## ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ## AUTHORITY ## MEETING ## City Hall Council Chambers July 27, 2026 ## AGENDA 1. Call to Order ## 2. Roll Call ## 3. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda These items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There isn't a separate discussion for these items unless a Councilmember so requests, then it is moved to the end of the Council Consideration Items. a. Approval of Minutes - Motion to approve the following minutes: • June 22, 2026 ## 4. Commission Discussion Items ## a. Novarum Concept Review - City staff requests feedback from the Commissioners regarding this concept proposal. ## b. EDA Update No action needed — for discussion purposes only. 5. Adjournment Page 1 of 31 ## 06/22/26 -1- DRAFT ## MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ## ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ## OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ## IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE ## STATE OF MINNESOTA ## REGULAR SESSION ## JUNE 22, 2026 ## CITY HALL – COMMISSION CHAMBERS ## 1. CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Regular Session called to order by President Pro Tem Teneshia Kragness at 7:12 p.m. ## 2. ROLL CALL President Pro Tem Teneshia Kragness and Commissioners Dan Jerzak, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, and Laurie Ann Moore. Also present were Deputy City Manager Daren Nyquist, Planning Manager Ginny McIntosh, Economic Development Manager Ian Alexander, City Clerk Shannon Pettit, and City Attorney Siobhan Tolar. President April Graves was absent and excused. ## 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Moore moved and Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, as amended, with the noted changes to the minutes, and the following item was approved: ## 3a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. June 8, 2026 – Regular Session Motion passed unanimously. ## 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS ## 4a. PURCHASE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND CONVEYANCE ## OF CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6245 BROOKLYN ## BOULEVARD Planning Manager Ginny McIntosh explained that a Purchase and Development Agreement (PDA) for Scooter’s Coffee at 6245 Brooklyn Boulevard is before the Commission. This is an EDA- owned property, and this is a Public Hearing. The lot itself for this property is a very small, Page 2 of 31 ## 06/22/26 -2- DRAFT oversized residential lot for comparison. At just over 14,000 square feet, it is in the neighborhood mixed-use district and sits on three frontages on Ewing, Brooklyn Boulevard, and 63 rd ## Avenue North. It is currently vacant and was formerly used for automotive purposes. At the April 26 EDA meeting, City Staff presented a concept for the proposed Scooter's Coffee location on two EDA- owned sites. Those EDA-owned sites are at 6245 Brooklyn Boulevard. She added that the proposal was well-received and the EDA Commissioners expressed support for the PDA. A Public Hearing notice was submitted to the Brooklyn Center Sun Post and published on May 28, 2026. The Public Hearing was noticed for a special EDA meeting on June 8, 2026; however, additional time was required due to team member travel, and the Public Hearing was continued to the June 22, 2026 EDA meeting. Ms. McIntosh added that today the site is vacant, with new Brooklyn Boulevard improvements including a bus stop on the north end and a new trail on the east side. She added that the property has great visibility with three frontages situated at a signalized intersection, with drive-thru eating establishments allowed as a conditional use in the MX-N2 district. The EDA purchased the two properties for $280,000 in 2013 as vacant property. The former automotive use of the property had the underground tank removed, and cleanup was completed in 1991. The MPCA letter on file indicated adequate cleanup of the petroleum release. The property was acquired for the same price as the former owner in 1993. The new acquisition facilitated the installation of a new right-turn lane on 63 rd Avenue North, a new sidewalk, a new trail, and a new bus stop. Ms. McIntosh explained that the median land value of neighboring properties is between eight and ten dollars per square foot, or $108,288 to $135,360. CoStar was used for recent sales data and reviewed for comparables. Hennepin County Assessor’s Office had the land valuation at $133,000. The offer amount was $150,000 for approximately 0.36 acres or $10.20 per square foot. As part of the agreement, the buyer would be required to put down $10,000 as earnest money upon execution of the contract, with 90 days of due diligence to study the site, and two optional 30-day extensions. The PDA contains a reverter clause that allows the EDA to re-enter and take possession of the subject property under certain conditions, such as if the minimum improvements were not completed. Ms. McIntosh continued that the property is being sold "as is" for a 664-square-foot commercial coffee shop. The buyer shall obtain all necessary government approvals from the Planning Commission before closing. The buyer requested the ability to negotiate the easement with the adjacent property for cross-access, if needed, and as a condition of the sale. The buyer is also requesting the EDA pay for a re-plat of the subject property. The City Staff and City Attorney believe the re-plat can be handled through the City’s minor subdivision administrative process with other City Staff, and would not have to go through the Planning Commission. Ms. McIntosh stated that City Staff worked with a broker on numerous plans. She noted that Scooter's Coffee would operate similarly to Caribou Cabin or a Starbucks drive-thru with no seating for customers inside the building. There would be a walk-up window with an outdoor patio area, a drive-through with vehicle stacking, along with a private curb cut access off of Ewing Avenue North. Page 3 of 31 ## 06/22/26 -3- DRAFT Ms. McIntosh stated that tonight is the Public Hearing, where the Commission can take public input, will then close the Public Hearing, and make a motion to adopt a resolution approving the PDA between the City and the buyer. She noted that there is representation virtually from Scooter’s Corporate if there are any questions from the Commission. Commissioner Jerzak asked if there is an anticipated beginning of construction and a potential opening date. Ms. McIntosh stated there is a reference to that in the PDA with a request for a general timeline for execution. At the time of discussions, there was an ask for the buyer to get a timeline because there is potential to get construction going on this project this year, but Scooter’s Coffee will not enter into any of the architectural or civil design formally until the PDA is executed. She continued that her understanding is that it is a quick turnaround to prepare the building plans, because it is a standard format for the building. She added that the two EDA properties need to be combined, but that should be a fairly efficient process if it can be handled administratively and would not require a separate Planning Commission action application. Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson asked if it is correct that the EDA purchased the two properties for $280,000 and is selling them for $150,000. Ms. McIntosh confirmed that is correct and is typical for EDA properties. The City often loses money, but that is also in hopes of getting the highest and best use and getting it back on the tax rolls. She stated she does not know the last time that the City made money off of an EDA property, because the general goal is to get those properties back on the tax roll, being productive and useful in the City. Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson stated she is happy to see something going into that lot that will be beneficial to the community. Commissioner Jerzak stated he wanted to ensure, due to the inability to access the property off of Brooklyn Boulevard, that there is no parking between the back of the building and the residential area. He stated that this needs to be addressed because the Commission will get complaints from residents otherwise. Ms. McIntosh noted that it is more likely that people will park at the strip mall parking lot if that ever were to occur. Commissioner Jerzak stated he was trying to be proactive. He asked if anyone had checked to see if Phantom Fireworks is encroaching on that property. Ms. McIntosh noted that she did notice that the other day. Commissioner Jerzak asked if the agreement would describe who is responsible for the maintenance of the property because there is significant mowing and litter that congregates at that property. Ms. McIntosh stated that until there is an actual closing, it is still the City's responsibility. President Pro Tem Kragness noted that she had flagged the purchase and selling price as well, since it is selling for almost half of what the City paid for the property. She noted that it is better to have something rather than nothing, because the property has been sitting. She added that she has heard a lot from the residents that they are excited to have Scooter’s Coffee and that it will be a good addition to the City. Page 4 of 31 ## 06/22/26 -4- DRAFT Ms. McIntosh added that, looking at the current valuation of surrounding properties and the Hennepin County Assessor’s Office, the sale price is technically coming in over the valuation. There are closing costs and the re-plat, which comes off the total sale price, but the offer is $150,000 at face value. Commissioner Moore moved and Commissioner Jerzak seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. No one wished to address the Economic Development Authority. Commissioner Jerzak moved and Commissioner Moore seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Moore moved and Commissioner Jerzak seconded to adopt a RESOLUTION approving a Purchase and Development Agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority and Promise Property Holdings LLC for the conveyance of certain property commonly addressed as 6245 Brooklyn Boulevard. Motion passed unanimously. ## 5. COMMISSION CONSIDERATION ITEMS ## 5a. AMENDED AND RESTATED PURCHASE AND DEVELOPMENT ## AGREEMENT (JAMBO AFRICA) Economic Development Manager Ian Alexander stated that this is an amended and restricted Purchase and Development Agreement (PDA) for 6500 Camden Avenue North. Mr. Alexander noted that the concept review for this project was brought forward on September 9, 2024, for a restaurant lounge and bar. The property is 5,700 square feet with a 1,200-square-foot outdoor patio proposed. On November 25, 2024, the EDA approved a PDA. The site is 1.62 acres and is zoned for PUD/ C2 Commercial. The neighboring properties are Top Golf, the Strip Mall, Speedway Gas, and a convenience store. Mr. Alexander continued that the total amount invested in the property was $685,000 through transactions that occurred. The purchase price of the land in the PDA was $500,000 and was derived from the valuation of the land and the impairments to the land. There were a number of issues with the property, including an easement through the property for a sewer pipe to the land, which was impaired. The property was also part of the Strategic Opposition acquisition of vacant land involved in the Top Golf site. The concept that Jamba Africa put forward was a restaurant and bar with a smaller, 5120 square foot space with a 1,042 square foot mezzanine with occupancy for 330 people and 152 parking spaces. Mr. Alexander noted that the amended and restated PDA contains a number of amended terms, but one that needs to be discussed with the Commission is the reimbursement of the façade improvements. This section would provide a rebate of the Page 5 of 31 ## 06/22/26 -5- DRAFT purchase price, not to exceed $250,000, for façade upgrades of greater than 50 percent of Class I materials on any or all of the eligible facades. This also allowed additional months for conditions of conveyance and several other matters. The reason it was included in the PDA for the Commissioners to consider is that if the cost of construction kept increasing, and the façade improvements were not of the highest quality, there were issues that came up regarding this site being the premier site in Brooklyn Center, and it had to be of a certain caliber. This does not have to be something that the buyers agree to. He noted that he asked both the City Attorney and the EDA Attorney to review the information in this agreement. He stated that the question is which type of agreement and what type of façade, if any improvements, the Commission cares to consider. Commissioner Jerzak stated he has a series of questions, and asked if he should stop after each one for a response. President Pro Tem Kragness suggested he ask one question at a time. Commissioner Jerzak asked if Mr. Alexander considers this a renegotiation of the original purchase agreement. Mr. Alexander stated he considered this a choice that the Commissioners needed to make regarding whether or not they wanted to pursue it. This is additional language in the agreement that he is calling to the attention of the Commission in the presentation. The façade improvement would come at the detriment of the cost of the land; there would not be a net savings to the developer. The developer would come to the table with the same amount of money. Mr. Alexander reiterated that the question is whether or not the Commission wished for the façade of the building to be of higher quality. President Pro Tem Kragness stated she understands what Commissioner Jerzak is asking, because the original agreement has expired, and now the buyer is ready to work and is coming to the Commission with a new agreement. She added that it sounds like the new agreement is renegotiating some additional items that were not part of the original agreement. Mr. Alexander stated that the Commissioners can choose not to abide by the amendment, which is why it was specifically put in as an amendment. President Pro Tem Kragness thanked Mr. Alexander for pointing out that it was not part of the original agreement. Commissioner Jerzak asked if Mr. Alexander considers this amendment critical to the project's success. Mr. Alexander stated that it is a policy decision. The real question is whether, with a price increase, there is still a bottom number and a choice of what can be built on the site. The developer is bringing a quality development, and the question is whether the Commission would like a higher quality build if that were possible. Mr. Alexander noted that if the Commission chose to move forward with that particular concept, there would be line item amounts that would not be put into the general budget and would have to go towards specific improvements to the façade. Commissioner Jerzak asked if it would be fair to say that if the Commission elected to do this as a policy decision, it would set a precedent, and the Commission would get more requests for this to happen. Mr. Alexander stated that it is a choice the Commission would have to make, but the developer is always going to bring choices that help meet their bottom line. Mr. Alexander noted that while this particular ask does not meet the developer's bottom line, it would decrease the amount of money that the City would get from the sale of the land. Page 6 of 31 ## 06/22/26 -6- DRAFT Commissioner Jerzak asked if time is of the essence in making a decision, because it is a significant ask, and President Graves is not there to weigh in on the