07-25-2017 Complete AgendaS P E C IAL C IT Y C O U N C IL W O R K SESSIO N
R IC H F IE L D MU N IC IPAL C EN TER, B AR T H O L O ME W R O O M
JU LY 25, 2017
5:30 P M
C all to order
1.Update on S mall C ell A ntenna L egislation
2.Metro Transit - D -L ine D iscussion
3.69th S treet P ilot P roject
A djournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at
least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
July 20, 2017
Council Memorandum No. 70
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: July 25, 2017 Work Session Items
Council Members:
The following items will be discussed at the July 25, 2017 City Council Work Session:
Update on Small Cell Antenna Legislation
Bob Vose from Kennedy & Graven will provide an update on the small cell antenna
legislation. Attached is a memo that provides information on the legislation.
The New D Line (rapid bus service)
Representatives from Metro Transit will present information on the new D Line (rapid
bus service) that will run on Portland Avenue through Richfield and is scheduled for
construction as soon as 2020. For more information, please visit their website at
https://www.metrotransit.org/d-line-project.
69th Street Pilot Project
The 69th Street Pilot Project was recommended by the Richfield Transportation
Commission on September 7, 2016, and approved by Council on October 11, 2016. The
project’s purpose is to provide pedestrian facilities along 69th Street, between Penn and
Xerxes Aves, and reduce vehicular speeds.
The project was installed in the fall of 2016 and ran through June 2017. Upon
completion, staff compiled residents’ survey responses and analyzed traffic data (before
and after). The survey results and traffic analysis are attached. The Transportation
Commission discussed these results at their July 12, 2017, meeting. The discussion
lead to a recommendation to develop a long-term, permanent solution for 69th Street
and to continue the pilot configuration with modifications in the interim.
Please contact Kristin Asher, Director of Public Works, at 612-861-9795 with questions.
Respectfully submitted,
Steven L. Devich
City Manager
SLD:tab
Email: Assistant City Manager
Department Directors
Attachments
500751v1 RJV VS105-1
Kennedy Offices in
Minneapolis
Saint Paul
St. Cloud
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
www.kennedy-graven.com
Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer
Graven
CHARTERED
MEMORANDUM
TO: Clients
FROM: Bob Vose
DATE: June 2, 2017
RE: Small Cell Legislation
The wireless industry is seeking to deploy “small cell” wireless facilities in public rights-
of-way (ROW). To that end, the industry is seeking to pass model state legislation
across the country. Approximately 20 states have introduced such legislation, and at
least 7 midwestern states have enacted new laws as a result of these efforts.
In Minnesota, the largest wireless providers, AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint, aggressively
lobbied for the model legislation this session. The Minnesota League of Cities strongly
opposed the initial bill and, at various times, it appeared “dead.” In recent weeks,
however, legislators convened negotiations between wireless providers, cities,
municipal utilities, and the cable industry. After extensive negotiations primarily over
changes requested by the League, the League took a neutral position on the final
language. The League believes that the negotiated language represents the best
preservation of local control for Minnesota cities that could, in light of legislative realities,
be obtained and is superior to laws passed elsewhere. We assisted the League during
the session.
The small cell language was ultimately included in the Jobs Bill-- Senate File 1456. The
Governor signed SF1456 and other budget bills on May 30th. The House and Senate
had each narrowly passed companion bills as stand-alone legislation, but the small cell
language presumably found its way into the Jobs Bill to guard against a veto. With a
few exceptions, the law became effective immediately.
This summarizes the most significant provisions in SF1456 regarding small wireless
deployment:
1. Wireless Governed by Minnesota ROW Law
Under prior law, “telecommunications right-of-way users,” a defined term, and other
traditional users of the ROW are statutorily entitled to access and install facilities in
the ROW . Such rights are subject to reasonable regulations and conditions imposed
&
500751v1 RJV VS105-1
by the local government unit (LGU). LGUs are required to enact ROW ordinances to
implement this authority.
Prior law did not, however, cover or grant ROW access to wireless providers or
facilities. SF1456 addresses this by amending the term “telecommunications right-
of-way user” to include persons deploying facilities to provide “wireless service,” a
newly defined term. This and other changes made by SF1456 generally entitle
wireless providers to use ROW .
Wireless providers may deploy a “small wireless facility” or a “wireless support
structure” in the ROW. These are both newly defined terms.
o In order to be “small,” the proposed deployment must meet statutorily-limited
size requirements- each antenna must be no more than six cubic feet, and all
associated equipment, excluding certain types of equipment (back-up
generator, for example), must either be concealed or less than 28 cubic feet.
o In order to be an authorized support structure, any proposed new pole cannot
exceed the lesser of 50 feet or 10 feet above an existing pole that is being
replaced unless the LGU allows a greater height.
LGUs may deny permits for new small cell facilities or wireless support structures
based on reasonable health, welfare and safety concerns.
One of the wireless industry’s primary goals was to require that poles or similar
structures owned by the LGU in the ROW (light poles, for example) be made
available for the attachment of small wireless facilities. The industry’s model bill
actually proposed redefining the ROW to include essentially all LGU infrastructure.
SF1456, however, does not make LGU-improvements in the ROW a part of the
ROW available for private use. The law instead expressly allows an LGU to
determine whether a particular pole or other structure in the ROW was designed to
support proposed wireless equipment or is capable of doing so. The LGU may deny
a wireless provider access to a particular facility based on this determination or other
public health, safety or welfare concerns.
An LGU may also condition a permit on health, welfare and safety concerns, on
“reasonable accommodations for decorative wireless support structures or signs,” or
upon “any reasonable restocking, replacement, or relocation requirements” for a new
wireless support structure in the ROW.
LGUs may also impose separation requirements (distance minimums) between new
poles or other wireless support structures.
Municipal electric utility poles and facilities are exempt from the bill. About 125 cities
have municipal utilities.
500751v1 RJV VS105-1
2. Zoning
Another primary industry goal was to require that small wireless facilities be made a
permitted use in all ROWs regardless of the underlying zoning district in which the
ROW is located.
SF1456 makes small wireless facilities and associated wireless supp ort structures a
permitted use in all ROWs, but LGUs may make such facilities or structures a
special or conditional use in ROW located “in a district or area zoned for single-
family residential use or within a historic district.”
LGUs are prohibited from adopting a moratorium on the processing and issuance of
small wireless facility permits. This provision is effective immediately except that it
becomes effective on January 1, 2018 for any LGU that had not enacted a ROW
ordinance as of May 18, 2017.
3. Application Process
LGUs may require permits for placement of new wireless structures or collocation of
small wireless facilities in the ROW. It is unclear whether this is in lieu of or in
addition to the ROW permit already required by most existing ROW ordinances.
An LGU has 90 days to issue or deny a permit. SF1456 indicates that failure to
timely act results in the permit being “deemed approved” and “the permit is
automatically issued.” The deadline can be extended for 30 days if:
o the LGU receives applications for 30 or more sites within a 7 day period, or:
o the application is incomplete and the LGU delineates the missing information
within 30 days of receipt.
Written notice of any extension must be provided to the applicant.
Applicants may file up to 15 permit applications simultaneously as long as the
requested sites are within a 2 mile radius, consist of substantially similar equipment,
and are to be placed on similar structures. LGUs may approve or deny applications
individually or collectively.
A denial must be in writing and state the basis for denial. The LGU must notify the
applicant in writing within 3 business days of the decision. The applicant may cure
the deficiencies noted and reapply. If such re-application is made within 30 days of
denial no additional fee may be imposed and a further decision must be made within
30 days of receipt.
500751v1 RJV VS105-1
LGUs may not require wireless providers to supply information provided in an earlier
application for a small wireless facility if such info is specifically referenced in the
current application. LGUs also may not require information “not reasonably
necessary to review a permit application for compliance with generally applicable
and reasonable health, safety, and welfare regulations” or demonstrate compliance
with applicable FCC regulations “governing radio frequency exposure,” or otherwise
demonstrate compliance with the new law.
4. Rent and Fees
The wireless industry’s most important goal was to obtain the right to use LGU-
owned facilities in the ROW in exchange for no or minimal rent.
SF 1456 allows the imposition of rent of up to $150 annually, plus $25 for
maintenance, for each site. Additional fees may be imposed if the wireless provider
uses LGU-purchased electricity rather than separately metering. This payment
arrangement would presumably be reflected in an attachment agreement governing
the provider’s attachments to the LGU’s facilities.
