brooklyn Center is responsible for maintenance from Humboldt Avenue to Penn Avenue. The existing streets in the project area are 36-feet wide with concrete curb and gutter, constructed in 1985. The current cost estimate assumes street improvements that consist of approximately 35 percent curb replacement, 10 percent sidewalk replacement and full depth pavement replacement. Water Main The existing water main on 53rd Avenue is 6-inch diameter CIP installed between 1965 and 1969. The corrosion rate within the project area has not been thoroughly documented at this time. Water records indicate there have been no main breaks within the project area. The current project estimate includes 50% hydrant and gate valve replacements and casting replacement. The project cost estimate also includes an emergency connection with Minneapolis if formal inter-connection arrangements can be established for this connection. Brooklyn Center staff will need to contact Minneapolis Water Utilities to discuss this potential emergency connection. Sanitary Sewer The sanitary sewer on 53rd Avenue consists of 8-inch and 9-inch diameter VCP installed between 1952 and 1959. Approximately 52 percent of the sanitary sewer is subject to frequent problems with root intrusion. Root sawing must be performed on an annual basis to maintain the system conveyance capacity. The condition of the sanitary sewer system within the neighborhood is rated as fair. The current project cost estimate includes complete sanitary sewer replacement as necessary. Storm Sewer The majority of the storm sewer runoff in the project area drains to the trunk storm sewer line on 55th Avenue and is conveyed to the Mississippi River. The storm sewer on 53rd Avenue consists of 12-inch diameter to 15-inch diameter RCP installed between 1952 and 1979. The current project cost estimate includes replacing storm structure castings and isolated portions of lateral storm sewer as necessary. Street Lighting The existing street light system is overhead power, with wood poles and a cobra head light fixture. The current cost estimate includes replacing the 21 wood poles with 21 fiberglass poles with a cut-off type LED light fixture and underground power. Council Regular Meeng DATE:1/25/2021 TO:City Council FROM:Curt Boganey, City Manager THROUGH:Doran M. Cote, P.E., Director of Public Works BY:Mike Albers, P.E., City Engineer SUBJECT:Resolu,on Accep,ng Sanitary Sewer and Water Improvements for Con,nual Maintenance for Eastbrook Estates 2nd Addi,on Background: In 2019, the Eastbrook Estates 2nd Addi,on development with Centra Homes, LLC was approved by City Council, Resolu,ons 2019-087, 2019-104 and 2019-105. The Eastbrook Estates 2nd Addi,on development required the developer to construct sanitary sewer and water lines that serve the lots within the subdivision and upon comple,on and acceptance by the City dedicate the sanitary sewer and water to the City as pubic improvements. Staff has received a request from the developer to accept the sanitary sewer and water improvements in Eastbrook Estates 2nd Addi,on which reflects completed work in the development. Staff inspected the work and required deliverables and determined it is acceptable. The developer is reques,ng a reduc,on in the Le=er of Credit that was required by the Development Agreement dated October 22, 2019. The City will retain a maintenance bond for the required two-year warranty period for the u,li,es. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider with this ac,on. Rou,ne u,lity maintenance will be included in future opera,ng budgets. Strategic Priories and Values: Safe, Secure, Stable Community ATTACHMENTS: Descrip,on Upload Date Type Resolu,on 1/19/2021 Cover Memo Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING SANITARY SEWER AND WATER IMPROVEMENTS FOR CONTINUAL MAINTENANCE FOR EASTBROOK ESTATES 2ND ADDITION WHEREAS, in accordance to with the Development Agreement dated October 22, 2019, Centra Homes, LLC, developer of Eastbrook Estates 2nd Addition, has agreed to install certain improvements for said development; and WHEREAS, the developer has completed a portion of the street, utility and site grading as noted below; and WHEREAS, the developer has requested a reduction of the required financial guarantee to reflect the completed work and reimbursement for the 68th Avenue water main replacement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1) The financial guarantee requirements are reduced as follows below and that the required guarantee and Bridgewater Bank Letter of Credit No. 519 for the items be reduced from $1,038,046 to $122,273.88: Item Original Amount New Amount % of Original Amount Sanitary Sewer System $95,923.80 $0.00 0% Watermain System $99,165.00 $0.00 0% Storm Sewer System $195,446.00 $26,165.00 13% Street Construction $265,961.50 $55,350.92 21% Watermain System in Existing Right-of-Way $35,535.00 $0.00 10% Subtotal $692,031.30 $81,515.92 12% Development Agreement Security (150%) $346,015.65 $40,757.96 Total $1,038,046.95 $122,273.88 12% BE IT FURTHER RESOVLED that the sanitary sewer and water main improvements are accepted for continuous maintenance as of January 25, 2021. RESOLUTION NO. _______________ January 25, 2021 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. Council Regular Meeng DATE:1/25/2021 TO:City Council FROM:Curt Boganey, City Manager THROUGH:N/A BY:Cornelius L. Boganey, City Manager SUBJECT:Resolu)on Appoin)ng Council Members to Commissions and Outside Organiza)ons Background: Historically this ac)on is completed at first mee)ng of the year. City Council Members are appointed to serve as Council Liaisons to City Advisory Commissions and as Council representa)ves or vo)ng delegates/alternates for boards, commi3ees, or organiza)ons in which the City par)cipates. This item was postponed from the first mee)ng of the year to allow the new Mayor addi)onal )me to review the informa)on and make the appointments. 2019 Council Appointments were are as follows: Commission/Organizaon Council Member Financial Commission Marquita Butler Housing Commission Kris Lawrence-Anderson Park & Recrea)on Commission April Graves Brooklyns Youth Council April Graves Crime Preven)on Program Kris Lawrence-Anderson League of Minnesota Ci)es Dan Ryan; Mike Ellio3 Alternate Metro Ci)es Mike Ellio3; Dan Ryan Alternate The resolu)on for the 2021 appointments will be forthcoming. Strategic Priories and Values: Opera)onal Excellence ATTACHMENTS: Descrip)on Upload Date Type Resolu)on 1/20/2021 Resolu)on Le3er Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. ____________ RESOLUTION APPOINTING CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO SERVE AS LIAISONS TO CITY ADVISORY COMMISSIONS AND AS CITY REPRESENTATIVES/VOTING DELEGATES FOR OTHER ORGANIZATIONS FOR 2021 WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center City Council members are appointed to serve as liaisons to City Advisory Commissions and to serve as City Representatives/Voting delegates for other organizations annually; and WHEREAS, this resolution will ratify the appointments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the following appointments are hereby approved: Commission/Organization Council Member Financial Commission Housing Commission Park & Recreation Commission Brooklyns Youth Council Crime Prevention Program League of Minnesota Cities Metro Cities 252 Project Advisory Committee January 25, 2021 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Graves 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. Council Regular Meeng DATE:1/25/2021 TO:City Council FROM:Curt Boganey, City Manager THROUGH:N/A BY:Cornelius L Boganey, City Manager SUBJECT:Extend Unused Vaca+on Hours for City Manager Background: Under the agreement between the City Manager and the City, the City Manager is en+tled to receive the same benefits as other non-union employees unless modified by the agreement. In the case of vaca+on +me, the City Manager accrues vaca+on in accordance the City Policy. In the Personnel Policy, employees are allowed to accumulate and carry forward unused vaca+on up to a maximum of 230 hours. All hours over 230 are lost at year-end. Because of the unusual circumstance of the pandemic many employees have been unable to use planned vaca+on +me this year. As a result I have authorized an excep+on for regular employees so that they have been allowed to carry forward up to 80 hours over and above the 230 cap. These excess hours must be used in 2021 or 2021 or they will no longer be available for use. This excep+on does not change the 230 hour cap which is paid at +me of employee severance from the City. Because I currently have 117 excess hours of unused vaca+on hours, I am reques+ng the Council extend the same opportunity to the City Manager, as I have authorized for all other full-+me employees in response the pandemic. Budget Issues: Approval of this policy change will have no budgetary effect. Strategic Priories and Values: Opera+onal Excellence Council Regular Meeng DATE:1/25/2021 TO:City Council FROM:Curt Boganey, City Manager THROUGH:Doran M. Cote, P.E., Director of Public Works BY:Mike Albers, P.E., City Engineer SUBJECT:Public Hearings for Lyndale Avenue Area Pavement Rehabilita1on: Resolu1on Ordering Improvements and Authorizing Prepara1on of Plans and Specifica1ons for Improvement Project No. 2021-07, Lyndale Avenue Area Pavement Rehabilita1on AND Resolu1on Cer1fying Special Assessments for Improvement Project No. 2021-07, Lyndale Avenue Area Pavement Rehabilita1on to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls Background: A series of two public hearings are scheduled on January 25, 2021. The first public hearing is to consider ordering improvements and authorize prepara1on of plans and specifica1ons for I mprovement Project No. 2021-07. The second public hearing is to consider cer1fica1on of proposed special assessments for street improvements for Improvement Project No. 2021-07. All poten1ally affected property owners have been no1fied by mail of the date of public hearings and the amount of proposed special assessments. The public hearings have also been published in the official City newspaper in accordance with state statute. I. Explana on of Improvements The proposed project includes roadway and u1lity improvements for the residen1al neighborhood area commonly referred to as Lyndale Avenue Area. This project was established by the City Council on October 26, 2020, by Resolu1on No. 2020-95. On December 14, 2020, the City Council received a project feasibility report and called for a public hearing to be held on January 25, 2021, to consider these improvements. The project feasibility report provides a descrip1on of recommended improvements for the neighborhood and an es1mated project budget. The proposed improvements are as follows: 1. Street Improvements - The recommend street improvements include street resurfacing (mill and overlay) of exis1ng pavement, miscellaneous repairs of concrete curb and guCer and driveway aprons and boulevard restora1on. 2. Storm Drainage Improvements - The recommended storm sewer improvements include replacing catch basin cas1ngs as necessary within the project areas. 3. Sanitary Sewer Improvements - The recommended sanitary sewer improvements includes replacing manhole cas1ngs and lids as necessary within the project areas. 4. Water Main Improvements - The recommended water main improvements include replacement of approximately 50 percent of exis1ng valves and hydrants and adjus1ng gate valve cas1ngs as impacted within the project areas. II. Summary of Assessments Special assessments are proposed as one of several funding sources for the improvements located within the Lyndale Avenue Area. On November 9, 2020, the City Council adopted the 2021 special assessment rates for street and storm drainage improvements for residen1al zoned proper1es. The 2021 rates were established in accordance with the City’s Special Assessment Policy. The feasibility report includes a preliminary assessment roll iden1fying approximately 9 residen1al proper1es that are zoned "R2" and 2 mul1-family proper1es that are zoned “R4”. Assessments for Street Rehabilita1on (Mill and Overlay) Special assessments for this project have been calculated in accordance with the City’s Special Assessment Policy. The 2021 special assessment rate for street rehabilita1on improvements (mill and overlay) is $1,556 for non-subdividable single-family residen1al proper1es that are zoned R2. Assessments for mul1-family proper1es that are zoned R4 were based on an acreage basis for street improvements. See aCached revised Appendix A–Final Assessment Roll and Figure 2–Assessment Map from the project feasibility report. Public Comments A property owner may choose to appeal or object to a special assessment. If an owner files an appeal with the City Clerk prior to public hearing, or should any person appear at public hearing and object to an assessment, staff recommends that the City Council refer any substan1ve objec1ons to staff for a report back to the City Council at a con1nued public hearing. An example might be an issue whereby staff would need to research the history of a par1cular complaint and assemble documenta1on. The City Council should consider removing the objec1on related assessment from the proposed levy roll and adop1ng the remaining proposed assessments. An owner may appeal a special assessment to district court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sec1on 429.081 by serving no1ce of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk within 30 days aLer adop1on of the special assessment and filing such no1ce with the district court within ten days aLer service upon the Mayor or City Clerk. If an appeal for a specific property is actually filed with district court, the City ACorney will advise the City Council of op1ons for handling the dispute and poten1al li1ga1on issues. Staff has not received any addi1onal comments on the project nor any objec1on leCers. Payment Opons Available to Property Owners Once an assessment roll is adopted by the City Council, the owner of each property has the following payment op1ons: 1. Pay the en1re amount of the special assessment, without interest, between March 1 and September 30, 2021. 2. From October 1, 2021, to the end of the business day on November 21, 2021, a property owner may pay the total assessment, with interest calculated from October 1, 2021, to the date of payment. 3. A property owner may pay the assessment over a 10-year period. The first payment will be due with taxes in 2022. The total principle will be payable in annual installments. Interest at 3.0 percent is paid on the unpaid balance. 4. Par1al prepayments (such as paying half now and cer1fying the balance) are not allowed under the City’s current Assessment Policy. III. Recommended Council Procedure First Public Hearing to Order Improvements: Staff recommends that a presenta1on be provided to the City Council prior to holding the first public hearing. Following the presenta1on, a public hearing to consider ordering the improvement project should be conducted to receive public comments. Public comments concerning special assessments should be deferred to the second public hearing. A resolu1on ordering the improvements and authorizing prepara1on of plans and specifica1ons is provided for City Council considera1on upon closing of the first public hearing. Second Public Hearing for Special Assessments: ALer taking ac1on on the first proposed resolu1on to order the project, it is recommended that the City Council then conduct a second public hearing on proposed special assessments. The aCached resolu1on cer1fying special assessments for street improvements for I mprovement Project No. 2021-07 to the Hennepin County tax rolls is provided for City Council considera1on upon closing of the second public hearing. During the City Council’s delibera1ons on the proposed 2021 budget and 2021-2035 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the City Council discussed the possibility of amending the current Assessment Policy to reduce or eliminate assessments for street rehabilita1on projects such as this one. Those policy discussions have not yet commenced but this project remains reasonable, necessary and cost effec1ve. The City Council has several op1ons in order to proceed including: 1. Proceed as normal and as outlined in the CI P and assess a por1on of the cost of the improvements. Property owners have the op1on of objec1ng to the assessment and that op1on remains by statute. The assessment is not levied un1l the fall and does not go on the tax rolls un1l 2022. 2. Do not order the improvement or approve the assessments. 3. Proceed and con1nue the special assessment hearing un1l a date specific in the future in order to make policy changes and incorporate those changes at the con1nued hearing. 4. Proceed with the project and not assess (this would be a significant departure from policy). Budget Issues: The proposed street and u1lity improvements are included in the 2021 Capital Improvement Program. The total project cost is es1mated to be $700,000. Funding sources for the project are budgeted from sources as described in the project feasibility report previously accepted by the City Council on December 14, 2020. The special assessment rates were adopted by the City Council on November 9, 2020, and funding source amounts that are included in the feasibility report are listed below: Feasibility Report (12/14/20) Special Assessments $25,175.64 Sanitary Sewer U1lity Fund $130,000.00 Water U1lity Fund $20,000.00 Storm Drainage U1lity Fund $120,000.00 Street Reconstruc1on Fund $244,824.36 Municipal State Aid Fund $160,000.00 Total $700,000.00 Strategic Priories and Values: Key Transporta1on Investments ATTACHMENTS: Descrip1on Upload Date Type Order Project Hrg Res 1/19/2021 Cover Memo Cer1fying Assessments Res 1/19/2021 Cover Memo Assessment Map 1/19/2021 Cover Memo Final Levy Roll 1/19/2021 Cover Memo Power Point Presenta1on 1/19/2021 Cover Memo Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO.______________ RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2021-07, LYNDALE AVENUE AREA PAVEMENT REHABILITATION WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council on October 26, 2020, authorized consideration of street and utility improvements in the area generally described as “Lyndale Avenue Area”, more specifically described as follows: Lyndale Avenue N from 55th Avenue N to 57th Avenue N; 55th Avenue N from 290’ west of Lyndale Avenue N to Lyndale Avenue N; and 56th Avenue N from 255’ west of Lyndale Avenue N to Lyndale Avenue N.; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received and accepted a feasibility report for said proposed improvements, as prepared under the City Engineer’s supervision; and WHEREAS, said improvements are necessary, cost effective and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report; and WHEREAS, the City Council on December 14, 2020, adopted a resolution setting a date for a public hearing regarding the proposed improvements for the Lyndale Avenue Area; and WHEREAS, ten days published notice of public hearing was given and the public hearing was held on January 25, 2021, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all comments, testimony, evidence and reports offered at or prior to the January 25, 2021, public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to spend monies from the Infrastructure Construction Fund on a temporary basis to pay the expenditures described in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to reimburse itself for such expenditures from the proceeds of taxable or tax-exempt bonds, the debt service of which is expected to be paid from property taxes, special assessments or utility fees. The maximum amount of special assessment obligations expected to be issued for such project is $25,175.64; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer is prepared to develop plans and specifications for said public improvement project. RESOLUTION NO._______________ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Improvement Project No. 2021-07, Lyndale Avenue Area Pavement Rehabilitation, are hereby ordered and the City Engineer is authorized to prepare plans and specifications for said improvements. 2. This resolution is intended to constitute official intent to issue taxable or tax exempt reimbursement bonds for purposes of Treasury Regulations and any successor law, regulation, or ruling. This resolution will be modified to the extent required or permitted by Treasury Regulations or any successor law, regulation, or ruling. January 25, 2021 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. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO._____________ RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2021-07, LYNDALE AVENUE AREA PAVEMENT REHABILITATION TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met, heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed Special Assessment Levy No. 21016; and WHEREAS, assessment rolls, copies of which are attached hereto and part hereof by reference, have been prepared by the City Engineer and City Clerk, tabulating those properties where street improvement costs are to be assessed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. Such proposed assessments, Special Assessment Levy No. 21016 for street improvements, made a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute special assessments against lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the improvement in the amount of the assessments levied against it. 2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of ten (10) years as indicated on the assessment roll. The first of the installments shall be payable with ad valorem taxes in 2022, and shall bear interest on the entire assessment at the rate of 3.0 percent per annum from October 1, 2021, through December 31, 2022. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to certification of assessment to the County Auditor pay the whole assessment, to the City Treasurer, without interest, if entire assessment is paid on or before September 30, 2021. After September 30, 2021, he or she may pay the total assessment, plus interest. Interest will accumulate from October 1, 2021, through the date of payment. Such payment must be made by the close-of- business November 21, 2021, or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. If the owner wishes to pay off the balance at some point in the future, such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. RESOLUTION NO._______________ 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. January 25, 2021 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. §¨¦94 MI SSI SSI PPI RI VERCAMDEN AVE NLYNDALE AVE N53RD AVE N4TH ST N57TH AVE N BELLVUE LN N 55TH AVE N 56TH AVE NALDRICH AVE N56TH AVE N 55TH AVE N 5559 5501 5547 5505 5509 5601 5519 545120 75611 5607 Assessment Map Lyndale Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Project Ü Figure 2 Legend Proposed R2 Assessment Proposed R4 Assessment PROPERTY ID HOUSE STREET NAME LEVY# STREET NOTES 0111821430095 207 55th AVE N 21016 1,556.00$ R2 0111821430096 5451 LYNDALE AVE N 21016 1,556.00$ R2 0111821420014 5501 LYNDALE AVE N 21016 1,556.00$ R2 0111821420015 5505 LYNDALE AVE N 21016 1,556.00$ R2 0111821420016 5509 LYNDALE AVE N 21016 1,556.00$ R2 0111821420055 5519 LYNDALE AVE N 21016 1,556.00$ R2 0111821420019 5547 LYNDALE AVE N 21016 5,990.30$ Multi Family R4 (A) 20,024.19 sf, (B) 1,876.21 sf 0111821420020 5559 LYNDALE AVE N 21016 1,556.00$ R2 0111821420021 5601 LYNDALE AVE N 21016 5,181.34$ Multi Family R4 (A) 18,015.77 sf, (B) 0 sf 0111821420023 5607 LYNDALE AVE N 21016 1,556.00$ R2 0111821420022 5611 LYNDALE AVE N 21016 1,556.00$ R2 Total Assessments 25,175.64$ CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL January 25, 2020 2021 LYNDALE AVENUE AREA PAVEMENT REHABILITATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2020-07 1 Public Hearings for Lyndale Avenue Area Pavement Rehabilitation (2021) City Council Meeting, January 25, 2021 Mike Albers, City Engineer Public Hearing to Order Improvements Public Hearing for Special Assessments •Lyndale Avenue Area Pavement Rehabilitation, Improvement Project No. 2021-07 •Local public improvements to the City’s infrastructure based on State of Minnesota Statute Chapter 429 2 Lyndale Avenue Area Pavement Rehabilitation 3 4 Capital Improvement Program •City initiated program in 1993 •Reconstruct aging public streets and utilities •100.9 miles (95%) completed •2021 will be the 28th year •Projected completion 2021 •4.1 miles remaining •Est. Cost 2021-2035 CIP: $200 million Project Planning Project Evaluation •Sanitary Sewer •Root intrusion, inflow and infiltration, sags, broken pipe •Water Main •Corrosion, leaks, frozen water services, water quality, pipe material •Storm Drainage •Local flooding, pavement preservation •Streets, Sidewalks and Trails •Pavement deterioration, curb and gutter condition •Street Lights •Evaluate condition of lighting system 5 Utility Improvements –Lyndale Avenue Area •Sanitary Sewer •Installed in 1959 •24” Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) •Televised and in good condition •Replace castings with external seal •Storm Drainage •Installed in 1952, 1955, and 1985 •12” –36” RCP pipes •Televised and in good condition •Replace castings as needed •Water Main •Installed in 1978 and 1985 •6” Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP) •0 watermain breaks and 0 frozen water services •Replace miscellaneous valves and hydrants •Street Lighting •No Improvements are proposed •Existing street lights within the project area are on multiuse poles and have overhead power service with cobra-head type LED light fixtures 6 Street Improvements – Lyndale Area 7 •Existing Conditions •Roadway constructed in 1978 and 1985 with curb and gutter •Pavement deterioration •Proposed Improvements •2” edge Mill and Overlay (M&O) of existing pavement on Lyndale Ave •Full depth pavement replacement on 55th Ave and 56th Ave cul-de-sacs •Spot repair curb and gutter and driveway aprons •Turf Restoration: Sod where impacted due to concrete work During Construction 8 Preliminary Project Budget –Lyndale Avenue Area CIP –Est.Percent Project Amount Total Special Assessments $ 25,175.64 3.6% Sanitary Sewer Utility $ 130,000.00 18.6% Water Utility $ 20,000.00 2.9% Storm Drainage Utility $ 120,000.00 17.1% Street Reconstruction Fund $ 244,824.36 35.0% Municipal State Aid Fund $ 160,000.00 22.8% Total $ 700,000.00 100% Note: These are only preliminary estimated amounts –these amounts will change. Costs and funding will be further updated and revised in the final design stage and bidding of the project. 9 Preliminary Assessment Area –Lyndale Area 10 Special Assessments -Estimated Amounts & Payment Options The City has an Assessment Policy that outlines how street improvement projects are funded. The proposed assessments were calculated in accordance with the City’s Special Assessment Policy. The assessment and interest rates were adopted by the City Council at the November 9, 2020 Council Meeting. Payment Options: 1.Pay in full -No interest between March 1 & Sept. 30, 2021 2.Pay in full from Oct. 1 to Nov. 21, 2021 with interest from Oct. 1 3.Pay in installments with property taxes over a 10-year period starting in 2022 •Partial prepayments cannot be accepted •If the project is approved an Assessment Reminder Letter will be sent •Deferment Questions: Contact Engineering at 763-569-3340 11 Assessment Rate for Mill and Overlay Rehabilitation Projects: •2021 Assessment Rates for R2 properties: $1,556 Per Property* •2021 Assessment Rates for R4 properties: based on acreage with a “A” zone rate and a “B” zone rate •2021 Interest Rate: 3.0% *For properties which may be legally subdivable into two or more lots, the assessment to be applied shall equal the maximum number of lots allowable times the unit R1 assessment Estimated Payment Amount Note: These are only preliminary estimated amounts –these amounts will change dependent on when interest starts accruing. Approximate monthly payment ranges from $13 -$18. 12 Preliminary Project Schedule •Neighborhood Informational Meeting December 2, 2020 •City Council Receives Feasibility Report December 14, 2020 •Improvement Public Hearing/Order Plans January 25, 2021 •Assessment Public Hearing/Certify Assessment Roll January 25, 2021 •Approve Plans/Advertise for Bids February 2021 •Accept Bids/Award Project March/April 2021 •Begin Construction Spring/Summer 2021 •Substantial Completion October 2021 13 Recommended Action 1) Public Hearing to Order Improvements –4/5 Vote to Pass •Motion to open Public Hearing to Order Improvements •Take public input on the improvements •Motion to close Public Hearing •Consideration of comments and motion to adopt resolution Ordering Improvements and Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications 2) Public Hearing for Special Assessments –Simple Majority •Motion to open Public Hearing for Special Assessments •Take public input on the special assessments •Motion to close Public Hearing •Consideration of comments and motion to adopt resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Improvement Project to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls 14 Options for the City Council 15 1.Proceed as normal and as outlined in the CIP and assess a portion of the cost of the improvements. Property owners have the option of objecting to the assessment and that option remains by statute. The assessment is not levied until the fall and does not go on the tax rolls until 2022. 2.Do not order the improvement or approve the assessments. 3.Proceed and continue the special assessment hearing until a date specific in the future in order to make policy changes and incorporate those changes at the continued hearing. 