Loading...
02-28-2023 City Council AgendaREGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, COUNCIL CHAMBERS FEBRUARY 28, 2023 7:00 PM INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Pledge of Allegiance Open forum Call into the open forum by dialing 1-415-655-0001 Use webinar access code: 2451 353 6303 and password: 1234. Please refer to the Council Agenda & Minutes web page for additional ways to submit comments. Approval of the Minutes of the (1) City Council Work Session of February 14, 2023; (2) City Council Regular Meeting of February 14, 2023; and (3) City Council and Director Retreat of February 15, 2023. AGENDA APPROVAL 1.Approval of the Agenda 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.Consider the adoption of a resolution supporting the repeal of the exclusion of Hennepin and Ramsey counties from receiving Motor Vehicle Lease Sales Tax (MVLST) funds. Staff Report No. 29 3.Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.Public hearing and consideration of a resolution specifying the use of funds from the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant allocation for 2023 and authorizing execution of a Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any required third party Agreements. Staff Report No. 30 RESOLUTIONS 5.Consider the adoption of resolutions of support for funding applications to the MnDOT Corridors of Commerce Program for the following projects: 1) The City of Richfield's application for a proposed project on Trunk Highway 62 between Portland Avenue and Trunk Highway 77, including reconfiguration of the Trunk Highway 62/Trunk Highway 77 interchange. 2) The City of Bloomington's application for a proposed project at the 82nd Street/I-35W interchange and reconstruction of the railroad bridge over I-494 at Pleasant Avenue. 3) The I-494 Corridor Commission's application for a proposed project to add E-ZPass lanes on I-494 from I- 35W to Trunk Highway 77 and reconstruction of the railroad bridge over I-494 at Pleasant Avenue . Staff Report No. 31 OTHER BUSINESS 6.Consider the approval of Agreements with non-profit organizations to provide social services to the City of Richfield and authorize the City Manager to execute Agreements with those agencies. Staff Report No. 32 CITY MANAGER’S REPORT 7.City Manager's Report CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 8.Claims and Payroll COUNCIL DISCUSSION 9.Hats Off to Hometown Hits 10.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 City Council Work Session February 14, 2023 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Supple called the work session to order at 5:50 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room. Council Members Present: Council Members Absent: Mary Supple, Mayor; Simon Trautmann; Ben Whalen: and Sean Hayford Oleary Sharon Christensen Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Joe Powers, City Engineer; Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer; Lance Bernard, Transportation Consultant; and Chris Swanson, Management Analyst ITEM #1 CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON POLICY FRAMEWORK APPROACH FOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PROJECTS AND EVALUATE CITY SUPPORT FOR SEVERAL PROPOSED CORRIDORS OF COMMERCE PROJECT SUBMITTALS. City Manager Rodriguez introduced the topic. She reminded council this was to discuss funding options and was not the actual approval of the projects. City Engineer Powers discussed how this item was introduced to council at the joint transportation commission meeting held earlier this year and provided a summary of the previousl discussion. He talked about some of the changes proposed to the policy framework since the last meeting on February 1, 2023. These changes to the framework came from prior discussion at the joint work session. He spoke of how staff used feedback from the previous work session to modify the framework for evaluating future transportation projects. He also provided additional follow up on questions from the prior work session along with additional internal discussions that staff had to prepare for this work session. City Engineer Powers talked about how, regardless of if the Corridors of Commerce (COC) projects are undertaken, the amount of traffic on I-494 is expected to continue to increase. He did note the traffic modelers for MnDOT do not expect this to generate more tripns on 494 than would be expected, but the models show the same people will be taking the same trips. He also noted the 494 Project 1 would increase congestion on 494 east of 35W and MnDOT’s response when questioned on this is that the full 494 Vision would address it. He then noted staff had applied the updated framework to the Hwy 62 project, but not to the 494 proejct due to time contstraints. City Council Work Session Minutes -2- February 14, 2023 City Engineer Powers provided an overview layout of the highway 62 layout. He talked about applying the the revised draft framework for these projects. He also outlined how the city had sought and received support from Minneapolis for the crosstown project. He noted that Richfield is the last city to review the COC projects. Council Member Hayford Oleary asked why Bloomington is included in the crosstown project. He doesn’t feel they will be impacted by this work. City Engineer Powers said he agreed that they should not be included. Council Member Hayford Oleary asked what the pedestrian bridge would look like. City Engineer Powers provided more detail on the pedestrian bridge. Council Member Whalen asked if the $57 million was just for the railroad bridge or if it also included the full interchange work on Highway 62. City Engineer Powers said it included the entire project. Council Member Whalen asked if the railroad bridge had any additional ROW needs. City Engineer Powers said it should all fall within the existing ROW. He mentioned the city owns and is responsible to maintain the crossing. Mayor Supple asked staff to add more clarity to the meaining of "fair" condition when discribing the bridge. City Engineer Powers said the rating of “fair” is recognizing the bridge is older and could use some work, but the condition is not currently hazardous. City Engineer Powers welcomed any comments on the framework. He noted they planned to formally adopt this framework at a future council meeting. He said as there is a March 14 deadline to submit resolutions of support on the COC projects was the focus of the meeting tonight. Staff plans to go to council for approval of the COC projects at the February 28 meeting. He asked council for comments and concerns on the framework and the project. Council Member Hayford Oleary thought staff was on the right track with the framework. He recognized there would be continued discussion on this matter. Council Member Whalen felt this is a good base to build on and recognized this helps the city evaluate projects. Staff agreed it was helpful to have this criteria when looking at large abstarct projects. Mayor Supple appreciated that staff took the comments from the prior work session and integrated them in the framework. Council Member Hayford Oleary had questions on the Highway 62 project. He specifically asked about the COC projects and wanted to know how removing the extra auxiliary lane would impact the funding and the project scoring. Staff said the project funding and scoring would be significantly impacted if the auxiliary lane