decision. He stated that the Commission just had some pushback, because historically the City writes down land, and when looking at the write down on this property, it could come out to $750,000 in some form of subsidy. He asked what the proportion is to the overall cost of the land, and if the percentage is in line with what the City has been able to do in the past. Mr. Alexander stated that at the end of the day, the Commission has to make a decision on the quality of the development that they would like to see. The goal was to provide the Commission with options, and the renderings of the project look really good, but the Applicant requested this. He noted that when the Applicant requested this addition, he suggested it be incorporated as an option for the Commission to decide, but would not renegotiate the terms of the agreement. Commissioner Jerzak stated that this is a good development, but it comes to a point where the Commission has capacity limitations. He stated he is trying to be reasonable and fair, but this is a tough ask, and if time is not of the essence, President Graves should have the option to weigh in on the decision and consider tabling this. He noted that the agreement has already expired, so this cannot be an emergency. President Pro Tem Kragness noted that the developer is going to do the project regardless, because they are coming to the table with the same amount of money. It is whether or not the City wants to potentially be on the hook for $250,000. Mr. Alexander added that he spelled it out for the developer that this would not be a net savings for the developer; it would be a reduction in the amount of money the City would receive, but the question is whether that would make the development a better-quality asset for the City. President Pro Tem Kragness asked if there was a way to quantify the quality of the difference in the material. Mr. Nyquist asked if it would be beneficial to have the categorization of what the materials look like to base the decision on. He noted that the Commission could give Staff time to show what the different materials look like, specifically the higher category of materials. President Pro Tem Kragness stated that it would be beneficial because there are a lot of variables in building materials. Commissioner Moore stated she does not consider this a carve-out if the Commission decides to upgrade facades in the City as a policy decision. She noted that some of the facades in the City are in poor shape, and this would be a new development coming in. There could be a categorization of the building materials, but City Staff should know the difference. She asked if the funding for this project would come from TIF funds or grants. Mr. Alexander noted that this is different than a regular façade improvement grant and would be part of the development agreement, so the Commission and Staff would have to figure out the best way to structure that. He added that the quality of the development is already within the City's code, and this amendment is more about Page 7 of 31 ## 06/22/26 -7- DRAFT whether things got way too expensive and the developer had to come back to the EDA to build to the quality that the City already has. He continued that, in his opinion, it would probably be best to move forward with the project without the amendment, and in future options, the Commission could come up with a policy as to what they would like to see, and bringing it up now was too much for the Commission to digest at one time. President Pro Tem Kragness agreed and noted that if there is a policy in place, then a standard is set. The bigger question would be changing the police to upgrade to a different level, rather than the Commission choosing to upgrade as a one-off project overall and setting a precedent. Commissioner Moore noted that she appreciated Mr. Alexander bringing this to the Commission because the Commission should be discussing ideas about how to set up policies around new or existing businesses and exploring grants that are available. She added that she agreed with Commissioner Jerzak in that the developer has an agreement that has expired, and has 12 months to complete construction. She asked if Mr. Alexander would like to completely leave out the agreement, or come back to the EDA without the language regarding the reimbursement of the façade improvements to a future meeting. Mr. Alexander stated he would like the project to move forward and leave the section out regarding façade improvements. He noted that while it was requested by the developer, the Commission is the decision maker, and it would expedite getting this project finished. Commissioner Jerzak asked for clarification whether the additional three and a half months to satisfy conditions, instead of the conveyance at four and a half months, is cumulative or simultaneous. He noted that there has been tremendous pressure with rising costs and inflation, and that is possibly one of the reasons that the development agreement already expired. He stated he would be open to trying to move it forward without the additional $250,000, but he is only one vote. He continued that this is not meant to be critical of Mr. Alexander, but these kinds of surprises do not sit well when an agreement has already been negotiated, and he would have preferred that this came to the Commission sooner, so it could have been considered. President Pro Tem Kragness pointed out that Mr. Alexander did clarify that this language was not part of the original agreement, and if the Commission did not have the original agreement in front of them, they may have assumed this language was a part of the original agreement. She noted that having this conversation was very helpful to clarify that. Commissioner Moore added that she did not mind discussing it with the Commission, and it was in the Commissioner's packet, and she discussed it during her previous one-on-one meeting with Mr. Nyquist. She asked if she could make a motion that excises that part of the agreement. Mr. Alexander noted that he would defer to the City Attorney to answer that question. Ms. Tolar confirmed that Commissioner Moore could still make the motion, and she would help with the language when the Commission was ready to make that motion. She asked for clarity on whether the Commission would like to approve the PDA without the amended section, adding the $250,000. President Pro Tem Kragness confirmed that Ms. Tolar was correct. Page 8 of 31 ## 06/22/26 -8- DRAFT Ms. Tolar explained that Commissioner Moore would read the motion language and would coach her through what to say at the end. Commissioner Moore moved and President Pro Tem Kragness seconded to adopt a RESOLUTION for an amended and restated Purchase and Development Agreement between the Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center and AWC Holdings (Jambo Africa), but with the additional direction to Staff to delete section 4.5 and Exhibit E from the draft contract prior to execution. Commissioner Jerzak stated he would like the record to show that he is going to say yes, but with the expiration of the agreement and increased costs, he hoped that the developer would be able to perform and would not continually come back to the EDA asking for more. He stated he would like to see this development happen. Motion passed unanimously. ## 6. COMMISSION DISCUSSION ITEMS ## 6a. EDA SCATTERED SITE PLAN Mr. Alexander noted that he would discuss the EDA scattered sites briefly. The EDA owns numerous scattered sites zoned for a variety of uses. Past efforts with these sites have had mixed results. City Staff have proposed a revised, proactive plan for the redevelopment of those sites. He noted he would not read through all of the site plans, as there are quite a few, but the Commission has all of the information in their packets. Mr. Alexander