4.Proceed with the project and not assess (this would be a significant departure from policy). Council Regular Meeng DATE:1/25/2021 TO:City Council FROM:Curt Boganey, City Manager THROUGH:Doran M. Cote, P.E., Director of Public Works BY:Mike Albers, P.E., City Engineer SUBJECT:Public Hearings for Northwest Area Mill and Overlay Improvements: Resolu4on Ordering Improvements and Authorizing Prepara4on of Plans and Specifica4ons for Improvement Project No. 2021-06, Northwest Area Mill and Overlay Improvements AND Resolu4on Cer4fying Special Assessments for Improvement Project No. 2021-06, Northwest Area Mill and Overlay Improvements to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls Background: A series of two public hearings are scheduled on January 25, 2021. The first public hearing is to consider ordering improvements and authorize prepara4on of plans and specifica4ons for I mprovement Project No. 2021-06. The second public hearing is to consider cer4fica4on of proposed special assessments for street improvements for Improvement Project No. 2021-06. All poten4ally affected property owners have been no4fied by mail of the date of public hearings and the amount of proposed special assessments. The public hearings have also been published in the official City newspaper in accordance with state statute. I. Explana on of Improvements The proposed project includes roadway and u4lity improvements for the residen4al neighborhood area commonly referred to as Northwest Area. This project was established by the City Council on October 26, 2020, by Resolu4on No. 2020-94. On December 14, 2020, the City Council received a project feasibility report and called for a public hearing to be held on January 25, 2021, to consider these improvements. The project feasibility report provides a descrip4on of recommended improvements for the neighborhood and an es4mated project budget. The proposed improvements are as follows: 1. Street Improvements - The recommend street improvements include street resurfacing rehabilita4on (mill and overlay) of exis4ng pavement, miscellaneous repairs of concrete curb and guAer and driveway aprons, miscellaneous repairs of sidewalk and boulevard restora4on. 2. Storm Drainage Improvements - The recommended storm sewer improvements include replacing catch basin cas4ngs as necessary within the project areas. 3. Sanitary Sewer Improvements - The recommended sanitary sewer improvements includes lining por4ons of the 8-inch diameter VCP sanitary sewer trunk lines on Perry Avenue from 69th Avenue to 71st Avenue and replacing manhole cas4ngs and lids as necessary within the project areas. 4. Water Main Improvements - The recommended water main improvements include replacement of approximately 50 percent of exis4ng valves and hydrants, adjus4ng gate valve cas4ngs as impacted within the project areas and insula4ng 1 water services that have been suscep4ble to freezing in the past. II. Summary of Assessments Special assessments are proposed as one of several funding sources for the improvements located within the Northwest Area. On November 9, 2020, the City Council adopted the 2021 special assessment rates for street and storm drainage improvements for residen4al zoned proper4es. The 2021 rates were established in accordance with the City’s Special Assessment Policy. The feasibility report includes a preliminary assessment roll iden4fying approximately 119 residen4al proper4es that are zoned "R1" and 1 school property that is zoned "R1". Assessments for Street Rehabilita4on (Mill and Overlay) Special assessments for this project have been calculated in accordance with the City’s Special Assessment Policy. The 2021 special assessment rate for street rehabilita4on improvements (mill and overlay) is $1,556 for non-subdividable single-family residen4al proper4es that are zoned R1. Assessments for subdividable R1 zoned proper4es that are larger than the standard single-family lot including 7020 Perry Avenue were based on compu4ng a maximum number of subdividable lots 4mes the full R1 unit assessment amount for street improvements. See aAached revised Appendix A–Final Assessment Roll and Figure 4–Assessment Map from the project feasibility report. Public Comments A property owner may choose to appeal or object to a special assessment. If an owner files an appeal with the City Clerk prior to public hearing, or should any person appear at public hearing and object to an assessment, staff recommends that the City Council refer any substan4ve objec4ons to staff for a report back to the City Council at a con4nued public hearing. An example might be an issue whereby staff would need to research the history of a par4cular complaint and assemble documenta4on. The City Council should consider removing the objec4on related assessment from the proposed levy roll and adop4ng the remaining proposed assessments. An owner may appeal a special assessment to district court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sec4on 429.081 by serving no4ce of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk within 30 days aJer adop4on of the special assessment and filing such no4ce with the district court within ten days aJer service upon the Mayor or City Clerk. If an appeal for a specific property is actually filed with district court, the City AAorney will advise the City Council of op4ons for handling the dispute and poten4al li4ga4on issues. Currently, staff is aware of one objec4on leAer from the property owner of 4825 71st Avenue (see aAached email dated January 12, 2020). The property owner would s4ll need to file an appeal with district court within ten days of the assessment hearing. 4825 71st Avenue is an R1 property that was last assessed for street improvements in 1995. Staff recommends that this property remain on the assessment roll and approved accordingly. Payment Opons Available to Property Owners Once an assessment roll is adopted by the City Council, the owner of each property has the following payment op4ons: 1. Pay the en4re amount of the special assessment, without interest, between March 1 and September 30, 2021. 2. From October 1, 2021, to the end of the business day on November 21, 2021, a property owner may pay the total assessment, with interest calculated from October 1, 2021, to the date of payment. 3. A property owner may pay the assessment over a 10-year period. The first payment will be due with taxes in 2022. The total principle will be payable in annual installments. Interest at 3.0 percent is paid on the unpaid balance. 4. Par4al prepayments (such as paying half now and cer4fying the balance) are not allowed under the City’s current Assessment Policy. III. Recommended Council Procedure First Public Hearing to Order Improvements: Staff recommends that a presenta4on be provided to the City Council prior to holding the first public hearing. Following the presenta4on, a public hearing to consider ordering the improvement project should be conducted to receive public comments. Public comments concerning special assessments should be deferred to the second public hearing. A resolu4on ordering the improvements and authorizing prepara4on of plans and specifica4ons is provided for City Council considera4on upon closing of the first public hearing. Second Public Hearing for Special Assessments: AJer taking ac4on on the first proposed resolu4on to order the project, it is recommended that the City Council then conduct a second public hearing on proposed special assessments. The aAached resolu4on cer4fying special assessments for street improvements for I mprovement Project No. 2021-06 to the Hennepin County tax rolls is provided for City Council considera4on upon closing of the second public hearing. During the City Council’s delibera4ons on the proposed 2021 budget and 2021-2035 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the City Council discussed the possibility of amending the current Assessment Policy to reduce or eliminate assessments for street rehabilita4on projects such as this one. Those policy discussions have not yet commenced but this project remains reasonable, necessary and cost effec4ve. The City Council has several op4ons in order to proceed including: 1. Proceed as normal and as outlined in the CI P and assess a por4on of the cost of the improvements. Property owners have the op4on of objec4ng to the assessment and that op4on remains by statute. The assessment is not levied un4l the fall and does not go on the tax rolls un4l 2022. 2. Do not order the improvement or approve the assessments. 3. Proceed and con4nue the special assessment hearing un4l a date specific in the future in order to make policy changes and incorporate those changes at the con4nued hearing. 4. Proceed with the project and not assess (this would be a significant departure from policy). Budget Issues: The proposed street and u4lity improvements are included in the 2021 Capital Improvement Program. The total project cost is es4mated to be $1,750,000. Funding sources for the project are budgeted from sources as described in the project feasibility report previously accepted by the City Council on December 14, 2020. The special assessment rates were adopted by the City Council on November 9, 2020, and funding source amounts that are included in the feasibility report are listed below: Feasibility Report (12/14/20) Special Assessments $199,168.00 Sanitary Sewer U4lity $190,000.00 Water U4lity $140,000.00 Storm Drainage U4lity $430,000.00 Street Reconstruc4on Fund $790,832.00 Total $1,750,000.00 Strategic Priories and Values: Key Transporta4on Investments ATTACHMENTS: Descrip4on Upload Date Type Order Project Hrg Res 1/19/2021 Cover Memo Cer4fying Assessments Res 1/19/2021 Cover Memo Assessment Map 1/19/2021 Cover Memo Final Levy Roll 1/19/2021 Cover Memo No4ce of Objec4on to Special Assessment 1/19/2021 Cover Memo Power Point Presenta4on 1/19/2021 Cover Memo Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO.______________ RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2021-06, NORTHWEST AREA MILL AND OVERLAY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council on October 26, 2020, authorized consideration of street and utility improvements in the area generally described as “Northwest Area”, more specifically described as follows: 70th Avenue N from Perry Avenue N to Quail Avenue N; 70th Avenue N from Regent Avenue N to Toledo Avenue N; 71st Avenue N from Perry Avenue N to 275’ east of Perry Avenue N; 71st Avenue N from Quail Avenue N to Regent Avenue N; Perry Avenue N from 69th Avenue N to 71st Avenue N; Quail Avenue N from 69th Avenue N to 160’ north of 71st Avenue N; Regent Avenue N from 69th Avenue N to 71st Avenue N; Scott Avenue N from 69th Avenue N to 70th Avenue N; and Toledo Avenue N from 69th Avenue N to 70th Avenue N; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received and accepted a feasibility report for said proposed improvements, as prepared under the City Engineer’s supervision; and WHEREAS, said improvements are necessary, cost effective and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report; and WHEREAS, the City Council on December 14, 2020, adopted a resolution setting a date for a public hearing regarding the proposed improvements for the Northwest Area; and WHEREAS, ten days published notice of public hearing was given and the public hearing was held on January 25, 2021, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all comments, testimony, evidence and reports offered at or prior to the January 25, 2021, public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to spend monies from the Infrastructure Construction Fund on a temporary basis to pay the expenditures described in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to reimburse itself for such expenditures from the proceeds of taxable or tax-exempt bonds, the debt service of which is expected to be paid from property taxes, special assessments or utility fees. The maximum amount of special assessment obligations expected to be issued for such project is $199,168.00; and RESOLUTION NO._______________ WHEREAS, the City Engineer is prepared to develop plans and specifications for said public improvement project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Improvement Project No. 2021-06, Northwest Area Mill and Overlay Improvements, are hereby ordered and the City Engineer is authorized to prepare plans and specifications for said improvements. 2. This resolution is intended to constitute official intent to issue taxable or tax exempt reimbursement bonds for purposes of Treasury Regulations and any successor law, regulation, or ruling. This resolution will be modified to the extent required or permitted by Treasury Regulations or any successor law, regulation, or ruling. January 25, 2021 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. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO._____________ RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2021-06, NORTHWEST AREA MILL AND OVERLAY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met, heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed Special Assessment Levy No. 21015; and WHEREAS, assessment rolls, copies of which are attached hereto and part hereof by reference, have been prepared by the City Engineer and City Clerk, tabulating those properties where street improvement costs are to be assessed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. Such proposed assessments, Special Assessment Levy No. 21015 for street improvements, made a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute special assessments against lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the improvement in the amount of the assessments levied against it. 2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of ten (10) years as indicated on the assessment roll. The first of the installments shall be payable with ad valorem taxes in 2022, and shall bear interest on the entire assessment at the rate of 3.0 percent per annum from October 1, 2021, through December 31, 2022. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to certification of assessment to the County Auditor pay the whole assessment, to the City Treasurer, without interest, if entire assessment is paid on or before September 30, 2021. After September 30, 2021, he or she may pay the total assessment, plus interest. Interest will accumulate from October 1, 2021, through the date of payment. Such payment must be made by the close-of- business November 21, 2021, or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. If the owner wishes to pay off the balance at some point in the future, such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. RESOLUTION NO._______________ 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. January 25, 2021 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. 69TH AVE NUNITYAVEN PERRY AVE NQUAIL AVE NB R O O K L Y N B L V D REGENT AVE N7 1 S T A V E N 72ND CIR N W I N G A R D P LMAJOR AVE N71ST CIR N 70 T H C IR N QUAI L CI RE70TH AVE N NOBLE AVE NORCHARDAVENPERRY PL NTOLEDO AVE NMAJOR AVE N70TH AVE N 70TH AVE N 71ST AVE N SCOTT AVE N7020 4800 5024 7049 6937 6931 7043 7037 7031 7025 7019 4842 7067 7013 7061 52 2 4 6925 6919 6907 6913 6931 6901 7000 70607001 69005218700169015112511869255106520052065212 48257007 5 0 1 8 6906 7007 50006925 69006900 6925 6901 69246924 6901 7006 7013 69316930 7012 70137018 48315006501270 06 6913 7019 6930 69196918 6906 6919 69126913 69076906 6912 6918 6913 6907 7000 6918 6912 6906 6924 7025 7031 7030 7036 7019 6937 7024 7001 6900 70377042 6919 7025 7012 7031 7037 7043 70497100 7042 7036 7030 6925 6907 6919 6913 6906 6912 6918 7106 7055 6907 6924 6900 6901 7024 7018 483048364824Assessment Map Northwest Area Mill & Overlay Project Ü Figure 4 Legend Proposed R1 Assessment Proposed Multiple R1 Assessments City Property PROPERTY ID HOUSE STREET NAME LEVY# STREET NOTES 2811921430032 5106 70th AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430033 5112 70th AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430034 5118 70th AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430035 5200 70th AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430036 5206 70th AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430037 5212 70th AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430038 5218 70th AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430039 5224 70th AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921410129 4824 71st AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921410137 4825 71st AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921410130 4830 71st AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921410136 4831 71st AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921410131 4836 71st AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921410132 4842 71st AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440069 5000 71st AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440070 5006 71st AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440071 5012 71st AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440072 5018 71st AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430023 5024 71st AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440012 6900 PERRY AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440010 6901 PERRY AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440011 6906 PERRY AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440009 6907 PERRY AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440008 6913 PERRY AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440007 6919 PERRY AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440006 6925 PERRY AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440005 6931 PERRY AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440024 7001 PERRY AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440023 7007 PERRY AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440022 7013 PERRY AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440021 7019 PERRY AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440074 7020 PERRY AVE N 21015 14,004.00$ Subdividable R1 = 9 equivalent parcels 2811921440020 7025 PERRY AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440019 7031 PERRY AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440018 7037 PERRY AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440017 7043 PERRY AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440016 7049 PERRY AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440015 7055 PERRY AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921410135 7060 PERRY AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921410134 7061 PERRY AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921410133 7067 PERRY AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440040 6900 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440054 6901 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440039 6906 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440053 6907 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440038 6912 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440052 6913 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL January 25, 2021 2021 NORTHWEST AREA MILL & OVERLAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2020-06 1 PROPERTY ID HOUSE STREET NAME LEVY# STREET NOTES CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL January 25, 2021 2021 NORTHWEST AREA MILL & OVERLAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2020-06 2811921440037 6918 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440051 6919 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440036 6924 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440050 6925 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440035 6930 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440049 6931 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440048 6937 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440025 7000 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440047 7001 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440026 7006 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440046 7007 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440027 7012 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440045 7013 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440028 7018 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440044 7019 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440029 7024 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440043 7025 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440030 7030 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440042 7031 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440031 7036 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440041 7037 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440032 7042 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440033 7100 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440034 7106 QUAIL AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440068 6900 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430007 6901 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440067 6906 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430006 6907 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440066 6912 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430005 6913 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440065 6918 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430004 6919 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440064 6924 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430003 6925 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440063 6930 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440062 7000 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430031 7001 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440061 7006 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440060 7012 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430030 7013 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440059 7018 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430029 7019 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440058 7024 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430028 7025 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440057 7030 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430027 7031 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921440056 7036 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430026 7037 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2 PROPERTY ID HOUSE STREET NAME LEVY# STREET NOTES CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL January 25, 2021 2021 NORTHWEST AREA MILL & OVERLAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2020-06 2811921440055 7042 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430025 7043 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430024 7049 REGENT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430008 6900 SCOTT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430017 6901 SCOTT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430009 6906 SCOTT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430016 6907 SCOTT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430010 6912 SCOTT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430015 6913 SCOTT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430011 6918 SCOTT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430014 6919 SCOTT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430012 6924 SCOTT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430013 6925 SCOTT AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430018 6900 TOLEDO AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430046 6901 TOLEDO AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430019 6906 TOLEDO AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430045 6907 TOLEDO AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430020 6912 TOLEDO AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430044 6913 TOLEDO AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430021 6918 TOLEDO AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430043 6919 TOLEDO AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430022 6924 TOLEDO AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430042 6925 TOLEDO AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430041 6931 TOLEDO AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 2811921430040 6937 TOLEDO AVE N 21015 1,556.00$ R1 Total Assessments 199,168.00$ 3 1 From:Barbara Suciu Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 1:24 PM To:Curt Boganey; Reggie Edwards; Mike Albers; Doran Cote Subject:FW: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT This email came in the City Clerk box. I thought I would pass it along.   Barb Suciu | City Clerk  City of Brooklyn Center  6301 Shingle Creek Parkway | Brooklyn Center, MN  55430  Direct: 763‐569‐3306 | General: 763‐569‐3300 General Email:  cityclerk@ci.brooklyn‐center.mn.us  www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org | bsuciu@ci.brooklyn‐center.mn.us   From: Jackie Reed <j.reedfs@gmail.com>   Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 1:12 PM  To: Mayor Mike Elliott <mayorelliott@ci.brooklyn‐center.mn.us>; Marquita Butler <councilmemberbutler@ci.brooklyn‐ center.mn.us>; April Graves <councilmembergraves@ci.brooklyn‐center.mn.us>; Kris Lawrence‐Anderson  <councilmemberlawrence‐anderson@ci.brooklyn‐center.mn.us>; Dan Ryan <councilmemberryan@ci.brooklyn‐ center.mn.us>; City Clerk <cityclerk@ci.brooklyn‐center.mn.us>; alexander.patricia.koenig@outlook.com;  jacmacm@aol.com; danielsalfreda@gmail.com; peteromari@gmail.com; sgoyah@gmail.com; kelliehmong@gmail.com;  jonessej@hotmail.com  Subject: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT  To our City Council Members and City Planning Commission, I have received a notice for special assessment notification regarding the 2021 NORTHWEST AREA MILL & OVERLAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2020-06 and 2021-06. I will be submitting an official objection to this special assessment siting the obvious issue that throughout the US we are still in the middle of a pandemic and national financial crisis. I think this is grossly inappropriate to put more financial hardship on your residents during this time. While I do acknowledge the need for this eventually, I do believe it is something that could wait an additional year. With this letter I do wish for you all to consider the financial burden this puts your residents in. As a person who’s business had to be closed down for 3 months last year and has had to operate at a smaller capacity since, the timing of this could not be worse. I do see there is a payment plan option but charging any interest on a forced purchase seems ludicrous. I do hope you all can see the need for postponement and take action to do so in the favor of the residents. I appreciate your time, Jacalyn Reed 4825 71st Avenue Public Hearings for Northwest Area Mill and Overlay (2021) City Council Meeting, January 25, 2021 Mike Albers, City Engineer Public Hearing to Order Improvements Public Hearing for Special Assessments •Northwest Area Mill and Overlay Improvements, Improvement Project No. 2021-06 •Local public improvements to the City’s infrastructure based on State of Minnesota Statute Chapter 429 2 Northwest Area Mill & Overlay 3 4 Capital Improvement Program •City initiated program in 1993 •Reconstruct aging public streets and utilities •100.9 miles (95%) completed •2021 will be the 28th year •Projected completion 2021 •4.1 miles remaining •Est. Cost 2021-2035 CIP: $200 million Project Planning Project Evaluation •Sanitary Sewer •Root intrusion, inflow and infiltration, sags, broken pipe •Water Main •Corrosion, leaks, frozen water services, water quality, pipe material •Storm Drainage •Local flooding, pavement preservation •Streets, Sidewalks and Trails •Pavement deterioration, curb and gutter condition •Street Lights •Evaluate condition of lighting system 5 Utility Improvements: Sanitary Sewer –Northwest Area •Existing Conditions •Installed in 1956 and 1994 •8”-10” PVC •8” Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP) •Televised •PVC in good condition •VCP in fair to good condition – annual root sawing required to maintain conveyance capacity •Proposed Improvements •Cured-in-place lining of VCP sewer •Adjust and replace castings as needed 6 Utility Improvements: Water Main –Northwest Area •Existing Conditions •6” –10” Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP) installed in 1994 •6” Cast Iron Pipe (CIP) installed in 1955 •50% of hydrants and valves replaced in 1994 •2 water main breaks on CIP line and 1 frozen water service in the past •Fair to good condition •Proposed Improvements •Partial replacement of hydrants and valves (approximately 50%) •Adjust gate valve castings as needed •Insulate past frozen water service from main to approximately the water curb stop 7 Utility Improvements –Northwest Area •Storm Drainage •Installed in 1994 •15” –42” Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) and HDPE Pipes •Televised and in good condition •Replace castings as needed •Street Lighting •No Improvements are proposed •Majority of existing street light system are fiberglass free-standing lights that have underground power service with a rectilinear light fixture •Other existing street lights within the project area are on multiuse poles and have overhead power service with cobra-head type LED light fixtures 8 9 •Existing Conditions •Sidewalks exists along the south side of 71st Ave (Perry Ave to Brooklyn Blvd) and along the east side of Perry Ave (69th Ave to 71st Ave) •Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan identified no sidewalk gaps •Proposed Improvements •Sidewalk repairs as needed •Pedestrian curb ramps will be reconstructed within the project area Sidewalk Improvements -Northwest Area Street Improvements – Northwest Area 10 •Existing Conditions •Roadway constructed in 1994 with curb and gutter •Pavement deterioration •Proposed Improvements •Mill and Overlay (M&O) of existing pavement on all streets except Perry Ave/71st Ave •Combination of 2” M&O or a edge M&O depending on street condition (to be determine after spring thaw) •Full depth pavement replacement on Perry Ave/71st Ave •Spot repair curb and gutter and driveway aprons •Turf restoration: Sod where impacted due to concrete/utility work During Construction 11 Preliminary Project Budget –Northwest Area CIP –Est.Percent Project Amount Total Special Assessments $ 199,168.00 11.4% Sanitary Sewer Utility $ 190,000.00 10.9% Water Utility $ 140,000.00 8.0% Storm Drainage Utility $ 430,000.00 24.5% Street Reconstruction Fund $ 790,832.00 45.2% Total $ 1,750,000.00 100% Note: These are only preliminary estimated amounts –these amounts will change. Costs and funding will be further updated and revised in the final design stage and bidding of the project. 