LGUs remain entitled to recover ROW management costs, a defined term, from
wireless providers using the ROW via permit fees. However, SF1456 indicates that
“unreasonable fees of a third-party contractor” cannot be recovered. Such fees
include “any third-party contractor fee tied to or based upon customer counts,
access lines, revenue generated by the telecommunications right-of-way user, or
revenue generated for a local government unit.”
5. NO PUC Rules or Dispute Resolution
The PUC has promulgated rules governing underground installation of
telecommunications and other utility infrastructure in the ROW . The PUC is
authorized to administratively adjudicate disputes arising out of an LGU’s
interpretation or application of these rules.
SF1456 does not explicitly authorize the PUC to promulgate new rules regarding
installation of wireless facilities in the ROW including, particularly, how attachments
to LGU facilities must be made. Thus, the PUC will presumably not have any
adjudicative role regarding wireless installations in ROW.
LGUs are authorized to require separate agreements with wireless providers
governing attachments to the LGU’s poles or other facilities. SF1456 provides:
No later than six months after the effective date of this act or three months after
receiving a small wireless facility permit application from a wireless service
provider, a local government unit that has elected to set forth terms and
conditions of collocation in a standard small wireless facility collocation
agreement shall develop and make available an agreement that complies with
500751v1 RJV VS105-1
the requirements of this section and section 237.162. A standard small wireless
facility collocation agreement shall be substantially complete….
Conclusion
The work our clients will need to do to accommodate the new small cell wireless law
depends to a large extent on each municipality’s ROW ordinance, zoning provisions,
ROW application process, and standard practices. However, it is apparent that a
number of steps will need to be taken. These likely include:
1. Amendment of the ROW ordinance to include provisions specific to the
installation of wireless facilities on existing poles or similar facilities, and
addressing the potential installation of new “wireless support structures;” i.e.
poles. Some clients may wish to address wireless deployment in the ROW via a
new ordinance that is separate from the existing ROW ordinance.
Whether implemented by amending an existing ROW ordinance or adopting a
new, separate ordinance, the application process requirements noted above will
need to be incorporated.
2. Amendment of the zoning ordinance or code to make small wireless a permitted
use in all ROW but, potentially, a conditional use in ROW located in residential
zones.
3. Preparation of a template agreement governing attachment of wireless facilities
to municipal poles or other infrastructure in the ROW. We anticipate that the
League will seek to make a model agreement available. Our office may assist
with that work. The rent and the maintenance fee requirements will be
addressed in this template agreement.
Of course, preparation of a “substantially complete” template agreement
governing attachments to municipal infrastructure will be difficult for
municipalities that have a variety of facilities in the ROW. The template
agreement may need to contemplate different attachment requirements
depending on the nature of the particular facility to which a wireless provider
seeks to attach its equipment.
Please contact me with questions.
1
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The City’s Comprehensive Plan, Sidewalk Policy, Complete Streets Policy, and Guiding
Principles have established goals for pedestrian facilities on collector roadways and improved
multimodal transportation options for Richfield residents. This project is intended to add over 1/2 mile
of planned pedestrian facilities on 69th Street which is an identified gap in the pedestrian network,
(Xerxes Avenue to Penn Avenue).
This project provides safer pedestrian connections to:
Stores and services on Penn Avenue
Stores and services in Edina
The 69th Street improvements may also accommodate bicycles on this planned bicycle route identified in
the approved Bicycle Master Plan. This route also connects to the Metro Transit Bus Route on Penn
Avenue.
PROJECT MAP (Base map from the Comprehensive Plan)
69TH STREET BEFORE CONDITIONS
The study corridor crosses a residential neighborhood with driveways and alleys serving the
neighborhood. 69th Street is a collector roadway and is part of the City’s Municipal State Aid System
and therefore State Aid design standards apply to the corridor. Richfield’s Sidewalk Policy identifies
that sidewalks should be constructed on one side of a collector roadway, but no sidewalk exists on
69th Street.
69th St Penn Ave Project
Area Xerxes Ave
2
The average daily traffic on the corridor is 3,000 vehicles/day. The roadway was not striped, but the
two-way roadway allowed parking on the north side of the street and parking was restricted on the
south side. 69th Street received an Overlay in 2015. (see figure below)
Frequent and ongoing complaints regarding speeding on 69th Street were received by Public Works
and Public Safety staff. Speed studies verified citizen concerns. The speed limit on 69th Street is 30
mph and the 85th Percentile Speeds were documented from 35 mph to 38 mph. A video log was
recorded in September 2016 to evaluate the operations of the corridor. Key observations from the
video were:
Very few cars parked on the roadway.
Vehicles did not travel in the designated lanes. The lack of parked vehicles allowed an “open
road” feeling with vehicles traveling along the physical centerline of the street.
The speeding problem was not resolved with additional enforcement or with the installation of radar
controlled “Your Speed” indication signs. The speeding problems created an unsafe condition for
residents accessing their driveways or the alleys.
The lack of sidewalk along 69th St creates a very unsafe condition for pedestrians and is illustrated in
the chart below. This chart is from a study published by AAA’s Foundation for Traffic Safety. The
chart plots the Risk of Severe Injury to pedestrians struck at various impacts speeds from either a
car or light truck (i.e.; pickup truck). The 69th Street 85th Percentile data is also show on this chart.
3
The following image was taken from the September 2016 video log. This image shows pedestrians
walking along 69th Street as they are being passed by a light truck and cars. Key observations:
There are not any parked cars.
Westbound traffic has shifted into the parking lane on the north side.
Eastbound traffic is using the westbound lane.
Pedestrians walk in the eastbound lane with their backs to traffic.
69th Street
(Xerxes to Penn)
4
DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Public Works staff developed alternatives attempting to address the speeding problem and the lack
of pedestrian safety along the 69th Street study area. The concepts considered were:
Sidewalk with or without a boulevard
Sidewalk with shifted curb (narrowed Street)
“On-street” path (width coordinated with maintenance staff for plowing and street sweeping)
Early evaluation of these options findings:
Utility poles on the north side would be problematic resulting in focus on sidewalk options on
the south side only
City sidewalk standards include options of a 6 ft. sidewalk and 6 ft. boulevard or a 10 ft. wide
sidewalk. The limited Right-of-Way resulted in only consideration of a 10 ft. sidewalk.
Funding for a significant construction project has not been identified.
Eliminating the little used parking would allow for either narrowing of the road or conversion
of the parking lane into an “on-street path.”
Pedestrian Mode Measures
The goal of the City’s pedestrian network is to provide for safe, secure and efficient movement along
and across the roadways. The following performance measures will be used to evaluate the Pedestrian
success of any alternative in addition to ADA criteria.
Speed of traffic (slower)
Offset to traffic (buffer zone)
Crossing distances
Number of users
The following alternatives were brought to a Public Open House on August 24, 2016, at Jefferson
Park:
Alternative Pedestrian Bicycle Parking
impacts
Cost
10’ Wide sidewalk on south side - - $$$$$$$
10’ Wide sidewalk with southern curb
shifted north
- - $$$$$$
10’ On-street shared use path-painted edge
line
$
10’ On-street shared use path-painted edge
line with tube delineators
$$
10’ On-street shared use path-curbed
delineators
$$
5
These alternates represent higher cost sidewalk construction alternates along with lower cost on-
street path alternates. The chart indicates each alternative’s potential to provide safe travel for
pedestrians and bicyclists along with parking impacts and relative cost.
Parking needs vary along the corridor. While most homes are on the corner, served by parking on
the avenues, one home fronts on 69th Street and there are two homes at Penn Avenue (which is
posted “No Parking except Sunday”).
Recommendation for Pilot Project
The comments from the open house supported the speeding problem, but provided no clear
direction for addressing the pedestrian safety. On September 7, 2016, the Transportation
Commission made a recommendation to City Council to “pilot” the alternative; 10’ On-street shared
use path- curbed delineators including monitoring speeds, along with pedestrian and bicyclist
usage through June of 2017. City Council approved the pilot project at their meeting on October 11,
2016 and the changes to 69th Street were made shortly thereafter.
