Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
11-13-2018 Complete Agenda
S P E C IAL C ITY C O U N C IL, H O U S IN G AN D R E D E V E L O P ME N T AU T H O R IT Y, AN D P L AN N IN G C O MMIS S IO N W O R K S E S S IO N R IC H F IE L D MU N IC IPAL C E N TE R, B AR TH O LO ME W R O O M N O VEMB E R 13, 2018 6:15 P M C all to order 1.E merson L ane Redevelopment 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 November 8, 2018 Council Memorandum No. 82 HRA Memorandum No. 18 The Honorable Mayor Housing and Redevelopment and Authority Commissioners Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Emerson Lane Redevelopment Council and Commissioner Members: On November 13, 2018 at 6:15 p.m., Richfield housing staff will provide an overview on the history and context of the HRA-owned property located at 6812 Emerson Lane. Staff will also share various options for the future of the property, including a preliminary proposal that is being developed by Endres Custom Homes. Respectfully submitted, Steven L. Devich City Manager SLD:ka Email: Planning Commission Assistant City Manager Department Directors R EG U LAR C IT Y C O U N C IL MEET IN G R IC H F IE L D MU N IC IPAL C E N TE R, C O U N C IL C H AMB E R S N O VEMB E R 13, 2018 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 minutes 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 wish to address the C ouncil must have registered prior to the meeting. P ledge of A llegiance A pproval of the minutes of the: (1) Regular C ity C ouncil meeting of October 23, 2018; and (2) S pecial C ity C ouncil work session of October 30, 2018. P R E S E N TATIO N S 1.A nnual meeting with the C ommunity S ervices C ommission 2.A nnual meeting with the A rts C ommission 3.Organics D rop-off S ite K ick-off 4.P roclamation: E dwina Garcia D ay in the C ity of Richfield on D ecember 8, 2018 C O U N C IL D ISC U SSIO N 5.Hats Off to Hometown Hits C onsider a motion to cancel the C ity C ouncil meeting of D ecember 25, 2018 AG E N D A APPR O VAL 6.A pproval of the A genda 7.Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent 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 Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A .C onsideration of the approval of the Richfield P edestrian Master P lan. S taff Report No. 193 B .C onsideration of the adoption of a resolution authorizing the purchase of two temporary construction easements and one permanent right-of-way easement at 7601 18th Ave. S . related to the 77th S treet Underpass P roject. S taff Report No. 194 C .C onsideration of the adoption of a resolution authorizing a Master P artnership C ontract between the C ity of Richfield and Minnesota D epartment of Transportation (MnD O T). S taff Report No. 195 D .C onsideration of the approval of setting a public hearing to be held on D ecember 11, 2018, for the consideration of the renewal of On-S ale Intoxicating and S unday L iquor licenses for 2019 for E l Tejaban Mexican Grill, L L C d/b/a E l Tejaban Mexican Grill, Thompson's F ireside P izza, Inc. d/b/a F ireside F oundry, F renchman’s P ub, Inc. d/b/a F renchman’s, V P C Richfield P izza, L L C d/b/a Giordano's of Richfield, W iltshire Restaurants, L L C d/b/a Houlihan’s Restaurant & B ar, P aisan, Inc. d/b/a K han’s Mongolian B arbeque, Lyn 65, L L C d/b/a Lyn 65 K itchen & B ar, Lyndale S mokehouse, L L C d/b/a Lyndale S mokehouse, P izza L uce V II, Inc. d/b/a P izza L uce, F red B abcock V F W P ost 5555 d/b/a F our Nickels F ood & D rink and Minneapolis-Richfield A merican L egion P ost 435. S taff Report No. 196 E .C onsideration of the approval of setting a public hearing to be held on D ecember 11, 2018, for the consideration of the renewal of P awnbroker and S econdhand Goods D ealer licenses for 2019 for Metro P awn and Gun, Inc. S taff Report No. 197 F.C onsideration of the approval of setting a public hearing to be held on D ecember 11, 2018, for the consideration of the renewal of On-S ale Wine and On-S ale 3.2 P ercent Malt L iquor licenses for 2019 for C hipotle Mexican Grill of C olorado, L L C d/b/a C hipotle Mexican Grill, D avanni's, Inc. d/b/a D avanni's P izza & Hot Hoagies, Joy’s P attaya Thai Restaurant, L L C d/b/a Joy's P attaya Thai Restaurant, L RF C , L L C d/b/a L ocal Roots F ood & C offee, L os S anchez Taqueria #2, L L C d/b/a L os S anchez Taqueria, Minnesota Junior Hockey Group, L L C d/b/a Minnesota Magicians (located in the Richfield Ice A rena), My B urger Operations, L L C , d/b/a My B urger, P atrick's F rench B akery, Inc. d/b/a P atrick’s B akery & C afé, Henry Thou d/b/a Red P epper C hinese Restaurant. S taff Report No. 198 G.C onsideration of the approval of the renewal of a contract with C hief's Towing, Inc., for P ublic S afety towing services for D ecember 1, 2018, through November 30, 2019. S taff Report No. 199 H.C onsideration of the adoption of a resolution to accept a grant of $3,114 from the Office of Justice P rograms for bullet proof vests. S taff Report No. 200 I.C onsideration of approval of an E lectronic F unds Transfer P olicy. S taff Report No. 201 J.C onsideration of the approval of a P ersonal/P rofessional S ervice A greement with Hennepin C ounty to implement a grant project to operate two organics drop-off sites, one at Wood L ake Nature C enter and another in partnership with Hope C hurch. S taff Report No. 202 K .C onsideration of the approval of an agreement with Hope P resbyterian C hurch to operate an organics drop-off site on C hurch premises at 7132 P ortland Avenue for a two-year period. S taff Report No. 203 L .C onsideration for the adoption of a resolution designating polling places for 2019. S taff Report No. 204 8.C onsideration of items, if any, removed from C onsent C alendar R E S O L U T IO N S 9.C onsideration of the adoption of a resolution granting a subdivision waiver, allowing the division of 6933 Oliver Avenue into three lots. S taff Report No. 205 10.C onsideration of the adoption of a resolution approving a submittal of the Richfield 2040 C omprehensive P lan to the Metropolitan C ouncil. Note: The full D raft 2040 C omprehensive P lan is available for review on the C ity's website (www.richfieldmn.gov/compplan). The size of the document makes it impractical and technologically difficult to attach directly to this report. S taff Report No. 206 11.C onsideration of the adoption of a resolution increasing the Richfield Tourism P romotion B oard (RTP B ) from five to seven director positions and authorizing the RTP B and city staff to make recommendations to the C ouncil for future appointments to the B oard. S taff Report No. 207 12.C onsideration of the approval of a contract with S tonebrooke E ngineering, Inc. for design engineering of the 65th S treet Reconstruction P roject between Grand Avenue and Nicollet Avenue, not to exceed $348,646 and adoption of a resolution for reimbursement of certain expenditures from the proceeds of street reconstruction bonds to be issued by the C ity for the 65th S treet Reconstruction P roject. S taff Report No. 208 13.C onsideration of the adoption of a resolution determining the results of the C ity General E lection on Tuesday, November 6, 2018. S taff Report No. 209 C IT Y MAN AG E R’S R E P O R T 14.C ity Manager's Report C LAIMS AN D PAYR O L LS 15.C laims and P ayrolls Open forum (15 minutes 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 wish to address the C ouncil must have registered prior to the meeting. 16.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. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro Tempore Regan Gonzalez at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Council Members Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor Pro Tempore; Edwina Garcia; Michael Howard; Present: and Simon Trautmann. Council Members Pat Elliott, Mayor. Absent: Staff Present: Pam Dmytrenko, Acting City Manager; Bob Vose, City Attorney; John Stark, Community Development Director; Jay Henthorne, Chief of Police; Wayne Kewitsch, Fire Chief; Neil Ruhland, Media Coordinator; and Jared Voto, Executive Aide/Analyst. OPEN FORUM None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Pro Tempore Regan Gonzalez led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Howard, S/Garcia to approve the minutes of the: (1) Special concurrent City Council, Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and Planning Commission work session of October 9, 2018; and (2) Regular City Council meeting of October 9, 2018. Motion carried 4-0. Item #1 ANNUAL MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION Sean Hayford Oleary, Chair of the Planning Commission, gave an update on development proceedings in the city, including the Lyndale Gardens, Cedar Point II housing, and Jaguar Land CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Regular Meeting October 23, 2018 Council Meeting Minutes -2- October 23, 2018 Rover projects, projects being proposed, the Comprehensive Plan, and discussed some of the other work being done by the Planning Commission. Council Members thanked Chair Hayford Oleary for his leadership on the Commission, stated their appreciation for the Planning Commission’s comments and vision for the community, thanked the entire Commission for being welcoming to residents to the Commission’s meetings and ensuring residents can be heard. Item #2 SWEARING-IN OF FIREFIGHTER MIKE ZISKOVSKY Chief Kewitsch introduced Firefighter Mike Ziskovsky and discussed the firefighter badge. Firefighter Ziskovsky’s wife pinned the badge on him, joined by his family members. Council Members welcomed Firefighter Ziskovsky to the Richfield Fire Department and thanked the entire Department for their service to the Richfield community. Item #3 VILLAGE SHORES DONATION PRESENTATION FOR RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY HEROES AND HELPERS PROGRAM Council Member Garcia welcomed representative from Village Shores and Chief Henthorne. Elisabeth Rose, Outreach Marketing Director of Village Shores, discussed the work of Village Shores and the work they are doing in the community. Chief Henthorne discussed their partnership with Village Shores and the Heroes and Helpers program. He thanked Village Shores for their donation to Heroes and Helpers in the amount of $1,300. Item #4 COUNCIL DISCUSSION Hats Off to Hometown Hits Council Member Garcia spoke regarding attending the Richfield Historical Society’s annual fundraising dinner held at the American Legion and asked people to consider donating to the Richfield Historical Society. Council Member Trautmann invited residents to attend the Red White and Blue Days Committee’s Red White and Brew fundraiser event on October 24 at the Richfield American Legion for $25 and discussed attending long-time Richfield resident Gary Ingram’s funeral and all of his service to the community and offered condolences to his family. Council Member Garcia echoed Council Member Trautmann’s thoughts, offered condolences to his family, and spoke kindly of Mr. Ingram. Council Member Howard thanked all the volunteers that put on the Half-Haunted Halloween at Wood Lake Nature Center; wished everyone a happy Halloween and discussed the neighborhoods he’s visited and everyone has at least one home that is decked out with Halloween decorations, which he enjoys. Council Meeting Minutes -3- October 23, 2018 Mayor Pro Tempore Regan Gonzalez spoke regarding her neighbor’s home, at 10th Avenue near the STEM School, which was featured in the Sun Current for its Halloween decorations; and an of art exhibit and community conversation titled “Through Our Eyes” at the Augsburg Library on October 24 from 6-7:30 p.m., about the impacts of immigration on our families, children, and community. Item #5 APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA M/Regan Gonzalez, S/Howard to remove Item 6.C., consideration of the approval of the Richfield Pedestrian Master Plan, from the agenda. Motion carried 4-0. M/Regan Gonzalez, S/Garcia to approve the agenda, as amended. Motion carried 4-0. Item #6 CONSENT CALENDAR City Manager Devich presented the consent calendar. A. Consideration of the approval of a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for the Church of St. Richard, located at 7540 Penn Avenue South, for their Fall Festival taking place November 10-11, 2018. (S.R. No. 185) B. Consideration of the adoption of a resolution approving Richfield Public Works' updated snow removal and ice control policy. (S.R. No. 186) RESOLUTION NO. 11558 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING UPDATED SNOW REMOVAL & ICE CONTROL POLICY This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11558. D. Consideration of an affirmation of the modified language in the Inclusionary Housing Policy. (S.R. No. 188) M/Regan Gonzalez, S/Trautmann to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 4-0. Item #7 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR None. Council Meeting Minutes -4- October 23, 2018 Item #8 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF A UTILITY EASEMENT ON THE PARTNERSHIP ACADEMY DEVELOPMENT SITE AT 6500 NICOLLET AVENUE. (S.R. NO. 189) Council Member Garcia presented Staff Report No. 189 and opened the public hearing. Community Development Director Stark stated that this area was set aside for utilities but no utilities ever came into the area. M/Regan Gonzalez, S/Trautmann to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0. M/Garcia, S/Regan Gonzalez to adopt a resolution vacating a utility easement on the Partnership Academy development site at 6500 Nicollet Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 11559 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT AT 6500 NICOLLET AVENUE S Motion carried 4-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11559. Item #9 CONSIDERATION OF THE APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO MAKE TATTOO BUSINESSES 'PERMITTED' RATHER THAN 'CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED' IN THE C-2 GENERAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF SAID ORDINANCE. (S.R. NO. 190) Council Member Howard presented Staff Report No. 190. Community Development Director Stark commented that this is a changing of social norms and the ordinance goes back to the 1960s. He stated that in discussions with other communities they stated there has never been any issue in their communities. M/Howard, S/Regan Gonzalez to approve an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to make tattoo businesses 'permitted' rather than 'conditionally permitted' in the C-2 General Business District. Motion carried 4-0. M/Howard, S/Garcia to adopt a resolution authorizing summary publication of said ordinance. RESOLUTION NO. 11560 RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE TO ALLOW TATTOO ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE GENERAL BUSINESS (C-2) ZONING DISTRICT Motion carried 4-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11560. Council Meeting Minutes -5- October 23, 2018 Item #10 CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AND APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY AT 7301 PENN AVENUE AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION REMOVING A STIPULATION PLACED UPON THE PROPERTY BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN 1995. (S.R. NO. 191) Council Member Trautmann presented Staff Report No. 191. M/Trautmann, S/Garcia to adopt a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan designation of 7301 Penn Avenue S from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial. RESOLUTION NO. 11561 RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF 7301 PENN AVENUE S TO “NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL” Motion carried 4-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11561. M/Trautmann, S/Howard to approve an ordinance rezoning 7301 Penn Avenue S from Single Family Residential (R) to Neighborhood Business (C-1). Motion carried 4-0. M/Trautmann, S/Howard to adopt a resolution removing the 1995 "sublet stipulation" from the property at 7301 Penn Avenue S. RESOLUTION NO. 11562 RESOLUTION AMENDING A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION REGARDING PROPERTY AT 7301 PENN AVENUE S Motion carried 4-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 11562. Item #11 CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S APPROVAL OF THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF A HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HRA) COMMISSIONER. (S.R. NO. 192) Mayor Pro Tempore Regan Gonzalez presented Staff Report No. 192. She stated Chair Supple has done an excellent job as Chair of the HRA. Council Members stated their agreement with Mayor Pro Tempore Regan Gonzalez’s comments. M/Regan Gonzalez, S/Garcia to approve the Mayor’s appointment of Mary Supple as an HRA Commissioner for a five year term commencing November 12, 2018 and expiring November 12, 2023. Motion carried 4-0. Council Meeting Minutes -6- October 23, 2018 Item #12 CITY MANAGER’S REPORT Acting City Manager Dmytrenko discussed her attendance, with the League of Minnesota Cities, at the University of Minnesota’s Government and Nonprofit Career Fair. Item #13 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS M/Garcia, S/Howard that the following claims and payrolls be approved: U.S. Bank 10/23/18 A/P Checks: 272023 - 272445 $ 1,467,479.65 Payroll: 140303 - 140631 ; 42872 644,918.07 TOTAL $ 2,112,397.72 Motion carried 4-0. OPEN FORUM None. Item #14 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:47 p.m. Date Approved: November 13, 2018 Pat Elliott Mayor Jared Voto Steven L. Devich Executive Aide/Analyst City Manager CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special City Council Work Session October 30, 2018 CALL TO ORDER The work session was called to order by Mayor Elliott at 7:03 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room. Council Members Pat Elliott, Mayor; Edwina Garcia; Maria Regan Gonzalez; Simon Trautmann; Present: and Michael Howard (arrived at 7:05). Staff Present: Jared Voto, Executive Aide/Analyst. Item #1 DISCUSSION AND SELECTION OF CITY MANAGER FINALISTS Richard Fursman, Huelife, discussed the process of reviewing the candidates and stated at the end they would discuss the interview schedule. Council Members discussed how to narrow down the candidates and decided on hearing a short overview of each candidate from Mr. Fursman and then narrow the candidate list. Mr. Fursman went through each candidate‘s profile and provided a brief overview. He then asked the Council’s input and if any Council Member wanted to advocate for interviewing a candidate. Mr. Fursman listed the candidates based on Council’s input and advocacy. The Council discussed the candidates listed and made a final selection to interview six candidates: Candidate 2, Candidate 4, Candidate 5, Candidate 8, Candidate 9, and Candidate 13. Mr. Fursman discussed the schedule for interviews on November 16 and 17 and received feedback from the Council. ADJOURNMENT The work session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:32 p.m. Date Approved: November 13, 2018 _____________________________ Pat Elliott Mayor _____________________________ ____________________________ Jared Voto Steven L. Devich Executive Aide/Analyst City Manager AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #7.A. STAFF RE P ORT NO. 193 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 11/13/2018 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Jack B roz, Transportation E ngineer D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: K ristin A sher, P ublic Works D irector 11/6/2018 O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: John S tark, A cting C ity Manager 11/6/2018 I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N: Consideration of the approval of the Richfield Pedestrian Master Plan. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: The Richfield Pedestrian Master Plan has been developed as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan process. The Pedestrian Master Plan documents the current process used by Richfield Public Works on transportation projects to create safer, more convenient and enjoyable places to walk (for people at all levels of physical ability) in the city of Richfield. The plan defines a process to evaluate and design the pedestrian network and create safe, more convenient and enjoyable places to walk throughout the city of Richfield. In 2017, Richfield Public Works pursued development of the Pedestrian Master Plan as a component of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan development process currently underway. In addition to feedback at Transportation Commission meetings and the Comprehensive Plan Open House, staff solicited comments from residents though social media. T he Pedestrian Master Plan is a guiding document for decision making and design considerations for future projects and is not in any way a prescription for any particular action on any specific street or project. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N: By motion: Approve the Richfield Pedestrian Master Plan. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T The Richfield Pedestrian Master Plan has been developed as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan process. The Pedestrian Master Plan documents the current process used by Public Works on transportation projects to create safer, more convenient, accessible and enjoyable places to walk in the city of Richfield. The plan defines a process to evaluate and design the pedestrian network and create safe, more convenient and enjoyable places to walk throughout the city of Richfield. As transportation improvements are evaluated the public input often expresses a desire to create safer, more convenient and enjoyable pedestrian facilities in addition to any baseline requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (A D A). The Pedestrian Master Plan will serve as the process to bridge a gap present between the vision in the City's guiding documents and implementation. The following plans support a safe pedestrian network throughout the City and will be complemented and enhanced by the Pedestrian Master Plan: Richfield A D A Transition Plan- Public Rights of W ay Approved Guiding Principles Approved Complete Streets Policy Approved Safe Routes to School Plan Public comment on the plan and resident input were taken at: Penn Fest, September 17, 2017 Comprehensive Plan Open House, March 15, 2018 Five Transportation Commission meetings (September 2017 and J anuary, J une, September and October 2018) On-line comments from September 27, 2018 through October 18, 2018 on the draft Pedestrian Master Plan B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): The Pedestrian Master Plan is consistent with the following: Richfield A D A Transition Plan- Public Rights of W ay Draft Comprehensive Plan Approved Guiding Principles Approved Complete Streets Policy Approved Safe Routes to School Plan C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S: The Pedestrian Master Plan will be one of the several input measures that guide the design of upcoming and future street reconstruction and rehabilitation projects throughout the City of Richfield. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION: None ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S): None P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G: None AT TAC H ME N T S: D escription Type Richfield P edestrian Master P lan B ackup Material Richfield P edestrian Master P lan E xecutive S ummary E xecutive S ummary Richfield P edestrian Master P lan P ublic C omments B ackup Material Prepared for: City of Richfield, MN August 2018 Prepared by: Zan Associates Richfield Pedestrian Plan Table of Contents Page intentionally left blank for two-sided printing Richfield Pedestrian Plan Table of Contents Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: Planning Context ............................................................................................... 7 Richfield at-a-Glance ....................................................................................................... 8 Community Vision and Goals ............................................................................................ 9 Trends Influencing the Pedestrian Network ......................................................................12 Richfield Pedestrian Plan Goals .......................................................................................13 Chapter 2: Pedestrian Demand ...........................................................................................14 Pedestrian Demand Factors ............................................................................................14 Citywide Pedestrian Demand ..........................................................................................16 Pedestrian Demand Evaluation Framework .......................................................................26 Chapter 3: Pedestrian Experience .......................................................................................28 Existing Pedestrian System .............................................................................................29 Pedestrian Safety ...........................................................................................................30 Pedestrian Crash Data ....................................................................................................31 Pedestrian Experience ....................................................................................................33 Chapter 4: Pedestrian Network ...........................................................................................35 Existing Pedestrian Facilities ...........................................................................................36 Priority Pedestrian Routes ...............................................................................................37 Land Use Typologies ......................................................................................................38 Chapter 5: Plan and Policy Review ......................................................................................40 Chapter 6: Implementation ................................................................................................42 Pedestrian Facility Design Guidance .................................................................................44 Pedestrian Facility Best Practices: Designing for People .....................................................45 Project Development Process ..........................................................................................52 List of Figures Figure 1: Richfield Pedestrian Plan Overview ........................................................................ 1 Richfield Pedestrian Plan Table of Contents Figure 2: Existing Conditions and Benefits of Walking ............................................................ 2 Figure 3: Great Places to Walk in Richfield ........................................................................... 4 Figure 4: Challenging Pedestrian Environments ..................................................................... 5 Figure 5: Guiding Principles for Land Use and Transportation ................................................10 Figure 6: Influencing Themes and Trends ...........................................................................12 Figure 7: Pedestrian Demand Influencers ............................................................................15 Figure 8: Richfield Pedestrian Destinations and Activity Centers and Transit Stops ..................18 Figure 9: Population Density ..............................................................................................19 Figure 10: Percentage of People Living in Poverty ................................................................20 Figure 11: Percentage of Non-White Populations .................................................................21 Figure 12: Percentage of 65+ Populations ...........................................................................22 Figure 13: Percentage of 18 and Under Populations .............................................................23 Figure 14: Citywide Pedestrian Demand ..............................................................................24 Figure 15: Households with a Person with a Disability ..........................................................25 Figure 16: Example Pedestrian Demand Evaluation, Nicollet Avenue ......................................27 Figure 17: Level of Accommodation/Use Relationship ...........................................................28 Figure 18: Richfield Pedestrian Facilities ..............................................................................29 Figure 19: Vehicle Speed and Pedestrian Injury Relationship.................................................31 Figure 20: Richfield Crash Trends .......................................................................................31 Figure 21: Location and Severity of Crashes in Richfield (2006 – 2015) ..................................32 Figure 22: Crashes by Intersection Type ………………………………………………………………………..… 32 Figure 23: Crashes by Activity Center ..............................................................................................................................33 Figure 24: Typical Pedestrian Experience Measures and Considerations .................................34 Figure 25: Example Pedestrian Experience Evaluation, Nicollet Avenue ..................................35 Figure 26: Richfield Pedestrian Network Considerations ........................................................36 Figure 27: Richfield Pedestrian Network ..............................................................................39 Figure 28: Transportation Planning in Richfield ....................................................................40 Figure 29: Plan and Policy Review ......................................................................................41 Figure 30: Implementation Framework ...............................................................................43 Figure 31: Best Practice Pedestrian Treatments ...................................................................46 Figure 32: Best Practice Pedestrian Treatments – Walkways .................................................48 -Page 1- Introduction The Richfield Pedestrian Plan is a tool to create safer, more convenient, and enjoyable places to walk in the City of Richfield. This plan includes a systematic approach for evaluating pedestrian demand based on proximity to land uses that generate pedestrian trips, social and economic factors that generate a higher demand for pedestrian mobility, and the physical context of a given location. The plan also establishes measures to evaluate the pedestrian network to determine its ability to meet the specific demand and priority. Finally, the plan includes guidance on new and emerging pedestrian design tools and recommendations for implementation of a city-wide pedestrian improvement program. The Richfield Pedestrian plan falls within a family of modal plans developed by the city which also includes the Richfield Bicycle Master Plan. Each of these is guided by the goals and policies set in the Richfield Comprehensive Plan, as well as other related policies such as the Complete Streets Policy and Guiding Principles. Addition detail on implementation of pedestrian accessibility improvements is included in the city’s ADA Transition Plan (2014), which includes a higher level of detail on how the city intends to make transportation infrastructure accessible to all. Figure 1 shows the major sections of the plan. Figure 1: Richfield Pedestrian Plan Overview Walking is fundamental to all aspects of transportation. People walk… for exercise, to the bus stop, from their bike to their house, from a car to a restaurant, just for the fun of it. Regardless of the nature of the trip, all pedestrians have the right to a safe pedestrian trip and it should also be efficient and enjoyable (see Figure 2). Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 2- Figure 2: Existing Conditions and Benefits of Walking Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 3- There are many examples of great places to walk in Richfield—trails around parks and lakes provide a serene walking environment; newly constructed streets such as Portland Avenue provide a pleasant and efficient walking experience, and there are mid-block crossings city-wide in strategic locations providing much needed connectivity to high activity locations. However, the vehicle-centric transportation planning of Richfield’s past has resulted in an efficient street grid for automobiles, it has also led to a disconnected and inefficient pedestrian system – the existing transportation system has created negative impacts on walking. High vehicle speeds create unsafe crossing conditions for pedestrians, narrow and uneven sidewalks make for an uncomfortable walking experience along the busiest streets, many sidewalks and crosswalks do not meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, and there are gaps in pedestrian connectivity at many high activity locations. And these negative impacts are disproportionately born by disadvantaged populations who rely on walking for their everyday needs – children, older adults, people with disabilities, and people with low income. For the purposes of this plan, WALKING is defined as moving on foot or a wheel chair. Sidewalk poetry on Portland Avenue in Richfield Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 4- Figure 3: Great Places to Walk in Richfield Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 5- Figure 4: Challenging Pedestrian Environments Top left, newly constructed sidewalk and cycle track on 66th St. Middle left, meandering multiuse path at Monroe Field. Bottom left: Quiet neighborhood street. Top right, temporary multiuse trail on 69th St. Middle right, median refuge on Portland Ave. Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 6- Top left, uncomfortable sidewalk at the back of the curb on Penn Ave. Middle Left, uneven driveway crossing on Lyndale Ave. Bottom left, dead end sidewalk on 64th St. Top right, poorly maintained sidewalk and curb ramp on 66th St. Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 7- Page intentionally left blank for two-sided printing Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 8- Chapter 1: Planning Context Richfield at-a-Glance (Source: Census Bureau, ACS 5 – year Estimate, 2012 – 2016). Richfield has a population of about 35,900 people with a median age of 36 and a median household income of $54,640. Between 2015 and 2016 the population of Richfield declined from 36,060 to 35,910, a 0.40% decrease and its median household income grew from $52,950 to $54,640, a 3.2% increase. The ethnic composition of the population of Richfield is 22,275 White residents (62%), 5,899 Hispanic residents (16.4%), 3,521 Black residents (9.8%), 2,721 Asian residents (7.58%), and 1,342 two or more ethnicity residents (3.74%). 8,790 (25%) of Richfield citizens are speakers of a non-English language. The most common foreign languages in Richfield are Spanish (5,189 speakers), African Languages (655 speakers), and Other Asian (528 speakers). Richfield is a fully developed suburban/urban area. The majority of land in Richfield is single- family residential, but there are also strong multifamily residential communities throughout the city. In addition, there are multiple commercial nodes, employment hubs, regional and neighborhood parks, and other strong activity centers within the city. The median property value in Richfield in 2016 was $188,100, a 3% increase over 2015. People in Richfield have an average commute time of about 20 minutes, and most report driving alone (75%). Car ownership in Richfield is approximately the same as the national average, with an average of 2 cars per household. Nearly 5% of households in Richfield do not have access to a car. Approximately 23% of households in Richfield have at least one person with a disability (ACS, 2016) and approximately 10% of residents have a disability (MN State Demographer, 2017). Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 9- Community Vision and Goals There is growing momentum around improving multimodal transportation options in Richfield, and walking is a critical component of this trend. The city developed the Bicycle Master Plan in 2009, which identified primary and secondary bicycle routes within the city, as well as important activity centers. The city developed it’s guiding principles for transportation and land use in 2010 (Figure 5), which call for more multimodal design, connectivity and public realm, and design for people, among other things. In 2012, the city launched its Sweet Streets program, which seeks to organize the public works department around multimodal transportation in an easy to understand and family friendly way. In 2014, the city developed its ADA Transition Plan for Public Rights of Way, which details how the city’s sidewalks, crosswalks, and roadways will be made accessible to all individuals. As part of the development process for this Pedestrian Plan (2017-2018), residents commented that walking is a critical component of everyday life and should be a priority in the city. Residents provide input on walking in Richfield at Penn Fest 2017 Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 10- Figure 5: Guiding Principles for Land Use and Transportation Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 11- Guiding Principles for Land Use and Transportation Continued Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 12- Trends Influencing the Pedestrian Network Cities and the way people move within them are changing. Many people want walkable urban areas, robust multimodal transportation options, and the ability to lead healthy and active lives. Figure 6 highlights just some of the trends driving this change. Figure 6: Influencing Themes and Trends Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 13- Richfield Pedestrian Plan Goals The goal of the Richfield Pedestrian Plan is to make walking the easy choice. This means that walking for transportation and recreation is integrated into the culture of Richfield and the benefits of making walking safe, convenient and desirable for all should be widely publicized and promoted. This goal reflects the values of the community based on the Guiding Principles and public comments received as part of the planning process and responds to current themes and trends. This goal should be used as a “north arrow” for the project planning process to ensure that walking is prioritized in an equitable and balanced way. The city will do this by: 1. Making design for pedestrians the first priority when planning roadways and streets. This means actively addressing pedestrian safety through design, working to implement the city’s ADA Transition Plan, and creating public spaces which are convenient and enjoyable for walking. Often times, this can lead to focusing on pedestrian crossings at high activity locations and designing roadways and streets to encourage people driving cars to slow down and pay attention. 