12 Preliminary Assessment Area –Northwest Area 13 Special Assessments -Estimated Amounts & Payment Options The City has an Assessment Policy that outlines how street improvement projects are funded. The proposed assessments were calculated in accordance with the City’s Special Assessment Policy. The assessment and interest rates were adopted by the City Council at the November 9, 2020 Council Meeting. Payment Options: 1.Pay in full -No interest between March 1 & Sept. 30, 2021 2.Pay in full from Oct. 1 to Nov. 21, 2021 with interest from Oct. 1 3.Pay in installments with property taxes over a 10-year period starting in 2022 •Partial prepayments cannot be accepted •If the project is approved an Assessment Reminder Letter will be sent •Deferment Questions: Contact Engineering at 763-569-3340 14 Assessment Rate for Mill and Overlay Rehabilitation Projects: •2021 Assessment Rates for R1 properties: $1,556 Per Property* •2021 Interest Rate: 3.0% *For properties which may be legally subdivable into two or more lots, the assessment to be applied shall equal the maximum number of lots allowable times the unit R1 assessment Estimated Payment Amount Note: These are only preliminary estimated amounts –these amounts will change dependent on when interest starts accruing. Approximate monthly payment ranges from $13 -$18. 15 Preliminary Project Schedule •Neighborhood Informational Meeting December 2, 2020 •City Council Receives Feasibility Report December 14, 2020 •Improvement Public Hearing/Order Plans January 25, 2021 •Assessment Public Hearing/Certify Assessment Roll January 25, 2021 •Approve Plans/Advertise for Bids February 2021 •Accept Bids/Award Project March/April 2021 •Begin Construction Spring/Summer 2021 •Substantial Completion October 2021 16 Recommended Action 1) Public Hearing to Order Improvements –4/5 Vote to Pass •Motion to open Public Hearing to Order Improvements •Take public input on the improvements •Motion to close Public Hearing •Consideration of comments and motion to adopt resolution Ordering Improvements and Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications 2) Public Hearing for Special Assessments –Simple Majority •Motion to open Public Hearing for Special Assessments •Take public input on the special assessments •Motion to close Public Hearing •Consideration of comments and motion to adopt resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Improvement Project to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls 17 Options for the City Council 18 1.Proceed as normal and as outlined in the CIP and assess a portion of the cost of the improvements. Property owners have the option of objecting to the assessment and that option remains by statute. The assessment is not levied until the fall and does not go on the tax rolls until 2022. 2.Do not order the improvement or approve the assessments. 3.Proceed and continue the special assessment hearing until a date specific in the future in order to make policy changes and incorporate those changes at the continued hearing. 4.Proceed with the project and not assess (this would be a significant departure from policy). 4825 71st Avenue •Property is zone R1 •Last assessed for street improvements in 1995 when the neighborhood was reconstructed 19 Council Regular Meeng DATE:1/25/2021 TO:City Council FROM:Curt Boganey, City Manager THROUGH:Doran M. Cote, P.E., Director of Public Works BY:Mike Albers, P.E., City Engineer SUBJECT:Public Hearings for Ryan Lake Industrial Park Area Improvements: Resolu2on Ordering Improvements and Authorizing Prepara2on of Plans and Specifica2ons for Improvement Project Nos. 2021-08, 09, 10 and 11, Ryan Lake Industrial Park Area Street, Storm Drainage and U2lity Improvements AND Resolu2on Cer2fying Special Assessments for Improvement Project Nos. 2021-08 and 2021-09, Ryan Lake Industrial Park Area Street and Storm Drainage I mprovements to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls Background: A series of two public hearings are scheduled on January 25, 2021. The first public hearing is to consider ordering improvements and authorize prepara2on of plans and specifica2ons for Improvement Project Nos. 2021-08, 09, 10 and 11. The second public hearing is to consider cer2fica2on of proposed special assessments for street and storm drainage improvements for Improvement Project Nos. 2021-08 and 2021-09. All poten2ally affected property owners have been no2fied by mail of the date of public hearings and the amount of proposed special assessments. The public hearings have also been published in the official city newspaper in accordance with state statute. I. Explana on of Improvements The proposed project includes roadway, storm drainage and u2lity improvements for the area commonly referred to as the Ryan Lake Industrial Park Area. The project was previously established by the City Council on October 26, 2020, by Resolu2on 2020-96. On December 14, 2020, the City Council received a project feasibility report and called for a public hearing to be held on January 25, 2021, to consider these improvements. The project feasibility report provides a descrip2on of recommended improvements for the neighborhood and an es2mated project budget. The proposed improvements are as follows: 1. Street Improvements – Full street reconstruc2on of all streets including regrading, base prepara2on, installa2on of driveway aprons, bituminous paving, installa2on of concrete curb and guBer, replacement of street signs, replacement of free-standing street lights with LED light fixtures and boulevard restora2on. 2. Storm Drainage Improvements – Includes installa2on of new storm sewer and installa2on of concrete curb and guBer on all streets, and repair and replacement of exis2ng storm sewer, installa2on of new and repair and replacement of exis2ng catch basins and manholes. 3. Water Main Improvements – Includes complete replacement of exis2ng water main pipes and installa2on of new valves, hydrants and water services to the shut off valve where impacted. 4. Sanitary Sewer Main Improvements – Includes complete replacement of sanitary sewer pipe, access structures and residen2al sewer services to property lines. II. Summary of Assessments Special assessments are proposed as one of several funding sources for the improvements located within the Ryan Lake Industrial Park Area. On November 9, 2020, the City Council adopted the 2021 special assessment rates for street and storm drainage improvements for residen2al zoned proper2es. The 2021 rates were established in accordance with the City’s Special Assessment Policy. The feasibility report included a preliminary assessment roll iden2fying approximately 3 mul2-family proper2es that are zoned “R5”, and 10 proper2es that are zoned “Industrial”. See aBached revised Appendix D–Final Assessment Roll and Figure 7–Assessment Map from the project feasibility report. Assessments for Full Street Reconstruc2on Special assessments for the mul2-family proper2es located at 3401 47th Avenue, 3501 47th Avenue and 3513 47th Avenue that are zoned R5 and the 10 industrial proper2es located along 48th Avenue and Dusharme Drive were assessed based on an acreage basis for street and storm drainage improvements. Public Comments A property owner may choose to appeal or object to a special assessment. If an owner files an appeal with the City Clerk prior to public hearing, or should any person appear at public hearing and object to an assessment, staff recommends that the City Council refer any substan2ve objec2ons to staff for a report back to the City Council at a con2nued public hearing. An example might be an issue whereby staff would need to research the history of a par2cular complaint and assemble documenta2on. The City Council should consider removing the objec2on related assessment from the proposed levy roll and adop2ng the remaining proposed assessments. An owner may appeal a special assessment to district court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sec2on 429.081 by serving no2ce of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk within 30 days aHer adop2on of the special assessment and filing such no2ce with the district court within ten days aHer service upon the Mayor or City Clerk. If an appeal for a specific property is actually filed with district court, the City ABorney will advise the City Council of op2ons for handling the dispute and poten2al li2ga2on issues. Currently, staff is not aware of any substan2ve objec2on and recommends approval accordingly. Public comments were included in the Feasibility Report (Appendix A). Staff has not received any addi2onal comments; however, staff received one inquiry from a property owner reques2ng an addi2onal mid-block street light near 48th Avenue and Dusharme Drive. In accordance with City Policy, mid-block street lights may be installed where the block exceeds 700-feet in length upon receipt of a pe22on signed by a majority of the property owners on the block, including signatures of the property owners adjacent to the specific loca2on where such mid-block light is requested. Staff will provide the property owner with a pe22on form. Should the appropriate pe22on be received, the addi2onal ligh2ng will be included as part of the project ligh2ng improvements. Payment Opons Available to Property Owners Once an assessment roll is adopted by the City Council, the owner of each property has the following payment op2ons: 1. Pay the en2re amount of the special assessment, without interest, between March 1 and September 30, 2021. 2. From October 1, 2021, to the end of the business day on November 21, 2021, a property owner may pay the total assessment, with interest calculated from October 1, 2021, to the date of payment. 3. A property owner may pay the assessment over a 10-year period. The first payment will be due with taxes in 2022. The total principle will be payable in annual installments. Interest at 3.0 percent is paid on the unpaid balance. 4. Par2al prepayments (such as paying half now and cer2fying the balance) are not allowed under the City’s current Assessment Policy. III. Recommended Council Procedure First Public Hearing to Order Improvements: Staff recommends that a presenta2on be provided to the City Council prior to holding the first public hearing. Following the presenta2on, a public hearing to consider ordering the improvement project should be conducted to receive public comments. Public comments concerning special assessments should be deferred to the second public hearing. A resolu2on ordering the improvements and authorizing prepara2on of plans and specifica2ons is provided for City Council considera2on upon closing of the first public hearing. Second Public Hearing for Special Assessments: AHer taking ac2on on the first proposed resolu2on to order the project, it is recommended that the City Council then conduct a second public hearing on proposed special assessments. The aBached resolu2on cer2fying special assessments for street and storm drainage improvements for Improvement Project Nos. 2021-08 and 2021-08 to the Hennepin County tax rolls is provided for City Council considera2on upon closing of the second public hearing. Budget Issues: The proposed street and u2lity improvements are included in the 2021 Capital Improvement Program. The total project cost is es2mated to be $1,370,000. Funding sources for the project are budgeted from sources as described in the project feasibility report previously accepted by the City Council on December 14, 2020. The special assessment rates were adopted by the City Council on November 9, 2020, and funding source amounts that are included in the feasibility report are listed below: Feasibility Report (12/14/20) Special Assessments $363,823.59 Sanitary Sewer U2lity $220,000.00 Water U2lity $310,000.00 Storm Drainage U2lity $123,578.99 Street Light U2lity $10,000.00 Street Reconstruc2on Fund $342,597.42 Total $1,370,000.00 Strategic Priories and Values: Key Transporta2on Investments ATTACHMENTS: Descrip2on Upload Date Type Order Project Hrg Res 1/19/2021 Cover Memo Cer2fying Assessments Res 1/19/2021 Cover Memo Assessment Map 1/19/2021 Cover Memo Final Levy Roll 1/19/2021 Cover Memo Power Point Presenta2on 1/19/2021 Cover Memo Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO.______________ RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2021-08, 09, 10 AND 11, RYAN LAKE INDUSTRIAL PARK AREA STREET, STORM DRAINAGE AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council on October 26, 2020, authorized consideration of street, storm drainage and utility improvements in the area generally described as “Ryan Lake Industrial Park Area”, more specifically described as follows: 47th Avenue N from Drew Avenue N to 385’ east of Drew Avenue N; 48th Avenue N from Drew Avenue N to Dusharme Drive; and Dusharme Drive from 48th Avenue N to 300’ north of 48th Avenue N; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received and accepted a feasibility report for said proposed improvements, as prepared under the City Engineer’s supervision; and WHEREAS, said improvements are necessary, cost effective and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report; and WHEREAS, the City Council on December 14, 2020, adopted a resolution setting a date for a public hearing regarding the proposed improvements for the Ryan Lake Industrial Park Area; and WHEREAS, ten days published notice of public hearing was given and the public hearing was held on January 25, 2021, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all comments, testimony, evidence and reports offered at or prior to the January 25, 2021, public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to spend monies from the Infrastructure Construction Fund on a temporary basis to pay the expenditures described in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to reimburse itself for such expenditures from the proceeds of taxable or tax-exempt bonds, the debt service of which is expected to be paid from property taxes, special assessments or utility fees. The maximum amount of special assessment obligations expected to be issued for such project is $363,823.59; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer is prepared to develop plans and specifications for said public improvement project. RESOLUTION NO._______________ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Improvement Project Nos. 2021-08, 09, 10 and 11, Ryan Lake Industrial Park Area Street, Storm Drainage and Utility Improvements, are hereby ordered and the City Engineer is authorized to prepare plans and specifications for said improvements. 2. This resolution is intended to constitute official intent to issue taxable or tax exempt reimbursement bonds for purposes of Treasury Regulations and any successor law, regulation, or ruling. This resolution will be modified to the extent required or permitted by Treasury Regulations or any successor law, regulation, or ruling. January 25, 2021 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. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO._____________ RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2021-08 AND 2021-09, RYAN LAKE INDUSTRIAL PARK AREA STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met, heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed Special Assessment Levy Nos. 21013 and 21014; and WHEREAS, assessment rolls, copies of which are attached hereto and part hereof by reference, have been prepared by the City Engineer and City Clerk, tabulating those properties where street improvement and storm drainage costs are to be assessed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. Such proposed assessments, Special Assessment Levy No. 21013 for street improvements and Special Assessment Levy No. 21014 for storm drainage improvements, made a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute special assessments against lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the improvement in the amount of the assessments levied against it. 2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of ten (10) years as indicated on the assessment roll. The first of the installments shall be payable with ad valorem taxes in 2022, and shall bear interest on the entire assessment at the rate of 3.0 percent per annum from October 1, 2021, through December 31, 2022. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to certification of assessment to the County Auditor pay the whole assessment, to the City Treasurer, without interest, if entire assessment is paid on or before September 30, 2021. After September 30, 2021, he or she may pay the total assessment, plus interest. Interest will accumulate from October 1, 2021, through the date of payment. Such payment must be made by the close-of- business November 21, 2021, or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. If the owner wishes to pay off the balance at some point in the future, such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. RESOLUTION NO._______________ 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. January 25, 2021 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. CITYOFBROOKLYNCENTER DUSHARMEDR48TH AVE N 47TH AVE N DREWAVENLILACDRN£¤100 FRANCEAVEN49TH AVE NBEARDAVEN ABBOTTAVENZENITHAVENBROOKLYNBLVDCITYOFMINNEAPOLISCITY OF ROBBINSDALE 22 3401 22 3500 4811 3515 34153501351335013400 34013420341022 22 Assessment Map Ryan Lake Industrial Park Street and Utility Improvements Ü Figure 7 Legend Proposed R5 Assessment Proposed Industrial Assessment City Property Hennepin Forfeited Land Water Bodies PROPERTY ID HOUSE STREET NAME LEVY# STREET LEVY # STORM NOTES 1011821420038 3401 47th AVE N 21013 39,565.15$ 21014 $14,266.49 Multi Family R5 (A) 73,843.13 sf, (B) 0 sf 1011821420030 3501 47th AVE N 21013 13,926.79$ 21014 $5,021.75 Multi Family R5 (A) 25,992.52 sf, (B) 0 sf 1011821420029 3513 47th AVE N 21013 13,926.81$ 21014 $5,021.76 Multi Family R5 (A) 25,992.55 sf, (B) 0 sf 1011821420019 3400 48th AVE N 21013 16,235.28$ 21014 $5,854.15 Industrial (A) 30,301 sf, (B) 0 sf 1011821420015 3401 48th AVE N 21013 14,772.82$ 21014 $5,326.86 Industrial (A) 25,787.88 sf, (B) 4,162.32 sf 1011821420018 3410 48th AVE N 21013 12,840.81$ 21014 $4,630.17 Industrial (A) 23,961.01 sf, (B) 10.90 sf 1011821420014 3415 48th AVE N 21013 14,569.41$ 21014 $5,253.55 Industrial (A) 23,988.10 sf, (B) 7,476.45 sf 1011821420017 3420 48th AVE N 21013 12,841.44$ 21014 $4,630.40 Industrial (A) 23,961.11 sf, (B) 13.41 sf 1011821420042 3500 48th AVE N 21013 32,647.50$ 21014 $11,772.16 Industrial (A) 58,882.35 sf, (B) 4,783.69 sf 1011821420013 3501 48th AVE N 21013 14,563.09$ 21014 $5,251.27 Industrial (A) 23,978.02 sf, (B) 7,472.42 sf 1011821420012 3515 48th AVE N 21013 21,242.33$ 21014 $7,659.72 Industrial (A) 34,979.35 sf, (B) 10,890.21sf 1011821410015 Address Unassigned 21013 32,644.18$ 21014 $11,770.91 Industrial (A) 60,926.06 sf, (B) 0 sf 1011821420021 4811 Dusharme DR 21013 27,626.97$ 21014 $9,961.82 Industrial (A) 50,612.02 sf, (B) 2,217.11 sf Total Assessments 267,402.58$ 96,421.01$ January 25, 2020 2021 RYAN LAKE INDUSTRIAL PARK AREA RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2021-08 AND 09 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL 1 of 1 Public Hearings for Ryan Lake Industrial Park Area Street and Utility Improvements (2021) City Council Meeting, January 25, 2021 Mike Albers, City Engineer Public Hearing to Order Improvements Public Hearing for Special Assessments •Ryan Lake Industrial Park Area Street and Utility Improvements, Improvement Project Nos. 2021-08, 09, 10 and 11 •Local public improvements to the City’s infrastructure based on State of Minnesota Statute Chapter 429 2 Ryan Lake Industrial Park Street and Utility Improvements 3 4 Capital Improvement Program •City initiated program in 1993 •Reconstruct aging public streets and utilities •100.9 miles (95%) Completed •2021 will be the 28th year •Projected completion 2021 •4.1 miles remaining •Est. Cost 2021-2035 CIP: $200 million Project Planning Project Evaluation •Sanitary Sewer •Root intrusion, inflow and infiltration, sags, broken pipe •Water Main •Corrosion, leaks, frozen water services, water quality, pipe material •Storm Drainage •Local flooding, pavement preservation •Streets, Sidewalks and Trails •Pavement deterioration, curb and gutter condition, sidewalk and trail system gaps •Street Lights •Evaluate condition of lighting system 5 Utility Improvements: Sanitary Sewer System •Collection system installed in 1960 •8” Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP) •Root Intrusion-root sawing required to maintain conveyance capacity (75%) •Condition Survey / Televising Inspections (cracked pipe, sags) •Proposed Improvements •New trunk sewers within streets •Replace service lines up to property line within streets 6 Utility Improvements: Water Distribution System•Distribution system installed between 1958 to 1960 •6” -10” Cast Iron Pipe (CIP) •Cast Iron Pipe –in relatively good condition (couple issue areas) •Issues -Undermining cast iron pipe (during sanitary sewer replacement and pipes potentially unlined) •Proposed Improvements •Replace valves and hydrants throughout project area •Replacement of water main •Replace service lines up to property line and new curb Stops 7 Utility Improvements: Storm Sewer System •Existing storm sewer system is minimally developed throughout the area –some standing water on road edges and at intersections •Expansion of system needed •Coordination with water and sewer replacement •Proposed Improvements •Remove and replace storm structures and pipe as needed •Extend new catch basins and storm sewer pipe where feasible •Water quality treatment: sump catch basin where feasible 8 Utility Improvements: Street Lighting •1 street light on multi-use pole •2 street lights on free standing wood poles •All street lights have been converted to LED light fixtures •Proposed Improvements •Existing lights on multi-use poles to remain •Replace 2 free-standing street lights with fiberglass poles and LED light fixtures 9 Street Improvements •Roadway constructed in 1960. Most streets have no concrete curb and gutter •Subgrade (Foundation) Condition – good condition •Some edge drainage issues •Pavement Deterioration •Proposed Improvements •Reconstruction 30 feet wide for 47th Ave and 36 feet wide on 48th Ave/Dusharme Dr •Full depth pavement and aggregate base •Full curb and gutter replacement 10 Restoration •Driveways that are disturbed due to the street reconstruction will be replaced. •Disturbed boulevard areas will be restored with topsoil and sod. •Tree replacement on 1:1 ratio in fall 11 Public Right-of-Way •Right-of-way and easements are dedicated to the public for construction and maintenance of streets and utilities •Delineated on subdivision plats. •Typical right-of-way width •Varies: 50’-60’ for Ryan Lake Area •Right-of-way edge is approx. 5’-15’ beyond the edge of street pavement/back of curb 12 13 During Construction Staff is aware that maintaining access to businesses is critical. Preliminary Project Budget CIP –Est.Percent Project Amount Total Special Assessments $ 363,823.59 26.6% Sanitary Sewer Utility $ 220,000.00 16.1% Water Utility $ 310,000.00 22.6% Storm Drainage Utility $ 123,578.99 9.0% Street Reconstruction Fund $ 342,597.42 25.0% Street Light Utility $ 10,000.00 0.7% Total $ 1,370,000.00 100% Note: These are only preliminary estimated amounts –these amounts will change. Costs and funding will be further updated and revised in the final design stage and bidding of the project. 14 15 Preliminary Assessment Area Special Assessments -Estimated Amounts & Payment Options The City has an Assessment Policy that outlines how street improvement projects are funded. The proposed assessments were calculated in accordance with the City’s Special Assessment Policy. The assessment and interest rates were adopted by the City Council at the November 9, 2020 Council Meeting. Payment Options: 1.Pay in full -No interest between March 1 & Sept. 30, 2021 2.Pay in full from Oct. 1 to Nov. 20, 2021 with interest from Oct. 1 3.Pay in installments with property taxes over a 10-year period starting in 2022 •Partial prepayments cannot be accepted •If the project is approved an Assessment Reminder Letter will be sent 16 Assessment Rate for Street and Utilities Improvement Projects: •2021 Assessment Rates for R5/C2 properties: based on acreage with a “A” zone rate and a “B” zone rate •2021 Interest Rate: 3.0% (.5% decrease from 2020) Preliminary Project Schedule •Informational Meeting December 2, 2020 •City Council Receives Feasibility Report December 14, 2020 •Improvement Public Hearing/Order Plans January 25, 2021 •Assessment Public Hearing/Certify Assessment Roll January 25, 2021 •Approve Plans/Advertise for Bids February 2021 •Accept Bids/Award Project March/April 2021 •Begin Construction Spring/Summer 2021 •Substantial Completion October 2021 17 Recommended Action 1) Public Hearing to Order Improvements –4/5 Vote to Pass •Motion to open Public Hearing to Order Improvements •Take public input on the improvements •Motion to close Public Hearing •Consideration of comments and motion to adopt resolution Ordering Improvements and Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications 2) Public Hearing for Special Assessments –Simple Majority •Motion to open Public Hearing for Special Assessments •Take public input on the special assessments •Motion to close Public Hearing •Consideration of comments and motion to adopt resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Improvement Project to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls 18 Council/EDA Work Session VIRTUAL meeting being conducted by electronic means in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.021 Public portion available for connection via telephone Dial: 1-312-626- 6799 Meeting ID: 92710125463# Passcode: 7635693300# January 25, 2021 AGENDA ACTIVE DISCUSSION ITEMS 1.Community Celebration Name 2.Legislative Priorities 3.Mixed-Income Policy and NOAH Preservation Policy Discussion PENDING LIST FOR FUT URE WORK SESSIONS 1.Pending Items Council Policy for City Charter requirement of Mayor's signature on all contracts Strategic Plans for years 2018-2020 and 2021-2023 Review Special Assessment Policy Opportunity Site Update Earle Brown Name Tobacco Ordinance MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE:1/25/2021 TO:City Council FROM:Curt Boganey, City Manager THROUGH:N/A BY:Cornelius L. Boganey, City Manager SUBJECT:Community Celebration Name Recommendation: - Council direction regarding a potential change in the name of the Annual City Celebration. Background: For several years staff has discussed ways to improve public participation in the annual City Celebration known as Earle Brown Days. In it's earlier stages the Earle Brown Days Committee composed of resident volunteers with staff support assumed the primary role for planning this multi-day event. The City made relatively small direct financial contributions and relied upon committee fundraising to cover much of costs, including fire works expense. Over the years, the level of volunteer participation has declined and the City role for planning and funding has increased. Throughout this time, staff has tried a variety of approaches to broaden community participation in events and in planning for the event. One of the ways to encourage community involvement that has been frequently discussed has been a change in the name of the event. It has been staffs belief for some time that the Earle Brown Days brand does not immediately resonate with the changing community of Brooklyn Center. While we don't assume that a name change will automatically result in increased community involvement and participation. We do believe it could be an important first step toward re-creating a Community Celebration that will be encouraging to residents who feel little connection to the agricultural past of the City. Furthermore, the current controversy regarding the alleged Ku Klux Klan association by Sheriff Brown can only exacerbate the branding problem for a celebration that is intended to bring the community together. It is impossible to imagine how continuing the use of Earle Brown Days, will help build community, which is the purpose of an annual celebration. My limited research of the subject suggests that a small percentage of community celebrations are named after individuals. This may be true because it is difficult to identify a who is flawless or someone who clearly personifies or captures the essence of the community. Staff does not have a recommended new name for an annual community celebration at this time. But we are prepared to came back to the Council if suggestions if you would like. These suggestions could be easily informed by soliciting input from the community through a variety of survey methods. We could easily sponsors a contest for the naming of the event. The Council could decide. Obviously, there are numerous approaches that could be used. We could elect to use a generic name i.e. "Brooklyn Center Days" for the current year and let the community decide over next several months. At this stage, we are seeking Council direction strictly related to this one event. Unlike the Heritage Center, the community celebration has no direct connection to Sherriff Brown or to the founding history of the community, factors that you may choose to consider as a decision is made regarding the naming of other publicly owned assets. Policy Issues: Does the Council have sufficient information to provide direction? Will a change in the name of annual community celebration best serve the interest of Brooklyn Center residents and stakeholders? If a change in name is warrant, how should a new name be established? ATTACHMENTS: Description Upload Date Type Presentation 1/26/2021 Presentation 1/26/2021 1 Brooklyn Center Community Celebration City Council Meeting,  Community Celebration Name 2 •Earle Brown Days has been the community  celebration for several decades •The event was planned and managed by volunteers  with limited staff support  •Mayor Cohen was big supporter and was instrumental  in fundraising efforts  1/26/2021 2 Community Celebration Name •Over the years volunteer participation has  declined •Private Contributions have declined  •City Management and City Funding has  Increased 3 Community Celebration Name •Over the last several Years Staffs goal has been to  expand volunteer participation •Diversify Participation in Planning and Participation •Increase the community involvement and satisfaction  by increasing cultural relevance and the diversity of  offerings. 4 1/26/2021 3 Community Celebration Name •One of the staff discussion points  to achieve these goals has  been to consider a name change  •Once the potential controversy arose from the book  Elizabeth Dorsey Hatle “Ku Klux Klan of Minnesota staff has  felt a name change might not only be helpful to achieving  our goals but today we  believe it may imperative. 5 Community Celebration Name  •Unlike the Earle Brown Heritage Center we are aware of no historical   connection to the Sherriff Brown at the Community Celebration •Community Celebrations are more likely to be name for archetypal   unique or historical aspects of a community less so a named  individual  •It is our view that a renamed community celebration can facilitate  bringing the community together, sharing what has made and what  continues to make BC great.    