Figure 1 69th St Pilot Project
6
RESULTS OF PILOT PROJECT
Figure 2 69th Street Pedestrian Pilot Project on-street path
Pilot Project Change to Speeds
Initial Speeds: 85% speed 35-38 mph (Speed Limit 30 mph)
Pilot Project:
Westbound- 85% speed 33-35 mph*
Eastbound- 85% speed 33-35 mph*
*66th Street Detour traffic included (volumes increased from 3,000 to approximately
5,000 vehicles/day)
7
The changes to the speeds are plotted on the same Risk of Severe Injury chart:
Pilot Project Changes to Pedestrian and Bicycle Usage
Video log was repeated in June 2017 and pedestrians and bicyclists were counted. The weather during
each of the times recorded was comfortable for walking. The following table compares the changes:
69th Street
(Xerxes to Penn)
Before Pilot
After Pilot
8
Crash Summary
Crash data was compared to similar collectors and no significant crash patterns were identified with
the following exception: The intersection at 69th Street with Upton Avenue has a few more crashes,
most likely due to the limited sight distances restricted by the side slopes created by cutting 69th
Street into the hill. Sightline improvements should be considered as part of any future reconstruction
project of 69th Street.
Page 1 of 12
The 69th Street Pedestrian Pilot Project survey was available on-line from April 12 through April 30, 2017. The survey
was posted on the City of Richfield’s website, promoted via Facebook, and emailed directly to citizens that had been
engaged through project open house attendance or other contacts. Approximately 40 citizens took the survey. The
survey focused on the mobility and safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers. The survey also provided the
opportunity for participants to give comments. The results of the survey:
Arrows indicate percentage of respondents
that replied, “Yes” to Living within three (3)
blocks of the 69th Street Pilot Project.
Clarification for “Other”:
Motorcycle
Pushing a stroller
Used to enjoy parking
No parking on 69th
Live on 69th
Used to park, until parking ban
Page 2 of 12
ID Walking Comments
4392 Delineating a specific space for biking and walking adds a safety element and a comfort level that encourages
participating in those activities and makes doing so more pleasant
4394 Safer, but still get the awkward feel of being on the street. Safe crossing with small children is still a big
concern. For example, crossing at Upton Ave to head to Jefferson Park.
Shading indicates respondents that replied, “Yes” to Living
within three (3) blocks of the 69th Street Pilot Project.
Page 3 of 12
4395 69th no longer feels like a barrier to walking and biking with small kids. We've started walking to the park at
68th and Upton because we feel safer getting there. We also will walk along 69th, which we never had before.
4396 Along 69th Street, between Penn Ave & Xerxes Ave is great but the transitions at either end are awkward. I
would prefer having areas on both sides of the street to remedy this.
4397 Coming out of the alley from the south is dangerous especially if there are cars or fences blocking the sight
lines for east bound traffic. This is especially true for the alley between Sheridan and Russell. A reminder sign
would be helpful but may not solve the problem due to posted or higher speeds heading east.
4400 I do not like the south side shoulder. Too close to my property and turning from south onto 69th heading east
towards Penn makes it tougher not to impede somewhat in the West bound lane. When west bound traffic is
there.
Do not like the looks of the white markers. i don't think you will be able to make me happy. unless you put the
parking back on 69th Street. Put the walkers and bikers on alternate streets. I am sure this wont make a bit of
difference to you.
4405 It was wonderful to walk to Cub and other places this winter. I drove those short distances in the past as it was
not safe on either 69th or 70th !!
4406 First of all, the city staff most likely evaluates speeds along 69th street during their business hours which are
from probably 7:00am to 3:30pm, therefore the accuracy of the study for speed is not exact ? Before the bike
/ pedestrian lane was ever constructed, traffic speeds appeared to be SLOWER than they are now since these
lanes were built. I've seen vehicles passing one another on 69th street heading westbound towards Edina.
I've also seen bicyclists riding in the eastbound traffic lane for vehicles, not even using the bike lanes
constructed for them.
The next issue I would like to address is the SAFETY! When a northbound driver of a vehicle approaching 69th
street from any given side street such as: Sheridan, Thomas, Upton, Vincent and so on, that vehicle wants to
make a right hand turn (eastbound) on 69th street, they usually have the tendency to take that right hand
turn wider then what is allotted for due to these bike lanes. When this happens, and there is ANY oncoming
traffic ( westbound on 69th ), there is no room for ERROR. Therefore, the ( westbound ) traffic on 69th street
will veer off onto the pedestrian/bike lane. Especially, the elderly citizens because they are NOT used to
driving on the wrong side of the road.
One suggestion is: why not trying a pilot program with having a BUFFER ZONE of approximately 4 - 7 feet on
each side of 69th street, with no parking on either side, allowing the CROWN of the road being the CENTER OF
ROADWAY? You wouldn't need all of those traffic barrier delineation. By eliminating the delineation, now
you DON'T have to send out a SPECIAL TRUCK to PLOW 69th street costing the taxpayers more money in
overtime. Snow builds up around those traffic barriers and now we have inappropriate drainage when the
snow starts melting and causing it to refreeze in the pedestrian / bike lane. This could be a LAWSUIT waiting
to happen for the city. Maybe Portland Ave construction of those bikes lanes made of concrete, acting as a
BUFFER ZONE could be a mirror image of 69th street without those center islands?
Another solution could be simply use the right - away on either side of 69th street and install sidewalks wide
enough to accommodate pedestrian / bicyclist traffic which would be the SAFEST - OF - ALL - SOLUTIONS!
4408 When we first moved to Richfield last June (2016) there wasn't a pedestrian area on 69th. It felt very unsafe to
walk there because there was no barrier and people would speed up and down 69th like their hair was on fire.
Once the street was redone, I used it almost immediately. I was so excited to have a safe place to walk with
my baby. It seemed to have slowed traffic down as well because the lanes are narrower.
Page 4 of 12
4410 It's fine if I stay on the north side of the street where there is protection. But when I head to my friend's
house on the south side it's darned scary.
We need speed bumps. People are NOT going to slow down for anything now days. And neighbors living on
south side of 69th Street need more wiggle room to get out of their driveways safely.
4411 When driving to work each morning (west bound), I continually see people walking on the south side of 69th
westbound.
4418 I feel the experience has improved and is safer because of the designated pedestrian lane but is not optimal.
4420 I NEVER felt unsafe walking along 69th street before the improvements, so I cannot honestly say I feel safer
walking along 69th from Xerxes to Penn after the improvements.
4421 I think the narrower lanes make the overall driving and walking experience more unsafe. The narrower south
lane means that I can barely pull out far enough from the alley to turn into the street, to see if a car is coming
only to find the car is coming - almost too late. With snow banks added in the winter, it's going to be a very
dangerous entry on 69th from the ally.
Walking in the walkway still feels dangerous because cars drive very fast down 69th. I walk my dog every day
and feel no safer in the walkway than I did along side the curb. Having at least one real sidewalk (either north
or south side of 69th) from Penn to York would definitely improve pedestrian and car safety on 69th street. I
don't think the walk way in the street is the answer.
4422 This experiment had caused much user confusion, verbal abuse and dangerous situations. Please make 69th
Street safe again. Every week we observe dangerous situations by both motorized and nonmotorised users. It
is just to confusing and ill thought out. The street was much safer prior to the experiment.
4430 There is no safe place to walk on south side of 69th. Work trucks often park in walk/bike area leaving
walkers/bikers to walk around resulting in using street.
Page 5 of 12
ID Biking Comments
4389 Sort of awkward to bike going east. I don't feel comfortable going the wrong way, so I go in the traffic lane.
But I still appreciate that cars drive a lot slower now!
Page 6 of 12
4393 This really depends. I feel safer riding west bound as I am going with traffic. But going east bound I feel much
less safe, because I'm in a spot that motorists don't look for bikes. Not to mention when you get to Penn Ave
you are left at the light being on the wrong side of the street.
4394 Much better. Would like to see more of this interim or pilot type of treatment.
4395 69th is great to ride along now. I love it.
4396 I prefer 70th Street for casual biking and prefer sharing the road otherwise. Again, the transitions at Penn Ave
& Xerxes Ave are awkward. East of Penn Ave isn't so bad since traffic is light but west of Xerxes Ave is terrible
since the road is crumbling (although it was recently patched, so maybe it's better) and left turns are made
across both west & east bound traffic.
4406 I RARELY see bicyclists on 69th street. I generally see walking / pedestrian traffic with their pets and/or their
children.
4408 Biking has improved greatly. I no longer feel like I'm in the way of cars and I feel somewhat protected from
traffic. Before, I felt invisible to cars.
4411 I don't like it - much prefer a lane on each side. Avid road biker AND I drive to work every day on 69th & find
the posts very intimidating
4418 Having a designated lane helps create a barrier from traffic but because it is a mixed use lane regular bikers do
not use the lane and stay in the roadway as they do not want to cross paths with the pedestrian traffic.