2. Coordinating multimodal transportation networks and land use decisions to improve characteristics of the built environment that impact walking. Such as design and the location of destinations, orientation of buildings to the street, and parking lots that are designed for people to walk in. Streets should be vital public spaces that not only serve travel but also foster social and economic activity. 3. Make public realm improvements a standard, rather than an option, in high activity locations. This includes elements such as pedestrian lighting, decorative concrete, seating, and public art, all of which foster a more inviting pedestrian experience. Community input collected at an open house in 2018 Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 14- Two competing shoe salesmen visited an isolated community. One sent a message back saying, “I’m returning to the office tomorrow. Nobody here wears shoes!” The other sent a message saying, “Send more product! Everybody here needs shoes!” AN EXAMPLE OF LATENT DEMAND Chapter 2: Pedestrian Demand The performance of a pedestrian route should be measured in terms of user experience – does it feel safe? Do people want to walk there? Does it seem like the fastest route? This section outlines a process that can be used to understand relative demand for pedestrian movement and example applications of how this process can be applied at the project level. All routes should provide a safe and enjoyable experience, but the treatment needed to provide that experience will vary and should be evaluated based on contextual factors such as nearby land uses (i.e., demand) and the physical attributes of the route. Pedestrian demand has historically been measured largely by the number of pedestrians already walking in a certain location. However, experience has shown that this does not always reflect actual demand. People avoid walking when they feel unsafe or uncomfortable. This means that both existing and latent demand must be considered when evaluating corridors for pedestrian improvements. It also means that corridors must be evaluated on a segment-by- segment or even block-by-block basis, with the goal of answering the question of “how important is THIS location in the pedestrian system?” as well as “what improvements are needed HERE for people to feel safe and comfortable while walking?” Pedestrian Demand Factors Factors such as adjacent land uses and nearby activity centers, proximity to parks and schools, the presence of Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 15- transit service, population density and demographic makeup, and the role of the corridor within the larger transportation network all influence how many people will want to walk in a given location (see Figure 7). To understand pedestrian demand at a given location, all of the relevant factors must be considered in concert. The following sections include an overview of these factors. Figure 7: Pedestrian Demand Influencers Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 16- Land and Activity Centers Activity centers are a group of destinations where people want to go for a variety of goods and services. Figure 8 shows popular activity centers in Richfield and adjacent to Richfield, based on data collected in 2012 as part of the Bicycle Master Plan. The following are common activity centers that were considered: Businesses and commercial areas such as shopping centers, restaurants, retail stores, large offices and industrial parks Schools, recreation facilities and parks Community buildings such as the community center, libraries, and city offices Transit Stops Bus service inherently creates demand for walking as people usually walk to their bus stop. A typical bus rider will have to cross the street at least once for each two-way trip. Both the frequency of the bus service—how often the bus comes—and the ridership—how many people get on or off the bus) —and the existing physical attributes of the street and bus stop should be considered when evaluating pedestrian improvements at bus stops. Figure 8 shows daily boardings for bus stops in Richfield (fall 2015). Population Density Where people live, or population density, is an important factor in understanding latent pedestrian demand. Proximity to higher population density is an indicator of potential demand for walking. Likewise, concentrations of older adults, people with disabilities, people living in poverty, minority populations, and young people are all indicators of potential pedestrian demand. These populations may rely on walking as their primary mode of transportation due to lack of an automobile or may simply have a stronger preference for walking for health, exercise, recreation, or transportation. Citywide Pedestrian Demand Figure 8 illustrates destinations and activity centers within the city, based on a survey completed as part of the development of the Richfield Bicycle Master Plan in 2010, and updated to reflect current conditions. Figure 9 shows population density and Figures 10 – 14 show densities of people living in poverty, minority populations, older adults, households with children, and people with disabilities, respectively. Figure 15 is a “heat map” which shows pedestrian demand. More intense shading means higher pedestrian demand and the lighter shading means lower pedestrian demand. Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 17- Page intentionally left blank for two-sided printing Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 18- Figure 8: Richfield Pedestrian Destinations and Activity Centers and Transit Stops Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 19- Figure 9: Population Density Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 20- Figure 10: Percentage of People Living in Poverty Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 21- Figure 11: Percentage of Non-White Populations Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 22- Figure 12: Percentage of 65+ Populations Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 23- Figure 13: Percentage of 18 and Under Populations Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 24- Figure 14: Citywide Pedestrian Demand Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 25- Figure 15: Households with a Person with a Disability Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 26- Pedestrian Demand Evaluation Framework The following are criteria for the evaluation of pedestrian demand on a citywide basis or for an individual project. Magnitude of Activity: Places with a larger draw will likely generate more pedestrian demand. Proximity: Places within ½-mile will have more impact on walking than places further away. Time of Day: Some activity centers such as schools or transit stops may have higher pedestrian activity during certain times of the day. Network Relation: A route that connects activity or population centers may be important even though there are no activity or population centers immediately adjacent to the project corridor. Figure 8 shows pedestrian demand citywide based on these factors. Figure 16 shows an example of a corridor pedestrian demand evaluation for Nicollet Avenue South (75th Street to 68th Street), based on a general rating system: High demand: Locations within one half-mile of one of more activity or population centers and has a high level of connectivity within the pedestrian network. Medium demand: Location is within one half-mile of at least one activity center and connects to the wider pedestrian network on at least one end. Low demand: Location is not close to any activity or population centers and is not an important link in the wider pedestrian network. High visibility crosswalk with median refuge island Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 27- Figure 16: Example Pedestrian Demand Evaluation, Nicollet Avenue Demand Category Influencing Factors Activity Centers and Destinations Augsburg Park Complex - Augsburg Library and Richfield Community Center - is on west side of road (top of the map). Park has popular green space, playground, and a skate park Richfield High School is just beyond the park to west. Existing residential neighborhood on east side of road. Transit Service Transit ridership is relatively high along the Nicollet Avenue corridor. Busses have regular service all day, with 15 – 20-minute headways during peak periods. High volume bus stops at 71st, 70th and 68th Streets. Population Density and Equity Neighborhood east of Nicollet Avenue has a relatively high population density and concentrations of people living in poverty, non-white older adults (65+), and children (under 18) populations. Augsburg Park west of Nicollet Avenue is home to a range of regularly programmed activities, including community concerts, children’s events, and a free lunch program in the summer. Transportation Characteristics Speed on Nicollet Avenue is higher than 25 mph. High traffic volumes – 12,000+ vehicles per day. Nicollet Avenue is direct connection to and between many different destinations and activity centers. Nicollet Avenue is key part of existing sidewalk network, poor condition. Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 28- Chapter 3: Pedestrian Experience Experience in many communities, including Richfield, has shown that people walk more and are drawn to locations where they feel safe, the route is convenient, and the experience is enjoyable. This concept is illustrated in Figure 17. Walking participation and the related benefits increase as the level of pedestrian improvements moves past the basic legal requirements, toward safe and convenient facilities such as high-visibility crosswalks and median refuges, to an advantageous and even more enjoyable facility that includes landscaping and public art. The directness of a route to key destinations or activity centers may influence its attractiveness to pedestrians. However, often the most direct routes have characteristics that discourage walking such as high traffic speeds, busy intersections, long crossing distances or an environment that generally feels unsafe or uncomfortable. These attributes may result in low existing pedestrian use but high latent demand. Both the value of connectivity and the safety and comfort for walkers must be considered when evaluating these routes for pedestrian improvements and latent demand. To achieve the city’s goal of encouraging walking, the city will need to move beyond a minimum level of pedestrian accommodation - sidewalks at some locations, curb ramps and minimum accommodations for people with disabilities, crosswalk striping at major intersections- toward a higher level of pedestrian improvements at high demand locations throughout the city. With a higher level of accommodation, it becomes more advantageous, or even enjoyable, to choose walking over other modes of transportation (see Figure 17). Figure 17: Level of Accommodation/Use Relationship Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 29- Existing Pedestrian System Strengths of the Richfield Pedestrian Network Richfield’s existing pedestrian system includes sidewalks along all major roadways (minor arterials), see (Figure 18). There is a robust and well-loved network of trails within city parks throughout the city. There are existing mid-block crossings at some major activity centers. There is strong transit ridership (bus routes) along the arterial routes within the city. The city actively clears snow along all sidewalks and trail within the city, at no additional cost to residents. There is strong community support for continued investment in pedestrian and bicycle improvements. The city’s “Sweet Streets” program is a strong advocate for multimodal transportation. Actively implementing the ADA Transition Plan to better accommodate people with disabilities. Challenges of the Richfield Pedestrian Network Crossing many streets, particularly higher volume arterials, is uncomfortable and unsafe for many pedestrians and some places have a history of pedestrian crashes. Figure 18: Richfield Pedestrian Facilities Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 30- Many of the older sidewalks in the city are built at the back of the curb and don’t provide adequate separation from traffic for a comfortable or safe pedestrian experience, especially in winter months where sidewalks become snow storage. Many sidewalks, crosswalks, and signalized intersections to not meet ADA requirements and are not easily accessible for people with mobility impairments. The city did not include pedestrian infrastructure along neighborhood streets when the roads were built (1970s), which means no sidewalks in most residential neighborhoods. Pedestrian Safety Safety is the primary concern when planning and designing pedestrian facilities. Safety includes consideration for both people in motorized vehicles (e.g., cars, buses, trucks, etc.) and people using non-motorized transportation modes (e.g., walking, biking, rolling, etc.). There are a number of ways to measure safety, including objective safety (i.e., number and severity of crashes) and subjective safety (i.e., the users perception of safety). For the purposes of this plan, safety generally refers to the risk of a crash, both objectively and subjectively. The data is clear – pedestrian safety is enhanced by slower traffic speeds and shorter crossing distances (less crash exposure). As shown in Figure 19, at 30 miles per hour the risk for severe injury to the pedestrian in a crash is about 50% —any faster and the risk of injury goes way up and the chance of survival goes way down. Motorized vehicle speeds are the most important factor in the severity of pedestrian crashes Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 31- Figure 19: Vehicle Speed and Pedestrian Injury Relationship Pedestrian Crash Data Based on a review of reported crashes in the 10-year period from 2006 to 2015, pedestrian crashes in Richfield have historically occurred at a rate of about 10 per year and about one crash per year results in a fatality or a serious/incapacitating injury. Figure 20 shows key trends related to this data and Figure 21 shows the location and severity of reported pedestrian crashes in Richfield. Figure 22 and Figure 23 show pedestrian crashes by intersection type and activity center, respectively. Figure 20: Richfield Crash Trends Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 32- Figure 21: Location and Severity of Crashes in Richfield (2006 – 2015) Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 33- Figure 22: Crashes by Intersection Type Figure 23: Crashes by Activity Center Pedestrian Experience Pedestrian experience should be evaluated on a block-by-block, segment-by-segment, and crossing-by-crossing experience. Crossings are critical as these are places where the greatest safety risks occur. Figure 24 includes an overview of typical criteria for the evaluation of pedestrian experience, for both crossings and linear facilities (i.e., segments). For each criterion, there are a range of potential improvement options that could be considered, based on context (e.g., such as demand and/or crashes). Figure 25 shows examples of these criteria applied to Nicollet Avenue, in Richfield. Page intentionally left blank for two-sided printing Traffic Signals 56% Not intersectio n related [PERCENTA GE] Stop Sign 14% Yield 1% Other 1% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Total crashes Fatal and incapacitating crashes Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 34- Figure 24: Typical Pedestrian Experience Measures and Considerations Crossings Linear Facilities Physical condition This refers to the overall state of repair of a crossing. A well maintained and designed crossing contributes to a feeling of safety, comfort, and convenience for people who need to walk across the road. What type of facility is present to help pedestrians cross: traffic signal (APS and ADA compliant), pedestrian push button, striped crosswalk, other? What’s the condition of the pedestrian facilities? o Curb ramps o Concrete/asphalt surfaces o Crosswalk striping and stop bars o Pedestrian pushbutton and countdown timers Are there clearly defined edges to delineate the pedestrian zone? Physical condition This refers to the overall state of repair of a sidewalk or multiuse trail. A well-maintained facility contributes to a feeling of safety, comfort, and joy for people walking. What type of facility is present - sidewalk, trail, etc.? Is the surface free of cracks, heaves and obstructions? Are the edges clearly defined to delineate the pedestrian zone? Are the lights and other pedestrian facilities in good repair and functioning? Is the area clean and free of trash? Is the sidewalk or trail clear of ice and snow? Are slopes and grades appropriate? Pedestrian Delay Pedestrian delay is the time a person spends waiting prior to being able to cross the street. This can be the length of time at a signal before the walk phase or the time it takes for an adequate gap in traffic at a non-signalized location. Longer crossing delay leads to higher risk behavior such as crossing at a signal during an opposing red light, or mid-block crossings, whereas shorter crossing delay is more likely to yield positive behavior – pedestrians crossing at controlled crossing locations. What type of pedestrian signal is present at signalized crossings (pedestrian activated, automatic, count -down)? What is the pedestrian delay? Do adequate gaps in vehicle traffic regularly occur (non- signalized crossings)? Width of the Pedestrian Access Route (PAR) The PAR is the area on a sidewalk or trail used for walking. This can be less that the total width of the pedestrian realm which may include other areas such as boulevards, furnishing zones, and building frontage areas. An adequately sized PAR promotes a sense of safety, security, and convenience for pedestrians. The PAR should be a minimum of 5 – 8 feet, depending on the surrounding land uses and roadway characteristics. The PAR will need to be even wider in areas with high pedestrian demand. Is the PAR at least 5 feet wide in residential areas and at least 8 in commercial areas? Do adjacent land uses or other contextual factors necessitate a wider PAR? Is there adequate clearance to buildings, walls, fences or other vertical obstructions? Are slopes and grades appropriate? Crossing distance and crash exposure Crossing distance refers to the distance from the place a person steps off of the curb, to the place the person steps back on a curb on the opposite side of the street. Shorter crossing distances minimize the time it takes a person to cross the street and the number of vehicle conflict points a pedestrian is exposed to, thereby improving pedestrian safety. How many vehicle and bicycle lanes is the pedestrian required to cross (including turn lanes and shoulders)? Are there safe and protected median refuge or mid-crossing waiting areas? Does the signal timing allow enough time for pedestrians to cross the entire street at a reasonable walking speed? Separation from traffic – boulevard, furnishing zone, sign zone Separation from traffic refers to the space between vehicle traffic lanes and the PAR. Greater separation, both horizontal and vertical, with boulevards, trees or bollards, physically separate pedestrians from moving vehicle traffic, thereby contributing to a sense of safety and comfort. Is the sidewalk or trail physically separated from the roadway or is it next to the curb? Are vertical separation features such as trees or bollards present? Speed of opposing vehicle traffic Research has shown that, at a speed of 30 mph, the risk of severe injury to a pedestrian is 50 percent. At lower speeds, this risk significantly decreases (see Figure 11), and at higher speeds, the risk significantly increases. Are vehicle operating speeds 30 mph or greater? Pedestrian features This criterion refers to the additional features, such as benches, trash receptacles, and water. The presence of these features helps enhance the sense that a location is safe, convenient, comfortable and pleasant to walk. What pedestrian features are present? Visibility This refers to the visibility of a crossing, both in terms of lighting and the physical characteristics of the location. Good visibility will contribute to the safety of a crossing and foster a sense of security for pedestrians. Is the crossing well lit (does it illuminate the pedestrian)? Is the crossing free from sight line obstructions? Are there horizontal or vertical curvature issues? Visual quality An attractive appearance will help to make a sidewalk a place where people want to be, thereby contributing to a positive and pleasant pedestrian experience Are elements such as trees and planting present? Are physical features such as colored/textured concrete, banners, and public art included? Land use connectivity It is human nature for people to walk the shortest route possible. Thus, it is not realistic to ask people to walk even minimum distances in the “wrong direction” or “out of the way” to get to their desired destination. Pedestrian crossings should provide the most direct connection possible to adjacent land uses and activity centers. Are there marked crosswalks at all intersection legs? Does the crossing provide a direct connection to nearby activity centers? Land use connectivity This criterion measures the ability of a route to connect people to the places they want to go as efficiently as possible. It is human nature for people to walk the shortest route possible; thus, it is not realistic to ask people to walk even minimum distances in the “wrong direction” or “out of the way”. Are there pedestrian facilities on both sides of the roadway? Does the route provide direct connectivity to key destinations or activity centers? Does the route provide connectivity to the overall pedestrian network or to other trails or sidewalks? Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 35- Figure 25: Example Pedestrian Experience Evaluation, Nicollet Avenue Demand Category Influencing Factors Physical Condition No marked crosswalks at 71st or 72nd Street. Existing crosswalk markings at 70th Street are worn and faded. Visibility Lighting illuminates the roadway mid-block, but does not light the sidewalks or crosswalks. Crossing Distance and Crash Exposure Pedestrians are required to cross three traffic lanes and bike-able shoulders. Pedestrian Delay There is a traffic signal at 70th Street, but it does not have pedestrian prioritized phasing. There is no crossing control at 71st or 72nd Street and the nearest controlled crossings are at least one block away. Land Use and Connectivity The only controlled crossing is at 70th Street, which is two – three blocks out of the way for pedestrians trying to access activity. centers such as the 71st Street bus stop and Augsburg Library. Chapter 4: Pedestrian Network Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 36- The city’s pedestrian network will be expanded and modernized overtime to improve safety and to create a positive pedestrian experience, as resources become available. The highest priority for the pedestrian network is to focus on safety countermeasures at high traffic roadway crossings, particularly on the arterial roadway network. In addition, a series of priority pedestrian routes have been identified based on a review of proximity to activity centers (demand), gaps in the existing pedestrian network, and connections to crossings of major barriers to pedestrian mobility (e.g., highway bridges, railroad crossings, etc.). Finally, routes with existing pedestrian facilities will be modernized, based on need, to provide a positive pedestrian experience. This may mean replacing outdated and unsafe sidewalks and/or installing sidewalks on both sides of the road in some locations (see Figure 26). Figure 27: Richfield Pedestrian Network is the Pedestrian Network Map for the City of Richfield. This map shows existing pedestrian facilities, priority pedestrian routes, and land use typologies as described below. Figure 26: Richfield Pedestrian Network Considerations Existing Pedestrian Facilities Richfield is working to expand and modernize its pedestrian transportation system, but there is still more work to be done. There are existing sidewalks on both sides of the street along all Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 37- minor arterial roadways and sidewalks along one side of the street on all collector roadways, in accordance with the city’s current sidewalk policy. In addition, the city has modernized facilities to include wider sidewalks, separation from vehicle traffic (i.e., boulevards), and safe crossings as part of recent roadway reconstruction projects (e.g., Portland Avenue and 66th Street). In total the existing pedestrian system in Richfield includes 162 miles (centerline) of roadways, 51.5 miles of existing sidewalks, seven miles of two-way trails, and two existing pedestrian bridges crossing major highways (i.e., I-35W and I-494). Priority Pedestrian Routes Priority Pedestrian Routes were identified based on proximity to activity centers (i.e., demand), planned development, filling gaps within the existing pedestrian network, and connections to crossings of major barriers to pedestrian mobility (e.g., highway bridges, railroad crossings, etc.). In total, 12 missing links in the priority pedestrian network have been identified as follows (see Figure 27). A. Queen Avenue from 66th to the existing sidewalk 300’ south: Fills a gap in the existing pedestrian network B. 67th Street from Penn Avenue to Girard Avenue and Girard Avenue from 67th Street to 66th Street: Passes nearby major activity centers and provides an alternative connection to the I-35 W bridge to 66th Street. C. 73rd Street from the I-35W Pedestrian Bridge to Lyndale Avenue: Fills a gap between existing pedestrian facilities and connects high activity locations. D. 64th Street from Lyndale Ave to Portland Avenue: Fills a gap between existing pedestrian facilities and connects high activity locations. E. 68th Street from Lyndale Avenue to Nicollet Avenue: Fills a gap between existing pedestrian facilities and connects high activity locations. F. 4th Avenue from 70th Street to 71st Street: Fills a gap in the existing ped. network. G. 4th Avenue from 73rd Street to 76th Street: Fills a gap between existing pedestrian facilities and connects high activity locations. H. 2nd Avenue from 77th St to 78th St: Fills a gap in the existing pedestrian network, connecting to the existing pedestrian bridge over I-494. I. 67th Street from Portland Avenue to Richfield Parkway: Fills a gap in the existing ped. network and serves future dev. areas which will have access along 67th Street. J. 71st Street from Elliot Avenue to 12th Avenue: Fills a gap in the existing pedestrian network adjacent to a school. K. 73rd Street/Diagonal Boulevard from Portland Avenue to Cedar Avenue: Fills a gap between existing pedestrian facilities and connects high activity locations. L. 12th Avenue from 66th Street to 65th Street and 65th Street from 12th Avenue to Richfield Parkway: Fills a gap in the existing pedestrian network and serves future development areas which will have access along 67th Street. M. Richfield Parkway, from 68th Street to 70th Street: Provides a continuation of the pedestrian facilities along Richfield Parkway to the north. N. Richfield Parkway, from Diagonal Boulevard to 76th Street: Provides a continuation of the pedestrian facilities along Richfield Parkway to the north. Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 38- O. Bloomington Avenue, between 76th and 77th Street: Fills a gap in the existing pedestrian network Land Use Typologies Land use typologies provide the basis to make decisions about future pedestrian facilities throughout the city. Land use typologies should be used in the project development process, in combination with an understanding of potential demand and desired pedestrian experience, to identify a suitable pedestrian facility design. The following is a description of each land use typology. Neighborhood Residential Characterized by single family and multifamily residential uses along lower volume streets laid out in a grid pattern. Focus should be on fostering slower vehicle speeds, creating a clear and well-maintained walking path and providing safe crossings, particularly at higher volume roadways. Neighborhood Commercial Primarily neighborhood serving commercial uses focused on providing goods, services, and entertainment. Focus should be safe and efficient crosswalks, direct and visually appealing pedestrian routes, and separation from vehicle traffic. Highway Commercial Land uses tend to be auto oriented. Focus should be on providing pedestrians with separation from vehicle lanes and safe places to cross. Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 39- Figure 27: Richfield Pedestrian Network Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 40- Chapter 5: Plan and Policy Review Richfield is working to provide pedestrians with safe, convenient, and enjoyable walking environments through its planning and policy efforts and related local, regional, and state plans and policies provide a foundation for this pedestrian plan. At the local level, efforts are governed by the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Guiding Principles for Transportation, and Complete Streets Policy, all of which set the framework for transportation planning in Richfield (see Figure 28). At a policy level, the core pedestrian related documents in Richfield are ADA Transition Plan, the Sidewalks Standards Policy, the Crosswalk Policy, the Sidewalk Snow Plowing Policy, and the Complete Streets Policy. Together, these plans and policies define the criteria for installation of pedestrian infrastructure (sidewalks and crosswalks), the circumstances for when and how they will be built, and the standards for winter maintenance. These plans should be updated to allow for greater flexibility in the siting Existing plans and policies show a strong desire at every level of government to make walking a safe and convenient transportation and recreation option. Figure 28: Transportation Planning in Richfield Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 41- of pedestrian facilities and to include consideration for people-based factors, such as activity generating land uses and concentrated populations of who often rely on walking as a primary source of transportation (e.g., older adults, children and young adults, and people with low incomes). Figure 29 summarizes the plans and policies reviewed as part of the planning process and includes considerations to make walking safer and more inviting for pedestrians. The findings presented in Figure 29 are considerations to update official policies and the wording in the figure is not intended to replace the existing policy or to be considered as a policy in itself. Figure 29: Plan and Policy Review Policy Overview Considerations Richfield Sidewalk Standards Policy (2016) Sidewalks on both sides of arterial streets Sidewalks on one side of collector streets Sidewalks in one side of roadways on major school routes No sidewalks on local streets Minimum width for sidewalks is six feet Amend this policy to: Specifically allow for pedestrian facilities on local streets as appropriate, based on demand Specify minimum sidewalk widths (5’ in residential and 8’ in commercial areas) Include sidewalks on both sides of the street as a standard practice in all applications (one-side sidewalks can be done as an exception, if justified) Include guidance for other pedestrian facilities, such as temporary treatments on streets and multiuse trails Specifically describe the process to add sidewalks on an existing residential street with no sidewalks Treat funding for sidewalks in the same manner as funding for streets Richfield Pedestrian Crosswalk Pavement Markings Policy (2006) Pedestrian crosswalk pavement markings or special treatments at: Signalized intersections Intersections designated as safe routes to schools and parks Other locations deemed warranted through engineering studies Rewrite policy to provide guidance on the types of crossing treatments that should be considered at all intersections. Should include consideration for: Vehicle traffic volumes and speeds Nearby land uses and activity centers Demographics Richfield Sidewalk Snow Plowing Policy (2011) Requires that the city plow all public sidewalks within the city. Prioritizes starting with commercial areas, then arterial roads, then collector streets, followed lastly by residential neighborhoods. Revise to include a more detailed hierarchy for snow clearance priorities. Major activity centers, arterial roadways, and school routes should be prioritized (including transit stops), with a lower priority (or none) given to pedestrian facilities on sub- collector and residential streets. Richfield Complete Streets Policy (2015) Policy for accommodation of multimodal transportation, city-wide. Evaluate each project against the complete streets policy Consider the desired user experience of multimodal users Seek opportunities to implement standalone pedestrian improvement projects Guiding Principles for Framework for how the City will develop its transportation network, land uses, Evaluate each project against the principles to foster accepted community design Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 42- Policy Overview Considerations Transportation (2013) public realm, and open spaces. principles, enhanced public realm amenities, and desired user experiences. ADA Transition Plan (2014) Evaluation of roadway facilities to ensure that all roads in the City are accessible to all individuals. Revise the Sidewalk Standards Policy and Crosswalk Policy to explicitly reference the ADA Transition Plan as added support for local policies to improve pedestrian safety and experience. Richfield Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan (2014) Identifies opportunities and priorities to increase walking and biking to schools and strategies for making improvements in the areas surrounding the school. Seek opportunities to implement standalone pedestrian improvement projects to address safe routes to school. Hennepin County Pedestrian Plan (2013) Addresses the county’s role in making walking a safe and easy choice for residents. Revise the Sidewalk Standards Policy and Crosswalk Policy to explicitly reference external policies as added support for local policies aimed at improving pedestrian safety and experience. Hennepin County Transportation Systems Plan (2011) Seeks to articulate a transportation vision, update previous planning work, and provide guidance for future transportation decisions. Hennepin County Complete Streets Policy (2009) Policy for accommodation of multimodal transportation, county-wide. MnDOT Complete Streets Policy (2016) Policy for accommodation of multimodal transportation, statewide. Chapter 6: Implementation This section provides a framework for the implementation of the pedestrian plan, including action steps for implementation (Figure 30), a listing of reference material for design guidance, Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 43- a discussion of best practices for pedestrian facilities, and guidance on the project development process. While the city does fund transportation improvements, there is currently no dedicated funding source for standalone pedestrian safety improvements. As funding is identified, additional study will be needed to identify and prioritize specific pedestrian safety projects. Figure 30: Implementation Framework Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 44- Pedestrian Facility Design Guidance This document is not intended to be a thorough evaluation of location specific facilities or treatments, and it is not a design guidance source. The following are common standards and design guidelines for reference during the facility design process. Design References 2015 Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD). http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/mutcd/ 2013 NACTO Urban Streets Design Guide. https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street- design-guide/ 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/mutcd2009r1r2edition.pdf. 2011 AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways & Streets (Greenbook) https://bookstore.transportation.org/collection_detail.aspx?ID=110&gclid=EAIaIQobChM Iv_2HxbXI1gIVBgxpCh35bQ7IEAQYASABEgI_rPD_BwE Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 45- 2014 NCHRP 783: Evaluation of the 13 Controlling Criteria for Geometric Design. http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/171358.aspx FHWA Interim Approvals. https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-interim_approvals.htm 2005 Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04100/ref.cfm 2004 AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities. https://bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?id=119 Pedestrian Facility Best Practices: Designing for People There are a wide variety of pedestrian types with a varying range of characteristics and needs. For example, a recreational jogger may have different needs than someone waiting for the bus, a father pushing a stroller, or an older adult using a walker. Therefore, the pedestrian network and individual pedestrian facilities should consider the ease of use for a range of ages, abilities, and mobility levels. Pedestrians want a safe and comfortable walking experience this means short and well-marked crossings, slower rather than faster vehicle traffic, separation from traffic lanes, shade and periodic rest areas, and visual interesting environments (e.g., landscaping, art, etc.). Figure 31 illustrates common “best practice” treatments for pedestrians and Figure 32 provides additional description. Refer to the references above for specific design guidance. The goal of the pedestrian network is to provide for safe, secure and efficient movement along and across the roadways High visibility crosswalk with median refuge island connecting high activity locations Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 46- Figure 31: Best Practice Pedestrian Treatments Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 47- Page intentionally left blank for two-sided printing Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 48- Figure 32: Best Practice Pedestrian Treatments – Walkways Crossing Treatments High visibility crosswalk markings Description: Reflective markings which clearly define the crossing area and set pedestrian and driver expectations. Often paired with a stop bar and advanced warning signs. Applicability: Minor arterial, collector, and higher volume local roadway crossings with medium to high pedestrian demand. Should be paired with other crossing control on high volume/high speed streets. Median refuge islands (2 stage crossing) Description: Curb cut and walkway through a raised center median. Shortens crossing distance, simplifies decision making, and provides a safe resting area for pedestrians. Applicability: Minor arterials with medium to high pedestrian demand. Bumpouts or curb extensions Description: Extension of the sidewalk into the roadway to shorten pedestrian crossing distance and slow vehicle traffic. Applicability: Minor arterial, collector, and higher volume local roadway crossings with medium to high pedestrian demand. Ideal for locations with on street parking. Should be paired with other crossing control on high volume/high speed streets. Pedestrian activated flashing lights (RRFBs) Description: Flashing lights that alert the driver to the Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 49- presence of a pedestrian at a crossing. Applicability: Minor arterials with high traffic volumes/speeds and high pedestrian demand. Ideal for mid-block crossings and roundabouts. Midblock crossings Description: Crossings in the middle of a block (i.e., not at an intersection) to provide a direct route between high activity locations. Applicability: Minor arterials with high traffic volumes/speeds and medium to high pedestrian demand. Raised crossing or speed table Description: Raised concrete crossing at or near the same elevation as the adjacent sidewalks. Defines the crossing area and forces vehicle traffic to slow down. Applicability: Any location with high pedestrian demand. Should be coupled with other crossing control for higher traffic/speed roadways. Linear Treatments Sidewalks and multiuse paths Description: Pedestrian walkway, usually adjacent to a Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 50- roadway or through a park. Provides a connection between nearby activity centers. Applicability: Both sides of all minor arterials and on select collectors and local streets with medium to high pedestrian demand. Should be separated from the roadway. Boulevard or vertical separation Description: Improves safety and comfort for pedestrians by providing physical separation between roadway travel lanes and the walkway. Applicability: All sidewalks and multiuse paths adjacent to a roadway. Pedestrian scale lighting Description: Lighting which illuminates the pedestrian realm to improve visibility of sidewalks and crosswalks. Includes lighting at the near side of intersections to make crossings pedestrians visible. Applicability: All sidewalks, multiuse paths, and marked crosswalks. Trees, plantings, landscaping, and art Description: Plantings (e.g., trees and landscaping) and art improve safety and comfort by providing physical separation from vehicle lanes, creating shade, and visual interest. Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 51- Applicability: All sidewalks and multiuse paths. Benches, waste receptacles, and other furnishings Description: Benches, garbage, and other furnishings that support walking. Applicability: Periodic placement along medium and high demand pedestrian areas. Coordinate with bus stop facilities. Temporary Pedestrian Facilities Description: Temporarily striped, painted, and/or delineated walkways along roadways where there is a need for improved pedestrian facilities, but the underlying roadway infrastructure is not due for replacement. Applicability: Roadways and crossings with high vehicle traffic volumes and speed and medium to high pedestrian demand. Richfield Pedestrian Plan -Page 52- Project Development Process The following checklist is a checklist intended for use as part of the project development process to foster safe, secure and efficient pedestrian movement along and across roadways. This checklist should be used to evaluate the success of any design alternative, from a design perspective and should be coupled with an evaluation of pedestrian demand. Crossing treatments Crosswalk visibility (high visibility striping, stop bar, and signage) Pedestrian activated flashing lights Vehicle control (e.g., stop signs, traffic signal, etc.) Minimal or mitigated conflict points with vehicles and bicycle Direct connection to activity centers (i.e., minimize wrong direction travel for pedestrians) ADA compliance (e.g., pedestrian countdown times and push buttons, appropriately placed curb ramps, minimal cross slopes, etc.) Minimize crossings distance Minimize pedestrian delay at intersections (and circuitous routing) Pedestrian refuge island Pedestrian oriented lighting Appropriate intersection sight lines Linear facilities Separation from traffic (buffer zone) Width commensurate with pedestrian demand (6’ min, 8-10’ preferred) Pedestrian scale lighting Minimize circuitous routing Shade, plantings, and art Resting areas (benches, short walls, drinking fountains) For more information, and to view the full report visit:ZZZ5LFKʐHOG6ZHHW6WUHHWVRUJNovember 2018RICHFIELDPEDESTRIAN PLANExecutive SummaryNovember 2018Prepared by: Zan Associates EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis plan describes a systematic approach for evaluating pedestrian demand based on proximity to land uses that generate pedestrian trips, social and economic factors that generate a higher demand for pedestrian mobility, and the physical context of a given location. The plan also establishes measures to evaluate the pedestrian network to determine its ability to meet the specific demand and priority. Finally, the plan includes guidance on new and emerging pedestrian design tools and recommendations for implementation of a citywide pedestrian improvement program. Richfield Pedestrian Plan OverviewWalking is fundamental to all aspects of transportation. People walk… for exercise, to the bus stop, from their bike to their house, from a car to a restaurant, just for the fun of it. Regardless of the nature of the trip, all pedestrians have the right to a safe pedestrian trip and it should also be effi cient and enjoyable. The Richfi eld Pedestrian Plan is a tool to create safer, more convenient and enjoyable places to walk in the City of Richfi eld.Implementation FrameworkInclude evaluation of the appropriate pedestrian crossings and linear facilities on all capital and maintenance projects in the future, considering pedestrians as the priority mode.Install modern pedestrian facilities on all minor arterial roadways. This includes protected crossings in high demand areas and sidewalks or trails, separated from the roadway with a boulevard or other vertical screening.Work toward buildout of the citywide pedestrian network, including pedestrian facilities on all minor arterial, collector, and select local roadways. Look for opportunities to create signature places to walk within Richfield, such as pedestrian plazas and greenways. Pursue legislative policy changes to allow for reduced speed limits on residential streetsImplement solutions to address high crash frequency and severity locations, citywide. Institutionalize non-infrastructure programs and campaigns to change user behavior. Pursue a dedicated and ongoing funding source for stand-alone pedestrian projects. Evaluate opportunities for non-infrastructure pedestrian programming to educate the community and build awareness for pedestrians. For example: • Walk! Bike! Fun! Education programs at schools• Community walking maps• Walk to school and work days• Mileage and/or step counting programs• Safety campaigns (Stop For Me)Strategically pursue all funding sources for pedestrian infrastructure. At a minimum, this should include consideration of the following:• Federal Transportation Funding allocated through the regional solicitation process• U.S. Dept. of Transportation: BUILD (formerly TIGER) discretionary grants• DNR Local Trail Connections Program• State funds for Safe Routes to School (SRTS)• MN Department of Health Statewide Health Improvement Program• Blue Cross Blue Shield Center for Prevention fundsLook for opportunities to implement stand-alone pedestrian projects in high demand areas and in areas with high crash frequency and severity. Consider the use of temporary installations.Complete a system wide evaluation to develop a prioritized program of pedestrian safety projects, based on the demand evaluation framework in this plan.Near-term (I-4 years)Mid-term (5-9 years)Long-term (10+ years)Actions Best Practice Pedestrian TreatmentsBumpouts or curb extensions- shorten crossing distance, improves sight lines and can slow vehicle traffic Depressed and perpendicular curb ramps- provide safe crossing experience for people with limited mobility Tightened curb radius shortens crossing distance, creates a larger pedestrian realm behind the curb,and slows turning vehiclesTight Curb R a d i u s Wide Cur b Radius Pedestrian refuge island- two stage crossing, shortens crossing distance and provides a safe mid-crossing waiting placeRectangular rapid flashing beacons and advanced warning signs alert drivers to the presence of pedestriansMidblock crossing provides direct route between activity centers Benches and shade trees create a comfortable walking environment Planted boulevards improve safety by providing physical separation from vehicle traffic along with creating visual interest, shadeand snow storage Pedestrian scale lighting improves visability on sidewalks and crosswalks High visability crosswalk markings clearly define the pedestrian realm 3.5%In Richfield, 3.5 percent of commuters walk to work compared to 2.8 percent nationally. ACS, 201650%Nearly 50 percent of Minnesotans fail to meet the Department of Health’s exercise recommendations (at least 150 minutes per week) Minnesota Walks, 201650%Nearly 50 percent of Minnesotans fail to meet the Department of Health’s exercise recommendations (at least 150 minutes per week) Minnesota Walks, 2016People living in pedestrian-friendly cities tend to be engaged in their community. One study found that living in pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods have higher levels of social and community engagement compared with those living in car-oriented suburbs. Leyden, Kevin M, 200362%Of Minnesotans that meet physical activity guidelines, 62 percent do so by including walking as part of their regular physical activity. Minnesota Walks, 201640%Approximately 40 percent of commuters who walk to work in Richfield are people of color and 20 percent are living in poverty. ACS, 201647%Approximately 47 percent of commuters who walk to work in Richfield do not have a vehicle available to them. ACS, 201630%In Richfield, 30 percent of students live within one half mile of a school. SRTS Comprehensive Plan, 2014PEOPLE IN RICHFIELD ARE WALKINGWALKING IS GOOD FOR HEALTHThere is a growing demand to live and work in pedestrian-friendly places. One study found that real estate values increase by $500 to $3,000 per increase in Walk Score Point (walkscore.com). Cortright, Joe, 2009WALKING IS GOOD FOR THE ECONOMYWALKING IS GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY23%23.2% of households in Richfield have at least one person with a disability. ACS, 2016 and 10.1% of Richfield residents report living with a disability. MN State Demographer, 2017 PLANNING CONTEXTThere is growing momentum around improving multimodal transportation options in Richfi eld, and walking is a critical component of this trend.Cities and the way people move within them are changing. Many people want walkable urban areas, robust multimodal transportation options, and the ability to lead healthy and active lives. Richfield Pedestrian Plan GoalsThe purpose of the Richfield Pedestrian Plan is to help make walking the easy choice. Richfield can achieve this by:123Making design for pedestrians first priorityCoordinating multimodal transportation networks and land use decisionsMaking public realm improvements a standard in high activity locationsIMPLEMENTATIONPedestrian facilities should be designed for easy use by a range of ages, abilities, and mobility levels.Pedestrian Facility Best Practices:Designing for PedestriansPeople walk for many different reasons and, thus, a variety of facilities are needed. A recreational jogger may have different needs than someone waiting for the bus, a father pushing a stroller, or an older adult using a walker. Pedestrians want a safe and comfortable walking experience. This means short and well-marked crossings, slower rather than faster vehicle traffic, separation from traffic lanes, shade and periodic rest areas, and visually interesting environments. PLAN AND POLICY REVIEWExisting plans and policies show a strong commitment at every level to make walking a safe and convenient transportation and recreation option in Richfi eld.There is a planning and policy level emphasis on walking in Richfield. However, plans and policies need to be updated to allow greater flexibility in the siting of pedestrian facilities and to include people-based factors, such as activity generating land uses and concentrations of populations who often rely on walk-ing. The following plans and policies may need to be updated to reflect pedestrian priority based on demand and context: • Richfield Sidewalk Standards Policy (2016)• Richfield Pedestrian Crosswalk Pavement Markings Policy (2006)• Richfield Sidewalk Snow Plowing Policy (2011)• Richfield Complete Streets Policy (2015)• Guiding Principles for Transportation (2013)• ADA Transition Plan (2014)• Richfield Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan (2014)Active living is about creating places that integrate physical activity into daily life by encouraging people to incorporate physical activity into their daily routine. The ability to safely walk is a critical component of active living.Healthy livingis about making healthy behaviors a part of daily life through physical, mental and spiritual means. Regular physical activity such as walking reduces the risk of chronic diseases; as little as 10 minutes of brisk walking a day has cardiovascular benefits. Walking has also been shown to lead to improved mental well-being and reductions in rates of depression and feelings of isolation.Transportation fundinghas been a contentious issue at all levels of government over recent years, often leaving transportation projects with less money. With less funds, walking related projects and programs need to be implemented in an efficient manner and to “do more with less.”Complete streetsis an approach to street planning and design that considers and balances the needs of all transportation users. This approach to roadway design emphasizes the needs of the most vulnerable users, such as pedestrians, over vehicle users. Livability A livable place has a combination of vibrant public spaces, mixed income housing, resilient local economy, recreational opportunities, easy access to goods and services. People can walk for recreation and can have a joyous experience while accessing important destinations.Distracted drivingis an activity that takes away attention from driving, thus creating a risk for the driver and others around them. Pedestrians are vulnerable to serious injury and fatalities when hit by drivers, thus making distracted driving a large threat to pedestrians. Vehicle speedHigher vehicle speeds increase the likelihood of pedestrian injury or fatality if a pedestrian is hit. The key turning point for pedestrian safety is 30 miles per hour–any faster and the chance of survival goes way down. For example, if a pedestrian is hit by a vehicle at 40 mph, the fatality rate is 85%, whereas a pedestrian crash at 20 mph has a 5% fatality rate.Influencing Themes and Trends PEDESTRIAN DEMANDDemand is inclusive of both existing users and unmet need, or latent demand, based on the surrounding land use and context.The following maps illustrate pedestrian demand in Richfield. The first shows destinations and activity centers within the city, based on a survey completed as part of the development of the Richfield Bicycle Master Plan in 2010, and updated to reflect current conditions. The second is a pedestrian demand “heat map” which interpolates pedestrian demand factors and pop-ulation characteristics to show the relative pedestrian demand throughout the city. Together, these maps serve as a starting place for understanding pedestrian demand at a given location.People walk for many different reasons and in many different places, but people avoid walking when they feel unsafe or uncomfortable. As a result, there is often significant latent demand for walking that doesn’t show up when counts are made of current walking. A better understanding of both current and latent pedestrian demand is achieved by looking at factors including: · Adjacent land uses and nearby activity centers· Proximity to parks and schools · Presence of transit service· Population density and demographic make· Role of the corridor within the larger transportation network71st 1/270th 1/275thI - 49478th77th76th74th72nd73rd71st69th70th62nd67th68th66th65th64th63rdCOLUMBUS2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18thCOLUMBUS2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18thTAFT PARKVETERANSMEMORIALPARKHEREDIAPARKCHRISTIANPARKWASHINGTONPARKROOSEVELTPARKMt CalvaryLuthernSchoolRichfieldDual LanguageSchoolRichfieldS.T.E.M.SchoolCentennialElementarySchoolPartnershipAcademy SchoolFIRE STATION 1CITY HALLICE ARENACITY WATERPLANTARDSCEDAR POINTCOMMONSRICHFIELDPUBLIC WORKSCHAMBERLAIN DEVELOPMENTJEFGHIKL12th Ave from 66th St to 65th St and 65th St from 12th Ave to Richfield PkwyJPriority Pedestrian RoutesPriority Pedestrian Routes67th St from Penn Ave to Girard Ave and Girard Ave from 67th St to 66th StA73rd St from the I-35W Ped Bridge to Lyndale AveB64th St from Lyndale Ave to Portland AveC4th Ave from 70th St to 71st StE4th Ave from 73rd St to 76th StF67th St from Portland Ave to Richfield PkwyG71st St from Elliot Ave to 12th AveH73rd St Diagonal Blvd from Portland Ave to Cedar AveID68th St from Lyndale Ave to Nicollet AveRichfield Pkwy, from 68th St to 70th StKRichfield Pkwy, from Diagonal Blvd to 76th StLPedestrian InfrstructureSidewalk on Both SidesSidewalk on One SideTwo-way TrailPedestrain Bridges00.25MilesMetropolitan Council (2018) and City of RichfieldCreated by Zan Associates October 2018Neighborhood CommercialLand Use TypologiesNeighborhood ResidentialHighway CommercialBarrier Crossing 71st 1/270th 1/275thI - 49478th77th76th74th72nd73rd71st69th70th62nd67th68th66th65th64th63rdSHERIDANWASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRANDPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1stSHERIDANWASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRANDPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1stLINCOLNFIELDAUGSBURGPARKLYNDALEFIELDLITTLEBOB'SPARKNICOLLETPARKGARFIELDPARKMADISONPARKMONROEPARKAPPLEBLOSSOMPARKFAIRWOODPARKDONALDSONPARKFREEMONTPARKADAM'SHILLPARKJEFFERSONPARKSHERIDANPARKRichfieldHigh SchoolBlessed TrinityCatholic SchoolAcademy ofHoly AngelsRichfieldMiddleSchoolDistrict 287Secondary SpecialEducation SchoolSheridan HillsElementarySchoolFIRESTATION 2WOOD LAKENATURE CENTERHISTORICBARTHOLOMEWHOUSERICHFIELD COMMUNITYCENTERCOUNTY LIBRARYBEST BUYCORPORATIONMENASHOPS AT LYNDALETHE HUBUS BANCORPMINNEAPOLISJEWISH CEMETERYSeven HillsAcademyLYNDALE GARDENSABCDPlanned Pedestrian NetworkWalking can be an easy choice for many people in Richfi eld. 71st 1/270th 1/275thI - 49478th77th76th74th72nd73rd71st69th70th62nd67th68th66th65th64th63rdSHERIDANWASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRANDPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1stSHERIDANWASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRANDPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1st71st 1/270th 1/275thI - 49478th77th76th74th72nd73rd71st69th70th62nd67th68th66th65th64th63rd71st 1/270th 1/275thI - 49478th77th76th74th72nd73rd71st69th70th62nd67th68th66th65th64th63rdSHERIDANWASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRANDCOLUMBUSPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1st2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18thSHERIDANWASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRANDCOLUMBUSPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1st2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18th71st 1/270th 1/275thI - 49478th77th76th74th72nd73rd71st69th70th62nd67th68th66th65th64th63rdSHERIDANWASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRANDPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1stSHERIDANWASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRANDPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1stLINCOLNFIELDAUGSBURGPARKLYNDALEFIELDLITTLEBOB'SPARKNICOLLETPARKGARFIELDPARKMADISONPARKMONROEPARKAPPLEBLOSSOMPARKFAIRWOODPARKDONALDSONPARKFREEMONTPARKADAM'SHILLPARKJEFFERSONPARKSHERIDANPARKRichfieldHigh SchoolBlessed TrinityCatholic SchoolAcademy ofHoly AngelsRichfieldMiddleSchoolDistrict 287Secondary SpecialEducation SchoolSheridan HillsElementarySchoolFIRESTATION 2WOOD LAKENATURE CENTERHISTORICBARTHOLOMEWHOUSERICHFIELD COMMUNITYCENTERCOUNTY LIBRARYBEST BUYCORPORATIONMESHOPS AT LYNDALETHE HUBUS BANCORPMINNEAPOLISJEWISH CEMETERYSeven HillsAcademyLYNDALE GARDENSRichfield Pedestrian Destinations, Activity Centers, and Transit Stops“I walk for health, wellness and longevity.”- Richfi eld resident at Penn Fest 2017Land Use TypologiesLand use typologies provide are a basis for decision making and should be used in the project development process, in combination with an understanding of pedestrian demand and experience, to identify a suitable pedestrian facility design. The following typologies have been identified: Neighborhood ResidentialPrimarily residential uses along lower volume streets. Focus on slower vehicle speeds, clear and well-maintained walking paths, and safe crossingsNeighborhood CommercialGenerally, neighborhood serving commercial uses. Focus should be safe and efficient crosswalks, direct and visually appealing pedestrian routes, and separation from vehicle traffic Highway CommercialTends to be auto oriented land uses. Focus should be on provid-ing separation from vehicle lanes and safe places to cross the street PEDESTRIAN NETWORKThe city’s pedestrian network will be expanded and mod-ernized overtime to improve safety and to create a positive pedestrian experience with the highest priority given to safety countermeasures at high traffic roadway crossings. In addi-tion, priority pedestrian routes have been identified based on proximity to activity centers, gaps in the existing pedestrian network, and crossings of major pedestrian barriers (e.g., highway bridges, railroad crossings, etc.). Routes with existing pedestrian facilities will also be modernized, based on need, to provide a positive pedestrian experience. Richfi eld has a robust transportation system, but there is more work to be done.71st 1/270th 1/275thI - 49478th77th76th74th72nd73rd71st69th70th62nd67th68th66th65th64th63rdCOLUMBUSSTEVENS2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18thCOLUMBUSSTEVENS2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18th71st 1/270th 1/275thI - 49478th77th76th74th72nd73rd71st69th70th62nd67th68th66th65th64th63rd71st 1/270th 1/275thI - 49478th77th76th74th72nd73rd71st69th70th62nd67th68th66th65th64th63rdSHERIDANWASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRANDCOLUMBUSPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1st2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18thSHERIDANWASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRANDCOLUMBUSPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1st2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18th71st 1/270th 1/275thI - 49478th77th76th74th72nd73rd71st69th70th62nd67th68th66th65th64th63rdCOLUMBUSSTEVENS2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18thCOLUMBUSSTEVENS2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18thTAFT PARKVETERANSMEMORIALPARKHEREDIAPARKCHRISTIANPARKWASHINGTONPARKROOSEVELTPARKMt CalvaryLuthernSchoolRichfieldDual LanguageSchoolRichfieldS.T.E.M.SchoolCentennialElementarySchoolPartnershipAcademy SchoolFIRE STATION 1CITY HALLICE ARENACITY WATERPLANTENARDSCEDAR POINTCOMMONSRICHFIELDPUBLIC WORKSAverage Daily Transit Boardings, Fall 2015<1011–2526–5050–100>100Destinations (1)Public Areas(1) Larger circles indicate higher demand, based on a survey of Richfield residents completed in 2011 as part of the Bicycle Master Plan and updated in 2018 as part of the Richfield Pedestrian Plan.Business AreasSchools00.25MilesMetropolitan Council (2016) and City of RichfieldCreated by Zan Associates October 2018CHAMBERLAIN DEVELOPMENT 71st 1/270th 1/275thI - 49478th77th76th74th72nd73rd71st69th70th62nd67th68th66th65th64th63rdSHERIDANWASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRANDPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1stSHERIDANWASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRANDPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1stLINCOLNFIELDAUGSBURGPARKLYNDALEFIELDLITTLEBOB'SPARKNICOLLETPARKGARFIELDPARKMADISONPARKMONROEPARKAPPLEBLOSSOMPARKFAIRWOODPARKDONALDSONPARKFREEMONTPARKADAM'SHILLPARKJEFFERSONPARKSHERIDANPARKRichfieldHigh SchoolBlessed TrinityCatholic SchoolAcademy ofHoly AngelsRichfieldMiddleSchoolDistrict 287Secondary SpecialEducation SchoolSheridan HillsElementarySchoolFIRESTATION 2WOOD LAKENATURE CENTERHISTORICBARTHOLOMEWHOUSERICHFIELD COMMUNITYCENTERCOUNTY LIBRARYBEST BUYCORPORATIONMENSHOPS AT LYNDALETHE HUBUS BANCORPMINNEAPOLISJEWISH CEMETERYSeven HillsAcademyLYNDALE GARDENSCitywide Pedestrian Demand71st 1/270th 1/275thI - 49478th77th76th74th72nd73rd71st69th70th62nd67th68th66th65th64th63rdCOLUMBUS2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18thCOLUMBUS2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18thTAFT PARKVETERANSMEMORIALPARKHEREDIAPARKCHRISTIANPARKWASHINGTONPARKROOSEVELTPARKMt CalvaryLuthernSchoolRichfieldDual LanguageSchoolRichfieldS.T.E.M.SchoolCentennialElementarySchoolPartnershipAcademy SchoolFIRE STATION 1CITY HALLICE ARENACITY WATERPLANTNARDSCEDAR POINTCOMMONSRICHFIELDPUBLIC WORKS00.25MilesFatal(2 Total)Possible Injury(32 Total)Non-incapacitatingInjury (29 Total)Property Damage(1 Total)Pedestrian Areas of ConcernSeverity of Pedestrian CrashIncapacitating Injury(9 Total)MNCMAT (2017) and City of RichfieldCreated by Zan Associates October 2018(1) There have been zero injury crashes reported at the Portland Avenue and 66th Street roundabout since it was first installed in 2009.(1)CHAMBERLAIN DEVELOPMENT 71st 1/270th 1/275thI - 49478th77th76th74th72nd73rd71st69th70th62nd67th68th66th65th64th63rdSHERIDANWASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRANDPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1stSHERIDANWASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRANDPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1stLINCOLNFIELDAUGSBURGPARKLYNDALEFIELDLITTLEBOB'SPARKNICOLLETPARKGARFIELDPARKMADISONPARKMONROEPARKAPPLEBLOSSOMPARKFAIRWOODPARKDONALDSONPARKFREEMONTPARKADAM'SHILLPARKJEFFERSONPARKSHERIDANPARKRichfieldHigh SchoolBlessed TrinityCatholic SchoolAcademy ofHoly AngelsRichfieldMiddleSchoolDistrict 287Secondary SpecialEducation SchoolSheridan HillsElementarySchoolFIRESTATION 2WOOD LAKENATURE CENTERHISTORICBARTHOLOMEWHOUSERICHFIELD COMMUNITYCENTERCOUNTY LIBRARYBEST BUYCORPORATIONMENSHOPS AT LYNDALETHE HUBUS BANCORPMINNEAPOLISJEWISH CEMETERYSeven HillsAcademyLYNDALE GARDENSLocation and Severity of Crashes in Richfield (2006 – 2015)71st 1/270th 1/275thI - 49478th77th76th74th72nd73rd71st69th70th62nd67th68th66th65th64th63rdCOLUMBUS2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18thCOLUMBUS2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18thTAFT PARKVETERANSMEMORIALPARKHEREDIAPARKCHRISTIANPARKWASHINGTONPARKROOSEVELTPARKMt CalvaryLuthernSchoolRichfieldDual LanguageSchoolRichfieldS.T.E.M.SchoolCentennialElementarySchoolPartnershipAcademy SchoolFIRE STATION 1CITY HALLICE ARENACITY WATERPLANTNARDSCEDAR POINTCOMMONSRICHFIELDPUBLIC WORKSHighLowPedestrian DemandPedestrian demand was determined based a review of arterial, collector, and connector roadways and their relative proximity to activity centers and population density. A higher concentration of, or closer proximity to activity centers, means higher demand. Activity centers considered include:• Community buildings such as the community center, libraries, and city offices• Businesses and commercial areas such as shopping centers, restaurants, retail stores, large offices and industrial parks• Schools, recreation facilities and parksLikewise, closer proximity to higher population density means higher demand, as well as proximity to concentrations of older adults, people living in poverty, minority populations, and young people.Pedestrian Demand Methodology00.25MilesCity of RichfieldCreated by Zan Associates October 2018CHAMBERLAIN DEVELOPMENT PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCEPeople are drawn to walk in locations where they feel safe, where the route is convenient, and where the overall experience is enjoyable.Walking increases as the level of pedestrian improvements increases. With a higher level of accommodation, it becomes more advantageous, or even enjoyable, to choose walking over other modes of transportation.Level of Accommodation/Use RelationshipPedestrian SafetySafety is the primary concern when planning and designing pedestrian facilities. Safety includes consideration for people walking, biking, using transit and in motor vehicles. The data are clear – pedestrian safety is enhanced by slower traffic speeds, shorter crossing distances (less crash exposure), and greater driver awareness and visibility.Measures of Pedestrian ExperienceThe following are typical criteria for the evaluation of pedestrian experience, for both crossings and linear facilities Crossing Facilities• Physical condition• Pedestrian delay• Crossing distance and crash exposure• Speed of opposing vehicle traffic• Visibility• Land use connectivityLinear Facilities• Physical condition• Width of the Pedestrian Access Route (PAR)• Separation from traffic – boulevard, furnishing zone, sign zone• Pedestrian features• Visual quality• Land use connectivitySEVERE INJURY FATALITYStruck by light truckStruck by carPedestrian hit by a vehicle traveling at speed...100%10 20 30 40 50 6075%50%25%0%40mph85% fatality rate20mph5% fatality rateRisk of severe injuryImpact speed (mph)Source: Impact Speed and a Pedestrian’s Risk of Injury or Death. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. September 2011.81%Most crashes happen at intersectionsoccurred at or near an intersection56%More than half are at signalized intersectionsoccurred at traffic signals 67%Most crashes happen on higher speed roadwaysoccurred on roads with posted speed limits of 35 miles per hour or more67%Most crashes happen on multilane roadwaysoccurred on undivided roadways with two or more lanes in each direction70%Crashes are more likely at high activity locationsof crashes occurred within 1/8 mile of a commercial area, park or other public space, school, or bus stop0Crashes at roundaboutscrashes involving fatalities or incapacitating injuries at roundabouts in Richfield and 0 reported pedestrian crashesVehicle Speed and Pedestrian Injury RelationshipRichfield Crash Trends**Source: MnCMAT (2017) and City of Richfi eld Pedestrian Master Plan Public Comments Public comment on the Pedestrian Master Plan and resident input were taken at: Penn Fest, September 17th, 2017 - Public input on pedestrian destinations within the City. Comprehensive Plan Open House, March 15th, 2018 - Public input on pedestrian destinations and barriers to walking within the City. Five Transportation Commission meetings (September 2017 and January, June, September and October 2018) - The Commission reviewed the process described in the plan and the DRAFT report. Recommendation for Council to approve the Pedestrian Master Plan moved on October 3rd, 2018. On-line comments on the DRAFT Pedestrian Master Plan from September 27th, 2018 through October 16th, 2018. Public Comments on DRAFT Pedestrian Master Plan via email I am so happy to hear that pedestrian safety is a priority for the city. I am particularly concerned about pedestrian safety with respect to the roundabouts, which are fantastic for drivers, but hazardous for pedestrians. I have personally had to dodge drivers, especially in the 2 lane roundabout at Portland. Drivers are so focused on how to maneuver through the roundabout – quite frankly they do not see pedestrians. My suggestion would be to have flashing lights that indicate pedestrians at the crossing. I know it would be an expensive investment monetarily – but a great investment in human life – especially at the Lyndale & 66th roundabout because of all the seniors. Thank you. Anne Weinauer ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hello, I spent some time this morning reviewing the new pedestrian plan for Richfield and I think it's a great start. Pedestrians have been entirely neglected during the last few years of construction and it's been increasingly dangerous and scary especially in neighborhoods with many kids on the street and no sidewalks. I live at 68th and 1st so I see firsthand the traffic from Holy Angels and at the Hub and the folks who zip through our blocks even though they're not major thoroughfares. I think the plan to make 68th a pedestrian boulevard is wonderful - I'm assuming that means that there would be sidewalks on both sides. However I find a puzzling that there are no north-south routes planned for huge 8 block areas throughout Richfield. For people who live on these blocks it's not common to walk or take your kids on a 20 block round trip tricycle ride. For example with the plan as proposed to take a simple walk on a sidewalk I would need to take 68th all the way down to Portland to go North to come back on either 67th or 66th, all the way back to Nicollet. I think if we want people who live in the neighborhood to get out and walk to local shopping areas or to school with their children, and to really engage in the neighborhood, some north-south connectors are common sense. I know we never may have sidewalks on every block in Richfield but it would be great to have the layout make more sense for the folks who live here rather than just people who drive to the area or ride public transit and want to get around in commercial areas. thank you for your consideration of comments from the community and your work on moving us into the 21st century in terms of a walkable community. Amelia Helm 6738 1st Ave S ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jack - Thank you to the city of Richfield for making this report public and seeking resident opinions! It is nice to see more sidewalks coming to the city in the plan. Although our family doesn't feel every street needs a sidewalk as the community feel comes from walking the wide side streets and sometimes sidewalks equate to non resident traffic and trash build up, we are happy to see busier roads getting pedestrian access! Provided Portland is seeing excessive traffic this summer due to the road work on 66th and Nicollet the most feedback I have is in regards crosswalks (not only on Portland) from enforcing traffic to stop and making them more visible. The near accidents that have been witnessed near the pool, with a flashing light crosswalk, amazes me. We have noticed the small triangular signs showing up in the median on 66th, can these be put on every crosswalk in the city? Can we police more? I don't know what exactly the solution is but it would nice to see some action taken. Is there a plan to paint bikeways green like Minneapolis? This would make them more visible for all. Thank you! Louise B. Cell - (612) 590-0597 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Mr. Broz, First, thank you for the information on the website, it’s informative and helpful to understand the vision. I want to compliment you and the staff for your excellent work on transportation for our city, the bicycle paths that I have used are excellent. After reviewing the pedestrian master plan I think it takes into consideration the areas of major concerns and needs of the population . My concerns are: 1 – the cross walks in the traffic circles are too close to the circles. Drivers are focused on other traffic entering and in the circle that it’s easy to not see the pedestrian wanting to cross. I say that as a person who truly tries to watch our and yield to pedestrians. These are not corners and the pedestrian shouldn’t be that close to the traffic. Move the cross walks out of the circle areas by 15 – 20 feet so the driver has time to see them and react. 