explained that the strategy includes enhanced marketing and strategy efforts. The EDA hub on the website highlights available parcels and other information relevant to developers. City Staff are also personally marketing sites directly to developers, preparing for the 2027 legislative session, and discussing scattered site housing with various individuals. Mr. Alexander noted that the other strategy the Staff is implementing is retaining broker services. City Staff are preparing an RFP for commercial real estate broker services and selecting a broker to provide services for properties at 1601 James Circle and 5400 Brooklyn Boulevard. He noted that Staff have received some interest in those sites. Mr. Alexander continued that City Staff are directly discussing these sites with builders, and many sites are suited to infill housing. EDA Staff will continue to conduct outreach to local builders to determine interest in building on those sites. Each land sale and housing proposal will be brought to the EDA for consideration. He noted that the EDA will continue existing partnerships and follow through with the projects for Scooter's Coffee at 6245 Brooklyn Boulevard, Jambo Africa at 6500 Camden Avenue North, and McNeal Management at 1950 57 th Avenue. He added that EDA Staff welcome questions and feedback from the Commission, but no formal action is required for this item. Page 9 of 31 ## 06/22/26 -9- DRAFT Commissioner Moore noted that the property at 1950 57 th Avenue North, at 4.72 acres in a mixed- use area, is pending and asked if someone is interested in development there. Commissioner Jerzak noted that it was McNeal Management. Commissioner Moore stated it was listed as a townhouse, condominium, and multi-family use, not the event center. Mr. Alexander stated that it is at 57 th ## Avenue North and Logan. Commissioner Moore stated that this property is down the street from the event center. Commissioner Jerzak asked to go to page 102 of 116, with regard to the EDA scattered site marketing plan, and noted he appreciated the comments and thought put into this plan. He noted that Mr. Alexander made a comment that past efforts have had mixed results, and is curious as to why and what the root cause analysis is, so the EDA does not continue to make the same mistakes. Mr. Alexander explained that some of the EDA scattered sites are challenging sites, for example, near the Fire Department, there are two EDA sites with a building in the middle of them that is occupied. The price point on the building in the middle of those sites has been set at a price point that is not conducive to putting a larger development together on those two EDA sites. There is another property on Brooklyn Boulevard that is adjacent to another residential property, and the neighbor does not want to purchase it, so it is a trapped property. He noted that one of the biggest issues is developers contacting him to build group homes or affordable housing on EDA sites, which is not allowed. Developers have also contacted him to build single-family affordable housing on some of the EDA sites, but they ask the EDA for money, and the challenge altogether is construction pricing. He added that now, there are modular builders coming to the table with particular units of modules that are constructed on site, with lower pricing. He continued that one of the challenges is that without a subsidy, builders come to build and sell a market-rate home, and sell it for $450,000 that cannot be sold for that price based on the homes around it. Developers realize they can not sell the homes for what they want, and come to the EDA and ask for state or county money and subsidies from the City for prevailing wage. He continued that one developer in particular came to the EDA and the Commission, and with the money the developer was taking, the project would cost $740,000 per unit to build, which is too high. EDA Staff have looked into two modular users that are looking at some of the scattered sites, but Staff will have to discuss what type of facades the Commission would prefer those buildings to have. He noted that if the Commission is happy with the hardy board on every building that goes up, they can have that discussion. Mr. Alexander stated that the EDA Staff will continue talking to brokers who will be bringing options to their clients, and hopefully find the right fit. Commissioner Jerzak stated that one of these EDA sites has been mowed by the City for 26 years. Some of these parcels have so much money stuck into them that perhaps the City should consider donating the property to Habitat for Humanity. He stated he is thinking of properties in particular across from Culver's, where it is surrounded by a neighborhood being built and cannot be accessed, and another one that is across from the future Scooter's Coffee location that has a sewage pipe running underneath it, so the City has to get creative in how these properties are marketed or sold. He asked why EDA Staff have not reached out directly to builders to determine interest in building on scattered sites before. Page 10 of 31 ## 06/22/26 -10- DRAFT Mr. Alexander stated that EDA Staff have done it before, but it is more helpful to have brokers involved in the process, and perhaps that will open up more categories for the EDA. He noted that a resident recently came to the EDA with a 1.5-acre lot on Brooklyn Boulevard that is non- buildable unless it is split in two, so it can be built on, but the resident wants too much money for the property. The other challenge is that properties that are adjacent to EDA sites are renters, or if they own the property, they want to sell at a price that is too high, or if the owners do choose to sell, the building and construction costs are too high. He stated that EDA Staff are trying to think outside of the box, to get more affordable options, which is where the modular builders come in. Sometimes, site control takes a very long time to get development to make enough sense for a larger development, especially on busy streets like Brooklyn Boulevard. Developers need higher- density projects to attract more people. Commissioner Moore commended Mr. Alexander for bringing this to the Commission. She noted she has experienced scattered sites in another city when times were good, and costs were low. Developers could buy a lot for $50,000 and build something for $300,000, and Brooklyn Center is not there. She thanked EDA Staff for looking at this through a different lens and trying to find other opportunities. She added that maybe a lot could be donated, or a resident could adopt a lot to manage, but the modular home idea is exciting. She asked if TIF funds have been discussed for City-owned property and if there is any incentive there. Commissioner Jerzak asked if there was still a clear policy for the City to try to acquire residential homes on Brooklyn Boulevard because of the danger of backing onto Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated Mr. Alexander brought up a resident asking if the City could acquire a property on Brooklyn Boulevard, and asked if that policy had changed. He added that when he worked in that Department, that policy was in place to help the City scoop up a lot of the Brooklyn Boulevard homes when possible and eliminate the possibility of residents backing onto that busy street. Mr. Alexander stated he would have to defer to Ms. McIntosh, who has more institutional knowledge. Commissioner Moore asked if he was referring to eminent domain. Commissioner Jerzak stated that it was not what he was talking about; it was just the policy to acquire a property if there was an opportunity on Brooklyn Boulevard. If there is more talk about building modular homes on Brooklyn Boulevard, then that is a policy change. Ms. McIntosh stated this policy pre-dates her, but the Brooklyn