4421 The lanes are too narrow.
4422 This is not a valid survey as your question/answers are skewed to a desired response and don't allow
undesired responses. Cycling on 69th is seriously much more dangerous than ever. Try it yourself if you dare.
4426 I ride 69th from Tomas to Penn in the evening on my commute home. After 38 years of riding on roads, I do
not feel safe riding against traffic especially when others are in the safety lane. Also, when I get to Penn I am
on the wrong side to cross Penn. The cars turning from South Penn to West 69th turn into the safety lane and
are not looking for walkers or bikes. When it is dusk or dark in the evening the oncoming vehicle lights are
blinding. I usually wait for East traffic to be clear and ride in the traffic lane. Thank you for reading. Joe (70th &
James)
4430 Same as walk comments. Also if you are going West on 69th technically you should be walking/biking on south
side of 69th. There is no safe way to do this
Page 7 of 12
ID Driving Comments
4389 I feel a lot more aware of where I am in the street.
4390 Design cues to lower design speed are greatly appreciated. The street is still far too wide, which encourages
speeding. Slowing traffic makes things so much safer including for us motorists.
Page 8 of 12
4392 There's now a shorter span to get across and the cross traffic seems to have somewhat slowed down
4394 It's different. Forced to pay attention better. Feel's different and causes me to drive slower which is safer.
4395 Virtually everyone is driving slower, which is great.
4396 I rarely drive at all, and when I do, I don't speed, so nothing really changed. I have noticed drivers hugging the
center line quite a bit and several people driving in the pedestrian/cyclist corridor.
4399 Driving due to 66th street construction so anything's better than on 66th.
4405 Speeds seem improved (slower). I was worried about being rear ended after the change when turning south
into my ally but people seem to be paying attention and slowing down
4406 The FUNDING allotted to the city for the bicycle traffic appears to be more important than the SAFETY of our
citizens!
4408 I no longer feel rushed as I'm driving along 69th. Before, cars would be going 35-45 mph, rushing me along as
I went 25-30 mph. I knew there were kids in the area, as well as walkers, runners, and bikers. Now, I feel like I
can fully see them and I don't worry when driving.
4409 The new pedestrian/bike lane makes me feel less safe in 69th street. It feels like the driving lanes are
narrower. This is especially an issue after it's snowed. Clearing snow seems to be a problem.
4410 Drivers are still speeding at the usual rate.
4412 Eastbound traffic is too close to the curb.
4418 It does not seem the pilot project has helped to slow traffic and it has pushed cars too close to residents
living on the south side of the road.
4421 See previous comments
4422 The narrow lanes cause drivers to traverse so close to others that I fear for my life daily. Again you provide no
negative response, shame on you!
4426 I have seen cars driving in the safety lane. Suspect they use it seldom and are confused.
4429 Neighbors bordering this street said they suggested 1 way on 69th & the opposite on 70th. Seems like a good
idea. They miss having parking on 69th & have not noticed that traffic has slowed.
4430 It is not safer. People are confused & I often see people driving IN the designated walk/bike path. This was to
reduce speed of which I have not seen. With 66th under construction, there is more traffic, more confusion &
significant speeds!!!
4458 I have lived on 69th for 40 years. Obviously the traffic has increased. I DONOT like the delineators that are in
place. The traffic has increased because of 66th construction and continued building around the Southdale
area. The speed has not decreased. Until the orange delineators were added in the walking lane cars were
driving in that lane. The East bound traffic is too close the houses on that side. I find it not easy at times to
back out of my driveway. It seems people think they come first before the actual residents.
Page 9 of 12
Page 10 of 12
ID Additional comments
4386 I love the changes.
4389 I'd like more frequent posts when walking. It feels sort of exposed between the groups of the posts.
4393 Modify it so east bound is on south side of the road and west bound is on the north side. Don't completely get
rid of it.
4394 I typically drive 66th occasionally, but have recently increased not because of the pilot project, but because of
construction on 66th Street. I'd ultimately like to see a permanent configuration with a curb, and boulevard
with trees.
4395 Unequivocally I would like to see this become permanent.
4396 This hasn't had much of an impact on me. I walk from 70th & Penn to Cub regularly and either take 69th St or
68th St, generally opting for 68th St since there are more trees & less traffic. My personal preference would be
to have lanes on both sides of the road for pedestrians/casual cyclists and have faster (>10 mph?) cyclists use
the road. I don't know how that would impact snow removal (maybe remove the pylons?) though. I really don't
understand why we're looking at an infrastructure change to convince drivers not to speed through a
residential area - why not enforce the speed limit instead? And for pedestrian safety, maybe it's time hitting a
pedestrian/cyclist with a car gets treated the same as hitting them with some other 4,000+ lb object.
It might be worthwhile to talk to someone in Winona's city government. It's an extremely pedestrian & cyclist
friendly city and completely bizarre for people visiting to see cars stop for all pedestrians at every corner.
4401 I do drive slower on the road and find that others do as well. I don't often see bikers or walkers using the north
lane, and have unfortunately seen a pedestrian on the roadway with car traffic. I think the impact of lower
speeds is important for the residents in the area, as I would want that if I lived nearby.
4405 My only concern is about keeping south alleys clear in a normal winter. Once there were some snow piles
visibility was very dicey exiting the alley onto 69th.
And these changes have not reduced traffic volume or slowed the number rolling through the stop sign at 69th
and Vincent. But as a pedestrian I love the change!!
4406 I would NOT like to see this as a permanent design for the pedestrians / bicyclists!
4408 I know the cost is an issue, but I'd much prefer a path like 76th on the East side of Richfield in this section. (And
actually extending across Penn all the way to Humboldt and across York all the way.
The street is in terrible condition once you cross Xerxes, which I know is Edina. I thought they were better than
that. It's literally crumbling and there's a sidewalk only on the left side.
4409 I feel like the change has made it less safe to drive on this road. Please look into other options.
Page 11 of 12
4410 It's nice for the bikers and dog walkers, but many people are confused by the white poles and have even driven
in that lane. And it's not like the signs are large enough.
The problem is that the street should have never been made that wide and now we are all suffering the
consequences.
4411 Bike/walk lane on EACH side preferred
4412 Would like to see a better division of 69th st, taking into account pedestrian lane traffic, and ease of snow
removal. Eastbound lane too narrow.
4418 The pilot project has helped to improve pedestrian use along 69th street but I feel further changes are still
needed to slow traffic and to create better space for both people walking and biking.
4420 As I said in the meeting, if changes are a requirement, I would much rather have the current changes made
permanent than a narrowing of the street with walking path and curb and gutter. I feel that the changes as
they are now are very easy to see and I have seen more walkers and bikers since they were implemented. The
only thing that I would change would be to make the posts a brighter color such as fluorescent orange or
yellow.
4422 Please remove this hazard immediately
4426 I think stripping a safety lane on each side may be a better choice.
4429 Repeating that neighbors who border 69th have not noticed speeds changed. They miss parking on 69th &
suggested 1 way traffic on 69th & 70th. That seems like a good idea. Although I'd like to keep the bike lane too.
4430 In my opinion this has caused a whole new set of issues and/or safety problems for walkers, bikers & drivers.
You forgot to add HOMEOWNERS!
4431 I live on 69th and Thomas. My driveway backs out onto 69Th. So when I'm backing out I am backing out
directly into traffic without any easement to look for traffic until my car is actually in the path.
While snowblowing I was almost hit by a car twice because I had to turn around my snowblower at the end of
my driveway which is actually the street in the car path.
I am very concerned to try to work in my yard on the 69th side this summer or even tend to any of the normal
activities this spring because if I slip off the curb... I am in path of on coming traffic which is considerable.
I would suggest somebody come out and try to mow my lawn this summer or clear snow from the end of my
driveway in the winter and tell me if you think it's safer.
4433 My complaint is still the danger of pulling out of the north end of the alley between Thomas Ave. and Sheridan
Ave. There is a fence on the left which forces you to pull into the traffic lane to see if traffic is coming, and by
then it's too late. When pulling out to the right (east) there is a partial curb, and to avoid it you must pull into
the oncoming traffic lane. Almost all the way in. So if there is traffic coming from the east you must wait for
that to clear completely before pulling out. Also, I have not noticed a decrease in speed along 69th Ave. at all.
