01-10-2023 City Council AgendaR 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
J AN U ARY 10, 2023
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
Oath of office of Richfield C ity C ouncil Member, S haron C hristensen
Oath of office of Richfield Mayor, Mary S upple
P ledge of A llegiance
Open forum
C all into the open forum by dialing 1-415-655-0001 U se webinar access code: 2455 276 4170 and password:
1234.
P lease refer to the C ouncil A genda & M inutes web page for additional ways to submit comments.
A pproval of the Minutes of the (1) S pecial C ity C ouncil Meeting of November 16 2022; (2) C ity C ouncil Work S ession
of D ecember 8, 2022; (3) S pecial C ity C ouncil Meeting of D ecember 13, 2022; and (4) C ity C ouncil Regular Meeting
of D ecember 13, 2022.
AG E N D A APPR O VAL
1.A pproval of the A genda
2.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 onsider a resolution designating an official newspaper for 2023.
S taff Report No. 01
B .C onsider the approval of a first reading of an ordinance amendment aligning the Zoning C ode with the
C omprehensive P lan; eliminating the Two-F amily Residential (MR-1) Zoning D istrict, and amending the
S ingle-F amily Residential (R) D istrict.
S taff Report No. 02
C .C onsider approval to designate an A cting C ity Manager for 2023.
S taff Report No. 03
D .C onsider the designation of a Mayor P ro Tempore for 2023.
S taff Report No. 04
E .C onsider adoption of a resolution authorizing the C ity of Richfield to enter into Minnesota D epartment of
Transportation (MnD O T) A gency A greement No. 1052132 for F ederal P articipation in C onstruction to
allow MnD O T to act as the C ity's agent in accepting federal aid in connection with transportation projects.
S taff Report No. 05
F.C onsider the adoption of a resolution authorizing the Mayor and C ity Manger to execute Cooperative
Construction Agreement No. 1050958 between the C ity of Richfield and the S tate of Minnesota
D epartment of Transportation (MnD O T) for construction of the I-494: A irport to Highway 169 P roject 1.
S taff Report No. 06
G.C onsider approval of a C onstruction, Maintenance & E asement A greement between the C ity and Richfield
P roperty Holdings, L L C ; 15th NB P roperty1 L L C ; and 6345 P artners, L L C that grants an easement for
public pedestrian access and trail features and defines ownership and maintenance responsibilities for
certain features constructed at 600 64th S treet West.
S taff Report No. 07
H.C onsider resolutions designating official depositories for the C ity of Richfield for 2023, including the
approval of collateral.
S taff Report No. 08
I.C onsider a resolution authorizing the use of credit cards by C ity employees otherwise authorized to make
purchases on behalf of the C ity, and authorizing C ity Manager and F inance Manager to designate
employees to whom a card can be issued.
S taff Report No. 09
J.C onsider a resolution adopting the P urchasing and S pending A uthority P olicy for the employees and
officials of the C ity.
S taff Report No. 16
3.C onsideration of items, if any, removed from C onsent C alendar
P U B LIC H E AR IN G S
4.P ublic hearing and consider the approval of new On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses for
N T L L Hockey Ventures, LL C., dba Minnesota Whitecaps, located at the Richfield Ice Arena, 636
66th Street E.
S taff Report No. 10
5.P ublic hearing to consider vacating an existing utility easement to be replaced with new utility and stormwater
easements at 6500 Nicollet Avenue S outh, P artnership A cademy.
S taff Report No. 11
6.P ublic hearing and consider to approve the renewal of 2023 P awnbroker and S econdhand Goods D ealer
licenses for Metro P awn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue S outh.
S taff Report No. 12
PR O P O S E D O R D IN AN C E S
7.S econd reading of a proposed ordinance amendment modifying the Zoning C ode in relation to landscaping
requirements.
S taff Report No. 13
O T H E R B U S IN E S S
8.C onsider the C ity C ouncil's approval of the Mayor's appointments of Housing and Redevelopment A uthority
(HRA ) C ommissioners consisting of Mary S upple and S ean Hayford Oleary.
S taff Report No. 14
9.C onsider representatives to serve as the 2023 liaisons to various local, regional and state organizations, and C ity
boards and commissions.
S taff Report No. 15
C IT Y MAN AG E R’S R E P O R T
10.City Manager's Report
CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
11.Claims and Payroll
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
12.Hats Off to Hometown Hits
13.Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at
least 96 hours in advance to the Acting City Clerk at 612-861-97 12.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Special City Council Work Session
November 16, 2022
CALL TO ORDER
The special meeting was called to order by Mayor Regan Gonzalez at 4:00 p.m. in the
Bartholomew Room.
Council Members
Present:
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor; Mary Supple; Simon Trautmann; Sean
Hayford Oleary; and Ben Whalen
Staff Present:
Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director/Police
Chief, and Kari Sinning, City Clerk
Others Present:
Bob Scales, CEO of Police Strategies LLC
ITEM #1
PRESENTATION FROM BOB SCALES, CEO OF POLICE STRATEGIES LLC, ON A
DISPARITY ANALYSIS STUDY.
City Manager Rodriguez introduced the topic. She outlined how the city is using more data citywide to
analyze police performance. She noted that Richfield is the only city, besides Duluth, to undertake such a
study. This study looks at disparities in enforcement but is also a tool for us to learn more about how our
police interact with our community. She also noted the report has positive findings, but also shows areas to
better understand issues the community is sharing. She stated council has made equity part of the mission
visions and value.
Chief Henthorne provided a high-level summary of the work Richfield Police Department (RPD) is doing
on racial equity. He outlined the review process for use of force incidents and talked about the current tracking
system in place and what he hopes the department will get from this tool. He talked about the general
standards of the department and outlined the process to get to this point.
Bob Scales, CEO of Police Strategies, gave a summary of his background and goals of the analysis. He
provided a summary of work the company has done. He has helped law enforcement agencies collect and
analyze data. He discussed how he has been working on public safety and government data for many years
including being involved in overseeing police reforms in Seattle due to a consent decree through the
Department of Justice.
Mr. Scales discussed how some individuals try and evaluate racial bias using a population method. He
discussed a case where a group of researchers look at mortality, for black and white patients, in hospital
operations. The study found a 50 percent increase in mortality between white and black patients. This was
based on population. When they looked deeper into the data, they found several different correlations. What
they found was that the strongest correlation was the hospital’s location. It was found that hospitals located in
poorer communities have significantly higher mortality rates than those in wealthier areas. He talked about
City Council Special Work Session Minutes -2- November 16, 2022
how researchers need to look at a lot of different factors when trying to determine causation. He also
discussed how this population method can lead to skewed data. He said there is a need for a more academic
way to look at these figures. He talked about some of the new research that's being done at the Center for
Evidence Based Policing and how some of this work is being used by the California Chiefs Association on their
Racial and Identity Profiling Act data. He spoke of ways the data can be used and some of the shortcomings.
He talked about how ultimately the city should use this information to make data-driven decisions and develop
evidence based best practices to solve problems facing the community.
Council Member Hayford Oleary asked about officers’ incentive to lie when reporting the race of an
individual they have pulled over. Mr. Scales said that was one of the challenges, there are opportunities to play
the system. He said another challenge is that this evaluation assumes the officers can see the race of the driver
before they are stopped but, in many situations, that is not the case. He said a study of officers in Pleasanton,
CA, said that 91% of the time they were unable to determine the race of the individual before the stop. He said
this is a key data piece that should be known to understand the racial disparities, but really no agency is
collecting this information.
Mr. Scales talked about another challenge with using population-based evaluation. He said this
method gives everyone in the community the same likelihood of being pulled over. He talked about how this
assumes that senior citizens and young children have the same likelihood of being pulled over as anyone else.
He discussed how this is just not true and that it is better to evaluate based on arrests compared to calls for
service and the suspect’s description.
Council Member Whalen asked about what this assumption means in terms of who commits crimes in
Richfield. He asked if, looking at the data displayed, it is correct to accept that 45% of crimes in Richfield are
committed by black people. He is worried about the bias and racism that is behind this benchmark. He talked
about how there may be bias behind why police are called.
Mr. Scales said he wanted council to understand there's no perfect benchmark. He talked about how
other studies have tried to determine reliable benchmarks with little success. He again acknowledged this
method is not perfect, he did push that this a better way than population to examine racial disparities and try
to get at the underlying causes of those disparities. With this method, he argued there is a bit more
opportunity if police are over enforcing against specific groups in the community.
Council Member Whalen said he didn’t necessarily agree with this analysis and asked about how the
executive summary of the report states there were no identifiable disparities in the study, but the individual
tables show there are differences when it comes to enforcement. Mr. Scales said the findings of the report
does not suggest that there is systemic bias by the RPD. Mr. Scales acknowledged that the study does not
show if there are individual officers engaged in racial profiling. He also said the study does not show that,
without a shadow of doubt, there is no racial profiling going. What the report did identify were areas the
department and the community should focus their attention. He talked about some of the underlying causes
of criminality and how communities could make an impact with their work.
Council Member Supple asked if, based on the data presented, there are things the community can do
to decrease disparities. Mr. Scales said the report is to provide the RPD and council better information to make
impactful decisions and identify areas of focus. Mr. Scales talked about a specific program he worked on in
Seattle around driving with a suspended license. He said there were huge racial disparities in enforcement. He
noted that once they had real data, they were able to implement a successful program and dramatically
reduce racial disparities in the community.
Council Member Hayford Oleary asked about what information is required when a crime report comes
in. He provided an example of a time when a resident would call in and ask what information would appear on
the police report. Chief Henthorne went over how dispatch processes a call for service. Mr. Scales talked
City Council Special Work Session Minutes -3- November 16, 2022
about the new FBI system that will be replacing the Uniform Crime Reports and how it will help track more
data to better help evaluate demographic information on crime victims and reported crime suspects.
Council Member Hayford Oleary asked if there were reported states for traffic stops the city could
compare data with. Mr. Scales said that for a lot of these lower level stops the race and preferred gender are
not known and that causes several challenges to provide a good benchmark to enable a meaningful analysis of
the disparities. Council Member Hayford Oleary talked about the challenges he sees with this study’s process if
there is no information on these more frequent stops. Mr. Scales said he agreed with these limitations but that
there would need to a massive study to get this baseline data.
Chief Henthorne noted the challenging issue and spoke of how some traffic stops, like DWIs, will have
this information documented, but other interactions like speeding, both with warnings and tickets issued, do
not have this information included. He said that one of the recommendations from this report RPD is planning
to implement with the new software is to begin tracking this data for all interactions.
Council Member Whalen wanted to express his appreciation for the consultant and staff
acknowledging there are disparities in enforcement. He understands this work session was to discuss a specific
set of data, not to direct the council on resolving those disparities. He said some community members felt like
that was what this meeting was going to be about. He recognized the first conversation around these
disparities in a couple of years and believes the community is interested in the fuller picture. He appreciated
the tone and the comments from City Manager Rodriguez and Chief Henthorne along with their commitment
to work on these issues. He did feel like the executive summary of the report does not reflect these findings.
He acknowledged the data is a specific subset of a broader problem and that regardless of beliefs about
solutions, the city is still committed to reducing those racial disparities, knowing that they are much larger than
just whether individual officers are racially profiling.
Council Member Trautmann thanked the law enforcement community. He asked if the information in
the report findings were different than other communities. Mr. Scales said the findings were similar to what he
has seen in other jurisdictions. Council Member Trautmann said he was specifically talking about not finding
systemic bias in our community. He wanted to know if that was what he normally found or if that was just
Richfield. He asked Mr. Scales if any of his reports have found instances of bias. Mr. Scales said that he has
never found concrete examples of bias in any of his studies. He again discussed the many other factors that
drive these findings. He stated it is not to say there aren’t disparities across the system, but these findings are
not what he would expect to see if there was systemic bias and profiling happening in Richfield. Council
Member Trautmann discussed how injustice exists within many systems and looking at any part of society, be
it housing, health care, income, etc., one will find injustice.
Council Member Hayford Oleary said it was hard to trust the study when it always comes to the same
conclusion, regardless of which city was studied. Mr. Scales said the numbers do show disparities, but they are
larger society driven issues, not from the police enforcement side. Council Member Hayford Oleary talked
more about his discomfort with this method. He said he is particularly challenged by some of these
assumptions made when there is no data on race and traffic stops. Mr. Scales said he agreed with these
shortcomings, but he is only able to use the data available to him. He talked about how collecting better data is
one of the main recommendations in a lot of his reports. Council Member Hayford Oleary agreed there was a
need for better data.
Council Member Hayford Oleary talked about the findings on page 18 of disparity analysis and asked
about how Mr. Scales was able to reach his conclusion on low discretion stops. Mr. Scales said that when there
are measured racial disparities with both the population and benchmark evaluation process there’s strong
evidence there's a systemic problem of bias in the department. Mr. Scales stated that if there were systemic
bias happening, the disparities would be seen across all levels of stops, not just one portion. He talked about
ways that to narrow down the evaluation by the type of incident involved.
City Council Special Work Session Minutes -4- November 16, 2022
Mayor Regan Gonzalez said she wanted to have a deeper conversation with the council. She said that
equity is the area she works in and understands the challenges faced with the data currently available. She
noted the adage “garbage in, garbage out”. She asked what the vision is for the community and talked about
how this work is a piece of that conversation. She noted public changes that could be made to address
contributing factors to inequities in community but there's also things that can be done internally to make sure
the city is doing everything it can to make sure that it is not perpetuating inequities. She talked about her
experience working on equity issues in the healthcare system. She talked about the impact good data has in
addressing issues. She recognized the answer is not black and white when it comes to dealing with inequities.
Council Member Trautmann said he thought arguing over the methodology is maybe not the best use
of time. He recognized there are many ways to benchmark or evaluate programs. He wanted to know if there
were items identified in this study that should be looked at to focus actions. He didn’t want to wait another
two years to collect data before the work begins.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez called a break at 5:28 p.m.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez called the meeting back in session at 5:39 p.m.
Mr. Scales presented two videos and a podcast about racial bias, policing, data analysis and
population-based evaluation. He then talked about how these conversations related to his work and how some
prior community meetings in Duluth went when the report was presented to the community.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez asked if the council would like to have a discussion around goals. Council
Member Supple believed there should be time for council to discuss. Council Member Whalen seconded that
motion and wanted to hear about action steps. He also wanted to hear from Chief Henthorne on the
disparities, what is being seen in the daily work and what can be done to help. He said all involved want safer,
more crime free communities.
Mr. Scales presented the Richfield data. He talked about what to expect using risk adjusted
benchmarks, including detailing what the data would look like if there were systemic racism in the department.
He talked about how there were areas where they say increased numbers but did not see that increase at
every level if there was bias. He talked about the disparities he did find in the report. He said black individuals
are 3.6 times more likely to be reported as a crime suspect in Richfield based on their population. He also
noted that Native Americans are 50% more likely than their population to be reported in criminal behavior. He
then went over the methodology in how he determined these rates. Mr. Scales also noted Native Americans
are 20% more likely to be arrested based on their percentage of reported crimes, but blacks are 10% less likely
to be arrested based on their share of reported crimes. He talked about some of the limitations of this
evaluation.
Mr. Scales talked about disparities between genders in use of force; males are much more likely than
female arrestees to resist, threaten, or flee from the police. He said there was also in increase in number of
juveniles in terms of use of force. He again acknowledged this is a trend that was already known. Young men
tend to be more likely to have increased interactions with police. He also noted the increase may be because
the schools no longer have resource officers. Now, if the police respond to an incident at a school, the incident
is already elevated. Mayor Regan Gonzalez asked what year this study covered. Mr. Scales said the data set
goes back to 2018. Chief Henthorne said they stopped the school resource officer program two years ago. He
said the RPD is seeing an increase in serious felonies involving juveniles, particularly around guns and auto-
theft. Council Member Whalen asked if this is what officers were experiencing in their daily work. Chief
Henthorne said when officers encounter those juveniles, more use of force is needed, particularly with the
higher-level crimes like weapons possession and vehicle theft.
City Council Special Work Session Minutes -5- November 16, 2022
Council Member Whalen acknowledged the nature of policing in that 95% of their interactions are with
5% of the population but wanted to know if Chief Henthorne had any ideas about why 45% of the RPD
interactions were with black community members, who make up only 12% of our population. Chief Henthorne
said most of the RPD interactions are in response to reported crimes. He said the data shows that black
individuals are more likely to be reported suspects in Richfield. Council Member Whalen wanted to understand
how to reduce the trends being seeing in this data. He recognized there are many factors such as poverty,
mental health and not having housing that feed into these issues. Chief Henthorne said some of the work the
RPD is already doing around mental health is helping with some of these disparities. He also spoke of the
shocking data point that was found from this study in that non-Richfield residents make up around 75% of
arrests. He feels like this trend has to do with the current climate over the past two years with COVID and the
economy. He talked about how RPD is seeing more petty crimes like theft and simple robbery. Council
Member Whalen was surprised that 3/4 of our arrests are non-Richfield residents. He said he would be curious
to unpack why this is the case and Chief Henthorne agreed. Mr. Scales said that many communities that have
large retail centers like Target or Walmart, typically see these trends.
Mr. Scales presented on the use of force data. He discussed how there is higher than expected rates of
use of force with juveniles but discussed how this is most likely connected to the crimes discussed earlier in
the presentation. Chief Henthorne talked about the use of force trends seen by RPD and how command staff
deals with a use of force incident. Council Member Supple wanted to know if it would be useful to track when
officers could have used force but did not. Chief Henthorne said that is something they would like to track in
the future. Mr. Scales said this data would be very helpful for this conversation.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez wanted to take the next part of the meeting to focus more on the
conversation with council, police, and community. She thanked Mr. Scales for the report and opened the
meeting for discussion.
Council Member Trautmann asked what all this means if the data is lacking. He wanted to give Mr.
Scales some time to explain what we can do with this information. Mr. Scales thanked the council for the
opportunity to respond. He stated the city can start addressing issues identified and continue to pull better
data as time goes on as these are the first steps in a larger discussion.
Council Member Hayford Oleary said he was concerned about various items included in the report. He
does not feel comfortable changing the report. He would like to have more studies done to make sure the city
has all the best available data to make informed decisions.
Chief Henthorne thanked the mayor and council for this discussion. He said the RPD has already
started working on many of the recommendations outlined in the report. He discussed some of the technology
changes that are coming online soon and how this will help up better track this data. He said it’s been a big
project to move the historic data into a file for use later. He also talked about how staff is completely starting
over regarding data tracking with a new system. He wanted to be sure that the information they gather
moving forward is reliable. He said this has been a lot of work for a small staff and that they are continuing to
push forward with this work. City Manager Rodriguez also talked about the significant budget invested in these
changes has been. The RPD has been looking everywhere for funds to help make these upgrades and the city
needs to be sure these items are budgeted for to move forward with this work.
Council Member Hayford Oleary asked Chief Henthorne about consent searches and if they have
additional info on these stops. Chief Henthorne said we do not do these types of searches in Minnesota as all
stops need reasonable suspicion. Council Member Whalen asked if this new software will be better able to
track the traffic stops. Chief Henthorne said this information would now be required in the new reports.
Council Member Trautmann thanked everyone for the discussion and believed in the work we are doing.
City Council Special Work Session Minutes -6- November 16, 2022
Council Member Whalen said there were a few additional items he would like to look at in the future.
The first item was the percentage of arrests compared to conviction. He felt like this number would be able to
tell if enforcement is justified. He also wanted to know more about the work the social workers are doing. He
would love to see actual numbers for their impacts. How many people helped and what type of people. He
talked about some of the legislative priorities for the city and how Chief Henthorne have been working on
some of these items at the state level. Chief Henthorne provided some comments on the impact the
department’s social worker is having in the community. Mr. Scales talked about the prosecution data and how
it is a challenging way to determine if a stop was correct. He went over many of the factors that may impact a
prosecutor’s choice to proceed with a case.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez talked about her hope for this work and the collective goal for the community
and council in the future. She understands this is a first step in a broader conversation. She acknowledged
these issues permeate most of society and has persisted for hundreds of years. She understands there is a lot
of work to come.
Council Member Whalen said he was a little surprised to see that there was no council direction
sought today but now understands this means the conversation and work will continue. He asked about next
steps. Chief Henthorne talked about how this work is historic and that RPD has never look inward like this
before. He said they will continue to work on these challenges and will continue to look at ways to improve.
Council Member Whalen wanted to continue the conversation and didn’t want to wait 2 years for new data.
He stated he wanted actions to start now and to have check in with council and the community throughout
this process.
Chief Henthorne said he appreciated the comments. He said he needs to caution the council about
what they may see and one of the challenges is that if the police are called, they need to respond. Based on
the data this may keep pushing these disparities. He said these are the first steps in many meetings.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez thanked all involved in this discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
The work session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:03 p.m.
Date Approved: January 10, 2023
Mary Supple
Mayor
Katie Rodriguez
City Clerk City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
City Council Special Meeting
December 8, 2022
CALL TO ORDER
The special meeting was called to order by Mayor Regan Gonzalez at 4:01 p.m. in the
Bartholomew Room.
Council Members
Present:
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor; Mary Supple; Simon Trautmann; Sean
Hayford Oleary; and Ben Whalen
Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Kristen Asher, Public Works Director; Amy
Markle, Recreation Services Director; Sack Thongvanh, Assistant City
Manager; Paul Smithson, Program Manager; Kumud Verma, Finance
Manager, Chris Link, Deputy Public Works Director, and Chris Swanson,
Management Analyst
Others Present: Scott Barsuhn, Consultant; Glenn Waguespack, HGA; Ashleigh Grizzell,
HGA
ITEM #1
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF A LOCAL SALES TAX.
City Manager Rodriguez introduced the items for the work session, went over the history of the
Local Sales Tax (LST) and outlined the next steps in the approval process. She then provided an
overview of the last work session discussion of LST with the main addition to the list of projects being
a community center.
Director Markle reviewed what was discussed during the October 18 work session on LST. She
introduced the team who has been working on the project. Director Markle provided an overview on
LST and the parameters. She then presented the first project, the W ood Lake Nature Center (WLNC).
She went over the current programs and uses of the WLNC and the reginal significance of the project.
She outlined the WLNC project scope, timelines and budget.
Director Markle outlined the second project staff proposed, the Veterans Park complex. She
went over the current amenities offered and the needs of the facilities. She spoke of the major needs
including the outdated pool liner and ADA upgrades to the arena. She discussed the vision the city has
for the Veterans Park complex and the reginal significance of the park. She stated 35% of the pool pass
holders are from Minneapolis or other cities.
Director Markle presented the third project for council review, Donaldson Park. She talked about
the current use of the park, particularly how the value provides to Minnesota Independence College and
Community (MICC). She went over the reginal significance of the project and what projects within the
park would be funded by LST.
City Council Work Session Minutes -2- December 8, 2022
Director Markle then presented the Taft Park project. She discussed some of the projects going
on at the site and how the community currently uses the park. Many groups from across the metro are
using this park, specifically there is a lot of interest in having additional soccer fields at the property.
She discussed looking at the option of a dome at the site and discussed the pros and cons that come
with this option. Director Markle talked about how several other cities have told her it’s hard to break
even with a dome and there are a lot of challenges with these types of buildings.
The next project presented to council was a general park system improvement. Director Markle
discussed how there is a lot of opportunity to better connect our trails and bike routes. The system is
lacking many of these connections. Director Markle provided an overview of the current bike routes in
the city.
Council Member Hayford Oleary asked what 5 million dollars would do in terms of upgrading
existing trails in the parks. Director Markle said this amount of funding could do a lot for the trails and
believed it could upgrade three trails within the parks.
Director Markle went over the final project for council to review; this was the community center.
She went over the current use of the community center and the significant regi onal significance of the
center. She discussed the lunch for seniors and the tax prep assistance. She acknowledged that there
would be a significant increased annual operating cost with a new facility. The costs for an improvement
to the community center goes from around 9 million dollars for a retrofit, to 48 million dollars, for a fully
reconstructed building. Director Markle discussed some of the restrictions at the site. She said the HGA,
the architectural firm hired to assist with the project, looked at the site and was able to show some
examples of what could be done with the location.
Director Markle talked about what she has heard from the community regarding wants and
needs for a future community center. She has heard seniors would like safe spaces to walk in the winter
and areas for small children from parents.
Council Member Whalen asked about the difference between event and meeting space. Director
Markle talked about the differences in that event spaces are larger gathering areas used for weddings,
family reunions, etc. while meetings rooms are typically smaller rooms to be used to host meetings.
Director Markle talked about some of the limitations at the site. This includes some challenges
with parking, conservation areas and the fact that the building is in a very residential neighborhood.
Director Markle talked through the options available for the community center site. She went over what
each option offers and the cost for each level of project.
Council Member Hayford Oleary asked how big of a cost difference it would be if there was not
underground parking. Glenn Waguespack, HGA, talked about the costs saving from not having
structured parking. Mr. Waguespack mentioned that the going rate is around $35,000 per stall. He also
mentioned that Option 6 sees around a $5.5-6 million dollars in parking costs. He said there is a range
of savings depending on where the parking is located.
Council Member Trautmann discussed the ongoing cost savings from not having unground
parking. He noted the additional costs from maintenance and heating will continue to grow.
Director Markle talked about the parking challenges and the land and water grant were the
biggest limitation of the site. She then presented a slide on what could be seen for price escalation in
the next few years. She also talked about the possible additional building construction standards
required with constructing a new building, specially, the building may need to meet a higher green
building code standard if the project is put on hold.
City Council Work Session Minutes -3- December 8, 2022
Council Member Supple asked about if there would be a cost associated with the existing grade
of the site. Mr. Waguespack said that it could possibly help or hurt, and they would need to do some
additional projections to know the impacts.
Council Member Trautmann asked if there were any other city sites that would maybe be better
options for a structure like this. He asked if this building would take the place of an existing field. Director
Markle said there was discussion about changing the location of the community center but that it would
forfeit a lot of green space. She said staff was also worried about the impact it would have on the
athletics programs if it were to replace a field. She recognized there would be significant challenges at
any of the sites for a building of this size.
Director Markle went over the next steps for this process. Staff recommended to ask the
legislature for LST approval in 2024 so there is time to get more focused with this work. Staff was also
looking to have the council provide feedback on LST project priorities. Staff presented two options:
Option A and B. Staff would recommend that WLNC and Veterans Park be included in LST
recommendations and wanted to discuss further the direction of the community center.
Council Member Whalen talked about what the Community Services Commission
recommended regarding LST projects during the last meeting. He said there was support for Option B
from the commission. He said he recognized the park work is important, but not feel these general
maintenance projects would be a driver for community support like projects with the WLNC and the
community center would be. He talked about how he does not feel there is a need for an event space
at the community center if there is space available at the WLNC. He would also like to explore other
parking options for cost and space
Council Member Supple had been evaluating when the city’s project list should be brought to
the legislature for approval. He recognized the list can always be paired down; she felt as though it
should go to the legislature in 2023. Going earlier would give the city room to maneuver. She favored
Option B.
City Manager Rodriguez said there has already been conversations with the lobbyist and
Representative Howard about what the best approach to successfully lobbying the legislature for the
LST approval. She detailed how there is a 30-40% increase to cover the cost of the bond issuance. She
talked about how the city can offset some of these increased bond admin costs by being strategic with
when the city issues and pays off debt. She also talked about how this list does not encompass all the
needs for park and infrastructure. She said there is still a lot of need around the community as most of
these facilities have not been upgraded since the 1960's. As of right now, the city does not have other
tools to address these funding challenges.
Council Member Whalen asked how the GO bonds were used in the past and if we know how
many times in the next ten years the city plans to go out for bonds. City Manager Rodriguez stated the
city has tried to go out for bonding for large term projects when prior issuances are set to be paid off.
Council Member Whalen asked if there was any capacity to pursue more bonding for non-public works
projects.
Council Member Supple wanted to follow up on Council Member Whalen’s question, she said
MET council had some projects coming up on their work plan. She wanted to know if we were going to
use bonding to cover the city’s share of this work. Public Works Director Astor said she wasn’t aware
of any MET projects coming up.