Boulevard project planning that took place in 2013, with plans to remove curb cuts to allow shared use across, because of the high traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard. The EDA did acquire quite a few properties along Brooklyn Boulevard in the past, but has not in a number of years. She added that the modular builds Mr. Alexander is referring to are multi-family or commercial buildings, not single-family homes on Brooklyn Boulevard. Other sites could be considered for single-family modulars. Mr. Alexander noted that there have been some modular single-family homes built that were toured by the Economic Development Coordinator and were very nice homes. EDA Staff has reached out to those particular modular developers to see if there is interest. Page 11 of 31 ## 06/22/26 -11- DRAFT Ms. McIntosh added that the Brooklyn Boulevard properties are mostly zoned for mixed-use and are not single-family residential anymore. The properties on Brooklyn Boulevard that are modular would be commercial or multi-family products because it is becoming a more common practice. The modular builders have facilities in the state of Minnesota where they build the modular in- house in a climate-controlled facility and bring it to the site and piece it together. She pointed out that this is a more efficient way to build that cuts costs, because building in the middle of the winter on site is not efficient with increased costs and builders fighting the weather. She added that when the EDA Staff is thinking creatively, modulars have become part of the discussion, but are not the only discussion. President Pro Tem Kragness noted that a house burned down in her neighborhood, and was completely gone, and it took some time, but a modular was placed there. She stated she was glad to hear there was movement on the scattered sites. ## 6b. OPPORTUNITY SITE DEVELOPER RECRUITMENT Mr. Alexander stated he would briefly discuss the developer recruitment. He noted that he wanted to go over the Master Plan first, and what it can and cannot be used for. The existing Opportunity Site Master Plan remains valid, having been developed through an extensive public process, and it remains a strong foundation. The Master Plan offers flexibility while providing a foundation describing the vision and properties for the site. The core principles include a coordinated infrastructure, high-quality urban design, and a walkable transit-oriented environment. The Master Plan remains relevant and can be adapted. EDA Staff are seeking to strategically repurpose the Alatus era grants for the site, and will have more information regarding those outcomes in the near future. Mr. Alexander noted that following the departure of the master developer for phase one of the opportunity site, staff recognized that relying on a single master developer is not the best strategy for the site. A master developer creates the unintended consequences of stalling the entire site when delays occur. EDA Staff have engaged in outreach to gather real-world feedback from developers to understand how to make the opportunity site attractive and financeable to developers and identify barriers, test concepts, and shape a practical development framework. Mr. Alexander noted that the challenges to the Opportunity Site are persistent financing gaps of 15 to 20 percent, specifically in development in general in Brooklyn Center. The scale of the site calls for regional stormwater and infrastructure planning, which is challenging. Irregular parcels at the site require coordination to avoid fragmentation. The City can and must play an active role in achieving the outcomes envisioned in the Master Plan. Mr. Alexander explained the developer recruitment strategy. EDA Staff are engaged in proactive, relationship-based outreach to developers with demonstrated experience and interest in urban infill construction. Through this outreach, the Staff has identified four developers who have expressed interest in the site, and at least one is interested in serving as the lead developer to coordinate others. Staff have expressed to all developers the limited subsidy available and have worked to coordinate Page 12 of 31 ## 06/22/26 -12- DRAFT other alternatives to reduce construction costs, such as district energy, innovative storm water management, or using modular builds. Mr. Alexander noted that the Staff is following a regular, transparent process that does not require a formal RFP involving targeted outreach to developers with demonstrated experience in urban infill and mixed-use development. Staff will regularly update the Commission on progress with recruitment and the development framework. Significant decisions, including any recommendation related to pursuing a collaborative or public and private partnership structure, will be brought before the Commission for discussion and direction. He added that developer outreach will continue, and formal subsidy requests are expected in the coming weeks. One of the developers who has been in touch with EDA Staff and is doing some work in the City just purchased the Wells Fargo campus. Mr. Alexander noted that he met with one of the funders for the Wells Fargo campus project, and that funder will be coming to Brooklyn Center to get a tour of the area. He added that Staff will continue direct developer outreach and accept formal subsidy requests, and will present a recommended development framework to the Commission in the near future. There is no EDA required action, but the Staff has the option to answer the Commissioner's questions. Commissioner Jerzak pointed out that page 107 of 116, regarding the future Master Plan update, states that the City's existing Master Plan for the Opportunity Site remains valid and does not need to be redone. He asked what the Master Plan actually is, and noted that no one can explain it to him. He added that there is no developer, and there is one road built that goes nowhere. The Commission has been told that the Opportunity Site would include a number of different projects, including a community center, a banquet center, and other subsidies, but no one has been able to define what the Master Plan is. The Commission and the EDA deserve an update as to what the Master Plan is and is not. He stated that there was a lot of engagement around the Opportunity Site, but nobody from Finance was at the table during planning, and if nobody is going to write a check, the development is not going to happen. This has been part of the ongoing problem with the Opportunity Site; the financial aspect has never been a part of the process. He asked why it took so long for the EDA to terminate an agreement that was already dead with the former developer. Mr. Alexander stated that his conversations with Jason Aarsvold from Ehler’s led to the termination of the contract with Alatus. He noted that when he started working for the City, he pushed to meet with Alatus, and it became clear during that meeting that there were a lot of plans with no delivery date. He stated the previous City Manager did not push for a new agreement, so the project moved forward while Alatus did nothing, which made it impossible to bring new developers to the Opportunity Site when there was still an active agreement with Alatus. He noted that it took a while to terminate that contract because there were differences of opinion within the City Staff. There is a path forward to come up with an organization to implement a plan that will not be the original plan. The original plan was never going to work after the developer window expired, and now there are rising costs of development and the economy. He added that the Staff is working hand in hand with different individuals, along with Ehlers and other financial groups, to put something together that could lead to success. He noted that when Alatus first