6 1/26/2021 4 Community Celebration Name •We are seeking Council Direction regarding changing the name of the  community celebration •Does the Council have sufficient information to provide direction •Will a name change of the annual celebration best serve the  interest of Brooklyn Center residents and stakeholders?  •If a name change is warranted, how should proceed to establish  the new name?   7 MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE:1/25/2021 TO:City Council FROM:Curt Boganey, City Manager THROUGH:N/A BY:Cornelius L. Boganey, City Manager SUBJECT:Legislative Priorities Recommendation: - The Council is being asked to provide updates, modifications and or recommended additions to establish the 2021 City of Brooklyn Center Legislative Priorities. Background: The State Legislature will soon return to session. Next Saturday, the City of Crystal will host the annual legislative breakfast where several Northwest Hennepin State Legislators are expected to be present. I have attached a copy of the Legislative Priorities approved the City Council last year for your review. On Monday, we will be asking the Council if you would like to amend this 2020 list of legislative priorities for the upcoming Legislative Session. Policy Issues: Are there modifications to be considered for the City of Brooklyn Center 2021 State of Minnesota Legislative Priorities? Strategic Priorities and Values: Operational Excellence ATTACHMENTS: Description Upload Date Type Legislative Priorities 1/21/2021 Cover Memo City of Brooklyn Center 2020 Legislative Agenda February 2020 Page 2 of 7 Administration • BCLG 01-2020 (Official Notifications / Information Access) – The City of Brooklyn Center supports the State eliminating outdated and unnecessary publication requirements that are no longer relevant or representative of the City’s technological capabilities. Justification – Currently the State has laws mandating the City establish an “official” or “qualified” newspaper for formal city notifications. The law specifies that cities designate only “one” newspaper, it must be printed in English and if it is a daily newspaper it must be distributed at least five days each week, etc. While the notification standards established in 1949 were well intended, they may not be complete or applicable to contemporary methods of communication or cost efficient. • BCLG 02-2020 (Election Judge Recruitment and Retention) – The City of Brooklyn Center supports efforts by the State to amend regulations to eliminate the party balance requirement of appointed and hired staff administering absentee balloting prior to Election Day and for city special elections. We further recommend that the legislature authorize time off for college students if they have been appointed to serve as an election judge. Justification – City elections are non-partisan and govern elections in a non-partisan manner. One of the City’s strategic priorities is “community engagement across all segments of the City”. The City desires to engage as many residents as possible in the election process. • BCLG 03-2020 (Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act) – The City of Brooklyn Center supports the efforts of public and private organizations seeking to assist residents apply for permanent status under the LRIFA. We implore the State Legislature to provide funding in support of these efforts. Justification – We estimate that there are more than 30,000 Liberians living in the State of Minnesota of which 4,000 or more would be subject to deportation if their current DED status is not changed. The LRIFA recently approved by Congress will provide individuals with DED extensions, one final year to complete their application for a change in their immigrant status. Failure to complete a qualifying application is likely to result in deportation of these individuals, many of whom have been residents for more than a decade. Historically the State Legislature, Governor and State Officials have supported Brooklyn Center and other communities in the efforts that have led to passage of the LRIFA. Now it is critical that every effort be made to assure that each eligible person is able to take advantage of this opportunity. There are several organizations planning to provide the necessary legal and other assistance required for individuals to submit a qualifying application under the Act. We urge the legislature to provide financial support to these organizations. • BCLG 04-2020 Funding for Cultural Centers/Museums and other Community Building Assets- the City of Brooklyn Center encourages the Legislature to provide funding and provide new rules that will support the establishment of Cultural Museum/Centers that reflect the unique traditions and values provided by immigrants, new Americans and diverse communities; thereby enriching the lives of all Minnesotans. Page 3 of 7 Justification – As one of the most ethically and cultural diverse communities in the State of Minnesota. We believe that this strength should be valued and shared. A variety of cultural organizations and groups would love the opportunity to collaborate with government, non-profits and others to share the benefits of their culture. We believe the State can play an extremely valuable role by providing funding to build capacity and facilitate opportunities for these groups to add to the culture of Minnesota in a lasting and meaningful way. We believe existing Grant Programs should be modified or new funding should be approved to encourage Cultural Centers, Museums, and Arts to support the goal of cultural inclusion and diversity in the State. Housing and Development • BCLG 05-2020 (Affordable Housing) - The City of Brooklyn Center supports the creation of additional local tools and funding for workforce housing and affordable housing programs, including resources in a bonding bill. Specifically the State should establish a housing tax credit contribution fund, create a state funding match for local housing trust funds, increase funding for Economic Development and Challenge Fund Grant program and support dedicated funding for housing through bonding and general fund revenue. Justification – The lack of workforce housing makes it difficult for employers to attract workers and for cities to attract new residents. Vacancy rates remain low and the market is not keeping up with demand for affordable housing options. Cities want to play a role in addressing this issue, but lack the resources and the flexible tools to create partnerships with public and private entities to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing options • BCLG 06-2020 (Group Homes and Housing with Services Establishments) - The City of Brooklyn Center requests the Legislature to examine the impacts of the established regulations, which limit the ability of municipalities to regulate group homes and housing with services establishments to determine if regulations are having a disproportionate effect on low-income communities and communities of color. Justification our experience is that single-family affordable housing neighborhoods are attractive locations to investors seeking to profit from the establishment Group Home and Housing with Services. The concentration of these homes in low-income neighborhoods reduces home ownership opportunities and wealth accumulation for residents and the concentration of theses business can change the character of the neighborhood. Page 4 of 7 • BCLG 07-2020 (Building Officials) – The City of Brooklyn Center supports efforts of the State to increase its efforts to train new and diverse building officials, and provide sufficient education to help local officials administer and enforce construction regulations. Justification – The City has established city priorities related to resident economic stability and a value of diversity and inclusion. There is a shortage of building officials in the State and greater shortage of building officials of color. Sufficient funding and support by the state would permit the City and other cities to have access to a broader pool of candidates for building official in the future. Business and Economic Development • BCLG 08-2020 (Youth Tax Credit) – The City of Brooklyn Center supports efforts by the State to create an internship to work tax credit for organizations hosting young workers in Brooklyn Center. This type of tax credit program exists now, but is targeted to Greater Minnesota. Justification – One of the City’s strategic priorities is “Resident Economic Stability”. This program would provide an incentive for businesses to participate in the BrookLynk Program of the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance. • BCLG 09-2020 (Workforce Readiness) – The City of Brooklyn Center supports efforts of the State to fund fully the Minnesota Job Skills Partnership and other workforce training programs. The City also supports the State providing flexible funding to local workforce councils and pursuing creative programming and funding. Finally, the City supports efforts to design and implement programs designed to address youth employment and workforce readiness. Justification – One of the City’s strategic priorities is “Resident Economic Stability”. This program would provide an incentive for businesses to participate in the BrookLynk Program of the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance. This effort would also, support the City’s strategic priority of “Resident Economic Stability”. • BCLG 10-2020 (Tax Increment Financing - TIF) – The City of Brooklyn Center supports efforts of the State to increase the ability of TIF to facilitate redevelopment and housing activities, The State should allow term extensions for redevelopment districts, which are taking longer to develop; amend Minn. Stat. § 469.1763, subdivision 3 to eliminate the “Five-year Rule” for districts that are taking longer to develop; and modify the housing district income qualification level requirements to allow the levels to vary according to individual communities. Justification – The City would benefit by having the ability to extend the term for its redevelopment districts, which could have a positive impact on the financial stability and effectiveness of the districts. Page 5 of 7 • BCLG 11-2020 (Land Recycling and Redevelopment) – The City of Brooklyn Center supports the creation of a “land assembly grant or loan program” to assist cities and economic development authorities assemble small parcels for redevelopment. In addition, the City supports efforts by the State to amend the definition of redevelopment district under TIF Act to include the obsolescence and incompatible land use. Justification – Due to the City being a fully developed city, the City would benefit from more resources and greater flexibility of existing economic development tools to redevelopment deteriorated, obsolete and vacant structures and contaminated land. Financial • BCLG 12-2020 (Metro Area Fiscal Disparities) - Brooklyn Center was once a net contributor to the Fiscal Disparities pool. Today as a net recipient, Fiscal Disparities is a major factor contributing to the fiscal stability of the City and our taxpayers. Without Fiscal Disparities, the property tax burden in Brooklyn Center would escalate dramatically, perhaps more than 25%. We strongly encourage continued legislative support for Metro Area Fiscal Disparities. • BCLG 13-2020 (Sales Tax Exemption Simplification) - We advocate for a way to simplify the utility of the current sales tax exemption for construction materials. The process for using the current sales tax exemption on construction is so complicated, risky, and burdensome to contractors and cities that we are aware of no city that has decided to use this exemption. In Brooklyn Center, we estimate savings of $300-$400 thousand annually for our neighborhood street and utility construction projects if the sales tax exemption was viable. • BCLG 11-2020 (Property Tax Relief) – The City of Brooklyn Center supports efforts of the State increase property tax relief for property owners experiencing high tax burdens due to property tax shifts. Justification - The City has experienced significant shifts in tax capacity growth from commercial to residential properties throughout the years of the most recent economic recession. As a result, residential property owners have endured a tax shift burden. We expect this trend to continue for the coming years as housing values continue to recover and commercial and industrial market values normalize. • BCLG 14-2020 (Local Government Aid - LGA) – The City of Brooklyn Center supports the existing LGA funding formula as an appropriate mechanism to distribute LGA and opposes special funding using LGA funds. Justification – LGA has been cut for many years. The City’s budget stability continues to be dependent on LGA funding. Any changes in the formula or siphoning of funds from the overall pool for special projects may be detrimental to the City’s financial stability. Page 6 of 7 Law Enforcement & Public Safety • BCLG 15-2020 (Cop Autism Response Education and Vitals App) The City of Brooklyn Center supports legislative funding for the expansion of the COP Autism Response Education (CARE) training model and VITALs app to better meet the needs of individuals on the Autism Spectrum and build more inclusive communities Justification- Each year globally, an increasing number of children are being diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders. The State of Minnesota has the second highest autism prevalence rate in the United States. Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder are valued members of our community and help to strengthen the City of Brooklyn Center, Unfortunately individuals on the Autism Spectrum face significant barriers in utilizing emergency services due to sensory processing and other characteristics that are included in the diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder. CARE and Vitals App are two significant tools that may be used improve efficacy and effectiveness of emergency response to persons living in our community diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. • BCLG 16-2020 (T-21 Raising the Age for Purchasing Tobacco Products to Age Twenty One) - The City of Brooklyn Center supports a legislative change to increase the age of tobacco product purchases to twenty-one. Justification - Brooklyn Center along with several Cities throughout the State of Minnesota has adopted local ordinance regulations increasing the legal age to purchase tobacco products to 21 because overwhelming evidence demonstrates the younger a person is when they begin smoking the more likely they will become addicted and suffer physically resulting from this addiction. Likewise, vaping and other caffeine delivery devises should be regulated, as there is growing evidence that they too are addicting and physically harmful to young people. • BCLG 17-2020 (Juveniles in Municipal Jails) – The City of Brooklyn Center supports efforts by the State to clarify state statute that would allow juveniles to be held for questioning and booking in the City jail for up to six hours. Justification – The City would have more of an opportunity and time to work with a juvenile to resolve or remedy their situations prior to being transported to Hennepin County Jails should the state increase the max time juveniles may be held in a licensed municipal jail. • BCLG 18-2020 (21st Century Policing) – The City of Brooklyn Center supports action by the State to increase funding for peace officer training, peace officer wellness activities, and grants to the cities to deploy technologies such as dash and body worn cameras, all of which align with the President’s Task Force 21st Century Policing Report. Page 7 of 7 Justification - The City initiated efforts to implement 21st Century Policing soon after the report was published. The City continues to develop and train peace officers in accordance with the report. Funding support from the State would help advantage and stretch the use of City resources. To date the City has taken on the expense of such efforts at the City’s expense. Transportation • BCLG 19-2020 (MVLST Funding) - The City of Brooklyn Center supports including Hennepin County in the distribution of motor vehicle lease sales tax (MVLST). Justification - Hennepin County residents contribute substantially to the MVLST but State Law excludes the county from receiving funding from this transportation source. If included, Hennepin County would receive $10.7 million annually for roads, bridges, and pedestrian and bikeway projects. The rationale to exclude Hennepin and Ramsey counties from receiving MVLST formula funds was based on enabling of new taxing authority through the creation of the Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB). With CTIB's dissolution in 2017, this rationale for excluding Hennepin and Ramsey counties from receiving MVLST Formula funds has ceased to exist. • BCLG 12-2020 (Transportation Funding) – The City of Brooklyn Center supports the State providing more funding, including bonding, for improvements to all components of the transportation system. The City specifically supports The Blue Line Light Rail Extension. In addition, the City’s highest State transportation priority is the much needed improvements to and conversion of TH 252 to a freeway with the addition of MnPASS lanes. Justification – The City has various transportation needs ranging from constructing highway overpasses to upgrading Trunk Highway 252 to a freeway, as well as, transit related needs. Additional funding by the legislature would permit the City to access various funding sources from the Minnesota Department of Transportation for city projects. Improvements and conversion of Trunk Highway 252 to a freeway would benefit city residents and regional travelers with improved safety and less congestion on a corridor that lays claim to two of the top 10 and 5 of the top 100 intersections in statewide crash cost rankings. MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE:1/25/2021 TO:City Council FROM:Curt Boganey, City Manager THROUGH: BY:Meg Beekman, Community Development Director SUBJECT:Mixed-Income Policy and NOAH Preservation Policy Discussion Recommendation: Background: Overview Housing and the policy issues related to housing have become some of the most pressing and important matters facing communities today. For most suburban communities, housing comprises a significant majority of a cities land use and tax base. Maintaining and preserving a safe, quality, and desirable housing stock is critical to a community's long term economic health and resiliency. Further, a diverse housing stock which offers a wide range of housing choices and price points ensures that a community can be resilient through economic ups and downs as well as provide housing options for a diverse population throughout their lives. In addition to maintaining a quality and diverse supply of housing, communities are more and more becoming focused on concerns regarding livability and accessibility of housing. The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area is currently experience record low vacancy rates. According to Marquette Advisors’ midyear report from August 2019, the average vacancy rate across the seven-county metro area is 2.3 percent. Experts agree that a balanced rental market will typically see an average vacancy rate of around 5 percent. The effect of low vacancy rates over time is increasing rents, a growing interest from outside investors, and landlords in a position to be choosier about who they rent to. Brooklyn Center’s Current Rental Housing The result of the regional trends described above are being felt in Brooklyn Center. Vacancy rates in the community remain lower than the regional average, hovering around 2 percent. This is common in communities with more affordable rental units. Thirty-seven percent of Brooklyn Center's housing stock is comprised of rental units. Of the City’s single- family housing, about 8 percent are rental. Nearly 100 percent of the multi-family housing in Brooklyn Center are one and two bedroom units built between 1961 and 1971, and nearly all of it is naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH). Average rents in Brooklyn Center are naturally occurring affordable because the market rents, based on the age and condition of the units make them affordable at around 50 percent AMI in the metropolitan area. Rents in Brooklyn Center are lower than the regional average. Approximately 90 percent of all of the housing units in Brooklyn Center is NOAH. While NOAH properties are affordable, they can be at risk of being lost as market demand increases and rents continue to go up. They can also experience disinvestment over time, causing deterioration, loss of value, and most importantly poor quality or unsafe living situations if they are not properly inspected and maintained. At present 4.1 percent of all units are legally binding, or subsidized affordable units. 10.9 percent of rental units are legally binding affordable. Subsidized affordable units are housing units that are required to maintain an affordable rent regardless of shifts in market demand. Due to their financing structure, they also must be maintained to a certain minimum standard. One of the goals of affordable housing advocates is to preserve existing NOAH properties by converting them to legally binding affordable units through NOAH preservation programs. With the construction of Sonder Housing, Real Estate Equities will be adding 270 units of legally binding new affordable housing units to the city. These will be the first new construction multi-family housing units built in Brooklyn Center since 1971, and will increase the percentage of legally binding affordable units to 6.6 percent of all units and 17.1 percent of rental units. The City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies several broad housing goals 2040 Housing & Neighborhood Goals: Promote a diverse housing stock that provides safe, stable, and accessible housing options to all of Brooklyn Center’s residents. Recognize and identify ways to match Brooklyn Center’s housing with the City’s changing demographics. Explore opportunities to improve the City’s housing policies and ordinances to make them more responsive to current and future residents. Maintain the existing housing stock in primarily single-family neighborhoods through proper ordinances, incentive programs and enforcement. Explore opportunities to incorporate new affordable housing into redevelopment areas that promote safe, secure and economically diverse neighborhoods. In addition to these goals, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies implementation strategies as well as resources and tools for achieving its housing goals. These are contained in Chapters 4 and 9, of the Housing and Implementation chapters respectively (attached). Background In April 2018, the City Council discussed several possible policies to address affordable housing issues. The memo from that discussion is attached to this report. Based on that discussion, Council directed staff to move forward with a Tenant Protection Ordinance, and in December 2018, it was adopted. In March 2020, The City Council discussed housing policy as it centers around two distinct topic areas: 1) Housing choice - What is the composition and condition of the current housing stock? What are the current market demands for housing? How does the city's housing stock relate to the market, and does the city have enough and the right type to meet current and future need? 2) Affordable housing policies - What can the city do to improve livability and accessibility to quality affordable housing for residents? What best practices exist to support an effective approach to addressing the need for affordable housing in the community? What policies are most effective to prevent displacement? At the work session the Council considered a work plan that would take a comprehensive review of the City’s housing policy approach related to these two distinct topic areas and provided direction to staff. The staff report from that meeting is attached. At that meeting, the City Council expressed support to explore a NOAH preservation program and a mixed- income housing policy (or inclusionary housing policy) as part of the City’s strategy to create stable, quality housing for all incomes in the community. The purpose of this discussion is to provide information on these two policy programs to the Council and get direction on how to proceed. Mixed-Income Housing Policy A Mixed-Income Housing Policy, also known as inclusionary housing requires a set aside of a certain percentage of units or fee per unit for affordable housing when new multi-family housing is developed. Mixed- income policies provide developers with clear and consistent expectations of development in the community. A Mixed-Income Housing Policy provides for a value exchange between the local developer and the community, providing affordable housing for residents while the developer receives a new project in their portfolio; however they are not implemented without cost. Key components of the Mixed-Income Housing Policy include: Applicability – The policy identifies when it will apply. Different cities have different standards as to when this trigger point occurs. Brooklyn Park’s policy for example applies to all developments that add or create ten or more residential rental units and that receive: - City or EDA financial assistance - Master or amended PUD (would require a change of city ordinance) - Zoning Code Amendments (would require a change of city ordinance); - Or Comprehensive Plan Amendments Affordability requirements – The Policy states what the affordability requirements are. Some mixed income policies have options which allow developers to choose how many units, based on the affordability. Providing options allows flexibility within a project. Below is an example of what that could look like. Some mixed-income policies also allow developers to pay a fee to the city instead of providing units within their developments. Funds paid to the city are then used to create affordable housing elsewhere, either by funding a NOAH preservation program or funding the construction of new affordable units in other locations. Edina’s mixed-income policy is an example of one that provides this option. Options (choose one)Min. Number of Units Required Affordability Standard 5%Affordable for HH at 30% AMI 10%Affordable for HH at 50% AMI 15%Affordable for HH at 60% AMI Affordability period – The policy states how long the affordability is required for. 15-20 years is fairly common in these types of policies. Distribution of affordable units – The policy would typically state that the affordable housing units should be consistent to the market rate units in quality of construction and finish, with units intermixed within the same development. Non-discrimination – The policy would typically state that developments covered by this Policy must not discriminate against tenants who pay rent with federal, state, or local public assistance, including, but not limited to rental assistance, rent supplements, and Housing Choice Vouchers. Other considerations - Mixed income policies can also include other types of incentives to encourage or assist the developer with supplying the affordable housing. For example, one of the most expense aspects of construction that adds cost to projects, and thus drives up rent, is enclosed or underground parking. Reduced parking requirements can have a significant effect on construction costs. The Council could consider including parking stall reductions as an additional incentive to providing mixed-income units. Financial Implications In Brooklyn Center, generally speaking multi-family residential development does not generate high enough rents to cover the cost of construction. Therefore, any new multi-family development would very likely require some form of gap financing in order to be feasible. There are different ways that developers can fill financial gaps: Federal low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC) State and/or County grant sources State loan/mortgage programs Local Tax Increment Financing Local Tax Abatement Local fee waivers Land use/zoning concessions Some of these sources require various forms of affordability and others do not. City required affordability requirements increase financial gaps, which must be filled by local sources. In other words, applying a mixed income housing policy will increase the need for city subsidy and may make some projects financially infeasible altogether. In addition, the Council may need to balance using TIF funds to achieve mixed income affordability goals versus achieving other community benefits that are desired as part of the project. Ehlers analyzed the cost per unit to construct new affordable units based on their affordability level and the length of time the affordability would be required. This cost represents the likely gap to the project created with the inclusion of those units. Below is a table representing the results of their analysis. Compliance Similar to a development agreement, affordability requirements for the development would be outlined in an Affordable Housing Performance Agreement signed by the City and developer. The Performance Agreement would include the location and number of affordable housing units, rental terms and occupancy requirements, timetable for compliance, affordability restrictions and any other terms the City requires. To ensure compliance with the Performance Agreement, the City would require the property owners/managers to conduct annual income certifications for households living in affordable units which would be reviewed by City staff every three years. The income qualification process would follow the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) income certification process. Staff would monitor compliance and the City could charge the property owner a fee to cover staff expenses related to monitoring. This would likely become part of the rental licensing process, but is not currently a function of the program. It would require additional enforcement and additional resources to carry out. What are other Cities in the region doing to promote mixed-income or inclusionary housing? The policies and practices to promote mixed-income and affordable housing vary from city to city. A number of other cities in the region have adopted mixed-income housing policies or use them in practice. Brooklyn Park adopted a mixed-income policy in 2018, which was largely based on policies adopted by the City of St. Louis Park and the City of Golden Valley. Cities with known mixed-income polices or practices are listed below: St. Louis Park Edina Golden Valley Minneapolis St. Paul Eden Prairie Chaska Next Steps Staff will move forward based on the direction provided by the City Council this evening. If the Council chooses to move forward with adopting a mixed-income policy the next steps would be: Drafting a mixed-income policy and bringing it back to City Council for consideration Implementing the policy NOAH Preservation Program As the City has done engagement for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and the Opportunity Site, many discussions have occurred with renters around the community related to housing. One theme from these discussions has been a concern that the City’s focus is too much on new construction of affordable housing in the future on the Opportunity Site, and not enough on improving the experiences and cost of living of existing renters today. In fact, preserving existing affordable housing can be much more efficient and cost effective than building new affordable housing. Many cities are developing NOAH preservation programs with that goal in mind. A preservation program can be set up in various ways, but essentially how they work is to incentivize existing NOAH property owners into setting aside a percentage of rental units as legally binding affordable units for a set period of time. The State of Minnesota provides a property tax break for subsidized rental properties under the Low Income Rental Classification Program (LIRC), commonly referred to as the "4d" program. 