2- the only place I saw benches mentioned was on page 46 out of a total of 47 pages – not exactly a priority. Not only should we have more benches near the walks they need to be placed correctly. I would like to recommend that all bus stops on main arterials have covered / heated stops like are found outside of Best Buy and on 66 & Nicollet. If this is a metro issue lets work with them an get it corrected. Bus stops not on the major streets should have benches and they should be behind the sidewalk, not up against the curb like on Lyndale and 76 or Portland near 62 and Veteran’s park. I’d be happy to discuss in more detail or clarify these descriptions if it would be of interest to you. Regards, Linda Crear 7117 Garfield Ave S ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jack, I just looked over the sweetstreets plan. Most of the plan looks to be decent but I have to say round - abouts are in no way pedestrian friendly. Cars routinely don't stop at signaled intersections and now they don't even have to. If the desire is to get people to walk to their local stores round-abouts are counter productive. The busier the retail area the less need for a round-about pedestrian speaking.Just my 2 cents worth. Paul Case ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Received October 18, 2018: Good evening, I want to let you all know what a pleasure it was to meet you all yesterday at the Public Works building. It was refreshing to work with like minded people who can discuss problems and find solutions so easily. I feel as though many of the concerns I had were addressed and am excited to see some of the news ways in Richfield brings some new light to the challenges of those I serve in our program with disabilities. Thank you all for taking the time to listen. I did want to follow-up with a brief comment, as I had stated yesterday, you are all doing so much and some of the gap is just about letting people know what is being done. On that note, I have finally had a chance to dig into the massive pedestrian plan and this is a great case in point. In figure 27 on page 37 there is a little box on ADA, and yet there appears to be a ton of feedback and mitigating risks already addressed around access and many decisions that have been made. Before the plan gets approved, it might be worth revisiting a quick edit where the plan includes a section on accessibility and calls out the city policies, identifies some decisions made (like moving ground cover over 12" tall from roundabouts for visibility, etc.) It seems like there has been much done, but not recognized or organized to tell people there is any focus on it. It's more about the message that you are important, here's what we've thought of, and if you have ideas here's who to contact. There are as well maps for poverty, race, and age. Some would argue that a density map for those with disabilities could create a narrative as well. Maybe Judy has more feedback on that specifically. Again, thank you all for your time and energy. The work you do is incredible and I'm positive most people have no clue how much you all do to keep us all safe and mobile everyday! Regards, Aaron Carper DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY PROGRAMS EMAIL acarper@miccommunity.org OFFICE 612.876.9438 7501 Logan Avenue South / Suite 2A Richfield, MN 55423 miccommunity.org Received October 21, 2018: Hi Jack and Kristin, Thank you so much for meeting with Aaron and I on Thursday. I am excited for the changes coming this winter. Hopefully it will be an easier winter for our Richfield folks living with disabilities. I was just going through the ped master plan that will be voted on at the upcoming city council meeting on Tuesday. I am concerned that the disability community is not mentioned in this entire plan. I think the ADA Transition Plan is mentioned on one page but that's about it. You count people over 65, those living in poverty, the non-white population, and anyone under age 18, but never mention the disability community. Not only are they a significant population in Richfield, but they are a significant number of the pedestrians in Richfield. 10.1% of the population, here in Richfield, identifies as having a disability. That is the same percentage as the african american community in Richfield. I would hope that you would want to be all inclusive in your ped master plan. This plan is so thorough and well put together in every other way. I hate to see the disability community completely excluded. Please consider delaying presenting this draft of the ped plan to the city council, on this coming Tuesday, and allowing enough time to add the disability community both in your language, when listing other groups of people, as well as counting them in the maps, etc. In our meeting on Thursday we identified some of the areas that are high pedestrian areas for people with disabilities. I really would hate to see this plan submitted this way. You can contact me anytime by phone, text, or email. Sincerely, Judy Moe Richfield Disability Advocacy Partnership 612-386-2638 jannmoe@gmail.com (Facebook Comments on following pages) Comment on the DRAFT Pedestrian Master Plan from Sweet Streets Facebook Post - September 27th, 2018 Comments on the DRAFT Pedestrian Master Plan from City of Richfield Facebook Post - October 2nd, 2018 AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #7.B. STAFF RE P ORT NO. 194 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 11/13/2018 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Jeff P earson, C ity E ngineer D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: K ristin A sher, P ublic Works D irector 11/6/2018 O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: John S tark, A cting C ity Manager 11/6/2018 I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N: Consideration of the adoption of a resolution authorizing the purchase of two temporary construction easements and one permanent right-of-way easement at 7601 18th Ave. S. related to the 77th Street Underpass Project. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: The 77th Street underpass will connect 77th Street east and west of Trunk Highway (TH) 77 (Cedar Avenue) to eliminate a gap in the minor reliever network. The project will connect Bloomington and Longfellow Avenues and relieve traffic on the I -494 corridor through Richfield and Bloomington. The 77th Street Underpass project will also: Provide connections – Establishes a regional, multi-modal connection between the City of Richfield, the City of Bloomington, MS P I nternational Airport, the Metro Transit South Garage, and the Mall of America. Ease Congestion – Provides additional capacity to I -494 by removing local trips from the freeway. Encourage Redevelopment – Promotes redevelopment along the south-eastern borders of Richfield that will provide a commercial “buffer” to protect neighborhoods from airport and highway impacts. As part of the project, certain temporary and permanent right-of way easements must be acquired for construction. Permanent right-of-way and temporary construction easements are sometimes needed in order to implement major infrastructure projects and facilitate the construction thereof. Property owners receive compensation for both types of easements but for temporary construction easements the area remains under their ownership after construction is complete. On October 4th, Parcels 9 & 10 (Property I D # 35-028-24-44-0001 & 35-028-24-44-0025 respectively) at 7601 18th Ave S. were each presented an "offer to purchase" for the necessary easements for the project. Both properties have accepted the offer to purchase and completed the necessary paperwork to finalize the transaction. I n order for the easements to become effective, City Council must approve payment to the property owners in the agreed upon amounts and execute each memorandum of understanding. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N: By motion: Adopt a resolution authorizing the purchase of two temporary construction easements and one permanent right-of-way easement at 7601 18th Ave. S. related to the 77th Street Underpass Project. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T The City Council passed Resolution No.10847 on October 8, 2013 supporting the 77th Street Underpass Project. Permanent right-of-way and temporary construction easements are sometimes needed in order to implement major infrastructure projects and facilitate their construction. B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): The city has authority to acquire easements through an "offer to purchase" and if no agreement can be reached the city can acquire property though eminent domain for public purposes. The subject properties have been identified as requiring easement purchase for the 77th Street Underpass Project. Right-of-way acquisition procedures set forth by Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration are being followed. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S: Timely payment for and acquisition of the easements will allow construction to begin as planned in early 2019. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: Parcel # 9 requires a temporary construction easement payment of $650.00. Parcel # 10 requires a temporary construction easement payment of $183.90 and a permanent right-of-way easement payment of $2,408.10. Total costs for the easements totals $3,250.00. Funding for the purchase of the easements required for the construction of the 77th Street Underpass Project will be provided by both City and County funds as part of the overall project costs. E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION: The City Attorney will be available at the meeting to answer questions. ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S): None P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G: None AT TAC H ME N T S: D escription Type Resolution Resolution L etter E xhibit A : P arcel #9 E asement D ocuments E xhibit E xhibit B : P arcel #10 E asement D ocuments E xhibit RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO MAKE PAYMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS AT 7601 18TH AVENUE SOUTH FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE 77TH STREET UNDERPASS PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield is the official governing body of the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, the City, a Minnesota municipal corporation acting by and through its City Council, is authorized by law to acquire land and other interests in real estate which are needed for public use or purpose; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that public safety and convenience require that the City undertake and complete improvements known as the 77th Street Underpass Project which will connect 77th Street east and west of Trunk Highway (TH) 77 (Cedar Avenue) to eliminate a gap in the minor reliever network. The project will connect Bloomington and Longfellow Avenues and address regional traffic issues on the I-494 corridor through Richfield and Bloomington; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to acquire permanent right-of-way and temporary construction easements encumbering each property described in Exhibit A and Exhibit B in order to construct the project; and WHEREAS, the good faith efforts of employees and agents of the City, in addition to the property owners, has resulted in the acceptance of offers to purchase the aforementioned easements without need for further negotiations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby authorizes the Mayor and the City Manager to make payments to each property owner as outlined in Exhibit A and Exhibit B and execute each memorandum of agreement to make effective the agreed upon easements and ensure timely commencement of the project in early 2019. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of November, 2018. Pat Elliott, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #7.C. STAFF RE P ORT NO. 195 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 11/13/2018 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: C hris L ink, Operations S uperintendent D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: K ristin A sher, P ublic Works D irector 11/6/2018 O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: John S tark, A cting C ity Manager 11/7/2018 I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N: Consideration of the adoption of a resolution authorizing a Master Partnership Contract between the City of Richfield and Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnD O T). E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: Occasionally the City of Richfield and MnD OT perform minor transportation-related services for each other when constructing, maintaining and improving the transportation system. The proposed Master Partnership Contract allows for those services to occur efficiently through the use of work orders, rather than formal agreements. The current Master Partnership Contract has expired and MnD OT is unable to provide certain professional and technical services for the City of Richfield. Services typically include, but are not limited to: Traffic signal maintenance Engineering services Right-of-way assistance Roadway maintenance Construction administration Emergency services RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N: By motion: Adopt a resolution authorizing a Master Partnership Contract between the City of Richfield and Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnD O T). B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T The current Master Partnership Contract, approved in 2007, has expired. The City regularly uses MnD OT for minor transportation-related services (signal maintenance; materials testing). B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): Minnesota Statutes authorize the Commissioner of Transportation to enter into agreements with other governmental entities for research and experimentation; for sharing facilities, equipment, staff, data, or other means of providing transportation-related services; or for other cooperative programs that promote efficiencies in providing governmental services for the benefit of the citizens of Minnesota. The City wishes to cooperate with other governmental agencies to coordinate the delivery of transportation services and maximize the efficient delivery of such services at all levels of government. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S: The current Master Partnership Contract has expired. MnD OT cannot provide transportation-related services until the new Master Partnership Contract is approved. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION: The City attorney has reviewed the agreement and will be available to answer questions. ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S): None P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G: None AT TAC H ME N T S: D escription Type Resolution Resolution L etter C ontract C ontract/A greement RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO ENTER INTO A MASTER PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) wishes to cooperate closely with local units of government to coordinate the delivery of transportation services and maximize the efficient delivery of such services at all levels of government; and WHEREAS, MnDOT and local governments are authorized by Minnesota Statutes sections 471.59, 174.02, and 161.20, to undertake collaborative efforts for the design, construction, maintenance and operation of state and local roads; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to be able to respond quickly and efficiently to such opportunities for collaboration, and have determined that having the ability to write “work orders” against a master contract would provide the greatest speed and flexibility in responding to identified needs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the City of Richfield enter into a Master Partnership Contract with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 2. That the proper Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute such contract and any amendments thereto. 3. That the City Engineer is authorized to negotiate work order contracts pursuant to the Master Contract, which work order contracts may provide for payment to or from MnDOT, and that the City Engineer may execute such work orders on behalf of the City without further approval by this Council, to the extent permitted by state law or charter. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of November, 2018. Pat Elliott, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk MnDOT Contract Number: STATE OF MINNESOTA AND CITY OF RICHFIELD MASTER PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT This master contract is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Transportation in this contract referred to as the “State” and the City of Richfield, acting through its City Council in this contract referred to as the “Local Government." Recitals 1. The parties are authorized to enter into this contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, §§15.061, 471.59 and 174.02. 2. Minn. Stat. § 161.20, subd. 2, authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and cooperate with any governmental authority for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and improving the trunk highway system. 3. Each party to this contract is a “road authority” as defined by Minn. Stat. §160.02, subd. 25. 4. Minn. Stat. § 161.39, subd. 1, authorizes a road authority to perform work for another road authority. Such work may include providing technical and engineering advice, assistance and supervision, surveying, preparing plans for the construction or reconstruction of roadways, and performing roadway maintenance. 5. Minn. Stat. §174.02, subd. 6, authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to enter into contracts with other governmental entities for research and experimentation; for sharing facilities, equipment, staff, data, or other means of providing transportation-related services; or for other cooperative programs that promote efficiencies in providing governmental services, or that further development of innovation in transportation for the benefit of the citizens of Minnesota. 6. Each party wishes to occasionally purchase services from the other party, which the parties agree will enhance the efficiency of delivering governmental services at all levels. This Master Partnership Contract (MPC) provides a framework for the efficient handling of such requests. This MPC contains terms generally governing the relationship between the parties. When specific services are requested, the parties will (unless otherwise specified) enter into a “Work Order” contracts. 7. After the execution of this MPC, the parties may (but are not required to) enter into “Work Order” contracts. These Work Orders will specify the work to be done, timelines for completion, and compensation to be paid for the specific work. 8. The parties are entering into this MPC to establish terms that will govern all of the Work Orders subsequently issued under the authority of this Contract. Master Partnership Contract 1. Term of Master Partnership Contract; Use of Work Order Contracts; Survival of Terms 1.1. Effective Date: This contract will be effective on the date last signed by the Local Government, and all State officials as required under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 2. 1.2. A party must not accept work under this Contract until it is fully executed. 1.3. Expiration Date. This Contract will expire on June 30, 2022. Page 1 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 1.4. Work Order Contracts. A work order contract must be negotiated and executed (by both the State and the Local Government) for each particular engagement, except for Technical Services provided by the State to the Local Government as specified in Article 2. The work order contract must specify the detailed scope of work and deliverables for that project. A party must not begin work under a work order until the work order is fully executed. The terms of this MPC will apply to all work orders contracts issued, unless specifically varied in the work order. The Local Government understands that this MPC is not a guarantee of any payments or work order assignments, and that payments will only be issued for work actually performed under fully-executed work orders. 1.5. Survival of Terms. The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this master contract and all work order contracts: 12. Liability; 13. State Audits; 14. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property; 17. Publicity; 18. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue; and 22. Data Disclosure. All terms of this MPC will survive with respect to any work order contract issued prior to the expiration date of the MPC. 1.6. Sample Work Order. A sample work order contract is available upon request from the State. 1.7. Definition of “Providing Party” and “Requesting Party”. For the purpose of assigning certain duties and obligations in the MPC to work order contracts, the following definitions will apply throughout the MPC. “Requesting Party” is defined as the party requesting the other party to perform work under a work order contract. “Providing Party” is defined as the party performing the scope of work under a work order contract. 2. Technical Services 2.1. Technical Services include repetitive low-cost services routinely performed by the State for the Local Government. These services may be performed by the State for the Local Government without the execution of a work order, as these services are provided in accordance with standardized practices and processes and do not require a detailed scope of work. Exhibit A – Table of Technical Services is attached. 2.1.1. Every other service not falling under the services listed in Exhibit A will require a work order contract. 2.2. The Local Government may request the State to perform Technical Services in an informal manner, such as by the use of email, a purchase order, or by delivering materials to a State lab and requesting testing. A request may be made via telephone, but will not be considered accepted unless acknowledged in writing by the State. 2.3. The State will promptly inform the Local Government if the State will be unable to perform the requested Technical Services. Otherwise, the State will perform the Technical Services in accordance with the State’s normal processes and practices, including scheduling practices taking into account the availability of State staff and equipment. 2.4. Payment Basis. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties prior to performance of the services, the State will charge the Local Government the State’s then-current rate for performing the Technical Services. The then-current rate may include the State’s normal and customary additives. The State will invoice the Local Government upon completion of the services, or at regular intervals not more than once monthly as agreed upon by the parties. The invoice will provide a summary of the Technical Services provided by the State during the invoice period. 3. Services Requiring A Work Order Contract 3.1. Work Order Contracts: A party may request the other party to perform any of the following services under individual work order contracts. Page 2 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 3.2. Professional and Technical Services. A party may provide professional and technical services upon the request of the other party. As defined by Minn. Stat. §16C.08, subd. 1, professional/technical services “means services that are intellectual in character, including consultation, analysis, evaluation, prediction, planning, programming, or recommendation; and result in the production of a report or completion of a task.” Professional and technical services do not include providing supplies or materials except as incidental to performing such services. Professional and technical services include (by way of example and without limitation) engineering services, surveying, foundation recommendations and reports, environmental documentation, right-of-way assistance (such as performing appraisals or providing relocation assistance, but excluding the exercise of the power of eminent domain), geometric layouts, final construction plans, graphic presentations, public relations, and facilitating open houses. A party will normally provide such services with its own personnel; however, a party’s professional/technical services may also include hiring and managing outside consultants to perform work provided that a party itself provides active project management for the use of such outside consultants. 3.3. Roadway Maintenance. A party may provide roadway maintenance upon the request of the other party. Roadway maintenance does not include roadway reconstruction. This work may include but is not limited to snow removal, ditch spraying, roadside mowing, bituminous mill and overlay (only small projects), seal coat, bridge hits, major retaining wall failures, major drainage failures, and message painting. All services must be performed by an employee with sufficient skills, training, expertise or certification to perform such work, and work must be supervised by a qualified employee of the party performing the work. 3.4. Construction Administration. A party may administer roadway construction projects upon the request of the other party. Roadway construction includes (by way of example and without limitation) the construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of mainline, shoulder, median, pedestrian or bicycle pathway, lighting and signal systems, pavement mill and overlays, seal coating, guardrail installation, and channelization. These services may be performed by the Providing Party’s own forces, or the Providing Party may administer outside contracts for such work. Construction administration may include letting and awarding construction contracts for such work (including state projects to be completed in conjunction with local projects). All contract administration services must be performed by an employee with sufficient skills, training, expertise or certification to perform such work. 3.5. Emergency Services. A party may provide aid upon request of the other party in the event of a man-made disaster, natural disaster or other act of God. Emergency services includes all those services as the parties mutually agree are necessary to plan for, prepare for, deal with, and recover from emergency situations. These services include, without limitation, planning, engineering, construction, maintenance, and removal and disposal services related to things such as road closures, traffic control, debris removal, flood protection and mitigation, sign repair, sandbag activities and general cleanup. Work will be performed by an employee with sufficient skills, training, expertise or certification to perform such work, and work must be supervised by a qualified employee of the party performing the work. If it is not feasible to have an executed work order prior to performance of the work, the parties will promptly confer to determine whether work may be commenced without a fully-executed work order in place. If work commences without a fully-executed work order, the parties will follow up with execution of a work order as soon as feasible. 3.6. When a need is identified, the State and the Local Government will discuss the proposed work and the resources needed to perform the work. If a party desires to perform such work, the parties will negotiate the specific and detailed work tasks and cost. The State will then prepare a work order contract. Generally, a work order contract will be limited to one specific project/engagement, although “on call” work orders may be prepared for certain types of services, especially for “Technical Services” items as identified section 2.1.. The work order will also identify specific deliverables required, and timeframes for completing work. A work order must be fully executed by the parties prior to work being commenced. Page 3 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: The Local Government will not be paid for work performed prior to execution of a work order contract and authorization by the State. 4. Responsibilities of the Providing Party 4.1. Terms Applicable to ALL Work Order Contracts. The terms in this section 4.1 will apply to ALL work order contracts. 4.1.1. Each work order will identify an Authorized Representative for each party. Each party’s authorized representative is responsible for administering the work order, and has the authority to make any decisions regarding the work, and to give and receive any notices required or permitted under this MPC or the work order. 4.1.2. The Providing Party will furnish and assign a publicly employed licensed engineer (Project Engineer), to be in responsible charge of the project(s) and to supervise and direct the work to be performed under each work order contract. For services not requiring an engineer, the Providing Party will furnish and assign another responsible employee to be in charge of the project. The services of the Providing Party under a work order contract may not be otherwise assigned, sublet, or transferred unless approved in writing by the Requesting Party’s authorized representative. This written consent will in no way relieve the Providing Party from its primary responsibility for the work. 4.1.3. If the Local Government is the Providing Party, the Project Engineer may request in writing specific engineering and/or technical services from the State, pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 161.39. The work order Contract will require the Local Government to deposit payment in advance. The costs and expenses will include the current State additives and overhead rates, subject to adjustment based on actual direct costs that have been verified by audit. 4.1.4. Only the receipt of a fully executed work order contract authorizes the Providing Party to begin work on a project. Any and all effort, expenses, or actions taken by the Providing Party before the work order contract is fully executed are considered unauthorized and undertaken at the risk of non-payment. 4.1.5. In connection with the performance of this contract and any work orders issued, the Providing Agency will comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations. When the Providing Party is authorized or permitted to award contracts in connection with any work order, the Providing Party will require and cause its contractors and subcontractors to comply with all Federal and State laws and regulations. 4.2. Additional Terms for Roadway Maintenance. The terms of section 4.1 and this section 4.2 will apply to all work orders for Roadway Maintenance. 4.2.1. Unless otherwise provided for by contract or work order, the Providing Party must obtain all permits and sanctions that may be required for the proper and lawful performance of the work. 4.2.2. The Providing Party must perform maintenance in accordance with MnDOT maintenance manuals, policies and operations. 4.2.3. The Providing Party must use State-approved materials, including (by way of example and without limitation), sign posts, sign sheeting, and de-icing and anti-icing chemicals. 4.3. Additional Terms for Construction Administration. The terms of section 4.1 and this section 4.3 will apply to all work order contracts for construction administration. 4.3.1. Contract(s) must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder or best value proposer in accordance with state law. Page 4 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 4.3.2. Contractor(s) must be required to post payment and performance bonds in an amount equal to the contract amount. The Providing Party will take all necessary action to make claims against such bonds in the event of any default by the contractor. 4.3.3. Contractor(s) must be required to perform work in accordance with the latest edition of the Minnesota Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Construction. 4.3.4. For work performed on State right-of-way, contractor(s) must be required to indemnify and hold the State harmless against any loss incurred with respect to the performance of the contracted work, and must be required to provide evidence of insurance coverage commensurate with project risk. 4.3.5. Contractor(s) must pay prevailing wages pursuant to applicable state and federal law. 4.3.6. Contractor(s) must comply with all applicable Federal, and State laws, ordinances and regulations, including but not limited to applicable human rights/anti-discrimination laws and laws concerning the participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in federally-assisted contracts. 4.3.7. Unless otherwise agreed in a work order contract, each party will be responsible for providing rights of way, easement, and construction permits for its portion of the improvements. Each party will, upon the other’s request, furnish copies of right of way certificates, easements, and construction permits. 4.3.8. The Providing Party may approve minor changes to the Requesting Party’s portion of the project work if such changes do not increase the Requesting Party’s cost obligation under the applicable work order contract. 4.3.9. The Providing Party will not approve any contractor claims for additional compensation without the Requesting Party’s written approval, and the execution of a proper amendment to the applicable work order contract when necessary. The Local Government will tender the processing and defense of any such claims to the State upon the State’s request. 4.3.10. The Local Government must coordinate all trunk highway work affecting any utilities with the State’s Utilities Office. 4.3.11. The Providing Party must coordinate all necessary detours with the Requesting Party. 4.3.12. If the Local Government is the Providing Party, and there is work performed on the trunk highway right-of-way, the following will apply: 4.3.12.1 The Local Government will have a permit to perform the work on the trunk highway. The State may revoke this permit if the work is not being performed in a safe, proper and skillful manner, or if the contractor is violating the terms of any law, regulation, or permit applicable to the work. The State will have no liability to the Local Government, or its contractor, if work is suspended or stopped due to any such condition or concern. 4.3.12.2 The Local Government will require its contractor to conduct all traffic control in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 4.3.12.3 The Local Government will require its contractor to comply with the terms of all permits issued for the project including, but not limited to, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and other environmental permits. 4.3.12.4 All improvements constructed on the State’s right-of-way will become the property of the State. 5. Responsibilities of the Requesting Party Page 5 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 5.1. After authorizing the Providing Party to begin work, the Requesting Party will furnish any data or material in its possession relating to the project that may be of use to the Providing Party in performing the work. 5.2. All such data furnished to the Providing Party will remain the property of the Requesting Party and will be promptly returned upon the Requesting Party’s request or upon the expiration or termination of this contract (subject to data retention requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and other applicable law). 5.3. The Providing Party will analyze all such data furnished by the Requesting Party. If the Providing Party finds any such data to be incorrect or incomplete, the Providing Party will bring the facts to the attention of the Requesting Party before proceeding with the part of the project affected. The Providing Party will investigate the matter, and if it finds that such data is incorrect or incomplete, it will promptly determine a method for furnishing corrected data. Delay in furnishing data will not be considered justification for an adjustment in compensation. 5.4. The State will provide to the Local Government copies of any Trunk Highway fund clauses to be included in the bid solicitation and will provide any required Trunk Highway fund provisions to be included in the Proposal for Highway Construction, that are different from those required for State Aid construction. 5.5. The Requesting Party will perform final reviews and inspections of its portion of the project work. If the work is found to have been completed in accordance with the work order contract, the Requesting Party will promptly release any remaining funds due the Providing Party for the Project(s). 5.6. The work order contracts may include additional responsibilities to be completed by the Requesting Party. 6. Time In the performance of project work under a work order contract, time is of the essence. 7. Consideration and Payment 7.1. Consideration. The Requesting Party will pay the Providing Party as specified in the work order. The State’s normal and customary additives will apply to work performed by the State, unless otherwise specified in the work order. The State’s normal and customary additives will not apply if the parties agree to a “lump sum” or “unit rate” payment. 7.2. State’s Maximum Obligation. The total compensation to be paid by the State to the Local Government under all work order contracts issued pursuant to this MPC will not exceed $500,000.00. 