left the development, other developers reached out to the EDA, but only brought poor proposals and only Page 13 of 31 ## 06/22/26 -13- DRAFT wanted affordability and data centers at the Opportunity Site. He added that to make the City of Brooklyn Center a financially viable area, it has to provide more than what Brooklyn Center currently does. Developers look at the City and see an area with a median income that is 10 to 15 percent lower than any of its neighbors, and that is a challenge. The City has to create something that is going to raise revenue in the heart of the City, and the developers that EDA Staff are speaking to now want to do that. He noted that the developers want to bring something that is not exclusive to the people in Brooklyn Center, but gives an opportunity to build more income and diversity in the City. The City does not need just taxpayers, but taxpayers that have the ability to pay taxes, and to create a dynamic environment where that can happen, it is going to rely on a lot of different types of financing. He added that the Opportunity Site is going to require a lot of long hours from the Commission to determine how this project will be structured and how it will be navigated. There is a template to move forward, but it needs to be perfected and fine-tuned with people who want to spend the money to do that, and that is what the EDA Staff are pursuing now. Commissioner Moore noted that she looks at the Opportunity Site and sees it as large-scale scattered sites, and does not see it as Disneyland. She added that there needs to be clear communication with the Commission, which shows where each site is, along with the funding and the infrastructure of what each site could be, because the City is not going to invest money into nothing. There needs to be a discussion among the Commission, too, about what the most viable option is and what developers are interested in doing. She thanked Mr. Alexander for the clarity around that and noted the Commission does not want a 50-page scattered site plan that only has some minor changes from the Opportunity Site one and two plans, because there are two different areas of the Opportunity Site. Mr. Alexander noted that one of the things the EDA needs is an implementation strategy. The Master Plan was a visioning document, and Bolton Bank did a great job of putting that together, but it is still a visioning document. There has to be an entity to implement that visioning document, and that is what has been missing in the last several years. There needs to be a structured plan, get it funded, and move it forward. President Pro Tem Kragness added that this was a topic of conversation four years ago, and someone needs to put the shovel in the ground and start digging to get the development going. She added that there is an existing plan, and it is not set in stone. She noted that the Commission praised EDA Staff on ending that agreement between the EDA and the previous developer because there was no pressure put on that developer. It is time to keep moving forward. Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson stated she was on the Commission when Alatus was chosen as the developer and was very disappointed to see how that all turned out. She added that she could not remember what year it was, but the economy tanked, and Alatus ran out of money. She noted that she is most concerned about having a cohesive area that is not choppy and does not make sense. She stated she does not want to go through the Master Plan again, but would like an opportunity for the Commission to dream big about what the Commission would like to see at the Opportunity Site and make a plan. She noted that Commissioners could email what they are envisioning for the Opportunity Site to Mr. Nyquist, or discuss it at the next EDA meeting, because Page 14 of 31 ## 06/22/26 -14- DRAFT she would like it to be a conversation where the Commissioners discuss their wish list. She thanked Mr. Alexander and City Staff for all of their work on this project. Commissioner Jerzak stated the City is not alone in this, and Staff probably followed the Armory Site and what just occurred with Ramsey County and a particular developer. He stated he liked that Mr. Alexander identified the lessons learned about having a single entity tied up in the development. There should be contingencies in these contracts, so someone else can step in if a developer does not perform within a certain amount of time. He added that the Opportunity Site was based on retail at the time, and then COVID-19 hit, and that became very problematic for all kinds of development. He stated that interest rates have gone up, and with inflation going up at three to four percent a year, it is not going to get any better. He added that the Commission probably will not be able to come up with one idea, but could come up with one coherent future plan, and it will not be patched together. He noted that he is also interested in the TOD grants that have expiration dates, and he does not need a huge document explaining everything, but a good starting point would be a document that explained land available with best use practices highlighted and notes if a TOD grant would work for that land use. The Commission can explore a wish list, too, as Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson suggested, but the City cannot afford to build a failure either. Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson suggested a restaurant go in that space, at the mid-price range, like an Applebee's, anything other than a drive-thru fast food restaurant. ## 6c. EDA UPDATE Mr. Alexander stated that he would keep this brief but would discuss some of the major proposals and developments that are occurring. He noted that the individual who purchased the Wells Fargo site would be coming to Brooklyn Center, and the next steps will be discussed, and the Commission will be updated. He noted that he received a call from Health Partners, who had met with all of their leadership and discussed how to structure things in Brooklyn Center, which is always a good sign. Mr. Alexander pointed out that Brooklyn Center's Celebration of Food, Cars, and Vendors, which the Chamber of Commerce is assisting with, will happen on Saturday, June 27, from noon until 4:00 p.m. at the location adjacent to the former Target. This will be the first Chamber of Commerce event in Brooklyn Center. He encouraged people to attend and support the small businesses in the City. Mr. Alexander continued that EDA Staff are continuing to explore all the grants and funding strategies the EDA could use, and how to structure things so projects do not move ahead needlessly, and potentially use the LCDA-TOD grants and repurpose those funds for the Master Plan framework, and determine how the EDA is going to take on the Opportunity Site. He added that momentum is building on multiple fronts and positions for Brooklyn Center to compete for major anchors and investments. To fully capitalize on those opportunities, City Staff will need close coordination across Departments on proposals and grants, along with timely leadership direction on development framework and collaborative structures as they develop. He added that there is a Page 15 of 31 ## 06/22/26 -15- DRAFT great team at the City that is willing and ready to take on these challenges, and he enjoys working here. He noted that he hoped the Commission would not do what the rest of the development world does and take off the entire months of July and August, and looked forward to bringing some exciting news to the Commission regarding these projects in the coming weeks. Commissioner Moore asked if Community Development is keeping data on the businesses that are either exiting or entering the City. She noted that there was a tire business next to New King Buffet that is now gone, and the building is all boarded up. It should be a priority to know the status of businesses around the City, especially as Commissioners, as discussions continue about how to attract new businesses to the City. She asked if there was a Social Security office update, as it looks like it is close to opening. Ms. McIntosh stated the tire shop is no longer in the building. There was a fire sprinkler break that initiated the exit, and the space is vacant with no plans for a new tenant to reoccupy that space. The Social Security office is moving ahead and is hoping to open on or after July 20. The Social Security office is vacating its current space, though, and that will become a 9,000 square foot vacant building in the City. City Staff have met with the owner of the former Social Security office complex, and there are discussions of platting off those properties to allow opportunities for sale to a single user. That space is next to the Credit Union, which has also been for sale on six acres. She added that New Horizon is striping their parking lot, has installed landscaping, and hopes to have kids in the new location and open by the end of July. She noted that she will follow up with New Horizon and discuss a possible grand opening. She added that CAPI is discussing an early closeout, and they were expected to open by September, so that may mean they will be wrapped by the end of the summer. She explained a few ongoing projects, including the Brooklyn Boulevard Dental, which is framing their new addition and will be wrapped up by September. The Hmong Shopping Center, which is at 5930 Earl Brown, is waiting for the Health Department approval before it can start the grocery store. The Boother Honda dealership is underway with its new addition to its service bays. The restaurant Carol's Kitchen finally opened over by Dougherty. The permit for the Caribou headquarters renovation was also just issued, so things are moving forward. ## 7. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Moore moved and President Pro Tem Kragness seconded the adjournment of the Economic Development Authority meeting at 8:37 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Page 16 of 31 ## Council Regular Meeting ## DATE: 7/27/2026 ## TO: Economic Development Authority ## FROM: Ian Alexander, Economic Development Manager, Amy Loegering, ## Economic Development Coordinator ## THROUGH: Jason Aarsvold, Ehlers ## BY: Amy Loegering, Economic Development Coordinator ## SUBJECT: Novarum Concept Review ## Requested Council Action: - City staff requests feedback from the Commissioners regarding this concept proposal. ## Background: The Brooklyn Center Opportunity Site has been the subject of redevelopment efforts since at least 2008 and has benefited from extensive community engagement leading to a Master Plan approved in 2024. The most recent traditional master developer effort concluded unsuccessfully earlier this year. Novarum Development Partners is presenting its vision for development within the broader Brooklyn Center 2030 framework and Opportunity Site Master Plan. Novarum proposes to act as a Development Coordinator rather than a traditional Master Developer. This approach would advance structured, multi-developer redevelopment of key parcels while preserving EDA control over core Opportunity Site parcels. Brooklyn Center 2030 is a long-range strategic vision that emerged organically from dozens of conversations Economic Development Staff had with community members, business leaders, residents, artists, civic organizations, and stakeholders within the City. It gradually coalesced into a shared framework that many different voices, from business-oriented individuals to progressive and arts-focused leaders, could get behind. Economic Development staff have mapped the broader redevelopment landscape as part of this vision. The Novarum proposal organizes activity across four main areas on ## the Brooklyn Center 2030 Map: Sites 2A & 2B – Irregular Parcels (Heart of the Opportunity Site): Novarum would coordinate multi-developer redevelopment of key parcels (including EDA-owned land and parcels where Novarum has obtained site control), such as the JaniKing location and portions of the ISD #286 parcel. This is the initial focus for structured ## redevelopment. Novarum seeks a Cooperative Development Framework Agreement because, without it, development of the irregularly shaped parcels risks remaining fragmented and inefficient, in terms of timing, land use, and financial feasibility. The framework would enable co-creation with the City of urban design guidelines, infrastructure alignment, parking strategies, and financing pathways; provide clear support for smaller/local developers; and help bridge financing gaps. The City would Page 17 of 31 benefit from more efficient land use, consistent quality, and faster tax base growth. Site 3 – The Heritage Site (6200 and 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway): Novarum is working with an existing real estate development to convert property uses here. The goal is to build modern townhouses along Shingle Creek Parkway (from Highway 694 to the 6200 Building) and relocate Resurrecting Faith’s Daycare and event center space (Original Phase I of the Opportunity Site) to the parking lot parcel south of the 6200 Building. Site 4 – North of 694 (Commercial/Industrial Zoning): Novarum is pursuing options and acquisitions in this area. The concept focuses on relocating certain businesses from the current Opportunity Site while re-envisioning the area as a stronger, higher-value commercial and industrial district. Emphasis is on modernized facilities, operational efficiency, and commercial intensification consistent with existing zoning. No housing is proposed here. The goal is to generate early visible wins and build momentum for the broader strategy. ## The proposed Cooperative Framework Agreement would address: • Coordinated urban design guidelines, street standards, and parking strategies so multiple developers can participate. • Infrastructure alignment (stormwater, AUAR, streetscapes) building on existing Bolton & Menk work and the awarded Met Council LCDA-TOD grant. • Clear pathways for smaller and locally-owned developers, with connections to Groundbreak Coalition, LISC Twin Cities, and NEON. • Support for advancing a bill similar to last session’s SF 3896 tax-credit pilot. • Regular alignment meetings with a designated City point of contact. • A performance-based approach that rewards results, protects City land assets, and maintains continuity with the Opportunity Site Master Plan. ## Budget Issues: None at this time. ## Inclusive Community Engagement: ## Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: ## Strategic Priorities and Values: Page 18 of 31 ## ATTACHMENTS: ## 1. Presentation Map — Brooklyn Center 2030 Plan (Novarum) ## 2. PowerPoint Presentation — Novarum Concept Review Page 19 of 31 Page 20 of 31 7/22/2026 1 ## Novarum Development Partners ## Opportunity Site ## Collaborative Development ## Framework Proposal ## Ian Alexander, Economic Development Manager •Novarum Development Partners, LLC (“Novarum”) is a newly established development platform. •Novarum’s leadership team collectively brings more than 50 years’ experience in architecture, urban planning, real estate development, capital formation, construction management; entitlement, and public- private partnerships. 