4d is one of Several tax classifications the State of Minnesota applies to rental property. Class 4d property is taxed at a class rate of 0.75%, approximately 40% less than other classifications. Non-subsidized properties are eligible for the 4d tax classification when a property meets two conditions: 1. The property owner agrees to rent and income restrictions serving households at 60% of the AMI or below. 2. The property receives financial assistance from federal, state or local government requiring rent and income restrictions. At least 20% of the units must meet the income requirements. The 4d tax status applies only to the rent/income-qualifying units. The application deadline to Minnesota Housing is March 31 of each year for taxes payable the following year. In order to do this, the City would create a NOAH preservation fund. It is estimated that the TIF 3 Housing Fund will have a balance when TIF 3 decertifies at the end of 2021. These funds could be used to seed a NOAH preservation fund. Staff would work with existing rental property owners to provide a modest subsidy for building rehabilitation or capital improvements, which would then be combined with a 4D tax classification benefit to provide a property tax break, currently amounting to 40%. In exchange, the property owner would agree to set aside certain units as affordable for a set period of time. The result is the preservation of NOAH units through a legally binding contract. Staff has drafted a proposed NOAH Preservation Program which is attached to this report for discussion purposes. Savings to Rental Property Owners (Cost to Other Taxpayers) Non-4d apartments have a tax class rate of 1.25%. Units classified as 4d have a tax class rate of 0.75% (for the first tier). A bill that would reduce the class rate for affordable rental housing from 0.75% to 0.25% was introduced at the Legislature this year. While it didn't pass this session, it could be reintroduced in future sessions. This would increase the savings per unit that a landlord could achieve, increasing the incentive to participate in the program, also increasing the impact on a city’s tax base. Example One: 50-unit building valued at $4,627,000 Non-4d property taxes estimate $4,627,000 x 0.0125 = $57,837.50 4d property taxes (all units): $4,627,000 x .0075 = $34,702.50 Savings $23,135 ($462/unit) Example Two: 50-unit building valued at $4,627,000 Non-4d property taxes estimate: $4,627,000 x 0.0125 = $57,927.50 4d property taxes (all units): $3,453,000 x .0025 = $11,567 Savings $46,360 ($927.21/unit) Another way to analyze the affect of a NOAH Preservation program is on overall tax base. One example to illustrate this is if the City were to have a goal of eventually including 20 percent of its rental units in the preservation program. This would equate to 868 units. At present there are 471 units already included in the 4d program with another 270 under construction. This would mean focusing on adding an additional 127 units into the program. Assuming the tax rate reduction remains at 40 percent, the average unit will see a tax savings of $600 per year. This would work out to be an annual property tax reduction from these multi-family units of $76,200. In addition to the annual property tax reduction, the program would include a one-time upfront incentive in the form of a matching grant that property owners would use for common capital improvements to the building. Minneapolis provides very little incentive. St. Louis Park provides more. For Brooklyn Center, Staff would propose a matching grant up to $1,000 per unit not to exceed $25,000 per property to encourage common area improvements and energy improvements to buildings. This would encourage participation as well as improvements to properties that would benefit all renters in the building. Current 4d Properties in the City Brooklyn Center 2020 Certification of MN Low-Income Rental Classification Address Total Units Qualify Percent Property Name 6130, 6138 BS 6200 France Ave N 23 100%Ewing Square Townhouses 7256 Unity Ave N 112 100%Unity Place 6121 Brooklyn Blvd 158 100%The Sanctuary at Brooklyn Center 6915 Humboldt Ave N 50 100%Lynwood Pointe 6920 & 6910 Humboldt Ave N, 1302 & 1308 69th Ave N 128 100%Carrington Drive Total:471 4d Programs in other Cities Minneapolis, St. Paul, St. Louis Park, Brooklyn Park and Edina have approved 4d programs. All programs are modeled after the program developed by the City of Minneapolis. The programs offer a modest-sized grant and 4d property tax status in exchange for preserving affordability. Brooklyn Park's program is also paired with available financing to encourage nonprofit buyers to purchase NOAH properties to preserve them. It was through this program that they assisted the acquisition of Huntington Place by Aeon. Income Limits Benefits Time Limit Building Size Other Minneapolis 20% of the units at 60% AMI $150 application fee Grant of $100/unit Max grant=$1,000 10 years 2+Energy assessment and improvements encouraged Rentincreasesfor existing tenants<6% annually St Paul 20% at 60% AMI (preference to 50%) $150 application fee Grant of $100/unit Max grant= $1,000 10 years 2+Rent increases for existing tenants< 3% annually St Louis Park 20% at 60% AMI $150 application fee Grant of $200/unit Max grant=$6,000 10 years 3+Rentincreasesfor existing tenants<5% annually Energy assessment required Energy improvements encouraged Edina 20% at 60% AMI Grant of $100/unit Max Grant for Energy improvements $30,000 15 years 4+Rent increases for existing tenants < 6% annually Energy Assessment and Improvements Encouraged Area Median Income Rent Limits - 2020 ---- Maximum Gross Rents by Bedroom Size (4/1/2020) 0 1 2 3 4 50%AMI 905 970 1163 1344 1500 60%AMI 1086 1164 1396 1613 1800 70%AMI 1267 1358 1629 1882 2100 Because rents in Brooklyn Center are naturally more affordable, this program has the opportunity to be effective to lock in a percentage of units at 50-60 percent AMI now, before rents increase to the point of being unaffordable. Thus preventing displacement before it occurs. Further, because landlords would not need to necessarily reduce rents to participate in the program, the barrier of entry is low, making it more likely to be successful. Key Components of a NOAH Preservation Program Applicability - Different programs include eligibility for different sized buildings. To begin the program staff would recommend focusing on properties with five units or more. Affordability - Most cities follow the state mandated 60 percent AMI affordability. Because rents in Brooklyn Center are on average more affordable, staff would recommend starting the program with the goal of achieving rents affordable at 50 percent AMI. If the City finds it too difficult to entice property owners to participate at the lower affordability, the program could be reviewed. Affordability Period - Most cities' programs provide an affordability requirement of 10-15 years. Eligibility - The policy would include eligibility in terms of which properties could apply for the program. Staff would recommend allowing Type I and II rental license properties only to apply, as these properties have demonstrated they are well maintained and are not experiencing deferred maintenance issues. Next Steps Staff has begun drafting a NOAH Preservation program which is attached for discussion purposes this evening. Based on the discussion this evening staff will make changes to the program and bring it back to Council for consideration. Staff has begun reaching out to local landlords to discuss the program and get feedback on the proposed parameters, as well as solicit interest if a program were to be established. The results of this efforts will be compiled and shared with City Council along with any changes to the program at a future meeting. Policy Issues: Mixed-Income Housing Policy Discussion 1) Does the City Council want to move forward with a mixed-income housing policy? 2) If so: - When would it apply? - What affordability choices would the Council like to offer? - What duration should the affordability be for? - Are there other incentives the Council would like to consider with the program? NOAH Preservation Program Discussion 1) Does the City Council want to move forward with a NOAH Preservation program? 2) If so: - What considerations or concerns does the Council have about the draft program prepared by Staff? - What duration should be considered in terms of affordability? - What should be the goals of the program in terms of percentage of rental units to include in the program? - Is the City Council comfortable with an affordability level of 50% AMI? Strategic Priorities and Values: Resident Economic Stability ATTACHMENTS: Description Upload Date Type DRAFT NOAH Preservation Program 8/4/2020 Backup Material March 9, 2020 Work Session Memo 8/4/2020 Backup Material April 4, 2018 Work Session Memo 8/4/2020 Backup Material LIRC Guide 6/23/2020 Backup Material Chapter 4 - Housing and Neighborhood 8/3/2020 Backup Material Brooklyn Center 4d affordable housing incentive program Due to recent housing, economic and demographic trends, Brooklyn Center is experiencing an affordable housing need. Already burdened low- and moderate-income tenants are increasingly paying more than 30 percent of their income on rent and utilities. At the same time, many rental property owners are faced with increased operating and maintenance costs, as well as market opportunities to increase rents. In response, the city is offering incentives for rental property owners to reduce property tax liability, improve energy efficiency and address conditions of aging buildings, if present. The goal is to preserve affordability, reduce energy use and enhance healthy homes to support tenants and strengthen the bottom line for property owners. Benefits to property owners Qualified market rate building owners that agree to keep a minimum of 20 percent of units per building affordable to households making 50 percent of area median income (AMI) for XX years will receive: • XX-year eligibility for 4d property tax rate, which provides a 40 percent tax rate reduction on qualifying units.* • City pays the first year fee for the Minnesota Low Income Rental Classification (LIRC) application, also known as 4d tax classification ($10 per unit) • Up to $1,000 matching grant per affordable unit, capped at $25,000 per property to be spent on common improvements • Free energy efficiency and healthy homes assessments available to buildings with five or more units. • Utility rebates for energy efficiency and healthy homes improvement identified in the free assessment • Reduced renter turnover • Lower maintenance and operating costs, if owners take advantage of opportunities to make energy efficiency improvements to properties *Minnesota Statute 273.128 provides that qualifying low-income rental properties, including those enrolled in the Brooklyn Center 4d incentive program, are eligible for 4d tax classification. According to state statue, the first tier of valuation ($150,000 per unit in 2020) on 4d rental properties is taxed at a rate 40 percent less than 4a and 4b rental property. The actual reduction in property taxes may be slightly higher or lower than 40 percent. Eligibility guidelines Owners of market-rate multifamily properties that meet the following criteria: • At least 20 percent of rental units in a building are affordable to households whose family income is at or below 50 percent of the area median income (AMI). • Existing tenants in units that have program-compliant rents do not need to be income qualified. • Income qualification for tenants is determined upon initial occupancy. Increased income of tenants in affordable units will not violate program requirements. • Buildings that have at least five rental units; licensed rental properties with license types I or II that are in good standing with no active code compliance violations. • Buildings can include units with owner occupants, but only rental units are eligible for 4d tax status. The city will receive and review applications on an annual basis. The city expects to accept applications January through late February. Properties will be selected based on city goals of preserving housing affordability in neighborhoods throughout the city, subject to the availability of city grant funds. Note: The city reserves the right to deny applications for the 4d incentive program if the owner or property manager applying owns or manages other properties with outstanding code compliance issues. Process and program requirements Step 1 (required) • Property owners submit a 4d program application and rent roll and sign a participation agreement with the city. The participation agreement includes a commitment to accept tenant-based assistance and affirmative fair marketing, and prohibits involuntary displacement of existing tenants. • The city will draft and record a declaration against the property that limits the rents and incomes on the qualified units for XX years (a recorded document is required for 4d tax classification status). The declaration also limits rent increases to no more than once in a 12- month period, unless the unit is turning over to a new tenant. • The city will provide a matching grant to each 4d property in the amount of up to $1,000 per affordable unit, capped at $25,000 per property. This funding is intended to help property owners common area capital and health, safety and energy efficiency improvements to properties. Owners must certify to the use of the funds for the property. • Property owners will select the percentage of their building units to restrict, with a minimum of 20 percent. • Property owners will sign a 4d application once declaration is filed. • The city will submit a signed 4d application, application fee and declaration to Minnesota Housing on behalf of the property owner for their first year only. Owners are responsible for submitting annual applications to Minnesota Housing to renew 4d tax status. See “Annual Owner Compliance” for additional information. Step 2 (required) • Owners of 5 or more unit buildings can sign up for the Multifamily Building Efficiency Program through Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy, and complete a free energy assessment by Energy Insight Inc., to receive an energy report of recommended improvements. Benefits to owners: • A free energy assessment, including free direct install of low-cost improvements such as LED lights and faucet aerators. • Qualification to receive rebates for energy efficiency project expenditures if improvements result in at least 15 percent energy savings. Step 3 (encouraged) Following a free energy assessment, meet with the city and Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) to discuss energy efficiency improvements and available rebate packages. Property owners can choose from a variety of energy efficiency, weatherization or healthy homes improvements and may qualify for utility company subsidies and rebates that can cover between 25 percent and 90 percent of costs. Benefit to owners: • Public recognition for your partnership with the city • Financial assistance to help cover the cost of energy efficiency upgrades Modifications to declarations • The declaration for the 4d program commitments runs with the property. Anyone buying and selling 4d property should contact Jesse Anderson at janderson@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us to complete an assignment, assumption and consent form transferring the declaration to the new owner. • Any other changes to the declaration, such as revisions to the Exhibit B document specifying which units in the building are restricted, should also contact Jesse Anderson. What does annual compliance involve? To continue to receive 4d status, property owners are required to submit: • An annual 4d application to Minnesota Housing • An annual report to the City of Brooklyn Center 2020 rent and income restrictions, Brooklyn Center 4d Affordable Housing Incentive Program *2020 program rent and income limits based on 50 percent of the Twin Cities area median income (AMI). Rent and income restrictions are adjusted annually, typically in the spring. Type of unit 50 percent area median income (AMI) Studio/efficiency $905 1 bedroom $970 2 bedroom $1,163 3 bedroom $1,344 4 bedroom $1,500 5 bedroom $1,655 MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE:3/9/2020 TO:City Council FROM:Curt Boganey, City Manager THROUGH:N/A BY:Meg Beekman, Community Development Director SUBJECT:Housing Policy Framework (45 minutes) Recommendation: - Consider the proposed housing policy framework, and provide direction relating to housing efforts. Background: Housing and the policy issues related to housing have become some of the most pressing and important matters facing communities today. For most suburban communities, housing comprises a significant majority of a cities land use and tax base. Maintaining and preserving a safe, quality, and desirable housing stock is critical to a community's long term economic health. Further, a diverse housing stock which offers a wide range of housing choices and price points ensures that a community can be resilient through economic ups and downs as well as provide housing options for a diverse population throughout their lives. In addition to maintaining a quality and diverse supply of housing, communities are more and more becoming focused on concerns regarding livability and accessibility of housing. The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area is currently experience record low vacancy rates. According to Marquette Advisors’ midyear report from August 2019, the average vacancy rate across the seven-county metro area is 2.3 percent. Experts agree that a balanced rental market will typically see an average vacancy rate of around 5 percent. The Twin Cities has been experiencing record low vacancy rates for several years now as are many metro areas throughout the nation. Severe housing shortages are being caused from spikes in construction costs, combined with unprecedented demand for rental housing as millennial and baby boomer generations are finding similar desires for lifestyles that offer more mobility and convenience over the debt and maintenance of home ownership. In addition, as the cost of living out paces incomes, for many families, home ownership may feel out of reach, and renting becomes the only choice. The effect of low vacancy rates over time is increasing rents, a growing interest from outside investors, and landlords in a position to be choosier about who they rent to. This has borne out throughout the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, with the average rent increasing nearly 8 percent year over year to a current unprecedented $1,254 per month. In addition, the Metropolitan Council continues to see a reduction in the number of landlords accepting Section 8 vouchers. According to the Metropolitan Council, landlords are citing the increased interest for their units from non-voucher holders as the primary reason for the change. Yet another impact of the increasing value of rental property is the growing number of investors purchasing Class B or Class C rental properties, which are renting for naturally affordable rents, making cosmetic improvements, and increasing rents so that the units are no longer affordable. According to the Minnesota Housing Partnership, the sales of apartment buildings in the metro area jumped 165 percent between 2010 and 2015. Often the change in ownership will also come with a change in policy related to criminal history, acceptance of Section 8 vouchers, or minimum income requirements, resulting in existing tenants being displaced from the property. Brooklyn Center’s Current Rental Housing The result of the regional trends described above are being felt in Brooklyn Center. Vacancy rates in the community remain lower than the regional average, hovering around 2 percent. This is common in communities with more affordable rental units. 35 percent of Brooklyn Center's housing stock is comprised of rental units. Of those, about 8 percent are single family homes. The Community Development Department is preparing a summary report on the rental licensing program which includes a deeper analysis of rental housing in the City. This will be presented as part of a separate memo. According to the Metropolitan Council, the following table indicates what is considered affordable rents in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area: *Rents include tenant-paid utilities According to the Census American Community Survey indicates average gross rents in Brooklyn Center: Average rents in Brooklyn Center are considered naturally occurring affordable because the market rents, based on the age and condition of the units make them affordable at around 50 percent AMI in the metropolitan area. Rents in Brooklyn Center are lower than the regional average. Approximately 90 percent of all of the housing units in Brooklyn Center are considered naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH). While NOAH properties are considered affordable, they can be at risk of being lost as market demand increases and rents continue to go up. They can also experience disinvestment over time, causing deterioration, loss of value, and most importantly poor quality or unsafe living situations. At present only 3.7 percent of units are considered legally-binding, or subsidized affordable units. Subsidized affordable units are housing units which are required to maintain an affordable rent regardless of shifts in market demand. Due to their financing structure, they also are required to be maintained to a certain minimum standard. One of the goals of affordable housing advocates is to preserve existing NOAH properties by converting them to legally binding affordable units through NOAH preservation programs. With the construction of Sonder Housing, Real Estate Equities will be adding 270 units of legally-binding new affordable housing units to the city. These will be the first new construction multi-family housing units built in Brooklyn Center since 1971, and will increase the percentage of legally-binding affordable units to 6 percent. The City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies several broad housing goals 2040 Housing & Neighborhood Goals Promote a diverse housing stock that provides safe, stable, and accessible housing options to all of Brooklyn Center’s residents. Recognize and identify ways to match Brooklyn Center’s housing with the City’s changing demographics. Explore opportunities to improve the City’s housing policies and ordinances to make them more responsive to current and future residents. Maintain the existing housing stock in primarily single-family neighborhoods through proper ordinances, incentive programs and enforcement. Explore opportunities to incorporate new affordable housing into redevelopment areas that promote safe, secure and economically diverse neighborhoods. In addition to these goals, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies implementation strategies as well as resources and tools for achieving its housing goals. These are contained in Chapters 4 and 9, of the Housing and Implementation chapters respectively (attached). Issue Identification As engagement related to the comprehensive plan and various redevelopment sites have occurred throughout the community over the past few years, a number of issues, concerns, and priority areas have bubbled up related to housing. Many of these issues are identified in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. As it relates to housing policy within the City of Brooklyn Center, these issues can be categorized into two distinct topic areas: 1. Housing choice - What is the composition and condition of the current housing stock? What are the current market demands for housing? How does the city's housing stock relate to the market, and does the city have enough and the right type to meet current and future need? 2. Affordable housing policies - What can the city do to improve livability and accessibility to quality affordable housing for residents? What best practices exist to support an effective approach to addressing the need for affordable housing in the community? What policies are most effective to prevent displacement? In order to address these topic areas related to housing, staff is proposing a framework plan which takes a comprehensive review of the City's housing policy approach, with an emphasis in key focus areas based on priorities issues which merit special attention. The overall review would include identifying those housing issues which are currently surfacing in the community and prioritizing those which are most pressing. Issues which have broadly been identified that merit special attention include: Mitigating and preventing displacement of existing residents as the community redevelops Tenant protections Creating and expanding home ownership opportunities Fair housing policy Maintenance and preservation of single family housing stock Expanding housing options Housing Policy Framework In order to gather data and to identify the needs for additional housing choice in the community, staff is recommending working with a consultant to complete a housing study. A proposed scope of work for the housing study is attached to this memo. The study would include an analysis of regional trends effecting Brooklyn Center's housing, the city's existing housing stock, current rent trends, market demand and gaps analysis. The housing study is also proposed to include a tenant and home owner survey in order to ascertain whether residents are satisfied with their current housing options, and what also proposed to include a tenant and home owner survey in order to ascertain whether residents are satisfied with their current housing options, and what housing choices they anticipate needing/wanting over time. The results of this analysis will assist with guiding land use and policy decisions as it pertains to housing stock and choice. As it relates to the needs around affordable housing, policy approaches fall into one of three categories: 1) Construction of new legally-binding units; 2) Preservation of NOAH units; 3) Tenant protections In April 2018, the City Council discussed several possible policies to address affordable housing issues. The memo from that discussion is attached to this report. Based on that discussion, Council directed staff to move forward with a Tenant Protection Ordinance, and in December 2018, the city adopted one. Additional policies which address affordable housing topics are described below. Staff is seeking direction on which policies Council would like to move forward with, would like additional information on, or would like to wait on. Inclusionary Housing Policy (Creation Policy) – These are a collection of policies which would either encourage or require new affordable units to be included as part of new market-rate residential development projects which receive public subsidy or other discretionary City approvals. Frequently it is in the form of a requirement that a percentage of units be affordable in a new residential development in exchange for public subsidy of the project. New developments such as those in the Opportunity Site would be required to include a certain number of affordable units. Inclusionary Housing policies ensure that new affordable units are added as market-rate units are built, thus ensuring mixed-income communities. Cities such as St. Louis Park and Minneapolis have found that in higher rent developments, a certain percentage of affordable units can be required without increasing the need for additional public subsidy. This is due to the higher than average market rents, which off-set the affordable units. In Brooklyn Center, as is true in communities with lower average rents, the cost of the affordable units would require additional public subsidies in order for a project to be financially feasible. Brooklyn Park recently adopted an Inclusionary Housing Policy. As part of their analysis they concluded that any amount of included affordable would create a financial gap in the project and require subsidy. The policy acknowledges this and projects will be looked at on a project by project basis to determine if the gap can be financed. Community input on the Opportunity Site has identified many community benefits and goals for the redevelopment in addition to affordable housing; affordable commercial space, a cultural center, civic space, event space, and a recreation center to name a few. All of these uses would require public subsidy in some form or another, not to mention the infrastructure needs of the site. Identifying affordable housing as a singular or primary goal of the development through an inclusionary housing policy inevitably elevates it above other community goals for the site. NOAH Preservation Program (Preservation Policy) – A preservation program can be set up in various ways, but essentially how they work is to incentivize existing NOAH property owners into setting aside a percentage of rental units as legally binding