7.3. Travel Expenses. It is anticipated that all travel expenses will be included in the base cost of the Providing Party’s services, and unless otherwise specifically set forth in an applicable work order contract, the Providing Party will not be separately reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred by the Providing Party in performing any work order contract. In those cases where the State agrees to reimburse travel expenses, such expenses will be reimbursed in the same manner and in no greater amount than provided in the current "MnDOT Travel Regulations” a copy of which is on file with and available from the MnDOT District Office. The Local Government will not be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred outside of Minnesota unless it has received the State’s prior written approval for such travel. 7.4. Payment. 7.4.1. Generally. The Requesting Party will pay the Providing Party as specified in the applicable work order, and will make prompt payment in accordance with Minnesota law. 7.4.2. Payment by the Local Government. Page 6 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 7.4.2.1. The Local Government will make payment to the order of the Commissioner of Transportation. 7.4.2.2. IMPORTANT NOTE: PAYMENT MUST REFERENCE THE “MNDOT CONTRACT NUMBER” SHOWN ON THE FACE PAGE OF THIS CONTRACT AND THE “INVOICE NUMBER” ON THE INVOICE RECEIVED FROM MNDOT. 7.4.2.3. Remit payment to the address below: MnDOT Attn: Cash Accounting RE: MnDOT Contract Number ####### and Invoice Number ###### Mail Stop 215 395 John Ireland Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 7.4.3. Payment by the State. 7.4.3.1. Generally. The State will promptly pay the Local Government after the Local Government presents an itemized invoice for the services actually performed and the State's Authorized Representative accepts the invoiced services. Invoices must be submitted as specified in the applicable work order, but no more frequently than monthly. 7.4.3.2. Retainage for Professional and Technical Services. For work orders for professional and technical services, as required by Minn. Stat. § 16C.08, subd. 2(10), no more than 90 percent of the amount due under any work order contract may be paid until the final product of the work order contract has been reviewed by the State’s authorized representative. The balance due will be paid when the State’s authorized representative determines that the Local Government has satisfactorily fulfilled all the terms of the work order contract. 8. Conditions of Payment All work performed by the Providing Party under a work order contract must be performed to the Requesting Party’s satisfaction, as determined at the sole and reasonable discretion of the Requesting Party’s Authorized Representative and in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws, rules, and regulations. The Providing Party will not receive payment for work found by the State to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal or state law. 9. Local Government’s Authorized Representative and Project Manager; Authority to Execute Work Order Contracts 9.1. The Local Government’s Authorized Representative for administering this master contract is the Local Government’s Engineer, and the Engineer has the responsibility to monitor the Local Government’s performance. The Local Government’s Authorized Representative is also authorized to execute work order contracts on behalf of the Local Government without approval of each proposed work order contract by its governing body. 9.2. The Local Government’s Project Manager will be identified in each work order contract. 10. State’s Authorized Representative and Project Manager 10.1. The State's Authorized Representative for this master contract is the District State Aid Engineer, who has the responsibility to monitor the State’s performance. 10.2. The State’s Project Manager will be identified in each work order contract. Page 7 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 11. Assignment, Amendments, Waiver, and Contract Complete 11.1. Assignment. Neither party may assign or transfer any rights or obligations under this MPC or any work order contract without the prior consent of the other and a fully executed Assignment Contract, executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved this MPC, or their successors in office. 11.2. Amendments. Any amendment to this master contract or any work order contract must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original contract, or their successors in office. 11.3. Waiver. If a party fails to enforce any provision of this master contract or any work order contract, that failure does not waive the provision or the party’s right to subsequently enforce it. 11.4. Contract Complete. This master contract and any work order contract contain all negotiations and contracts between the State and the Local Government. No other understanding regarding this master contract or any work order contract issued hereunder, whether written or oral may be used to bind either party. 12. Liability. Each party will be responsible for its own acts and omissions to the extent provided by law. The Local Government’s liability is governed by Minn. Stat. chapter 466 and other applicable law. The State’s liability is governed by Minn. Stat. section 3.736 and other applicable law. This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies a party may have for the other party’s failure to fulfill its obligations under this master contract or any work order contract. Neither party agrees to assume any environmental liability on behalf of the other party. A Providing Party under any work order is acting only as a “Contractor” to the Requesting Party, as the term “Contractor” is defined in Minn. Stat. §115B.03 (subd. 10), and is entitled to the protections afforded to a “Contractor” by the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act. The parties specifically intend that Minn. Stat. §471.59 subd. 1a will apply to any work undertaken under this MPC and any work order issued hereunder. 13. State Audits Under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 5, the party’s books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices relevant to any work order contract are subject to examination by the parties and by the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of this MPC. 14. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property 14.1. Government Data Practices. The Local Government and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data provided by the State under this MPC and any work order contract, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Local Government under this MPC and any work order contract. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. § 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either the Local Government or the State. 14.2. Intellectual Property Rights 14.2.1. Intellectual Property Rights. The Requesting Party will own all rights, title, and interest in all of the intellectual property rights, including copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trademarks, and service marks in the Works and Documents created and paid for under work order contracts. Works means all inventions, improvements, discoveries (whether or not patentable), databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, and disks conceived, reduced to practice, created or originated by the Providing Party, its employees, agents, and subcontractors, either individually or jointly with others in the performance of this master contract or any work order contract. Works includes “Documents.” Documents are the originals of any databases, computer programs, reports, notes, Page 8 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, disks, or other materials, whether in tangible or electronic forms, prepared by the Providing Party, its employees, agents, or contractors, in the performance of a work order contract. The Documents will be the exclusive property of the Requesting Party and all such Documents must be immediately returned to the Requesting Party by the Providing Party upon completion or cancellation of the work order contract. To the extent possible, those Works eligible for copyright protection under the United States Copyright Act will be deemed to be “works made for hire.” The Providing Party Government assigns all right, title, and interest it may have in the Works and the Documents to the Requesting Party. The Providing Party must, at the request of the Requesting Party, execute all papers and perform all other acts necessary to transfer or record the Requesting Party’s ownership interest in the Works and Documents. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Requesting Party grants the Providing Party an irrevocable and royalty-free license to use such intellectual property for its own non-commercial purposes, including dissemination to political subdivisions of the state of Minnesota and to transportation-related agencies such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 14.2.2. Obligations with Respect to Intellectual Property. 14.2.2.1. Notification. Whenever any invention, improvement, or discovery (whether or not patentable) is made or conceived for the first time or actually or constructively reduced to practice by the Providing Party, including its employees and subcontractors, in the performance of the work order contract, the Providing Party will immediately give the Requesting Party’s Authorized Representative written notice thereof, and must promptly furnish the Authorized Representative with complete information and/or disclosure thereon. 14.2.2.2. Representation. The Providing Party must perform all acts, and take all steps necessary to ensure that all intellectual property rights in the Works and Documents are the sole property of the Requesting Party, and that neither Providing Party nor its employees, agents or contractors retain any interest in and to the Works and Documents. 15. Affirmative Action The State intends to carry out its responsibility for requiring affirmative action by its Contractors, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §363A.36. Pursuant to that Statute, the Local Government is encouraged to prepare and implement an affirmative action plan for the employment of minority persons, women, and the qualified disabled, and submit such plan to the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. In addition, when the Local Government lets a contract for the performance of work under a work order issued pursuant to this MPC, it must include the following in the bid or proposal solicitation and any contracts awarded as a result thereof: 15.1. Covered Contracts and Contractors. If the Contract exceeds $100,000 and the Contractor employed more than 40 full-time employees on a single working day during the previous 12 months in Minnesota or in the state where it has its principle place of business, then the Contractor must comply with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 and Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600. A Contractor covered by Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 because it employed more than 40 full-time employees in another state and does not have a certificate of compliance, must certify that it is in compliance with federal affirmative action requirements. 15.2. Minn. Stat. § 363A.36. Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 requires the Contractor to have an affirmative action plan for the employment of minority persons, women, and qualified disabled individuals approved by the Minnesota Commissioner of Human Rights (“Commissioner”) as indicated by a certificate of compliance. The law addresses suspension or revocation of a certificate of compliance and contract consequences in that event. A contract awarded without a certificate of compliance may be voided. 15.3. Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600. Page 9 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 15.3.1. General. Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 implement Minn. Stat. § 363A.36. These rules include, but are not limited to, criteria for contents, approval, and implementation of affirmative action plans; procedures for issuing certificates of compliance and criteria for determining a contractor’s compliance status; procedures for addressing deficiencies, sanctions, and notice and hearing; annual compliance reports; procedures for compliance review; and contract consequences for non-compliance. The specific criteria for approval or rejection of an affirmative action plan are contained in various provisions of Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 including, but not limited to, parts 5000.3420-5000.3500 and 5000.3552-5000.3559. 15.3.2. Disabled Workers. The Contractor must comply with the following affirmative action requirements for disabled workers: 15.3.2.1. The Contractor must not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of physical or mental disability in regard to any position for which the employee or applicant for employment is qualified. The Contractor agrees to take affirmative action to employ, advance in employment, and otherwise treat qualified disabled persons without discrimination based upon their physical or mental disability in all employment practices such as the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. 15.3.2.2. The Contractor agrees to comply with the rules and relevant orders of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights issued pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act. 15.3.2.3. In the event of the Contractor's noncompliance with the requirements of this clause, actions for noncompliance may be taken in accordance with Minn. Stat. Section 363A.36, and the rules and relevant orders of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights issued pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act. 15.3.2.4. The Contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices in a form to be prescribed by the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. Such notices must state the Contractor's obligation under the law to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified disabled employees and applicants for employment, and the rights of applicants and employees. 15.3.2.5. The Contractor must notify each labor union or representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract understanding, that the Contractor is bound by the terms of Minn. Stat. Section 363A.36, of the Minnesota Human Rights Act and is committed to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment physically and mentally disabled persons. 15.3.3. Consequences. The consequences for the Contractor’s failure to implement its affirmative action plan or make a good faith effort to do so include, but are not limited to, suspension or revocation of a certificate of compliance by the Commissioner, refusal by the Commissioner to approve subsequent plans, and termination of all or part of this contract by the Commissioner or the State. 15.3.4. Certification. The Contractor hereby certifies that it is in compliance with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 and Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 and is aware of the consequences for noncompliance. 16. Workers’ Compensation Each party will be responsible for its own employees for any workers compensation claims. This MPC, and any work order contracts issued hereunder, are not intended to constitute an interchange of government employees under Minn. Stat. §15.53. To the extent that this MPC, or any work order issued hereunder, is determined to be Page 10 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: subject to Minn. Stat. §15.53, such statute will control to the extent of any conflict between the contract and the statute. 17. Publicity 17.1. Publicity. Any publicity regarding the subject matter of a work order contract where the State is the Requesting Party must identify the State as the sponsoring agency and must not be released without prior written approval from the State’s Authorized Representative. For purposes of this provision, publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the Local Government individually or jointly with others, or any subcontractors, with respect to the program, publications, or services provided resulting from a work order contract. 17.2. Data Practices Act. Section 17.1 is not intended to override the Local Government’s responsibilities under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. 18. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue Minnesota law, without regard to its choice-of-law provisions, governs this master contract and all work order contracts. Venue for all legal proceedings out of this master contract or any work order contracts, or the breach of any such contracts, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 19. Prompt Payment; Payment to Subcontractors The parties must make prompt payment of their obligations in accordance with applicable law. As required by Minn. Stat. § 16A.1245, when the Local Government lets a contract for work pursuant to any work order, the Local Government must require its contractor to pay all subcontractors, less any retainage, within 10 calendar days of the prime contractor's receipt of payment from the Local Government for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor(s) and must pay interest at the rate of one and one-half percent per month or any part of a month to the subcontractor(s) on any undisputed amount not paid on time to the subcontractor(s). 20. Minn. Stat. § 181.59. The Local Government will comply with the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 181.59 which requires: Every contract for or on behalf of the state of Minnesota, or any county, city, town, township, school, school district, or any other district in the state, for materials, supplies, or construction shall contain provisions by which the Contractor agrees: (1) That, in the hiring of common or skilled labor for the performance of any work under any contract, or any subcontract, no contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, by reason of race, creed, or color, discriminate against the person or persons who are citizens of the United States or resident aliens who are qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates; (2) That no contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, in any manner, discriminate against, or intimidate, or prevent the employment of any person or persons identified in clause (1) of this section, or on being hired, prevent, or conspire to prevent, the person or persons from the performance of work under any contract on account of race, creed, or color; (3) That a violation of this section is a misdemeanor; and (4) That this contract may be canceled or terminated by the state, county, city, town, school board, or any other person authorized to grant the contracts for employment, and all money due, or to become due under the contract, may be forfeited for a second or any subsequent violation of the terms or conditions of this contract. 21. Termination; Suspension 21.1. Termination by the State for Convenience. The State or commissioner of Administration may cancel this MPC and any work order contracts at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days written notice to the Local Government. Upon termination, the Local Government and the State will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed. 21.2. Termination by the Local Government for Convenience. The Local Government may cancel this MPC and any work order contracts at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days written notice to the State. Page 11 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: Upon termination, the Local Government and the State will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed. 21.3. Termination for Insufficient Funding. The State may immediately terminate or suspend this MPC and any work order contract if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota legislature or other funding source; or if funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services covered here. Termination or suspension must be by written or fax notice to the Local Government. The State is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after notice and effective date of termination or suspension. However, the Local Government will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed to the extent that funds are available. The State will not be assessed any penalty if the master contract or work order is terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota legislature or other funding source, not to appropriate funds. The State must provide the Local Government notice of the lack of funding within a reasonable time of the State’s receiving that notice. 22. Data Disclosure Under Minn. Stat. §270C.65, subd. 3, and other applicable law, the Local Government consents to disclosure of its federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax identification number, already provided to the State, to federal and state tax agencies and state personnel involved in the payment of state obligations. These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and state tax laws which could result in action requiring the Local Government to file state tax returns and pay delinquent state tax liabilities, if any. 23. Defense of Claims and Lawsuits If any lawsuit or claim is filed by a third party (including but not limited to the Local Government’s contractors and subcontractors), arising out of trunk highway work performed pursuant to a valid work order issued under this MPC, the Local Government will, at the discretion of and upon the request of the State, tender the defense of such claims to the State or allow the State to participate in the defense of such claims. The Local Government will, however, be solely responsible for defending any lawsuit or claim, or any portion thereof, when the claim or cause of action asserted is based on its own acts or omissions in performing or supervising the work. The Local Government will not purport to represent the State in any litigation, settlement, or alternative dispute resolution process. The State will not be responsible for any judgment entered against the Local Government, and will not be bound by the terms of any settlement entered into by the Local Government except with the written approval of the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Transportation and pursuant to applicable law. 24. Additional Provisions [The balance of this page has intentionally been left blank – signature page follows] Page 12 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION The Local Government certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the contract on behalf of the Local Government as required by applicable ordinance, resolution, or charter provision. By: By: (with delegated authority) Title: Title Assistant Commissioner or Assistant Division Director Date: Date: By: COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION As delegated to Materials Management Division Title By: Date: Date: Page 13 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) Page 1 of 4 MPC Program FY 2017-2022 Exhibit A - Table of Tech Serv Used with TA98 Project IDs If a source code is not on this list, a work order is needed. Date: 04/20/2017 If a source code is not on this list, a work order is needed. Source Code Title Description 0032 Business Unit Management All expenses of business/office managers for general management and administration of support functions. includes administering central facilities maintenance and facilities capital budgets. 0152 Support Services Work that supports general office management, system management such as entering data into SWIFT, PPMS, PUMA and other MnDOT systems, attending staff meetings and other indirect support activities. 0400 Equipment Calibration-Mat Insp Use when performing periodic equipment calibration for equipment used in the materials lab or on construction projects. 0600 General Training Attended All costs (time, registration, materials, travel expenses, etc.) for attending or participating informal or informal training, including conferences that primarily provide training. 1182 Soils/Foundation Field/Laboratory Tests All laboratory testing necessary to provide geotechnical information to complete roadway soils recommendations and approvals for use in the development of Final Design Plans and Special Provisions. Lab work includes R-value, resilient modulus, soil classification, gradation, proctor testing, unconfined compression, consolidation, direct simple shear, direct sheer, permeability and triaxial tests. 1312 Tech Assist-Outside MnDOT Use when providing technical assistance to an organization external to MnDOT. 1421 Bridge Management System Operation/Administration/Data Use for tasks related to the Bridge Management System, including operations, administration, or data entry. 1434 Structural Metals Inspection-Non DOT Reviewing shop drawings furnished by suppliers, fabricators, and contractors (working drawing or calculations), and for tasks related to structural metals inspection (materials surveys, physical and chemical laboratory testing, material inspection and engineering, and technical services in the field and offices) for local agency projects. 1501 Traffic Management System (TMS)Used by traffic operations staff for all tasks that support the RTMC's operations center (or TOCC) providing traveler information, managing incidents and monitoring the FMS. Includes dynamic message sign maintenance, ramp meter maintenance, camera maintenance, and loop detection activities. Includes maintenance activities related to any ITS or TMS device such as RTMC cables, monitor wall, switchers, routers, or modems. Use to record all costs for maintenance activities related to traffic management fiber optics. Use for tasks related to maintaining traffic operations software including minor software enhancements and fixes. Use when providing traffic operations technical assistance external to MnDOT. 1513 Traffic Management System (TMS) Integration For tasks associated with the incorporation of new and existing TMS devices (cameras, loops, DMS, and other ITS devices) into existing infrastructure to ensure proper operation. Use with the Construction/Program Delivery Appropriation. 1520 Pavement Management System For tasks related to the operation of the pavement management system, including development and maintenance/technical support. Includes tasks to meet needs external to MnDOT. 1716 Record Sampling Used by Materials and Research Section and district materials staff to verify inspector" sampling and testing procedures and checking inspectors' equipment during project construction as required by FHWA. Use when performing field tests on split sample. 1721 Traffic Sign Work Orders Use for work involved in preparing work orders for traffic signs. Use only with Maintenance Operations appropriation (T790081). Page 2 of 4 MPC Program FY 2017-2022 Exhibit A - Table of Tech Serv Used with TA98 Project IDs If a source code is not on this list, a work order is needed. Date: 04/20/2017 If a source code is not on this list, a work order is needed. Source Code Title Description 1732 Material Testing & Inspection Performing construction phase and research physical and chemical laboratory testing, and related technical services in the districts and central labs, and for performing research and construction phase non-destructive testing materials surveys, and related technical services in the field and offices. Includes detour surveys. Non-destructive tests include, skid resistance and falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing. 1733 Concrete Plant Inspections Performing QA/QC physical testing at the plant; sampling and transporting of materials from the plant to the lab for lab testing, plant reviews, and operations; investigating plant discrepancies; and other technical services in the plant or office associated with stationary concrete plants or mobile concrete paving plant inspection. 1734 Construction Materials Inspections Performing construction phase material inspection and engineering, for structural steel, precast and pre-stressed concrete, reinforcement steel, and electrical products and related technical services in the field and office for materials to be used in multiple projects. Includes travel time, sampling, and sample delivery. Includes tasks related to reviewing shop drawings furnished by suppliers or fabricators and contractor working drawings or calculations, and for tasks related to structural metals inspection (materials surveys, physical and chemical laboratory testing, material inspection and engineering, and technical services in the field and offices). 1735 Bituminous Plant Inspection Performing QA/QC physical testing at the plant; sampling and transporting of materials from the plant to the lab for lab testing, plant reviews, and operations; investigating plant discrepancies; and other technical services in the plant or office associated with bituminous plant inspection. 1738 State Project - Specific Materials Inspection Performing material inspection for materials designated for a specific construction project (SP). Generally applies to inspection of such things as structural steel, prestressed concrete items, and most precast concrete items and for SP specific tasks related to structural metals inspection (materials surveys, physical and chemical laboratory testing, material inspection and engineering and technical services in the field and offices). 1800 Field Inspection Occasional construction project field inspection (not cyclical inspection of assets); Includes field inspection of materials such as gradations, densities/DCP, proctors, compaction, slump tests, and field air testsand collecting and transporting samples for lab tests, but not the actual laboratory verifications. 1870 Traffic Signal Maintenance This work will not substitute for or alter existing cooperative construction agreements or traffic signal maintenance agreements. Work related to the occasional repair and replacement of traffic signal system structures and all electrical maintenance for traffic signal systems including electrical power, labor, equipment materials, GSOC locates, traffic control and responses to public inquiries. 1871 Lighting Maintenance & Utilities All work related to installing, maintaining, restoring, or removing highway lighting systems and fixtures. Includes repairing, maintaining, or replacing supports necessary for roadway lighting luminaries. Includes patrol highway lighting, inspect lighting structures, electrical service for highway lighting, re-lamping, pump stations, anti-icing systems, truck roll-over warning systems and electrical repairs. Includes traffic control in support of roadway lighting activities. Use for tasks related to public inquiries/complaints, review utility billings, provide data, and conduct field reviews. 1875 Locate One Call Finding and marking locations of buried conduit, cables, hand holes, loops, etc. in order to maintain or repair the traffic management system, signal systems, or roadway lighting systems. Page 3 of 4 MPC Program FY 2017-2022 Exhibit A - Table of Tech Serv Used with TA98 Project IDs If a source code is not on this list, a work order is needed. Date: 04/20/2017 If a source code is not on this list, a work order is needed. Source Code Title Description 1876 Traffic Counting Use to record labor, equipment usage, and material costs for activities related to traffic counts made for statewide traffic monitoring or traffic operations. Includes all activities related to traffic counting, such as taking requests, assigning priorities, collecting field data, processing data, and developing new techniques for collection. 2102 Patching Related source type codes: 2103-Heavy patching, 2104-Bituminous paving, 2105-Blow patching 2142 Overhead Sign Panel Maintenance Work related to the repair and replacement of overhead sign panels, extruded sign panels mounted on I-beams, and overhead sign structures. Includes related cable locates and traffic control. Does not include structural work. 2210 Guardrail-Install/Repair/Maintenance Install, repair, or maintain low tension cable, plate beams, and end treatments; cable tension adjustments; and reflector replacement. includes related traffic control. 2222 Sign/Delineation/Marker Repair Replacing, repairing, and washing signs (including temporary stop signs). Includes re-sequencing intersection signing and repair/replace overhead and extrude signs mounted on I-beams. Includes related cable locates and traffic control. 2316 Brush & Tree Removal Maintaining, watering, trimming, and removing highway right of way tree and brush. Includes chipping of tree limbs and stump removal/grinding. Includes related traffic control. 2624 Indirect Expense Indirect shop expenses and shop equipment. Allocate to mobile equipment. 2629 Supplies & Small Tools Shop tools, small equipment, and supplies that cannot be directly charged to a mobile equipment unit. 2819 Bridge Curb, Walk And Railing Repairing and maintaining bridge curb, walk, rail, coping, and fencing connected to the rail. Includes glare screen and median barriers on bridges. Includes related traffic control. 2820 Bridge Deck Work associated with bridge deck and slab repair regardless of removal depth or type of material used for patching. Includes deck or slab overlays and replacements and underside deck delamination. Includes related traffic control. 2822 Miscellaneous Bridge Maintenance This source code does not include replacement or major repair. Miscellaneous maintenance tasks performed on a specific bridge or structure not covered by other source codes. Includes minor repairs and simple fixes on items such as stairways, drains, fencing, light bases, transient guards, and access doors. Includes transient removal, ordering materials, and picking up equipment. Includes related traffic control. 2824 Bridge Inspection-Non-Federal All tasks related to inventory, inspection, and load capacity rating work done on trunk highway bridges to meet the requirements of the National Bridge Inspection System and/or Minnesota Bridge Safety Inspection Program or for billing to local governments. Includes related inspection reports and deck condition surveys. 2827 Bridge Expansion, Relief Joints All maintenance tasks associated with bridge expansion joints, except joint reestablishment. Includes tightening expansion device bolts and replacing seal glands. Includes related traffic control. 2828 Bridge Inspection-Federal Fund All bridge inspection tasks for non-MnDOT bridges funded by the federal Fracture-Critical Bridge Program (Project Code will begin with TSL and with the local bridge number). Includes related inspection reports. For MnDOT Trunk Highway bridges (Project Code begins with TSO followed by the bridge number) and local and Department of Natural Resources (DNR) (bridge number begins with 9A follow by bridge number) bridge inspections to be billed to the local government or Department of Natural Resources (DNR) use Source Code 2824. Page 4 of 4 MPC Program FY 2017-2022 Exhibit A - Table of Tech Serv Used with TA98 Project IDs If a source code is not on this list, a work order is needed. Date: 04/20/2017 If a source code is not on this list, a work order is needed. Source Code Title Description 2829 Bridge Superstructure All tasks to repair any bridge component above the bridge seat that is not included in other source codes. Includes repairs to all types of bridge superstructure elements such as girders, beams, floor beams, trusses, stringers, t-beams, precast channels, and box girders. Includes related traffic control. 2830 Bridge Bearing Assemblies All tasks related to the repair and maintenance of fixed or expansion-bearing assemblies on bridges. Includes related traffic 2834 Waterway Maintenance All tasks related to waterway maintenance for deck bridges. Includes debris removal, waterway cleanup, channel repair, and channel protection repair that is not part of slope protection. Includes related traffic control. 2838 Bridge Deck Crack Sealing All tasks related to deck crack sealing. Includes related traffic control. 2863 Traffic Signal Inspection Work related to cyclical structural and electrical inspection and preventive maintenance checks of traffic signal systems/structures. Includes labor, equipment, materials, and traffic control. 3000 Class Of Frequency Coordination Use for frequency coordination done with APCO, AASHTO or FCCA. 3002 Radio/Electronic Infrastructure Use for the repair and preventative maintenance of all equipment associated with wireless two-way radio communications systems (includes mobile radios, portable radios, base stations, console workstations, recorders, etc.). Non-MnDOT equipment - Must use Project number assigned to requesting agency; Department of Public Safety (DPS) includes State Patrol (SP) Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), Fire Marshall); does not include Department of Natural Resources (DNR). See OSRC Project 3005 Radio - Mobile Equipment Use for the repair and preventative maintenance of all equipment associated with wireless two-way radio communications systems (includes mobile radios, portable radios, base stations, console workstations, recorders, etc.). Non-MnDOT equipment - Must use Project number assigned to requesting agency (State Patrol, DNR, BCA, Fire Marshall). See OSRC Project Code list. 3009 Radio/Electronic System Upgrade & Installation Use for the installation and other services needed to provide major system upgrades or improvements to wireless or electronic systems. Use for all work performed to correct or repair deficiencies found in a new installation. 3025 Tower/Building Maintenance Use for all tasks related to the maintenance of a tower building or site. Includes towers, buildings, generators, LP system, fencing, landscaping, grounding, ice bridge, cable management, climbing ladders, card key systems, and HVAC. 3027 Radio Programming Creating or modifying radio frequency programs and programming mobile and portable radios. Does not include mobile radios used as fixed base radios as part of the Inter-OP System (Use 3009). 