Brooklyn Park weighs building its own animal-control facility after Champlin leaves joint agreement

Brooklyn Park City Council members and police staff discussed options on where to house a new animal-control facility after the city of Champlin withdrew from a multi-city joint powers agreement (JPA), increasing Brooklyn Park’s share of the project.

Council meeting participants said the city currently bears roughly 44% of the JPA liability; with Champlin’s exit, that share will rise. Officials discussed three main options: an addition to the North Precinct, a southern addition near the central fire station, and a rebuilt structure at the operations and maintenance (O&M) site. Cost estimates for the options ranged from about $4.9 million to $6.8 million, and staff said operating a local facility would roughly double Brooklyn Park’s annual animal-control costs from about $100,000 to roughly $200,000.

The matter matters because Champlin’s withdrawal increases Brooklyn Park’s financial exposure under the existing JPA, and the council must decide whether to remain in the Maple Grove consortium, partner with nearby cities as customers, or build and operate its own facility. Officials said JPA responses are due July 25 (the council extended the internal decision deadline by roughly one month). Establishing and operating a city facility also would require staff time, space reconfiguration, and parking changes that affect other city operations.

Inspector Tony Wenbeck, who presented the design and cost options, said the North Precinct alternatives were the lowest-cost proposals. He described two North Precinct concepts that would add roughly 4,000 square feet to existing police facilities and include visitor and staff parking reconfiguration. "Option 2 is a concept of the North end of the North Precinct," Wenbeck told the council, describing one layout that would attach to the squad garage and use existing staff access to reduce additional staff-space needs.

Wenbeck also described a southern option attached near the planned central fire station, noting that expanding the building to the south would push the structure farther into an existing pickup/parking area and could interfere with fire-truck access. That southern addition was estimated at a larger footprint (about 6,000 square feet in one presentation) and higher cost than the north-end concepts.

Council members and staff also reviewed an O&M-site option on the southeast corner of the city-owned O&M yard. That concept would convert or rebuild a metal pole shed and add a public access point and parking on 80th Third Avenue; Wenbeck said the cost estimate for just the animal-control portion of that site was about $5.6 million to $6.8 million and would not include any separate O&M building work.

A staff member (unnamed in the transcript) gave the council a near-term cost comparison: "We're paying, right around $90,000 a year plus 7,000 ... That's going up to a $188,000 a year plus that 7,000," increasing annual operating expenditures to roughly $200,000. The speaker noted that the city has not previously operated its own shelter and that some operational costs and potential revenues are not yet known.

Police leadership said locating the shelter in a police building has customer-service advantages because residents already come to police facilities to pay release fees and reclaim animals. "I think either police building ... is the most convenient where we already have staff, where people already come to try to claim their dogs anyway," said the police chief (unnamed in the transcript). Council Member Paige, who asked about the cost comparison, and other council members expressed a preference for a north-precinct option while asking for more detailed pricing and utility-location checks.

Council members and staff discussed other practical needs: adding cubicles or moving staff to the North Precinct (a roughly $30,000 estimate was given for cubicle moves), parking reconfiguration and costs (one speaker said adding parking can cost roughly $1,000 per stall under the budget assumptions discussed), and potential staffing models. Officials said the city might need one or two full-time employees (or dedicated cadet positions) to operate the facility and suggested that expanded use of the city’s cadet program could supply labor for kennel care, transfers and facility operations.

Brooklyn Center emerged as a likely paying customer. Officials said Brooklyn Center had expressed interest in using a Brooklyn Park facility rather than commuting to Maple Grove; one presenter said Brooklyn Center represented more than 20% of contributions under the previous plan and could recoup over $1 million in contributions under an earlier allocation. The council asked staff to bring current Brooklyn Center payment amounts and projected new rates to a follow-up presentation.

Parking was a recurring concern. Staff and council members discussed using future parking at a nearby community activity center (CAC) and the feasibility of overflow parking at adjacent sites to reduce construction of new stalls.

No formal motion or vote was recorded on site selection during the meeting. Council members expressed informal consensus leaning toward a North Precinct option pending more detailed cost, utility and revenue information. The council asked staff to return with a refined cost comparison, updated Brooklyn Center payment data, and follow-up details before making a binding decision.

Ending

Officials instructed staff to gather additional information — finalized utility maps, Brooklyn Center payment figures, and refined cost estimates — and return to the council before the July 25 decision deadline for JPAs. Several council members said they preferred a North Precinct location for functional and customer-flow reasons but left final selection to follow-up analysis.