affordable for a set period of time. The City would create a NOAH preservation fund and identify additional funding sources to grow it. Staff would work with existing property owners to provide a modest subsidy for building rehabilitation, which would then be combined with a 4D tax classification, also known as the Low Income Rental Classification Program (LIRC), to provide a property tax break, currently amounting to 40%. The result is the preservation of NOAH units through legally binding contract. The tax break would be proportional to the percentage of units which would be affordable, and not apply to the entire building. The LIRC/4D statute defines eligible properties as those which meet two conditions: the owner of the property agrees to rent and income restrictions (serving households at 60% AMI or below) and receives “financial assistance” from federal, state or local government. This presents the possibility of creating a “Local 4D” program in which qualifying properties receive the 4D tax break in return for agreeing to conditions which meet certain local government policy goals. The reduction in property taxes would not decrease the City’s revenue from property taxes, as the funds would be distributed to all other properties; however, it would reduce that property’s share of local property taxes. The amount of the tax break is a limiting factor as it equates to around $80/unit per year; however, the program may be an incentive for a property owner in a community where the market rents are already considered affordable, since they would not need to depress their rent rates. The city is estimated to have approximately $320,000 of Housing TIF #3 funds when TIF #3 decertifies at the end of 2021. These funds could be used to seed a NOAH preservation fund. NOAH preservation is a more cost efficient form of creating legally binding affordable units compared with new construction, and ensures families are not displaced from their homes. A NOAH preservation program, combined with efforts to support tenant protections could be highly effective at addressing community concerns about displacement. Further, staff could begin to work on setting up such a program in the near term, and begin to identify potential funding sources for it. Fair Housing Policy (Tenant Protection Policy) - Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act establishes federal policy for providing fair housing throughout the United States. The intent of Title VIII is to assure equal housing opportunities for all citizens. Further, Cities as a recipient of federal community development funds under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, is obligated to certify that it will affirmatively further fair housing. The city of Bloomington's Fair Housing Policy is attached as an example. Many other cities within Minnesota have Fair Housing Policies that are written very similar to Bloomington's. At present Brooklyn Center does not have a Fair Housing Policy. It is staff's recommendation that this be addressed in the near term, and that the Housing Commission be tasked with reviewing and recommending a policy to be adopted by the City. Review Rental Licensing through the lend of Tenant Protections (Tenant Protection Policy) - Nearly a third of the City's housing units are rental. With vacancy rates hovering near 3 percent, tenants are not in a favorable position when it comes to negotiating with landlords on lease terms or other accommodations. Nearly all of the City's multi-family residential is considered naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH). This is primarily due to its age and condition. Brooklyn Center hasn't had new multi-family housing constructed since 1971, and so this particular housing type, like most in the City, is aging. Maintenance varies significantly depending on ownership, as does the quality of property management. Therefore, it is important to continue to monitor the City's NOAH properties through a robust rental license program. However, when the rental license program was established tenant protections was not the focus of the program. A review of the City's ordinances, policies, and procedures through the lens of tenant protections would ensure that the program is serving residents as effectively as possible. Community engagement strategies would be necessary to identify problems and potential solutions. Suggested engagement strategies include listening sessions with tenants and landlords; and engaging stakeholders such as Homeline, Housing Justice Center, ACER, etc sessions with tenants and landlords; and engaging stakeholders such as Homeline, Housing Justice Center, ACER, etc City staff have met with ACER, Homeline, and the Housing Justice Center and discussed some of the issues affecting Brooklyn Center residents already. In addition, the city's housing inspectors spend a significant amount of time interacting with tenants and landlords and understand the complexities of the issues. These resources can be drawn upon to further explore ways to make adjustments to the City's ordinances, policies, and procedures to ensure existing residents are provided safe, secure, stable housing and tenants are afforded protections under the law. Staff's recommendation is to move forward with reviewing the city's current policy and ordinance, and to begin to implement improvements. Tenant input could be incorporated into the tenant survey that is part of the housing study. Single Family Housing Stabilization (Preservation Policy) - Approximately 86 percent of Brooklyn Center's single family housing stock is more then 40 years old. This is a significant portion of the City's housing, therefore it is important to track the condition of these older homes as they are at-risk of deferred maintenance. At the same time, well maintained older homes can be an important source of entry-level housing. When considering the type and age of housing in Brooklyn Center, the 2040 Comprehensive plan recommended the following programs: Housing study to assess the condition of the City's housing stock Home Ownership Program Assistance Program Down Payment Assistance Home Ownership Education Additional Low or No Cost Home improvement funding Staff recommends moving forward with a review of the city's single family housing programs. The first part of which would be incorporated into the housing study. Review of Additional Best Practices to Mitigate and Prevent Displacement - Housing Study and Impact Assessment - As was mentioned above, staff is recommending moving forward with a housing study in the near-term. Because issues around the impact of significant development on the city's existing housing, particularly around displacement and gentrification, have been raised in the community, staff is proposing to include within the housing study an impact assessment to evaluate the potential impact of the Opportunity Site in this way. The study would include a literature review of existing research on the topic of displacement and gentrification as it may pertain to Brooklyn Center, as well as case studies and best practices from other places that the community might draw from. The study, as the scope is currently proposed, would assist with providing an informed basis from which policy decisions can be made. The outcome of the study would allow us to identify additional policies and best practices which may forward the city's priorities around housing policy. Implementation Housing policy is both an urgent and important need in the community; however, staff capacity is also limited to address these issues in a timely manner. Some items identified above could be undertaken immediately such as the housing study and the creation of a fair housing policy. A NOAH preservation program may be a policy which could also be addressed in the near-term. Other items will take longer to address such as reviewing of the city's rental licensing ordinance. The City of Brooklyn Park currently facilitates a housing stakeholder group with many of the same stakeholders which Brooklyn Center would very likely ask to participate in similar conversations. Rather than hold a second meeting each month, Brooklyn Park staff has suggested the two cities combine efforts with the group. This also offers the opportunity to share research and resources on topics which are likely to be of a similar nature in terms of housing issues. It may also be valuable to create subject specific Housing Task Forces, over time, as each housing area is addressed. This can be vetting as work progresses. Not only would this allow greater community engagement, but also ensure that as various areas of focus are under review (i.e. tenant protections, single family preservation, multi-family preservation) that the right people are at the table to provide input and expertise. Though, inevitably, task forces and committees take considerable staff time to facilitate and manage. Ensuring that any engagement that is done is intentional and on topics where input is warranted is critical. Staff has identified 5 key areas to address over the next 18 months. Other priority areas may arise through continued engagement which would require an adjustment to this framework. Tentative Time Line 1. Q1 2020 Fair Housing Policy 2. Q1 2020 Housing Study and Impact Assessment - Gaps analysis and identify best practices for anti-displacement 3. Q2 2020 NOAH Preservation program 4. Q4 2020 Tenant Protections 5. Q1 2021 Single Family Housing Stabilization Next Steps Staff recommends moving forward initially with the Housing Commission undertaking the review and drafting of a Fair Housing policy, which would then go to the City Council for final consideration. In addition, staff would recommend proceeding with the housing study and impact assessment as the initial step. Policy Issues: What housing-related issues/topics do you see rising to the surface in the community? Are there any major elements you see needing to be addressed in the housing study in order to create a thorough baseline assessment of the City's housing stock? Should staff begin working with the Housing Commission on developing a Fair Housing Policy? Do you have any questions/concerns with the framework for a Housing Policy Plan as it has been laid out? Is the Council comfortable with moving forward with the housing study and gaps analysis? Is the Council comfortable with moving forward with the housing study and gaps analysis? Strategic Priorities and Values: Resident Economic Stability, Safe, Secure, Stable Community ATTACHMENTS: Description Upload Date Type Housing Fact Sheet 11/19/2019 Backup Material April 9, 2018 - City Council Memo - Affordable Housing Policy 11/19/2019 Backup Material Housing Study Scope of Work 11/19/2019 Backup Material Example Housing Gaps Analysis 11/19/2019 Backup Material Chapter 4 - Housing 6/10/2019 Backup Material Chapter 9 - Implementation Chapter 10/22/2019 Backup Material Fair Housing Policy Example 8/16/2019 Backup Material Distribution of Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing Buildings in Hennepin County 11/20/2019 Backup Material REVIEWERS: Department Reviewer Action Date Community Development Suciu, Barb Approved 3/4/2020 - 2:38 PM MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment DATE: April 9, 2018 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Jesse Anderson, Deputy Director of Community Development THROUGH: Meg Beekman, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Affordable Housing Policy Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider providing direction to staff regarding potential affordable housing policies for the City. Background: In May of 2017, the City Council received copies of emails forwarded by Councilmember Butler from African Career and Education Resource Inc. (ACER) requesting an opportunity to come before the City Council to discuss concerns about the need for affordable housing in Brooklyn Center. In addition Mayor Willson was in contact with a representative of Community Action Partnership of Hennepin County (CAPHC) regarding the same topic. On July 10, 2017, by consensus the City Council directed staff to invite representatives from ACER and CAPHC to a future work session to present information and have a dialogue on the issue of affordable housing. On August 14, 2017, the City Council received a presentation from ACER and CAPHC regarding the topic of affordable housing. At the presentation ACER and CAPHC advocated that the City consider adopting policies that would address the region’s need for affordable housing, protect tenants, and help preserve naturally occurring affordable housing. The Council directed staff to bring the subject back to a future work session for discussion. Regional Housing Trends: The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area is currently experience record low vacancy rates. According to Marquette Advisors’ midyear report in August 2017, the average vacancy rate across the Twin Cities metro was 2.4 percent. Experts agree that a balanced rental market will typically see an average vacancy rate of around 5 percent. The impact of low vacancy rates over time has increased rents, a growing interest from outside investors, and landlords in a position to be choosier about who they rent to. This has borne out throughout the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area as rents have gone up throughout the region. The average rent at the end of July 2017 had increased 3.1-pecent year over year. In addition, the Metropolitan Council is seeing a reduction in the number of landlords accepting Section 8 MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment vouchers. According to the Metropolitan Council, landlords are citing the increased interest for their units from non-voucher holders as the primary reason for the change. Yet another impact of the increasing value of rental property is the growing number of investors purchasing Class B or Class C rental properties, which are renting for naturally affordable rents, making cosmetic improvements, and increasing rents so that the units are no longer affordable. According to the Minnesota Housing Partnership, the sales of apartment buildings in the metro area jumped 165 percent between 2010 and 2015. Often the change in ownership will also come with a change in policy related to criminal history, acceptance of Section 8 vouchers, or minimum income requirements, resulting in existing tenants being displaced from the property. The region is also seeing a loss of smaller-sized rental properties (1-4-units). This is due, in part to single family properties converting back into owner-occupied as the market recovers from the recession, but also a growing number of local investors purchasing smaller properties and flipping them. While some of the proposed policies would impact single family rentals, the primary focus of affordable housing advocates and media attention has been on larger properties (40-units or greater). Affordable housing advocates have identified potential policies designed to address these issues. The policies fall into one of three categories; 1) preservation policies designed to preserve naturally occurring affordable housing and prevent it from being flipped; 2) tenant protection policies designed to prevent or mitigate displacement; and 3) creation policies designed to create new, legally-binding, affordable housing that will replace the naturally occurring affordable housing that is being lost. Brooklyn Center’s Current Rental Housing: According to the Metropolitan Council, the following table indicates what is considered affordable rents in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area: # of Bedrooms 30% AMI 50% AMI 60% AMI 80% AMI Efficiency $474 $791 $949 $1,265 1-Bedroom $508 $848 $1,017 $1,356 2-Bedroom $610 $1,017 $1,220 $1,627 3-Bedroom $705 $1,175 $1,410 $1,880 4-Bedroom $786 $1,311 $1,573 $2,097 *Rents include tenant-paid utilities According to the Metropolitan Council, the following table indicates average rents in Brooklyn Center: # of Bedrooms Survey 5-Year Avg Efficiency $730 $744 1-Bedroom $869 $801 2-Bedroom $1,019 $925 3+ Bedroom $1,281 $1,147 MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment Brooklyn Center currently has 834 rental license holders. 713 of those are for single family homes. 71 of the licenses are for 2-4-unit properties. 24 are for properties with between 5 and 39 units. 27 licenses are for properties with greater than 40 units. There are approximately 4,300 rental units in the City. The average rents in Brooklyn Center are considered affordable for those making around 50 percent of the Area Median Income. Of the 11,608 total housing units (both rental and owner-occupied) in Brooklyn Center, 89.5 percent are naturally occurring affordable housing. There are currently 402 Section 8 voucher holders in the City. Brooklyn Center currently has five apartment building that are legally-binding affordable housing, Ewing Square Townhomes (23-units), The Crest Apartments (69-units), Unity Place (112-units), Emerson Chalet Apartments (18-units), and The Sanctuary (158-units). Also, Lynwood Apartment (50-units) is currently applying for Certified Low Income Status, which would make it a legally-binding affordable property. This equates to 3.7 percent of the City’s housing stock is legally-binding affordable housing. Anecdotally, a recent phone survey of 34 Brooklyn Center landlords found a current average vacancy rate of 1.3 percent. Rents in Brooklyn Center are currently very affordable compared to the region. Low rents may be contributing to the low vacancy rates. If the vacancy rates are in fact below 2 percent, and they remain that low over time, it would be reasonable to expect rents to increase. However, given the current low rents, even an increase in rents of 20-30 percent would result in rents still considered affordable for those making 60-80% AMI. Affordable Policy Options: Section 8 Ordinance (Tenant Protection) - Prohibiting discrimination against Section 8 voucher holders and other recipients of government programs. The policy would prohibit landlords from denying any tenants’ application based on the applicant receiving government assistance. • Staff surveyed 34 Brooklyn Center apartments and found that 50 percent indicated that they do not accept section 8 vouchers. • Minneapolis recently adopted this ordinance, which allows applicants who feel they have been discriminated against to seek damages through the city’s department of Civil Rights. • The City of Minneapolis has an active lawsuit filed against them by 55 apartment owners over the legality of this ordinance. The lawsuit argues the mandate conflicts with state law and unfairly forces them to comply with requirements of federal housing voucher programs for low-income residents. It also says the law violates the Minnesota Constitution because it reduces their property values, forces landlords to enter into contracts and represents an unnecessary government intervention in their businesses. Landlords also claim that this could cause landlords to increase rent and/or application criteria as to price out Section 8 vouchers. Staff feels that if the ordinance is upheld by the courts, it could be a useful tool to ensure residents are not discriminated against based on their source of income; however additional review would be necessary related to the enforcement of the ordinance. Staff MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment recommends that the City monitor the Minneapolis lawsuit then review pending the outcome. Notice of Intent to Sell (Preservation) – Rental property owners must give advanced notice prior to the sale of a rental property. This gives a preservation buyer an opportunity to match the purchase price. It would also give service providers additional time to relocate residents who would be displaced as a result of the sale. • Landlords would be concerned about delaying the closing of a property sale, which could have a negative effect on price. Preservation companies such as Aeon have expressed concerns that this could increase the competition for these properties, and thusly increase sales prices. • Enforcement would be difficult because the penalty would come after the sale has occurred. If the property has sold, the seller no longer has ties to the property so enforcing a citation could be challenging and may not be a deterrent. In a workgroup in St. Louis Park landlords stated that if there was a $1000.00 citation for selling without notice, they would likely still sell the property and pay the citation. • It is unclear who the seller would need to notify of their intent to sell and what would be done with that information once it was known. Who would decide what buyers could have access to the information? Who would be responsible for disseminating the information? • It is possible that this ordinance would dissuade investors, who may opt to purchase property in cities that do not have the additional requirements. • St. Louis Park is looking at an alternative ordinance related to tenant transition/protection would address the need for additional time to relocate tenants. Staff recommends that the city consider other options such as the tenant transition ordinance. Tenant Transition/Protection Ordinance (Tenant Protection) – This would require a new owner of a naturally occurring affordable housing property to pay relocation benefits to tenants if the new owner increases rent, rescreens existing residents or implements non-renewals without cause within 3 months after the purchase. The ordinance has the effect of freezing lease terms for 90 days after the sale of a property. The purpose is to allow tenants three (3) months to relocate if necessary. • This ordinance wouldn’t interfere with the sale of naturally occurring affordable housing, however; it would provide assistance to the tenants if necessary. • The ordinance would require new buyers to notify tenants within 30 days if substantive changes to the lease are forthcoming, giving tenants time to relocate if necessary. • St. Louis Park adopted the Tenant Protection Ordinance in March of 2018. • The policy could dissuade potential apartment buyers from buying in Brooklyn Center, who may opt to purchase a property in a city without this policy. Staff recommends that the City review this policy further to determine the legality of it, the enforcement mechanism, and what the specific impacts in Brooklyn Center might be. MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment Just-Cause Eviction (Tenant Protection) – Also known as Just-Cause Non-Renewal, this would require a landlord to provide a reason if they were going to not renew a tenant’s lease that was expiring. Currently landlords must provide a just cause for eviction, which a tenant can appeal in court. There is no appeal process available to tenants who lose their housing due to non-renewal of lease. • Landlords see this as taking away a valuable management tool for dealing with problem tenants and have the unintended consequence of increasing the number of evictions filed and strengthening screening standards. • When St. Louis Park conducted their meetings with landlords and the Multi-family Housing Association, this ordinance received the strongest opposition. • The enforcement of this policy would be through the court system and would require a tenant to take legal action against their landlord via a lawsuit. • Of the 34 landlords surveyed by staff, the majority of evictions or non-renewals are the result of non-payment of rent or criminal activity. • The intent of this ordinance would be to protect tenants from being non-renewed in the event a new owner wants to empty a building in order to do a substantial renovation with the goal of increasing rents. Staff recommends that the City consider other options such as the tenant transition ordinance to protect tenants. Inclusionary Housing Policy (Creation) – These are a collection of policies that could be adopted by the city which would either encourage or require new affordable units to be included as part of new market-rate residential development projects which receive public subsidy or other discretionary City approvals. Frequently it is in the form of a requirement that a percentage of units be affordable in a new residential development in exchange for public subsidy of the project. • New developments such as the Opportunity Site would be required to include a certain number of affordable units. • Inclusionary Housing policies ensure that new affordable units are added as market-rate units are built, thus ensuring mixed-income communities. • Cities such as St. Louis Park and Minneapolis have found that in higher rent developments, a certain percentage of affordable units can be required without increasing the need for additional public subsidy. This is due to the higher than average market rents, which off-set the affordable units. In Brooklyn Center, as is true in communities with lower average rents, it is likely that the cost of the affordable units would require additional public subsidies in order for a project to be financially feasible. If the Council would like to move forward with this police staff would recommend reviewing the feasibility of future development if an affordable housing policy is adopted. 4D Tax Breaks (Preservation) – Also known as the Low Income Rental Classification Program (LIRC), Minnesota provides a property tax break, currently amounting to 40%, to subsidized rental properties under LIRC, commonly referred to as the 4D program. There is the potential, MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment however, to extend 4D eligibility to certain currently unsubsidized affordable properties, without changing current law. This is because the LIRC/4D statute defines eligible properties as those which meet two conditions: the owner of the property agrees to rent and income restrictions (serving households at 60% AMI or below) and receives “financial assistance” from federal, state or local government. This presents the possibility of creating a “Local 4D” program in which qualifying properties receive the 4D tax break in return for agreeing to conditions which meet certain local government policy goals. • A government agency would need to provide a financial contribution to a rental apartment with a low income agreement placed on the property. The property could then be eligible to apply for 4D status. This would allow a landlord to make physical improvements to the property in exchange for affordable rents. • The reduction in property taxes would not decrease the City’s revenue from property taxes, as the funds would be distributed to all other properties; however, it would reduce that property’s share of local property taxes. • The amount of the tax break is a limiting factor as it equates to around $80/unit per year; however, the program may be an incentive for a property owner in a community where the market rents are already considered affordable, since they would not need to depress their rent rates. • Hennepin County is looking into a rehabilitation program for rental properties which would function similarly to the CDBG housing rehabilitation program, but be County funded. • The City could also look at funding a program for rental housing rehabilitation. Staff recommends working with the County to determine the feasibility of a County-led program. The City could also review EDA or TIF 3 Housing funds to determine the availability of funds for a city program that would provide rental housing rehab assistance in exchange for a 5-10 year affordability requirement. This could be set up as a per unit matching forgivable loan. Other Policies/Programs • Identify buildings that are at-risk of being flipped. Reach out to owners of at-risk buildings and gauge their short and long-term plans. Help connect them with preservation buyers on a case-by-case basis. • Comprehensive Plan – the City is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan. If the preservation and/or creation of affordable housing are a priority for the City, it should be reflected in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. • Education – Work with the Metropolitan Council to provide education on Section 8 voucher programs to dispel some of the negative perceptions of the program. Policy Issues: Does the Council believe that the information presented indicates a need for additional policy actions to address the concerns raised regarding affordable housing and the protection of tenant rights? MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment Does the Council require additional information regarding these issues before concluding if further policy actions are necessary? Which policies if any would the Council want brought back for further consideration? Which policy does the council consider a higher priority? Strategic Priorities: • Resident Economic Stability Attachments: US Census Bureau Data Metropolitan Council Land use Chart August 14, 2017 Council Work Session Memo August 14, 2017 Council Work Session Minutes Housing Strategies Table Presented at Previous Work-Session Mixed-Income Housing Policies among Neighboring Cities Table Phone Survey of Brooklyn Center Apartments Phone Survey of Brooklyn Center Single Family Property Management Companies: US Census Bureau Data: Metropolitan Council Land Use Chart: Housing Strategies Table Presented at Previous Work-Session Mixed-Income Housing Policies among Neighboring Cities City Policy/Program Type Affordability Requirements Affordability Period Opt-out (alternative) options Enforcement Tool Other Notes St. Louis Park (2015) • City financial assistance for new developments creating at least 10 multi-family units or renovation of an existing multi-family development with at least 10 units. • 18% of total units in the development required at 60% AMI or 10% of units required affordable at 50% AMI. • Families may remain in the dwelling unit as long as the income does not exceed 120% AMI. • 25 year minimum (considering an increase). • Subject to City Council approval: o Dedication of existing units o Offsite construction near public transit o Participation in construction of affordable units by another developer within the City • Affordable Housing Performance Agreement between City and Developer prior to Zoning Compliance Permit being issued. • Implemented 2015 – 6/7 new developments triggered policy with 1,073 units and 281 affordable units produced. • No development has used an opt-out option. • Units must be located within the development and distributed throughout the building unless approved by City Council. Edina (2015) • Re-zoning or Comprehensive Plan Amendment for all new multi-family development of 20 or