2 ## Novarum Development Partners ## Ownership 1 2 Page 21 of 31 7/22/2026 2 ## •EPNI Redevelopment Initiative ## •DJR Architecture Leadership ## •ICONIC Plaza (former Wells Fargo ## Home Mortgage Campus, ## Minneapolis) •As-Suffah Academy Expansion (Blaine) 3 ## Novarum Development Partners ## Representative Experience 4 ## Novarum Development Partners 3 4 Page 22 of 31 7/22/2026 3 5 ## Novarum Development Partners ## •RiverNorth Development Partners: Project Oversight and Coordination ## •DJR Architecture and Collaborative Design Group: ## Urban Design Guidelines ## •WSB: Civil/Stormwater/Infrastructure Coordination ## •Maus Group, LLC: Financial/Pro Forma Structuring 6 ## Novarum Development Partners ## Collaborative Partners 5 6 Page 23 of 31 7/22/2026 4 •North of 694 •Heritage Center loop •Opportunity site •Shingle Creek 7 ## Novarum Development Partners ## Redevelopment District Sites •Novarum and its partners have control of parcels within sites 2A and 2B, 3 and 4. •Site 1 is intentionally reserved for future coordinated development after successful delivery in sites 2A and 2B. 8 ## Novarum Development Partners ## Concept Proposal: Scope 7 8 Page 24 of 31 7/22/2026 5 9 ## Novarum Development Partners ## Concept Proposal: Opportunity Site •Novarum proposes an alternative to the traditional Master Developer framework. •As Development Coordinator, opportunities remain for smaller and emerging developers to participate. •Though multi-developer participation, development will be more equitable and rapid. 10 ## Novarum Development Partners ## Development Framework 9 10 Page 25 of 31 7/22/2026 6 •Urban design standards •Infrastructure alignment •Clear pathways for developer participation •Legislative support •Regular alignment meetings with staff •A performance-based approach that rewards results, protects City assets and maintains continuity with Master Plan 11 ## Novarum Development Partners ## Development Framework Addresses: •Parcel assembly with urban design guidelines and infrastructure alignment •Vison includes high-density, mixed-use construction. •Courtyard blocks offer dense housing while maintaining greenspace. •Zero lot lines and smaller foundation sizes are appealing to smaller developers. 12 ## Novarum Development Partners Concept Proposal: Sites 2A and 2B 11 12 Page 26 of 31 7/22/2026 7 •Urban design guidelines maintain quality and create a cohesive neighborhood. •Small block size is pedestrian friendly and TOD compatible . 13 ## Novarum Development Partners Concept Proposal: Sites 2A and 2B •Working with a developer to repurpose two office buildings and build modern townhouses. •Goal is to relocate Resurrecting Faith daycare and event center to this area. •Future presentation will provide greater details. 14 ## Novarum Development Partners ## Concept Proposal: Site 3 13 14 Page 27 of 31 7/22/2026 8 •Concept for this area focuses on the potential to relocate businesses currently in the Opportunity Site. •Goal is to create higher-value commercial and light industrial district. •Emphasis on modern facilities and operational efficiency consistent with existing zoning. •Future presentation will provide greater details. 15 ## Novarum Development Partners ## Concept Proposal: Site 4A 16 •Novarum and Staff welcome questions and feedback from the ## Board ## NOVARUM DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS ## Conclusion 15 16 Page 28 of 31 ## Council Regular Meeting ## DATE: 7/27/2026 ## TO: Economic Development Authority ## FROM: Ian Alexander, Economic Development Manager, Amy Loegering, ## Economic Development Coordinator, Ginny McIntosh, Planning Manager ## THROUGH: Jason Aarsvold, Ehlers ## BY: Amy Loegering, Economic Development Coordinator ## SUBJECT: EDA Update ## Requested Council Action: No action needed — for discussion purposes only. ## Background: ## Single-Family Developer Outreach: Economic Development staff have spoken with several single-family developers about the scattered sites and are awaiting additional responses. ## EDA Commercial Properties RFP: Economic Development staff are finalizing an RFP to identify a broker for some of the EDA’s commercial/industrial and multi-family residential properties (e.g. 1601 James Circle North and the 5400 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard). Staff anticipate bringing forward an update to the September EDA meeting. ## Billboard Discussion: Community Development staff previously reached out to billboard/outdoor advertising companies to identify potential opportunities for off-site advertising on City-EDA owned properties. The City does not currently permit off-site advertising (i.e. billboard advertising). Staff will bring a proposal to the EDA in August or September for discussion about any potential interest or changes to the City's Code of Ordinances to permit this type of use. This discussion is currently targeted at the EDA as City staff have been working to identify alternative opportunities to bring revenue to and help stabilize the EDA fund. ## Development Updates: ## 1. CAPI Immigrant Opportunity Center — 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard • Approximately 9,000 SF, two-story expansion and site improvements. Estimated to open by or before September 11, 2026 ($7.1 million valuation) ## 2. New Horizon Academy — 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard • New Horizon Academy was issued a Certificate of Occupancy for their new location at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard and are planning to host a Page 29 of 31 ribbon cutting on August 11, 2026 at 2:30 p.m. ($2.4 million valuation) ## 3. Brooklyn Blvd Dental — 5831 Brooklyn Boulevard • 780-square foot expansion of the dental clinic for reception area and additional operatory space with exterior and interior model. This project is underway and they anticipate completion by September 2026. ($500,000 valuation) ## 4. Luther Honda — 6800 Brooklyn Boulevard • 2,200 SF addition for six (6) additional service bays. This project is nearing completion. ($1 million valuation) 5. Luther Mazda/Mitsubishi — 4435 68 th ## Avenue North • Conversion of the former trash building to an auto detail shop. This project is nearing completion. 6. Mound Cemetery — 3515 69 th ## Avenue North • Approximately 1,980 SF office and maintenance building. The Cemetery was established in 1862 and some graves predate the City and State of Minnesota. This project is underway. ## 7. Social Security Administration — 2501 County Road 10 • Relocation and expansion of the Social Security Administration office off Northway Drive to an approximately 12,500 SF space at 2501 County Road 10. The new location is anticipated to open by the end of July 2026. ($1.2 million valuation) ## 8. Caribou Coffee — 3900 Lakebreeze Avenue North • 1 st and 2 nd floor remodels of office space. ($1.5 million valuation). ## 9. Hmong Shopping Center — 5930 Earle Brown Drive • A building permit was issued on July 22, 2026, for a new grocery store in the space adjacent to the Dollar Tree. The Applicant will also be re-paving the parking lot and intends to host a farmer's market. ($4.2 million valuation) 10. Oh Pretti! Events and Rental — 6820 Humboldt Avenue North • Oh Pretti! was issued their Certificate of Occupancy on July 22, 2026, and the owners informed the Building Official they intend to host a ribbon cutting. City Page 30 of 31 staff will let the City Council/EDA know about any upcoming grand opening/ribbon cutting. 11. LC Coffee and Smoothie Shop — 6826 Humboldt Avenue North • This project is also wrapping up and should be complete within the next couple weeks. City staff will let City Council/EDA know about any upcoming grand opening/ribbon cutting. ## Other Development Notes: Community Development staff continue to work through the Purchase and Development Agreement process for Scooter's Coffee at 6245 Brooklyn Boulevard. Community Development staff have been receiving more interest in the former CVS at 5801 Brooklyn Boulevard for a variety of uses and proposed remodels of the space, or complete redevelopment. ## Budget Issues: None to consider at this time. ## Inclusive Community Engagement: ## Antiracist/Equity Policy Effect: ## Strategic Priorities and Values: ## ATTACHMENTS: ## None Page 31 of 31