3049 On Call Electronic Communications Infrastructure Maintenance To be used by Statewide Radio Communications personnel to record on-call time. AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #7.D. STAFF RE P ORT NO. 196 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 11/13/2018 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Jennifer A nderson, S upport S ervices Manager D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice 11/5/2018 O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager 11/5/2018 I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N: Consideration of the approval of setting a public hearing to be held on December 11, 2018, for the consideration of the renewal of On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses for 2019 for El Tejaban Mexican Grill, L LC d/b/a El Tejaban Mexican Grill, Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. d/b/a Fireside Foundry, Frenchman’s Pub, Inc. d/b/a Frenchman’s, V P C Richfield Pizza, LL C d/b/a Giordano's of Richfield, Wiltshire Restaurants, LL C d/b/a Houlihan’s Restaurant & Bar, Paisan, Inc. d/b/a Khan’s Mongolian Barbeque, Lyn 65, L LC d/b/a Lyn 65 Kitchen & Bar, Lyndale Smokehouse, LL C d/b/a Lyndale Smokehouse, Pizza Luce V II, Inc. d/b/a Pizza Luce, Fred Babcock V F W Post 5555 d/b/a Four Nickels Food & Drink and Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: Richfield City Ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider the renewal of all On-Sale Liquor license renewals and a date be set for the public hearing. This request is for the approval of setting the public hearing for December 11, 2018, for the consideration of these license renewals. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N: By Motion: Approve the setting of a public hearing to be held on December 11, 2018, for the consideration of the renewal of On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses for 2019 for El Tejaban Mexican Grill, L LC d/b/a El Tejaban Mexican Grill, Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. d/b/a Fireside Foundry, Frenchman’s Pub, Inc. d/b/a Frenchman’s, V P C Richfield Pizza, LL C d/b/a Giordano's of Richfield, Wiltshire Restaurants, LL C d/b/a Houlihan’s Restaurant & Bar, Paisan, Inc. d/b/a Khan’s Mongolian Barbeque, Lyn 65, L LC d/b/a Lyn 65 Kitchen & Bar, Lyndale Smokehouse, LL C d/b/a Lyndale Smokehouse, Pizza Luce V II, Inc. d/b/a Pizza Luce, Fred Babcock V F W Post 5555 d/b/a Four Nickels Food & Drink and Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T The On-Sale Liquor licenses for restaurant establishments will expire on December 31, 2018. Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license may be considered. The renewal process has been initiated. Holding the public hearing on December 11, 2018, will provide ample time to complete the licensing process before J anuary 1, 2019. B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): Richfield City ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider all On-Sale I ntoxicating Liquor license renewals. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S: Current On-Sale I ntoxicating Liquor licenses will expire on December 31, 2018. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION: None ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S): Schedule the hearing for another date; however, this will delay the licensing process. P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G: There are no parties expected at the meeting. AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #7.E. STAFF RE P ORT NO. 197 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 11/13/2018 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Jennifer A nderson, S upport S ervices Manager D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice 11/5/2018 O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager 11/5/2018 I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N: Consideration of the approval of setting a public hearing to be held on December 11, 2018, for the consideration of the renewal of Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods Dealer licenses for 2019 for Metro Pawn and Gun, Inc. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: Richfield City ordinance requires that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider the Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods Dealer license renewals and a date be set for the public hearing. This request is for the approval of setting the public hearing for December 11, 2018, for the consideration of these license renewals. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N: By motion: Approve the setting of a public hearing to be held on December 11, 2018, for the consideration of the renewal of Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods Dealer licenses for 2019 for Metro Pawn and Gun, Inc. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T The Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods Dealer licenses for this pawnshop will expire on December 31, 2018. Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license may be considered. The renewal process has been initiated. Holding the public hearing on December 11, 2018, will provide ample time to complete the licensing process before J anuary 1, 2019. B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): Richfield City ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider the Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods Dealer license renewals. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S: Current Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods Dealer licenses will expire on December 31, 2018. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION: None ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S): Schedule the hearing for another date; however, this will delay the licensing process. P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G: There are no parties expected at the meeting. AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #7.F. STAFF RE P ORT NO. 198 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 11/13/2018 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Jennifer A nderson, S upport S ervices Manager D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice 11/5/2018 O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager 11/5/2018 I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N: Consideration of the approval of setting a public hearing to be held on December 11, 2018, for the consideration of the renewal of On-Sale W ine and On-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses for 2019 for Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LL C d/b/a Chipotle Mexican Grill, Davanni's, Inc. d/b/a Davanni's Pizza & Hot Hoagies, Joy’s Pattaya Thai Restaurant, LL C d/b/a Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant, LR FC, LL C d/b/a Local Roots Food & Coffee, Los Sanchez Taqueria #2, L LC d/b/a Los Sanchez Taqueria, Minnesota Junior Hockey Group, L LC d/b/a Minnesota Magicians (located in the Richfield Ice Arena), My Burger Operations, LL C, d/b/a My Burger, Patrick's French Bakery, Inc. d/b/a Patrick’s Bakery & Café, Henry Thou d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: Richfield City ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider the renewal of all On-Sale W ine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor license renewals and a date be set for the public hearing. This request is for the approval of setting the public hearing for December 11, 2018, for the consideration of these license renewals. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N: By motion: Approve the setting of a public hearing to be held on December 11, 2018, for the consideration of the renewal of On-Sale W ine and On-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses for 2019 for Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LL C d/b/a Chipotle Mexican Grill, Davanni's, Inc. d/b/a Davanni's Pizza & Hot Hoagies, Joy’s Pattaya Thai Restaurant, LL C d/b/a Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant, LR FC, LL C d/b/a Local Roots Food & Coffee, Los Sanchez Taqueria #2, L LC d/b/a Los Sanchez Taqueria, Minnesota Junior Hockey Group, L LC d/b/a Minnesota Magicians (located in the Richfield Ice Arena), My Burger Operations, LL C, d/b/a My Burger, Patrick's French Bakery, Inc. d/b/a Patrick’s Bakery & Café, Henry Thou d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T The On-Sale W ine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses for restaurant establishments will expire on December 31, 2018. Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license may be considered. The renewal process has been initiated. Holding the public hearing on December 11, 2018, will provide ample time to complete the licensing process before J anuary 1, 2019. B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): Richfield City ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider all On-Sale W ine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor license renewals. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S: Current On-Sale W ine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses will expire on December 31, 2018. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION: None ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S): Schedule the hearing for another date; however, this will delay the licensing process. P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G: There are no parties expected at the meeting. AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #7.G. STAFF RE P ORT NO. 199 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 11/13/2018 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Jay Henthorne, D irector/C hief of P olice D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager 11/5/2018 O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager 11/5/2018 I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N: Consideration of the approval of the renewal of a contract with Chief's Towing, Inc., for Public Safety towing services for December 1, 2018, through November 30, 2019. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: The City of Richfield requires the services of a towing contractor to tow impounded vehicles/trailers as well as vehicles parked illegally during snow ordinance enforcement, etc. The contract with Chief's Towing expires November 30, 2018. They are requesting an increase of 3% for services provided for the next contract. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N: By motion: Approve the renewal of the contract with Chief's Towing, Inc., 8610 Harriet Avenue South, Bloomington, MN, for Public Safety towing services for the period of December 1, 2018, through November 30, 2019. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T The City currently has a contract with Chief's Towing, inc., for Public Safety towing services. Chief's Towing, I nc., was awarded the contract for 2018 and would like to renew the contract for the year 2019, as the contract expires on November 30, 2018. The contract can be automatically renewed if both parties agree to the renewal and if Chief's notifies the City in writing, 30 days in advance of the expiration of the contract, that they wish to renew. B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): Chief's notified the City that they wish to renew the contract for 2018-2019. The Public Safety Department wishes to renew the contract with Chief's Towing, I nc. Contracts for services need not be competitively bid. The contract has numerous conditions that must be met. Chief's Towing, I nc., is a reputable, established towing business that meets all contract requirements. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S: A six month notice must be given by either party in writing to terminate the contact. On December 1, 2018, Public Safety must have towing services. This is particularly important with the possibility of snow ordinance violations at any time. Chief's is a large towing company that can handle the needs of Public Safety regarding seizure/impound vehicles and comply with City ordinances that a smaller company could not handle effectively. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: Rates will increase by 3% for the period of December 1, 2018-November 30, 2019, per the attached letter from J effery Schoenborn, General Manager of Chief's Towing. The last rate increase was in 2014-2015. There is adequate funding in the Public Safety budget to cover the costs. E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION: The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the past contract with Chief's Towing, I nc. ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S): Council could chose to not sign the contract; however, Public Safety must have towing and impounding services beginning December 1, 2018. P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G: None AT TAC H ME N T S: D escription Type C ontract C ontract/A greement L etter and Rates B ackup Material AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND CHIEF’S TOWING, INC. FOR TOWING, IMPOUNDING AND STORAGE OF MOTOR VEHICLES. THIS AGREEMENT is made this 13th day of November, 2018, between the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (hereinafter referred to as the “City”), and Chief’s Towing, Inc., located at 8610 Harriet Avenue South (hereinafter referred to as the “Contractor”). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the City has a need to contract for the towing, impounding and storage of motor vehicles; and WHEREAS, the City requires that the towing operators are located within three (3) miles of the City limits; and WHEREAS, the Contractor is the operator of a towing and storage facility within three (3) miles of the City limits and has the expertise and capabilities to provide the required services; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions expressed herein, the parties agree as follows: I. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement shall be from December 1, 2018, to November 30, 2019, subject to termination as provided in Subdivision V. II. DUTIES OF CONTRACTOR A. The Contractor shall tow, impound, and store all motor vehicles, which are ordered removed under the direction of the police chief, or the fire chief, of the City of Richfield or their authorized and legal representatives. The Contractor shall be entitled to a charge for its towing and storage services pursuant to those fees specified in the Contractor’s Proposal (Exhibit B). It is agreed that neither the City nor the Richfield Police Department is responsible for any charges as a result of towing and/or storage, with the exception of those vehicles identified by the Police as subject to forfeiture, and that the Contractor assumes liability for any unpaid charges. B. The Contractor agrees to provide the services, as proposed, and perform all other terms and conditions according to the City’s Specifications and the Contractor’s Proposal, incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit A and Exhibit B. C. The Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Richfield, its officials, employees and agents, from any and all claims, causes of action, lawsuits, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from the Contractor’s (including its officials, agents or employees), performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, damages, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, diseases or death or to injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of Contractor. D. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of copartners between the parties hereto or as constituting the Contractor’s staff as the agents, representatives or employees of the City for any purpose in any manner whatsoever. The Contractor and its staff are to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this Agreement. The Contractor represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of the Contractor or other persons, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the Contractor under this Agreement, shall have no contractual relationship with the City and shall not be considered employees of the City, and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers’ Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against the Contractor, its officers, agents, contractors or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of the City; and the Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, agents and employees harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the City, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers’ Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, disability, severance pay and PERA. E. The parties agree to comply with the Minnesota State Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 363. F. The Contractor agrees to maintain for the full term of this Agreement, the following minimum insurance coverage: a) $1,000,000.00 Comprehensive General Liability insurance, Business Auto Policy with $1,000,000.00 limits and Garage Keeper’s Legal Liability. b) Workers’ Compensation insurance covering all employees of the Contractor, or his agents, in accordance with the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Law. Certifications of insurance must be filed with the City and shall include a provision that states the insurance company shall give the City at least 25 days written notice prior to cancellation, non-renewal, or any material change in the policy. The Contractor further agrees to name the City of Richfield as additional insured on said comprehensive general liability policy. G. The Contractor agrees to furnish on or before the date this Agreement becomes effective, an acceptable corporate surety bond in the amount of $10,000, payable to the City of Richfield and subject to approval by the Richfield City Attorney, for the faithful performance of all duties and obligations imposed under the terms and conditions of the Agreement. III. DUTIES OF THE CITY The City agrees to pay the Contractor the flat rate charge of $156.55 per vehicle for the towing and storage of vehicles identified by the Police Department as subject to forfeiture and which are subsequently released to the Police Department. IV. MISCELLANEOUS A. This agreement represents the entire Agreement between the Contractor and the City and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof; and amendments, addenda, alterations, or modifications to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. B. The Contractor agrees to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment of employment in its services, programs, or activities. The Contractor agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney’s fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought, alleging a violation of ADA and/or Section 504 caused by the Contractor. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all services, programs and activities. The City has designated coordinators to facilitate compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as required by Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice regulations, and to coordinate compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as mandated by Section 8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations. C. The Contractor will comply with all applicable provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes. The Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in the performance of the duties of this contract. D. This Agreement shall not be assignable except at the written consent of the City. E. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures of the Contractor, relevant to this Agreement, are subject to examination by the City, and either the legislative or state auditor as appropriate, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 168.06, Subdivision 4. F. The City and the Contractor agree to submit all claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement to mediation. The mediation shall be conducted through the Mediation Center, 1821 University Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota. The parties hereto shall decide whether mediation shall be binding or non-binding. If the parties cannot reach agreement, mediation shall be non-binding. In the event mediation is unsuccessful, either party may exercise its legal or equitable remedies and commence such action prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. V. TERMINATION Either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving six (6) months advanced written notice to the other party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF RICHFIELD DATED: __________________________ BY: ___________________________ Its Mayor DATED: __________________________ BY: ___________________________ Its Manager CHIEF’S TOWING, INC. DATED: __________________________ BY: ___________________________ Its: ____________________________ Chief’s Towing, Inc 8610 Harriet Ave. South Bloomington, MN 55420 Ph 952-888-2201 watts 800-888-2201 September 10, 2018 City of Richfield Richfield Public Safety Department Lt. Joe Griffin 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 RE: CONTRACT FOR TOWING OF CITY VEHICLES, IMPOUNDING AND STORAGE OF MOTOR VEHICLES CONTRACT DECEMBER 1, 2018 THRU NOVEMBER 30, 2019. LT. Griffin: Chief’s Towing, Inc. would like to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing us to perform the towing, impounding and storage of motor vehicles for the City of Richfield this past year. We would like to extend the contract for an additional (1) year period if such an extension is approved by the Richfield City Council. This year we are requesting a 3% increase, we haven’t increased our rates for these services since the 2014-2015 contract. Attached is a list of the new proposed rates, rounded to the nearest nickel. Sincerely, Jeffery R. Schoenborn Chief’s Towing, Inc. General Manager City of Richfield,City of Richfield,City of Richfield,City of Richfield, MNMNMNMN Current and proposed rates for TOWING, IMPOUNDING, STORAGE OF VEHICLES AND SERVICES Current Proposed 12/01/2017 12/01/2018 thru thru 11/30/2018 11/30/2019 Towing of impounded cars, trucks (under 1 ½ ton capacity), Motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles and unattended Utility trailers towed within the City of Richfield ................................... $ 88.60 $ 91.25 Towing charge for the same from outside the City of Richfield .................................................................................... $ 88.60 $ 91.25 Mileage charge for same .......................................................................... $ 3.55 $ 3.65 Towing of trucks (larger than 1 ton capacity) within the City of Richfield ................................................................................ $148.50 $ 152.95 Towing charge for same outside the City of Richfield .................................................................................... $148.50 $ 152.95 Mileage charge for same .......................................................................... $ 3.55 $ 3.65 Use of Winch with a tow Car (Per hour) ............................................................................ $ 22.10 $ 22.75 Truck (Per hour ......................................................................... $ 36.65 $ 37.75 Use of Dolly .................................................................................... $ 22.10 $ 22.75 Use of low-bed trailer or truck (flatbed required) .................................... $ 110.85 $ 114.20 Storage Charges First 24 hours or fraction thereof: Inside Storage .............................................................. $ 39.20 $ 40.40 Outside Storage ........................................................... $ 29.30 $ 30.20 Each additional 24 hours of fraction thereof: Inside Storage ............................................................................ $ 39.20 $ 40.40 Outside Storage ......................................................................... $ 29.30 $ 30.20 Forfeitures Vehicles forfeited to the City of Richfield ................................ $152.00 $ 156.55 City owned vehicles Towing city owned vehicle less than 1 ton within city of Richfield ........ $ 43.15 $ 44.45 Mileage charge for same outside city ...................................................... $ 3.55 $ 3.65 AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #7.H. STAFF RE P ORT NO. 200 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 11/13/2018 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Jay Henthorne, P ublic S afety D irector/C hief of P olice D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice 11/5/2018 O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager 11/5/2018 I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N: Consideration of the adoption of a resolution to accept a grant of $3,114 from the Office of Justice Programs for bullet proof vests. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: The U.S Department of J ustice, Office of J ustice Programs, through their Bulletproof Vest Partnership/Body Armor Safety I nitiative (B V P), created by the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998, is designed to provide a critical resource to state and local law enforcement. The Richfield Department of Public Safety has participated in this grant since 2003. This grant allows the department to continually replace bulletproof vests that are out of warranty coverage. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N: By motion: Adopt a resolution accepting the grant of $3,114 from the Office of Justice Programs for bullet proof vests. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T Since 1999, the B V P program has awarded more than 13,000 jurisdictions a total of $430 million in for the purchase of over one million vests (1,294,837 as of J uly, 2017). Total amount awarded nationwide in 2018 is $29,876,699. The Richfield Department of Public Safety has received a total of $69,503.62 over fifteen years. Based on data collected and recorded by B J A staff, following 2 years of decline law enforcement officer line-of-duty deaths, the country realized a dramatic 37% increase in officer deaths in 2010. Fifty-nine (59) of the 160 officers killed in 2010 were shot during violent encounters; a 20% increase over 2009 numbers. B V P funds cover 50% of the cost of an individual vest. B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires that every acceptance of a grant of devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the City Council. The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on November 9, 2004, requiring that all grants and restricted donations to departments be received by resolution and passed by more than two-thirds majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute 465.03. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S: The Bulletproof Vest Partnership requires that the vests are ordered on or after April 1, 2018. The deadline to request payments from the FY 2018 award funds is August 31, 2020, or until all available FY 2018 funds have been exhausted. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: The amount of the grant is $3,114. E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION: There are no legal considerations. ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S): Council could deny the resolution to accept the grant from the Department of J ustice, Office of J ustice Programs; however, the contributions would help defray the costs of replacing the bulletproof vests for the Department of Public Safety. P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G: None AT TAC H ME N T S: D escription Type Resolution Resolution L etter RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GRANT WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS AND RICHFIELD POLICE FOR BULLETPROOF VESTS WHEREAS, following two years of declining law enforcement officer line-of-duty deaths, the country realized a dramatic 37 percent increase in officer deaths in 2010. Fifty-nine of the 160 officers killed in 2010 were shot during violent encounters; a 20 percent increase over 2009 numbers; and, WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Justice is committed to improving officer safety and has undertaken research to review and analyze violent encounters and law enforcement officer deaths and injuries; and, WHEREAS, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) was created by the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998 and is a unique U.S. Department of Justice initiative designed to provide a critical resource to state and local law enforcement; and, WHEREAS, the Richfield Department of Public Safety has been informed that a grant has been awarded to the department by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs under their Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) program, for $3,114.00 for the purchase of ballistic vests; and, WHEREAS, the BVP grant is under the Fiscal Year 2017 BVP awards, allowing purchases beginning on or after April 1, 2018 until August 31, 2020, or until all available 2018 award funds have been requested. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that the Public Safety Department and the Deputy Director of Public Safety will enter into an agreement to receive grant money for Richfield’s bulletproof vest expenditures as outlined in the agreement. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of November 2018. ________________________ Pat Elliott, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #7.I. STAFF RE P ORT NO. 201 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 11/13/2018 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: C hris Regis, F inance D irector D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: C hris Regis, F inance D irector 11/5/2018 O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager 11/5/2018 I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N: Consideration of approval of an Electronic Funds Transfer Policy. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: The City’s auditors, BerganK D V have recommended to staff that an Electronic Funds Transfer (E FT) Policy be established to formalize the accounting and reporting of E F Ts. Accordingly, the purpose of this policy is to set forth the guidelines for both outgoing and incoming E FTs of the City and to ensure that the use of E F Ts are initiated, executed, and handled in a secure manner. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N: By motion: Approve the Electronic Funds Transfer Policy. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T N/A B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): I t is the practice of the City of Richfield to follow established financial policies governing the City’s practices related to fiscal management. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S: N/A D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION: N/A ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S): N/A P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G: N/A AT TAC H ME N T S: D escription Type E lectronic F unds Transfer P olicy E xhibit ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER POLICY City of Richfield Financial Policy Date: November 13, 2018 Subject: Electronic Funds Transfer Policy Introduction The City, on a regular basis, enters into the transfer of funds electronically. The goal of this policy is to ensure that all Electronic Funds Transfers (EFTs) are initiated and executed in a secure and proper manner. I. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to set forth the guidelines for both outgoing and incoming electronic transfer of funds of the City. II. SCOPE This fiscal policy provides the framework to ensure that the use of EFTs to remit and receive funds are initiated, executed, and handled in a secure manner. EFTs that fall under this policy are: 1. City cash flow transfers to cover accounts payable and payroll disbursements; 2. Semi-annual debt service payments; 3. Semi-annual tax increment PAYGO note payments; 4. Capital project and redevelopment property purchases; and, 5. Receipt of funds electronically from State, County, Local, or private entities. Outgoing Electronic Funds Transfers The Finance Department shall be responsible for the execution, accounting, and availability of funds for all outgoing EFTs. Outgoing EFTs requests that originate outside of the Finance Department must be in writing and received by the Finance Department at least two (2) business days prior to the date the EFT is due to be executed. All outgoing EFTs will originate out of the City’s Wells Fargo Institutional Trust and Custody account and will utilize the Wells Fargo IRT Disbursement Instruction form. The Finance department will be responsible for the timely and proper accounting of all outgoing EFTs. At all times the funds of the City shall be transferred in accordance with this policy, Minn. Statute 471.38 and any other applicable law or written procedure. Incoming Electronic Funds Transfers For incoming EFTs, the Finance Department must be made aware of the pending incoming wire to ensure timely and accurate accounting and receipt. The Finance Department will be responsible to ensure that all incoming EFTs are accounted for correctly. III. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY The Finance Director is authorized by the City Manager to enter into EFTs on behalf of the City. The Finance Director may delegate this responsibility to authorized staff in their absence. Approved: /s/ Steven L. Devich ______________________________ City Manager AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #7.J. STAFF RE P ORT NO. 202 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 11/13/2018 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation S ervices D irector D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation S ervices D irector 11/5/2018 O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: John S tark, A cting C ity Manager 11/6/2018 I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N: Consideration of the approval of a Personal/Professional Service Agreement with Hennepin County to implement a grant project to operate two organics drop-off sites, one at Wood Lake Nature Center and another in partnership with Hope Church. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: On behalf of the Richfield Organics Task Force, the Recreation Services Department submitted a grant application to Hennepin County to fund the cost of two organics drop-off sites for up to a two-year period, and the County Board approved funding in the amount of $15,000 on October 25, 2018. With the support of Hennepin County, the City will launch two organics drop-off sites on November 15, 2018, that are free to the public. T he two sites are located at Wood Lake Nature Center, 6710 Lake Shore Drive and at Hope Church, 7132 Portland Avenue. T he City will operate the service free of charge to all Hennepin County residents. Participants must register for the program online through the City’s website. Upon registration, participants will receive an e-mail message explaining how the program works, including a combination to the locked container (containers will be kept locked to help prevent contamination). Certified compostable bags will be available free of charge on site in mounted waterproof cases while supplies last. Wood Lake Nature Center was selected as a site because it has a large parking lot on the North side of the park, across the street from three large senior housing complexes with over 5,000 residents. This site can continue the opportunity for renters to drop off organic waste in the event the City progresses to residential curbside organics collection. Wood Lake Nature Center also has staff that can easily monitor the site. The site will accommodate a front-end loading hauler. Hope Church reaches out to a diverse population and has several well attended worship services every week, offering a convenient organics drop off site to a steady crowd every week. The Church offers free meals to the community through the Loaves and Fishes Program, each week Monday through Thursday. They also offer an adult day care and a pre-school program on weekdays, all of which produce a steady supply of food waste. The Church is centrally located within the City and is adjacent to a multi-dwelling housing complex. The site will also accommodate a front-end loading hauler. The grant will fund the installation of metal signage explaining how the program works and how to participate. An agreement with W aste Management, I nc. to haul and dispose the organic material will be executed before the launch date. Plans for promoting the organics drop-off sites and educating residents about organics include: A dedicated web page was prepared and launched on October 26, 2018, including online registration. 223 participants have registered to-date! The Organics Task Force has promoted the program at the City’s Open Streets at PennFest on September 16, 2018. The group has also had a regular presence at the City’s weekly farmers market to promote the program. An informational flyer will be mailed to all Richfield households. Press releases were sent to local newspapers. A MN GreenCorps Member will be assigned to post information on the program to all City social media sites on a regular basis. Registrants will receive a monthly e-mail detailing the progress of the program and helpful tips. A video was produced to be aired on local cable television highlighting the program and helpful tips. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N: By motion: Approve a Personal/Professional Service Agreement with Hennepin County to implement a grant project to operate two organics drop-off sites, one at W ood Lake Nature Center and another in partnership with Hope Church. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T Staff presented recommendations to establish organics collection in Richfield at a study session J anuary 23, 2018. The Council directed staff to begin planning the implementation of organics drop-off site(s) and to establish a citizen-based task force. An organics task force was formed and started meeting March 7, 2018. Members include the following residents: Maria Regan Gonzalez, J eremy Barthels, Paul Densmore, J ennifer Lewis, Susan Rosenberg, Maureen Scalia, Mia Simpson, DeeDee Edlund, Amanda Kueper, and Kathleen Balaban, City Council adopted a resolution supporting a host site application for a MN GreenCorps member on April 10, 2018, to assist with launching an organics drop-off program. Staff submitted a grant application to Hennepin County to fund the operation of two organics drop- off sites on August 17, 2018 and the Hennepin County Board approved funding in the amount of $15,000 on October 25, 2018. GreenCorps Member Rachel Lindholm began working for the City on October 1, 2018, to assist with establishing the organics drop-off program. B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): Contracts and agreements of this type are typically reviewed and considered by City Council. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S: The program launch date of November 15, 2018 is approaching. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: Funding for the program will be provided exclusively by Hennepin County as follows: Hauling and disposal $7,000 Signage and pad for Hope Church $2,000 Promotions and educational materials $3,000 Compostable Bags $3,000 Total request for funding from the County $15,000 E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION: The agreement was fashioned from the 2017-2020 Municipal Recycling Agreement the City has already executed with the County for recycling services on February 28, 2017. ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S): The Richfield Organics Task Force believes that accepting the funds from Hennepin County to operate two organics drop-off sites is an excellent bridge to the onset of curbside organics collection by creating excitement and educating residents about the benefits of organics recycling, however the Council may decide to delay or cancel the program. P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G: There are no principal parties expected at the meeting. AT TAC H ME N T S: D escription Type A greement C ontract/A greement AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #7.K. STAFF RE P ORT NO. 203 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 11/13/2018 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation S ervices D irector D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation S ervices D irector 11/5/2018 O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: John S tark, A cting C ity Manager 11/6/2018 I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N: Consideration of the approval of an agreement with Hope Presbyterian Church to operate an organics drop-off site on Church premises at 7132 Portland Avenue for a two-year period. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: On behalf of the Richfield Organics Task Force, the Recreation Services Department submitted a grant application to Hennepin County to fund the cost of two organics drop-off sites for up to a two-year period, and the County Board approved funding in the amount of $15,000 on October 25, 2018. With the support of Hennepin County, the City will launch two organics drop-off sites on November 15, 2018, that are free to the public. T he two sites are located at Wood Lake Nature Center, 6710 Lake Shore Drive and at Hope Church, 7132 Portland Avenue. T he City will operate the service free of charge to all Hennepin County residents. Participants must register for the program online through the City’s website. Upon registration, participants will receive an e-mail message explaining how the program works, including a combination to the locked container (containers will be kept locked to help prevent contamination). Certified compostable bags will be available free of charge on site in mounted waterproof cases while supplies last. Hope Church was selected as one of the sites because they reach out to a diverse population and have several well attended worship services every week, offering a convenient organics drop off site to a steady crowd every week. The Church offers free meals to the community through the Loaves and Fishes Program, each week Monday through Thursday. They also offer an adult day care and a pre-school program on weekdays, all of which produce a steady supply of food waste. The Church is centrally located within the City and is adjacent to a multi-dwelling housing complex. The site will also accommodate a front-end loading hauler. The grant will fund the installation of metal signage explaining how the program works and how to participate. The grant will also fund a 10'x10' bituminous pad at Hope Church to accommodate a collection container. An agreement with W aste Management, I nc. to haul and dispose the organic material will be executed before the launch date. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N: By motion: Approve an agreement with Hope Presbyterian Church to operate an organics drop-off site on Church premises at 7132 Portland Avenue for a two-year period. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T Staff presented recommendations to establish organics collection in Richfield at a study session J anuary 23, 2018. The Council directed staff to begin planning the implementation of organics drop-off site(s) and to establish a citizen-based task force. An organics task force was formed and started meeting March 7, 2018. Members include the following residents: Maria Regan Gonzalez, J eremy Barthels, Paul Densmore, J ennifer Lewis, Susan Rosenberg, Maureen Scalia, Mia Simpson, DeeDee Edlund, Amanda Kueper, and Kathleen Balaban, City Council adopted a resolution supporting a host site application for a MN GreenCorps member on April 10, 2018, to assist with launching an organics drop-off program. Staff submitted a grant application to Hennepin County to fund the operation of two organics drop- off sites on August 17, 2018, and the Hennepin County Board approved funding in the amount of $15,000 on October 25, 2018. GreenCorps Member Rachel Lindholm began working for the City on October 1, 2018, to assist with establishing the organics drop-off program. B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): Contracts and agreements of this type are typically reviewed and considered by City Council. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S: The program launch date of November 15, 2018, is approaching. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: Funding for the program will be provided exclusively by Hennepin County as follows: Hauling and disposal $7,000 Signage and pad for Hope Church $2,000 Promotions and educational materials $3,000 Compostable Bags $3,000 Total request for funding from the County $15,000 E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION: The agreement was drafted by the City Attorney. ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S): The Richfield Organics Task Force believes that establishing an organics drop-off site at Hope Church will provide a steady crowd of potential participants each week and a programs that produce a steady supply of food waste, however the Council may decide to select a different site or to alter the agreement. P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G: None AT TAC H ME N T S: D escription Type A greement C ontract/A greement AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #7.L. STAFF RE P ORT NO. 204 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 11/13/2018 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: K ari S inning, D eputy C ity C lerk D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: E lizabeth VanHoose, C ity C lerk 11/7/2018 O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: John S tark, A cting C ity Manager 11/7/2018 I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N: Consideration for the adoption of a resolution designating polling places for 2019. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: Minnesota Statute section 204B.16, subd 1 requires the City Council, by ordinance or resolution, to designate polling places for the upcoming year by December 31. The designated polling places (as identified in the attached resolution) are unchanged from the polling locations of the past several elections. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N: By motion: Adopt a resolution designating polling places for 2019. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T This is a new annual requirement that was passed in the 2017 legislative session. B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): Minnesota Statute section 204B.16, subd 1 requires the City Council, by ordinance or resolution, to designate polling places for the upcoming year by December 31. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S: Must be approved by December 31. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION: None ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S): None P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G: N/A AT TAC H ME N T S: D escription Type Resolution Resolution L etter RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING POLLING PLACES FOR 2019 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 204B.16, subd 1 requires the City Council, by ordinance or resolution, to designate polling places for the upcoming year; and WHEREAS, changes to the polling places locations may be made at least 90 days before the next election if one or more of the authorized polling places becomes unavailable for use; and WHEREAS, changes to the polling place locations may be made in the case of an emergency when it is necessary to ensure a safe and secure location for voting; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby designates the following polling places for elections conducted in the city in 2019; Precinct No. 1 Mt. Calvary Education Building Ward 3 6541 16th Avenue Precinct No. 2 St. Peter's Catholic Church Ward 2 6730 Nicollet Avenue Precinct No. 3 Sheridan Hills School Ward 1 6400 Sheridan Avenue Precinct No. 4 St. Richard's Catholic Church Ward 1 7540 Penn Avenue Precinct No. 5 Richfield Middle School Ward 1 7461 Oliver Avenue Precinct No. 6 Central School Building Ward 2 7145 Harriet Avenue Precinct No. 7 Hope Presbyterian Education Facility Ward 2 7132 Portland Avenue Precinct No. 8 Richfield STEM School Ward 3 7020 12th Avenue Precinct No. 9 Centennial School Ward 3 7315 Bloomington Avenue NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the nine locations listed above are the designated 2019 polling locations in Richfield. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of November, 2018. ____________________________ Pat Elliott, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION:RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM #9. STAFF RE P ORT NO. 205 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 11/13/2018 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Matt B rillhart, A ssociate P lanner D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: John S tark, C ommunity D evelopment D irector 11/5/2018 O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager 11/5/2018 I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N: Consideration of the adoption of a resolution granting a subdivision waiver, allowing the division of 6933 Oliver Avenue into three lots. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: Endres Custom Homes has acquired the property at 6933 Oliver Avenue and proposes to split the existing 140-foot wide lot into three lots to allow for the construction of three new homes. Splitting a lot requires City Council approval of a subdivision waiver. The property measures 140 feet wide and consists of three platted lots, which were combined into one lot prior to the construction of the existing house on the property. Ten (10) feet of the northern lot was split off and combined with the adjacent property at 6925 Oliver Avenue, resulting in 6933 Oliver Avenue being 10 feet shy of three full lots. I f the three lots were to be divided along the original plat lines, this would result in two 50-foot lots and one 40- foot lot. The applicant proposes to 're-balance' the lot lines, resulting in three equal lots of 46.67 feet wide. These lots would be 3 feet 4 inches narrower than the minimum lot width requirement of 50 feet. City Code states that "the Council may vary or modify such requirements so that the subdivider is allowed to develop his property in a reasonable manner, but in such a manner that the public welfare and interests of the City and surrounding area are protected.” Despite the narrower lot width, the proposed houses would meet all setback requirements. The minimum side setback requirement is 5 feet, whereas the proposed houses would be set back 7 feet 4 inches from the side lot lines. The proposed houses would be spaced in a manner consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The homes would be constructed as part of the Richfield Rediscovered program; a highly successful program that is intended to provide "move-up" housing to new families or growing families who wish to stay in the community. The City's Comprehensive Plan continues to identify this as a need in Richfield. Finding that requirements are met, staff recommends approval of the subdivision waiver. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N: By motion: Adopt a resolution granting a subdivision waiver for 6933 Oliver Avenue. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T W ithin one block of the subject property at 6933 Oliver Avenue, there are existing lot widths of 44 feet, 45.5 feet, and 48 feet, in addition to those measuring 50 feet and wider. I n 2017, the Council approved a subdivision of a property at 7445 Humboldt Avenue that resulted in lot width of 45.67 feet. Six blocks to the north of the subject property, the 6300 blocks between Penn Avenue and 35W include several 40-foot wide lots, which are governed by a grandfather clause in the Single Family Residential (R) Zoning District. B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): Subsection 500.05, Subdiv ision 2. - In cases in which compliance with the City’s platting requirements result in unnecessary hardship and when failure to comply with said requirements does not interfere with the purpose and intent of the regulations, the Council may adopt a resolution authorizing a waiver from the subdivision requirements. Subsection 500.21 - W henever the tract to be subdivided or platted is of such unusual size or shape, or is surrounded by such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of the requirements contained in this Section would result in a substantial hardship or injustice, the Council may vary or modify such requirements so that the subdivider is allowed to develop his property in a reasonable manner, but in such a manner that the public welfare and interests of the City and surrounding area are protected and the general intent and spirit of this Section is preserved. Subsection 514.11, Subd. 2. Lot area, dimensions and coverage. T he property is located in the Single Family Residential (R) Zoning District. Minimum lot requirements and dimensions of the proposed lots are as follows (italics where requirements are not met): Lot Dimensions W idth (ft.) Depth (ft.)Area (sq. ft.) Minimum Required 50 100 6,700 Proposed 46.67 135 6,300 Comprehensive Plan statement on housing needs I n the City's long-range plan, the community has identified a need for "move-up" housing that allows growing families to move into a larger home while remaining in Richfield. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S: 60-D AY RUL E: The 60-day clock ‘started’ when a complete application was received on September 24, 2018. A decision must be given by November 23, 2018 OR the Council must notify the applicant that it is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional days or 120 days in total) for issuing a decision. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION: Although not legally required because this item is not a public hearing, notice of this request was mailed to properties within 350 feet of the subject property on October 30, 2018. ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S): Deny the requested subdivision waiver with a finding that the proposal does not meet City requirements. P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G: Dustin Endres, Endres Custom Homes AT TAC H ME N T S: D escription Type Resolution Resolution L etter S urveys - E xisting & P roposed E xhibit Neighborhood C ontext Map B ackup Material Neighborhood C ontext - Google S treetview B ackup Material Neighborhood C ontext - New homes B ackup Material r RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SUBDIVISION WAIVER FOR 6933 OLIVER AVENUE WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of a subdivision waiver for the division of property commonly known as 6933 Oliver Avenue (“Subject Property”), legally described as follows: Lots 12 and 13, and 14 except the North 10 feet thereof, all in Block 11, TINGDALE BROS. LINCOLN HILLS SECOND ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to divide the above-described parcel into three parcels, legally described as: Parcel A: Lot 14, Block 11, except the North 10 feet thereof, TINGDALE BROS. LINCOLN HILLS SECOND ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota and that part of Lot 13, said Block 11 which lies north of the South 43.34 feet thereof. Parcel B: The South 43.34 feet of Lot 13, Block 11, TINGDALE BROS. LINCOLN HILLS SECOND ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota and the North 3.33 feet of Lot 12, said Block 11. Parcel C: That part of Lot 12, Block 11, TINGDALE BROS. LINCOLN HILLS SECOND ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies south of the North 3.33 feet thereof. WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the subdivision waiver; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that compliance with City Code Section 500.05 Subdivision 1, requiring the property to be platted, would result in unnecessary hardship and that failure to comply therewith will not interfere with the purposes of the platting regulations of Section 500.01. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that failure to comply with minimum lot width and area requirements will not injure the public welfare and that the interests of the City and surrounding area are protected and the general intent and spirit of the subdivision regulations are preserved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A waiver for the subdivision of the Subject Property legally described above is hereby granted. 2. City staff is authorized and directed to take any action necessary to effectuate this Resolution and to authorize the recording of conveyances complying with the terms of this Resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of November, 2018. _______________________ Pat Elliott, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk ± 6933 Oliver Ave - Subdivision 11/2018Neighborhood Context 0 100 200 300 40050FeetI:\GIS\Community Development\Staff\Planning Tech\Projects\6933 Oliver Ave - Context.mxd 70TH STREET WOLIVER AVENUEProposed Lot Lines 69TH STREET W Proposed Lot Lines NEWTON AVENUE50 50 50 50 50 XX = Lot Width (in feet) 52 50 48 50 60 112(50 + 62) 6675 70.75 67.75 67.75 66 50 50 50 50 44 50 50 46.66 46.67 46.67 50 50 56 62 45.5 45.55067.75 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 67.75 50 View across the street at 6928-6932-6936 Oliver Avenue – 50-foot wide lots Newer homes on lot widths 50’ or narrower – Neighborhood Context AGENDA SECTION:RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM #10. STAFF RE P ORT NO. 206 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 11/13/2018 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Melissa P oehlman, A sst. C ommunity D evelopment D irector D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TOR RE V IE W: J ohn S tark, C ommunity D evelopment D irector 11/5/2018 O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: J ack B roz, E ngineering; Mike P eterson, P ublic Works; J im Topitzhofer, Recreation S ervices; J ulie Urban, C ommunity D evelopment C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager 11/5/2018 I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N: Consideration of the adoption of a resolution approving a submittal of the Richfield 2040 Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council. Note: The full Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan is available for review on the City's website (www.richfieldmn.gov/compplan). The size of the document makes it impractical and technologically difficult to attach directly to this report. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: Over the past 18 months, staff and consultants from the Hoisington Koegler Group, I nc. (HK Gi) and S RF Consulting Group have been working to gather feedback and update the City's Comprehensive Plan (as required by State Statute). This work has included a significant amount of outreach to the community in the form of paper and online surveys, pop-up events, open houses, and steering committee meetings (See Historical Context Section for additional details). Based on policy-maker feedback, survey responses, and direct conversations, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan has been updated to reflect the direction that Richfield will head in the coming years. The City has never viewed the Comprehensive Plan as a static document and thus it has been revised a number of times over the past decade to reflect changes in policies and market realities, or in response to anticipated transportation changes. Community input confirmed that the 2030 Plan was still largely relevant and reflective of the community vision. As such, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Plan) is more of a refinement than an overhaul of the 2030 Plan. Significant time and effort has gone into: Vision statement describing the "Urban Hometown" moniker; Sub-area plan and guiding principles for the area surrounding the intersection of 66th Street and Nicollet Avenue; New Parks Master Plan; Bringing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit elements to the forefront of the Transportation Chapter in order to further emphasize their priority in system planning; I nclusion of the City's racial history and commitment to racial equity; Discussion of tools and challenges to address the improvement and protection of the City's Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOA H); I ncorporating the work of the Housing Visioning Task Force; and Simplification of land use categories, including adjustment of density ranges to reflect existing land use patterns that the City wishes to promote and continue. As is the case in most discussions, there was a divide in the opinion of the public in regard to the future of Richfield. There are some residents who would prefer that Richfield revert to being a bedroom community, as it was historically developed. W e also spoke with many residents who love Richfield as it is and see no need to change anything further. Finally, there are those who see recent commercial, housing, and transportation changes as only the beginning of a renaissance in Richfield. Things will continue to change in and around Richfield. The City as a bedroom community is not a sustainable economic model; commercial and multi- family development is necessary to help pay for the continued infrastructure costs of the City and to accommodate growth in the region. Climate change, increased and diverse populations, technological innovations, just to name a few, will continue to influence and change the decisions that people make regarding where to live and work, and how they get to those places. The goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to prepare, as much as possible, for these changes and to manage this change in a way that can make them an asset to the community. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on October 22, 2018. As a result of public testimony and discussion, the Plan has been revised to include statistical information related to the City's disabled population and to revise the maximum allowable density in the 66th & Lyndale Avenue area. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Plan. Consultant Lance Bernard of HK Gi will present a short overview of the planning process and the proposed Plan. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N: By motion: Adopt a resolution approving a submittal of the Richfield 2040 Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T The Comprehensive Plan update process has included a number of opportunities for residents and business owners to participate. These include: Penn Fest information booth - September 2016 and September 2017 Steering Committee Meetings - April, J une, August 2017, and February 2018 Pop-up events - Metro Transit bus riding (May 2017), Loaves and Fishes (May 2017), D MV (May 2017), Farmers Market (J uly 2017) Survey distribution by Steering Committee Members (primarily April/May 2017). Open Houses - May 2017, August 2017, March 2018 W iki-map survey - April 2017 Online survey - March 2017 Feedback received has been compiled into two Community Engagement Briefs, available as Appendix B of the Plan. B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): The Metropolitan Land Planning Act (State Statute 473) provides the requirements for the update of the Comprehensive Plan. Affected jurisdictions have been provided an opportunity to comment on the Plan. Affected jurisdictions for Richfield include: The cities of Bloomington, Edina, and Minneapolis; Hennepin County; School District 280; W atershed Districts (Lower MN River, Minnehaha Creek, Nine Mile, and Richfield- Bloomington); MnD OT; MnD NR; and Metropolitan Airports Commission. The Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan was also submitted to the Metropolitan Council for preliminary review. Staff has reviewed all official comments (attached) and revised the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan where necessary. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S: A six month review period for affected jurisdictions is required prior to submittal of the Comprehensive Plan update to the Metropolitan Council. This review period expires November 9 (after the date of this report). No additional substantial comments are expected; staff will update the Council if substantive comments are received. A public hearing before the Planning Commission was held on October 22, 2018. Testimony was taken and responded to by the Commission and/or staff. Plans must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council by December 31, 2018. The Metropolitan Council has six months to review the Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan will not officially become effective until it has been approved by the Metropolitan Council. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION: Notice of the October 22 public hearing was published in the Sun Current Newspaper, as required. Notice was also published via the City's Facebook page and a press release sent to the Sun Current Newspaper. I ndividual letters were sent to owners of property that is proposed for a designation change. Letters specified the current designation of the property and the proposed designation. Staff contact information was provided. ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S): Recommend approval of the Plan with modifications. P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G: Lance Bernard, Planner & Project Manager - Hoisington Koegler Group I nc. J ack Broz, Transportation Engineer J im Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director J ulie Urban, Housing Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: D escription Type Resolution Resolution L etter Official Review C omments B ackup Material 2030 C omp P lan-L and Use Map B ackup Material 2040 C omp P lan-L and Use Map B ackup Material RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A SUBMITTAL OF THE RICHFIELD 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.864 requires each local governmental unit to review and, if necessary, amend its entire comprehensive plan at least once every ten years to ensure its comprehensive plan conforms to metropolitan system plans; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes sections 473.858 and 473.864 require local governmental units to complete their “decennial” reviews by December 31, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City Council, Planning Commission, and City Staff have prepared a proposed Comprehensive Plan intended to meet the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and Metropolitan Council guidelines and procedures; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.858, the proposed Comprehensive Plan was submitted to adjacent governmental units and affected special districts and school districts for review and comment on May 9, 2018, and the statutory six-month review and comment period has elapsed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield held a public hearing at its October 22, 2018 meeting, and recommended approval of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and all public comments and comments from adjacent jurisdictions and affected districts; and thereafter submitted WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.858 requires a local governmental unit to submit its proposed comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council following recommendation by the planning commission and after consideration but before final approval by the governing body of the local governmental unit. WHEREAS, based on its review of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and Planning Commission and staff recommendations, the City Council is ready to submit its proposed plan to the Metropolitan Council for review pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.864; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Asst. Community Development Director is directed to distribute said Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council by December 31, 2018 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.864. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of November, 2018. Pat Elliott, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk Administrative Center, 3000 Xenium Lane North, Plymouth, MN 55441-1299 Information 763.559.9000 • TTY 763.559.6719 • Fax 763.559.3287 • www.ThreeRiversParks.org Three Rivers Park District Board of Commissioners Penny Steele District 1 Jennifer DeJournett District 2 Daniel Freeman Vice Chair District 3 John Gunyou Chair District 4 John Gibbs District 5 Steven Antolak Appointed At Large Gene Kay Appointed At Large Boe Carlson Superintendent July 27, 2018 Melissa Poehlman, AICP Asst. Community Development Director 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 RE: City of Richfield, 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Dear Melissa: Three Rivers Park District (Park District) submits the following comments regarding your 2040 Comprehensive Plan. If you have further questions or comments, please contact Ann Rexine, Principal Planner at ann.rexine@threeriversparks.org or by phone at 763-694-1103. Text revisions requested. Please adjust the following text to read: “The Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail is part of the Three Rivers Park District’s Plan system, to provide providing a 15 mile trail…” Segments in Richfield, and Hopkins and Edina are complete (4.9 miles), and portions of the Edina segment will open in early 2018. Page 72 Map revisions requested (Figure 7-1). This map appears to have been a previous iteration of Figure 7-6 on page 81. The below comments are for Figure 7.1, however perhaps a simple date or title indicating that this map has been updated might clear confusion. The existence of Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail (labeled as an Off Street Trail) is partly depicted, as it abruptly terminates at 12th Ave. N. – it currently continues south into Bloomington, across 494. Nokomis-Minnesota River Regional Trail is not depicted and should be shown as an Off Street Trail. Page 76 Map revisions requested (Figure 7-3). The search corridor depicted as South Hennepin East is incorrectly labeled. It should read “Canadian Pacific Rail Regional Trail.” The Park District has attached a map (Map A) with the correct labeling, should you determine that it is useful for your planning purposes. Page 77 2 Enclosed: Map A–Three Rivers Park District 2040 Facilities Proposed, Richfield CC: File Metropolitan Council, Michael Larson Danny McCullough, Park District Regional Trails System Manager Text revisions requested. Please revise the text to read, “Nokomis-MN River Regional Trail.” Abbreviating Minnesota to MN is acceptable. “The City also recognizes the Intercity Nokomis-Minnesota River Regional Trail. This is a planned regional trail that is not yet open to the public travels 7 miles through Minneapolis, Richfield and Bloomington...” Page 82 Map revisions requested (Figure 7-11). The legend should read, “Richfield Parkway (Intercity Nokomis-Minnesota River Regional Trail Route).” Page 93 Text revisions requested. Please adjust the following text to read: “Regional parks that are in close proximity….Hyland-Bush-Anderson Lakes Regional Park Reserve...” Page 93 3 MAP A 1 Melissa Poehlman From:Scheffing, Karen (DOT) <karen.scheffing@state.mn.us> Sent:Tuesday, May 29, 2018 10:35 AM To:Melissa Poehlman Subject:CPA18-024 City of Richfield 2040 Comp plan Melissa Thank you for the opportunity to review the City of Richfield’s 2040 come plan update. MnDOT has reviewed this document and has no comments. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this review. Thanks Karen Karen Scheffing Principal Planner 1500 W County Road B2 Roseville MN 55113 651-234-7784 ]72.17[ ]94.96[]30.54[[82.16][33.89]]51 .06[[25.31][53.64] ]26.75[[53.64][36.47]]92.0 8[ [36.43]]78.64[ ]82.211[[74][134.34] [388.25]]6.16[=C [38.6]C=[49.8] ]94.96[]30.54[[82.16][33.89]]51 .06[[25.31]LOGAN75th VINCENTUPTONTHOMASWASHBURNXERXESI - 494 78th 77th 76th OLIVERNEWTONMORGANSHERIDANRUSSELLQUEENPENN74th 72nd 73th 71st 69th 70th DUPONTKNOXJAMESIRVINGHUMBOLDTGIRARDFREMONTEMERSONCOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDGRANDHARRIETLYNDALECROSSTOW N HW Y 62nd 67th 68th 66th 65th 64th 63rd COLUMBUS2nd1stSTEVENSPLEASANTPILLSBURYBLAISDELLWENTWORTHNICOLLET3rdCLINTON4th5thPORTLANDOAKLANDPARK10th11th12th13th14thELLIOTCHICAGO15th16th17th18thCEDARBLOOMINGTONI-494 190080090010001100120013001800600500400300200501001242003003244005006207007208009001000110013001400150016001700180010015241900600120000070014002900280027002600250022002100200030001500160017002400310023002030 Comprehensive Plan - Planned Land Use UPDATED 9/2018 2030 Planned Land Use Regional Commercial Regional Commercial/Office Community Commercial Community Commercial/Office Neighborhood Commercial Office High Density Residential High Density Residential/Office Medium-High Density Residential Medium Density Residential Low Density Residential Mixed Use Park Public Quasi-Public School / QP Church / QP ROW ±0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 Miles ]72.17[ ]94.96[]30.54[[82.16][33.89]]51 .06[[25.31][53.64] ]26.75[[53.64][36.47]]92.0 8[ [36.43]]78.64[ ]82.211[[74][134.34] [388.25]]6.16[=C [38.6]C=[49.8] ]94.96[]30.54[[82.16][33.89]]51 .06[[25.31]LOGAN75th VINCENTUPTONTHOMASWASHBURNXERXESI - 494 78th 77th 76th OLIVERNEWTONMORGANSHERIDANRUSSELLQUEENPENN74th 72nd 73th 71st 69th 70th DUPONTKNOXJAMESIRVINGHUMBOLDTGIRARDFREMONTEMERSONCOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDGRANDHARRIETLYNDALECROSSTOW N HW Y 62nd 67th 68th 66th 65th 64th 63rd COLUMBUS2nd1stSTEVENSPLEASANTPILLSBURYBLAISDELLWENTWORTHNICOLLET3rdCLINTON4th5thPORTLANDOAKLANDPARK10th11th12th13th14thELLIOTCHICAGO15th16th17th18thCEDARBLOOMINGTONI-494 190080090010001100120013001800600500400300200501001242003003244005006207007208009001000110013001400150016001700180010015241900600120000070014002900280027002600250022002100200030001500160017002400310023002040 Comprehensive Plan - Planned Land Use (Proposed) 2040 Planned Land Use Mixed Use Regional Commercial Community Commercial Neighborhood Commercial High Density Residential Medium Density Residential Low Density Residential Park Quasi-Public Right-of-W ay (ROW ) ±0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 Miles AGENDA SECTION:RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM #11. STAFF RE P ORT NO. 207 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 11/13/2018 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Mary Tietjen, C ity A ttorney D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager 11/5/2018 O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: S teven L . D evich, C ity Manager 11/5/2018 I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N: Consideration of the adoption of a resolution increasing the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board (R T P B) from five to seven director positions and authorizing the R TP B and city staff to make recommendations to the Council for future appointments to the Board. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: I n 1990, the City of Richfield adopted Section 1400 of the City Code to levy a 3% tax on the gross receipts of lodging from Richfield hotels and motels pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.190. Section 469.190 authorizes the proceeds from the lodging tax to fund a Tourism Promotion Board for the purposes of marketing and promoting the City. The original bylaws and articles of incorporation of the RTP B appointed three directors to head the RTP B, which included representatives of the Richfield Chamber of Commerce, and two local hotels/motels. I n 2001, recognizing that lodging facilities had increased significantly, the City Council took action to increase the number of directors on the RTP B from three to five. The increase added an “At-Large” member and an additional lodging facility representative. The RTP B amended its bylaws accordingly. Today, with the City’s gaining popularity and momentum with development and housing projects, its tourism and promotion needs are changing and growing. The Council believes it would be beneficial to again increase the number of directors on the RTP B to create additional diversity and new perspectives on ways to promote and advertise the City of Richfield. I f passed, the Council’s action would add two additional “At-Large” members to the RTP B. W ith that change, the Board positions would include three lodging establishment representatives; one Chamber of Commerce representative; and, three “At-Large” representatives who shall be appointed from a variety of backgrounds, including for example, restaurant, entertainment or other appropriate commercial enterprises in the City. The current Board members are: 1. Raj Bhakta – Baymont (formerly Americinn) – term expires on December 31, 2018 2. W hitney Bain – Candlewood – term expires December 31, 2018 3. Kristen Lindquist – Four Points by Sheraton – term expires December 31, 2018 4. Gordon Vizecky – Chamber of Commerce – term expires December 31, 2019 5. At Large – vacant The RTP B recently amended its bylaws to increase the Board to seven directors. The Council wishes to authorize the RTP B and City staff to identify individuals to fill the current vacancy, as well as the new director positions, and return to the Council with recommendations for the future appointments. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N: By motion: Adopt a resolution increasing the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board (R TP B) from five to seven director positions and authorizing the R TP B and city staff to make recommendations to the Council for future appointments to the Board. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T Provided in Executive Summary. B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): The RTP B is governed by its bylaws and articles of incorporation. The Council makes appointments to the RTP B. Richfield’s growth and development boon has created a need to enlarge the membership of the RTP B to explore expanded marketing and promotion activities within the City. An expanded cross-section of representation will bring a greater marketing awareness and creativity in promoting tourism in the Richfield. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S: Although there is no specific time issue regarding this change, there is a need to enlarge the board to expand representation. Given City Manager Devich’s history with the RTP B, he is best suited to advise the Council concerning this change prior to his upcoming retirement. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: There are no financial implications as RTP B Directors serve without compensation. The RTP B generates adequate funding through the 3% lodging tax to fund its activities. There is no property tax levy impact. E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION: The City Council has the legal authority to increase the number of Directors on the RTP B and to authorize the process for appointments to the Board. ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S): Not increase the number of RTP B director positions. P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G: Gordon Vizecky, RTP B Chair AT TAC H ME N T S: D escription Type Resolution Resolution L etter RESOLUTION NO. ______ RESOLUTION INCREASING THE RICHFIELD TOURISM PROMOTION BOARD (RTPB) FROM FIVE TO SEVEN DIRECTOR POSITIONS AND AUTHORIZING THE RTPB AND STAFF TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL FOR FUTURE APPOINTMENTS TO THE BOARD WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has levied a 3% tax on the gross receipts of lodging from hotels and motels in the City pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 169.190; and WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 169.190 authorizes the proceeds of the tax to fund a Tourism Promotion Board for the purpose of marketing and promoting the City as a tourist or convention center; and WHEREAS, the articles and bylaws of the RTPB provide the City Council of the City of Richfield with authority to establish a process for appointments of directors to the Board; and WHEREAS, the Board has recently passed a motion making a change to its bylaws increasing the number of Board directors from five to seven members; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to authorize the RTPB and appropriate city staff to identify individuals for possible appointment to the Board and return to the Council with recommendations for future appointments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board be modified as follows: 1. The Board membership is increased from five to seven members; 2. Such membership shall consist of three lodging establishment representatives; one Chamber of Commerce representative; and three “at- large” representatives who shall be appointed from a variety of other backgrounds; 3. Authorize the RTPB and City staff to bring recommendations to the Council for future appointments to the Board. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 13th day of November, 2018. ___________________________ Pat Elliott, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________ Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION:RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM #12. STAFF RE P ORT NO. 208 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 11/13/2018 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Jeff P earson, C ity E ngineer D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: K ristin A sher, P ublic Works D irector 11/6/2018 O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: John S tark, A cting C ity Manager 11/7/2018 I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N: Consideration of the approval of a contract with Stonebrooke Engineering, Inc. for design engineering of the 65th Street Reconstruction Project between Grand Avenue and Nicollet Avenue, not to exceed $348,646 and adoption of a resolution for reimbursement of certain expenditures from the proceeds of street reconstruction bonds to be issued by the City for the 65th Street Reconstruction Project. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: Consistent with City Council direction, the Capital I mprovement Plan (C I P), and the City's Comprehensive Plan, staff is working towards the reconstruction of 65th Street between Grand Avenue and Nicollet Avenue. The current C I P and 5-Year Street Reconstruction Plan identifies the extents of the 65th Street reconstruction as 66th St/Rae Drive and Nicollet Avenue. I t was determined through pavement and utility condition assessments that this project could be delayed until 2021; however, potential redevelopment along the segment from Grand Avenue to Nicollet Avenue would necessitate road and utility reconstruction in 2020. Therefore, the project as identified in the C I P is proposed to be divided into two smaller projects with this being the initial reconstruction and the remainder to be completed in a future year. The detailed design of the roadway and the 65th/Nicollet intersection will be determined through a public engagement process. The project also includes the replacement of City utilities and coordination with future redevelopment along the corridor. The scope of work also includes an examination of pedestrian crossings along Nicollet Avenue for potential improvements as part of the planned 2020 mill and overlay of the roadway by Hennepin County. The engineering firm of Stonebrooke Engineering, I nc. submitted a proposal to provide the Preliminary and Final Engineering services for the 65th Street Reconstruction Project in an amount not to exceed $348,646. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N: By motion: Approve a contract with Stonebrooke Engineering, Inc. for design engineering of the 65th Street Reconstruction Project between Grand Avenue and Nicollet Avenue, not to exceed $348,646 and adopt a resolution for reimbursement of certain expenditures from the proceeds of street reconstruction bonds to be issued by the City for the 65th Street Reconstruction Project. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T The pavement and underground infrastructure condition along 65th Street continues to deteriorate. City staff have identified a need for complete reconstruction of the roadway and utilities in the 65th Street/Rae Drive corridor between 66th Street and Nicollet Avenue. Stonebrooke Engineering, I nc. is in the City's Engineering Consultant Pool and is an experienced engineering firm. Staff has negotiated a proposed scope of services that is typical and adequate for a project of this scale. B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): The reconstruction of 65th Street is identified in the City's Capital I mprovement Plan and 5-Year Street Reconstruction Plan. Council approval is required for expenditures over $175,000. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S: Staff and the consultant can begin the public input process shortly after the contract is approved. The reimbursement resolution is necessary to cover any project costs incurred prior to the sale of bonds. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: Adoption of the proposed reimbursement resolution provides approval for City staff to incur costs for the 65th Street Reconstruction project. Street Reconstruction Bonds are proposed for the full reconstruction project funding. E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION: The City Attorney will be available to answer questions. ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S): None P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G: None AT TAC H ME N T S: D escription Type C onsultant P roposal C ontract/A greement Resolution Resolution L etter P roject E xtents E xhibit a 12467 Boone Ave, Ste 1 Savage, MN 55378 o 952.402.9202 f 952.403.6803 w stonebrookeengineering.com October 26, 2018 Attn: Jeff Pearson City of Richfield 1901 East 66th Street Richfield, MN 55423 RE: 65th Street Improvements Project Scope of Services and Fee Estimate Dear Mr. Pearson, Thank you for the opportunity to provide this scope of services and fee estimate for the 65th Street Improvements Project in Richfield. The City of Richfield has requested that Stonebrooke Engineering provide a scope of services and fee estimate to provide engineering services on this project, to include: • Project Management • Public, Agency, and Utility Coordination and Involvement • Topographic Survey • Traffic Analysis • Geotechnical Evaluation • Preliminary Design • Final Design • Optional Task for Roundabout Design at the 65th/Nicollet Intersection The following provides a brief summary of our understanding of the scope of services for this project. Task 1 – Project Management Our project manager, Tyler Newhall, will work in partnership with the key project stakeholders to ensure the most responsible, efficient and cost-effective solutions for this project are achieved. We will be responsible for the preparation of monthly progress reports, coordinating monthly Project Team meetings and associated meeting minutes, invoicing, cost and schedule updates, communication with project personnel, and other non-technical tasks. In addition to coordination efforts with both City and County staff, Stonebrooke will coordinate with Braun Intertec for geotechnical exploration and reporting. We anticipate the City handling any necessary Right-of-Way acquisition and coordination with impacted property owners. a 12467 Boone Ave, Ste 1 Savage, MN 55378 o 952.402.9202 f 952.403.6803 w stonebrookeengineering.com Task 2 – Public, Agency, and Utility Coordination and Involvement Stonebrooke Engineering will execute public involvement for the project through the coordination and organization of three public involvement meetings (PIM). Meetings will need to be coordinated with both City of Richfield Staff and the City Transportation Commission. The approximate timing and scope of each meeting is as follows: • PIM #1, Late Fall 2018. This meeting will be used solely to gather information from the public regarding possible issues or general information in the project area. • PIM #2, Spring 2019. This meeting will present the layout alternatives along both 65th Street and Nicollet Avenue to obtain feedback from the public. We will answer any questions the public may have and will evaluate any further feedback for consideration as the layouts/design are finalized. • PIM #3, Summer 2019. This meeting will present the preferred final layout and construction limits to the public. Our understanding of the key roles related to Public Involvement is as follows: • Stonebrooke: Attend PIM’s, Prepare Layouts/Graphics, Collect Information and Prepare Summary of Meeting. • City of Richfield: Attend PIM’s, Schedule/Reserve Meeting Facility, Prepare Notices, Prepare Mailing Lists and Distribute PIM Notices, Social Media Updates. Additional meetings/coordination provided by Stonebrooke will be as follows: PMT Meetings (Assume every other month (8 total)): These meetings will be used to identify and address potential areas of concern, review the project schedule, discuss design details, and coordinate the public involvement meetings. Our team will prepare for these meetings by drafting agendas after consulting with the City and any other stakeholders on issues to be addressed. We will schedule and attend the meetings, present completed work to date, and take and distribute meeting minutes. Transportation Commission Meetings (Assume 3): We will attend City Transportation Commission Meetings as needed to present project process and answer technical questions. Other Coordination and Meetings (Railroad, Utility, County and HUB): We will coordinate and attend meetings with other key project stakeholders during the project process. Assumptions for number of meetings are listed in the cost proposal. We will work closely with City Staff to identify any necessary meetings with these stakeholders and to determine appropriate approach. Close coordination with these stakeholders will be key to ensure the project stays on schedule. a 12467 Boone Ave, Ste 1 Savage, MN 55378 o 952.402.9202 f 952.403.6803 w stonebrookeengineering.com Task 3 – Survey Data Stonebrooke’s survey team will identify the limits required, perform the necessary topographic survey and existing right-of-way survey, and complete mapping for the project area. We will process this data into an existing conditions map of the topographical features and existing right-of-way. The initial topographic survey will include a gopher state one call request to field locate all existing utility facilities. On 65th Street we plan to perform a full topographic survey of all features on site, whereas on Nicollet Avenue we will survey the curb lines to allow for us to properly layout new lane configurations. If it is determined that 65th Street and Nicollet should be a roundabout, we’ll return to the site to do a full topographic survey north and south of this intersection as needed to accommodate the approach work. If necessary, we will prepare up to 5 parcel sketches and legal descriptions for impacted properties to aid the City in the Right-of-Way acquisition. Additionally, we have included a placeholder for ice and snow removal during the topo survey, in case of inclement weather in fall of 2018 that would require additional efforts to obtain survey data. Task 4 – Traffic Analysis – 65th Street and Nicollet Avenue The Stonebrooke Engineering Traffic Team will perform traffic analysis for improvements along both 65th Street from Lyndale Avenue to Nicollet Avenue, and on Nicollet Avenue from 66th Street to the I-35W overpass. Key tasks will include: • Trip Generation and Future Traffic Projections: We will meet with the Hub Development to understand their future redevelopment plans. Based on this, we will determine trip generations and project future traffic levels for evaluation. Our team will also work with the City and County to determine future traffic growth along the corridor based on existing planning efforts within the area. We assume that future conditions will be 20 years out but will work with the PMT to determine the exact future year. • Traffic Analysis: Utilizing existing traffic volumes and the projected volumes determined in the task above, we will perform capacity analysis using Synchro/SimTraffic microsimulation software to develop an existing traffic model, along with a future no-build model. The model will include the 65th Street corridor between Lyndale Avenue and Nicollet Avenue, and Nicollet Avenue between 65th Street and 66th Street. This analysis will illustrate the ability of the key intersections and roadway system to accommodate the existing and future traffic volumes. Based on the existing and expected future no-build conditions, we will develop a potential mitigation plan that will evaluate lane configurations, access modifications/needs, intersection configuration, queuing and delay results and pedestrian access needs/options. a 12467 Boone Ave, Ste 1 Savage, MN 55378 o 952.402.9202 f 952.403.6803 w stonebrookeengineering.com • ICE Report: We will complete an intersection control evaluation report for the 65th Street and Nicollet Avenue intersection. This will evaluate both roundabout and traffic signal options and will include the above traffic analysis results and traffic projections. • Intersection evaluations along Nicollet Avenue to the North of 65th Street will be completed outside of the microsimulation model. Recommendations for lane configurations, ped movements and access modifications will be given based off traffic capacity and safety needs. Task 5 – Preliminary Design Stonebrooke Engineering will complete preliminary design of the 65th Street corridor, which will include determination of the proposed construction limits and right-of-way needs. Key tasks included in the preliminary design phase of the project are: • Initial Concept Layouts: Stonebrooke will complete initial concept layouts for 65th Street from Lyndale to Nicollet, and Nicollet from 66th Street to the I-35W overpass. It is anticipated that this will include conversion of the roadways to either a 3-lane road diet or 2 lanes with full turn lanes at major intersections. Per discussions with the City and County, this will also include evaluation of configurations at the intersection of Nicollet with 62nd, 63rd, and 64th, plus the stretch of Nicollet between 65th and 66th. Intersection/access point improvements will be based on the findings of the traffic analysis along with the results of coordination efforts between the City, Hennepin County and the HUB development. Stonebrooke will provide the final geometrics for these improvements and any vertical design and final plan production along Nicollet would be the responsibility of the County. • Final Concept Layout for the preferred alternative: After reviewing the layout with City and County Staff, Stonebrooke will make final modifications. • Preliminary Design of Roadways: Stonebrooke will develop alignments, profiles, and cross sections for approach roadways and the intersection to establish construction limits. It is expected that this task will only take place in the full reconstruction area of the project, which is on 65th Street from Grand to Nicollet (and including the Nicollet intersection). Task 6 – Drainage Design Stonebrooke Engineering will provide drainage design and hydraulic analysis in accordance with MnDOT State Aid Standards. We understand that while the project itself likely will not trigger any stormwater treatment requirements, it is expected that our team will need to coordinate with the HUB development on possible stormwater treatment opportunities along the 65th Street corridor. Based on the needs of the development and a 12467 Boone Ave, Ste 1 Savage, MN 55378 o 952.402.9202 f 952.403.6803 w stonebrookeengineering.com the road corridor, we’ll evaluate, propose and analyze various stormwater treatment options. We will then perform a preliminary design of the preferred option and determine costs and construction limits. Task 7 – Signal Design Stonebrooke Engineering will provide a final signal design assuming the full reconstruction of the signal system at the 65th and Nicollet intersection. This task would only be needed if the ICE report indicates a signal is the preferred traffic control device at the intersection. If a roundabout is chosen, there would be additional costs as summarized in the Additional Task at the end. Task 8 – Final Design Stonebrooke Engineering will provide a final construction plan set for the proposed improvements that is consistent with City of Richfield and MnDOT State Aid standards, procedures and requirements. Specific plan content included in the fee estimate is noted on the attached sheets. We anticipate 3 plan submittals for this project, at the 60%, 90%, and 100% plan stages. The 100% plan will be submitted to MnDOT State Aid and the City/Hennepin County. We assume, based on conversations with the City and County, that the final construction plan would include improvements on 65th Street from the east side of Lyndale Avenue through the intersection with Nicollet Avenue. The portion of 65th from Lyndale to Grand is assumed to only consist of minor striping improvements and traffic control. It is also assumed that all improvements on Nicollet outside of the 65th Street Intersection will be part of construction plan set developed by Hennepin County. In addition to the final plan, this task includes quality control review of the plan set, special provisions for construction following the City of Richfield standard format, construction cost estimates (at 90% and 100%), and permitting. We understand that the City will compile the final bid package/project manual based on special provisions provided by Stonebrooke. Task 9 – Project Submittal/Bidding Stonebrooke will submit files as necessary to the City for construction staking. We have also included a minor amount of time for bidding assistance to answer questions and address necessary addenda. a 12467 Boone Ave, Ste 1 Savage, MN 55378 o 952.402.9202 f 952.403.6803 w stonebrookeengineering.com Task 10 – Obtain Permits and Approvals Stonebrooke will complete and submit permit applications for the NPDES stormwater permit and the Department of Health Watermain Extension permit. We assume that the City will be responsible for finalizing the railroad crossing agreements, however, we do expect to assist with that process including any necessary cost estimates, diagrams and layout, along with ensuring that the railroad proposed design/improvements (if any) will work with the proposed 65th Street improvements. Additional Task – Roundabout Design at 65th/Nicollet in Lieu of Signal If the Traffic Analysis indicates the preferred traffic control method at 65th/Nicollet is a roundabout, and the City and County agree to move forward in this direction, an additional task has been included to account for the additional design fee above that of a signalized intersection. This design work would include vertical design of the approaches to the North/South and curb lines, roundabout design checks, additional pavement markings/signing, lighting, topo survey of the approaches to the North and South, and possible construction staging alternatives. Schedule Based on discussion with City staff, we understand that the goal is to have a letting date of late January 2020. This will be dependent largely on coordination efforts and decision-making processes with both the HUB development and Hennepin County. A preliminary proposed schedule is as follows. We anticipate this will change as the project moves forward: Task Date Kickoff Meeting & PIM 1 (information collection) Mid/Late November 2018 Coordination Efforts with HUB Development and Hennepin County to Narrow/Define Project Scope/Schedule November 2018 to January 2019 Collect Traffic Data (after 66th Street work is complete and holidays over) January – February 2019 Traffic Analysis February – March 2019 65th Street and Nicollet Avenue Geometric Layouts March - April 2019 PIM 2 (Present Alternatives, gather feedback) Early May 2019 Preliminary Design May – July 2019 60% Plan Submittal 7/19/19 PIM 3 (Present Preferred Alternative with Construction Limits/Impacts) 8/14/19 90% Plan Submittal 9/20/19 a 12467 Boone Ave, Ste 1 Savage, MN 55378 o 952.402.9202 f 952.403.6803 w stonebrookeengineering.com 100% Plan Submittal (including State Aid) 10/25/19 Receive 100% Comments 11/19/19 Re-Submit final 100% Plan For Approval 11/26/19 Final Plan Approvals and Signatures 12/3/19 City Council Approves Plans/Specs & Authorize Bidding 12/10/19 Advertisement 1/7/20 Bid Opening 1/30/20 Summary Stonebrooke Engineering services will be provided on an hourly basis with a not to exceed cost. If, for any reason, an unforeseen situation is identified that would affect the cost, Stonebrooke will notify the City prior to completing the work. A cost proposal to complete the work is attached, including the hourly rates and the total not to exceed total project fee (which does not include optional tasks). A detailed cost breakdown by task has also been attached for your information. Please note that the rates for the estimate are based on 2019 rates, as we assume the majority of work will occur in 2019. Thank you, again, for this opportunity. We look forward to continuing to work with the City of Richfield. If you have any questions regarding this proposal feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Tyler W. Newhall, PE Accepted By:____________________________ Project Manager Stonebrooke Engineering, Inc. Title:___________________________________ Date:___________________________________ RESOLUTION NO. DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY WITH RESPECT TO THE 65TH STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service has issued Treas. Reg. § 1.150-2 (the “Reimbursement Regulations”) providing that proceeds of tax-exempt bonds used to reimburse prior expenditures will not be deemed spent unless certain requirements are met; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the “City”) expects to incur certain expenditures that may be financed temporarily from sources other than bonds, and reimbursed from the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds; and WHEREAS, the City has determined to make this declaration of official intent (the “Declaration”) to reimburse certain costs from proceeds of bonds in accordance with the Reimbursement Regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City proposes to undertake the 65th Street Reconstruction Project within the City (the “Project”). 2. The City reasonably expects to reimburse the expenditures made for certain costs of the Project from the proceeds of bonds in an estimated maximum principal amount of $4,000,000. All reimbursed expenditures will be capital expenditures, costs of issuance of the bonds, or other expenditures eligible for reimbursement under Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of the Reimbursement Regulations. 3. This Declaration has been made not later than 60 days after payment of any original expenditure to be subject to a reimbursement allocation with respect to the proceeds of bonds, except for the following expenditures: (a) costs of issuance of bonds; (b) costs in an amount not in excess of $100,000 or 5 percent of the proceeds of an issue; or (c) “preliminary expenditures” up to an amount not in excess of 20 percent of the aggregate issue price of the issue or issues that finance or are reasonably expected by the City to finance the Project for which the preliminary expenditures were incurred. The term “preliminary expenditures” includes architectural, engineering, surveying, bond issuance, and similar costs that are incurred prior to commencement of acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of a project, other than land acquisition, site preparation, and similar costs incident to commencement of construction. 4. This Declaration is an expression of the reasonable expectations of the City based on the facts and circumstances known to the City as of the date hereof. The anticipated original expenditures for the Project and the principal amount of the bonds described in paragraph 2 are consistent with the City’s budgetary and financial circumstances. No sources other than proceeds of bonds to be issued by the City are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside pursuant to the City’s budget or financial policies to pay such Project expenditures. 5. This Declaration is intended to constitute a declaration of official intent for purposes of the Reimbursement Regulations. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember ______________ and seconded by Councilmember _______________. The following voted in the affirmative: _________________________________________ The following voted against: ________________________________________________ Councilmember ________________________________ was absent. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 13th day of November, 2018. Pat Elliott, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose , City Clerk 65th Street Reco nstru ction Exten ts Source s: Esri, HERE , G armin , Inte rmap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,FAO , NP S, NRCAN, GeoBa se, IGN, Ka da ster NL, Ordnance Survey, EsriJapan, METI, Esri Chin a (Ho ng Ko ng), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMapcontributors, an d t he GIS User Community 11/5/2 018 , 3 :37:53 PM City of Richf ield G IS, Co un ty o f Dakota, Three Rive rs Park District, E sri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, USGS, EPA, USDA | 0 0.1 0 .20.05 mi 0 0 .2 0.40.1 km 1:8,262 Eng ineering AGENDA SECTION:RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM #13. STAFF RE P ORT NO. 209 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 11/13/2018 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: K ari S inning, D eputy C ity C lerk D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: E lizabeth VanHoose, C ity C lerk 11/7/2018 O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: John S tark, A cting C ity Manager 11/7/2018 I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N: Consideration of the adoption of a resolution determining the results of the City General Election on Tuesday, November 6, 2018. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: The City General Election was conducted on Tuesday, November 6, 2018 in conjunction with the State General Election. The City General Election included contests for the offices of Mayor and Council Member At-Large. The "unofficial" results of the election are attached and any relevant updates will be provided at the City Council meeting. The Richfield City Charter states that the Council shall meet and canvass the election returns at the next regular or Special Council meeting immediately following any regular, primary or special election, but in no event later than the time prescribed by State law, and must make full declaration of the results as soon as possible, and file a statement thereof with the City Clerk. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N: By Motion: Approve the resolution determining the results of the City General Election on Tuesday, November 6, 2018. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T This information is contained within the Executive Summary. B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): The City Charter provides that the City Council declare the results of the election. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 205 governs the conduct of municipal elections. Section 205.02, Subd. 2 states that all City elections are governed by Chapter 205 as far as practicable. Section 205.185, Subd. 3 sets the date for canvassing any city general election as “between the third and tenth days after an election.” The provisions of Chapter 205 preempt the City Charter; therefore the canvassing of election results is scheduled for the November 13, 2018 Regular City Council Meeting. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S: The City Council must take action by November 16, 2018. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: There is no financial impact. E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION: Legal review is not required. ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S): There are no alternative recommendations. P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G: None. AT TAC H ME N T S: D escription Type Resolution Resolution L etter Unofficial Results - A ttachment A B ackup Material RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DETERMINING RESULTS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2018 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the Council, having received and considered the tally of votes by the election judges of the General Election held November 6, 2018, the results are determined to be as follows: Votes cast for Mayor: Maria Regan Gonzalez 12695 Four Year Term Write-In 494 Votes cast for Council Member at-Large: Mary Supple 9831 Four Year Term Taylor Croissant Haag 3604 Write-In 185 Total number of Richfield voters in this election: 16,955 Attachment A is the complete tabulation of results. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following list of judges were those certifying returns of said election: Jorina Andrews John Ashmead Sara Boothe James Bushey Kirsten Croone Lisha Fairbairn Rebecca Guarino Brenda Kupfer Nancy Lindberg Wayne Peterson Paul Peterson Holly Rhodes Gail Sabasko Regan Sieck Mary Sievers Roger Swanson Mark Tilc Andrew Atkins Asa Brill Beck Nancy Buck Sandra Decker Wallis Durhamn III Denise Famodu Sharon Foster Richard Hall Abdulkadir Hashi Mary Hayden Ruth Johnson Bruce Larson Michele McGee Brad Obert Robert Rose Doris Rubenstein Anne Schuette Lynn Schuster Margaret Stainer Robert Sunderlin Mark Wange Bob Wells Donald Anderson James Atkins Pat Bailey Virginia Cain Leslie Carey Milissa Carter Carrie Chillman Barbara Cue Catherine Dinndorf Dee Dee Edlund Ryan Flueger Iryche Hickenbotham Karen Jenkins Janell Joyner Rick Loney Sandra Menning-Glavan Kate Panke Nayana Persaud Wanda Poston Maureen Scaglia Chuck Strauch Brett Stursa John Twisk Andrew Weston Christina Youso Joyce Anderson Rosemary Bernau Rosalie Bjorkman Linda Boyd Sheila Fitzgerald Robert Hall Janette Holter Yvette Keegan Beth Kingdon Andrew May Linda Nemitz Janet Purdie Sandra Schmidt Doris Thorson Elaine Wetsch Janelle Zein Elabdin Hazel Burnside Marjorie Cain Doris Christine Charles Dilliard Liz Ekholm Jack Exline Bridget Gaeleigh Jim Grant Linda Hinz Margaret Horan Lawrence Martin Sharon Mattson Isabelle Moulinier Susan Nielsen Marlene Odegard Monica Petrov Frank Ploog Jeffrey Rundgren Suzanne Thorpe Sandra Walstrom Katie Williams Carol Athey Mary Barnes Barbara Bauer Mary Boespflug Kenneth Boie Christie Burke David Clark Cindy Dubansky Ed Fletcher Judy Goebel Marilyn Jacobson Sita Johnson Richard Morey Thomas Murphy Christopher Okey Ruby Olson Mary Olson Robert Olson Mary Jo Tuttle Kenneth Vevea Lois Webb-Bradford Mark Wegener James Alagna Andrew Boeke Margaret Cole Kathy Collias Julie Danielson Jeanne Exline Gregory Frost Joe Garcia Grant Gartland Thomas Keegan Carol Lowe Natalie Madgy Marilyn Nienkerk Donna Nordin Carol Petkoff Erika Telkamp Cheryl Thiele Janet Thompson Lisa Wold Mary Ann Ashmead Stephen Aus Kimberly Blomberg Scott Dahlquist Pema Dorjee Marguerite Dozois James Harding Adrienne Hayes Claire Killian Derrick Miller Helen Nachicas Gloria Olson Margaret Schow K. Lashel Solberg David Vrieze Daniels Robert Amundson Jan Anderson Francie Fletcher Claire Gahler Cheryl Hjortaas Christine Kelly Jamie Lane Kathryn MacEachern Arden Mathison Karin McComb Sarah Musgrave Ivar Natins Cindy Norland Kevin O'Dare Moses Roberts Shannon Schmidt Nancy Walstrom Jeff Wright Deborah Zierden Elizabeth VanHoose Kari Sinning Marlys Solt John Holter Angela Faison Julie Smith Yvonne Atkins Judy Wood Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of November, 2018. Pat Elliott, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk Page 1 of 1 11/7/2018 10:24:38 AMUnofficial Results for Richfield Precincts City of Richfield Election November 6, 2018 NONPARTISAN Total % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Precinct CITY OFFICES Mayor 12,695 96.3% 945 1,762 1,626 1,416 1,589 1,638 1,107 1,048 1,564Maria Regan Gonzalez 494 3.7% 52 55 65 53 54 56 35 55 69WRITE-IN** Council Member - At-Large 3,604 26.5% 263 515 472 457 419 468 293 285 432Taylor Croissant Haag 9,831 72.2% 725 1,320 1,259 1,033 1,261 1,238 914 866 1,215Mary Supple 185 1.4% 25 31 21 19 18 20 12 17 22WRITE-IN** VOTER TURNOUT Total % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Precinct . Registered Voters 20,831 94.1% 1,539 2,952 2,667 2,373 2,493 2,611 1,822 1,733 2,641Persons Registered at 7:00 AM 1,296 5.9% 98 203 142 219 112 163 59 111 189New Registrations on Election Day 22,127 100.0% 1,637 3,155 2,809 2,592 2,605 2,774 1,881 1,844 2,830TOTAL REGISTERED VOTERS Ballots Cast 12,268 72.4% 954 1,604 1,659 1,522 1,365 1,490 1,065 1,118 1,491Number Voting at Polls 4,687 27.6% 314 761 573 385 737 655 446 303 513Number Voting Absentee 16,955 100.0% 1,268 2,365 2,232 1,907 2,102 2,145 1,511 1,421 2,004TOTAL PERSONS VOTING 76.6% 77.5% 75.0% 79.5% 73.6% 80.7% 77.3% 80.3% 77.1% 70.8%Turnout Percentage