more units. • 10% of all rentable area at 50% AMI or 20% of all rentable area at 60% AMI. • 15 year minimum. • Dedication of existing units equal to 110%, must be equivalent quality. • New construction at a different site. • Participation in construction of affordable units by another developer within the City. • Land use restrictive covenant. • PUD ordinance states development must consider affordability. • City will consider incentives for developments with affordable housing including: Density bonuses, parking reductions, TIF, deferred low interest loans from the Edina Foundation, and Tax Abatement. Golden Valley (policy approved in 2017; ordinance in coming months) • Market rate residential development with 10 or more units and receive: o Conditional Use Permit (ord.) o Planned Unit Development o Zoning Map Amendment (ord.) o Comprehensive Plan Amendment o Or Financial Assistance • 15% of total project units at 60% AMI or 10% of project units at 50% AMI. • Families may remain in the dwelling unit as long as the income does not exceed 120% AMI. • 20 year minimum. • Equal or greater amount dedication of existing units. • Affordable Housing Performance Agreement. • Mix of policy and ordinance. • City will consider incentives including: • Minimum in 33% reduction in required parking spaces • Minimum of 10% density bonus Brooklyn Park • New market rate residential development with 10 or more units and receive: o Planned Development Overlay (ord. required) o Zoning Map Amendment (ord. required) o Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Or Financial Assistance • 15% of units at 60% AMI or 10% of units at 50%AMI or 5% of units at 30%AMI • 20 year minimum. • Consider an alternative proposed by developer. • Affordable Housing Performance Agreement. • Mix of policy and ordinance. • Units must be located within the development and distributed throughout the building unless approved by City Council. Minneapolis (2002) • City-assisted housing projects of 10 or more units. • City-assistance includes TIF, condemnation, land buy downs, issuance of bonds to finance project, pass-through funding, and other forms of • Varies based on funding source but generally is either 20% of units at 60% AMI or 20% of units at 50% AMI (AHTF) • 15 year minimum. • None. • Only 1-2 projects have taken advantage of the incentive program since 2002. • Currently engaging a consultant to develop an effective system. direct subsidy. • Density bonus and parking reduction incentive Saint Paul (2014) • City/HRA assisted rentals and homeownership. • Rental development in selected zones – density bonus incentive • Rentals – 30% of units affordable to households earning 60% AMI, of which at least one third will be affordable to 50% AMI, and at least one third will affordable to 30% AMI. • Rental - 10 year minimum . • Development Agreement • Voluntary/incentive density bonus is not being used so policy is currently being revised. Minnetonka (2004) • City Assistance • Voluntary/incentive based for all developments. • Rentals – 10% of units at 50% AMI for all developments, 20% of units at 50% AMI if using TIF funding. • 30 year minimum. • Considered on a case by case basis. • Development Agreement. • Produced over 500 affordable units since 2004. Eden Prairie • City Assistance • Using a voluntary/incentive based approach for all developments; exploring adopting a policy. • City subsidy – 20% of units at 50% AMI. • Voluntary/incentive – starts at 10% of units at 50% AMI. Woodbury (2012) • Voluntary/incentive based – density bonus policy • 20% of units at 80% AMI or negotiated. • 15 year minimum. Chaska • All developments that need City approval • 30% of units at 80% AMI. Forest Lake (2014) • Voluntary/incentive based – density bonus policy • Negotiable • 15% density bonus, flexible parking requirements. Phone Survey of Brooklyn Center Apartments: Apartment Name number of Units number of vacant units Rent for a studio Rent for a 1 bedroom Rent for a 2 bedroom Rent for a 3 bedroom Rent for a 4 bedroom Do you accept section 8 Has rent increased over the past 2years? How much has rent increased? Most common reason for Eviction or non-renewal 4819 Azealia 12 0 750 800 no new yes $15-50 non-renewal 5207 Xerxes 12 0 0 Ave: $750 Ave $850 Yes yes 8% Disturbance 5240 Drew 10 0 845-950 yes no police calls for service The Avenue 36 0 755 929 1075 no yes 5% each month non-payment Beard Ave 24 0 $895 1 fl-$1025, 2-3 fl $1075 Yes (Typically don’t meet criteria) yes 100 - 2bd - 1bd 75 smoke in units, police calls (pattern) Brookside Manor 90 0 garden - $750 2-3 floor $800 yes yes $20 police calls, disturbance, non-payment Carrington Dr 128 0 $735 $835-855 $945-975 no yes $50 disturbance, illegal activity, cleanliness, non-payment The Crest 122 3 for end of march $755 $935 yes yes 50 non-payment, crime free addendum Crossings - 6201 Lilac - 55+ 81 4 (0 in past few years) 1181-1275 (1bd + den 1081 1190-1750 No (inherited) yes 2-5% rarely - non-payment Crossings - 6125 Lilac - 55+ 65 1150 Earle Brown Farm 120 1 845-920 1010-190 No new ones yes 3% increase disturbance, non-payment Emerson Chalet 18 0 737 870 yes no non-payment, 3 strikes Gateway 252 3 775 850-875-895 995-1045 no yes 50 late payment, police calls, unit maintenance Granite City 72 0 849 949 1139 yes yes 34-55 smoking Granite Peaks 54 0 849 949 1139 no yes 34-55 non-payment Humboldt Courts 36 1 750 900-995 no yes 75-95 non-payment Lynwood - mark 50 0 895-925 1050-1190 yes Yes 2-4% non-payment of rent Melrose Gates 217 0 919-949 1129-1159 1159-1189 2bd+1.5ba 1209-1249 2bd+2ba no yes 100 non-payment River Glen 128 0 900 975-1000 1250 yes yes 50-75 non-payment/late rent Riverwood Estates 84 2 929 999-1050 no yes 40 lease violation Ryan Lake 22 1 800 800-1000 yes yes 75 non-payment Summerset 36 3 700 800-850 1150-1200 yes yes $50 non-payment, lease violations Twin Lake North 276 3 950+ 1105-1225+ yes yes 5% non-payment, behavior Unity Place 112 2 904-909 970 yes yes 30 non-payment Victoria Townhomes 48 4 1340-1400 no yes 40-60 tenant not renew Phone Survey of Brooklyn Center Single Family Property Management Companies: Management Agency number of Units number of vacant units Rent for a studio Rent for a 1 bedroom Rent for a 2 bedroom Rent for a 3 bedroom Rent for a 4 bedroom Rent for a 5 bedroom Do you accept section 8 Has rent increased over the past 2years? How much has rent increased? Most common reason for Eviction or non-renewal Prosperous 40 0 1050 1250 1450 1550 yes yes 2-3% non-payment Urban homes 2 1300 1400 1500 Yes NA Juliana Koi 2 1 1350 no yes 50 NA Kathleen Freitag 4 0 1235-1325 1410-1450 no no non-payment; destruction of property Tyang 1 0 1150 no no NA Michelle Nyarecha 1 0 1170-1250 yes no non-payment; police violations Nazeen 2 0 1000 1200 no yes 5% NA Tracy Hinkemyer 7 1350-2000 no no NA Dan tan 4 0 850-950 yes no non-payment drugs, noise     o o      o  o o  o  o    o  o      o  o o  o  o    o  o          DRAFT CHAPTER 4: Housing & Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan 2040 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-1 INTRODUCTION This Chapter evaluates Brooklyn Center’s existing housing stock and plans for future housing needs based on household projections, population projections, and identified needs communicated through this planning process. As required in the City’s 2015 System Statement prepared by the Metropolitan Council, understanding and planning for the City’s housing stock is a critical part of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Plan). The City’s planned land use includes three residential categories and residential components of new mixed-use designations which together account for approximately half of the City’s land use area. Residential land use will continue to be the largest land use in the community. A diverse housing stock that offers neighborhood stability combined with access to open space, goods and services is essential to a healthy, sustainable, and resilient community. It protects the community’s tax base against market fluctuations; it builds community pride and engagement of existing residents; it helps the community’s economic competitiveness by assisting Brooklyn Center businesses with employee attraction and retention; it provides options for existing residents to remain in the community should their life circumstances (e.g., aging-in-place) change; and it offers future residents access to amenities and levels of service that support a stable and supportive housing and neighborhood environment. The first part of this Chapter focuses on the existing housing stock. It summarizes important information regarding the overall number of housing units, the type of units, their affordability, and the profile of their residents. These sections are a summary of more detailed socio-economic data which is attached to this Plan as an Appendix and serves as a supporting resource to this Chapter. Understanding the existing housing stock is key to determining what types of housing products may be demanded over the next 10-20 years and where they should be located. In conjunction to the statistical or inventory information collected, this Chapter includes a summary of community, stakeholder and policy-maker feedback related to housing and neighborhoods heard throughout this planning process. Additionally, this Chapter addresses the projected housing needs during the planning period and presents some neighborhood and housing aspirations as identified by the City’s residents and policy-makers. The final section of this Chapter links projected housing need to practical implementation tools to help the City achieve its housing goals and identified strategies. The list contained in this Chapter is not exhaustive but provides a starting place from which the City can continue to expand and consider opportunities to meet current and future resident needs. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-34-2 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING HOUSING SUPPLY Overview of Brooklyn Center’s Residential Neighborhoods The City of Brooklyn Center’s residential neighborhoods are diverse and include a variety of housing types from single-family neighborhoods to large-scale apartment complexes. Although the City originally incorporated as a village in 1911, it wasn’t until the Post-World War II era that the City began to develop on a large scale in which entire blocks and neighborhoods were constructed with tract housing, suburban streets, and neighborhood parks. Like much of the region’s first ring suburbs, Brooklyn Center took on the role of a typical bedroom community where residents could get to their jobs in the downtown, stop for groceries at the retail center, and go home and park their cars in their garages for the evening. This pattern of development can be seen throughout the region, but Brooklyn Center had one significant difference for many decades – the regional mall known as Brookdale. The prominence of the mall and its surrounding commercial district played a major role in how neighborhoods were built and developed, which influenced neighborhood patterns and housing types. Even though the mall is now gone, it continues to have lasting effects on the existing housing types and neighborhoods and will influence future housing as described in subsequent sections of this Chapter. For example, in the decades that the mall and regional retail center was operational much of Brooklyn Center’s multi-family and apartment development was concentrated near the mall and its surrounding commercial district and provided a transition to the surrounding single-family neighborhoods. Therefore, even though the mall no longer exists, the apartments developed around the periphery of its retail area in the 1960s continue to be in high demand and provide a critical source of housing for many households. 2040 Housing & Neighborhood Goals »Promote a diverse housing stock that provides safe, stable, and accessible housing options to all of Brooklyn Center’s residents. »Recognize and identify ways to match Brooklyn Center’s housing with the City’s changing demographics. »Explore opportunities to improve the City’s housing policies and ordinances to make them more responsive to current and future residents. »Maintain the existing housing stock in primarily single-family neighborhoods through proper ordinances, incentive programs and enforcement. »Explore opportunities to incorporate new affordable housing into redevelopment areas that promote safe, secure and economically diverse neighborhoods. * Supporting Strategies found in Chapter 2: Vision, Goals and Strategies HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-54-4 While related to housing age, the size or square footage of single-family homes also plays a significant role in the demographics of a community. Changes to family structure, technology, and other factors alter housing preferences over time, which can lead to functional obsolescence of homes and result in reduced home values because they no longer meet current buyers’ expectations. Brooklyn Center’s single-family housing stock is fairly homogeneous and the overwhelming majority of homes in every neighborhood are less than 1,500 square feet – and in many areas less than 1,000 square feet. This is a relatively modest single-family housing size, and, therefore, the single-family housing stock lacks diversity, which results in lack of choice for current and prospective residents. At the same time, these homes offer an option for small families, single and two-person households, and first time homebuyers. Because the majority of the City’s single-family housing stock is relatively small, older, and of a homogeneous type as compared to newer larger homes or neighborhoods with more housing variety, housing prices in Brooklyn Center tend to be affordable. Also, given the similar age, size and styles of many of the homes, housing in the community has a fairly consistent price-per- square foot. Affordability in the existing housing stock can be a positive attribute that has the potential to provide long-term stability to residents and neighborhoods. However, as shown in the Background Report residents of Brooklyn Center also tend to have lower median household incomes, which can mean residents may struggle to pay for large-scale capital investments in their homes such as replacing windows or a roof. Additionally, within the region some communities with similar single-family stock to Brooklyn Center have experienced pressure for tear-downs and major remodeling, and that market trend has yet to reach the City. While that trend may eventually impact the community, at the present time the change and growth impacting the single-family neighborhoods is mostly related to the evolving demographics within the community. This change presents different considerations and challenges because it is not necessarily physical growth or changes to homes and neighborhoods. Instead the community is challenged with how to manage larger numbers of people living within a household such as growing numbers of multi- generational households. The following sections identify and inventory the existing housing stock in the community including single-family, attached and apartment uses. Each of these housing types serve a different role in the community, but each type is an important part of the City’s neighborhoods. A summary of the City’s existing residential types and neighborhoods are as follows: Single-Family Residential Single-family residential neighborhoods are the dominant land use within the City and single- family detached homes comprise nearly 63 percent of the City’s housing stock. The City’s single-family detached neighborhoods were developed surrounding higher density and higher intensity land uses that included the former regional retail center and the major freeway corridors of I-94 and Highway 100. Most of the single-family neighborhoods are developed on a grid system with traditional ‘urban’ size lots. Exceptions of some larger lots are interspersed within the traditional block pattern and along the Mississippi River where a pocket of residents have views and/or frontage of the river corridor. The 1950s were the peak decade for housing construction in the City; a period in which owner- occupied housing predominated. While other housing types began to emerge post 1950s, the demand for single-family detached housing continued through 1980 as the remaining land in the community developed. Given the period in which the majority of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock was built, nearly the entire single-family detached housing stock is more than 40 years old. This is a major concern because at 40 years of age exterior components of a building including siding, windows, and roofs often need to be replaced to protect its structural integrity. Because the City became mostly built-out by the late 1970s, nearly all of the City’s housing stock falls into this category, which means the City must be cognizant of potential issues and proactively monitor the situation to ensure neighborhoods are sustainable into the future. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-74-6 Multi-family Residential Nearly one third (29 percent) of the City’s housing units are in multi-family residential buildings located throughout the community. Nearly all of these buildings were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s, and are primarily located on major roadways or corridors, and surrounding the former regional retail areas. This means these buildings are nearly 50 years old or older. Just as noted within the single-family neighborhoods, the potential for deterioration and need for significant investment in these aging buildings can pose a threat to the quality of the City’s housing stock if the buildings are not properly maintained, managed and updated. There has been some maintenance and management of the multi-family housing stock, and a few complexes have even incorporated modest upgrades to the interiors. In fact, the City has started one large-scale rehabilitation of a building that would bring higher-market rate rental options to the community once completed. However, this is one project and despite these improvements the City’s multi-family housing stock continues to be one of the most affordable in the region with some of the lowest rental rates in the metropolitan area. Many of the multi-family areas are near major corridors and are adjacent to high intensity uses that do not necessarily support or serve the residential use with the current development and land use patterns. As a result, many of the multi-family areas do not feel like an incorporated part of the City’s neighborhoods. As discussed in subsequent sections of this Chapter, the City is planning for redevelopment in or adjacent to many of the existing multi- family areas that will hopefully reinvigorate and reconnect the existing multi-family uses into a larger neighborhood context. Existing Single-family Neighborhood Perspectives Described in this Planning Process Throughout this planning process policy-makers and residents alike expressed the desire to maintain the affordability of the existing single-family neighborhoods but acknowledged the current challenges of helping residents maintain their structures, blocks and neighborhoods in the face of compounding maintenance due to the age of the City’s neighborhoods. In addition to the physical condition of the structures, residents and policy-makers also acknowledged that as the City’s population and demographics become increasingly more diverse new residents are changing how existing homes are being occupied and, therefore, it would be valuable for the City to evaluate it’s ordinances and policies to ensure they align with the needs of residents. The demographic considerations are identified in subsequent sections of this Chapter, but it is worth noting that the demographic changes can have a significant impact the character of existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Most recognized this as a positive change, but also acknowledged and stated that the City must figure out how to pro-actively address some of these changes to protect the existing neighborhood fabric. For example, multi-generational households are becoming increasingly more prevalent within the City’s single-family neighborhoods which can impact how rooms within a home are used, how many cars may be present at the home, and how outdoor spaces and yards may be used. Closely related to the demographic changes in the community is the City’s aspiration to promote and maintain neighborhood stability. This objective emerged repeatedly throughout this planning process as residents and policy-makers expressed the desire to identify strategies to help promote and encourage sustainability, resiliency and accessibility within the single-family neighborhoods. In part this objective is the result of several years of turnover within the single- family neighborhoods as long-term residents begin to age and move onto other housing options, new residents and families are moving into the neighborhoods. This life-cycle of housing is common, but the City wants to find ways to ensure new residents want to stay in their homes, their neighborhoods, and the community long-term and invest in making the City a better place for generations to come. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-94-8 Housing Stock Statistics The following existing housing stock characteristics support the previous neighborhood descriptions through more detail. This information, coupled with the previous description, provides a valuable baseline from which the City can evaluate and plan for the future of its housing stock. Total Housing Units According to data from the Metropolitan Council and the City of Brooklyn Center, there are 11,603 housing units in Brooklyn Center as of 2017. As a fully developed community, new residential development in Brooklyn Center has been limited since the late 1980s. According to the Metropolitan Council, around 100 new housing units have been built since 2000 and these homes were primarily small infill locations or small redevelopment opportunities. Housing Tenure (Owned and Rented Units) Nearly 40 percent of the community’s residents rent, and the majority of those renters live in apartment buildings which are integrated throughout the community. The Background Report in the Appendix includes maps illustrating the location of rental housing and demographics of renters. Given that a significant portion of the City’s population lives in apartments, the age of such structures becomes critically important to the overall health of the housing supply. The majority of the apartments were constructed prior to 1979 with the bulk of the units being constructed between 1966 and 1969. This means that the majority of the apartments is more than 50 years old, and that structural deficiencies and major capital improvements may be required in the relatively near term in order for the structures to remain marketable. Multifamily Neighborhood Perspectives Described in this Planning Process Throughout this planning process the City’s residents were vocal about the existing multi-family options available in the community and the lack of diversity within the multi-family housing stock. Without a full inventory of all available multi-family units it is difficult to confirm some of the anecdotal comments heard throughout the process, but nevertheless it is important to consider since residents’ testimony provides valuable insight into the existing housing stock. Several residents indicated that there are few options available for larger multi-family units with at least three (3) bedrooms, making it difficult to find stable living options for families with more than two (2) children. Residents also communicated a desire to have housing options that were closer to supportive retail, commercial and services so that they could walk, bike or easily use transit to meet their needs. Despite these challenges, the City’s parks, trails and open spaces were viewed as an integral and important part of their quality of life. Similarly, to the single-family neighborhoods, the community’s aspiration to create a stable, accessible, and economically diverse multi-family housing stock was established as a short and long-term priority. Though not discussed at length during this planning process, it is widely known and understood that resident turnover, including evictions, is a serious problem that is most concentrated within the multi-family neighborhoods of the City. While this Chapter does not attempt to fully evaluate the causes for turnover and eviction in these neighborhoods, it does acknowledge it as a significant challenge and issue which shapes the character of these areas of the community. Turnover, including evictions, changes how residents feel about the community whether the City is directly involved or not. It has lasting affects on how safe people feel within a community, how invested in an area they want to become and how willing they are to contribute and reinvest in the City. For these reasons, it is imperative that the City tackle these issues and create a more stable, and integrated living environment so all residents feel a part of a neighborhood, and the larger community. 11,603 Brooklyn Center housing units as of February 2017 - Sources: Metropolitan Council 40% of community residents are renters - Sources: Metropolitan Council; US Census; SHC HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-114-10 Approximately 86 percent of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock (over 10,000 units) is more than 40 years old. This is an overwhelming portion of the City’s housing, and it is therefore important to track the condition of these older homes as they are at-risk of deferred maintenance. This can rapidly result in critical structural problems. At the same time, well-maintained older housing can be an important source of entry-level housing because of its relative affordability when compared to newer construction. Table 4-1. Year Built Housing Type Related to housing tenure is housing type. Due to Brooklyn Center’s peak time of housing development in the 1950s, the housing type is predominantly single-family detached homes. As of 2017, there are 8,270 units (71 percent) of single-family housing (attached and detached) and 3,333 (29 percent) classified as multi-family housing. The type of housing structure can influence not only affordability but also overall livability. Having a range of housing structures can provide residents of a community options that best meet their needs as they shift from one life stage to another. For example, retirees often desire multi-family housing not only for the ease of maintenance, but also for security reasons. Multifamily residences are less susceptible to home maintenance issues or burglary concerns because of on-site management. For those with health concerns, multi-family residences often have neighbors that can also provide oversight should an acute health problem occur. The majority (63 percent) of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock consists of detached single-family homes. This is above the proportion found in Hennepin County (55 percent) or throughout the metropolitan area (59 percent). Nevertheless, the City’s housing stock is diversified, with many multi-family units in large structures, as well as a significant number of single-family attached units. More detailed data are included in the Background Report in the Appendix. Year Built The age of the housing stock is an important characteristic of the community particularly as it relates to potential structural obsolescence and other limiting factors which correlate to housing values. As described earlier, much of Brooklyn Center’s single-family housing stock was developed post-World War II between 1950 and 1963 and many of the homes in this age range were dominated by rambler architectural styles. As shown on Map 15, entire neighborhoods were all constructed in a relatively short period of time which strongly defines a neighborhood pattern. As shown, most of Brooklyn Center was developed on a fairly regular grid pattern and does not reflect a ‘suburban’ development pattern. This is positive from the perspective that transportation and transit connections should be easier to improve, where necessary, because of the relatively dense population of the neighborhoods. However, aging neighborhoods can present a challenge as major systems (i.e. roof, siding, windows, HVAC, etc.) reach the end of their useful life. This can be particularly difficult if residents are unable to reinvest and maintain their properties, which leads to deferred maintenance and the potential for more significant problems that would become widespread across entire neighborhoods. 71% of housing units are single-family - Sources: Metropolitan Council; US Census; SHC 86% of housing stock is more than 40 years old - Sources: US Census; SHC HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-134-12 Map 4-1. Estimated Market Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Housing Affordability The Metropolitan Council considers housing affordable when low-income households are spending no more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. Households are considered low-income if their income is at or below 80 percent of the metropolitan area’s median income (AMI). The housing stock in Brooklyn Center is affordable relative to other communities in the Twin Cities region. According to the Metropolitan Council, 93 percent of the housing units in 2017 in Brooklyn Center were considered affordable. Moreover, only a small portion (5 percent) of this housing is publicly subsidized. Therefore, most housing is privately-owned and pricing is set by the market. According to the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, there were 480 home sales in Brooklyn Center in 2017 with a median sales price of $186,125. This was roughly 25 percent lower than the Metro Area median sales price of $247,900. For rental housing, according to CoStar, a national provider of real estate data, the average monthly rent for a market rate apartment in Brooklyn Center in 2017 was $981 compared to the Metro Area average of $1,190.Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Columbia Heights Crystal Fridley Robbinsdale Minneapolis - Owner-Occupied Housing by Estimated Market Value 1/5/2018 .1 in = 0.55 miles Brooklyn Center County Boundaries City and Township Boundaries Streets Lakes and Rivers Owner-Occupied HousingEstimated Market Value, 2016 $243,500 or Less $243,501 to $350,000 $350,001 to $450,000 Over $450,000 Source: MetroGIS Regional Parcel Dataset, 2016 estimated market values for taxes payable in 2017. Note: Estimated Market Value includes only homesteaded units with a building on the parcel. $186,125 2017 median home sale price in Brooklyn Center $247,900 2017 median home sale price in the Metro Area - Source: Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-154-14 The high rate of affordability is largely due to the prevalence of smaller and older homes in the single-family neighborhoods, and the age and level of improvements within the multi-family rental neighborhoods. Such small sized properties are typically less expensive because they have significantly less living space than newer homes (average construction square footage has increased each decade since the 1950s). Age and level of update and improvements within the apartment stock, coupled with the average number of bedrooms in the rental units is impacting the relative affordability of the multi-family units. The condition in both the single-family and multi-family housing stock is what is known as Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH), because the physical characteristics of the properties are what makes them affordable rather than the affordability being established through a legally binding contract. Although there is a high rate of affordability for existing units, the Metropolitan Council identifies a need for additional affordable units in any new housing construction added to the community through 2040. This condition would most likely be achieved by a legally binding contract, or some other financing mechanism as new affordable housing product would be difficult to achieve without some assistance given construction and land costs. Of the 2,258 projected new housing units, the Metropolitan Council establishes a need of 238 units to be affordable to households at or below 80 percent AMI to satisfy the regional share of affordable housing. Although nearly all of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock essentially fits within the criteria as naturally occurring affordable housing, there are some observable trends that would suggest the price of housing in Brooklyn Center could rise in the coming years. Most recently in 2018 the City’s for-sale housing median home sales price surpassed the pre-bust pricing. While the median remains below the regional median, it does indicate growing demand and increased pricing. Significant areas of redevelopment identified on the Future Land Use Plan, including the former regional mall (Brookdale) location, present opportunities for higher-market rates for new housing added. These opportunities have the potential to create a more economically diverse housing stock within the City, which is relatively homogeneous at the time this Plan is written. Given these opportunities, it is important to continue to monitor the City’s NOAH stock, and to evaluate and establish policies to incorporate legally binding and protected affordable housing as redevelopment occurs. This is a careful balancing act that requires concerted and direct monitoring, study, and evaluation in order to ensure an economically diverse, sustainable and resilient housing stock for the long-term success of the community. Table 4-2. Existing Housing Assessment Total Housing Units1 11,608 Affordability2 Units affordable to households with income at or below 30% of AMI Units affordable to households with income 31% to 50% of AMI Units affordable to households with income 51% to 80% of AMI 460 4,451 6,029 Tenure3 Ownership Units Rental Units 6,911 4,697 Type1 Single-family Units Multifamily Units Manufactured Homes Other Housing Units 8,275 3,333 0 0 Publicly Subsidized Units4 All publicly subsidized units Publicly subsidized senior units Publicly subsidized units for people with disabilities Publicly subsidized units: all others 553 22 0 531 Housing Cost Burdened Households5 Income at or below 30% of AMI Income 31% to 50% of AMI Income 51% to 80% AMI 1,691 1,406 895 1 Metropolitan Council, 2016 housing sock estimate. Single-family units include single-family detached homes and townhomes. Multifamily units include units in duplex, triplex, and quadplex buildings as well as those in buildings with five or more units. 2 Metropolitan Council staff estimates for 2016 based on 2016 and 2017 MetroGIS Regional Parcel Datasets (ownership units), 2010-2014 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy data from HUD (rental units and household income), and the Council’s 2016 Manufactured Housing Parks Survey (manufactured homes). Counts from these datasets were adjusted to better match the Council’s estimates of housing units and households in 2016 as well as more current tenure, affordability, and income data from eh American Community Survey, home value data from the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and rents from HousingLink’s Twin Cities Rental Revue data. 3 US Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey five-year estimates; counts adjusted to better match the Council’s 2016 housing stock estimates. 4 Source: HousingLink Streams data (covers projects whose financing closed by December 2016) 5 Housing cost burden refers to households whose housing costs are at least 30% of their income. Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2010- 2014 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, with counts adjusted to better match Metropolitan Council 2016 household estimates. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-174-16 Cost Burdened Households Cost burden is the proportion of household income spent toward housing and utilities. When lower income households spend more than 30 percent of their income toward housing and utilities this burden is considered excessive because it begins to limit the money available for other essentials such as food, clothing, transportation, and healthcare. According to data from the Metropolitan Council, 4,114 (35 percent) Brooklyn Center households at or below 80 percent average median income (AMI) are considered cost-burdened which means they spend more than 30 percent of household income on housing costs. This percentage is well above the metro area rate of 23 percent. Half of these Brooklyn Center households are lower income households who earn at or less than 30 percent AMI. The high incidence of cost burdened households is correlated with younger wage earners, lower-wage jobs, and a high proportion of older households, many of which are in retirement and no longer working. FUTURE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES Projected Housing Need As referenced in Chapter 3: Land Use & Redevelopment and the following Table 4-4, the Metropolitan Council’s 2015 System Statement forecasts that Brooklyn Center will add approximately 4,169 new residents and 2,258 new households through 2040 and identifies the following affordable housing allocation to be accommodated between 2020 and 2030. Table 4-3. Affordable Housing Need Allocation At or below 30% AMI 103 31 to 50% AMI 0 51 to 80% AMI 135 Total Units 238 Source: 2015 System Statement - Metropolitan Council Housing Challenges inform Housing Needs The Metropolitan Council’s System Statement identifies approximately 10% of the planned housing units for some level of affordability as identified in Table 4-3. As described in other chapters of this Plan, for the first time since the post-World War II housing boom the City is expected to add a significant number of new households. These new households have the opportunity to provide a more diverse housing stock, and add to the options of available for existing and new residents in the community. Redevelopment can reinvigorate and revive KEY DEMOGRAPHICS Age Profile of the Population The age profile of a community has important ramifications on demand for housing, goods and services, and social cohesion. Tables and figures illustrating the City’s age distribution are presented in the Background Report in the Appendix. Unlike the broader region, in which the population continues to age rapidly, Brooklyn Center’s population grew younger between 2000 and 2010, and has stayed relatively stable since 2010. This is largely due to a significant increase in people age 25 to 34, many of which are starting families and having children. Increases in the number of young families place demands on schools, housing affordability, and the types of retail goods and services needed. The median age of residents in Brooklyn Center in 2016 was 32.8, which is consistent with the 2010 median age of 32.6. This is younger than 2000 when the median ages was 35.3. With such a young population, it is expected housing units may turn over more frequently. But, as of 2016, more than 60 percent all households have been living in their homes for more than five (5) years. More data about geographic mobility of households is found in the Background Report in the Appendix. Household & Family Type Changing family and household structures can also have a profound effect on housing and other community needs. For example, decreasing household size has a direct impact on the amount of housing a household needs. As mentioned, the presence of children not only impacts local schools and parks, but also the types of retailers that can be supported and the nature of housing demanded. Since 2010, the number of households with children in both single-parent and married couple households has been growing significantly. Meanwhile, the trend among households without children, especially married couples (i.e., empty-nesters) has been on the decline. The percentage of households with children is approaching 40 percent, which is well above the rate in the County and the metro area. 32.8 Median age of Brooklyn Center residents - Sources: US Census, SHC HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-194-18 • The City has discussed developing a more formal housing action plan to better understand the needs of its residents. The plan would work to better understand cost-burdened households, eviction rates and policies, home-ownership racial disparities, and gaps in the housing stock. • Continuing to revise, enhance and modify its policies and ordinance to respond to residents needs. This includes monitoring best-practices in the region, being agile and open to changes and enhancements. As an example of this type of ordinance or policy response the City recently adopted a Tenant Protection Ordinance that is aimed and protecting the City’s residents ability to maintain stable, safe housing. The City’s projected housing needs are complex, and are likely to become more complicated as redevelopment occurs. However, the City intends to continue to prioritize discussion and action around creating safe and stable housing throughout the City. The following sections specifically address the new housing expected to be develop in this planning period. The new and redevelopment areas should be considered collectively with the City’s existing neighborhoods to ensure an incorporated, integrated approach to the City’s neighborhoods is achieved to create a dynamic community for generations to come. areas of the community with vibrant, experience-rich areas that will benefit everyone in the community. The City is excited for redevelopment to create a dynamic central hub of activity in the community, but also acknowledges that it must be balanced with strong assessment, planning and appropriate protection of its existing housing stock to ensure neighborhood sustainability and stability in all areas of the community. New housing stock brings the possibility of adverse impacts to existing single-family and multi-family properties if proactive steps are not taken to protect existing naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH), single-family neighborhoods, and multi-family properties. The City’s policy makers throughout this process discussed and acknowledged that bringing new market-rate, amenity rich housing products could have deleterious affects specifically on existing naturally occurring affordable housing if a plan to protect affordability is not implemented. This is a huge concern as resident stability through access to safe and healthy housing is one of the City’s adopted strategic priorities. If proper tools are not in place there are no protections to keep rents reasonable for residents and to maintain reasonably priced for-sale housing as redevelopment takes holds. One of the positive aspects of the City’s identified redevelopment areas is that the land proposed for redevelopment does not contain existing housing. In a fully-development community this is unusual for a large redevelopment area, and is positive because no residents will be displaced as a result of the City’s redevelopment aspirations. However, even though residents will not be displaced directly, indirectly, redevelopment could increase the desirability of activities such as flipping single-family homes and converting NOAH multi-family properties for higher-rents. To address some of these concerns an extensive list of high-level tools have been outlined in Table 4-5 of this Chapter. The City recognizes that this chapter is only the start of an ongoing conversation, and it is the City’s policy-makers intent to continue to be proactive, and to collaborate with non-profits and advocate for a broader regional approach to housing affordability. In addition to the tools identified in Table 4-5, the City is also continuing conversations about: • Viability of a non-discrimination ordinance related to Section 8 acceptance. Adjacent Cities, including Minneapolis, have attempted to include ordinances in their tool-kit addressing this issue. While the issue is currently in court, Brooklyn Center will continue to monitor the process and may consider adoption of a similar ordinance depending on its outcome. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-214-20 Future Residential Uses in Planned [Re] Development Opportunity Areas Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is a new land use and redevelopment concept in the City that focuses on existing and planned transit as a major amenity and catalyst for redevelopment. While previous planning efforts have acknowledged the presence of transit in the community, none have embraced it as an opportunity for redevelopment. As this portion of the City redevelops, the location of future transit enhancements has the potential to attract significant new housing development. Therefore, this is where guided densities are the highest. This is purposeful because the area has exceptional visibility and access from Highway 100 and I-94, and will be served by two transit stops (one being a transit hub) for the C-Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and the potential future D-Line BRT. The C-Line BRT is planned to open in 2019 and will mimic the operations of LRT (light rail transit), offering frequent transit service that will connect residents to the larger region. To best support the C-Line, and future D-Line, the City has planned to reinvigorate and re-imagine this central area of the community as a more livable, walkable, and connected neighborhood within the City. In addition, the potential for desirable views of Downtown Minneapolis could result in pressure to build taller structures in this area. Any development of this area should also be seen as an opportunity to support commercial users, improve multi-modal service and access, and allow safe, pleasant, and walkable connections to transit, parks, and other community destinations. As this area evolves, the desirability of this area as an amenity-rich livable area is likely to improve. As change occurs, the housing within the area is likely to be at market rates adding to a more economically diverse housing stock than is currently available in the community. This would add more housing choices in Brooklyn Center, and it could also support a mix of both market rate and affordable units; provided proper policies are developed to ensure legally binding affordable housing is incorporated into development plans. Communities oftentimes explore policies such as inclusionary zoning as redevelopment accelerates which may become an appropriate consideration in the future, but is likely not to be the best approach given current market conditions. However, in the future if significant increases in the market occur it may warrant further discussion in the City. Regardless of the policy tool (whether regulatory or incentive based) selected, consideration will need to be given to working with any future developer in a possible partnership with the City to help deliver affordable units as part of redevelopment. As described within the Chapter 9: Implementation, the City will continue to explore proper methodology and policies to ensure an economically diverse housing stock is created as housing continues to evolve in the community. New Housing Opportunities in this Planning Period Recognizing that the land use plan for Brooklyn Center identifies several key areas that are envisioned for new development or redevelopment, this will result in an opportunity to accommodate more housing and increase the City’s number of households. Based on guided residential densities in the development opportunity areas, the City can accommodate the Metropolitan Council’s forecasted households as well as meet the allocated affordable units as shown in Table 4-3 above. As indicated in the Land Use Chapter, depending on how the market responds to these redevelopment areas the City could accommodate anywhere between 2,658 and 3,836 new households by 2040 (Chapter 3: Table 3-5, repeated in the following Table 4-4). Table 4-4. Future Land Use Densities and Projected Acres, Households & Population Future Land Use Density (DU/A)2020 Acres (Res)b HH Popc 2030 Acres (Res)b HH Popc Transit Orient Development 31.01-130 DU/A 9 279 619 26 814 1,807 Neighborhood Mixed-Use 15.01-31 DU/A 13 195 433 19 285 632 Commercial Mixed Use 10.01 – 25 DU/A 8 80 178 15 150 333 High Density Residential 15.01-31 DU/A 212 3,180 7,060 212 3,180 7,060 TOTAL ----3,734 8,290 --4,429 9,832 Source: Metropolitan Council, Thrive 2040 Brooklyn Center 2015 System Statement, SHC. a Acreages assume that some recently redeveloped areas within these land use designations will not experience redevelopment until post-2040 and therefore households are not calculated. Please refer to Map 3-3 that identifies areas planned for change within this planning period. b Note, there are existing households in each of the designations today that would be re-guided for potential redevelopment in the future. This accounts for existing households and those that my potentially develop over the next two years. c Calculation multiplies households by 2.22 persons per household (According to the 2016 ACS (Census), for multi- family units (5+ units in structure) There are three large districts identified in the City with guided land use that allows for significant potential of new development and redevelopment through 2040. These areas have the potential to greatly expand Brooklyn Center’s current housing numbers and choices. Moreover, each opportunity area has the potential to not only provide new forms and types of housing but to catalyze or rejuvenate investment into the City resulting in stronger linkages between neighborhoods and districts that are currently isolated from one another. The following section discusses these areas further. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-234-22 Commercial Mixed-Use Areas The Commercial Mixed-Use areas generally surround the TOD area and are contemplated for large- scale redevelopment but are equally as focused on supporting business and office users. These areas are generally within one mile of the transit station that serves as a major hub for regional and local transit services, and therefore new housing will still have opportunities to capitalize on this as an amenity. Slightly less dense than the TOD district, these areas may provide exceptional opportunities to introduce multi-family uses such as town homes, row homes, and small lot single-family uses that could cater to larger families and incorporate more units with three or more bedrooms. As indicated in previous sections of this Chapter, the City’s residents expressed a desire to have access to more rental units with more bedrooms and larger square footages. While a detailed market study would likely be needed to confirm the demand for these uses, if we can take the anecdotal information as true, this area has the potential to support those types of uses. As with the TOD district, affordability is likely to become a consideration in any redevelopment within these areas because new construction naturally costs more and as the area redevelops interest and demand is likely to escalate costs. It is therefore important, just as with the redevelopment of the TOD district, that the City evaluate and explore ways to incorporate a range of affordable and market rate opportunities in new developments. Neighborhood Mixed-Use Areas The Neighborhood Mixed-Use is a new land use designation that responds to resident and policy-makers desire to incorporate retail and services into the neighborhood fabric. One of the ways the City can accomplish that objective is to create ‘nodes’ of mixed-uses that include residential uses, but protect key corners for small retailers, shops, or restaurants that create a more vibrant streetscape. The City acknowledges that these areas are less likely to redevelop with any regularity. Therefore, the number of new housing units expected to come on-line in these areas is a little less tangible than in areas with large contiguous redevelopment acres. However, the nodes have the opportunity to provide yet another housing style and type, as these areas are not envisioned for large high-rises or extensive master plans. Instead, these areas are contemplated to have smaller footprints with living units above a small store front or restaurant for example. HOUSING RESOURCES, STRATEGIES & TOOLS Table 4-5 outlines a variety of resources, strategies, and tools to implement Brooklyn Center’s identified housing needs and stated housing goals. There is a wealth of resources available to assist communities in meeting their goals. The following table should be considered a starting point. As the City’s housing needs evolve or become clearer, this set of tools should expand with options. Table 4-5. Housing Resources, Strategies & Tools Housing Goal Tool/ Resource/ Strategy Description Affordability Target Promote a diverse stock that provides opportunities for all income levels Housing Demand Market Study Conduct a market study and gaps analysis to track housing demand. This study and report could double as a marketing and promotional piece about housing opportunities. <30% AMI51-80% AMI HRA/CDA/EDA Work with the County HRA and City EDA to protect and enhance existing NOAH in the City. Use Market Studies to help identify opportunities to meet housing needs in the City and evaluate ways to partner with the County and other program providers. <30% AMI30-50% AMI51-80% Site Assembly Consider strategies for assembling sites in high-density or mixed-use districts that would increase appeal to developers. <30% AMI51-80% AMI CDBG Work with Hennepin County to use CDBG funds to help low-and moderate-income homeowners with rehabilitation assistance. CDBG funds will also be explored for use to support redevelopment efforts that meet the City’s goals towards a diverse housing stock (units and market/affordable diversity). <30% AMI51-80% AMI Tax Abatement Consider tax abatement for large rental project proposals that provide unit and income-mix within a single project. The City is particularly interested in projects with market diversity and units of different size to cater to a larger market (singles, families, multi-generational, etc). <30% AMI51-80% AMI HOME and Affordable Housing Incentive Fund Consider application, and utilization, of HOME and Affordable Housing Incentive fund grants to support a diverse housing stock. The City will prioritize projects that include a unit size and income mix that meets the needs of single-person and families in the City. <30% AMI30-50% AMI Housing Bonds The City would consider issuing Housing Bonds for projects that include units for large families, particularly in projects with a mix of unit sizes and incomes. However, it should be noted that there are limitations to the city bonding authority and other programs may be more suitable <30% AMI51-80% AMI Brownfield Clean-up In potential redevelopment areas, explore EPA and MN DEED grant programs that provide funding and assistance with planning, assessment, and site clean-up. <30% AMI30-50% AMI51-80% 4D for NOAH Properties The City will continue use of 4D classification for the purpose of protecting its Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) uses throughout the City. <30% AMI30-50% AMI Pooled TIF Funds Explore the use of TIF housing funds to create a revolving loan program to support the rehabilitation of existing single-family and multi-family NOAH properties. <30% AMI30-50% AMI51-80% HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-254-24 Housing Goal Tool/ Resource/ Strategy Description Affordability Target Identify ways to match housing stock with changing demographic Housing Coordinator Position The City would create a position that would serve as a liaison to existing landlords to help them respond to shifting demographics through training and access to city resources. The position could also serve as a resource for tenants to connect to support services in the event of eviction notices, discriminatory practices, and other issues related to housing access. The position would include coordinating housing programs, including home ownership programs, resident financial literacy programs, with the intent to convert Brooklyn Center renters to successful home owners. <30% AMI30-50% AMI51-80% Referrals Review and update reference procedures and training for applicable staff including a plan to maintain our ability to refer residents to any applicable housing programs outside the scope of local services. <30% AMI30-50% AMI51-80% Preserve LIHTC properties The City will monitor expiring LIHTC properties and work to find solutions to protect and preserve these affordable units to meet the needs and demands of the City’s residents. The City will approach owners with expiring properties to discuss the possibility of 4d program tax breaks <30% AMI30-50% AMI Explore opportunities to improve City housing policies and ordinance to make more responsive Expedited Application Process Streamline the pre-application process in order to minimize unnecessary delay for projects that address our stated housing needs, prior to a formal application submittal <30% AMI30-50% AMI51-80% Fair Housing Policy The City will work to incorporate a Fair Housing policy into its ordinances and policies. <30% AMI30-50% AMI51-80% Existing ordinances The City will continue to operate its Rental Licensing Program, and will periodically review and make enhancements to support the City’s residents. <30% AMI30-50% AMI51-80% Update the City’s Zoning to support new land uses The City’s future land use plan provides opportunities to include high density residential uses in the areas identified for redevelopment. The City will update its zoning ordinance, including prepare new zoning districts, to support the housing needs identified in this Housing chapter. <30% AMI51-80% Maintain existing housing stock in single-family neighborhoods through proper ordinances, incentives and enforcement Foreclosure Prevention In established neighborhoods, a rash of foreclosures, especially in close proximity to one another, can have a deleterious effect on the surrounding neighborhood. Be aware of foreclosures and be able to direct homeowners at-risk of foreclosure to resources that can help prevent foreclosures. http://www.hocmn.org/ <30% AMI30-50% AMI51-80% Low or No Cost Home Loans Providing low-or no-cost loans to help homeowners repair heating, plumbing, or electrical systems helps preserve existing housing. For example, Minnesota Housing’s Rehabilitation Loan and Emergency Loan programs make zero percent, deferred loans that are forgivable if the borrower lives in the home for 30 years. Minnesota Housing’s Community Fix Up Program offers lower-cost home improvement loans, often with discounted interest rates, remodeling advising, or home energy services, through a trained lender network. <30% AMI30-50% AMI51-80% Home Ownership Program Work with residents to provide education and programs to make home ownership possible, particularly converting existing renters to home owners through supporting down-payment assistance programs. 30-50% AMI51-80% Code Enforcement The City will continue to operate a robust code enforcement program that includes both complaint-based enforcement and proactive sweeps. <30% AMI30-50% AMI51-80% Vacant Building Program The City will continue to operate its Vacant Building Program that tracks and monitors vacant properties in the City to ensure adequate upkeep and maintenance. <30% AMI30-50% AMI51-80% Explore opportunities to incorporate new affordable housing into redevelopment areas Inclusionary Housing Ordinance If the market strengthens in redevelopment areas to the extent that policies would not deter investment, the City could consider an inclusionary housing ordinance to ensure that affordable housing is a component of any new housing development. Since current market conditions in the City are well below those of adjacent communities, an inclusionary policy may deter short-term investment. The City may want to explore this policy in the future if the market rents rise to levels of at least 80% AMI. <30% AMI30-50% AMI51-80% Livable Communities (LCA and LCA LCDA-TOD) Consider supporting/sponsoring an application to LCDA programs for multi-family rental proposals in areas guided for high density residential and targeted to households of all income levels. <30% AMI30-50% AMI51-80% Tax Increment Financing (TIF) To help meet the need for low-income housing, the City will establish a TIF district in an area guided for TOD and mixed uses. <30% AMI30-50% AMI51-80% HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-274-26 MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE:1/25/2021 TO:City Council FROM:Curt Boganey, City Manager THROUGH:N/A BY:Cornelius L. Boganey, City Manager SUBJECT:Pending Items Recommendation: Council Policy for City Charter requirement of Mayor's signature on all contracts Strategic Plans for years 2018-2020 and 2021-2023 Review Special Assessment Policy Opportunity Site Update Earle Brown Name Tobacco Ordinance Background: