Brooklyn Park City work session: staff asks council to prioritize market-rate projects with mixed-income requirements, study tenant protections

Director Bradenow opened the Brooklyn Park City housing work session by saying she did not expect the meeting to resolve policy but wanted to outline a roadmap for upcoming housing items and seek council direction on priorities. "I wouldn't expect to solve any housing policy today, but do want to give a little bit of a road map of some upcoming discussions related to housing," she said.

Why it matters: The staff recommendations will shape which development proposals the EDA and council see and how city resources—such as Local Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA) and EDA land—are prioritized. The choices affect displacement risk, tax base outcomes, and where market-rate and affordable units are sited in Brooklyn Park City.

Staff recommendations and data coming to the EDA

Director Bradenow told the council to expect market-data presentations tied to the Brooklyn Boulevard Plan and the Northwest Growth Area in coming weeks, including AMI (area median income) analyses and property-level AMI examples. She said staff will present a slide deck showing what mixed income looks like in practice and the rents that correspond to AMI tiers.

Bradenow said the city receives roughly $900,000 a year in Local Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA) and that, in broad terms, about half is used for housing-program supplements and half can be pooled into a housing trust. She prefaced the amount as an approximate, "round numbers, don't quote me an exact number," and said staff would bring more precise figures in forthcoming materials.

Mixed-income policy and EDA priorities

Staff stressed that EDA assets should generally prioritize market-rate projects that include a portion of affordable units rather than exclusively affordable developments. Bradenow described the existing mixed-income expectation: a minimum share of affordable units (staff cited a 20% minimum to qualify in some programs), with the majority of units remaining market-rate.

The council signaled support for flexibility. One council member asked whether the city could create geographic waivers from mixed-income requirements in areas where market-rate financing is unlikely to "pencil out." Bradenow said the city can define exclusion areas and tweak the mixed-income policy rather than eliminating it.

4(d)(1) tax classification and preservation versus tax break

Bradenow reviewed the 4(d)(1) low‑income rental tax classification that some developers seek. She described how the program reduces the tax rate (staff cited reducing 1.25 to 0.25 as an example) and explained the duration ties to recorded restrictive covenants: "If you restrict that rent level for 30 years, they get that 4(d)(1) for 30 years," she said. Staff told council there is not currently enough support for a standalone program but that 4(d)(1) can be used as part of a broader financing package for qualifying projects.

Funding tools and emergency assistance

Bradenow said county emergency rental assistance exists but is limited and quickly exhausted when allocated. Staff said the city could design a narrowly targeted emergency rent-assistance program, but it would require underwriting, oversight, and additional staff capacity; any city program would likely be small and targeted. She said staff could pencil the topic into a February EDA agenda for further design discussion.

Tenant protections and ACER proposals

Two ACER proposals—(1) a Just Cause eviction ordinance and (2) a source-of-income (protected-income) ordinance to prevent landlords from disqualifying tenants who use vouchers—were flagged for future study. On just cause, Bradenow contrasted the proposal with the city’s current tenant-notification ordinance: when ownership changes, new owners must notify tenants within 30 days, which triggers a 90-day clock that can require three months of rent assistance for displaced tenants. Bradenow said a broader just-cause ordinance would expand protections beyond change-of-ownership scenarios.

When asked whether similar ordinances have documented eviction‑prevention effects, Bradenow said she had not received quantitative evidence from ACER and could not yet quantify prevented evictions, describing the evidence as largely anecdotal from conversations with property managers.

Section 8 vouchers and enforcement

Council member Tran asked what the city can do if properties refuse Section 8 vouchers. Bradenow said the city currently operates a renter-resources web page and provides referrals; to require voucher acceptance would require strengthening the draft source-of-income ordinance or enacting a legal prohibition. Staff said referrals and enforcement through fair-housing channels are the immediate tools available.

Market challenges, retail attraction, and mixed use

Council members and an industry speaker noted the financing challenges for vertically mixed-use projects and warned that state-level rent-control policy and higher interest rates have made attracting market-rate investment to Brooklyn Park City more difficult. Staff and a developer-industry speaker said incentives—gap financing, land inducements, or targeted EDA support—could be needed to attract market-rate development in some corridors.

Next steps

Bradenow recommended allowing Villa Del Coronado to present at the next EDA meeting for their reinvestment proposal while staff revises mixed-income policy options and prepares market-data packets. Staff asked the council to indicate whether to: (a) prioritize market-rate projects with a portion of affordable units; (b) consider geographic waivers for mixed-income requirements; and (c) direct staff to study ACER proposals (just-cause eviction and source-of-income protections) and limited emergency rent-assistance options. No formal motions or votes were taken during the session.

Closing: Bradenow said staff will return with more precise LAHA figures, the Brooklyn Boulevard market study, and specific policy options to consider at upcoming EDA and council meetings.