was removed and noted the inclusion of the auxiliary lane is the biggest driver in terms of getting the new pedestrian bridge. Transportation Consultant Bernard discussed MNDOT’s openness to packaging some of the city requested changes in these projects. Council Member Hayford Oleary asked if Minneapolis would support the project if it didn’t include the interchange. Staff believed they would but would just want to see updated plans and would like to include modifications to the Edgewater Blvd/Nokomis Pkwy area before they fully commit. Mayor Supple asked about the next steps in this process. City Engineer Powers said he wanted to give council the opportunity to review and provide input on the framework and proposed COC projects before staff presented for final approval on February 28. Council Member Whalen said he liked all aspects of the project but still had some questions on the additional lane. He wanted to know the purpose of the lane if it is not expected to decrease traffic. City Engineer Powers discussed how the lane is intended to reduce the amount of congestion on that stretch. He noted that, from a local perspective, this would reduce the traffic on our local city streets. City Council Work Session Minutes -3- February 14, 2023 Council Member Whalen asked what 50% effective safety means from MNDOT. Transportation Consultant Bernard said this demonstrates there will be less crashes and the ones that do occur will be less severe. He noted that this is part of the process MNDOT is curretly going through as they are evaluating all of the 44 proposed COC projects. Council Member Whalen asked how highway congestion is measured. He was interested in how this was evaluated and the impact in the future. Staff said they would need to do some more research on this question. Council Member Whalen was interested in examples of projects where the additional capacity hasn’t been backfilled. He talked about how, in the metro, there is a certain level of traffic that people are comfortable with and this is what really impacts driving habits. Council Member Trautmann asked about funding mechanisms and wanted to know if approval and construction of these projects would have long term finaincial implications. City Engineer Powers said there would be some continued costs in the future. He provided noise walls as an example and noted the cost and maintenance agreements have yet to be finalized. He talked about how MNDOT is moving towards more maintance provided by cities. Council Member Trautmann stated that made him nervous. He said he is wary about committing more funding to these projects but is open to continued discussions. Transportation Engineer Hardegger provided a summary of the grant process and the local match. Specifically, he talked about how COC is a direct funding mechanism, no local match required. Council Member Whalen asked if there was a version where the auxiliary lane would still be up for discussion. Staff noted the city would lose this funding opportunity if that change was made. City Engineer Powers provided a summary I-494 project. Council Member Hayford Oleary talked about funding. He noted this one project would take a large portion of the total COC funding for the state and that would reduce the likelihood of the other projects in Richfield being successful. Staff agreed. Council Member Hayford Oleary said he is still not clear about the benefit to local systems. He agreed the city would like less traffic but does not think that will happen by pushing more people through I-494. City Engineer Powers discussed how our residents utilize the highway system and noted there is both a local and regional need. Staff does feel it’s hard to quantify the benefits but recognized its one of the most used stretches of road in the state. City Engineer Powers stated this project is one of many in addressing local issues. Council Member Hayford Oleary asked more about the induced demand. He would prefer if the work could be done within the current road footprint and does not support the increase in lanes. He felt the city would be stuck with this project, would see no benefit from the work, and residents would be subjected to an increase in noise and air pollutions. Council Member Hayford Oleary noted he would still support the Bloomington project as the price tag is lower and thought there would be more benefits once complete. City Manager Rodriguez went over how the PAC approved this vision years ago and how council should be mindful of that prior work. Council Member Trautmann talked about his experience with the PAC and how these projects were the result of compromise and conversation. He felt that Richfield did get some wins from the process and believed the city is in a better place with this work than 5 years ago but there are still a lot of challenges. City Manager Rodriguez noted that although the first project will not reduce traffic, we should also recognize that Richfield residents travel out for business and our local businesses have staff come into Richfield. She talked about how this project would help them in their daily travel. Council Member Whalen said he is not convinced the congestion is solvable or that an extra lane will fix this. He noted many examples where you can see this occur. He doesn’t see a scenario where I-494 is not crowded. Council Member Trautmann asked if this was in line with MNDOT’s analysis. City Engineer Powers said these projects will never create a free flowing traffic condition. Transportation Engineer City Council Work Session Minutes -4- February 14, 2023 Hardegger noted that all of MNDOT’s scenarios, due to population increases in the future, expect congestion. He outlined how the auxiliary lane would allow at least one option for less congestion. Council Member Whalen asked about what is funded with the EZ Pass charge. Staff said they would look into where the EZ Pass funds go. Mayor Supple asked about the projections. She wanted to know what was behind this increase. Transportation Engineer Hardegger said this is both an increase in population and traffic volumes shifting from local routes to 494, and that MnDOT expects no additional trips would be generated. Council Member Hayford Oleary asked if MnDOT’s modeling ever accounts for people making new trips that they would not make if a project was not constructed. Transportation Engineer Hardegger noted it was hard to analyze that type of scenario. Council Member Trautmann said he too had a question on the modeling. He wanted to know if traffic levels have returned to post pandemic levels and asked broadly about any trends that staff may be seeing. Transportation Engineer Hardegger said all the traffic modeling was done in 2019 and they are not sure how this has been impacted. Staff did note there is some data that suggests volume of traffic to downtown areas have not returned, but highway volumes overall are similar to historic levels. Mayor Supple said she supported the Crosstown and 82nd Street project, including the railroad bridge. She was comfortable supporting the I-494 project. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Supple adjourned the work session at 6:57 p.m. Date Approved: February 28, 2023 Mary Supple Mayor Chris Swanson Katie Rodriguez Management Analyst City Manager CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Supple at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Council Members Present: Mary Supple, Mayor; Simon Trautmann; Sean Hayford Oleary; and Ben Whalen Council Members Absent: Sharon Christensen Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney; Chris Swanson, Management Analyst PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Supple led the Pledge of Allegiance. OPEN FORUM Mayor Supple 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 There were no participants. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Hayford Oleary, S/Trautmann to approve the minutes of the: (1) City Council Work Session of January 24, 2023; (2) Joint City Council and Transportation Commission Work Session of February 1, 2023. Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #1 PROCLAMATION CELEBRATING BLACK HISTORY MONTH Mayor Supple invited Karole Kelley to accept the proclamation and read aloud the proclamation. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Regular Council Meeting February 14, 2023 City Council Meeting Minutes -2- February 14, 2023 Ms. Kelley stated she was proud to accept the Proclamation as a resident and a woman of color. Councilmember Whalen thanked Ms. Kelley and the other members of the Human Rights Commission. He stated the city has made equity a part of the strategic plan and more information regarding this would be coming soon. Councilmember Hayford Oleary also thanked the Human Right Commission noting this was an important issue. Councilmember echoed the previous comments and thanked Ms. Kelley for her involvement in the Human Right Commission. ITEM #2 PROCLAMATION DECLARING FEBRUARY 11, 2023 AS SOLVEIG TVEDTEN DAY IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD Mayor Supple read aloud the proclamation. Council Member Hayford Oleary wished Ms. Tvedten Happy Birthday. ITEM #3 APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA M/Whalen, S/Trautmann to approve the agenda. Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #4 CONSENT CALENDAR City Manager Rodriguez presented the consent calendar. A. Consider a three-part request: site plan review, two sign variances, and a one-stall parking variance for MSP Commercial’s headquarters at 6436 Penn Avenue South (Staff Report No. 23) RESOLUTION NO. 12070 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SHARED ACCESS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHIELD AND MSP COMMERCIAL AT 6436 AND 6444 PENN AVENUE SOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 12071 RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE PLAN; A ONE STALL PARKING VARIANCE; A 4 SQUARE FOOT SIZE VARIANCE AND A 2 FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FREESTANDING SIGN, ALL AT 6436 PENN AVENUE SOUTH B. Consider adoption of a Resolution modifying the Health Care Savings Plan for Police Sergeants, Teamsters #320, bargaining unit employees (Staff Report No. 29) RESOLUTION NO. 12069 RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFYING THE HEALTH CARE SABINS PLAN FOR POLICE SERGEANTS, TEAMSTERS #320, BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES City Council Meeting Minutes -3- February 14, 2023 C. Consider adoption of a Resolution granting an extension of land use approvals for a planned unit development at 101 – 66th Street East (Staff Report No. 24) RESOLUTION NO. 12068 RESOLUTION APPROVING GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF LAND USE APPROVALS FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AT 101 – 66TH STREET EAST D. Consider the approval of the bid tabulation and award a contract to Davey Resource Group for the Sheridan Pont Maintenance Project Phase 2 in the amount of $94,128.99 and authorize the City Manager to approve contract changes up to $25,000 without further City Council consideration (Staff Report No. 27) E. Consider approval of the bid tabulation and award a contract to Huot Construction and Services, Inc., for the Water Treatment Plant Roof Replacement Project in the amount of $1,389,615.00 and authorize the City Manager to approve contract changes up to $175,000 without further City Council consideration (Staff Report No. 28) F. Consider the adoption of a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute Master Utility Agreement No. 1051052 between the City of Richfield, the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and MnDOT’s selected design-build contractor, which will govern the replacement, repair, and/or relocation of City-owned utilities as part of 494 Project 1(Staff Report No. 25) RESOLUTION NO. 12072 RESOLUTION APPROVING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE MASTER UTILITY AGREEMENT NO. 1051052 BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MNDOT), AND MNDOT’S SELECTED DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTOR, WHICH WILL COVERN THE REPLACEMENT, REPAIR, AND/OR RELOCATION OF CITY-OWNED UTILITIES AS PART OF 494 PROJECT 1 G. Consider authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute a cost-share/reimbursement agreement with Partnership Academy for installation of a water utility service line in advance of the City’s 65th Street Reconstruction Project due to expansion of the Partnership Academy campus (Staff Report No. 26) M/Hayford Oleary, S/Trautmann to approve the consent calendar. Council Member Hayford Oleary inquired how on Item A, how these types of requests get on the Consent Calendar. He indicated due to the parking rules, this was a very limited use but he had no objection to this item. City Manager Rodriguez responded this had been unanimously approved by the Planning Commission and there were no issues, but there was not a formal process as to what items were put on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #5 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR None. ITEM #6 CITY MANAGER’S REPORT City Council Meeting Minutes -4- February 14, 2023 City Manager Rodriguez stated Council Member Trautmann was interested in attending the National League of Cities Conference in March and Council Member Whalen had also expressed interest in attending a national conference this Fall. She noted they only budgets for one Council Member to attend a national conference per year, so if both Council Members attended a conference they would be over budget. She indicated over the past few years no Council Members attended a conference though. She requested Council feedback. Council Member Whalen stated, if possible, he would like to attend the Local Progress National meeting. Council Member Trautmann stated if there were a question about the budget, he would withdraw his attendance at the National League of Cities Conference. Council Member Hayford Oleary stated he had no objection to either conference attendance. It was his opinion if they could go over budget this year, they should. He suggested a Council Member be allowed to attend a conference once during their term. Mayor Supple had no objection, and believed it was important Council Members attend conferences, especially the National League of Cities Conference. She recommended protocols for how conference attendances are decided in the future. Council Member Whalen indicated if it was decided only one conference attendance a year was recommend, then Council Member Trautman should go to the National League of Cities conference. He agreed with Council Members being allowed to attend a conference once per term. Mayor Supple summarized Council’s recommendation that a Council Member can attend a conference once per term, it should fit with the Cities Strategic Plan, and a short form should be developed for such requests. ITEM #7 CLAIMS AND PAYROLL M/Whalen, S/Trautmann that the following claims and payrolls be approved: U.S. BANK 02/14/2023 A/P Checks: 312447 - 312846 $2,486,304.04 Payroll: 176294 - 176603 $726,063.09 TOTAL $3,212,367.13 Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #8 HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS Council Member Hayford Oleary stated he had no items. Council Member Trautmann gave hats off and thanked the Directors who connected with the visiting Mayor from Somalia. He gave hats off to the great work and engineering for the great water resources the city had. City Council Meeting Minutes -5- February 14, 2023 Council Member Whalen lifted a lot of exciting movement at the State Capital. He stated it was exciting to see the State Legislature moving again. He thanked Richfield residents, staff, and everyone who has been a part of the process to move things forward to benefit the community. Mayor Supple thanked the Legislators, staff, and community for moving forward the bonding bill for the Woodlake Nature Center. She stated it was an honor to welcome the Mayor from Somalia and thanked staff for their work on making this possible. She thanked the Tourism Promotion Board for their work with the city. She thanked Management Analyst Swanson and Analyst Wynn for working on the Proclamations for tonight’s meeting. ITEM #9 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:36 p.m. Date Approved: February 28, 2023 Mary Supple Mayor Kelly Wynn Katie Rodriguez Administrative Assistant City Manager CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special City Council Work Session February 15, 2023 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Supple at 4:30 p.m. held at Wood Lake Nature Center. Council Members Mary Supple, Mayor; Simon Trautmann; Sean Hayford Oleary; and Ben Present: Whalen Council Members Sharon Christensen Absent: Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Sack Thongvanh, Assistant City Manager; Melissa Poehlman, Community Development Director, Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director; Kristin Asher, Public Works Director; Amy Markle, Recreation Services Director; Mike Dobesh, Fire Chief; Kumud Verma, Finance Manager; and Chris Swanson, Management Analyst Item #1 CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF TEAM BUILDING RETREAT The City Council and staff met to discuss the Strategic Plan dashboard; review policy proposals; and discuss the effective governance survey. ADJOURNMENT The work session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:30 p.m. Date Approved: February 28, 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. 29 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 2/28/2023 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 2/16/2023 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 2/22/2023 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 supporting the repeal of the exclusion of Hennepin and Ramsey counties from receiving Motor Vehicle Lease Sales Tax (MV LS T) funds. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: Minnesota's general sales tax applies to long-term motor vehicle leases, which is known as the Motor Vehicle Lease Sales Tax (MV LS T). MV LS T funds are dedicated by law to transportation needs throughout the state. Hennepin and Ramsey counties are the only counties in the seven-county metro area excluded from receiving funding through the MV L S T. The rationale for excluding Hennepin and Ramsey counties from receiving MV L S T funds was based on enabling of new taxing authority though the Counties Transit I mprovement Board (C TI B) in 2008. W ith C TI B's dissolution in 2017, the underlying rationale for excluding Hennepin and Ramsey counties from receiving the MV L S T funds has ceased to exist. As the most populous counties in Minnesota, residents of Hennepin and Ramsey counties contribute substantially to the MV LS T collections but are excluded by law from receiving funding from this transportation source. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N: By Motion: Adopt the resolution supporting the repeal of the exclusion of Hennepin and Ramsey counties from receiving Motor Vehicle Lease Sales Tax (MV LS T) funds. 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): Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 297A.815, Subd. 3. exempts Hennepin and Ramsey counties from the MV L S T distribution formula. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S: S F 670 was introduced this legislative session which would change the law that governs MV L S T revenue distribution. County and local officials are working to build awareness, momentum and support for the MV L S T distribution change. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: There is no financial impact to the City in supporting the MV L S T distribution changes or related legislation. E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION: None ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S): None P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G: None AT TAC H ME N T S: D escription Type Resolution Resolution L etter M V L S T information brief E xhibit RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE REPEAL OF THE EXCLUSION OF HENNEPIN AND RAMSEY COUNTIES FROM RECEIVING MOTOR VEHICLE LEASE SALES TAX (MVLST) FUNDS WHEREAS, in 2008, legislative action directed the Motor Vehicle Lease Sales Tax (MVLST) funds to transportation, but excluded Hennepin and Ramsey counties based on the enabling of new taxing authority through the Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB); and WHEREAS, with the dissolution of CTIB in 2017 the rationale for excluding Hennepin and Ramsey counties from a fair share of MVLST funds has ceased to exist; and WHEREAS, Hennepin and Ramsey counties are the two most populous counties in the state, accounting for nearly 32% of Minnesota’s population, and contribute over $26 million (38% of the total funding) to MVLST revenue; and WHEREAS, Hennepin and Ramsey counties combined have $1.933 Billion 25- year construction needs as identified in MnDOT’s 2022 CSAH Distribution Report; and WHEREAS, the economic strength and competitiveness of our state and region depend on an effective, efficient and well-maintained transportation system and Hennepin and Ramsey counties should not be excluded from a key revenue source for maintaining transportation infrastructure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that it supports all efforts to repeal the exclusion of Hennepin and Ramsey counties from receiving Motor Vehicle Lease Sales Tax (MVLST) funds and urges the Legislature of the State of Minnesota to promptly pass legislation that will ensure Hennepin and Ramsey counties receive a fair and proportional share of MVLST revenues. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of February, 2023. Mary Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk Motor Vehicle Lease Sales Tax Distribution Hennepin and Ramsey are excluded from metro-wide transportation funding Residents of Hennepin and Ramsey counties contribute substantially to taxes collected on motor vehicles leases, however, both counties are largely excluded by state law from receiving funding from this transportation funding source. Since 2018, more than $162 million has been collected in Hennepin and Ramsey counties, with virtually none coming back. Hennepin and Ramsey County residents deserve equitable funding to provide for the safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and information throughout the metro region. An estimated 2.1 billion vehicle miles in Hennepin and 1.4 billion vehicle miles in Ramsey are travelled each year. Rationale for excluding Hennepin/Ramsey no longer exists •In 2008, the legislature passed a comprehensivetransportation package that authorized the Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB) and allowed metro counties to implement a quarter-cent sales tax to collectively fund transit. The package included dedicating revenue collected on motor vehicle lease sales taxes (MVLST) to Greater MN transit and to roads and bridges in the seven-county Metro Area, excluding Hennepin and Ramsey Counties. •In 2017, CTIB dissolved, and as did the rationale forexcluding Hennepin and Ramsey counties from MVLST formula funds. Contacts Intergovernmental Relations Brennan Furness Hennepin County Public Policy Manager 612-235-0938Brennan.Furness@hennepin.us Jennifer O’Rourke Ramsey County Director of Government Relations 651-724-3461 Jennifer.o’rourke@co.ramsey.mn.us Transportation Joe Gladke, P.E. Hennepin County Assistant Director TPD 612-275-6830Joseph.Gladke@hennepin.us Brian Isaacson Ramsey County Public Works Director 651-266-7115Brian.isaacson@co.ramsey.mn.us Sources: Collection, Minnesota Department of Revenue and Minnesota Department of Public Safety, FY Basis Distribution, Minnesota Department of Transportation, CY Basis Updated December 8, 2022 MVLST Collection in the Metro Area (in $ Millions) From 2018 to 2022 $127 Collection Distribution $48 $51 $67 $26 $36 $11 $16 $6 $27 $35 $0.5 $16 $20 Anoka County Carver County Dakota County Hennepin County Ramsey County Scott County Washington County Current MVLST allocation The current rate of the MVLST is 6.5% per leased vehicle, which has generated approximately $68 to $100 million statewide each year between FY2018 and FY2022. Since FY2018, MVLST revenues have been distributed according to the following formula: • 11% Highway User Tax Distribution Fund (HUTDF) using the state aid formula • 13% MN Transportation Fund (Local Bridges) • 38% Greater MN Transit • 38% County State Aid Highway to metro counties, excluding Hennepin and Ramsey, based on population. Hennepin and Ramsey counties transportation needs Hennepin and Ramsey counties have the first ($1.28 billion) and third ($652 million) highest needs for road and bridge construction of all 87 counties. * Hennepin County maintains the most heavily-traveled roadway system of any county in the state with 2,200 lane miles of roadway, 450 miles of bikeways, 340 miles of sidewalks,148 bridges, 792 traffic signals, and more than 23,000 drainage structures/systems. Hennepin County has identified a $30 million Source: January 2022 MnDOT CSAH Distribution Report annual funding gap to preserve and maintain the existing system, where roughly one-third of its roadways is more than 50 years old. Ramsey County maintains 842 lane miles of roadways, 300 miles of sidewalks/trails, 60 bridges, 413 traffic signal systems and more than 12,000 drainage structures/systems. Ramsey County has identified a $12 million annual funding gap to preserve and maintain the existing system and quality of service. * As identified through the calculation of the county state aid highway distribution Estimated 25-year transportation construction needs The Metro Area counties generate 69% of MVLST revenues, but only receive 38% of the amount generated and Hennepin and Ramsey counties get almost none. $ Millions $536 $337 $620 $1,280 $652 $335 $311 Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington County County County County County County County AGENDA SECTION:PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM #4. STAFF REPORT NO. 30 CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING 2/28/2023 RE P ORT P RE PA RE D B Y: C eleste McD ermott, Housing S pecialist D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TOR RE V IE W: J ulie Urban, A cting C ommunity D evelopment D irector 2/17/2023 OTHE R D E PA RTME NT RE V IE W: C ITY MA NA GE R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager 2/22/2023 IT E M F OR C OUNC IL C ONS ID E RAT IO N: Public hearing and consideration of a resolution specifying the use of funds from the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant allocation for 2023 and authorizing execution of a Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any required third party Agreements. E X E CUT I V E S UM M ARY: Community Development Block Grant (C D B G) funding is annually awarded to Hennepin C ounty (County ) on a formula basis from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The County, in turn, allocates a portion of these funds to the c ity of Richfield to address local needs relating to affordable housing, c ommunity development, and public services. Staff is proposing to use the City's 2023 direct allocation of an estimated $169,112 to fund the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (HRA) Deferred Loan Rehabilitation Program and First Time Homebuyer Program: $119,112 is proposed to be alloc ated to the Deferred Loan Program which provides a critical sourc e of funds for people with limited incomes to rehabilitate their homes. The D eferred Loan Program is administered by Hennepin County on behalf of the City. $50,000 is proposed to be allocated to the HRA for a First Time Homebuyer Down Payment Assistance Program (the Program) administered by City staff. T he Program is aimed at low and moderate income first time homebuyers who are looking to buy homes in Richfield. In addition to C DBG funds, the Program is also funded through the City's Affordable Housing Trust Fund. RE C O M M E NDE D AC T ION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Adopt a resolution authorizing the use of funds for the 2023 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and authorizing execution of a Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any required third party Agreements. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N: A.H IS TOR IC AL CON T EXT I n the past, CD B G funding has been used for a variety of purposes and projects, including First Time Homebuyer loans, streetscape improvements, and the acquisition of blighted property. Staff is constantly evaluating the best use for these funds, and proposes to use them in familiar program areas for the 2023 funding cyc le: $119,112 of the 2023 CD B G funds are proposed to be allocated to the Deferred Loan Program (Loan Program): The Loan Program provides no interest, 30-year loans of up to $30,000 to low-inc ome homeowners to address health, safety, and property maintenanc e needs. This Loan Program has been in existence since 1984 and is administered for the City by Hennepin C ounty. I n the past year, eight loans were c ompleted and three loans were started. Seventy-four households are currently on the waiting list for the Loan Program. $50,000 is proposed to be allocated to the HRA for the First Time Homebuyer Down Payment Assistance Program (Program) administered by City staff: This Program assists low and moderate income first time homebuy ers who are buy ing homes in Richfield. I t provides no interest, deferred loans of up to $15,000 to use towards down payment and closing costs. An additional $5,000 is available to households who are current Richfield renters, have dependents under the age of 18 in the household, or have a household member with a disability. I n 2022, ten loans were issued using funding from the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund. I n 2022, ten loans were issued using funding from the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund. I n 2023, it is proposed that the Program be funded partially though CD B G funds and partially through the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Additional funding for both the Deferred Loan Program and the First Time Homebuyer Program is anticipated through loan repayments (i.e., when a property is sold). B.P OLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): All funded activities must meet one of three national objectives: Benefiting low and moderate income persons, preventing or eliminating slums and/or blight, or meet an urgent need. I n addition, activities must be consistent with priorities identified in the County 's Five-Year Consolidated Plan. Those priorities inc lude a variety of housing activities such as housing rehabilitation, preserving and creating homeownership opportunities, public services to maintain or increase self-suffic iency, and neighborhood revitalization activities. C .C RITIC AL T IMIN G ISS U ES: The application for 2023 funds is due to Hennepin County by March 10, 2023. The 2023 federal fiscal year will begin on J uly 1, 2023. Funds must be spent by J une 30, 2024. Six-month extensions may be granted on an as-needed basis. D .F IN ANC IAL IMPACT: The City's estimated direct allocation for 2023 is $169,112. I n the event of a change in the final allocation, the amount allocated to the proposed activities will be adjusted accordingly. Repayments of former loans may result in additional funding for both proposed ac tivities. E.L EGAL CON S ID E RAT ION: A loc al public hearing must be held prior to submission of the 2023 application. Notic e of the public hearing for the 2023 C D B G funding was published in the Richfield Sun Current on February 16, 2023. ALTER N ATIVE R E COMME N DAT IO N(S): Council may modify the amount of funds allocated to each project in a way that still meets funding guidelines. PR IN C IPAL PAR TIES EX P EC T E D AT ME ETING: N/A ATTAC HME N TS: D escription Type Resolution Resolution Letter RESOLUTION NO. ____ RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED USE OF 2023 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY REQUIRED THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota, through execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is participating in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has developed a proposal for the use of 2023 CDBG funds made available to it; and WHEREAS, the City held a public hearing on February 28, 2023 to obtain the views of citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing and community development needs and priorities for the City’s proposed use of $169,112 from the 2023 Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. Approves the following projects for funding from the 2023 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County. Activity Budget 1. Deferred Loan Rehabilitation Program $119,112 2. First Time Homebuyer Downpayment Assistance $50,000 TOTAL CDBG ALLOCATION $169,112 2. That the Mayor and City Council hereby authorize and direct the execution of the Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any required Third Party Agreements on behalf of the City to implement the 2023 CDBG Program. 3. That should the final amount of FY 2023 CDBG available to the City be different from the preliminary amount provided to the City, and should there be any repayments that result in Program Income, the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to adjust the project budget of the proposed Activities to reflect an increase or decrease in funding. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of February, 2023. ____________________________ Mary B. Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk AGENDA SECTION:RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM #5. STAFF RE P ORT NO. 31 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 2/28/2023 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Matt Hardegger, Transportation E ngineer D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: K ristin A sher, P ublic Works D irector 2/22/2023 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 2/22/2023 I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N: Consider the adoption of resolutions of support for funding applications to the MnD O T Corridors of Commerce Program for the following projects: 1) The City of Richfield's application for a proposed project on Trunk Highway 62 between Portland Avenue and Trunk Highway 77, including reconfiguration of the Trunk Highway 62/Trunk Highway 77 interchange. 2) The City of Bloomington's application for a proposed project at the 82nd Street/I-35W interchange and reconstruction of the railroad bridge over I-494 at Pleasant Avenue. 3) The I-494 Corridor Commission's application for a proposed project to add E-ZPass lanes on I-494 from I-35W to Trunk Highway 77 and reconstruction of the railroad bridge over I-494 at Pleasant Avenue. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: The three projects will be presented to Council by Richfield staff, Bloomington staff, and I -494 Corridor Commission staff, respectively. The recently developed Regional Transportation I nvestments Framework tool has been completed for the three projects and are included in this packet. 1) City of Richfield – Trunk Highway 62: This project will provide an expected benefit to Richfield residents via a reconstructed pedestrian bridge over Trunk Highway 62, noise walls along the highway, and the combination of the auxiliary lane and interchange reconfiguration minimizing regional traffic diversion onto Portland Avenue and 66th Street, increasing safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers. Richfield staff recommend approving a resolution of support for this application. 2) City of Bloomington – 82nd Street and railroad bridge: This project will benefit a key regional partner and neighbor in their goals for their local transportation system, as well as advance a portion of the I -494 Vision that was approved by the I -494 Policy Advisory Committee, with participation from Richfield. Richfield staff recommend approving a resolution of support for this application. 3) I -494 Corridor Commission – 494 E-ZPass lanes and railroad bridge: This project will provide a benefit to Richfield as I -494 is a key route into and out of the city, and the vast majority of workers who live in Richfield work outside the city while the vast majority of people who work in Richfield live outside the city. This project advances a portion of the I -494 Vision that was approved by the I -494 Policy Advisory Committee, with participation from Richfield. Shifting east-west traffic off the parallel local systems and back onto I -494 will also reduce traffic on local roads, creating safer conditions for the local road network within Richfield. Richfield staff recommend approving a resolution of support for this application. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N: Adopt the resolutions of support for funding applications to the MnD O T Corridors of Commerce Program: 1) By Motion: Adopt the resolution of support for the City of Richfield's application for a proposed project on Trunk Highway 62 between Portland Avenue and Trunk Highway 77, including reconfiguration of the Trunk Highway 62/Trunk Highway 77 interchange. 2) By Motion: Adopt the resolution of support for t he City of Bloomington's application for a proposed project at the 82nd Street/I-35W interchange and reconstruction of the railroad bridge over I-494 at Pleasant Avenue. 3) By Motion: Adopt the resolution of support for t he I-494 Corridor Commission's application for a proposed project to add E-ZPass lanes on I-494 from I-35W to Trunk Highway 77 and reconstruction of the railroad bridge over I-494 at Pleasant Avenue. B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N: A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T Corridors of Commerce Corridors of Commerce is a statewide grant program created in 2013 with the stated goal to "focus additional transportation investments in state highway projects that directly and indirectly foster economic growth for the State." T he program has funded 34 projects to date with legislative appropriations of $931.5 million. T he current round of available grant funding is $250 million. I-494 Vision The I -494 Vision is a long range plan for the I -494 Corridor developed by MnD OT, in collaboration with cities, counties, the Met Council, and elected officials through a Technical Advisory Committee and a Policy Advisory Committee. Those committees contributed to the I -494 Vision development and the Policy Advisory Committee approved the long-term vision in September of 2021. Proposed Projects I n addition to the project specific context below, staff have prepared preliminary assessments of the three projects using the newly developed Regional Transportation I nvestments Framework; those assessments are attached. Use of the framework will continue in more detail for any project that moves beyond this preliminary consideration for funding. 1) City of Richfield – Trunk Highway 62: This project was originally envisioned as part of a 2017 I -494 - Trunk Highway 62 congestion management safety plan study done by MnD OT. The proposed auxiliary lane allows Richfield the opportunity to get the noise walls and A D A-compliant pedestrian bridge constructed as part of the project, in addition to the expected local safety benefit of reducing congestion on Trunk Highway 62 to bring regional traffic back to the highway instead of utilizing Portland Avenue and 66th Street. W hile it is possible, constructing the noise walls or reconstructing the pedestrian bridge as standalone projects would be more difficult to fund, and would require a higher cost share for Richfield due to the manner in which MnD OT allocates funding for noise walls and pedestrian bridges. 2) City of Bloomington – 82nd Street and railroad bridge: This project is a part of the full I -494 Vision. The result of Project 1 is expected to have adverse effects on Bloomington due to the access reconfiguration at I -494 and Penn & France Avenues. This project, ideally, would have been a part of Project 1 to mitigate the intermediate local impact that Project 1 will have on Bloomington. Additionally, improvements to traffic operations at the 82nd Street interchange will benefit the Metro Transit Orange Line. Reconstruction of the railroad bridge is necessary to move forward additional projects in the I -494 Vision. 3) I -494 Corridor Commission – I -494 E-ZPass lanes and railroad bridge: This project is also a part of the full I -494 Vision, and will create an E-ZPass option for the full length of I -494 between Trunk Highway 100 and Trunk Highway 77. The E-ZPass lanes from Trunk Highway 100 to I -35W that will be constructed during Project 1 create an intermediate bottleneck at I -35W , concentrating congestion within Richfield. W ithout the full length E-ZPass lanes, there is no reduced congestion alternative for transit or other high-occupancy vehicles to pass through the corridor as they will be constrained to the general- purpose lanes. B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): Resolutions of support from local agencies adjacent to or impacted by the proposed projects are a critical element of the scoring criteria MnD OT uses when selecting projects to fund. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S: Resolutions in support of the proposed projects are due to MnD OT by March 1, 2023 to be considered during evaluation of the funding applications. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: Adoption of these resolutions of support has no financial impact at this time. E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION: None ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S): None P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G: Amy Marohn, Traffic Engineer - City of Bloomington Melissa Madison, Executive Director - I -494 Corridor Commission AT TAC H ME N T S: D escription Type Transportation F ramework E xhibit Hwy 62 Resolution Resolution L etter 82nd S t Resolution Resolution L etter E -ZP ass Resolution Resolution L etter Framework ApproachDraft Framework | Consideration FactorsConsideration Factors DescriptionAir Quality ImprovementsAir quality is improved for Richfield residents in close proximity to the project.Cost-Effective (low cost/high benefit)The project is a cost-effective solution that provides safety, congestion, and mobility benefits.Fills a Gap or NeedThe project fills a gap or documented need outlined in (1) local and (2) regional planning documents.FundingThe project aligns with known funding opportunities (e.g., grants). The type of funding may influence when a project is built - shifting its priority. Local Congestion/Mobility ImprovementsThe project will provide congestion relief to the local system. Local Safety BenefitsThe project will help mitigate safety issues and conflicts between users on the local system.Ownership and Major MaintenanceThe City will not take on ownership or major maintenance of regional infrastructure components.Project SupportThe project has received community support (e.g., municipal consent) and/or approval from local, regional, and state agencies.Promotes Multimodal Transportation OptionsThe project helps enhance multimodal transportation options.Reduce InequitiesThe project will help improve the quality of life for underrepresented populations.Reduction Greenhouse Gas EmissionsThe project will provide a net decrease in ongoing greenhouse gas emissions.Property ImpactsThe project uses flexible design practices to eliminate (ideally) or minimize any property impacts, including public park properties.What other consideration factors should we consider?Notes1. Intended to help guide regional transportation investment conversations2. Every project will have its own benefits and tradeoffs3. The factors are directly/indirectly helping address our existing goals and policies4. The framework will be a work in progress Project Evaluation – Highway 62Draft Framework | Consideration FactorsConsideration Factors Benefits/TradeoffsAir Quality ImprovementsWould need to be studied during project planning and design.Cost-Effective (low cost/high benefit)Preliminary findings demonstrate this project is a low cost/high benefit project. It is considered one of the lower cost/higher benefit projects being considered for