Council Member Trautmann said he is supportive of pushing forward for community center early
and aggressively. He feels like Richfield has a diverse community with a lot of needs. He said there is
a lot of overlap in terms of need but feels there are benefits for the senior community with the new
building. He said that on a more granular note, he has had restaurant owners approach him about using
some of the old park spaces for restaurants. He believed this would be a positive impact and good
City Council Work Session Minutes -4- December 8, 2022
space making. He felt like the dome would be the first project to go to look at reducing the total cost. He
asked if there was time to think about creating a steering committee for these community projects. He
was in support for Option B. City Manager Rodriguez provided a bit more information on what the
difference between the two staff recommendations. She noted that a building inventory project is
scheduled for next year in the strategic plan. Council Member Trautmann thanked staff for the additional
comments and believed this is the time to have this conversation and make some of these generational
decisions.
Council Member Hayford Oleary asked if we would still do the building inventory even if we move
forward with these projects. City Manager Rodriguez confirmed.
Council Member Hayford Oleary said he was still torn on this decision. He thinks residents have
several ways to access gyms and the community center currently. He still felt like Option B is the correct
next step and spoke about how we still need to identify ways to get reliable funds for the trails and other
smaller projects in the parks.
Council Member Whalen appreciated the comments, in his mind getting approval doesn’t
commit to putting everything on the ballot but thought it would be good put it on the 2024 ballot. He felt
as though there would certainly be other needs that could be described as a regional project, but the
city may struggle to get past the local feel of these projects. City Manager Rodriguez said staff would
have to do more research between now and when this is brought to residents for a vote.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez asked Council Member Whalen if he was in support of Option B and
Council Member Whalen confirmed. Mayor Regan Gonzalez said she had been thinking about this
conversation for a long time. She understands there is a lot of prior conversation about bonding and
how the city is trying to move away from maxing out the bonding each year. She also felt as though
there should be a discussion on how the community, particularly our commercial sector, is changing.
She recognized that what happens with the HUB is a big question and only so much can be done with
the site. She said looking at all the infrastructure needs, particularly energy efficiency work that could
be done, would be of more value and would be more in support of Option A. Regardless, she felt like
the city should do the building inventory assessment before making a big decision.
Council Member Whalen questioned how legislature would receive the proposal. He said that
given the city is still in conversation about the community center, he didn’t want to miss any opportunity
to do another project if the city decides to not pursue this project. He wanted to know if there were any
reasons staff would not propose all five projects. City Manager Rodriguez said most communities were
approved for the 20-year timeframe and $90 million in LSTs was the most that was approved by the
legislature last year. She said anything above this amount would be a large ask from the legislature.
Director Markle said she had also been thinking about the future for the community center. If not
now, she doesn’t know when the city could find money for this project. City Manager Rodriguez said
Director Markle told her there were more resources to find funding for some of these other projects then
to get funding for a new community center. She said Director Markle felt staff can piece together funding
for theses smaller park projects over the next years, where the community center would be a challenge.
Council Member Trautmann said this is the type of project that will suck up the air in the room,
but also provide an amazing opening for the community and is willing to lean into this work.
City Manager Rodriguez said she has heard consensus on going to the legislature in 2023 and
that staff should proceed with Option B. She said there will be more detail on the projects when the
resolution is brought to council for final approval. Director Markle said staff recommended Option 5 for
the community center project. She talked about how the two gyms would offer the opportunity to hold
tournaments. She spoke of the challenges of an indoor play places and thought the gym and walking
track is the greatest need in the community.
City Council Work Session Minutes -5- December 8, 2022
Council Member Whalen supported staff recommendations. He said the gyms can be used for
any number of things such as resource fairs and felt as some of the other amenities included in the
proposals were not needed.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez asked if the standard programing in the community center would
continue at the new site. Director Markle confirmed.
Council Member Trautmann said he was open to Options 5 and 6 for the community center. He
still wanted staff to look at the parking requirements. He recognized that the 10-13% increase of cost
from unground parking is challenging and asked of the possibility of leasing office space at this site.
Council Member Trautmann left at 5:25.
Council Member Supple would support Option 3 or 5 as well as reducing the amount of parking.
Council Member Hayford Oleary said he was unsure how many gyms would be needed and
asked about how specific the LST ask would need to be to the legislature and if there is flexibility once
approved. Director Markle said there would be some flexibility with the ask and what the actual projects
looks like once approved.
Council Member Whalen wanted to comment on the bigger conversation had on the financing.
He thought it has been great the city has historically invested in roads and infrastructure, but also thinks
the city needs to provide more financial support to Parks and Recreation. He felt as though at some
point there may need to be a normal bonding schedule to include parks.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez said that in addition to a needs assessment it would be good to look at
the financing levers available and how the city can best use them. She felt this is the time to start seeing
what the big picture for sustainable funding is as it goes through all departments and facets of city work.
She expressed excitement for these projects and cannot wait to be part of the team as a community
member.
City Manager Rodriguez summarized the next steps for this process.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez thanked staff for all their work.
ADJOURNMENT
The work session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 5:33 p.m.
Date Approved: January 10, 2022
Mary Supple
Mayor
Chris Swanson Katie Rodriguez
Management Analyst City Manager
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Regan Gonzalez called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Council Members Present:
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor; Mary Supple; Ben Whalen; and
Simon Trautmann; and Sean Hayford Oleary
Staff Present:
Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Jay Henthorne, Public Safety
Director/Police Chief; Sack Thongvanh, Assistant City Manager,
Kumud Verma, Finance Manager; Chris Swanson,
Management Analyst; and Kelly Wynn, Administrative Assistant
Others Present: Council Member-Elect, Sharon Christensen
ITEM #1
CONDUCT A TRUTH IN TAXATION PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE 2023
PROPERTY TAX LEVY AND 2022 REVISED/2023 PROPOSED BUDGET AND
PROPOSED 2023 UTILITY RATES. STAFF REPORT NO. 188
Mayor Regan Gonzalez presented the item.
Finance Manager Verma reviewed the timetable and key events of the Levy along with:
Key issues for 2022/2023;
History of state aid;
Forecast of City Reserves
2023 Proposed Preliminary Levy
Gross Tax Levy History
2023 Proposed Levy Impact on the average home
2023 Proposed General Fund Budget
General Fund History
General Fund Revenues
2023 Proposed Budget General Fund Revenues
General Fund Expenditures
2023 Proposed Budget General Fund Expenditures
Staffing Update
Mayor Regan Gonzalez thanked staff for the work of putting the difficult budget together
due to the need for increased staff and inflation. She then opened the public hearing
Mark Hoffman. 6511 Logan Ave S, expressed concerns of a potential 21% increase in
property taxes. He spoke of some research he did of the houses in his area and his concerns
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Special Council Meeting
December 13, 2022
City Council Meeting Minutes -2- December 13, 2022
of subsidizing more expensive houses. He asked what he would be getting for the 21%
increase.
M/Regan Gonzalez S/Trautmann to close the public hearing
Motion carried: 5-0
M/Regan Gonzalez S/Supple to schedule final action on the 2023 property tax levy and 2022
Revised/2023 Proposed Budget and proposed 2023 utility rates.
Motion carried: 5-0
Item #2
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:23 p.m.
Date Approved: January 10, 2023
Mary Supple
Mayor
Kelly Wynn Katie Rodriguez
Administrative Assistant City Manager
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Regan Gonzalez called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Council Members Present:
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor; Simon Trautmann; Mary
Supple; Ben Whalen; and Sean Hayford Oleary
Staff Present:
Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Kristen Asher, Public Works
Director; Joe Powers, City Engineer; Amy Markle, Recreation
Services Director; Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director; Mike
Dobesh, Fire Chief; Sack Thongvanh, Assistant City Manager;
Kelly Wynn, Administrative Assistant; and Chris Swanson,
Management Analyst
Others Present: Council Member-Elect, Sharon Christensen
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Regan Gonzalez led the Pledge of Allegiance.
OPEN FORUM
Mayor Regan Gonzalez reviewed the options to participate:
Participate live by calling 1-415-655-0001 during the open forum portion
Call prior to meeting 612-861-9711
Email prior to meeting kwynn@richfieldmn.gov
Mara Glubka, Richfield resident, honored Maria and thanked her for her service to the
community of Richfield.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Trautmann, S/Whalen to approve the Minutes of the: (1) Special City Council Meeting of
November 16, 2022; (2) Special City Council Work Session of November 19, 2022; and (3) City
Council Work Session of November 22, 2022; and (4) Regular City Council Meeting of November
22, 2022.
Motion carried: 5-0
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Regular Council Meeting
December 13, 2022
City Council Meeting Minutes -2- December 13, 2022
ITEM #1
PRESENTATION OF THE EDWINA GARCIA COMMUNITY BUILDER AWARD
AND PROCLAMATION TO EMILIA GONZALEZ AVALOS
Mayor Regan Gonzalez presented proclamation and award to Emilia Gonzalez Avalos. She
expressed gratitude for Emilia and the work she has done for Richfield.
Emilia Gonzalez Avalos thanked the city for the support and the leadership of a Latina Mayor,
specifically during the challenging times of Covid.
Council Member Supple added thanks for her advocacy in the community.
Council Member Whalen spoke of the transformational powerhouse of Unidos to create space
and give a voice to so many people. He thanked her for everything she does.
Council Member Hayford Oleary congratulated Emilia on the award and shared the impression
she has made on him and positivity she has brought.
Council Member Trautmann echoed comments and expressed excitement to see her work
recognized and acknowledged.
ITEM #2
RECOGNITION OF MAYOR MARIA REGAN GONZALEZ
Judy Moe and members of Richfield Disability Advocacy Partnership (RDAP) expressed deep
gratitude for her support and mentorship.
Ruth Evangelista and members of La Red spoke of the impact the mayor has had on the
community and thanked her for her leadership.
Representative Mike Howard thanked Mayor Regan Gonzalez for always bringing her whole
self. He spoke of how many leaders she has made and lifted up in the community.
Crystal Brakke and members of the Richfield Public Schools spoke of the constant focus
Mayor Regan Gonzalez has had on the community’s young people.
City Manager Rodriguez expressed gratitude for Mayor Regan Gonzalez and the impact she
has made on residents an everyone she meets.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez spoke of how the community has so greatly impacted her life and how
much she has learned along with some of the accomplishments she was able to achieve. She then
thanked her family and community for all the support she has been given.
ITEM #3
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
M/ Hayford Oleary, S/Whalen to approve the agenda.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #4
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Council Meeting Minutes -3- December 13, 2022
City Manager Rodriguez presented the consent calendar.
A. Consider to approve the renewal of the 2023 licenses for On-Sale 3.2 Percent Maly Liquor,
Off-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor and Secondhand Goods Dealers doing business in
Richfield (Staff Report No. 171)
B. Consider to approve the renewal of the 2023 licenses for On-Sale Intoxicating/Club, Wine
and 3.2 Malt Liquor licenses. (Staff Report No. 172)
C. Consider the adoption of a resolution authorizing Richfield Public Safety/Police Department
to accept donations from the listed agencies, businesses and private individuals for
designated uses. (Staff Report No. 173)
D. Consider the adoption of a resolution designating polling places for 2023. (Staff Report No.
174)
E. First Reading of a proposed ordinance amendment modifying the Zoning Code in relation to
landscaping requirements. (Staff Report No. 175)
F. Consider the adoption of a resolution accepting grants and donations received by the
Richfield Recreation Services Department in 2021 and 2022 and authorizing the Recreation
Services Department to administer the funds in accordance with any applicable grant
agreements and terms prescribed by donors. (Staff Report No. 176)
G. Consider the approval of setting a public hearing to be held on January 10, 2023, to consider
the issuance of new On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses for NTLL Hockey
Ventures, LLC., dba Minnesota Whitecaps, located at the Richfield Ice Arena, 636 66th Street
E. (Staff Report No. 177)
H. Consider approval of a contract renewal with Adesa Minneapolis for 2022-2023 for
auctioning forfeited vehicles from Public Safety/Police. (Staff Report No. 178)
I. Consider a resolution accepting donations to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. (Staff
Report No. 179)
J. Consider the approval of resolutions of support for Public Works’ Active Transportation grant
applications to MnDOT for the installation of a sidewalk on 73rd St and construction of
intersection improvements at the 66th St/Richfield Parkway roundabout. (Staff Report No.
180)
K. Consider the adoption of a resolution to accept a grant of $2,395.90 from the Office of Justice
Programs for bullet proof vests. (Staff Report No. 181)
M/Supple, S/ Trautmann to approve the consent calendar.
Council Member Supple thanked the many generous groups for grants and donations. She was
also thankful of the changes made to the landscaping ordinance.
Council Member Whalen echoed landscaping changes and is happy to see a variety of trees.
Council Member Trautmann spoke of the great restaurant options within Richfield.
Motion carried: 5-0
City Council Meeting Minutes -4- December 13, 2022
ITEM #5
CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT
CALENDAR
None.
ITEM #6
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SPENDING
PLAN FOR UNOBLIGATED TAX INCREMENT (STAFF REPORT NO. 182)
Council Member Trautmann presented Staff Report 182.
Director Poehlman reminded Council of the work session that took place to discuss the funds
addressed in staff report.
Council Member Trautmann opened the public hearing.
M/Trautmann, S/Supple to close the public hearing.
M/Trautmann, S/Hayford Oleary to approve the attached resolution and Spending Plan for
unobligated tax increment.
Council Member Supple thanked staff for the research done on this item.
Council Member Whalen expressed excitement for this development plan and how this aligns
with the strategic plan.
Council Member Trautmann acknowledged the great work staff has done and the resources
that have been utilized.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez expressed gratitude and is excited to see what comes from the
funding.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #7
PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER TO APPROVE THE RENEWAL OF 2023
PAWNBROKER AND SECONDHAND GOODS DEALER LICENSES FOR
METRO PAWN & GUN, INC., 7529 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH (STAFF
REPORT NO. 183)
Council Member Hayford Oleary presented staff report 183.
M/ Hayford Oleary, S/Supple to continue the public hearing to January 10, 2023 and extend the
license for Metro Pawn and Gun to January 10, 2023.
Motion carried: 4-0 (Council Member Trautmann temporarily stepped away.)
ITEM #8
CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE TRANSFER FROM THE
LYNDALE GATEWAY/INTERCHANGE WEST, URBAN VILLAGE, AND CITY
BELLA TAX INCREMENTS FINANCING DISTRICTS TO THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING TRUST FUND AND CONSIDERATION OF PRIORITIES FOR THE USE
City Council Meeting Minutes -5- December 13, 2022
OF TRUST FUND RESOURCES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENTS (STAFF REPORT NO. 184)
Council Member Supple presented staff report 184.
Director Poehlman reminded Council of which locations are receiving funds and how much.
M/ Supple, S/Whalen to (1) Adopt a resolution accepting the transfer of $750,000 from the
Lyndale Gateway / Interchange West, Urban Village and City Bella Tax Increment Financing Districts
to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund; and (2) Adopt priorities for the use of Trust Fund resources when
assisting affordable housing developments.
Council Member Whalen expressed appreciation for such priorities being recognized by the
HRA and Richfield.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez spoke of the excitement to see funds going to areas that really are in
need.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #9
CONSIDER RESOLUTIONS APPROVING THE 2022 REVISED/2023 PROPOSED
BUDGET AND TAX LEVY AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS. (STAFF REPORT
NO. 185)
Council Member Whalen presented staff report 185.
City Manager Rodriguez spoke of the challenging 2023 budget due to inflation and the tight
labor market.
M/ Whalen, S/Supple to adopt the resolutions approving the 2022 Revised/2023 Proposed
budget and tax levy and related resolutions.
Council Member Supple thanked staff for their work on the budget and the wage study that will
be taking place.
Council Member Hayford Oleary echoed gratitude for running the city well and doing
everything possible to keep the levy as low as possible.
Council Member Trautmann thanked staff and spoke of the improvements of infrastructure
going on throughout the city.
Council Member Whalen added that balance is key and staff is doing what is possible with the
resources the city has and keeping the residents in mind.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #10
CONSIDER THE APPOINTMENTS TO THE CITY ADVISORY BOARD AND
COMMISSIONS (STAFF REPORT NO. 186)
City Council Meeting Minutes -6- December 13, 2022
Council Member Supple presented staff report 186 and thanked all the residents who applied
and interviewed with Council.
M/ Supple, S/Hayford Oleary to appoint members to fill the expiring or vacant terms on City
advisory board and commissions referenced in the attached list.
Council Member Whalen echoed thanks to residents and spoke of the amount of wisdom they
bring to the table.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #11
CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF THE CITY’S LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES FOR
2023. (STAFF REPORT NO. 187)
Council Member Whalen presented staff report 187.
City Manager spoke of the process and thanked Management Analyst Chris Swanson for his
work.
M/ Whalen, S/Trautmann to adopt the proposed legislative priorities for 2023. By adopting the
legislative platform formally, the City Council shows these priorities are in the best interest of the
community and provides increased visibility for the issues.
City Manager Rodriguez expressed appreciation for the partnership between Council and staff
during the process.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #12
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A NEW AGREEMENT WITH THE RICHFIELD
TOURISM AND PROMOTION BOARD. (STAFF REPORT NO. 189)
Council Member Hayford Oleary presented staff report 189.
City Manager Rodriguez thanked Council Member Trautmann for pushing to update the
agreement along with other staff for taking time in getting it done.
M/ Hayford Oleary, S/Supple to approve the updated agreement with the Richfield Tourism and
Promotion Board.
Council Member Whalen expressed excitement to have more community representation on the
board.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #13
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Rodriguez supplied answers to resident questions from previous Council
meetings.
City Council Meeting Minutes -7- December 13, 2022
ITEM #14
CLAIMS AND PAYROLL
M/ Supple, S/Trautmann that the following claims and payrolls be approved:
U.S. BANK 12/13/2022
A/P Checks: 310935 - 311270 $1,802,676.07
Payroll: 174752 – 175380, 43526 - 43628 $1,490,028.57
TOTAL $3,292,704.64
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #15
HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS
Council Member Whalen attended the opening of the D-Line and encouraged residents to
utilize the new transit line. He then thanked Mayor Regan Gonzalez for the leaders she has helped
develop.
Council Member Supple thanked public works staff for the tour of the 77 underpass. She then
expressed admiration for Mayor Regan Gonzalez and everything she has done for the community.
Council Member Hayford Oleary spoke of the re-opening of Hope Church after their
renovation. He then spoke of past interaction they had and how inspiring she has been.
Council Member Trautmann expressed deep gratitude for Mayor Regan Gonzalez.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez thanked Council for their admiration. She then spoke of the wonderful
job public works is doing plowing the city. She also mentioned the 3rd annual holiday lights parade on
December 15. She thanked the staff and city for really focusing on what matters most.
ITEM #16
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:45 p.m.
Date Approved: January 10, 2023
Mary Supple
Mayor
Kelly Wynn Katie Rodriguez
Administrative Assistant City Manager
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #2.A.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 01
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
1/10/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: K elly Wynn, A dministrative A ssistant
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
1/4/2023
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider a resolution designating an official newspaper for 2023.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Section 13.01 of the Charter of the City of Richfield requires the City Council annually designate an official
newspaper for the City.
The Richfield Sun-Current has served as the official paper for the City since 1969 and has proven to be a
reliable and professional publication that is delivered to nearly all residences in the City. The Richfield Sun-
Current has expressed an interest in continuing to serve as the official newspaper of the City.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Adopt a resolution designating the Richfield Sun-Current as the official newspaper for the
City of Richfield for 2023.
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 in the Executive Summary.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
This information is contained in the Executive Summary.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The City Council typically considers the designation of an official newspaper at the first meeting in
J anuary of each year.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
The 2023 price quote from the Sun-Current for the publication of legal notices is reasonable and similar
to the cost of publishing in the Star Tribune.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
A newspaper must be designated each year by the City for publication of all official and legal City
business.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
The City Council may choose to postpone designation of an official newspaper to a future meeting and
request the City Clerk’s office to gather quotes from other newspapers.
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
S tar Tribune B ackup Material
S un C urrent B ackup Material
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING AN
OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 2023
WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Richfield requires in Section 13.01
thereof that the City Council annually designate an official newspaper for the
City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Richfield Sun-Current
is designated the official legal newspaper for the City of Richfield for 2023 for
all publications required to be published therein.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th
day of January, 2023.
Mary Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk
2023 Designated Legal Newspaper Rates
•$1.31 per line per day
o Legal notices will also run on startribune.com at no extra charge.
•Approximately $14.85 per column inch
o Notices are charged per line not per column inch so you are not paying for space
you are not using.
Deadlines (applies to placement, changes & cancellations):
•Two days prior to first publication date at 4pm CST
•Publication Date Deadline
Monday Friday 4pm
Tuesday Friday 4pm
Wednesday Monday 4pm
Thursday Tuesday 4pm
Friday Wednesday 4pm
Saturday Thursday 4pm
Sunday Friday 4pm
•Deadlines will be advanced for holidays.
Affidavits:
•Emailed 24-48 business hours after last publication date
Circulation
•Sunday ~280,000
•Monday ~134,000
•Tuesday ~134,000
•Wednesday ~134,000
•Thursday ~134,000
•Friday ~134,000
•Saturday ~134,000
Contact
•Email: placeads@startribune.com
•Call: 612-673-7000
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #2.B.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 02
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
1/10/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Nellie Jerome, P lanner I
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: Melissa P oehlman, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
12/20/2022
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
1/4/2023
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider the approval of a first reading of an ordinance amendment aligning the Zoning Code with the
Comprehensive Plan; eliminating the Two-Family Residential (MR-1) Zoning District, and amending the
Single-Family Residential (R) District.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
State Statute requires that the City evaluate and revise our Zoning Code to ensure that it does not conflict with
our Comprehensive Plan. I n the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the Low-Density Residential (L D R) category
allows for the mixture of single-family detached and attached units, such as duplexes and lower density
townhomes, up to a density of seven dwelling units per acre. Current zoning regulations prohibit the creation
of new single-family lots at the upper end of this density limit, and two-family dwellings are only conditionally
allowed on arterial and collector streets.
To align these two documents, the proposed ordinance would eliminate the MR-1, Two-Family Residential
Zoning District and would instead allow two-family homes by-right in the R District. The R District name would
be changed from Single-Family Residential to Low Density Residential. No changes are proposed to zoning
regulations in the R-1 District, but the name would be changed from Low Density Single-Family Residential to
Single-Family Residential. I n addition to the above changes, residential design standards have been revised
to promote livability and aesthetics, regardless of housing type. A full discussion of the specific changes is
provided in the Policy Section below.
The proposed ordinance amendment would resolve outright contradictions between the documents and would
further the 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s goals of “expanding housing choices, promoting modernization of the
housing stock, maintaining affordability, and supporting attractive neighborhoods” (p.59). Additionally,
removing barriers to the creation of "missing middle" housing offers an opportunity to reduce the regional
housing-shortage and for household wealth-building, particularly for those who have been historically kept out
of the market.
The proposed changes have been discussed at three work sessions with the City Council, Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA), and Planning Commission. Additionally, a visual preference survey was
made available to the community.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve a first reading of an ordinance amendment aligning the Zoning Code with the
Comprehensive Plan, eliminating the Two-Family Residential (MR-1) Zoning District, and amending the
Single-Family Residential (R) District.
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
Early in its history, Richfield allowed single and two-family dwellings nearly everywhere. In
1954, the City began restricting the construction of two-family dwellings. While staff
cannot speak to the motives of this change, it is worth noting that it followed shortly after
the 1948 and 1953 court decisions making racially restrictive covenants illegal and
unenforceable. As staff has uncovered through our work with the Just Deeds project,
racially restrictive covenants prohibited many families from partaking in the
development/ownership of a home in Richfield (see attached presentation).
At three work sessions (in March and October of 2021, and in J une of 2022), staff heard support
for updating the City’s Zoning Code to not only align lot dimension requirements with the
Comprehensive Plan, but to also allow two-family dwellings by-right within the R District.
A visual preference survey was distributed to the community via social media channels in J anuary
2022. Over the course of the month, 130 responses were received showing a preference for a
minimized driveway area in front yards and for a smaller garage door area on the front façade of
a home. These changes are included in the proposed ordinance amendment.
The origin of the term grandfathered also gives cause to remove it from the Zoning Code as part
of this proposed amendment. Although the 15th Amendment gave African American Men the right
to vote in 1870, some states instituted poll taxes, literacy tests, and other requirements to make
voting difficult. Some states adopted a requirement known as the “grandfather clause,” which only
allowed men to vote if they were the descendants of a voter. I n short, if you were white you were
much more likely to be grandfathered in to being able to vote. This was not struck down until 1915,
when the Supreme Court ruled that it was illegal.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Following the adoption of a Comprehensive Plan, MN State Statute 473.864 requires that the City
evaluate and revise our Code of Ordinances to ensure that the two regulatory documents do not
conflict.
The following is a complete list of proposed changes to the Zoning Code:
Establish two-family dwellings in the R District as a permitted use by-right.
Repeal the entirety of the MR-1, Two-Family Residential Zoning District. All properties with
this designation will return to the R Zoning District.
Change the names of the R and R-1 Districts from Single-Family Residential and Low
Density Single-Family Residential to Low Density Residential and Single-Family
Residential, respectively.
Reduce the minimum width in the R District from 50 feet to 47 feet. Reduce the minimum lot
size in the R District from 6,700 square feet to 6,000 square feet. This change reduces the
percentage of nonconforming residential lots from about 17% to about 3%.
Allow smaller lot areas in cases of new, two-unit townhomes in the R District.
I nclude a setback reduction for two-family townhouses allowing them to be attached at the
property line with a zero-foot setback.
Require that a side entrance on a two-family dwelling be set back an additional five feet, for
a total setback of ten feet from the lot line.
Require at least one entrance on the street-facing side of a home that is not a garage
entrance unless special circumstances apply.
Establish a regulation that garages may not be overly prominent on a street-facing side of a
house, and that garage doors may not be forward of the first floor façade of the house.
Update minimum floor area requirements for single family and two-family dwellings to be
960 and 800 square feet, respectively.
Remove requirement to reserve area on the lot for a future construction of space for a
second vehicle in a garage. Maintain requirement for two off-street parking spaces per
dwelling unit, with at least one space being enclosed.
Remove the phrase “grandfather clause” from the nonconforming lot exception title in
subdivision 3 of 514.09. See Historical Context section for additional information.
Minor housekeeping items and clarifications are also included in the ordinance amendment.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
State Statute 473.864 requires that a City’s Code of Ordinances be updated to ensure that it does
not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper
on October 13, 2022.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the attached ordinance at their
meeting on December 12, 2022.
A Second Reading of this amendment has been scheduled for J anuary 24, 2023.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
Approve the ordinance amendment aligning the Zoning Code with the Comprehensive Plan, eliminating
the Two-Family Residential (MR-1) Zoning District, and amending the Single-Family Residential (R)
District with modifications.
Deny the ordinance amendment aligning the Zoning Code with the Comprehensive Plan, eliminating the
Two-Family Residential (MR-1) Zoning District, and amending the Single-Family Residential (R)
District with a finding that the proposal conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan.
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
Ordinance Ordinance
Zoning Map B ackup Material
March 2021 Work S ession P resentation B ackup Material
October 2021 Work S ession P resentation B ackup Material
June 2022 Work S ession P resentation B ackup Material
BILL NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RICHFIELD ZONING CODE
REGULATIONS RELATED TO TWO FAMILY USES;
CONSOLIDATING THE R AND MR-1 DISTRICTS INTO A
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT; AND
MODIFYING LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
AND LOT DIMENSIONS
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1 Subsection 507.07 of the Richfield Zoning Code relating to definitions is
amended to update the “townhouse” definition and to remove the “twin
home” definition, to read as follows:
507.07. - Definitions.
…
Subd. 37. "Dwelling." Any building or portion thereof used exclusively
for residential occupancy, including single-family, two-family, and
multifamily dwellings, but not including nursing homes, rest homes, or
hotels.
Subd. 38. "Dwelling, attached." A dwelling that is joined to another
dwelling at one (1) or more sides by a party wall or walls.
Subd. 39. "Dwelling, detached." A single dwelling which is not attached
to another.