4436 Why didn't you put the biking/walking lane on 70th street where there was already no parking on one side? I
have seen numerous bikers driving their cars and parking on the east side of 69th street and then biking up
towards Southdale. Do we get a tax break since the city has taken away parking on 69th street? How about
putting the bike lane on every single block and see how that goes with everyone in the city. How much is the
cost of putting up these barriers? How many of these bikers/walkers are Richfield residents? Was this due to
all the condos being built in Edina? How about opening up the roads off of 67th and 68th street and Xerxes to
handle some of that traffic? Just throwing ideas out there for Jack and the council to think about since most of
you are not affected nor live near the project. And this road does not lead to our parks as I have seen some put
on Facebook pages. The park is one block north on 68th street. NO. I DO Not LIKE the changes.
Page 12 of 12
4452 I live at 6900 Sheridan. While the street has improved for pedestrians, it has been to the detriment of the
homeowners who live on 69th street, particularly the south side. The cars are so close to the curb that I feel
legitimately unsafe when mowing my stretch of lawn next to the curb. The cars are within feet of me.
Similarly, it has made it much more difficult to back out of my driveway onto 69th street.
Can we revisit adding a stop sign, perhaps at 69th and Thomas? This is the bottom of the hill and would slow
cars down who are eastbound.
Can we remove the poles and instead go back to having cars in the middle of the road? Perhaps put white
stripes on each side of the road to visually "break" the pavement and allow an informal pedestrian lane on
either side.
4458 A sidewalk would look much better. I understand the cost factor. This should of been done years ago!
R EG U LAR C IT Y C O U N C IL ME E TIN G
R IC H F IE L D MU N IC IPAL C EN TER, C O U N C IL C H AMB E R S
JU LY 25, 2017
7:00 P M
IN TR O D U C TO RY P R O C E E D IN G S
C all to order
Open forum (15 mi nutes maximum)
E ach speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. C omments
are to be an opportunity to address the C ouncil on items not on the agenda. I ndividuals who w ish to address
the C ouncil must have registered prior to the meeting.
P ledge of A llegiance
A pproval of the mi nutes of the: (1) S pecial C ity C ouncil Work S ession of July 11, 2017; (2) S pecial J oint C ity C ouncil,
Housing and Redevelopment A uthority, and P lanni ng C ommission Work S ession of J uly 11, 2017; (3) Regular C ity
C ouncil Meeting of J uly 11, 2017; and (4) S pecial C i ty C ouncil C losed E xecutive S ession of J uly 11, 2017.
C O U N C IL D IS C U S S IO N
1.Hats Off to Hometown Hits
AG E N D A AP P R O VAL
2.A pproval of the A genda
3.Consent C alendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City C ouncil in one
motion. Once the C onsent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended
actions have also been approved. No further Council action on these items is necessary. However, any
Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the
regular agenda for C ouncil discussion and action. All items listed on the C onsent C alendar are
recommended for approval.
A .C onsi deration of the approval of a contract from the C ity of E dina to provi de dispatching service to the C i ty
of Richfield's P olice and F ire D epartments.
S taff Report No. 107
4.C onsideration of items, if any, removed from C onsent C alendar
P U B LIC H EAR IN G S
5.P ublic heari ng and consideration of the approval of a resolution regarding the removal of a utility easement wi thi n
the P laza 66 development area at approximately 16th Avenue and 66th S treet E ast.
S taff Report No. 108
O T H E R B U SIN E S S
6.C onsideration of the following items related to the Richfield C ommunity B and S hell project:
1. A ccept the bid minutes/tabulation dated J uly 11, 2017.
2. C onsideration of the award of a contract to lowest bidder, F endler P atterson C onstruction in the amount of
$376,821 and authorize staff to execute the contract.
3. C onsideration of the approval of the proposed funding agreement between the C ity of Richfield and
F riends of the B and S hell to provide $146,056 as a grant to the C ity to help fund the project.
S taff Report No. 109
C IT Y MAN AG E R ’S R E P O R T
7.C ity Manager's Report
C L AIMS AN D PAYR O LL S
8.C laims and P ayrolls
Open forum (15 mi nutes maximum)
E ach speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. C omments
are to be an opportunity to address the C ouncil on items not on the agenda. I ndividuals who w ish to address
the C ouncil must have registered prior to the meeting.
9.A djournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. R equests must be made at least 96
hours in advance to the C ity Clerk at 612-861-9738.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Special City Council Work Session
July 11, 2017
CALL TO ORDER
The work session was called to order by Mayor Elliott at 5:15 p.m. in the Municipal Center.
Council Members Pat Elliott, Mayor; Edwina Garcia; Michael Howard; Maria Regan Gonzalez;
Present: and Simon Trautmann
Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant City Manager/HR
Manager; John Stark, Community Development Director; and, Jared Voto,
Executive Aide/Analyst.
Item #1
EQUITY INITIATIVES
Assistant City Manager/HR Manager Pam Dmytrenko introduced Wokie Freeman and
Elizabeth Tolzmann as the presenters for the evening.
Wokie Freeman, assistant city manager of Brooklyn Park, presented a PowerPoint titled
Brooklyn Park’s journey towards “A Thriving Community with Opportunities for All”. This included the
work they have done with the Government Alliance on Racial Equity (GARE), their racial equity action
plan, challenges of recruiting diverse police officers, and strategies for the city.
Elizabeth Tolzmann, former assistant city manager of Bloomington, presented a PowerPoint
outlining their work with GARE, history of government and race and race in government policies,
Bloomington’s strategic plan, the Learn to Lead Initiative, Suburban Law Enforcement Trainee
program, and racial equity toolkit. She discussed an analogy of a four-legged table for developing a
plan, with the following as legs: elected officials, city leader ship, city staff, and the community. No one
has an even table.
Council Members all thanked them for their presentations and asked questions of the
presenters related to community engagement, toughest challenges and response from their
respective communities, and lessons learned.
City Manager Devich closed the topic with comments on Richfield’s work thus far and stating
Richfield will participate in GARE in 2018.
ADJOURNMENT
The work session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:10 p.m.
Special Council Work Session Minutes -2- July 11, 2017
Date Approved: July 25, 2017
_____________________________
Pat Elliott
Mayor
_____________________________ ____________________________
Jared Voto Steven L. Devich
Executive Aide/Analyst City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Special Joint City Council, Housing and
Redevelopment Authority, and Planning
Commission Work Session
July 11, 2017
CALL TO ORDER
The joint work session was called to order by Mayor Elliott at 6:13 p.m. in the Bartholomew
Room.
Council Members Pat Elliott, Mayor Edwina Garcia; Michael Howard; Maria Regan Gonzalez;
Present: and Simon Trautmann.
HRA Members Mary Supple, Chair; Pat Elliott; and Michel Howard.
Present:
HRA Members Doris Rubenstein and Sue Sandahl.
Absent:
PC Members Erin Vrieze Daniels, Chair; Sean Hayford Oleary; Bryan Pynn; and Susan
Present: Rosenberg.
PC Members Allysen Hoberg; Dan Kitzberger; and Gordon Vizecky.
Absent:
Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant City Manager/HR
Manager; John Stark, Community Development Director; and, Jared Voto,
Executive Aide/Analyst.
Item #2
JAGUAR AND LAND ROVER DEALERSHIP PROPOSAL
Community Development Director Stark introduced representatives from Morrie’s Automotive
Group.
Lynn Robson, facilities director, presented the proposed project giving an overview of the site
and highlights of the proposed project. Brannin Gries, architect, discussed the site plan and materials
of the building. They asked for feedback and next steps from the council members and
commissioners.
Council Members and Commissioners provided feedback and generally agreed to take a
cautious look at the site and corridor, with the progress of t he 77th Street Underpass project, and it
was early in the process.
Item #1
CITY GARAGE SOUTH PROPOSAL
Special Joint Work Session Minutes -2- July 11, 2017
Community Development Director Stark introduced representatives from Nicolai Apartments.
They presented an overview of their company and the properties they have built and manage. They
presented and discussed a site plan and renderings of their proposed 21-unit apartment building.
With limited time to discuss the proposal, Council Members and Commissioners agreed
another work session was needed to further discuss and ask questions of the project.
ADJOURNMENT
The joint work session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:00 p.m.
Date Approved: July 25, 2017
Pat Elliott
Mayor
Jared Voto Steven L. Devich
Executive Aide/Analyst City Manager
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Elliott at 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Council Members Pat Elliott, Mayor; Edwina Garcia; Michael Howard; Maria Regan Gonzalez;
Present: and Simon Trautmann.
Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney; Pam Dmytrenko,
Assistant City Manager/HR Manager; John Stark, Community Development
Director; and Jared Voto, Executive Aide/Analyst.
OPEN FORUM
Blake Hopkins, 901 N. 3rd St – Suite 150, Minneapolis, Senior Project Manager for Aeon spoke
regrading an update on Seasons Park.
Susan Rosenberg, 6633 Thomas Ave S, spoke regarding the Richfield Beautiful Garden Tour.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Elliott led the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Howard, S/Garcia to approve the minutes of the: (1) Special Joint City Council, Housing and
Redevelopment Authority, and Planning Commission Work Session of June 19, 2017; (2) Special City
Council Work Session of June 27, 2017; and (3) Regular City Council Meeting of June 27, 2017.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #1
ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH
Kris Klos, Chair of the Advisor Board of Health, presented the 2016 Annual Report.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Regular Meeting
July 11, 2017
Council Meeting Minutes -2- July 11, 2017
Item #2
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Hats Off to Hometown Hits
Council Member Garcia gave her condolences to the family of Jonathan Michael
O’Shaughnessy. She also discussed Betsy Osborn’s retirement, the Richfield history center, and
bench dedication at Wood Lake Nature Center.
Council Member Trautmann discussed the St. Louis Park community band would be playing at
the Lyndale Gardens amphitheater.
Mayor Elliott discussed Night to Unite on August 1.
Council Member Howard thanked the 4th of July Committee and volunteer. He also discussed
a community forum on July 13 and the upcoming work session on housing.
Council Member Regan Gonzalez also thanked the 4th of July Committee and volunteers. She
also discussed the Urban Wildland half marathon and 5K on July 29.
Item #3
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
M/Garcia, S/Howard to approve the agenda.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #4
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Manager Devich presented the Consent Calendar.
A. Consideration of resolutions to approve special legislation for the Cedar Avenue and Lyndale
Gardens Tax Increment Financing Districts. (S.R. No. 104)
RESOLUTION NO. 11374
APPROVING LAWS OF MINNESOTA 2017, 1ST SPECIAL SESSION,
CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE 6, SECTION 18, RELATING TO THE CEDAR
AVENUE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11374.
RESOLUTION NO. 11375
APPROVING LAWS OF MINNESOTA 2017, 1ST SPECIAL SESSION,
CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE 6, SECTION 19, RELATING TO THE LYNDALE
GARDENS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11375.
M/Elliott, S/Regan Gonzalez to approve the consent calendar.
Council Meeting Minutes -3- July 11, 2017
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #5
CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR
None.
Item #6
CONSIDERATION OF THE APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION GRANTING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT AT
6436 PENN AVENUE. (S.R. NO. 105)
Council Member Trautmann presented Staff Report No. 105.
Council Member Trautmann requested to table this item for two meetings, to the August 8
meeting, to discuss the proposal with his constituents.
M/Trautmann, S/Elliott to table the item to the August 8 City Council meeting.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #7
CONSIDERATION OF THE APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION GRANTING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT
AND CAFE TO OPERATE AT 817 EAST 66TH STREET. (S.R. NO. 106)
Council Member Regan Gonzalez presented Staff Report No. 106.
M/Howard, S/Elliott to approve a resolution granting a conditional use permit and variances to
allow a restaurant and cafe at 817 East 66th Street.
RESOLUTION NO. 11377
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT AND VARIANCES FOR A RESTAURANT AT 817 66TH
STREET E
Motion carried 5-0. The resolutions appear as Resolution No. 11377.
Item #9
CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
M/Garcia, S/Elliott that the following claims and payrolls be approved:
U.S. Bank 07/11/17
A/P Checks: 260176 - 260472 $ 1,089,256.20
Payroll: 128635 - 129001, 42777 657,358.37
TOTAL $ 1,746,614.57
Council Meeting Minutes -4- July 11, 2017
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #8
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Devich discussed scheduling a meeting date for the budget meeting and asked
the Council to think about if they want to cancel the second meeting in August, as has been the
Council’s practice in the past.
OPEN FORUM
None.
Item #10
CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES
SECTION 13D.05, SUBD. 3(B) TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED
DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY OF RICHFIELD V. LAW ENFORCEMENT
LABOR SERVICES, INC., HENNEPIN COUNTY DISTRICT COURT FILE NO. 27-
CV-17-3645.
The City Council closed to special executive session at 7:52 p.m.
The City Council reconvened the meeting at 8:51 p.m.
Item #11
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council Meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:51 p.m.
Date Approved: July 25, 2017
Pat Elliott
Mayor
Jared Voto Steven L. Devich
Executive Aide/Analyst City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Special City Council
Closed Executive Session
July 11, 2017
CALL TO ORDER
The Closed Executive Session was called to order by Mayor Elliott at 7:55 p.m. in the Babcock
Conference Room.
ROLL CALL
Council Members Pat Elliott, Mayor; Edwina Garcia; Michael Howard; Maria Regan Gonzalez;
Present: and Simon Trautmann.
Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director; Pam
Dmytrenko, Assistant City Manager/HR Manager; and Mary Tietjen, City
Attorney.
Others Present: Marylee Abrams, Attorney with Abrams & Schmidt LLC.
ITEM #1
CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES
SECTION 13D.05, SUBD. 3(B) TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT
PRIVILEGED DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY OF RICHFIELD V. LAW
ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC., HENNEPIN COUNTY DISTRICT
COURT FILE NO. 27-CV-17-3645.
The Closed Executive Session was convened as permitted by attorney-client privilege
pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13D.05, subd. 3(b).
ADJOURNMENT
The Closed Executive Session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:47 p.m.
Date Approved: July 25, 2017
Pat Elliott
Mayor
Jared Voto Steven L. Devich
Executive Aide/Analyst City Manager
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #3.A.
STAFF REPORT NO. 107
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
7/25/2017
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: J ay Henthorne, P ublic S afety D irector
D E PA RTM E NT D IRE C TOR RE V IE W: J ay Henthorne, P ublic S afety D irector
7/19/2017
O TH E R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY M A NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
7/20/2017
I T E M F O R C O UNC I L C O NS I D E RAT IO N:
Consideration of the approval of a contract fr om the C ity of Edina to provide dispatching service to
the City of Richfield's Police and Fire Depar tments.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
The City of Edina provides contractual dispatc hing services for the Police and Fire Departments. The
contract between E dina and Richfield c overs dispatching servic es, operations and maintenance of the Edina
Communication Center (E.C.C).
The c ontract period is for two years and will c ommenc e J anuary 1, 2018. The contract inc ludes a standard
cost escalator for each y ear of the c ontract. The esc alator will be based on increased labor c osts for
operation of the E .C .C . under Edina's labor agreements and the rate of increase, over the previous year in
the implicit price deflator for government consumption expenditures and gross investment for state and local
governments prepared by the Bureau of Economic A naly sis.
The City of Edina hired Novak Consulting to preform a staffing study on the entire polic e department,
inc luding the communications c enter. The rec ommendations provided were to add three additional
dispatc hers, due to the inc rease in calls for servic e for dispatch. The study found the increases have come
due to calls for servic e for the City of Richfield.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T IO N:
By Motion: Approve a contract between the C ity of Edina and the City of Richfield to
provide dispatching services for the Police and Fire Departments.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON TEXT
On A ugust 13, 2013, the City Counc il voted to move our dispatching operations to the City of
Edina. The City of Edina has provided c ontrac tual dispatc hing servic es for the Police and Fire
Departments.
The previous c ontrac t c ommenced on D ec ember 1, 2013 and will expire on December 31, 2017.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
The C ity Council previously approved moving dispatc hing operations to the C ity of Edina.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G ISSU E S:
There are no critic al timing issues.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
Adding three additional dispatchers.
The c ontrac t is for a two year period.
Edina will rec eive Richfield's 911 S tate funding allotment of approximately $45,000.
For c alendar y ear 2018 monthly payments in the amount of $20,833 will be made to the City of
Edina, c ompared to the 2017 monthly pay ments of $15,672.00, an increase of 33% ($5,161.00 a
month or $61,932.00 a year).
For c alendar y ear 2019 monthly payments in the amount of $24,166 will be made to the City of
Edina, an inc rease from 2018 of 16% ($3,333.00 a month or $39,996.00 a year).
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION :
The C ity Attorney has reviewed the contract for the City.
The C ity of Edina passed the contract at their J uly 18, 2017 Counc il meeting.