Subd. 40. "Dwelling, multifamily." A residential building or portion
thereof used for occupancy by three (3) or more families living
independently of each other. This could be an apartment, a 3-unit
townhouse, or a substantially similar dwelling.
Subd. 41. "Dwelling, single-family." A residential building used for
occupancy by one (1) family.
Subd. 42. "Dwelling, townhouse." A building used for occupancy by
three (3) or more families living independently of each other. Each
dwelling unit is attached horizontally in a linear arrangement with
private front and rear entrances at ground level and has a totally
exposed front and rear wall to be used for entry, light, and ventilation.
Dwelling units may be individually owned and an association fee may
be paid for maintenance of yard and common areas.
Subd. 43. "Dwelling, twin home." A residential building containing two
(2) dwelling units which are completely separate in every way except
that they share a common wall (with no openings) which separate the
units and act as the dividing lot line, where each unit is situated on its
own parcel of land.
Subd. 44. "Dwelling, two-family." A residential building used for
occupancy by two (2) families living independently of each other,where
both units are situated on the same parcel of land . This may be a
duplex, a two-unit townhouse, or a substantially similar dwelling.
Subd. 45. "Dwelling unit." Residential accommodation including kitchen
facilities, permanently installed, which are used for living quarters by
one (1) family.
…
Section 2 Subsection 509.07 relating to Lot provisions is amended to add a new
Subdivision 5, to read as follows:
509.07. - Lot provisions.
Subdivision 1. One building and use. Except in the case of planned
unit developments, group housing developments, and developments in
the Mixed-Use Districts, only one (1) principal building and use may be
located on a lot. This subdivision is not intended to prohibit similar
types of uses from occupying a multi-tenant building if all other
requirements of this Code are met.
Subd. 2. Frontage requirements. Except in a planned unit
development, all lots shall have frontage on a public street.
Subd. 3. Through lots. On a through lot, the lot lines abutting both
street frontages shall be considered front lot lines.
Subd. 4. Front yards. A front yard may not contain any building or other
structure except fencing, ornamental outdoor furniture, parking areas,
signage, and landscaping, as permitted or required under this Code or
the city code except as specifically noted for through lots.
Subd. 5. Primary Residential Entrance. Homes are required to
have a minimum of one (1) primary, non-garage, entrance facing
an adjacent street frontage. Where there is no adjacent street to
which a dwelling entrance may be oriented, or it is not practical to
orient a dwelling to an adjacent street due to lot layout,
topographic, or other characteristics of the site, the dwelling may
orient to a walkway, courtyard, open space, common area, lobby,
or breezeway (i.e., for multiple family buildings), subject to
approval by the Director.
Section 3 Subsection 512.01 of the Richfield Zoning Code relating to the zoning
districts is amended to remove the MR-1 and PMR-1 designations, and to
correct typographical errors, to read as follows:
512.01. - Zoning Districts.
Subdivision 1. Establishment of districts. In order to carry out the
purposes and provisions of this Code, the city is hereby divided into
the following Zoning Districts: (Amended, Bill No. 2008 -12, 2009-5,
2009-7, 2017-6, Bill No. 2021-12)
Residential Districts
Single Family Low Density Residential R Low Density Single-Family Residential R-1 Two Family Residential MR-1 Multi-Family Residential MR-2 High Density Multi-Family Residential MR-3
Commercial Districts
Service Office S-O Neighborhood Business C-1
General Commercial C-2
Mixed-Use Districts
Mixed-Use Regional MU-R Mixed-Use Community MU-C Mixed-Use Neighborhood MU-N
Industrial Districts
Industrial I
Planned Unit Development Districts
Planned Residential PR
Planned Two Family Residential PMR-1 Planned Multi-Family Residential PMR Planned Neighborhood Commercial PC-1 Planned General Commercial PC-2
Planned Mixed Use PMU
Overlay Districts
Airport Impact Runway Overlay District AR
Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay District PAC Cedar Avenue Corridor Overlay District CAC Veterans Park Area Overlay District VPA
Section 4 Subsection 512.05 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended to remove
the MR-1 column, to read as follows:
512.05. - Permitted, Conditional, Accessory and Prohibited Uses in
Residential Districts.
The following table summarizes which land uses are classified as
permitted, accessory, conditional or prohibited in the Residential
Districts. Refer to Sections 514 through 527 for complete regulations.
P: Permitted
A: Accessory
C: Conditional
N: Null or Prohibited
Land Use R R-1 MR-1 MR-2 MR-3
Residential
Single-family detached dwellings P P P N N
Two-family dwellings C P N P P P
Twin homes N N C N N
Multifamily dwellings (minimum 3
units)
N N N P/C P/C
Cluster home developments C N C C N
Other
Bed and breakfast inns C C N N N
Cemeteries C N N N N
Day care facilities P/C P P/C P/C P/C
Emergency shelters C N C C C
Fences, walls and hedges A A A A A
Foster family homes A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C
Garages/carports for a residential
structure
A A A A A
Gazebos/greenhouses A A A N N
Governmental buildings P N C C C
Home occupations A A A A A
Libraries (public) P N C C C
Parking A A A A A
Private driveways A A A A A
Public utilities, major C C C C C
Land Use R R-1 MR-1 MR-2 MR-3
Public utilities, minor A A A A A
Recreational facilities, noncommercial,
principal use
C C C N N
Religious institutions C N C C C
Residential care facilities P P P/C P/C P/C
Roomer A A N N N
Satellite dish antennas A A A A A
Schools, public or private C N C C C
Storage buildings A A A A A
Swimming pools, private A A A A A
Telecommunication towers C C C C C
Utility buildings accessory to
telecommun.
towers and antennas
A N A A A
Section 5 Section 514 of the Richfield Zoning Code related to the R, Single-Family
Residential District is retitled and revised to read as follows:
SECTION 514 - SINGLE-FAMILY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT (R)
514.01 Purposes. The purposes of the R District regulations are to protect
and preserve the single-family low density residential character of the R
District; reserve appropriate locations for single-family low
density dwellings; provide opportunities for cluster housing d evelopment;
minimize traffic congestion and the overloading of utilities; and provide
residential locations that are safe, attractive, and quiet.
514.03. - Permitted uses.
Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are permitted uses in
the R District.
Subd. 2. Single-family (detached) dwellings and two-family
dwellings.
Subd. 3. State-licensed day care facility serving 14 or fewer children.
Care facilities located within the R District shall be subject to the same
zoning regulations as single-family dwellings in the R District except
that one nonresident employee shall be permitted in accordance with
State requirements. (Amended, Bill No. 2016-3)
Subd. 4. State-licensed residential care facility serving six (6) or fewer
persons, or a housing with services establishment registered under
M.S. 144D serving six (6) or fewer persons. Care facilities located
within the R District shall be subject to the same zoning regulations as
single-family dwellings in the R District.
Subd. 5. Governmental buildings and public libraries.
514.05 Accessory building and use regulations.
…
Subd. 3. Private garages (includes attached and detached) or carports:
a) That do not exceed 1,000 square feet in floor area. In the case
of detached garages, floor area shall include space devoted to
vehicle parking, storage and non-garage uses such as an
accessory dwelling unit, office, or similar habitable space. The
first 400 square feet of space devoted to an accessory dwelling
unit is exempt from this requirement, provided the site complies
with part (b). Floor area shall not include crawl spaces or attic
storage;
b) That do not exceed an aggregate of 1,200 square feet (or 13%
of lot area in the case of lots of 15,000 square feet or more) in
floor area when combined with all other accessory buildings and
attached garages on the lot;
c) That are constructed in accordance with Subdivision 2 of this
subsection; and
d) In no event shall the height of a garage door or carport opening,
measured from the floor to the trim covering the door header,
exceed nine (9) feet.
e) Attached garages where one or more garage doors face a
street:
i. the total width of all garage doors on that building
elevation shall not exceed 50 percent of the width of
that elevation. A garage door is considered to be
facing a street where the opening is parallel to, or
within 45 degrees of, the street right-of-way line.
ii. Attached garages shall not extend closer towards the
front lot line than the facade of the habitable first
story portion of the primary structure.
…
Subd. 6. Private driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas, and
sidewalks for residential uses, provided the following conditions are
met:
a) All such driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas, and
sidewalks shall be set back no less than one foot from any lot
line abutting another parcel, except that upon written request
from the landowner, the Director may reduce or rescind this
setback requirement for shared access agreements or with a
finding of necessity and public convenience;
b) All such driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas, and
sidewalks shall be constructed with concrete, asphalt, concrete
pavers, brick set in compacted sand, or other material approved
by the Director;
c) No parking area shall be permitted in the front yard area except
as allowed by paragraph d);
d) Within the front yard area, vehicles shall only be parked on the
driveway area;
e) Driveways, where located within the boulevard or the front yard
area, are subject to the following requirements:(
i. Width shall not exceed 35 percent of the front yard area,
up to 20 feet maximum, whichever is less (curb cut radii
excluded);
ii. Driveway width shall not exceed the width of the curb cut
within 20 feet of the curbline. Beyond that point, width
may increase to the number established by item (i). The
expanded portion of the driveway shall be screened with
plantings;
iii. Curb cut radii (five (5) feet minimum) shall not encroach
upon the boulevard of abutting properties;
iv. On corner lots, driveways shall be set back at least 30
feet from an intersection, as measured from the point
where the extended curblines of the streets intersect;
v. Only one (1) curb cut shall be permitted from a public
street to a lot. Lots with alley access shall not be
permitted to install a curb cut;
vi. Upon written request from the landowner, items (i), (ii),
(iii), (iv) and (v) above may be varied by the Director with
a finding of necessity and public convenience;
f) Any expansion, installation, or replacement of a driveway,
parking or turnaround area on a lot shall be subject to a city
permit;
g) Any expansion, installation or replacement of a curb cut from a
public street to a lot shall be subject to a city permit and any
curb cut abandoned with the installation of a new cut shall be
extinguished and replaced with curb and gutter according to
specifications determined by the Director of Public Works;
h) A turnaround area may be located within a front yard subject to
the requirements of this paragraph. The turnaround area is
limited to the front yard of arterial streets only. The turnaround
area cannot exceed 150 square feet. The turnaround area must
be contiguous to the driveway. The turnaround area shall be set
back no less than three (3) feet from any public sidewalk.
…
Subd. 8. Internal, attached, and detached accessory dwelling units shall
be allowed, provided that:
a) The principal residential structure is a permitted or conditional
single-family or two-family dwelling;
b) No more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed on a
lot;
c) The lot must meet current minimum width and depth
requirements;
d) The creation of an accessory dwelling unit shall not create a
separate tax parcel;
e) An owner of the property must occupy at least one dwelling unit
on the lot as their primary place of residence. Proof of
homesteading shall be required and variances from this
provision shall not be considered;
f) A rental license for the non-owner-occupied unit shall be
required in accordance with Section 407 of the City Code;
g) Accessory dwelling units must have a minimum area of 300
square feet and cannot exceed 800 square feet or the gross
floor area of the principal dwelling, whichever is less;
h) Principal dwelling units must continue to meet minimum floor
area requirements or not increase the degree of nonconformity
in this matter;
i) The primary exterior materials of an attached accessory
dwelling unit must match those of the principal structure.
Exterior materials for new construction related to any type of
accessory dwelling unit must match the structure to which it is
attached;
j) The creation of an attached or internal accessory dwelling unit
shall not result in the creation of additional entrances facing the
public street on the primary structure;
k) Exterior stairways leading to an upper story accessory dwelling
unit shall be allowed so long as the staircase and railing are not
constructed with raw or unfinished lumber;
l) Detached accessory dwelling units are permitted only as a part
of an approved accessory garage structure;
m) Conversion of garage space to an accessory dwelling unit is
prohibited unless the garage space is replaced. Space within a
garage that exceeds what is necessary for two vehicles may be
converted without replacement; and
n) A minimum of three off-street parking spaces is required in
order to add an accessory dwelling unit of any kind.…
514.07. - Conditional uses. [This subdivision is amended to repeal
Subdivision 2, and to renumber all subsequent subdivisions.]
Subd. 2. Two-family dwellings, provided the following conditions are
met:
a) The lot shall abut an arterial or collector street;
b) The lot area and width shall comply with Section 514.11, Subd.
2 of this Code;
c) Two (2) off-street parking spaces, one (1) of which must be
enclosed in a garage, shall be provided for each dwelling unit;
d) Private driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas and
sidewalks shall comply with Section 514.05 Subd. 8 of this
Code;
e) For new construction each dwelling unit shall contain at least
960 square feet of interior floor space, and for conversion of a
single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling each unit shall
contain at least 500 square feet of interior floor space. For the
purpose of this subsection, interior floor space shall include the
total horizontal area of the dwelling unit as measured from the
interior walls of the unit; and
f) The structure shall meet all setback requirements for two-family
dwellings as indicated under Section 514.13, except that a
single-family dwelling which does not meet the required two -
family interior side setback may be converted into a two-family
dwelling if the dwelling is not expanded or if the expansion
meets all applicable two-family dwelling requirements.
…
514.09. - Prohibited uses. Any land use not listed as permitted, accessory
or conditional in this Section or subsection 512.05 is prohibited in the R
District unless the use is found to be substantially similar to a use listed,
as determined by the city in accordance with Section 509.23 of this Code.
514.11. Lot Area, dimensions and coverage.
Subdivision 1. The standards set out in this subsection apply in the R
District.
Subd. 2. Minimum lot area, dimensions and coverage.
Land use Lot area
(sq. ft.)
Lot width
(feet)
Lot depth
(feet)
Max. lot
coverage
Maximum
impervious
surface
Single-Family and Two-
Family1
6,700
6,000
50 47 100 35% 45%
Two-Family 9,000 60 100 35% 45%
Cluster home
Development in R-SFH
Guided Area
2,900
Per Unit
60 100 35% 75%
Cluster home
Development in
Non-R-SFH Guided Area
4,000
Per Unit
60 100 35% 75%
Non-residential 40,000 150 100 50% 85%
1 Every lot or plot upon which there is erected a dwelling as part of a two-
unit townhouse shall have a minimum of one-half (1/2) of the minimum lot
area established above and a minimum width of twenty-five (25) feet.
Subd. 3. Nonconforming Residential Lot Dimensions. Special grandfather
clause for certain R lots. A lot that was a lot of record on or before June 1,
1995, located in the R District which does not meet the minimum
requirements set forth in this Code as to area and dimensions, may be
used for single-family (detached) development provided that the width of
such lot is not less than 40 feet and such lot contains at least 5,000
square feet in area.
Section 514.13. Building setback and height.
Subdivision 1. Standards. The standards set ou t in this subsection
apply in the R District.
Subd. 2. Building setback and maximum height (measurements in
feet).
Use Front Rear Interior
Side
Street/Corn
er Side
Maximum
Height (as
defined
in 507.07,
Subd. 53)
Single- or two-family
building
(but see Subd. 3 and
5)
30 25 5
(but see
Subd. 3
and 10)
12 2528
Two-family building
(but see Subd. 3 and
5)
30 25 10 12 25
Cluster home
development in R-
SFH guided area
(but see Subd. 3 and
5) 1
10 25 5 12 25
(but see
Subd. 98)
Cluster home
development in non-
R-SFH guided area
(but see Subd. 3 and
5) 1
30 25 5 12 25
(but see
Subd. 8)
Accessory - garage
(but see Subd. 3-6)
30 3
(5 if utility
easement
or greater
than 14 ft.
tall)
5 12 142
(but see
Subd. 7)
Accessory -
nongarage
(but see Subd. 4 and
5)
30 3
(5 if utility
easement)
5 12 123
Nonresidential
building (but see
Subd. 5 and 7)
40 30 30 30 42
Accessory building to
nonresidential use
(but see Subd. 5)
40 10 10 30 15
1 Setbacks for cluster home developments shall apply to the perimeter of the
development. Setbacks between attached and detached units within a
townhome or a cluster home development must comply with applicable building
and fire codes. (Added, Bill No. 1996-22)
2 For garages, height is measured on the side of the building with the vehicle
door.
3 For nongarage accessory structures, height is measured from the ground level
to the highest point of the roof.
Subd. 3. Setback reductions for principal buildings. The following
setback reductions apply in the R District:
a) On a corner lot, the street side setback requirement shall be the
lesser of 12 feet or the established street side setback of the
existing principal building on the same lot for single-family, two-
family and cluster home development structures. In any case
the provisions of paragraphs d) and e) of this subdivision shall
be applicable; (Amended, Bill No. 1996-22)
b) The front setback requirement for a new single-family dwelling,
two-family dwelling, or cluster home development on a lot may
be reduced to not less than the average existing front setback of
the dwelling(s) which front on the same street and abut such lot,
to a minimum setback of 20 feet; (Amended, Bill No. 1996-22)
c) With respect to single-family homes existing on or before June
1, 1995, the interior side setback requirement may be reduced
to not less than three (3) feet for the purpose of constructing an
attached garage or a two-car garage to replace a single-car
garage, provided the following conditions are met:
i. A letter of consent signed by the owner of the property
that abuts the interior lot line shall be submitted to the
city;
ii. The garage shall be located a distance of not less than
eight (8) feet from any building on an abutting lot;
iii. The width of the garage shall not exceed 20 feet, and the
length shall not exceed 26 feet;
iv. Accessory garages built under this Subdivision are
limited to 14 feet in height;
v. The garage wall most parallel and adjacent to the interior
lot line shall have no more than a one-foot roof overhang
(eave projection); and
vi. A drainage plan shall be approved by the Engineering
Department prior to issuance of building permits.
d) Windows or window units may project a maximum of 24 inches
into a required front yard, street side yard, or rear yard of a
dwelling, provided that the floor area is not increased by more
than ten (10) square feet, however, in no case shall they be
closer than six (6) feet from any lot line;
e) Those items classified as "not encroachments" in Section
509.11
f) The setback requirements for cluster home developments may
be reduced to 25 feet in the front and 12 feet in the rear if the
following criteria are met:
i. The project can demonstrate that a superior design is
achieved through the reduced setback. Evidence of a
superior design may include but is not limited to the
preservation of a natural feature, creation of an amenity,
creation of public open space, or incorporation of special
features to meet the needs of the target population;
ii. The reduced setback does not adversely affect the
overcrowding, or other similar impacts; and
iii. The impact of the reduced setback is minimized through
the presence of features such as landscaping or other
means of buffering, a limited number of building openings
in the portion of the structure that infringes upon the
setback, building orientation, minimized garage door
dominance, or other similar features.
g) In required front yards, covered porches attached to the
principal building that extend no more than ten (10) feet,
provided that the porch is no closer than 20 feet from the front
lot line and that the design of the porch is approved by the
Community Development Director. The Community
Development Director must make the following findings to
approve a porch encroachment up to ten (10) feet:
i. The exterior materials of the proposed porch are
consistent or complementary in color, texture and quality
with those visible at the front of the dwelling;
ii. The roof of the proposed porch is properly proportioned
to and integrated with the roof of the dwelling and has no
less than a 3:12 slope;
iii. The base of the porch is not open and its appearance is
consistent with the base of the dwelling;
iv. At least 65 percent of the exposed porch facade is open
or occupied by windows, screens, and/or doors of
transparent material; the facade constitutes the area from
the floor level of the porch to the porch ceiling; and
v. Plans are prepared by a registered architect or reviewed
by the a design advisor selected by the Community
Development Department;
The Director may attach conditions to the approval of the
porch encroachment as needed to make the required
findings; and
h) In required residential street/corner side yards, covered porches
attached to the front of a principal building that extend no more
than ten (10) feet, provided that the porch is no closer than 20
feet from the street side lot line and that the design of the porch
is approved by the Community Development Director. The
Director must make the findings required by Section 514.13,
Subd. 3(g). The Director may attach conditions to the approval
of the porch encroachment as needed to make the required
findings. (Added Bill No. 1998-12; amended Bill No. 2015-4)
i) In the case of townhouses, the shared interior side setback
may be reduced to (0) zero.
...
j)
Subd. 10. Two-family Dwelling Side Entrances. For two-family
dwellings on interior lots: A main entrance to either unit from a
side yard is not allowed within 10 feet of the side property line
(Figure 11.1).
Figure 11.1
514.15. Additional regulations.
Subdivision 1. Standards. Developments shall be constructed and
maintained in accordance with the standards set out in this subsection.
Subd. 2. Dimensions and floor area. Single-family and two-family
dwellings constructed after June 1, 1995 shall be a minimum of 22 feet in
length and width for at least 50 percent of each distance as measured
from outside wall surfaces., and Single Family dwellings shall contain a
minimum of 960 square feet of gross floor area. Two-Family dwellings
shall contain a minimum of 800 square feet of floor area per dwelling
unit. Dwellings in cluster home developments shall be a minimum of 16
feet in width for attached units.
Subd. 3. Garage planning. Building plans submitted after July 5, 2008 for
new single-family dwellings 1,200 square feet or less shall include garage
space for not less than one (1) vehicle. and shall designate area on the lot
for future construction of garage space for a second vehicle that will not
require any variances. Building plan submitted after July 5, 2008 for new
single-family dwellings over 1,200 square feet shall include garage space
not less than two (2) vehicles. For the purposes of this subdivision only,
each vehicle shall require a garage space of not less than ten (10) feet in
width by 20 feet in depth.
Subd. 4. Parking requirement. For two-family, twin home dwellings, and
cluster home developments, Tthere shall be provided on the site at least
two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit, of which at least one (1) space
per dwelling shall be enclosed in a garage. (Added, Bill No. 2014-4)
…
Section 6 Section 522 of the Richfield Zoning Code, the Two-Family Residential
District (MR-1), is repealed.
Section 7 Section 529.11 Subdivision 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code related to
dimensional requirements of the S-O District is amended to read as
follows:
Subdivision 1. [ Generally. ] The following dimensional requirements
apply to the S -O district. All dimensions are in feet unless otherwise
noted.
Minimum lot width Interior lot: 60 Corner lot: 75
Minimum lot area 8,000 square feet
Maximum impervious surface coverage 75 percent
Setbacks - building Principal
building
Accessory
building
Front (see also Subd. 2) 30 30
Rear
Adjacent to R, R-1 or MR-1 District 15 8
Adjacent to non-R, R-1 or MR-1 District 5 5
Interior side
Adjacent to R, R-1 District 15 15
Adjacent to non-R, R-1 District 5 5
Street/corner side (see also Subd. 3) 12 12
Setbacks - parking measured from property line)
Front (but see Subd. 5) 8
Street/corner side (but see Subd 5) 8
Interior lot line
Adjacent to R, R-1 or MR-1 District 10
Adjacent to non- R, R-1 or MR-1 District 5
Height limitations Principal building Accessory building
Maximum building height 30 15
Story limitations 2 stories 1 story
Section 8 Section 532.11, Subdivision 1, of the Richfield Zoning Code related to
dimensional requirements of the C-1 District is amended to read as
follows:
Subdivision 1. The following dimensional requirements apply to the C-1
district. All dimensions are in feet unless otherwise indicated:
Minimum lot width Interior lot: 60 Corner lot: 75
Minimum lot area 8,000 square feet
Maximum impervious surface coverage 80 percent
Setbacks - building Principal
building
Accessory
building
Front (see also Subd. 2) 30 30
Adjacent to arterial roads See Subdivision 2
Rear (see also Subd. 4)
Adjacent to R, R-1 or MR-1 District 10 8
Adjacent to non-R, R-1 or MR-1 District 5 5
Street/corner side (but see Subd. 3 and 4) 20 20
Interior side (see also Subd. 4)
Adjacent to R, R-1 or MR-1 District 10 8
Adjacent to non- R, R-1 or MR-1 District 5 5
Maximum building height 30 15
Story limitations 2 stories 1 story
Setbacks - parking (measured from the property line)
Front (but see Subd. 5) 8
Side/corner side (but see Subd 5) 8
Interior side
Adjacent to R, R-1 or MR-1 District 10
Adjacent to non-R, R-1 or MR-1 District 5
Section 9 Section 534.11 Subdivision 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code related to
dimensional requirements of the C-2 District is amended to read as
follows:
Subdivision 1. The following dimensional requirements apply to the C-2
District. All dimensions are in feet unless otherwise indicated:
Minimum lot width Interior lot: 75 Corner lot: 90
Minimum lot area 9,000 square feet
Maximum impervious surface coverage 85 percent
Setbacks: building Principal
building
Accessory
building
Front (see also Subd. 2) 35 35
Adjacent to arterial roads See Subdivision 2
Rear (see also Subd. 4)
Adjacent to R, R-1 or MR-1 District 15 8
Adjacent to non- R, R-1 or MR-1 District 5 5
Street/corner side (but see Subd. 3) 25 25
Interior side (see also Subd. 4)
Adjacent to R, R-1 or MR-1 District 15 8
Adjacent to non- R, R-1 or MR-1 District 0 0
Maximum building height (but see Subd. 5) 40 15
Story limitations 3 stories 1 story
Setbacks: parking
Setbacks: parking
Front (but see Subd. 6) 8
Street/corner side (but see Subd. 6) 8
Interior lot line
Adjacent to R, R-1 or MR-1 District 15
Adjacent to non- R, R-1 or MR
1 District
5
Section 10 Section 541.17 Subdivision 2 of the Richfield Zoning Code related to
district boundaries of the Airport Impact Overlay district is amended to
read as follows:
Subd. 2. District boundaries. The provisions of subsections 541.75 and
541.77 shall apply to all lots or parcels of record within the City of
Richfield having an underlying zoning designation of Single-family Low
Density Residential (R), Low Density Single-family Residential (R-1),
Two-Family Residential (MR -1), Multifamily Residential (MR-2), and High
Density Multifamily Residential (MR -3) and located within or touched by
the 2007 60 -64 DNL contours as shown at Appendix A of the Consent
Decree, which contour map is incorporated into this ordinance by
reference.
Section 11 Section 542.03 Subdivision 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code related to the
scope of PUD Districts is amended to read as follows:
Subdivision 1. [Table of PUD Districts.] Planned district regulations are
applied in conjunction with a guiding district, as described in the following
table. The planned district provisions may modify any portion of the
regulations of the guiding district or other regulations of the code. The
provisions may apply additional requirements o r allow exceptions to
general regulations:
PUD District Abbreviation Guiding Districts
Planned Residential PR R and R-1
Planned Two Family Residential PMR-1 MR-1
Planned Multifamily Residential PMR MR-2 and MR-3
Planned Service Office PS-O PS-O
Planned Neighborhood Commercial PC-1 C-1
Planned General Commercial PC-2 C-2
Planned Mixed Use PMU MU-N, MU-C, and MU-R
Planned Industrial PI I
Subd. 2. Minimum area. A PUD district shall contain not less than one (1)
acre (43,560 square feet) in lot area. With respect to planned unit
developments only, lot area may include (at the discretion of the Director),
areas of the right-of-way that are improved and integral to the design of
the project. (Amended, Bill No. 2014-4)
Subd. 3. PMR-1 density limitation. In the PMR-1 District, the density of
two-family dwellings shall not exceed ten (10) dwelling units per acre.
…
Section 12 Section 549.23, Subdivision 1, of the Richfield Zoning Code related to the
Residential District signage is amended to read as follows:
Subdivision 1. Residential districts.
a) Within residential zoning districts, freestanding signs are permitted as
follows:
District Maximum sign area of
single sign
Maximum
height
Total area of all
freestanding signs
R, R-1, MR-1 6 square feet 6 feet 12 square feet
MR-2, MR-3 24 square feet 8 feet 36 square feet
Permitted Nonresidential
Uses
50 square feet 20 feet 100 square feet
b) Within residential zoning districts, wall signs are permitted as follows:
District Maximum sign area of single sign
R, R-1, MR-1 Not permitted except as required by Section 549.21,
Subd. 3. MR-2, MR-3 10 percent of total wall area of the wall to which sign
is attached Permitted Nonresidential
Uses
10 percent of the total wall area of the wall to which
sign is attached
c) Within residential zoning districts, the following types of signs are
prohibited:
i. Dynamic displays, except for nonresidential uses; and
ii. Marquee signs; and
iii. Any sign not expressly permitted by this subdivision is prohibited in
residential districts.
b. Scoreboards for public parks and public or private schools are permitted
as follows:
i. One (1) scoreboard not exceeding 18 feet in height or 100 s quare
feet is surface area is allowed per playing field, not including fields
used only for practice; and
ii. Commercial or noncommercial speech shall be permitted on the
scoreboard as follows:
1. Commercial and noncommercial messages shall not
comprise more than 25 percent of the area of the
scoreboard; and
2. Commercial and noncommercial messages shall not be
illuminated.
Section 13 The Zoning District titles in Appendix I - Boundaries of Zoning Districts,
are amended to read as follows:
…
Section 6. – Low Density Residential Residence District (R).
…
Section 11. - Single Family Residential Residence District (R-1).
…
Section 19. - Airport Impact Runway Overlay District (AR).
…
Section 14 Appendix I – Boundaries of Zoning Districts, Section 12, Paragraphs (1)
through (81) of the Richfield City Code is repealed, rezoning all affected
property as Low Density Residential District - R.
Section 15 Subdivision 6 of City Code subsection 1305.27, relating to Additional
prohibitions for Traffic, Motor Vehicles, And Other Vehicles (Chapter XIII),
is amended to read as follows:
Subd. 6. Vehicle parking and storage limitations and requirements. The
number of motor vehicles that may be parked on a driveway or approved
parking area of a residential property in the R, and R-1 and MR-1 zoning
districts shall be limited as follows: (Added, Bill No. 2007-19)
a) Number of vehicles. The total number of vehicles shall be limited to
four (4) per unit. No more than one (1) vehicle of this total shall be a
recreational vehicle as defined by Section 1325 of the City Code;
b) Counting of vehicles. Vehicles temporarily parked at a residence for
visitation or business service reasons shall not be counted for the
purposes of these numerical limitations. All other vehicles not
housed in a garage, including inoperable vehicles as defined by
Section 1320.13 of the City Code, shall be counted as vehicles for
the purposes of determining the number of vehicles parked on a
driveway or parking area of a residential lot. Nothing in this Section
shall be interpreted as permitting the storage of vehicles if such
storage is not otherwise permitted by code; and
c)City-declared snow emergency. Vehicle limitations shall be
temporarily suspended for the duration of City-declared snow
emergencies.
Section 16 This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the
Richfield City Charter.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this ___ day of ___, 2023.
Mary B. Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk
Residential Zoning District Update
CC/PC Work Session –March 23, 2021
Background
•It’s time to Implement the Comprehensive
Plan!
•(we’re compelled to align the Zoning Code
with the Plan, but) We want to honor the
work and engagement that was put into
the plan.
•Start with the R district as the predominate
Zoning Category.
Background
R District –Single Family Home
•Current minimum lot size for single-family
home: 6,700 square feet
•A high proportion of lots are
nonconforming (17% or approx. 1 in 6)
•Comprehensive Plan would allow lots that
are 5,886 square feet.
R District –Two Family Home
•Current minimum lot size for two-family
home: 9,000 square feet.
•Conditional Use Permit required in all
instances.
•Only allowed on arterials and collector
streets.
So What
•We could narrowly focus on adjusting the
dimensional standards
•But, we feel compelled to examine this in
the context of wider issues and trends
Macro trends
•People want to be in Richfield!
–New families (proximity to key services &
employment centers, high connectivity, high
quality of life)
–Existing residents/families; stay close to
family, housing life cycle
•Trends in housing type delivery
•Rise of “Missing Middle” housing
MF Trends
•New MF Developments: ▲units per
building; ▼bedrooms per unit
BEDROOMS -Renter Occupied Units (2019 ACS)
No bedroom 252 4.20%
1 bedroom 3,112 51.89%
2 bedroom 1,823 30.40%
3 bedrooms 507 8.45%
4 bedrooms 243 4.05%
5 or more bedrooms 60 1.00%
Missing Middle Housing
•Context sensitive (house-scale
development)
•Wealth building
MMH: Duplex
What direction we want
•Continue to explore allowing duplexes
–Where
–By-right
•Direction on Lot sizes
Next Steps
•Take direction from tonight’s discussion
and work on the details for the R District
•Additional areas to align Zoning with the
Comp Plan
–Change in zoning designations
–Examine the provisions of additional Districts
Thoughts, Comments,
Questions?
Question
•At some point in your life have you lived in
a…
–Single Family Home?
–Townhouse?
–Duplex or triplex?
–Apartment building or condo?
Missing Middle Housing
Session Overview
•Start with brief background on Zoning and
Development in the Community
•Overview of proposed R district Changes
•Framework for changes to duplex
regulations
Process Overview
•Align Zoning with guidance of the Comp
Plan
•Started with LDR areas, the largest
geographic area
•honor work that went into the Plan, and
obligated to allow property owners to
develop up to the maximum limits
Background
•Timeline tells a powerful story about the
role of zoning in the development of the
community.
–Speaks to who was welcome in the
community.
•Important to examine for our commitment
to rooting equity in our work
Pre-war Richfield
Atlas of Hennepin County, Minnesota (1913)
Richfield in 1940
Then in 1941…
Richfield in 1957
LDR
•Allows for the mixture of single-family
detached and attached units, such as
duplexes and lower density townhomes.
•1-7.4 units per acre
•Existing density ~4.9 units per acre
LDR
•The R District is the primary Zoning
Category for areas guided LDR.
•R District evaluation in part an academic
exercise to get up to 7.4 units per acre.
LDR –R District
•Proposed Changes for R district:
–6,000 sq. ft. Lot Area Minimum [6,700 sq. ft.
existing]
–45 ft. Lot Width Minimum [50 ft. existing]
LDR –R District
•Proposed Changes for R district
Continued:
–Eliminate Lot Depth Minimum [100 ft.]
–Expand eligibility for duplexes
•More later…
Existing Minimum Proposed Minimum
LDR –Other Zoning Districts
•Maintain R-1 as is.
•Dissolve MR-1 district, rezone those
properties to R.
•Update Nomenclature
–LDR & LDR-Large lot
Duplexes
•In March we heard openness to expanding
permissions for duplexes.
–at a minimum, allow by-right on busier roads,
street corners, and near more intense zoning
•Allow as a conditional use everywhere else
•Goal of introducing these types into
established neighborhoods with
predictable results
Building Form
•Looking at form based coding principles to
make sure new
development/redevelopment fits the
neighborhood.
–Form based concepts are already in the
zoning code i.e. build to lines in the MU
Districts
FBC at the LDR scale
•Iowa City, IA Example:
–Duplex side-by-side
–Height
–Building dimensions
•Main Body and Wings
–Building frontage
–Frontage design requirements
•i.e. porch, inset porch, stoop, etc.
–Parking location
Visual Preference Survey
•Help calibrate these form based principals to
Richfield.
•It will show a building (duplex) in the region
•Prompt will be if the displayed image is
appropriate for the Community, open ended
comments
•Divided into sections focusing on:
–Building bulk, Entries/Porches/Stoop, Parking
(Garages and Driveways), and Exterior Design.
Visual Preference Survey
Public Engagement
•As a Zoning Amendment, a PH at the PC
is required; followed by two readings by
the Council
•Visual Preference Survey to public?
Discussion Questions
•Concurrence on direction on SF lot
changes.
•Interest in Form-based Principles as the
direction we’re heading with non-SF
types?
•Direction on Visual Preference Survey as
means to get public input.
Missing Middle Housing
Process Overview
•Align Zoning with guidance of the Comp
Plan
•Started with LDR areas, the largest
geographic area
•Honor work that went into the Plan
•Obligation to allow development up to
prescribed limits
Missing Middle Housing Recap
•House-scale development
•Precedent in City’s Development Pattern
•Wealth building
Process Overview
•Started with academic exercise of aligning SF
regulations to density prescription (up to 7.4
units/ac).
•Heard openness to expanding eligibility for
duplexes and consolidating R & MR-1
•Visual Preference Survey as means to get
public input and shape policy
–Approach: If we’re to allow dplx in more locations;
look at design principles that would apply to all
LDR types
Visual Preference Survey
•Open for one month (Jan ‘22)
–Publicized on Social Media multiple times
•130 Responses
–Did not collect demographic information
•Respondents prompted to provide
responses on Building Size, Entries,
Parking, and Overall Design.
Overall Direction
•More concern with size of the building than
what goes on inside.
•Staff Recommendation: Allow duplexes
on all lots allowing SF.
•Update the code to ensure least desirable
features/characteristics are prevented.
Building Size
•Range: 95.4% -32.8%
•Trend: Bungalow/craftsman.
Top 3
Bottom 3
Policy Direction: Size
•Already have building height
–prevailing height or height averaging to
ensure consistency?
•Maximum building width?
Entry/Doorway/Porch
•Range: 96.9% -61.5%
•Trend: All ok, sole front door rates highest
Top 3
Bottom 3
Policy Direction: Entry
•Require entrance on two side if on corner
lot?
•Restrict to one main entrance on front?
•If entrance is on side; do we require
setback (say 10ft)?
Parking
•Range: 97.7% -21.7%
•Trend: Rear garage; no large door bays
Top 3
Bottom 3
Policy Directions: Parking
•Existing driveway width requirements
•Minimize prominence of garages
–Limit the amount of front facing garage
(attached) door: 50%
–Prohibit protruding garage: require attached
garage be no further than habitable portion
Overall Design
•Range: 95.3% -26.6%
•Bungalow/Craftsman vs Garage
Top 3
Bottom 3
Policy Directions: Design
•Not a clear directional response
•If concerning, could look to codify Richfield
Rediscovered Requirements
–Materials
–Windows/Opening
–Articulation
–Roof design
•Adds to review complexity
Recommendation
•Reduce lot sizes to match Comp Plan
•Allow duplexes by right
•Limit garage prominence
•Add’l setback for side entry to duplex,
corner lots one entry or one per side
•Reduce garage requirement to one stall
Feedback?
Next Steps
•Public hearing at Planning Commission
•Consideration by Council
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #2.C.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 03
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
1/10/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: K elly Wynn, A dministrative A ssistant
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
1/4/2023
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider approval to designate an Acting City Manager for 2023.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
I t is necessary to designate a person to serve as the Acting City Manager for those times when the City
Manager is absent from the City. I n 2022, the City Manager designated the Assistant City Manager or an
available Department Director as Acting City Manager.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Direct the City Manager to designate the Assistant City Manager or an available
Department Director as Acting City Manager for 2023 in the event the City Manager is absent from the
City.
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 in the Executive Summary.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Past practice has been for the City Council to designate an Acting City Manager for times when
the City Manager is absent from the City.
This designation should be made at the first meeting in J anuary of each year.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
I t is necessary to designate a person to serve as Acting City Manager to ensure continuation of City
operations during the City Manager's absence.
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):
The City Council may defer this designation to a future City Council meeting.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
N/A
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #2.D.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 04
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
1/10/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: C hris S wanson, Management A nalyst
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W:
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider the designation of a Mayor Pro Tempore for 2023.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
The City Charter states it is necessary to designate a City Council Member to serve as the Mayor Pro
Tempore for those times when the Mayor is absent from the City.
Council Member Mary Supple served as Mayor Pro Tempore in 2022.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve the City Council designation of Council Member Simon Trautmann as Mayor Pro
Tempore for 2023.
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 in the Executive Summary.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
The City Council typically considers the designation of a Mayor Pro Tempore at the first meeting
in J anuary of each year.
Section 2.06. The Mayor. Subdivision 1, of the City Charter states: “The Mayor shall be the
presiding officer of the Council, except that the Council shall choose from its members a president
pro temp who shall hold office at the pleasure of the Council and shall serve as president in the
Mayor ’s absence and as Mayor in case of the Mayor ’s disability or absence from the City.”
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
I t is necessary to designate a Mayor Pro Tempore to ensure continuation of City operations during an
absence of the Mayor.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
This designation is at no additional cost to the City.
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):
The City Council may defer this designation to a future City Council meeting.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
N/A
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #2.E.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 05
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
1/10/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: S cott K ulzer, A dministrative A ide/A nalyst
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: K ristin A sher, P ublic Works D irector
12/29/2022
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: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
1/4/2023
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider adoption of a resolution authorizing the City of Richfield to enter into Minnesota Department
of Transportation (MnD O T) Agency Agreement No. 1052132 for Federal Participation in Construction
to allow MnD O T to act as the City's agent in accepting federal aid in connection with transportation
projects.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
This agreement will allow MnD OT to act as the City's agent in accepting federal funds on the City's behalf for
the construction, improvement, or enhancement of transportation infrastructure financed either in whole or in
part by the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) funds. T his agreement is intended to cover all
future federally funded projects for which the City is awarded funds.
T his agreement supersedes a nearly identical agreement (MnDOT Contract No.
1029995) approved by the City Council on January 9, 2018. T his revised agreement is necessitated
by various changes to federal law and will remain in effect until it is superseded at a later date or is
terminated pursuant to section 14.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By Motion: Adopt the resolution authorizing the City of Richfield to enter into MnD O T Agency
Agreement No. 1052132 for Federal Participation in Construction to allow MnD O T to act as the City's
agent in accepting federal aid in connection with transportation projects.
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 agreement supersedes a nearly identical agreement (MnD OT Contract No. 1029995) approved by
the City Council on J anuary 9, 2018.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Minnesota Statutes, section 161.36 allows the City to appoint MnD OT to act as its agent in accepting
federal funds for the construction, improvement, or enhancement of transportation projects financed
either in whole or in part by F HW A funds.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
This revised agreement needs to be executed in order for Richfield to receive any future federal funds
for transportation projects.
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 resolution and will be available to answer any
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
MnD O T F ed A id A gmnt #1052132 C ontract/A greement
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT NO. 1052132 BETWEEN THE
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD FOR THE AGENCY DELEGATED CONTRACTING PROCESS
REGARDING FEDERAL FUNDS FOR TRANSPORTATION RELATED PROJECTS
WHEREAS, The City of Richfield has and anticipates use of federal funds for the
construction, improvement, or enhancement of transportation projects; and
WHEREAS, The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) will act as
the City’s agent in accepting federal aid for transportation related projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota:
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 161.36, the Commissioner of
Transportation be appointed as Agent of the City of Richf ield to accept as its agent,
federal aid funds which may be made available for eligible transportation related
projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota:
The Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed for and on
behalf of the City of Richfield to execute and enter into an agreement with the
Commissioner of Transportation prescribing the terms and conditions of said federal aid
participation as set forth and contained in “Minnesota Department of Transportation
Agency Agreement No. 1052132,” a copy of which said agreement was before the City
Council and which is made a part hereof by reference.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 10th day of
January, 2023.
Mary Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk
MnDOT Contract No. 1052132
Updated November 7, 2022 1
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AGENCY AGREEMENT
for
FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN CONSTRUCTION
This Agreement is entered into by and between City of Richfield (“Local Government”) and the State of Minnesota acting
through its Commissioner of Transportation (“MnDOT”).
RECITALS
1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 161.36, the Local Government desires MnDOT to act as the Local
Government’s agent in accepting federal funds on the Local Government’s behalf for the construction,
improvement, or enhancement of transportation financed either in whole or in part by Federal Highway
Administration (“FHWA”) federal funds, hereinafter referred to as the “Project(s)”; and
2. This Agreement is intended to cover all federal aid projects initiated by the Local Government and therefore has
no specific State Project number associated with it, and
2.1. The Assistance Listing Number (ALN) is 20.205, 20.224, 20.933 or another Department of Transportation
ALN as listed on SAM.gov and
2.2. This project is for construction, not research and development.
2.3. MnDOT requires that the terms and conditions of this agency be set forth in an agreement.
AGREEMENT TERMS
1. Term of Agreement; Prior Agreement
1.1. Effective Date. This Agreement will be effective on the date that MnDOT obtains all required signatures
under Minn. Stat. §16C.05, Subd. 2. This Agreement will remain effective until it is superseded or
terminated pursuant to section 14.
1.2. Prior Agreement. This Agreement supersedes the prior agreement between the parties, MnDOT Contract
Number 1029995.
2. Local Government’s Duties
2.1. Designation. The Local Government designates MnDOT to act as its agent in accepting federal funds on its
behalf made available for the Project(s). Details on the required processes and procedures are available on
the State Aid Website.
2.2. Staffing.
2.2.1. The Local Government will furnish and assign a publicly employed and licensed engineer, (“Project
Engineer"), to be in responsible charge of the Project(s) and to supervise and direct the work to be
performed under any construction contract let for the Project(s). In the alternative, where the Local
Government elects to use a private consultant for construction engineering services, the Local
Government will provide a qualified, full‐time public employee of the Local Government to be in
responsible charge of the Project(s). The services of the Local Government to be performed hereunder
may not be assigned, sublet, or transferred unless the Local Government is notified in writing by
MnDOT that such action is permitted under 23 CFR 1.33 and 23 CFR 635.105 and state law. This
MnDOT Contract No. 1052132
2
written consent will in no way relieve the Local Government from its primary responsibility for
performance of the work.
2.2.2. During the progress of the work on the Project(s), the Local Government authorizes its Project
Engineer to request in writing specific engineering and/or technical services from MnDOT, pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes Section 161.39. Such services may be covered by other technical service
agreements. If MnDOT furnishes the services requested, and if MnDOT requests reimbursement, then
the Local Government will promptly pay MnDOT to reimburse the state trunk highway fund for the full
cost and expense of furnishing such services. The costs and expenses will include the current MnDOT
labor additives and overhead rates, subject to adjustment based on actual direct costs that have been
verified by audit. Provision of such services will not be deemed to make MnDOT a principal or co‐
principal with respect to the Project(s).
2.3. Pre‐letting. The Local Government will prepare construction contracts in accordance with Minnesota law
and applicable Federal laws and regulations.
2.3.1. The Local Government will solicit bids after obtaining written notification from MnDOT that the FHWA
has authorized the Project(s). Any Project(s) advertised prior to authorization without permission will
not be eligible for federal reimbursement.
2.3.2. The Local Government will prepare the Proposal for Highway Construction for the construction
contract, which will include all federal‐aid provisions supplied by MnDOT.
2.3.3. The Local Government will prepare and publish the bid solicitation for the Project(s) as required by
state and federal laws. The Local Government will include in the solicitation the required language for
federal‐aid construction contracts as supplied by MnDOT. The solicitation will state where the
proposals, plans, and specifications are available for the inspection of prospective bidders and where
the Local Government will receive the sealed bids.
2.3.4. The Local Government may not include other work in the construction contract for the authorized
Project(s) without obtaining prior notification from MnDOT that such work is allowed by FHWA.
Failure to obtain such notification may result in the loss of some or all of the federal funds for the
Project(s). All work included in a federal contract is subject to the same federal requirements as the
federal project.
2.3.5. The Local Government will prepare and sell the plan and proposal packages and prepare and
distribute any addenda, if needed.
2.3.6. The Local Government will receive and open bids.
2.3.7. After the bids are opened, the Local Government will consider the bids and will award the bid to the
lowest responsible bidder or reject all bids. If the construction contract contains a goal for
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs), the Local Government will not award the bid until it has
received certification of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise participation from the MnDOT Office
of Civil Rights.
2.3.8. The Local Government must disclose in writing any potential conflict of interest to the Federal
awarding agency or MnDOT in accordance with applicable FHWA policy.
2.4. Contract Administration.
2.4.1. The Local Government will prepare and execute a construction contract with the lowest responsible
bidder, hereinafter referred to as the “Contractor,” in accordance with the special provisions and the
latest edition of MnDOT’s Standard Specifications for Construction when the contract is awarded and
all amendments thereto. All contracts between the Local Government and third parties or
subcontractors must contain all applicable provisions of this Agreement, including the applicable
MnDOT Contract No. 1052132
3
federal contract clauses, which are identified in Appendix II of 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative
Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, and as identified in Section
18 of this Agreement.
2.4.2. The Project(s) will be constructed in accordance with the plans, special provisions, and standard
specifications of each Project. The standard specifications will be the latest edition of MnDOT
Standard Specifications for Highway Construction and all amendments thereto. The plans, special
provisions, and standard specifications will be on file at the Local Government Engineer’s Office. The
plans, special provisions, and specifications are incorporated into this Agreement by reference as
though fully set forth herein.
2.4.3. The Local Government will furnish the personnel, services, supplies, and equipment necessary to
properly supervise, inspect, and document the work for the Project(s). The services of the Local
Government to be performed hereunder may not be assigned, sublet, or transferred unless the Local
Government is notified in writing by MnDOT that such action is permitted under 23 CFR 1.33 and 23
CFR 635.105 and state law. This written consent will in no way relieve the Local Government from its
primary responsibility for performance of the work.
2.4.4. The Local Government will document quantities in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the
Construction Section of the Electronic State Aid Manual that are in effect at the time the work was
performed.
2.4.5. The Local Government will test materials in accordance with the Schedule of Materials Control in
effect at the time each Project was let. The Local Government will notify MnDOT when work is in
progress on the Project(s) that requires observation by the Independent Assurance Inspector, as
required by the Independent Assurance Schedule.
2.4.6. The Local Government may make changes in the plans or the character of the work, as may be
necessary to complete the Project(s), and may enter into Change Order(s) with the Contractor. The
Local Government will not be reimbursed for any costs of any work performed under a change order
unless MnDOT has notified the Local Government that the subject work is eligible for federal funds
and sufficient federal funds are available.
2.4.7. The Local Government will request approval from MnDOT for all costs in excess of the amount of
federal funds previously approved for the Project(s) prior to incurring such costs. Failure to obtain
such approval may result in such costs being disallowed for reimbursement.
2.4.8. The Local Government will prepare reports, keep records, and perform work so as to meet federal
requirements and to enable MnDOT to collect the federal aid sought by the Local Government.
Required reports are listed in the MnDOT State Aid Manual, Delegated Contract Process Checklist,
available from MnDOT’s authorized representative. The Local Government will retain all records and
reports and allow MnDOT or the FHWA access to such records and reports for six years.
2.4.9. Upon completion of the Project(s), the Project Engineer will determine whether the work will be
accepted.
2.5. Limitations.
2.5.1. The Local Government will comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and
regulations.
2.5.2. Nondiscrimination. It is the policy of the Federal Highway Administration and the State of Minnesota
that no person in the United States will, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded
from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program
or activity receiving Federal financial assistance (42 U.S.C. 2000d). Through expansion of the mandate
MnDOT Contract No. 1052132
4
for nondiscrimination in Title VI and through parallel legislation, the proscribed bases of discrimination
include race, color, sex, national origin, age, and disability. In addition, the Title VI program has been
extended to cover all programs, activities and services of an entity receiving Federal financial
assistance, whether such programs and activities are Federally assisted or not. Even in the absence of
prior discriminatory practice or usage, a recipient in administering a program or activity to which this
part applies is expected to take affirmative action to assure that no person is excluded from
participation in, or is denied the benefits of, the program or activity on the grounds of race, color,
national origin, sex, age, or disability. It is the responsibility of the Local Government to carry out the
above requirements.
2.5.3. Utilities. The Local Government will treat all public, private or cooperatively owned utility facilities
which directly or indirectly serve the public and which occupy highway rights of way in conformance
with 23 CFR 645 “Utilities”, which is incorporated herein by reference.
2.6. Maintenance. The Local Government assumes full responsibility for the operation and maintenance of any
facility constructed or improved under this Agreement.
3. MnDOT’s Duties
3.1. Acceptance. MnDOT accepts designation as Agent of the Local Government for the receipt and disbursement
of federal funds and will act in accordance herewith.
3.2. Project Activities.
3.2.1. MnDOT will make the necessary requests to the FHWA for authorization to use federal funds for the
Project(s) and for reimbursement of eligible costs pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
3.2.2. MnDOT will provide to the Local Government copies of the required Federal‐aid clauses to be included
in the bid solicitation and will provide the required Federal‐aid provisions to be included in the Proposal
for Highway Construction.
3.2.3. MnDOT will review and certify the DBE participation and notify the Local Government when certification
is complete. If certification of DBE participation (or good faith efforts to achieve such participation)
cannot be obtained, then Local Government must decide whether to proceed with awarding the
contract. Failure to obtain such certification will result in the Project becoming ineligible for federal
assistance, and the Local Government must make up any shortfall.
3.2.4. MnDOT will provide the required labor postings.
3.3. Authority. MnDOT may withhold federal funds, where MnDOT or the FHWA determines that the Project(s)
was not completed in compliance with federal requirements.
3.4. Inspection. MnDOT, the FHWA, or duly authorized representatives of the state and federal government will
have the right to audit, evaluate and monitor the work performed under this Agreement. The Local
Government will make all books, records, and documents pertaining to the work hereunder available for a
minimum of six years following the closing of the construction contract.
4. Time
4.1. The Local Government must comply with all time requirements described in this Agreement. In the
performance of this Agreement, time is of the essence.
4.2. The period of performance is defined as beginning on the date of federal authorization and ending on the
date defined in the federal financial system or federal agreement (“end date”). No work completed after
the end date will be eligible for federal funding. Local Government must submit all contract close out
paperwork to MnDOT at least twenty‐four months prior to the end date.
MnDOT Contract No. 1052132
5
5. Payment
5.1. Cost. The entire cost of the Project(s) is to be paid from federal funds made available by the FHWA and by
other funds provided by the Local Government. The Local Government will pay any part of the cost or
expense of the Project(s) that is not paid by federal funds. MnDOT will receive the federal funds to be paid
by the FHWA for the Project(s), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 161.36, Subdivision 2. MnDOT will
reimburse the Local Government, from said federal funds made available to each Project, for each partial
payment request, subject to the availability and limits of those funds.
5.2. Indirect Cost Rate Proposal/Cost Allocation Plan. If the Local Government seeks reimbursement for indirect
costs and has submitted to MnDOT an indirect cost rate proposal or a cost allocation plan, the rate proposed
will be used on a provisional basis. At any time during the period of performance or the final audit of a
Project, MnDOT may audit and adjust the indirect cost rate according to the cost principles in 2 CFR Part
200. MnDOT may adjust associated reimbursements accordingly.
5.3. Reimbursement. The Local Government will prepare partial estimates in accordance with the terms of the
construction contract for the Project(s). The Project Engineer will certify each partial estimate. Following
certification of the partial estimate, the Local Government will make partial payments to the Contractor in
accordance with the terms of the construction contract for the Project(s).
5.3.1. Following certification of the partial estimate, the Local Government may request reimbursement for
costs eligible for federal funds. The Local Government’s request will be made to MnDOT and will
include a copy of the certified partial estimate.
5.3.2. Upon completion of the Project(s), the Local Government will prepare a final estimate in accordance
with the terms of the construction contract for the Project(s). The Project Engineer will certify the
final estimate. Following certification of the final estimate, the Local Government will make the final
payment to the Contractor in accordance with the terms of the construction contract for the
Project(s).
5.3.3. Following certification of the final estimate, the Local Government may request reimbursement for
costs eligible for federal funds. The Local Government’s request will be made to MnDOT and will
include a copy of the certified final estimate along with the required records.
5.3.4. Upon completion of the Project(s), MnDOT will perform a final inspection and verify the federal and
state eligibility of all payment requests. If the Project is found to have been completed in accordance
with the plans and specifications, MnDOT will promptly release any remaining federal funds due the
Local Government for the Project(s). If MnDOT finds that the Local Government has been overpaid,
the Local Government must promptly return any excess funds.
5.3.5. In the event MnDOT does not obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature or other funding source,
or funding cannot be continued at a sufficient level to allow for the processing of the federal aid
reimbursement requests, the Local Government may continue the work with local funds only, until
such time as MnDOT is able to process the federal aid reimbursement requests.
5.4. Matching Funds. Any cost sharing or matching funds required of the Local Government in this Agreement
must comply with 2 CFR 200.306.
5.5. Federal Funds. Payments under this Agreement will be made from federal funds. The Local Government is
responsible for compliance with all federal requirements imposed on these funds and accepts full financial
responsibility for failure to comply with any federal requirements including, but not limited to, 2 CFR Part
200. If, for any reason, the federal government fails to pay part of the cost or expense incurred by the Local
Government, or in the event the total amount of federal funds is not available, the Local Government will be
responsible for any and all costs or expenses incurred under this Agreement. The Local Government further
MnDOT Contract No. 1052132
6
agrees to pay any and all lawful claims arising out of or incidental to the performance of the work covered
by this Agreement in the event the federal government does not pay the same.
5.6. Closeout. The Local Government must liquidate all obligations incurred under this Agreement for each
Project and submit all financial, performance, and other reports as required by the terms of this Agreement
and the Federal award at least twenty‐four months prior to the end date of the period of performance for
each Project. MnDOT will determine, at its sole discretion, whether a closeout audit is required prior to final
payment approval. If a closeout audit is required, final payment will be held until the audit has been
completed. Monitoring of any capital assets acquired with funds will continue following project closeout.
6. Conditions of Payment. All services provided by Local Government under this Agreement must be performed to
MnDOT’s satisfaction, as determined at the sole discretion of MnDOT’s Authorized Representative, and in
accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The Local
Government will not receive payment for work found by MnDOT to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of
federal, state, or local law.
7. Authorized Representatives
7.1. MnDOT's Authorized Representative is:
Name: Kristine Elwood, or her successor.
Title: State Aid Engineer
Phone: 651‐366‐4831
Email: Kristine.elwood@state.mn.us
MnDOT’s Authorized Representative has the responsibility to monitor Local Government’s performance and
the authority to accept the services provided under this Agreement. If the services are satisfactory,
MnDOT's Authorized Representative will certify acceptance on each invoice submitted for payment.
7.2. The Local Government’s Authorized Representative is:
Name: Joe Powers or their successor.
Title: Richfield City Engineer
Phone: 612‐861‐9791
Email: jpowers@richfieldmn.gov
If the Local Government’s Authorized Representative changes at any time during this Agreement, the Local
Government will immediately notify MnDOT.
8. Assignment Amendments, Waiver, and Agreement Complete
8.1. Assignment. The Local Government may neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this
Agreement without the prior written consent of MnDOT and a fully executed Assignment Agreement,
executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved this Agreement, or their successors
in office.
8.2. Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement 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 agreement, or
their successors in office.
8.3. Waiver. If MnDOT fails to enforce any provision of this Agreement, that failure does not waive the provision
or MnDOT’s right to subsequently enforce it.
8.4. Agreement Complete. This Agreement contains all negotiations and agreements between MnDOT and the
MnDOT Contract No. 1052132
7
Local Government. No other understanding regarding this Agreement, whether written or oral, may be used
to bind either party.
8.5. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement, or the application thereof, is found to be invalid or
unenforceable to any extent, the remainder of the Agreement, including all material provisions and the
application of such provisions, will not be affected and will be enforceable to the greatest extent permitted
by the law.
8.6. Electronic Records and Signatures. The parties agree to contract by electronic means. This includes using
electronic signatures and converting original documents to electronic records.
8.7. Certification. By signing this Agreement, the Local Government certifies that it is not suspended or
debarred from receiving federal or state awards.
9. Liability and Claims
9.1. Tort Liability. Each party is responsible for its own acts and omissions and the results thereof to the extent
authorized by law and will not be responsible for the acts and omissions of any others and the results
thereof. The Minnesota Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 3.736, governs MnDOT liability.
9.2. Claims. The Local Government acknowledges that MnDOT is acting only as the Local Government’s agent
for acceptance and disbursement of federal funds, and not as a principal or co‐principal with respect to the
Project. The Local Government will pay any and all lawful claims arising out of or incidental to the Project
including, without limitation, claims related to contractor selection (including the solicitation, evaluation,
and acceptance or rejection of bids or proposals), acts or omissions in performing the Project work, and any
ultra vires acts. To the extent permitted by law, the Local Government will indemnify, defend (to the
extent permitted by the Minnesota Attorney General), and hold MnDOT harmless from any claims or costs
arising out of or incidental to the Project(s), including reasonable attorney fees incurred by MnDOT. The
Local Government’s indemnification obligation extends to any actions related to the certification of DBE
participation, even if such actions are recommended by MnDOT.
10. Audits
10.1. Under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, Subd.5, the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and
practices of the Local Government, or any other party relevant to this Agreement or transaction, are subject
to examination by MnDOT and/or the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of
six years from the end of this Agreement, receipt and approval of all final reports, or the required period of
time to satisfy all state and program retention requirements, whichever is later. The Local Government will
take timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies identified by an audit.
10.2. All requests for reimbursement are subject to audit, at MnDOT’s discretion. The cost principles outlined in 2
CFR 200.400‐.476 will be used to determine whether costs are eligible for reimbursement under this
Agreement.
10.3. If Local Government expends $750,000 or more in Federal Funds during the Local Government’s fiscal year,
the Local Government must have a single audit or program specific audit conducted in accordance with 2
CFR Part 200.
11. Government Data Practices. The Local Government and MnDOT must comply with the Minnesota Government
Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data provided by MnDOT under this Agreement, and as it
applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Local
Government under this Agreement. 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 MnDOT.
12. Workers Compensation. The Local Government certifies that it is in compliance with Minn. Stat. §176.181, Subd.
2, pertaining to workers’ compensation insurance coverage. The Local Government’s employees and agents will
MnDOT Contract No. 1052132
8
not be considered MnDOT employees. Any claims that may arise under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation
Act on behalf of these employees and any claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission
on the part of these employees are in no way MnDOT’s obligation or responsibility.
13. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue. Minnesota law, without regard to its choice‐of‐law provisions, governs
this Agreement. Venue for all legal proceedings out of this Agreement, or its breach, must be in the appropriate
state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
14. Termination; Suspension
14.1. Termination by MnDOT. MnDOT may terminate this Agreement with or without cause, upon 30 days
written notice to the Local Government. Upon termination, the Local Government will be entitled to
payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed.
14.2. Termination for Cause. MnDOT may immediately terminate this Agreement if MnDOT finds that there has
been a failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement, that reasonable progress has not been
made, that fraudulent or wasteful activity has occurred, that the Local Government has been convicted of a
criminal offense relating to a state agreement, or that the purposes for which the funds were granted have
not been or will not be fulfilled. MnDOT may take action to protect the interests of MnDOT of Minnesota,
including the refusal to disburse additional funds and/or requiring the return of all or part of the funds
already disbursed.
14.3. Termination for Insufficient Funding. MnDOT may immediately terminate this Agreement if:
14.3.1. It does not obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature; or
14.3.2. If funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services covered
here. Termination must be by written or fax notice to the Local Government. MnDOT is not
obligated to pay for any services that are provided after notice and effective date of termination.
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. MnDOT will not be assessed
any penalty if the Agreement is terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota Legislature, or
other funding source, not to appropriate funds. MnDOT will provide the Local Government notice of
the lack of funding within a reasonable time of MnDOT’s receiving that notice.
14.4. Suspension. MnDOT may immediately suspend this Agreement in the event of a total or partial government
shutdown due to the failure to have an approved budget by the legal deadline. Work performed by the
Local Government during a period of suspension will be deemed unauthorized and undertaken at risk of
non‐payment.
15. Data Disclosure. Under Minn. Stat. § 270C.65, Subd. 3, and other applicable law, the Local Government consents
to disclosure of its social security number, federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax
identification number, already provided to MnDOT, 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.
16. Fund Use Prohibited. The Local Government will not utilize any funds received pursuant to this Agreement to
compensate, either directly or indirectly, any contractor, corporation, partnership, or business, however
organized, which is disqualified or debarred from entering into or receiving a State contract. This restriction
applies regardless of whether the disqualified or debarred party acts in the capacity of a general contractor, a
subcontractor, or as an equipment or material supplier. This restriction does not prevent the Local Government
from utilizing these funds to pay any party who might be disqualified or debarred after the Local Government’s
contract award on this Project.
MnDOT Contract No. 1052132
9
17. Discrimination Prohibited by Minnesota Statutes §181.59. The Local Government will comply with the provisions
of Minnesota Statutes §181.59 which requires that 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 will contain provisions by which 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, will, 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, will, 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 of Minnesota, or any county, city, town, township, school, school district or
any other person authorized to 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 Agreement.
18. Federal Contract Clauses
18.1. Appendix II 2 CFR Part 200. The Local Government agrees to comply with the following federal
requirements as identified in 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards, and agrees to pass through these requirements to its subcontractors and
third‐party contractors, as applicable. In addition, the Local Government shall have the same meaning as
“Contractor” in the federal requirements listed below.
18.1.1. Contracts for more than the simplified acquisition threshold, which is the inflation adjusted amount
determined by the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations
Council (Councils) as authorized by 41 U.S.C. 1908, must address administrative, contractual, or legal
remedies in instances where contractors violate or breach contract terms, and provide for such
sanctions and penalties as appropriate.
18.1.2. All contracts in excess of $10,000 must address termination for cause and for convenience by the
non‐Federal entity including the manner by which it will be effected and the basis for settlement.
18.1.3. Equal Employment Opportunity. Except as otherwise provided under 41 CFR Part 60, all contracts
that meet the definition of “federally assisted construction contract” in 41 CFR Part 60‐1.3 must
include the equal opportunity clause provided under 41 CFR 60‐1.4(b), in accordance with Executive
Order 11246, “Equal Employment Opportunity” (30 FR 12319, 12935, 3 CFR Part, 1964‐1965 Comp.,
p. 339), as amended by Executive Order 11375, “Amending Executive Order 11246 Relating to Equal
Employment Opportunity,” and implementing regulations at 41 CFR part 60, “Office of Federal
Contract Compliance Programs, Equal Employment Opportunity, Department of Labor.”
18.1.4. Davis‐Bacon Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 3141‐3148). When required by Federal program legislation,
all prime construction contracts in excess of $2,000 awarded by non‐Federal entities must include a
provision for compliance with the Davis‐Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 3141‐3144, and 3146‐3148) as
supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 5, “Labor Standards Provisions
Applicable to Contracts Covering Federally Financed and Assisted Construction”). In accordance with
the statute, contractors must be required to pay wages to laborers and mechanics at a rate not less
than the prevailing wages specified in a wage determination made by the Secretary of Labor. In
addition, contractors must be required to pay wages not less than once a week. The non‐Federal
entity must place a copy of the current prevailing wage determination issued by the Department of
Labor in each solicitation. The decision to award a contract or subcontract must be conditioned
upon the acceptance of the wage determination. The non‐Federal entity must report all suspected
or reported violations to the Federal awarding agency. The contracts must also include a provision
MnDOT Contract No. 1052132
10
for compliance with the Copeland “Anti‐Kickback” Act (40 U.S.C. 3145), as supplemented
by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 3, “Contractors and Subcontractors on Public
Building or Public Work Financed in Whole or in Part by Loans or Grants from the United States”).
The Act provides that each contractor or subrecipient must be prohibited from inducing, by any
means, any person employed in the construction, completion, or repair of public work, to give up
any part of the compensation to which he or she is otherwise entitled. The non‐Federal entity must
report all suspected or reported violations to the Federal awarding agency.
18.1.5. Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3701‐3708). Where applicable, all
contracts awarded by the non‐Federal entity in excess of $100,000 that involve the employment of
mechanics or laborers must include a provision for compliance with 40 U.S.C. 3702 and 3704, as
supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 5). Under 40 U.S.C. 3702 of the Act,
each contractor must be required to compute the wages of every mechanic and laborer on the basis
of a standard work week of 40 hours. Work in excess of the standard work week is permissible
provided that the worker is compensated at a rate of not less than one and a half times the basic
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in the work week. The requirements of 40
U.S.C. 3704 are applicable to construction work and provide that no laborer or mechanic must be
required to work in surroundings or under working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous or
dangerous. These requirements do not apply to the purchases of supplies or materials or articles
ordinarily available on the open market, or contracts for transportation or transmission of
intelligence.
18.1.6. Rights to Inventions Made Under a Contract or Agreement. If the Federal award meets the definition
of “funding agreement” under 37 CFR § 401.2 (a) and the recipient or subrecipient wishes to enter
into a contract with a small business firm or nonprofit organization regarding the substitution of
parties, assignment or performance of experimental, developmental, or research work under that
“funding agreement,” the recipient or subrecipient must comply with the requirements of 37 CFR
Part 401, “Rights to Inventions Made by Nonprofit Organizations and Small Business Firms Under
Government Grants, Contracts and Cooperative Agreements,” and any implementing regulations
issued by the awarding agency.
18.1.7. Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401‐7671q.) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251‐
1387), as amended ‐ Contracts and subgrants of amounts in excess of $150,000 must contain a
provision that requires the non‐Federal award to agree to comply with all applicable standards,
orders or regulations issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401‐7671q) and the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251‐1387). Violations must be reported to the
Federal awarding agency and the Regional Office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
18.1.8. Debarment and Suspension (Executive Orders 12549 and 12689) ‐ A contract award (see 2 CFR
180.220) must not be made to parties listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for
Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement
Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235),
“Debarment and Suspension.” SAM Exclusions contains the names of parties debarred, suspended,
or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or
regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549.
18.1.9. Byrd Anti‐Lobbying Amendment (31 U.S.C. 1352) ‐ Contractors that apply or bid for an award
exceeding $100,000 must file the required certification. Each tier certifies to the tier above that it
will not and has not used Federal appropriated funds to pay any person or organization for
influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress,
officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with
obtaining any Federal contract, grant or any other award covered by 31 U.S.C. 1352. Each tier must
MnDOT Contract No. 1052132
11
also disclose any lobbying with non‐Federal funds that takes place in connection with obtaining any
Federal award. Such disclosures are forwarded from tier to tier up to the non‐Federal award.
18.1.10. Local Government will comply with 2 CFR § 200.323.
18.1.11. Local Government will comply with 2 CFR § 200.216.
18.1.12. Local Government will comply with 2 CFR § 200.322.
18.2. Drug‐Free Workplace. The Local Government will comply with the Drug‐Free Workplace requirements
under subpart B of 49 C.F.R. Part 32.
18.3. Title VI/Non‐discrimination Assurances. The Local Government hereby agrees that, as a condition of
receiving any Federal financial assistance under this Agreement, it will comply with Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d), related nondiscrimination statutes (i.e., 23 U.S.C. § 324,
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975), and
applicable regulatory requirements to the end that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of
race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or age be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits
of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the Local
Government receives Federal financial assistance.
The Local Government hereby agrees to comply with all applicable US DOT Standard Title VI/Non‐
Discrimination Assurances contained in DOT Order No. 1050.2A, and in particular Appendices A and E,
which can be found at: https://edocs‐
public.dot.state.mn.us/edocs_public/DMResultSet/download?docId=11149035. If federal funds are
included in any contract, the Local Government will ensure the appendices and solicitation language within
the assurances are inserted into contracts as required. State may conduct a review of the Local
Government’s compliance with this provision. The Local Government must cooperate with State
throughout the review process by supplying all requested information and documentation to State, making
Local Government staff and officials available for meetings as requested, and correcting any areas of non‐
compliance as determined by State.
18.4. Buy America. The Local Government must comply with the Buy America domestic preferences contained
in the Build America, Buy America Act (Sections 70901‐52 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act, Public Law 117‐58) and as implemented by US DOT operating agencies.
18.5. Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA)
18.5.1. This Agreement requires the Local Government to provide supplies and/or services that are funded
in whole or in part by federal funds that are subject to FFATA. The Local Government is responsible
for ensuring that all applicable requirements, including but not limited to those set forth herein, of
FFATA are met and that the Local Government provides information to the MnDOT as required.
a. Reporting of Total Compensation of the Local Government’s Executives.
b. The Local Government shall report the names and total compensation of each of its five most
highly compensated executives for the Local Government’s preceding completed fiscal year, if
in the Local Government’s preceding fiscal year it received:
i. 80 percent or more of the Local Government’s annual gross revenues from Federal
procurement contracts and Federal financial assistance subject to the Transparency Act,
as defined at 2 CFR 170.320 (and subawards); and
ii. $25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenues from Federal procurement contracts (and
subcontracts), and Federal financial assistance subject to the Transparency Act (and
subawards); and
MnDOT Contract No. 1052132
12
iii. The public does not have access to information about the compensation of the
executives through periodic reports filed under section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a), 78o(d)) or section 6104 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986. (To determine if the public has access to the compensation information,
see the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission total compensation filings at
https://www.sec.gov/answers/execomp.htm).
Executive means officers, managing partners, or any other employees in management
positions.
c. Total compensation means the cash and noncash dollar value earned by the executive during
the Local Government’s preceding fiscal year and includes the following (for more information
see 17 CFR 229.402(c)(2)):
i. Salary and bonus.
ii. Awards of stock, stock options, and stock appreciation rights. Use the dollar amount
recognized for financial statement reporting purposes with respect to the fiscal year in
accordance with the Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (Revised
2004) (FAS 123R), Shared Based Payments.
iii. Earnings for services under non‐equity incentive plans. This does not include group life,
health, hospitalization or medical reimbursement plans that do not discriminate in favor
of executives, and are available generally to all salaried employees.
iv. Change in pension value. This is the change in present value of defined benefit and
actuarial pension plans.
v. Above‐market earnings on deferred compensation which is not tax qualified.
18.5.2. Other compensation, if the aggregate value of all such other compensation (e.g. severance,
termination payments, value of life insurance paid on behalf of the employee, perquisites or
property) for the executive exceeds $10,000.
18.5.3. The Local Government must report executive total compensation described above to the MnDOT
by the end of the month during which this Agreement is awarded.
18.5.4. The Local Government will obtain a Unique Entity Identifier number and maintain this number for
the term of this Agreement. This number shall be provided to MnDOT on the plan review checklist
submitted with the plans for each Project.
18.5.5. The Local Government’s failure to comply with the above requirements is a material breach of this
Agreement for which the MnDOT may terminate this Agreement for cause. The MnDOT will not be
obligated to pay any outstanding invoice received from the Local Government unless and until the
Local Government is in full compliance with the above requirements.
[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE HAS INTENTIONALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK.]
MnDOT Contract No. 1052132
13
City of Richfield
Local Government certifies that the appropriate
person(s) have executed the contract on behalf of the
Local Government as required by applicable articles,
bylaws, resolutions or ordinances.
By:
Title:
Date:
By:
Title:
Date:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
By:
Title:
Date:
COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION
By:
Date:
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #2.F.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 06
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
1/10/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: S cott K ulzer, A dministrative A ide/A nalyst
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: K ristin A sher, P ublic Works D irector
1/3/2023
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: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
1/4/2023
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider the adoption of a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manger to execute Cooperativ e
Construction Agre ement No. 1050958 between the City of Richfield and the State of Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnD O T) for construction of the I-494: Airport to Highway 169 Project
1.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Cooperative Construction Agreement
The Cooperative Construction Agreement up for consideration is a routine agreement between the City and
MnD OT that sets out the terms, conditions and obligations of each party as it relates to the I -494: Airport to
Highway 169 Project 1. Cooperative construction agreements are common when infrastructure projects
involve multiple agencies or jurisdictions. I n addition to the routine terms included in this cooperative
agreement, the following items are added as part of this specific project:
The State will perform grading, concrete pavement, bituminous pavement, storm sewer, signal system,
bridge, lighting, and signing construction and other associated construction along the project extents;
and
City cost participation is required for the grading, bituminous pavement, sidewalk, signal system,
lighting, and bridge construction and the City is willing to participate in the costs of said construction,
including any associated design and construction engineering delivery costs;
Separate agreements will address maintenance and utility responsibilities among the involved state and
local agencies; and
Staff are negotiating a section of the agreement to include City acceptance of final construction and
expect the the final agreement to differ slightly from the attached draft agreement.
Project 1 Background
Project 1 will construct an E-Z Pass lane on I -494 from TH 100 to I -35W in each direction, Phase 1 of the
turbine interchange at the I -494/I -35W interchange, access changes at Penn and replacement of the bridges
and access changes at Nicollet, Portland, and 12th Avenues. A new pedestrian/bicycle bridge near Chicago
Avenue will also be constructed over I -494. Construction will include replacement of existing pavement,
drainage, construction of retaining walls, sidewalks, bike lanes, signing, lighting, and traffic management.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By Motion: Adopt the resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute Cooperative
Construction Agreement No. 1050958 between the City of Richfield and MnD O T for construction of the
I-494: Airport to Highway 169 Project 1.
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
See executive summary
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Approval of this cooperative construction agreement is required by MnD OT and necessary for the
project to continue moving forward.
The Council approved Municipal Consent of the I -494: Airport to Highway 169 Project 1 at the
February 22, 2022 council meeting.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The public bid opening for design-build bidders is scheduled for J anuary 18, 2023. MnD OT has
requested that the Cooperative Construction Agreement be executed prior to the bid opening.
Construction is anticipated to begin in 2024, however, significant construction on Richfield's local
roads is not anticipated until 2025.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
The estimated cost participation required of the City is $1,935,750.27 and is broken down as follows:
$223,412.30 - Construction West of 494/35W I nterchange
$660,011.66 - Construction East of 494/35W I nterchange
$198,549.31 - Nicollet Ave Bridge
$185,868.86 - Portland Ave Bridge
$257,158.08 - 12th Ave Bridge
$350,750.05 - Design and Construction Engineering Delivery
$60,000.00 - County Furnished Materials (City's Share)
$1,935,750.27 - TO TAL C ITY C O S T
The above costs are estimated based on MnD OT’s preliminary design, and will be finalized when
the design-build contract is awarded (February 2023).
These costs will be paid using Municipal State Aid funding. MnD OT State Aid has confirmed that
all anticipated City costs are Municipal State Aid eligible.
Any utility costs related to the project will be covered under a future Master Utility Agreement once
a contractor is identified.
Additional costs may be incurred during construction if the City requests additional work not
included in the current design.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement and will be available at the meeting to address any
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
A GR Richfield C ontract/A greement
Resolution Resolution L etter
MnDOT Contract No.: 1050958
-1-
Design-Build Lump Sum on Low Bid (Cooperative Agreements)
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
And
CITY OF RICHFIELD
COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION
AGREEMENT
State Project Number (S.P.): 2785-424
Trunk Highway Number (T.H.): 494=393
State Aid Project Number (S.A.P.): 157-030-007
Federal Project Number: CRRSAA-NHPP-NHFP I494(009)
Bridge No.: 27422, 27423,27424
Estimated Amount Receivable
$1,935,750.27
This Agreement is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Transportation ("State") and
the City of Richfield acting through its City Council ("City").
Recitals
1. The State will perform grading, concrete pavement, bituminous pavement, storm sewer, signal system,
bridge, lighting, and signing construction and other associated construction upon, along, and adjacent to
Trunk Highway No. 494 from East Bush Lake Road to Trunk Highway No. 77 according to State-prepared
plans, specifications, and special provisions designated by the State as State Project No. 2785-424
(T.H. 494=393) ("Project"); and
2. City cost participation is required for the grading, bituminous pavement, sidewalk, signal system, lighting,
and bridge construction and the City is willing to participate in the costs of said construction, including any
associated design and construction engineering delivery costs; and
3. Separate agreements between the State and Hennepin County (No. 1050955), the City of Bloomington
(No. 1050954), Metropolitan Council Transit (No. 1050957), Metropolitan Airports Commission
(No. 1050959), and Three Rivers Park District (No. 1050959) will address Project cost and maintenance
responsibilities not covered in this Agreement; and
4. Agreement No. 1051546 (Hennepin County Agreement No. PW 42-40-22) between the State, the City,
Hennepin County, and the City of Bloomington will address maintenance responsibilities not covered in this
Agreement; and
5. The City and Hennepin County have entered into a separate agreement, Hennepin County Agreement
No. PW 35-19-22, to assign maintenance responsibilities not covered in this Agreement.
6. The design, construction, inspection, and maintenance of the City-owned utilities, excluding lighting
systems, to be constructed under the Project will be covered under Master Utility Agreement No. 1051052
between the State, the design-build contractor and the City; and
7. Minnesota Statutes § 161.45, subdivision 2, allows for City-owned utility relocation to be included in a State
design-build contract, and payment by the City for such relocation according to applicable statutes and rules
for utilities on trunk highways; and
8. Minnesota Statutes § 161.20, subdivision 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.
MnDOT Contract No.: 1050958
-2-
Design-Build Lump Sum on Low Bid (Cooperative Agreements)
Agreement
1. Term of Agreement; Survival of Terms; Plans; Incorporation of Exhibits
1.1. Effective Date. This Agreement will be effective on the date the State obtains all signatures required by
Minnesota Statutes § 16C.05, subdivision 2.
1.2. Expiration Date. This Agreement will expire when all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled.
1.3. Survival of Terms. All clauses which impose obligations continuing in their nature and which must survive
in order to give effect to their meaning will survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement,
including, without limitation, the following clauses: 7. Liability; Worker Compensation Claims; 9. State
Audits; 10. Government Data Practices; 12. Governing Law; Jurisdiction; Venue; and 14. Force Majeure.
1.4. Exhibits. Preliminary Schedule "I" is attached and incorporated into this Agreement.
2. Construction by the State
2.1. Contract Award. The State will advertise for technical and price proposals and award a design-build
contract to the "Low Bid/Best Value Proposer" for State Project No. 2785-424 (T.H. 494=393) according to
the State Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and Request for Proposal (RFP) documents, which are on file in
the office of the Commissioner of Transportation at St. Paul, Minnesota, and incorporated into this
Agreement by reference ("Project Plans").
2.2. Direction, Supervision, and Inspection of Construction.
A. Supervision and Inspection by the State. The State will direct and supervise all design-build activities
performed under the design-build construction contract, and oversee all construction engineering and
inspection functions in connection with the design-build construction. All design-build construction will
be performed according to the State's Request for Proposals, the Contractor's technical proposal, and
approved plans.
B. Inspection by the City. The City participation construction covered under this Agreement will be open
to inspection by the City. If the City believes the City participation construction covered under this
Agreement has not been properly performed or that the construction is defective, the City will inform
the State District Engineer's authorized representative in writing of those defects. Any
recommendations made by the City are not binding on the State. The State will have the exclusive right
to determine whether the State's contractor has satisfactorily performed the City participation
construction covered under this Agreement.
2.3. Plan Changes, Additional Construction, Etc.
A. The State may request the Contractor to make changes in the design and/or design-build contract
construction, which may include the City participation construction covered under this Agreement, and
will enter into any necessary addenda and change orders with the State's contractor that are necessary
to cause the design-build contract construction to be performed and completed in a satisfactory
manner. The State District Engineer's authorized representative will inform the appropriate City official
of any proposed addenda and change orders to the design-build contract that will affect the City
participation construction covered under this Agreement.
B. The City may request additional work or changes to the work in the plans as part of the design-build
contract. Such request will be made by an exchange of letter(s) with the State. If the State determines
that the requested additional work or plan changes are necessary or desirable and can be
MnDOT Contract No.: 1050958
-3-
Design-Build Lump Sum on Low Bid (Cooperative Agreements)
accommodated without undue disruption to the project, the State will cause the additional work or
plan changes to be made.
2.4. Satisfactory Completion of Contract. The State will perform all other acts and functions necessary to cause
the design-build contract to be completed in a satisfactory manner. Acceptance by the State of the
completed design-build contract construction will be final, binding, and conclusive upon the City as to the
satisfactory completion of the design-build contract construction.
2.5. Limited Use Permit. The City will obtain, through the District's Right-of-Way Area Manager, a Limited Use
Permit to cover the City's liability responsibilities of the bikeway and multi-use trail to be constructed
upon the State Right-of-Way.
2.6. Replacement of Castings. Adjustments to certain City-owned facilities, including but not limited to, valve
boxes and frame and ring castings, may be performed by the State's contractor under the design-build
contract. The City will furnish the contractor with new units and/or parts for those in place City-owned
facilities when replacements are required and not covered by a contract pay item, without cost or expense
to the State or the contractor, except for replacement of units and/or parts broken or damaged by the
contractor.
3. Basis of City Cost
3.1. City Participation Construction. The City will participate in the following as indicated. The lump sum
amounts shown are based on the engineer's estimate and do not include all design and construction
engineering delivery costs associated with the City's cost participation. The City's rate of cost participation
is determined by dividing the City's participating construction amount of each Design-Build item by the
total cost of the Design-Build item and is shown on the Schedule "I". The City's bid-based lump sum
amount will be determined using the rates as established from the engineer's estimate and the Design-
Build bid item prices.
A. $223,412.30 is the City's estimated bid-based lump sum cost for the construction west of the T.H. 494
at T.H. 35W interchange as tabulated on Sheet No. 2 of Preliminary Schedule "I".