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D AT IO N(S):
Richfield Polic e and Fire need dispatching servic es. I f the contract is not approved additional vendors
would need to be researc hed and selected to provide dispatc h services.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S EXP E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
None
AT TAC H ME N TS :
D escripti on Type
C ontract C ontract/A greement
193213v1 1
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
AGREEMENT BETWEEN EDINA AND RICHFIELD
FOR THE PROVISION OF DISPATCH SERVICES AND OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE OF THE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER
AGREEMENT made this _______ day of ___________, 2017 by and between the City
of Edina, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Edina") and the City of Richfield, a Minnesota
municipal corporation ("Richfield"), collectively “the Parties.”
WHEREAS, Edina and Richfield are parties to an Agreement dated 13th day of August,
2013 for the provision of dispatch services and operation and maintenance of the emergency
communications center (“Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Parties want to amend the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the
parties agree as follows:
1. Amendment. The Agreement shall remain in full force and effect except and
amended by this First Amendment. This First Amendment is effective January 1, 2018.
2. Paragraph 3 of the Agreement is amended to provide as follows:
Payment for Dispatch Services and Operation and Maintenance of the
E.C.C.
Subject to the payment of initial costs pursuant to Paragraph 2 herein and
any unbudgeted expenses pursuant to Paragraph 5 herein:
A. For calendar year 2018, Richfield shall pay Edina Twenty
Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Three Dollars ($20,833.00)
per month (“Base Charge”). Payment shall be due in advance
on or before the first day of each calendar month.
B. For calendar year 2019 Richfield shall pay Edina, in equal
monthly installments of Twenty Four Thousand One Hundred
Sixty Six and No/100 Dollars ($24,166.00) (“Base Charge”). On
or before July 1st 2019 and on or before July 1st of every
subsequent year Edina shall inform Richfield of changes in the
193213v1 2
Base Charge which shall become effective January 1st of the
following year.
Payment shall be due in advance on or before the first day of each calendar
month.
3. Paragraph 7 of the Agreement is amended to provide as follows:
Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall be for a term of two years (2)
years, commencing January 1, 2018. Commencing January 1, 2020 this
Agreement will continue for an indefinite term but may be terminated by
either party upon a six (6) month advance written termination notice
delivered by either party to the other party.
4. Effective Date. This First Amendment is effective January 1, 2018.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement the day and year
first above written.
CITY OF EDINA CITY OF RICHFIELD
BY: ______________________________ BY: ______________________________
James Hovland, Its Mayor Pat Elliott, Its Mayor
AND _____________________________ AND _____________________________
Scott Neal, Its City Manager Steven Devich, Its City Manager
AGENDA SECTION:PUBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA ITEM #5.
STAFF REPORT NO. 108
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
7/25/2017
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Melissa P oehlman, C ity P lanner
D E PA RTM E NT D IRE C TOR RE V IE W: J ohn S tark, C ommunity D evelopment D i rector
7/18/2017
O TH E R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY M A NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
7/18/2017
I T E M F O R C O UNC I L C O NS I D E RAT IO N:
Public hearing and consideration of the appr oval of a resolution regarding the removal of a utility
easement within the Plaza 66 development ar ea at approximately 16th Avenue and 66th Street East.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
A plat for Plaza 66 in Ric hfield was approved by the Council on J une 27, 2017. The plat is c omprised of four
single-family lots, two remnant parcels, and adjacent right-of-way. There is a 5 foot utility easement along the
rear property line of the single-family and remnant parc els; this easement area currently c ontains both
underground and aerial facilities that will be relocated at the developer's expense and plac ed within easement
areas dedicated in the plat. Upon the recording of the plat, there will no longer be a need for this utility
easement.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T IO N:
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve a resolution vacating a utility easement
within the area of the approved Plaza 66 in Richfield plat.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON TEXT
See Exec utive Summary
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
The C ity may vacate an easement by resolution when it appears in the interest of the public to do
so.
City staff sees no reason to maintain the existing easement. Both underground and overhead
utilities are c urrently located within the easement area.
The public utility c ompanies do not object to the removal of the easement provided that the
developer pay s for the relocation of fac ilities and dedicates appropriate easements in the plat.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G ISSU E S:
Closing is sc heduled for August 1, 2017. Upon closing, the plat and vac ations will be recorded.
Approval of this vacation is preferred prior to c losing and recording of the plat.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION :
Notic e of this public hearing was published in the Sun Current and mailed to properties within 350
feet of the easement area.
No comments related to the easement have been rec eived.
The C ity Council may vac ate public easements in acc ordance with MN S tatute 412.851.
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D AT IO N(S):
None
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S EXP E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
None
AT TAC H ME N TS :
D escripti on Type
Resolution Resolution L etter
E asement location E xhibit
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF A
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT
WHEREAS, the following described lands are subject to a utility easement in favor
of the City of Richfield:
Lots 1, 2, 3, 14, 15, and 16, Block 1, Cedar-Sunrise Addition, Hennepin
County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the property is subject to an easement for utility purposes per the
recorded plat of Cedar-Sunrise Addition; and
WHEREAS, there are existing utility lines within the easement area. However, the
Property is part of a proposed plat, and all necessary easements for utility lines will be
dedicated in the plat. There is no need to reserve easement as part of this proceeding.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the easement reserved in the recorded plat
of Cedar-Sunrise Addition is no longer needed, upon the recording of the plat of PLAZA 66
IN RICHFIELD;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The easement for utility purposes, which was reserved over the above-
described property in the recorded plat of Cedar-Sunrise Addition, is vacated,
effective upon the recording of the plat of PLAZA 66 IN RICHFIELD. If said
plat is not recorded within one year of the date of this resolution, this
resolution shall be null and of no effect.
2. This resolution does not affect the utility easement reserved in the
recorded plat of Cedar-Sunrise Addition as to lands other than the property
described above.
3. The City Clerk is directed to prepare a certificate of completion of
vacation proceedings and to record the vacation in the office of the Hennepin
County Recorder.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of July,
2017.
____________________________
Pat Elliott, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
LOT 1
BLOCK 1
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Interstate Industrial, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, fee owner, of the following
described property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to wit:
Lots 1, 2, 3, 14, 15, and 16, Block 1, CEDAR-SUNRISE ADDITION
TOGETHER WITH
That part of vacated 17th Avenue South described as follows:
Beginning at the northeast corner of Block 1, CEDAR-SUNRISE ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County,
Minnesota; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 06 minutes 08 seconds East, along the west line of said vacated 17th
Avenue South, a distance of 200.47 feet to the southeast corner of Lot 3 of said Block 1; thence North 89 degrees 57 minutes 16
seconds East, along the easterly prolongation of the south line of said Lot 3, a distance of 60.00 feet to the intersection of the
easterly prolongation of the south line of said Lot 3 with the east line of said vacated 17th Avenue South; thence North 00 degrees 06
minutes 08 seconds West, along said east line of vacated 17th Avenue South, a distance of 73.86 feet; thence North 25 degrees 26
minutes 49 seconds West a distance of 140.17 feet to the point of beginning.
Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as PLAZA 66 IN RICHFIELD, and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use forever
the drainage and utility easements as shown on this plat.
In witness whereof said Interstate Industrial, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper
officer this _______ day of ____________________, 20___.
SIGNED: Interstate Industrial, LLC
By: , as
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of ____________________, 20___, by
, as of Interstate Industrial, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public, County, Notary Printed Name
My Commission Expires
I, Rick M. Blom, do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor
in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are
correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water
boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled
on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat.
Dated this day of , 20 .
Rick M. Blom, Licensed Land Surveyor,
Minnesota License No. 21729
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of ____________________, 20___, by
Rick M. Blom, a Licensed Land Surveyor.
Notary Public, County, Minnesota Notary Printed Name
My Commission Expires
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
This plat of PLAZA 66 IN RICHFIELD was approved and accepted by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota, at a regular meeting thereof held
this ______ day of ____________________, 20___. If applicable, the written comments and recommendations of the Commissioner of
Transportation and the County Highway Engineer have been received by the City or the prescribed 30-day period has elapsed without
receipt of such comments and recommendations, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subdivision 2.
City Council, Richfield, Minnesota
By: Mayor By: Manager
RESIDENT AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES, Hennepin County, Minnesota
I hereby certify that taxes payable in 20___ and prior years have been paid for land described on this plat, dated this _______ day of
_________________, 20___.
Mark V. Chapin, County Auditor By: , Deputy
SURVEY DIVISION, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 383B.565 (1969), this plat has been approved this _______ day of _________________, 20___.
Chris F. Mavis, County Surveyor By:
COUNTY RECORDER, Hennepin County, Minnesota
I hereby certify that the within plat of PLAZA 66 IN RICHFIELD was recorded in this office this _______ day of _________________,
20___, at ______ o'clock ____ .M.
Martin McCormick, County Recorder By: , Deputy ENGINEERING, PLANNING
AND LAND SURVEYING
SAMBATEK, INC.
PLAZA 66 IN RICHFIELD
DENOTES 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON MONUMENT SET
AND MARKED BY LICENSE NO. 21729.
DENOTES 1/2 INCH PINCHED TOP IRON MONUMENT
FOUND, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
DENOTES FOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY CAST IRON
MONUMENT, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
THE NORTH LINE OF BLOCK 1, CEDAR-SUNRISE
ADDITION IS ASSUMED TO HAVE A BEARING OF
NORTH 89 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 57 SECONDS EAST.
0
SCALE IN FEET
0
SCALE IN FEET
20 40
C.R. DOC. NO.
AGENDA SECTION:OTHER BUSINESS
AGENDA ITEM #6.
STAFF REPORT NO. 109
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
7/25/2017
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: J im Topi tzhofer, Recreation S ervices D i rector
D E PA RTM E NT D IRE C TOR RE V IE W: J im Topi tzhofer, Recreation S ervices D i rector
7/18/2017
O TH E R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY M A NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager
7/19/2017
I T E M F O R C O UNC I L C O NS I D E RAT IO N:
Consideration of the following items related to the Richfield Community B and Shell project:
1. Accept the bid minutes/tabulation dated July 11, 2017.
2. Consideration of the award of a contract to lowest bidder, Fendler P atterson C onstruction in the
amount of $376,821 and authorize staff to execute the contract.
3. Consideration of the approval of the pr oposed funding agreement between the C ity of Richfield
and Friends of the Band Shell to provide $146,056 as a grant to the City to help fund the project.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Bids were advertised rec ently for the c onstruction of the Richfield Community B and Shell projec t. T he
project was bid out as one project and five general contractors bid on the project on July 11, 2017.
The lowest base bid was offered by Fendler Patterson Construction from Savage, Minnesota in the amount
of $376,821. Five alternates were included in the bid instructions as follows:
Alternate 1 - Cost to provide Trattino finished concrete masonry units in lieu of rock faced
concrete masonry units.
Alternate 2 - C ost to provide decorative c urved steel tubing at the top of the front opening and curved
steel railings on bac k half-height wall.
Alternate 3 - Cost to install decorative treble and base clef on the front of the facility.
Alternate 4 - Cost to upgrade ceiling with composite panels and trim over 3/4" struc tural plywood in lieu
of exposed 3/4" structural ply wood.
Alternate 5 - Cost to provide anti-graffiti c oating to exposed wall and door areas.
Funding for the base bid is made possible by a funding grant from the Friends of the Band Shell in the
amount of $146,056. The five alternates are not included in the base bid and will be c onsidered at a future
date pending the succ ess of additional fundraising by the group.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T IO N:
By Motion:
1. Accept the bid minutes/tabulation dated July 11, 2017.
2. Award a construction contract to lowest bidder, Fendler Patterson Construction, in the amount
of $376,821 and authorize staff to execute the contract.
3. Approve the funding agreement between the C ity of Richfield and Fr iends of the B and Shell to
provide $146,056 as a grant to the City to help fund the project.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON TEXT
City C ounc il disc ussed the formation of a new group of volunteers to raise funds and finalize
plans for a community band shell at a study session on J anuary 28, 2014. D uring the discussion,
Council selected Veterans Memorial Park as the future site of the community band shell and later
passed a resolution declaring Veterans Park as the future site of the B and Shell on February 11,
2014.
A B and S hell Task Forc e was assembled and began meeting in February 2014. The Task Force
began fundraising efforts right away and sec ured about $75,000 of pledges.
On J une 23, 2015, C ity Council passed a resolution granting approval of a site plan to allow the
construction of a c ommunity band shell in Veterans Memorial Park. The C ounc il specified that no
additional funding from the City would be provided to the project. A t the same meeting, the
Council approved a c ontrac t with D avid Linner Arc hitects to prepare plans, spec ific ations and
bidding documents.
City C ounc il rejec ted all bids for the c onstruc tion of a band shell on S eptember 8, 2015. All four
bids received exceeded the projec t budget.
On J uly 12, 2016, C ity Council passed a resolution granting approval of a revised site plan to
allow the c onstruc tion of a community band shell in Veterans Memorial P ark.
On October 11, 2016, Council rec eived a summary report of a professional sound study that was
conduc ted on site in September. Council also approved an agreement with ED S Builders to
perform construction management servic es for the construction of the Band Shell.
On February 28, 2017, Council rejec ted all bids for division RS B-09-1, Rough and Finish
Carpentry, Structural W ood, Painting, and Miscellaneous Finishes, and authorized staff to re-bid
division RS B-09-1, and held bids and alternates for the remaining bid divisions.
On March 28, 2017, Counc il performed the following actions:
1. Rejec ted all bids rec eived February 9, 2017, for bid divisions RS B -03-1 Earthwork,
Conc rete, Masonry and Miscellaneous Metals; RS B-07-1 Roofing Arc hitectural Shingles;
and RSB-26-1 Electrical and Temporary Power.
2. Rejec ted all bids rec eived Marc h 20, 2017, for bid division RS B -09-1 Rough and Finish
Carpentry, Structural W ood, P ainting, and Miscellaneous Finishes.
3. A uthorized staff to re-bid the project at a future date.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Contracts estimated to have a value over $100,000 must be made by sealed bids, solicited by
public notice, and awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. All suc h contracts can only be
approved by C ity Council.
The notic e that bids are being solic ited must be published once in the city ’s official newspaper at
least ten day s before the last day for the submission of bids.
The C ity has the authority to reject all bids.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G ISSU E S:
The c onstruc tion sc hedule for the project is as follows:
J uly 25, 2017 - Council Consideration of Projec t
A ugust 2017 - Construction Begins with earthwork and foundation installation completed
before Oc tober 31, 2017.
May 2018 - Remaining construc tion begins in the spring and ends by August 31, 2018.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
Band Shell Budget
S O U R C E S
City Contribution $325,000
I nitial Fundraising D rive $67,000
Friends Contribution $146,056
Total Sources $538,545
U S E S
Past Expenses $120,000
Testing $6,559
Civil Engineering $1,960
Architect/E ngineer Design $14,200
Contingency (5%)$18,841
Low Bid w/o Alternatives $376,821
Total Uses $538,545
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION :
The C ity Attorney has prepared the attached funding agreement and has consulted with City
Council and staff throughout the duration of this project.
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D AT IO N(S):
Council may c hoose to acc ept bids and c onsider award of c ontract to the next lowest responsible
bidder. This would require additional funding either by the City or a combination of other sources.
Council may c hoose to reject all bids and direct staff how to proceed.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S EXP E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
Members of the Friends of the Band Shell
AT TAC H ME N TS :
D escripti on Type
B id Tabulation J uly 11, 2017 C over Memo
F unding A greement C ontract/A greement
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening July 11, 2017 2:00 p.m. 2017 Richfield Community Band Shell Bid No. 17-04 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Kari Sinning, Deputy City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud bids for 2017 Richfield Community Band Shell, as advertised in the official newspaper on June 15, 2017. Present: Kari Sinning, Deputy City Clerk Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director Jared Voto, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Bidder's Name Bond Base Bid ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4 ALT 5 Total Proposed Amount Versacon Provided $ 390,000.00 $ 8,910.00 $ 6,683.00 $ 1,047.00 $ 3,733.00 $ 6,683.00 $ 417,056.00 Tarraf Provided $ 447,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 11,200.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 8,700.00 $ 9,200.00 $ 488,500.00 Fendler Patterson Construction Provided $ 376,821.00 $ 7,750.00 $ 2,320.00 $ 4,570.00 $ 11,500.00 $ 1,725.00 $ 414,686.00 Dering Pierson Group LLC Provided $ 394,000.00 $ 23,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 431,100.00 Ebert Construction Provided $ 472,000.00 $ 5,900.00 $ 5,600.00 $ 2,600.00 $ 10,700.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 502,300.00 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the July 25, 2017 City Council Meeting. ________________________________ Kari Sinning, Deputy City Clerk