B. $660,011.66 is the City's estimated bid-based lump sum cost for the construction east of the T.H. 494 at
T.H. 35W interchange as tabulated on Sheet No. 2 of the Preliminary Schedule "I".
C. $198,549.31 is the City's estimated bid-based lump sum cost for the Bridge "I" (Bridge No. 27422)
(Nicollet Avenue) as tabulated on Sheet No. 3 of the Preliminary Schedule "I".
D. $185,868.86 is the City's estimated bid-based lump sum cost for the Bridge "J" (Bridge No. 27423)
(Portland Avenue) as tabulated on Sheet No. 3 of the Preliminary Schedule "I".
E. $257,158.58 is the City's estimated bid-based lump sum cost for the Bridge "K" (Bridge No. 27424) (12th
Avenue) as tabulated on Sheet No. 3 of the Preliminary Schedule "I".
3.2. Design and Construction Engineering Delivery Costs. The City will pay a design and construction
engineering delivery charge equal to 23 percent of the total City participation construction covered under
this Agreement.
3.3. County Furnished Materials. Hennepin County will furnish signal cabinets and vehicle detection equipment
("County Furnished Materials"), according to the Project Plans, to operate the traffic control signal
systems covered under this Agreement. The City's lump sum share for County Furnished Materials is
$60,000.00. The City's cost share for County Furnished Materials will be added to the City's total
construction cost share as shown in the Schedule "I".
MnDOT Contract No.: 1050958
-4-
Design-Build Lump Sum on Low Bid (Cooperative Agreements)
3.4. Plan Changes, Additional Construction, Etc. The City will share in the costs of construction contract
addenda and change orders that are necessary to complete the City participation construction covered
under this Agreement, including any City requested additional work and plan changes.
The State reserves the right to invoice the City for the cost of any additional City requested work and plan
changes, design-build contract addenda, change orders, and associated design and construction
engineering delivery costs before the completion of the design-build contract construction. If the design
and construction engineering delivery costs are not included in any change order estimates, the amount
will be added to the City's estimate of costs. The computation by the State of the amount due from the
City will be final, binding, and conclusive.
4. City Cost and Payment by the City
4.1. City Cost. $1,935,750.27 is the City's estimated share of the costs of the design-build construction, State
Furnished Materials, and associated design and construction engineering delivery costs. Upon award of
the design-build contract, the State will prepare a Revised Schedule "I" with the bid item lump sum
amounts based on design-build contract bid item unit prices. The Revised Schedule "I" will replace and
supersede the Preliminary Schedule "I".
4.2. Conditions of Payment. The City will pay the State the estimated lump sum amount, as revised based on
the design-build contract bid-item prices, and as shown on the Revised Schedule "I", after the following
conditions have been met:
A. Execution of this Agreement and transmittal to the City.
B. The City's receipt of a written request from the State for the advancement of funds.
4.3. Final Payment and Additional City Requested Work. Upon completion of all contract construction and
upon computation of the final amount due the State's contractor and only if additional work has been
requested under Article 2.3.B of this Agreement, the State will prepare a Final Schedule "I" and submit a
copy to the City. The Final Schedule "I" will be based on final quantities of any additional City requested
participation construction items and the associated design and construction engineering delivery cost
share due to additional requested work. The computation by the State of the amount due from the City
will be final, binding, and conclusive.
The State and the City waive claims for any payments or refunds less than $5.00 according to Minnesota
Statutes § 15.415.
5. Authorized Representatives
Each party's Authorized Representative is responsible for administering this Agreement and is authorized to give
and receive any notice or demand required or permitted by this Agreement.
5.1. The State's Authorized Representative will be:
Name, Title: Malaki Ruranika, Cooperative Agreements Engineer (or successor)
Address: 395 John Ireland Boulevard, Mailstop 682, St. Paul, MN 55155
Telephone: (651) 366-4634
E-Mail: malaki.ruranika@state.mn.us
MnDOT Contract No.: 1050958
-5-
Design-Build Lump Sum on Low Bid (Cooperative Agreements)
5.2. The City's Authorized Representative will be:
Name, Title: Joe Powers, City Engineer (or successor)
Address: 1901 East 66th Street, Richfield, MN 55423
Telephone: (612) 861-9791
E-Mail: jpowers@richfieldmn.gov
6. Assignment; Amendments; Waiver; Contract Complete
6.1. Assignment. No party may assign or transfer any rights or obligations under this Agreement without the
prior consent of the other party and a written assignment agreement, executed and approved by the
same parties who executed and approved this Agreement, or their successors in office.
6.2. Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement 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 Agreement, or
their successors in office.
6.3. Waiver. If a party fails to enforce any provision of this Agreement, that failure does not waive the
provision or the party's right to subsequently enforce it.
6.4. Contract Complete. This Agreement contains all prior negotiations and agreements between the State and
the City. No other understanding regarding this Agreement, whether written or oral, may be used to bind
either party.
7. Liability; Worker Compensation Claims
7.1. Each party is responsible for its own acts, omissions, and the results thereof to the extent authorized by
law and will not be responsible for the acts, omissions of others, and the results thereof. Minnesota
Statutes § 3.736 and other applicable law govern liability of the State. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 and
other applicable law govern liability of the City.
7.2. Each party is responsible for its own employees for any claims arising under the Workers Compensation
Act.
8. Nondiscrimination
Provisions of Minnesota Statutes § 181.59 and of any applicable law relating to civil rights and discrimination are
considered part of this Agreement.
9. State Audits
Under Minnesota Statutes § 16C.05, subdivision 5, the City's books, records, documents, accounting procedures,
and practices relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by the State and the State Auditor or
Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of this Agreement.
10. Government Data Practices
The City and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 13, as it applies to all data provided under this Agreement, and as it applies to all data created,
collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the City under this Agreement. The civil
remedies of Minnesota Statutes §13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either the
City or the State.
11. Telecommunications Certification
By signing this agreement, the City certifies that, consistent with Section 889 of the John S. McCain National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, Pub. L. 115-232 (Aug. 13, 2018), and 2 CFR 200.216, the City will
MnDOT Contract No.: 1050958
-6-
Design-Build Lump Sum on Low Bid (Cooperative Agreements)
not use funding covered by this agreement to procure or obtain, or to extend, renew, or enter into any contract
to procure or obtain, any equipment, system, or service that uses “covered telecommunications equipment or
services” (as that term is defined in Section 889 of the Act) as a substantial or essential component of any
system or as critical technology as part of any system. The City will include this certification as a flow down
clause in any contract related to this agreement.
12. Governing Law; Jurisdiction; Venue
Minnesota law governs the validity, interpretation, and enforcement of this Agreement. Venue for all legal
proceedings arising out of this Agreement, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with
competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
13. Termination; Suspension
13.1. By Mutual Agreement. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement of the parties.
13.2. Termination for Insufficient Funding. The State may immediately terminate this Agreement 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 performance of design-build contract construction under the Project. Termination must be
by written or fax notice to the City.
13.3. Suspension. In the event of a total or partial government shutdown, the State may suspend this
Agreement and all work, activities, and performance of work authorized through this Agreement.
14. Force Majeure
No party will be responsible to the other for a failure to perform under this Agreement (or a delay in
performance), if such failure or delay is due to a force majeure event. A force majeure event is an event beyond
a party's reasonable control, including but not limited to, unusually severe weather, fire, floods, other acts of
God, labor disputes, acts of war or terrorism, or public health emergencies.
[The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank]
MnDOT Contract No.: 1050958
-7-
Design-Build Lump Sum on Low Bid (Cooperative Agreements)
CITY OF RICHFIELD
The undersigned certify that they have lawfully
executed this contract on behalf of the Governmental
Unit as required by applicable charter provisions,
resolutions, or ordinances.
By:
Title:
Date:
By:
Title:
Date:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Recommended for Approval:
By:
(District Engineer)
Date:
Approved:
By:
(State Design Engineer)
Date:
COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION
By:
(With Delegated Authority)
Date:
INCLUDE COPY OF RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING ITS EXECUTION.
CITY OF RICHFIELD
RESOLUTION
IT IS RESOLVED that the City of Richfield enter into MnDOT Agreement No. 1050958 with the State of Minnesota,
Department of Transportation for the following purposes:
To provide for payment by the City to the State of the City's share of the costs of the grading, bituminous pavement,
sidewalk, signal system, lighting, and bridge construction and other associated construction to be performed upon,
along, and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 494 from East Bush Lake Road to Trunk Highway No. 77 within the
corporate City limits under State Project No. 2785-424.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the
(Title)
are authorized to execute the Agreement and any amendments to the Agreement.
CERTIFICATION
I certify that the above Resolution is an accurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the Council of the City of
Richfield at an authorized meeting held on the day of
, 20 , as shown by the minutes of the meeting in my possession.
Subscribed and sworn to me this
day of , 20
Notary Public
My Commission Expires
(Signature)
(Type or Print Name)
(Title)
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MnDOT)
COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT NO. 1050958
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE I-494: AIRPORT TO HIGHWAY 169 PROJECT 1
STATE PROJECT NO. 2785-424
STATE AID PROJECT NO. 157-030-007
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Richfield enter into MnDOT Agreement No.
1050958 with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following
purposes:
To provide for payment by City to the State of the City’s share of the costs of the grading,
bituminous pavement, sidewalk, signal system, lighting, and bridge construction and other
associated construction to be performed upon, along, and adjacent to Trunk Highway No.
494 from East Bush Lake Road to Trunk Highway No. 77 within the corporate City limits
under State Project No. 2785-424.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and the City Manager are authorized
to execute the Agreement and any amendments to the Agreement.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of
January, 2023.
Mary Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of the Resolution
presented to and adopted by the City Council of City of Richfield at a duly authorized
meeting thereof held on the 10th day of January, 2023 as shown by the minutes of said
meeting in my possession.
__________________________
Kelly Wynn, Acting Deputy Clerk
Notary Public
My Commission expires __________
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #2.G.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 07
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
1/10/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: S cott K ulzer, A dministrative A ide/A nalyst
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: K ristin A sher, P ublic Works D irector
1/3/2023
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: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
1/4/2023
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider approval of a Construction, Maintenance & Easement Agreement between the City and
Richfield Property Holdings, LL C; 15th N B Property1 LL C; and 6345 Partners, LL C that grants an
easement for public pedestrian access and trail features and defines ownership and maintenance
responsibilities for certain features constructed at 600 64th Street W est.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Four residential properties in the area of 600 64th Street West were redeveloped to construct a new 5-story,
82 unit residential apartment building named the "Riley Apartments". Construction was completed over the
summer of 2022 and the building is open for tenant occupancy.
T he redevelopment project included site improvements on both public and private property,
including:
Construction of the Riley Apartments building, related site improvements, and a parking lot;
Grant of an easement to the City and construction of a public paved pedestrian trail connection across
the property running North/South between 64th Street West and Garfield Park;
Stormwater improvements; and
Public area improvements in the public right-of-way.
T he City has worked with the developer and the property owner of the Riley Apartments to draft a
Construction, Maintenance & Easement Agreement that defines ownership and maintenance
responsibilities for the features of the site and public area improvements constructed as part of the
project. T hese improvements and responsibilities are detailed in Exhibit D and include:
Public Sidewalk/Trail;
Public Sidewalk/Trail Snow Removal;
Landscaping;
Private I rrigation;
Public Utilities (storm, sewer, water);
Stormwater I mprovements (underground retention system and private storm sewer); and
Stormwater I mprovements (public storm sewer).
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By Motion: Consider approval of a Construction, Maintenance & Easement Agreement between the
City and Richfield Property Holdings, L LC; 15th N B Property1 L LC; and 6345 Partners, L LC that
grants and easement for public pedestrian access and trail features and defines ownership and
maintenance responsibilities for certain features constructed at 600 64th Street W est.
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
T he City required the redevelopment to provide stormwater quality treatment before
stormwater enters the City system. T he onsite treatment system will help remove
pollutants and particles before the water enters the public system and reduce offsite
stormwater flow rates. In order for the treatment system to function as designed, it must
be inspected and cleaned regularly.
The City required that a public access trail be constructed between 64th St and Garfield Park.
The City will own the trail through grant of an easement included in this agreement. The Developer
will be responsible for clearing snow on the trail.
The agreement provides direction on inspection, repair, replacement, and maintenance of the
stormwater system and the public improvements, in addition to the remedies for the failure to
comply with the provisions of this agreement.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
The City requires a Construction and Maintenance Agreement for redevelopment projects containing
boulevard improvements and/or stormwater treatment structures.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The redevelopment project is complete and execution of the Construction, Maintenance & Easement
Agreement is appropriate at this time.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
T he agreement requires the property owners to cover all costs related to inspection and
maintenance of the underground retention and private stormwater system.
The agreement requires the property owner to reimburse the City for any costs incurred in
performing activities identified as the responsibility of the property owner.
Financial responsibilities of other items varies per the agreement and is outlined in Exhibit D.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The City Attorney was consulted during the negotiations of terms and has reviewed the agreement.
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
Riley A partments C onstruction, Maintenance & E asement
A greement C ontract/A greement
E xhibit A - L egal D escription E xhibit
E xhibit B - S tormwater Improvements E xhibit
E xhibit C - P ublic A reas E xhibit
E xhibit D - P ublic A rea Improvements E xhibit
E xhibit E - Trail E asement E xhibit
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #2.H.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 08
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
1/10/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: K umud Verma, F inance Manager
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
1/4/2023
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider resolutions designating official depositories for the City of Richfield for 2023, including the
approval of collateral.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
I n compliance with Minnesota statutes, the City of Richfield must designate on an annual basis those financial
institutions it does business with.
U.S. Bank acts as the banking institution in the City’s banking arrangement with the 4M Fund.
The following resolutions for the City Council’s consideration will designate U.S Bank/4M Fund as a
depository of City funds, and designate certain savings and loan associations, banks, credit unions and
certain financial institutions as depositories for the investment of City funds.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolutions designating official depositories, with the understanding
that the City could not invest in any of the depositories beyond the level of insurance coverage or the
pledged collateral.
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 n accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 118A.01 - 118A.06, the City of Richfield must
designate financial institutions annually. The institutions must pledge the collateral over and above the
amount of federal insurance, as public depositories.
U.S. Bank acts as the banking institution in the City’s banking arrangement with the 4M Fund. Monies
received, checks written by the City, flow through U.S. Bank, however, at the end of each business
day, any proceeds remaining in City U.S. Bank accounts are swept to the 4M Fund to be invested.
Therefore, at the end of the business day the City accounts are zero, which means the collateral
requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 118A.03 are not required. Accordingly, U.S. Bank has met
all other statutory requirements and should be considered as a depository for the City’s Deputy
Registrar, payroll and vendor accounts and all savings deposits.
The City must also annually designate certain savings and loan associations, banks, and credit unions
as official depositories for deposit and investment of certain City funds. W ith approval of these official
depositories, the City will be able to deposit and invest funds in these institutions, not exceeding the
federal insurance of $250,000. Currently US Bank is the only bank designated as the official
depository of the City. We are securing an advance approval from the Council to be able to deposit and
invest City's funds with other institutions in case an opportunity becomes available.
An annual designation must also be made for certain financial institutions as depositories for the
investment of City funds for 2023. These institutions, such as investment brokerage firms, offer
government securities in the manner required by law. These financial institutions include RB C Capital
Markets, Raymond J ames & Associates, I nc., Northland Securities, Oppenheimer & Co., Principal
Custody Solutions, Moreton Capital Markets, Pershing W ealth Solutions B NY Mellon, and the 4M
Fund.
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:
The City is required by Minnesota Statute 118A.01 - 118A.06, to designate as a depository of funds,
insured banks or thrift institutions. Any collateral so deposited is accompanied by an assignment
pledged to the City in the amount specified in the attached resolutions.
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 designating US B ank as 2023 depository for
Richfield Resolution L etter
Resolution designating B ank and C redit Unions as 2023
depository for the C ity Resolution L etter
Resolution designating F inancial Institutions as 2023
depository for the C ity Resolution L etter
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING U.S. BANK
A DEPOSITORY OF FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD FOR THE YEAR 2023
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield (the City) as follows:
That, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 118A .01- 118A.06, U.S. Bank
be, and hereby is designated a depository of the funds of the City, subject to modification
and revocation at any time by said city, and subject to the following terms and conditions:
The said depository shall not be required to give bonds or other securities for such
deposits provided that the total sum thereof shall not at any time exceed in any depository
the sums for which its deposits are insured under the Acts of Congress of the United
States relating to insurance of bank deposits; but that in case such deposits in any such
depository shall at any time exceed such insured sum, said depository shall immediately
furnish bonds or other security for such excess according to law, approved by the City
Council of said city.
That said depository shall pay on demand all deposits therein; and shall pay all time
deposits, at or after the end of the period for which the same shall be deposited, on
demand.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that there shall be maintained a general account in
which shall be deposited all monies from the water, sewer, storm sewer, liquor, swimming
pool/ice arena, deputy register fees, city permits and other deposits not otherwise
specifically provided for. The following officers or their facsimile signatures shall sign
checks on this account;
KATIE RODRIGUEZ, CITY MANAGER
KUMUD VERMA, CITY TREASURER
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all funds remaining in the account at the end of
each business day will be transferred from U.S. Bank to the 4M Fund where funds
deposited are invested and insured.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of
January, 2023.
ATTEST:
Mary Supple, Mayor
Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN SAVING AND LOAN
ASSOCIATIONS, BANKS, AND CREDIT UNIONS AS DEPOSITORIES FOR
THE DEPOSIT AND INVESTMENT OF CITY FUNDS IN 2023
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of City of Richfield (City), Minnesota
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 118A.01 – 118A.06,
municipal funds may be deposited in any Savings and Loan Association, Bank or
Credit Union which has its deposits insured by the Federa l Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC) or the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA); and
WHEREAS, the amount of said deposits may not exceed the FDIC/NCUA
insurance covering such deposits which insurance amount is presently $250,000; and
WHEREAS, the deposit of City funds in Savings and Loan Associations and
Banks would provide greater flexibility in the City’s investment program and maximize
interest income thereon; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. It is hereby found and determined that it is in the best interest of the
property management of City funds that various banks be designated
as additional depositories for City funds for 2023.
2. It is further found and determined that the purpose of such depository
designation is to facilitate the proper and advantageous deposit and
investment of City funds and that such designation is not exclusive, nor does
it preclude the deposit of any City funds in other officially designated
depositories of the City.
3. The Finance Manager is hereby authorized to deposit City funds in
various depositories up to the amount of $250,000, or such other amount
as may be subsequently permitted by law, such deposits to be in the form
of demand accounts, payable to the City on the signature of the Finance
Manager. Such deposits may be made and withdrawn from time to time
by the Finance Manager as their best judgment and the interests of the
City dictates.
4. The investment of funds and the reporting thereof pursuant to this resolution
shall be conducted in accordance with established policies of the City
regarding the investment of City funds.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th
day of January, 2023.
Mary Supple, Mayor
ATTEST
Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AS
DEPOSITORIES FOR THE INVESTMENT OF CITY OF RICHFIELD FUNDS IN
2023
and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield (City) has money available for investment; and
WHEREAS, different financial institutions offer different rates of return on investments;
WHEREAS, the City shall purchase U.S. Treasury Bills, U.S. Treasury
Notes and other such government securities in the manner required by law from the
institution offering the highest rate to the City, providing greater flexibility in the
investment program and maximize interest income thereon; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 118A.01 – 118A.06, as follows:
1. It is hereby found and determined that it is in the best interest of the proper
management of City funds that certain financial institutions be designated as
additional depositories for City fund in 2023.
2. The following financial institutions designated as depositories for City funds:
RBC Capital Markets Raymond James & Assoc.
Principal Custody Solutions 4M Fund
Northland Securities, Inc. Oppenheimer & Co.
Moreton Capital Markets Pershing Wealth Solutions BNY Mellon
3. The Finance Manager is hereby authorized to deposit City funds in any or all of
the depositories herein designated. Such deposits may be made and withdrawn
from time to time by the Finance Manager’s discretion and as the interest of the
City dictates.
4. The investment of funds and the reporting thereof pursuant to this resolution
shall be conducted in accordance with established policies regarding the
investment of these funds.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of
January, 2023.
Mary Supple, Mayor
ATTEST
Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #2.I.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 09
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
1/10/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: K umud Verma, F inance Manager
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
1/4/2023
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider a resolution authorizing the use of credit cards by City employees otherwise authorized to
make purchases on behalf of the City, and authorizing City Manager and Finance Manager to designate
employees to whom a card can be issued.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
I n accordance with Minnesota Statutes, the City of Richfield must authorize the use of credit cards by City
employees authorized to make purchases on behalf of the City.
I n today’s business environment, most retail businesses, will no longer allow the City to purchase on an
account and will only accept a City check or a City credit card. The use of a City credit card provides
efficiency and flexibility for employees to purchase goods and services on behalf of the City.
Historically the Council has approved a total number of purchasing cards, ranging from a total of 30-
35, and designated the number of cards per department. Staff expects that number to be more or
less the same going forward and proposes allowing the City Manager and the Finance Manager to
determine which employees are provided credit cards in the future. T his will provide needed
operational flexibility without compromising internal controls.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the use of City credit cards by City employees
otherwise authorized to make purchases on behalf of the City, and authorizing City Manager and
Finance Manager to designate employees to whom a card can be issued.
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 participates in Purchasing Card program as offered through US Bank. The program is
designed to make the purchasing/procurement process for low dollar valued items more efficient. The
intent is to save time and paperwork by reducing the need for purchase orders, petty cash, check
requests and employee reimbursements.
The City Purchasing card program began in 2010 on a limited basis and has expanded since that time.
The program has controls in place to limit monthly and single purchase amounts. Finally, a City
Purchasing Card Policy has been established which is consistent with the City’s Purchasing Policy and
Minnesota Statutes.
Historically the Council has approved total number of purchasing cards, ranging from a total of 30-35,
and designated the number of cards per department. Staff expects that number to be more or less the
same going forward.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
I n accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 471.382, the City of Richfield must authorize the use of
credit cards by any City employee otherwise authorized to make a purchase on behalf of the City.
Further, if a City employee makes or directs a purchase by credit card that is not approved by the City
Council, the employee could be personally liable for the amount of the purchase.
A purchase by credit card must otherwise comply with all statutes, rules, and City policies applicable to
City purchases.
The City’s auditors recommend that the City authorize the use of credit cards by City employees on an
annual basis.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
N/A
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
The holders of City credit cards are responsible for reviewing and approving all purchases completed
with the credit card.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The City is required by Minnesota Statute 471.382 to authorize the use of credit cards by City
employees otherwise authorized to make purchases on behalf of the City.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
The City Council could decide to not authorize the use of credit cards by City employees. This could be an
issue as most retail businesses in today’s environment will no longer allow the City to purchase on an account
and will only accept a City check or a City credit card. The use of City credit cards by employees provides
efficiency and flexibility for employees to purchase goods and services on behalf of the City.
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 authorizing the use of credit cards by city
employees Resolution L etter
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF CREDIT CARDS BY CITY
EMPLOYEES AUTHORIZED TO MAKE PURCHASES ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield (City) as follows:
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.382, the City Council of the
City of Richfield authorizes the use of a credit card by city employees otherwise
authorized to make purchases on behalf of the City.
The authorization is subject to modification and revocation at any time by the
City Council and is subject to the following terms and conditions:
If a city employee makes or directs a purchase by credit card that is not
approved by the City Council or violates applicable laws and policies, the employee
can be personally liable for the amount of purchase.
All purchases by credit card must comply with all statutes, rules, and City
policies applicable to city purchases.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Finance Manager and the City Manager
are hereby authorized to designate which employees, in accordance with
established city purchasing policies and Minnesota Statutes, may use a city issued
credit card to make purchases on behalf of the City.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day
of January 2023.
Mary Supple, Mayor
ATTEST
Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #2.J.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 16
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
1/10/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: K umud Verma, F inance Manager
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
1/5/2023
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider a resolution adopting the Purchasing and Spending Authority Policy for the employees and
officials of the City.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
The Uniform Municipal Contracting Law (Minnesota Statute 471.345) sets out procedures that City must
follow for contracts to sell, purchase or rent supplies, materials, or equipment, or to construct, alter, repair or
maintain real or personal property. All contracts greater than $175,000 requires approval of the Council.
Accordingly City has established a purchasing and spending policy within the parameters of the State statute.
There are additional guidelines from League of Minnesota Cities and Office of the Minnesota State Auditor on
what is acceptable for public purpose expenditure. I t is recommended to revise the spending authority to
provide greater flexibility to the staff within the guidelines of the statute. A recap of the current and proposed
spending authority is reported in the table below.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution amending the Purchasing and Spending Authority Policy to
establish guidelines with respect to purchasing and the authority to purchase on behalf of the City
within the parameters of the Law.
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
City's current policy requires City Manager to approve all spending greater than $1,000 and the Council
to approve all payments greater than $175,000. After a review of the policy, it is determined to revise the
threshold amount upwards requiring the City Manager to approve only those payments that are greater
than $25,000. The Department Directors' approval limit is being revised up from $1,000 to $5,000. This
will provide greater flexibility to the department directors to manage their budgets and streamline the
payables function. No change is being proposed to the Council's approval threshold and all purchasing &
spending greater than $175,000 will continue to be approved by the Council.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Attached for your review is the proposed policy.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
N/A
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
Division Manager and Department Directors are responsible for reviewing and approving all purchases
and expenses within the approval limit.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
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 approving P urchasing P olicy Resolution L etter
P urchasing and S pending P olicy 2023 E xhibit
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASING AND SPENDING AUTHORITY
POLICY
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield establishes policies to ensure consistency
and accountability; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Purchasing and Spending Authority Policy
(“the Policy”) is to establish uniform and consistent guidelines with respect to
purchasing and the authority to purchase on behalf of the City; and
WHEREAS, this Policy lays out procedures employees must follow for
contracts to sell, purchase or rent supplies, materials, or equipment, or to
construct, alter, repair or maintain real or personal property; and
WHEREAS, the purchasing procedures to follow depend on the estimated
amount of the contract and estimates; and
WHEREAS, all purchases must comply with all state statutes, rules, and City
policies applicable to city purchases; and
WHEREAS, this Policy is within the parameters of the Uniform Municipal
Contracting Law.
NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota:
1. To adopt the Purchasing and Spending Authority Policy for the employees and
officials of the City of Richfield to be effective January 10, 2023.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of
January, 2023.
Mary Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk
PURCHASING AND SPENDING AUTHORITY POLICY
CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY POLICY
DATE: January 10, 2023
SUBJECT: Purchasing and Spending Authority Policy
The purpose of this policy is to establish uniform and consistent guidelines with respect to purchasing and
the authority to purchase on behalf of the City within the parameters of the Uniform Municipal Contracting
Law, Minnesota State Statute Section 471.345. Additional resources from the League of Minnesota Cities,
related to purchasing and spending authority, is contained in:
Information Memo - Competitive Bidding Requirements in Cities
Handbook for Minnesota Cities - Chapter 22 Expenditures, Purchasing and Contracts
Uniform Municipal Contracting Law (Minn. Stat. Sec. 471.345)
The Uniform Municipal Contracting Law sets out procedures that cities must follow for contracts to sell,
purchase or rent supplies, materials, or equipment, or to construct, alter, repair or maintain real or personal
property. The procedures to follow depend on the estimated amount of the contract and estimates should
be reasonable. (e.g. if a city asks for quotations because it estimates the value of a contract will be below
the bid threshold but all of the quotations are substantially over the threshold, the city should solicit formal
bids.)
A. Contracts defined. A “contract” means an agreement entered into by a city for the sale or purchase
of supplies, materials, equipment or the rental thereof, or the construction, alteration, repair or
maintenance of real or personal property. (Minn. Stat. Sec. 471.345.2) All City contracts should be
in writing regardless of their nature or the dollar amount involved.
B. Contracts or purchases over $175,000. If the amount of the contract is estimated to exceed
$175,000, sealed bids shall be solicited by public notice in the manner and subject to the law
governing contracts or purchases by the City of Richfield. (Minn. Stat. Sec. 471.345.3) The
requirement that the successful bidder be “responsible” protects cities from having to choose
unqualified or unscrupulous low bidders. It allows a city council to consider factors such as the
bidder’s financial responsibility, integrity, skill and ability, and the likelihood that the bidder will do
satisfactory work. A city can even include evaluation criteria for “responsible” bidders in the bid
specifications.
C. Contracts over $175,000; best value alternative. As an alternative to the procurement method
described in paragraph A, cities may award a contract for construction, alteration, repair, or
maintenance work to the vendor or contractor offering the best value under a request for proposals
as described above and in state statutes section 16C.28, subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clause (2),
and paragraph (c). (Minn. Stat. Sec. 471.345.3a)
D. Contracts or purchases from $25,000 to $175,000. If the amount of the contract or purchase is
estimated to exceed $25,000 but not to exceed $175,000, the contract or purchase may be made
either upon sealed bids or by direct negotiation, by obtaining two or more quotations for the
purchase or sale when possible, and without advertising for bids or otherwise complying with the
requirements of competitive bidding. All quotations must be kept on file for a period of one year
after receipt thereof. (Minn. Stat. Sec. 471.345.4)
E. Contracts from $25,000 to $175,000; best value alternative. As an alternative to the
procurement method described in paragraph C, cities may award a contract for construction,
alteration, repair, or maintenance work to the vendor or contractor offering the best value under a
request for proposals as described above, and in state statutes section 16C.28, subdivision 1,
paragraph (a), clause (2), and paragraph (c). (Minn. Stat. Sec. 471.345.4a)
F. Contracts or purchases $25,000 or less. If the amount of the contract is estimated to be $25,000
or less, the contract or purchase may be made either upon quotation or in the open market, in the
discretion of the governing body. If the contract or purchase is made upon quotation it shall be
based, so far as practicable, on at least two quotations which shall be kept on file for a period of at
least one year after their receipt. Alternatively, cities may award a contract for construction,
alteration, repair, or maintenance work to the vendor or contractor offering the best value under a
request for proposals as described above and in state statutes section 16C.28, subdivision 1,
paragraph (a), clause (2), and paragraph (c). (Minn. Stat. Sec. 471.345.5)
Best Value Procurement Alternative
Under certain circumstances, as listed above, cities may use best value contracting for construction
projects. Best value procurement is a process based on competitive proposals, as an alternative to sealed
bids, which awards the contract to “the vendor or contractor offering the best value under a request for
proposals as described in section 16C.28, subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clause (2), and paragraph (c).”
(Minn. Stat. Sec. 412.311.2)
For the purposes of construction, alteration, repair or maintenance work, “best value” describes the result
determined by a procurement method that considers price and other criteria. A list of potential other criteria
can be found in Minn. Stat. Sec. 16C.28.1b. The solicitation document must state the relative weight of
price and other selection criteria and the award must be made to the vendor or contractor offering the best
value applying the weighted selection criteria. If an interview of the vendor’s or contractor’s personnel is
one of the selection criteria, the relative weight of the interview shall be stated in the solicitation document
and applied accordingly.
Personnel administering best value procurement procedures must be trained in Request for Proposals
(RFP) process for best value contracting for construction projects.
Exceptions to Competitive Bidding
The following are some of the most common exceptions to the competitive-bidding requirements:
A. Non-contracts. An agreement that does not meet the definition of a contract under the competitive
bidding law is exempt from the competitive bidding requirements. For example, an agreement in
which a company supplied a special scoreboard system in exchange for the right to sell or lease
advertising space on it was found to be exempt from the competitive bidding requirements because
it was not a contract for “materials, supplies or equipment.” Likewise, contracts for refuse hauling
and janitorial services were also found to be exempt from the competitive bidding requirements
because they were not considered to be contracts within the definition of the competitive bidding
law. (LMC Competitive Bidding Requirements)
B. Cooperative purchasing. (a) Cities may contract for the purchase of supplies, materials, or
equipment by utilizing contracts that are available through the state's cooperative purchasing
venture authorized by section 16C.11. For a contract estimated to exceed $25,000, a city must
consider the availability, price and quality of supplies, materials, or equipment available through
the state's cooperative purchasing venture before purchasing through another source. (b) If a city
does not utilize the state's cooperative purchasing venture, a city may contract for the purchase of
supplies, materials, or equipment without regard to the competitive bidding requirements of this
section if the purchase is through a national municipal association's purchasing alliance or
cooperative created by a joint powers agreement that purchases items from more than one source
on the basis of competitive bids or competitive quotations. (Minn. Stat. Sec. 471.345.15)
C. Electronic reverse-auction purchases. Cities may use an electronic reverse-auction procedure
to contract for the purchase of supplies, materials, and equipment regardless of their cost. This
procedure allows vendors to compete to provide the requested supplies, materials or equipment at
the lowest selling price in an open and interactive electronic environment. Cities may not use this
process to contract for services or a service contract. (Minn. Stat. Sec. 471.345.16)
D. Electronic sales of surplus supplies, materials, and equipment. Cities may contract to sell
supplies, materials, and equipment, which are surplus, obsolete, or unused, regardless of their
cost, using an electronic selling process in which purchasers compete to offer the highest purchase
price in an open and interactive environment. (Minn. Stat. Sec. 471.345.17)
E. Guaranteed energy savings contracts. Contracts for energy conservation measures that will
reduce energy consumption or operating costs are not subject to competitive bidding. There are
additional procedural requirements that must be considered and satisfied. (Minn. Stat. Sec.
471.345.13)
F. Intergovernmental contracts. Contracts between governmental entities for the sale, lease or
purchase of real or personal property between federal, state or political subdivisions. (LMC
Competitive Bidding Requirements)
G. Real estate contracts. The purchase or sale of real property is generally not required to be
competitively bid. (LMC Competitive Bidding Requirements)
H. Professional services contracts. Professional services, such as those provided by doctors,
engineers, lawyers, architects, accountants, and other services requiring technical, scientific or
professional training.
I. Some group-insurance contracts. Group insurance for 25 or more employees. This type of
insurance must be solicited through requests for proposals. The request for proposals must be in
writing and must include the coverage to be provided, the criteria for evaluation of carrier proposals,
and the aggregate-claims records for the appropriate period. The request for proposals must be
published in a newspaper or trade journal for at least 21 days before the final day for submitting
proposals. (LMC Competitive Bidding Requirements)
J. Emergency contracts. The Emergency Management Act gives cities the ability to declare an
emergency for a limited period of time. During an emergency (“an unforeseen combination of
circumstances that calls for immediate action to prevent a disaster from developing or occurring”)
or disaster (“a situation that creates an actual or imminent serious threat to the health and safety
of persons”), cities are not required to use mandated contracting procedures. If the facts of the
situation do not indicate that a true emergency existed, such a contract would likely be considered
void. (LMC Competitive Bidding Requirements)
K. Some intergovernmental construction contracts. A cooperative agreement to construct a
project with the state or with another political subdivision of the state when the other unit does the
construction. This applies only where there is an agreement prior to the initial advertising for bids
on the project. (LMC Competitive Bidding Requirements)
L. Water tank service contracts. Under certain circumstances, a city may enter into a multi-year
contract for the engineering, repair, and maintenance of a water storage tank and its accessory
facilities without advertising for bids. (Minn. Stat. Sec. 471.345.5b)
M. Public safety equipment. A city may acquire by purchase or lease used public safety equipment
without competitive bids or proposals if the equipment is clearly and legitimately limited to a single
source of supply, and the contract price may be best established by direct negotiation. “Public
safety equipment” is defined as vehicles and specialized eq uipment used by a fire department in
firefighting, ambulance, and emergency medical treatment services, rescue, and hazardous
materials response. (Minn. Stat. 471.3455)
N. HRA exceptions. Under certain circumstances, a housing and redevelopment authority does not
need to comply with competitive bidding requirements. (Minn. Stat. 469.015.4)
O. Public improvements made by a subdivider. The construction and installation of public
improvements made by a subdivider or a subdivider’s contractor do not need to comply with
competitive bidding requirements. (Minn. Stat. 462.358.2a)
Richfield City Charter Requirements
A. Section 6.05. Purchases and Contracts. City contracts must be made in compliance with state law
and this charter. Where the amount of a contract is more than the dollar amount contained in
Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.345, Subd. 3 the contract must be approved by the City Council
upon the recommendation of the City Manager. When contracts are competitively bid, the Council
may reject any and all bids. The City Manager may approve contracts in an amount equal to or less
than the dollar amount contained in Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.345. Subject to the provisions
of the Charter, and other applicable law, the Council may by ordinance or by resolution adopt further
regulations for making of bids and letting of contracts. (Amended, Bill 1987-21, Bill 1996-5; Bill No.
2013-8)
B. With respect to public improvements and special assessments, the following City Charter
requirements apply:
1. Section 8.03. Public Works; How Performed. Public works, including all local improvements,
may be constructed, extended, repaired and maintained either directly by day labor or by
contract. The City shall require contractors to give bonds for the protection of the City and
all persons furnishing labor and materials pursuant to the laws of the state.
2. Section 8.04. Approval by Ordinance. Any capital improvement on property owned or leased
by the City, excluding street and utility rights of way, which has an estimated cost exceeding
$2,000,000.00 or expenditures for design or engineering costs exceeding $250,000.00 must
be approved by ordinance after a public hearing. (Added, Bill No. 1998-5; Bill No. 2013-10)
3. Section 8.05. Notice of Public Hearings. Notice of public hearings required by Section 8.04
shall be published at least twice in the official newspaper within fourteen (14) days prior to
the date of the hearing. Additional notice of such public hearings may be given in such
manner as the Council may determine. This notice must contain the estimated costs of the
capital improvement. (Added, Bill No. 1998-5)
Spending Authority
A. Contracts or purchases greater than $175,000 must be submitted to the City Council for
approval.
B. Contracts or purchases from $25,000 to $175,000 must be approved by division
manager, department director, finance manager and the City Manager or designee.
C. Contracts or purchases from $5,000 to $25,000 must be approved by the division
manager, department director and finance manager or designee.
D. Contracts or purchases from $1,000 to $5,000 must be approved by the division
manager, and the department director or the department director’s designee.
E. Contracts or purchases less than $1,000 must be approved by the division manager.
Liquor Operations Spending Authority
A. Liquor operation invoices that are for product purchased for resale must be approved by either the
lead liquor clerk, assistant store manager or the store manager. Invoices for product purchased for
resale are not required to follow normal spending authority procedures. There are two reasons for
this exception to normal spending authority procedures:
1. Product purchases for resale are required to be paid to the beer and liquor wholesalers
within 30 days of delivery.
2. The large volume of product invoices to process requires the simplified spending authority
procedures.
B. All other contracts or purchases that are not products purchased for resale must follow normal
spending authority procedures as outlined above.
Notice of Solicitation of Bids
The notice that bids are being solicited must be published once in the city’s official newspaper at least ten
days before the last day for the submission of bids. Additional public notice and hearing requirements for
public improvements ordered and specially assessed are provided in Minn. Stat. Chapter 429.
Alternative Dissemination of Bids and Requests for Proposals
A city may use its web site or a recognized industry trade journal as an alternative method to disseminate
solicitations of bids, requests for information, and requests for proposals.
A. If a political subdivision designates an alternative method to newspaper notice:
1. The political subdivision must continue to publish solicitations and requests in the
newspaper for six months in addition to the alternative method.
2. The publication in the newspaper must indicate where to find the designated alternative
method.
3. Alternative methods of publication must be in substantially the same format and for the
same time period as is required for newspaper publication. (Minn. Stat. Sec. 331A.03)
B. If, in the normal course of its business, a qualified newspaper maintains a web site, then as a
condition of accepting and publishing public notices, the newspaper must agree to post all the
notices on its web site during the notice’s full publication period. (Minn. Stat. Sec. 331A.02.5)
Performance and Payment Bonds
For some contracts, cities must require contractors to provide a performance bond and a payment bond.
This requirement applies to contracts over $75,000 for the performance of public work. The required
performance bond benefits the city by ensuring that the work is completed according to the terms of the
contract, while the required payment bond benefits subcontractors and people who provide labor and
materials, by seeing that their claims for labor and materials are paid.
Withholding Certificates
Before a city makes the final payment to a contractor under a contract requiring the employment of
employees for wages, it must make sure the contractor and any subcontractors have complied with
withholding tax laws. Contractors and subcontractors show compliance by submitting a withholding
affidavit to the Minnesota Department of Revenue. This can be done electronically or by mailing a
completed Form IC134, “Withholding Affidavit for Contractors.” If a contractor or subcontractor has withheld
taxes as required, the Department of Revenue will return an electronic confirmation or sign and return the
Form IC134, certifying compliance.
Approved: /s/ Katie Rodriguez
City Manager
AGENDA SECTION:PUBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA ITEM #4.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 10
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
1/10/2023
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
12/5/2022
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
1/4/2023
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Public hearing and consider the approval of new On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt
Liquor licenses for NTLL Hockey Ventures, LLC., dba Minnesota White caps, locate d at the
Richfie ld Ice Are na, 636 66th Stre et E.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
On October 19, 2022, the City received the application materials for new On-Sale W ine and 3.2 Percent Malt
Liquor licenses for NTLL Hockey Ventures, LLC., dba Minnesota W hitecaps, located at the Richfield I ce
Arena, 636 66th Street E.
All required information and documents have been received. All licensing fees have been paid.
T he Public Safety background investigation has been completed. T he Public Safety Director has
reviewed the background investigation report and found nothing that would cause the Public Safety
Director to recommend denial of the requested licenses.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the issuance of new On-Sale Wine and
3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses for N TL L Hockey Ventures, LL C., dba Minnesota W hitecaps, located
at the Richfield Ice Arena, 636 66th Street E.
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 applicant has satisfied the following requirements for issuance of licenses:
The required license fees have been paid.
Real estate taxes are current.
Proof of commercial and liquor liability insurance have been received showing Society
I nsurance as affording coverage.
As a result of this being a new request for On-Sale W ine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses,
there is no need for an accountant's statement regarding food/alcohol ratio.
As stated in the Executive Summary, the Public Safety Director has reviewed the background
information and sees no basis for denial.
On-Sale W ine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to
comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines the discipline they can expect if any ongoing
problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment.
There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance of On-Sale W ine and 3.2
Percent Malt Liquor licenses.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Richfield City Code Section 1202 requires owners of On-Sale W ine and 3.2 Percent Malt
Liquor licensed establishments to comply with all the provisions of both City Code and State Statutes.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
There are no critical timing issues.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
Licensing fees have been received.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met which outlines the discipline they can
expect if any on-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of
the establishment.
The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on December 29, 2022.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
The Council could deny the requested licenses, which would mean the current applicants would not be
able to serve On-Sale W ine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor; however, Public Safety has found no basis to
deny the license.
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:
Andy Scurto, Owner - Bobby Long, Manager
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
M N W hitecaps background investigation C over Memo
AGENDA SECTION:PUBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA ITEM #5.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 11
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
1/10/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: S am C rosby, P lanner II
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: Melissa P oehlman, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
1/3/2023
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: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
1/4/2023
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Public hearing to consider vacating an existing utility easement to be replaced with new utility and
stormwater easements at 6500 Nicollet Avenue South, Partnership Academy.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Earlier this year the City granted Partnership Academy approval of an Amended Planned Unit Development
(A P UD) for a building expansion. The expansion was located over existing utilities and therefore included the
rerouting of a water main and stormwater utility. Partnership Academy is now requesting to vacate the existing
utility easement and re-dedicate a new utility and stormwater easement in the area of the new utilities. Also,
because the swing-set/playground area will still encroach into the new easement area, the encroachment
agreement will need to be revised as well.
No new phy sical changes are being proposed; the entire request is administrative in nature. The c hanges will
not have any impact on the project c urrently under construction. Staff finds that the proposal is
“housekeeping” in nature, conforms with the C omprehensive Plan, and meets the requirements of the Zoning
Code.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion:
1. Adopt a resolution vacating the existing utility easement at 6500 Nicollet Avenue South.
2. Adopt a resolution approving the amended encroachment agreement.
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
Partnership A cademy has been based in Richfield since 2002. I n 2018, they were approved to
construct a new two-story facility at the subjec t site, which was completed in 2019. I n February of
2022, the City granted Partnership Academy approval of the building expansion currently under
construction. I t is expected to be complete by March 2023.
The City has forwarded the vac ation and rededication proposal to all utility service providers, and
all have responded with no objections.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
The City may vacate an easement by resolution when it appears in the public interest to do so, in
accordance with MN Statutes 412.851.
The City historically vacates utility easements as a matter of policy whenever the easement does
not contain any current or planned utility infrastructure, and that is the case here.
City staff sees no reason to maintain the existing easement because the applicant is proposing to
rededicate new utility and stormwater easements over the new water main and stormwater utility
locations.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
60-D AY RUL E: The clock started when a complete application was received on November 21, 2022.
The 60-day period ends on J anuary 20, 2023. The dedication of the new utility easement should be
finalized prior to certificate of occupancy for the building expansion.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
The required application fees have been paid.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
Notice of this public hearing was published in the Sun Current Newspaper on December 29, 2022 and
mailed to properties within 350 feet of the site.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
Recommend approval of the vacation with modifications.
Recommend denial of the vac ation and rededic ation with findings 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:
Representatives of Partnership Academy and/or their Engineering Firm, Rehder.
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Resolution Vacating E asement Resolution L etter
Resolution A mending E ncroachment A greement Resolution L etter
E asement D edication D ocument B ackup Material
A mendment to E ncroachment A greement B ackup Material
L ocation / Zoning Map B ackup Material
A pplicant's Request L etter B ackup Material
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF
A UTILITY EASEMENT AT
6500 NICOLLET AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, the following described land is subject to a utility easement in favor of
the City of Richfield:
Lot 1, Block 1, Richfield Hub Superblock, according to the plat thereof, Hennepin
County Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the property is subject to a 52 foot wide utility easement per the
recorded plat, as shown on Exhibit A “Easement Vacation Sketch”; and
WHEREAS, a building expansion approved for construction last year is located over
a portion of this 52-foot wide utility easement; and
WHEREAS, the building expansion included rerouting a water main and stormwater
utilities; and
WHEREAS, the Property owner is proposing to re-dedicate new utility and
stormwater easements over the new water main and stormwater utility locations, so there
is no need to reserve the existing easement; and
WHEREAS, the City has forwarded the vacation and rededication proposal to all
utility service providers, and all have responded with no objections; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the 52-foot wide easement reserved over Lot
1, Block 1, Richfield Hub Superblock is no longer needed upon the dedication of the new
stormwater and utility easement;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The 52-foot easement for utility purposes, which was reserved over Lot 1,
Block 1 of the above-described property in the recorded plat of Richfield Hub
Superblock , is hereby vacated, effective upon the County recording of the
dedication of the new easement. If said dedication is not recorded within one
year of the date of this resolution, this resolution shall be null and of no
effect.
2. The City Clerk is directed to prepare a certificate of completion of vacation
proceedings. The applicant shall record the certificate in the office of the
Hennepin County Recorder, along with the new easement.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of
January, 2023.
____________________________
Mary B. Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. ____
RESOLUTION AMENDING AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND PARTNERSHIP ACADEMY
LOCATED AT 6500 NICOLLET AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, Resolution #11757, passed by the City Council on August 11th, 2020
authorized an encroachment agreement with Partnership Academy in regards to a
swingset/playground and paved sport courts located within a utility easement; and
WHEREAS, the encroachment agreement governs the use of the easement and the
responsibilities of both the City and Partnership Academy as related to the use of the private
improvements within the easement; and
WHEREAS, Resolution #11970, passed by the city Council on April 12, 2022,
authorized a building expansion that included rerouting the existing wat er main and stormwater
utilities, thereby necessitating the rerouting of the easements that cover these utilities; and
WHEREAS, the swingset/playground and paved sport courts still encroach upon the
new easement areas;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, hereby approves the amended Encroachment Agreement between the City of
Richfield and Partnership Academy located at 6500 Nicollet Avenue; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to
execute the Agreement.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of January
2023.
Mary B. Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk
DOCSOPEN\RC160\5\841365.v1-11/23/22
STORMWATER, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT
THIS INSTRUMENT is made this ______ day of _______________, 2023, by
Partnership Academy Association, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (“Grantor”), in favor of the
City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“Grantee”).
RECITALS
A. Grantor is the fee owner of certain property with an address of 6500 Nicollet Avenue South,
Richfield, in Hennepin County, Minnesota, (PID 27-028-24-24-0060) legally described on the
attached Exhibit A (the “Property”).
B. Grantor desires to grant to Grantee a permanent stormwater, drainage, and utility easement,
according to the terms and conditions contained herein.
TERMS OF EASEMENT
1. Recitals. The recitals above are hereby incorporated herein and made part of the
Instrument.
2. Grant of Easement. For good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged by Grantor, Grantor grants and conveys to Grantee a permanent, non-exclusive
stormwater, drainage, and utility easement over, under, across, and through that part of the
Property legally described on Exhibit B and as depicted on Exhibit C (the “Easement Area”).
3. Scope of Easement. The above-described permanent stormwater, drainage and utility
easement includes the rights of Grantee, its agents, and employees to enter the Easement Area at
all reasonable times for purposes of constructing, operating, inspecting, maintaining, altering,
grading, repairing, replacing, or removing subsurface sanitary sewer, storm sewer, watermain, or
other subsurface utilities and drainage ways or other subsurface public improvements within the
Easement Area (collectively, the “Subsurface Facilities”).
DOCSOPEN\RC160\5\841365.v1-11/23/22
The easement granted herein also includes the right to cut, trim, or remove from within the
Easement Area trees, shrubs, or other vegetation, and to prohibit obstructions and grading
alterations now or in the future as in Grantee’s judgment unreasonably interfere with the use or
maintenance of the Easement Area, or the function of the facilities located thereon.
4. Warranty of Title. Grantor warrants that it is the fee owner of the Property and has the
right, title, and capacity to convey to Grantee the easement herein.
5. Environmental Matters. The City shall not be responsible for any costs, expenses,
damages, demands, obligations, including penalties and reasonable attorneys’ fees, or losses
resulting from any claims, actions, suits, or proceedings based upon a release or threat of release
of any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants which may have existed on, or which
relate to, the Easement Area or the Property prior to the date of this Instrument.
6. Binding Effect. The terms and conditions of this instrument shall run with the land and be
binding on Grantor, its successors, and assigns.
STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: NONE
Dated this _____ day of ______________, 2023.
[The rest of this page left intentionally blank; signatures to follow on next page]
DOCSOPEN\RC160\5\841365.v1-11/23/22
GRANTOR:
PARTNERSHIP ACADEMY ASSOCIATION
________________________________________
Lisa Hendricks, President
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF __________ } ss.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ,
2023, by Lisa Hendricks, President of Partnership Academy Association, a Minnesota nonprofit
corporation, on behalf of the corporation as Grantor.
__________________________________
Notary Public
NOTARY STAMP OR SEAL
THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
A-1
DOCSOPEN\RC160\5\841365.v1-11/23/22
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of the Property
Lot 1, Block 1, Richfield Hub Superblock, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
The Torrens portion being more particularly described as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1, Richfield Hub Superblock, except that part thereof lying East and
South of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the South line of said
Lot 1 distant 125.26 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof; thence North parallel
to the East line of said Lot 1 a distance of 60.6 feet; thence East parallel to the South
line of said Lot 1 a distance of 125.00 feet to the East l ine of said Lot 1 and said
line there terminating.
Abstract and Torrens
B-1
DOCSOPEN\RC160\5\841365.v1-11/23/22
EXHIBIT B
Legal Description of the Easement Area
A 14-foot easement for stormwater, drainage, and utility purposes over, under and across Lot 1,
Block 1, RICHFIELD HUB SUPERBLOCK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, the centerline of said easement is described as follows:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 1; thence North 0 degrees 38
minutes 16 seconds East, along the east line thereof, a distance of 200.56 feet to the
beginning of the centerline to be described; thence North 89 degrees 56 minutes 44
seconds West a distance of 129.76 feet; thence North 10 degrees 16 minutes 23
seconds West a distance of 20.70 feet; thence North 77 degrees 46 minutes 23
seconds West a distance of 25.21 feet; thence North 32 degrees 46 minutes 23
seconds West a distance of 26.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 41 minutes 59
seconds West a distance of 66.31 feet; thence South 0 degrees 37 minutes 52
seconds West a distance of 54.34 feet; thence North 89 degrees 56 minutes 44
seconds West a distance of 11.26 feet to the west line of said Lot 1 and there said
centerline terminates.
Together with a 20-foot easement for stormwater, drainage and utility purposes over, under and
across said Lot 1, the north line of said easement is described as follows:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 1; thence North 0 degrees 38
minutes 16 seconds East, along the east line thereof, a distance of 234.90 feet to the
northeast corner of said Lot 1 and the beginning of the line to be described; thence
North 89 degrees 56 minutes 44 seconds West, along the north line of said Lot 1
and its westerly extension, to the northeasterly line of the 14 foot utility easement
described above and there said line terminates.
The south line of said 20-foot easement is to be shortened to terminate on the easterly line of said
14-foot easement.
DOCSOPEN\RC160\5\841365.v1-11/23/22
C-1
EXHIBIT C
Depiction of the Easement Area
DOCSOPEN\RC160\5\846839.v1-12/22/22
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
ENROACHMENT AGREEMENT
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT (this
“Amendment”) is entered into as of this ____ day of __________________, 202_, by and between
the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”), and Partnership Academy
Association, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the “Association”).
RECITALS
A. The City and the Association entered into an Encroachment Agreement dated
_____________ ___, 2020, (the “2020 Agreement”) relating to the encroachment upon easements
on certain property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as:
Lot 1, Block 1, Richfield Hub Superblock, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
The Torrens portion being more particularly described as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1, Richfield Hub Superblock, except that part thereof lying
East and South of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the
South line of said Lot 1 distant 125.26 feet East of the Southwest corner
thereof; thence North parallel to the East line of said Lot 1 a distance of 60.6
feet; thence East parallel to the South line of said Lot 1 a distance of 125.00
feet to the East line of said Lot 1 and said line there terminating.
Abstract and Torrens
(the “Property”).
B. The Association is remodeling and rebuilding the structure located on the Property,
and, to that end, the City is vacating the 52-foot drainage and utility easement dedicated by the
2
DOCSOPEN\RC160\5\846839.v1-12/22/22
Plat of Richfield Hub Superblock which was the subject easement of the 2020 Agreement.
C. The Association has granted an easement to the City for stormwater, drainage, and
utility purposes over a portion of the Property, revising the original easement area.
NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows:
1. Revised Easement. The easement dedicated by the Plat of Richfield Hub
Superblock as referenced in the 2020 Agreement is vacated, and the revised Easement now the
subject of this Amendment is the Stormwater, Drainage and Utility Easement recorded on
_____________ __, 202_ in the Hennepin County Recorder’s office as Document No.
_________________, and recorded on _____________ __, 202_ in the Hennepin County
Registrar of Titles office as Document No. _________________.
2. Revised Exhibit A. Exhibit A attached to this Amendment is hereby substituted
in lieu of Exhibit A to the 2020 Agreement.
3. Amendment Limited. All provisions of the 2020 Agreement remain in full force
and effect, except as expressly amended or supplemented by this Amendment.
4. Definitions. Unless otherwise defined in this Amendment, all capitalized terms
used in this Amendment shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the 2020 Agreement.
[Signature and Acknowledgement Page Follows.]
3
DOCSOPEN\RC160\5\846839.v1-12/22/22
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the day and
year first above written.
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By:
_______________, Mayor
By:
Katie Rodriguez, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of _____________,
202__, by _______________ and Katie Rodriguez, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of
Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation.
Notary Public
4
DOCSOPEN\RC160\5\846839.v1-12/22/22
PARTNERSHIP ACADEMY ASSOCIATION
By:
Lisa Hendricks, President
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ________________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of _____________,
202__, by Lisa Hendricks, the President of Partnership Academy Association, a Minnesota
nonprofit corporation, on behalf of the nonprofit corporation.
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
700 5th Street Towers
150 South 5th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
A-1
DOCSOPEN\RC160\5\846839.v1-12/22/22
EXHIBIT A
65 TH ST E
66TH ST E
64TH ST E
65 TH ST W
66 TH ST WPILLSBURY AVENICOLLET AVE64TH ST W
PLEASANT AVEWENTWORTH AVEBLAISDELL AVE1ST AVE S2ND AVE SSTEVENS AVEPLEASANT AVEPLEASANT AVEC-1
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-2
MR-1
MR-1
MR-1
MR-1 MR-1
MR-2
MR-2
MR-2
MR-2
PC-2
PC-2
PMU
R
±
Location/Zoning Map
0 330 660165ft
I:\G IS\Community Develop me nt\Case Maps\2022 \65 00 Nicollet Ave S - Pa rtne rsh ip Acad - Location.mxd
Zoning Districts
Parks
R Single-Family
R-1 Low-DensitySingle-Family
MR-1 Two-Family
PMR Planned Multi-Family
MR-2 Multi-Family
MR-2/CAC Multi-Fam+ Cedar Overlay
MR-3 High-DensityMulti-Family
SO Service Office
C-1 CommunityCommercial
C-2 GeneralCommercial
PC-2 PlannedGeneral Commercial
PMU Planned MixedUse
MU-C Mixed Use-Community
MU-C/CAC Mixed Use+ Cedar Overlay
MU-C/PAC Mixed Use+ Penn Overlay
MU-N Mixed Use-Neighborhood
MU-R Mixed Use-Regional
I Industrial
-
6500 Nicollet Ave
From: Sean Elder [mailto:sean@thetensquaregroup.com]
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 3:32 PM
To: Samantha Crosby
Cc: Gregory Gentz; Nicholas Adam
Subject: Re: FW: Partnership Easements
Sam,
In December of 2021, Partnership Academy submitted an application to amend its Conditional
Use Permit and Planned Unit Development to support a 5,962 square foot building expansion
north of the existing gymnasium. The expansion provides 4 additional classrooms, administrative
office spaces, student support spaces, and restrooms to meet the growing educational and
programmatic needs of Partnership Academy. The proposed expansion includes a reroute of the
existing water main and stormwater utilities, to be relocated north of the new addition.
On April 12th, 2022, the City Council approved the CUP, PUD, and Development Plan. Given
the new locations of the site utilities, per the 2022 approved development plan, Partnership
Academy Association and the City of Richfield seek to vacate the existing easement from 2018
and grant a new 2022 easement that recognizes the new utility locations.
On a related note, on May 12th, 2022 the City of Richfield and Partnership Academy
Association entered into a Parking Agreement. The school is aware of the 2 year target date for
securing long-term parking, as well as the non-compliance penalties as outlined in the parking
agreement with the city. Our focus continues to be discussions with the Clinic and Brixmore,
however, timing remains a constraint as it is contingent on their planning and approvals. We
don't have specific updates at this time but will definitely keep you posted.
Please let us know if you need any additional information.
Sean
Sean Elder, Director of Real Estate Development
TenSquare, LLC
1400 Van Buren St. NE #200
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Cell: 612.251.3139
sean@thetensquaregroup.com
AGENDA SECTION:PUBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA ITEM #6.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 12
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
1/10/2023
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
1/5/2023
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W:
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Public hearing and consider to approve the renewal of 2023 Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods
Dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue South.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
On November 3, 2022, the City received the application materials for the renewal of Pawnbroker and
Secondhand Goods Dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, I nc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue South. All required
information and documents have been provided. All licensing fees have been received.
The Public Safety Director has reviewed the background information and attached documents and approves
of its contents and sees no basis for denial.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of 2023 Pawnbroker and
Secondhand Goods Dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue South.
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
On November 3, 2022, the City received the application and other required documents for Pawnbroker
and Secondhand Goods Dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, I nc.
The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for issuance of a license:
The required license fees have been paid.
Real estate taxes are paid and current.
The $5,000 bond has been submitted.
Environmental Health staff has received no complaints regarding Metro Pawn & Gun in the
previous year.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed. The results of the investigation are
summarized in an attachment to this report. The Public Safety Director has reviewed the information in
the background investigation report. There is no information in the investigation that shows any cause for
recommending denial of the requested licenses.
On December 13, 2022, the City Council approved continuing the public hearing to J anuary 10, 2023 to
allow for proper notice in the Sun Current.
The current Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods Dealer licenses will expire on J anuary 10, 2023.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Richfield City Code Sections 1186 and 1187 require owners of Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods
Dealer establishments to comply with all of the provisions of both City Code and State Statutes.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
There are no critical timing issues.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
The required licensing fees have been received.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
There are no additional legal issues.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
The Council could decide to deny the requested licenses, which would mean the current applicants
would not be able to obtain Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods Dealer licenses.
Schedule the hearing for another date; however, this may delay the licensing process.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
Metro Pawn & Gun, I nc. representative
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Metro P awn & Gun background summary C over Memo
City of Richfield • Business Licensing • 6700 Portland Ave S • Richfield, MN 55423 • 612 -861-9870 • businesslicensing@richfieldmn.gov
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT
FOR METRO PAWN & GUN, INC.
Officers:
Mark Nichols - Owner
Elizabeth Nichols - Owner
Criminal History:
The following criminal histories reflect the previous and current year.
Mark Nichols has no known criminal record. Elizabeth Nichols has no known
criminal record. John Kunst, who serves as the General Manager, has no known
criminal record.
Premises:
Lynrich Properties, LLC is the owner of the property. All payments are current.
Record of Service Calls:
There were 28 Public Safety/Police contacts with Metro Pawn & Gun, In c. from
October 2021 through September 2022. This compares with 12 contacts for the
previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report.
Routine Information:
The owner of the business continues to act in a cooperative manner with the
Public Safety Department on the recovery of stolen articles.
The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on
December 29, 2022.
City of Richfield • Business Licensing • 6700 Portland Ave S • Richfield, MN 55423 • 612 -861-9870 • businesslicensing@richfieldmn.gov
Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc.
Directors and Officers
Mark Nichols Owner
Elizabeth Nichols Owner
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
October 2021 through September 2022
Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc.
2021 2022
TOTAL CONTACTS 12 28
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 5 3
Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (3) (2)
Alarm (2) (0)
Traffic (0) (1)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 7 25
Assists (7) (0)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (0)
Medical/Fire (0) (0)
Miscellaneous (0) (25)
The criminal contacts from October 2021 through September 2022 were: 1 disturbance,
1 traffic violation, and 1 customer trouble.
AGENDA SECTION:PROPOSED
ORDINANCES
AGENDA ITEM #7.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 13
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
1/10/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: S am C rosby, P lanner II
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: Melissa P oehlman, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
12/20/2022
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
1/4/2023
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Second reading of a proposed ordinance amendment modifying the Zoning Code in relation to
landscaping requirements.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Recent redevelopment projects and a comparison to other cities show that the City's current planting
requirement of two trees per multi-family unit is unreasonable and largely impossible for any development to
meet. I n addition to proposing a revision to required quantities, staff is recommending an alternative option to
planting trees on site (when required plantings are not feasible). This option would allow developers to plant
trees in public parks, or to pay into a fund that would allow the City to plant trees in boulevards or public parks
at a future date. Through the review of these proposed amendments, two other modifications were identified.
Consequently, staff is proposing the following four updates to the “Landscaping and screening requirements”
section of the Zoning Code. The revisions include:
I ncreasing flexibility by establishing the ability to pay cash-in-lieu of planting;
I ncreasing the diversity of trees by reducing the amount of any one species that may be planted;
Right-sizing the tree planting requirements for multi-family residential projects; and
Referencing to the Department of Natural Resources (D NR) list of invasive species for prohibited
trees.
I n October, the proposed regulations were discussed with the Sustainability Commission and in November,
they were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion:
1. Approve the attached ordinance amendment modifying the Zoning Code in relation to
landscaping requirements;
2. Approve a resolution authorizing summary publication of said ordinance; and
3. Approve a resolution authorizing establishment of a new special revenue fund for public tree
planting
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
Public Tree Planting Fund
Due to underground utilities and other site constraints, the Rya apartment buildings at 6300-6400
Richfield Parkway was unable to plant all of the trees shown on the approved landscape plan. The
City already has a provision that allows planting standards to be met through boulevard plantings,
and the developer has planted five trees in the Richfield Parkway right-of-way. Staff would have
liked to be able to offer other alternatives, such as the option to plant the missing trees in public
parks, or to pay into a fund that would allow the City to plant the missing trees in boulevards or
public parks at a future date.
The option for a cash-in-lieu of planting is not a new concept. Both the City of Bloomington
and the City of Roseville have a cash-in-lieu provision for trees. Staff recommends
establishing such a fund and allowing both the Recreation Services Department and the
Public Works Department to be able to pull from the account, for either park trees or
boulevard trees, respectively. The pay-in amount was determined by analyzing the average
cost of a tree, at the size required by the Zoning Code, plus labor to install. The proposed
language is written so that the option may only be utilized when all on site planting has been
maximized.
I ncreasing Diversity
For a new development, the Zoning Code currently requires that not more than 50% of the trees
may be composed of one species. Staff finds that this does not provide sufficient resiliency.
Therefore, staff recommends that the percentage be reduced to 25%. Ensuring a variety of
species will help reduce the vulnerability of tree canopies to pests, disease and climatic
stressors. Landscape architects are usually very good at designing a plan with a wide variety of
tree types; nevertheless, on the rare occasion that they don’t, if the provision is not in the Zoning
Code, it is difficult to enforce.
Correcting Tree Quantities for Multi-Family Projects
For multi-family projects, the Zoning Code currently requires one deciduous over-story tree and
one ornamental tree per unit (coniferous trees may be substituted on a one-for-one basis for an
over-story tree). This two trees per unit requirement is quite excessive and has consistently been
flexed through the Planned Unit Development (P UD) process. Consequently, staff is proposing to
change Richfield’s requirement to 0.5 trees per unit for all projects over 6 units in size (standard
rounding would apply), and one tree per unit for projects with three to six units (multi-family is
defined as three or more units). The following table provides some recent examples:
Project Name:# of Units:# of Trees Required:# of Trees Provided:*Proposed:
Chamberlin 190 380 43 95
Landsby 132 264 23 66
Richfield Flats 55 110 13 26
Riley 82 164 29 41
Novo 192 384 54 96
Enclave 159 318 8 79.5
* Number of trees the proposed revision would require
The Cities of Roseville and St. Louis Park both require only one canopy or evergreen tree
per dwelling unit. The City of Bloomington requires approximately 17 trees per acre. The
American Planning Association points to Olympia, W A as an exemplary urban forest City.
Olympia requires 30 trees per acre. Richfield’s Medium and High-Density Residential land
use categories range between 8 and 100 dwelling units per acre, which under the proposed
amendment would translate to anywhere between 4 and 50 trees per acre, with the mid-
range being 15 to 30 trees per acre.
W hat’s required by the Zoning Code cannot be so excessive that it is not reasonable; such
an extreme requirement is not defensible. By changing the Zoning Code to a more realistic
number, staff will have a stronger position against further decreases; particularly with an
alternative pay-in option available. This may seem like a reduction in the City’s
requirements, but as you can see from the table above, with the need for negotiation
eliminated, it will almost always results in a greater number of trees being planted.
Sustainability Commission / Prohibited Trees
The Sustainability Commission reviewed and discussed the proposed ordinance at their October
27th meeting. The Commission recommended adding the word “planting” to the name of the tree
fund, since the funds may only be used for initial establishment of trees, not long-term
maintenance. The Commission recommended that the City prohibit the planting of known invasive
species, as determined by the D NR, the list of which can be found at:
www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/index.html, and is attached for reference. The
Commission discussed the idea of limiting the number of conifers, but decided against it due to
the occasional need for screening between uses. Finally, the Commission encouraged City staff
to work with an arborist to tweak landscape plans to increase on-site plantings as much as
possible. Staff agrees with all of these suggestions. Consequently, the two that affect the proposed
ordinance language have been incorporated into the document.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
The City already has a provision that allows planting standards to be met through
boulevard plantings. T he proposed ordinance expands upon that provision to also allow
the standards to be met in public parks and through a pay-in option.
The Comprehensive Plan states that there is a desire for passive areas of parks to be restored to
a more natural character, and for existing natural areas to be better preserved. The proposed
Zoning Code amendment is in alignment with the City’s Comprehensive plan and policies,
examples include:
Encourage innovative solutions to land use and transportation problems.
Maintain and enhance the “urban hometown” character of Richfield.
Reduce pollutants through public transit, car-pooling, traffic control, use of berms
and trees, and stronger enforcement of pollution policies.
Establishing a pay-in option complies with State Statutes so long as there are other options
available to the applicant.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The developer of the Rya apartment building has placed funds in escrow with the hopes that the
proposal will be approved and the money can be transferred to the newly established budget upon
adoption of the amended Zoning Code.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
The City budget does not currently have a line item where both the streets department and the
recreation department can pull from. Creating a separate line item in the budget will ensure that
the funds do not get inadvertently pulled for resources other than tree planting. The line item will be
in the capital budget.
The flexibility provided to developers by an increase of options will likely help streamline projects,
which has the potential to reduce overall costs. I ncreasing the options available to developers also
helps to ensure that all trees will get planted somewhere, rather than foregoing canopy due to
unforeseen circumstances or events. Trees are an important resource and an increased tree
canopy generally increases property values and general quality of life.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper on October 13, 2022. At
the October 24 Planning Commission meeting, the item was continued by the Planning
Commission to allow the Sustainability Commission time to review the request. At the November
28 Planning Commission meeting, no one from the public spoke to the item and the Commission
voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend approval as presented. A first reading of the proposed
ordinance was approved by the City Council on December 13, 2022. Because the City is the
applicant, the 60-day rule does not apply.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
Establishment of the fund and approval of the text amendment with additional and/or modified
stipulations.
Deny the establishment of the fund and the text amendment, thus maintaining the Zoning Code as
currently written.
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
Ordinance Ordinance
S ummary P ublication Resolution Resolution L etter
F und E stablishment Resolution Resolution L etter
M N D NR Invasive Trees and S hrubs B ackup Material
BILL NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MODIFYING SECTION 544 OF THE ZONING CODE IN
RELATION TO LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1 Subsection 544.03, Subdivision 4 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended to
revise only item c) as it relates to percentages of tree species, all subsequent
items to remain unchanged, to read as follows:
Subd. 4. General landscaping requirements. The City intends that each new
landscaping and screening plan be designed to a high level of quality because of
the needs imposed by the relatively high development densities and land values in
Richfield. Designers shall strive to meet the standards outlined in Su bdivisions 4
through 7, below. However, the Director shall review and decide the adequacy of
each landscaping and screening design based on whether or not it meets the intent
of this ordinance. The Director shall advise the Planning Commission as part of
Site Plan Review.
a) Area to be landscaped: All open areas of a lot which are not used or improved
for required parking areas, drives or storage shall be landscaped with a
combination of overstory trees, understory trees, shrubs, flowers and ground
cover materials.
b) Materials: The plan for landscaping shall include ground cover, shrubs, trees,
public art, walls, fences, decorative walks or other features or materials
acceptable to the Director.
c) Tree types and species: For sites requiring ten (10) tr ees or more as
determined by Subd.5 for residential sites and Subd.6 for commercial sites, not
more than 50 25 percent of the required trees shall be composed of one
species. No required tree or shrub shall be any of the following:
i. A species of the genus Ulmus (elm), except those elms bred to be immune
to Dutch elm disease;
ii. Box elder Those trees and shrubs listed by the DNR as invasive; or
iii. Female ginko.
d) through k): no change
Section 2 Subsection 544.03, Subdivision 5 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended to
modify tree requirements for multi-family dwellings, to read as follows:
Subd. 5. Residential sites. Residential sites shall be landscaped to improve the
livability, beauty and value of housing; to screen and m itigate views of large
parking areas; to reduce the effect of traffic noise; to provide shade; and to help
protect water quality.
a) Quantities. These requirements are in addition to any plantings in the public
street right-of-way whether installed by the land developer or the City.
b) Single- and Two-Family
Dwellings
Multiple-Family Dwellings
Overstory
deciduous
trees
1 per dwelling unit 3 to 6 units:
1 tree per dwelling
unit
1 more than 6 units:
0.5 trees per dwelling unit.
Coniferous
trees
May be substituted on a one-for-one basis for the overstory deciduous trees.
Ornamental
deciduous
trees
1 per dwelling unit None required. May be substituted on a 1.5-for-one
basis for a max of 25% of the
overstories planted on site.
Understory
shrubs
Foundation plantings are
required in all areas
visible from the public
street.
Foundation plantings are required in all visible areas.
b) Commercial edges. The density and initial size of plantings shall be increased
along nonresidential edges and may be combined with berms, walls and fences
to achieve the objective of protecting the values, quietude and privacy of the
housing. Landscaping on the adjacent nonresidential property may not be
substituted for plantings on the residential property.
Section 3 Subsection 544.03, Subdivision 8 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended to
expand alternatives to on-site tree planting, to read as follows:
Subd. 8. Streetscape plans and boulevard alternative plantings.
a) Streetscape plans. In areas where a district or street-specific planting plan has
been adopted by the City Council for the public street right -of-way, development
must provide landscaping as set forth in that streetscape plan. Streetscape
plantings located within the property lines of the site may be c redited toward the
required number of trees and shrubs but plantings in the public right -of-way shall
not. Landscaping placed or removed in the public right -of-way must receive City
approvals for right-of-way plantings and must conform to City right -of-way planting
policies.
b) Boulevard plantings. In instances of constrained sites (509.25 Subd.6),
landscape standards may be met through boulevard plantings under a permit from
the Richfield Public Works Department.
b) Alternative plantings. If the development property does not contain sufficient area
or it is otherwise not practical to plant the required trees on the development property
as determined by the Community Development Director (or designee), then the trees
may be planted on public property (e.g.: parks, boulevards, right-of-way). Plantings
must be approved by either the Recreation Services Director (or designee) or the
Public Works Director (or designee). Alternatively, an equivalent amount may be
paid into the City’s Public Tree Planting Fund for planting of trees on public property
on behalf of the development. The rate shall be per caliper inch and shall be set by
Appendix D of the City Code.”
Section 4 Appendix D of the Richfield Municipal Code is amended to add the public tree
fund amount, to read as follows:
Appendix D – License, Permit and Miscellaneous Fees
ZONING, LAND USE AND RELATED CHARGES
Type of Permit
or License
Section
Requiring
Description Fee
(18)Public Tree
Planting Fund
544.03 Subd.8 For the planting of trees in public parks
or public boulevards.
$160.00
per
caliper
inch.
Section 5 This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City
Charter.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of January, 2023.
Mary B. Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. _____
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION
OF AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE MUNICIPAL CODE
IN RELATION TO LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above-referenced amendment of the
Richfield City Code; and
WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the
expense of publication of the complete text is not justified;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication:
SUMMARY PUBLICATION
BILL NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the
Richfield City Charter.
This ordinance - which amends Zoning Code Subsection 544.03, at
Subd.4. “General landscaping requirements ”, Subd.5. “Residential Sites”,
Subd.8. “Streetscape plans and boulevard plantings ”, and Appendix D “License, Permit
and Miscellaneous Fees” - does the following: establishes a fund for payment in lieu of
planting; reduces the amount of any one species that may be planted; references the
DNR list of invasive species for prohibited trees; and right-sizes the tree planting
requirements for multi-family residential projects.
Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office
during normal business hours or upon request by calling the Department of Community
Development at (612) 861-9760.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of
January 2023.
Mary B. Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. ____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW SPECIAL REVENUE
FUND FOR PUBLIC TREE PLANTINGS
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield desires to increase flexibility for land use
applicants and developers by establishing the option to pay funds in lieu of tree planting;
and
WHEREAS, the option would only be available when all other on -site tree
planting options have been exhausted; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Code already allows for planting standards to be met
through boulevard plantings, and the proposed fund would allow for the City to plant the
trees on behalf of the applicant/developer at a later date, thereby allowing projects that
would not otherwise be completed over the winter to be closed -out in a more timely
fashion; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent that the funds will be available to both the Recreation
Services Department (for planting trees in City parks) and the Public Works Department
(for planting trees in City right-of-ways); and
WHEREAS, the establishment of the fund is a sustainable initiative that complies
with the goals and objectives of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, for transparency and accurate tracking of revenue and expenditures,
staff recommends the establishment of a new fund; and
WHEREAS, these funds will have the following name: Public Tree Planting Fund
(line item #47150); and
WHEREAS, Section 7.12 of the City Code requires Council approval by
resolution of the establishment of new funds in the City of Richfield budget;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council herby approves the
establishment of the Public Tree Planting Fund, for transparent and accurate tracking of
financial activity.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of
January, 2023
Mary B. Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Invasive Terrestrial Plants
Trees and shrubs
Amur cork tree
Amur maple
Autumn olive
Black locust
Buckthorn
Japanese barberry
Multiflora rose
Non-native bush honeysuckles
Non-native knotweeds
Norway maple
Russian olive
Siberian elm
Siberian peashrub
Tree of heaven*
Winged burning bush
Click on the links for individual species to learn more about identification,
distribution, impacts, management, regulatory status, and native plant alternatives
for those particular species. This is an educational list of plants that can be invasive
in natural areas. Some plants are regulated by the Minnesota Department of
Agriculture as Noxious Weeds and that is noted in their descriptions. An * next to the
plant name indicates it is an early detection species.
AGENDA SECTION:OTHER BUSINESS
AGENDA ITEM #8.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 14
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
1/10/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: K elly Wynn, A dministrative A ssistant
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: Melissa P oehlman, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
1/4/2023
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
1/4/2023
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider the City Council's approval of the Mayor's appointments of Housing and Redevelopment
Authority (H R A) Commissioners consisting of Mary Supple and Sean Hayford Oleary.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
On December 13, 2011, the City Council established by resolution that the public’s interest is best served by
having a composition of two appointed Council Members and three Mayor-appointed citizens serve on the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA).
As of J anuary 2, 2023, there are two openings on the HRA, both Council, due to the following:
Maria Regan Gonzalez - Appointed to the HRA as a Council Member and term expired on J anuary 2,
2023, coinciding with her term on the City Council.
Mary Supple - Appointed to the HRA as a Council Member and term expired on J anuary 2, 2023,
coinciding with her term on the City Council.
Council Members were given time in December to submit interest for the positions.
T he Mayor has the authority to appoint members to the HRA, subject to the City Council's
approval.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve the Mayor's appointment of two me mbers of the City Council as H R A
Commissione rs comme ncing January 10, 2023, and ex piring at the e nd of their re spe ctiv e
curre nt term on the Richfie ld City 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
City Council Resolution No. 10586 was approved December 13, 2011, regarding appointments to the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority board of commissioners; establishing composition of the board
and term limits on non-elected members.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Under State law, the Mayor appoints HRA Commissioners, subject to approval of the City Council.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
To ensure a quorum at future meetings, the City Council should appoint an HRA Commissioner at
tonight's meeting.
I f the City Council does not confirm the Mayor ’s appointments, a quorum will not be present at
future HRA meetings.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
This designation is at no additional cost to the City.
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):
The Council may decide not to approve the Mayor ’s appointment or defer the appointment to a future City
Council meeting; however, this is not recommended as the HRA will not have a quorum and be unable to
conduct business until appointments are approved.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
None
AGENDA SECTION:OTHER BUSINESS
AGENDA ITEM #9.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 15
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
1/10/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: K elly Wynn, A dministrative A ssistant
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
1/4/2023
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider representatives to serve as the 2023 liaisons to various local, regional and state
organizations, and City boards and commissions.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Members of the City Council serve as the City’s representatives on various local, regional and state
organizations, and City boards and commissions. Each year, the City Council appoints these
representatives.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Designate City Council liaison appointments to various local, regional and state
organizations, and City boards and commissions.
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 in the Executive Summary.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
The City Council considers the designation of liaisons at a meeting in J anuary of each year.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
Representation on local, regional and state organizations, and City boards and commissions is a City
Goal and designations should be made at a J anuary meeting each year.
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):
The City Council may defer the designations to a future City Council meeting.
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
2023 C C liaisons B ackup Material
01/04/23
AGENCY 2022 LIAISON/
REPRESENTATIVE
2023 LIAISON/
REPRESENTATIVE
METRO CITIES ALL COUNCILMEMBERS SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY, REP.
SIMON TRAUTMANN, ALT.
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES ALL COUNCILMEMBERS MARY SUPPLE, REP.
BEN WHALEN, ALT.
NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE NELLIE JEROME, REP. NELLIE JEROME, REP.
(3rd Wednesday, odd # months 1:30pm) BEN WHALEN, ALT. BEN WHALEN, ALT.
I-35W SOLUTIONS ALLIANCE SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY, REP. SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY, REP.
(2nd Thursday 7:30am) MARIA REGAN GONZALEZ, ALT. MARY SUPPLE, ALT.
JOE POWERS, STAFF LIA. JOE POWERS, STAFF LIA.
494 CORRIDOR COMMISSION MARY SUPPLE, REP. MARY SUPPLE, REP.
(2nd Wednesday 7:30am) SIMON TRAUTMANN, ALT. SIMON TRAUTMANN, ALT.
BEN MANIBOG, STAFF LIA. TBD, STAFF LIA.
RICHFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT MARIA REGAN GONZALEZ, LIA. MARY SUPPLE, LIA.
(1st and 3rd Monday 7:00pm) MARY SUPPLE, ALT. SHARON CHRISTENSEN, ALT.
FOWL BOARD SIMON TRAUTMANN, LIA. SIMON TRAUTMANN, LIA.
(3rd Thursday 4:30pm) BEN WHALEN, ALT. BEN WHALEN, ALT.
SOUTHWEST CABLE COMMISSION MARIA REGAN GONZALEZ, REP. MARY SUPPLE, REP.
(2-4 times per year) KATIE RODRIGUEZ, REP. KATIE RODRIGUEZ, REP.
SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY, ALT. SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY, ALT.
RICHFIELD COMMUNITY HUMAN BEN WHALEN, REP. BEN WHALEN, REP.
SERVICES PLANNING COUNCIL MARY SUPPLE, ALT. SHARON CHRISTENSEN, ALT.
(Meets once a year)
ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH
(4th Monday Jan-Feb and 3rd Monday Mar-
Oct 6:00pm)
MARIA REGAN GONZALEZ, LIA.
MARY SUPPLE, ALT.
SIMON TRAUTMANN, LIA.
BEN WHALEN, ALT.
ARTS COMMISSION MARY SUPPLE, LIA. SHARON CHRISTENSEN, LIA.
(1st Thursday 7:00pm) SIMON TRAUTMANN, ALT. MARY SUPPLE, ALT.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
(As needed)
SIMON TRAUTMANN, LIA.
KELLY WYNN, STAFF LIA.
SHARON CHRISTENSEN, LIA.
KELLY WYNN, STAFF LIA.
COMM. SERVICES COMMISSION BEN WHALEN, LIA. BEN WHALEN, LIA.
(3rd Tuesday 7:00pm) MARY SUPPLE, ALT. SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY, ALT.
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION SIMON TRAUTMANN, LIA. SIMON TRAUTMANN, LIA.
(1st Tuesday 6:30pm) SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY, ALT. SHARON CHRISTENSEN, ALT.
PLANNING COMMISSION MARIA REGAN GONZALEZ, LIA. MARY SUPPLE, LIA.
(4th Monday 7:00pm) SIMON TRAUTMANN, ALT. SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY, ALT.
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY, LIA. SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY, LIA.
(1st Wednesday 7:00pm) SIMON TRAUTMANN, ALT. SIMON TRAUTMANN, ALT.
01/04/23
RICHFIELD HISTORICAL SOCIETY MARY SUPPLE, REP. SHARON CHRISTENSEN, REP.
(3rd Monday 7:00pm) BEN WHALEN, ALT. MARY SUPPLE, ALT.
SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION BEN WHALEN, LIA. BEN WHALEN, LIA.
(4th Thursday 7:00pm)
SIMON TRAUTMANN, ALT.
SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY, ALT.
RICHFIELD CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
SIMON TRAUTMANN, LIA.
MARY SUPPLE, ALT.