Corridors of Commerce funding. Fills a Gap or NeedAddresses documented needs in the MnDOT Congestion Management Safety Plan Phase IV.FundingCorridors of Commerce does not require a local funding match. This funding program would cover construction costs of $19.9m. Right-of-way acquisition and staff time to help administer the project may be required. Design fees would be covered by the lead agency (unknown if MnDOT, Richfield, or Hennepin County at this time)Local Congestion/Mobility ImprovementsMnDOT Congestion Management Safety Plan Phase IV identified the proposed improvements will have a 50% effectiveness on highway safety and a 93% effectiveness on highway congestion/delay. Further traffic and safety evaluations would be conducted during environmental documentation process that occurs during project planning.Local Safety BenefitsOwnership and Major MaintenanceRoadway ownership, operations, and maintenance will continue to be the responsibility of MnDOT. City will push for ped/bike bridge ownership, operations, and maintenance to continue to be MnDOT.Project SupportHennepin County, MnDOT, Metropolitan Council all support this project. Metro Transit and MVTA support the interchange reconfiguration. City of Minneapolis is interested in the project, but unable to support at this time.Promotes Multimodal Transportation OptionsReplaces an obsolete and non-ADA compliant pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Highway 62. We anticipate working with local agencies to include improvements to Edgewater Blvd/Cedar Ave/Lake Nokomis Parkway intersection as part of this project.Reduce InequitiesNoise walls will help mitigate Highway 62 noise that is negatively impacting the quality of life for residents living in adjacent neighborhoods. Reducing highway traffic diverting to local roadways improves community safety and quality of life. These neighborhoods are located incensus tracts that are classified as “Areas of Concentrated Poverty” and a “Regional Environmental Justice Area.” There are alsoapproximately 855 publicly subsidized rental housing units within a ½ mile of the proposed improvements. Replacing the pedestrian bridge will add an accessible connection across Hwy 62 for people of all abilities. (Source: Met Council Regional Solicitation Mapping Tool)Reduction in Greenhouse Gas EmissionsPreliminary analysis is still needed to determine if and how much greenhouse gases would be reduced.Property ImpactsThere is the potential for right-of-way impacts to adjacent neighborhoods with the construction of noise walls and the relocation of the ped/bike bridge. Current concepts anticipate 2 parcel acquisitions for noise wall construction and 1 parcel acquisition for ped/bike bridge construction, though full impacts will not be known until design begins. Project Evaluation – 82ndStreet & Railroad BridgeDraft Framework | Consideration FactorsConsideration Factors Benefits/TradeoffsAir Quality ImprovementsProject should not affect air quality in Richfield. Any reduced congestion on 35W north of 494 could provide an air quality benefit to Richfield residents.Cost-Effective (low cost/high benefit)The full I-494 Vision was selected as a cost effective vision for the entire corridor, this project is a component of that full vision.Fills a Gap or NeedAddresses a local network need for Bloomington created by 494 Project 1 and advances the full I-494 Vision.FundingMinimal, if any, local funding will be required for this project. Local Congestion/Mobility ImprovementsProject 1 is anticipated to create more traffic on Penn Avenue to reach 35W via 82ndStreet and 76thStreet, due to the reconfiguration of the 494/Penn interchange. Creating a more efficient interchange at 82ndStreet completes the Vision’s local network “box” to address the access changes as part of the Vision.Local Safety BenefitsOwnership and Major MaintenanceOwnership and maintenance of the railroad bridge would be the responsibility of the rail owner and MnDOT.Project SupportHennepin County, City of Bloomington, I-35W Solutions Alliance, I-494 Corridor Commission, MnDOT, and Metropolitan Council all support this projectPromotes Multimodal Transportation OptionsReplaces a bridge that currently has a narrow, curb-adjacent sidewalk. Interchange is used by Metro Transit’s 4 and Orange Line routes, improved operations at interchange could improve transit service into Richfield.Reduce InequitiesFurther analysis will be performed as part of the environmental documentation during project development.Reduction in Greenhouse Gas EmissionsPreliminary analysis is still needed to determine if and how much greenhouse gases would be reduced.Property ImpactsNo property impacts are anticipated in Richfield. Project Evaluation – I-494 E-ZPassDraft Framework | Consideration FactorsConsideration Factors Benefits/TradeoffsAir Quality ImprovementsWould need to be studied during project planning and design. 494 Project 1 creates a bottleneck that will increase congestion and travel delays on I-494 within Richfield. Extension of the E-ZPass lane will shift that bottleneck away from Richfield, potentially providing an air quality benefit to local residents. Cost-Effective (low cost/high benefit)The full I-494 Vision was selected as a cost effective vision for the entire corridor, this project is a component of that full vision.Fills a Gap or NeedProject advances I-494 Vision, and provides an E-ZPass choice through the corridor from Highway 100 to Highway 77.FundingNo local funding anticipatedLocal Congestion/Mobility ImprovementsTraffic modeling indicates improvements at most local intersections on arterial routes in Richfield in the 494 area and—at worse—no change in operations. Local Safety BenefitsOwnership and Major MaintenanceRoadway and bridge ownership, operations, and maintenance will continue to be the responsibility of MnDOT.Project SupportProject is supported by city of Bloomington, Hennepin County, MnDOT, the Metropolitan Council, I-35W Solutions Alliance, and the I-494 Corridor CommissionPromotes Multimodal Transportation OptionsCreates a transit advantage for potential transit routes on I-494. Metro Transit currently has no plans for such transit. Project does not currently include any additional bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure.Reduce InequitiesFurther analysis will be performed as part of the environmental documentation during project development. Providing an E-ZPass lane will relieve increased congestion created on 494 between 35W and Highway 77 after the completion of Project 1, adjacent to Areas of Concentrated Poverty along the corridor.Reduction in Greenhouse Gas EmissionsPreliminary analysis is still needed to determine if and how much greenhouse gases would be reduced.Property ImpactsNo additional property impacts are anticipated due to this project. All anticipated property impacts were a part of Project 1. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE TRUNK HIGHWAY 62/TRUNK HIGHWAY 77 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS CORRIDORS OF COMMERCE PROJECT SUBMITTAL WHEREAS, the Corridors of Commerce program was created in 2013 by the Minnesota Legislature to focus additional transportation investments in state highway projects that directly and indirectly foster economic growth for the State; and WHEREAS, the Corridors of Commerce program has funded 34 projects to date with cumulative legislative appropriations of nearly $932 million; and WHEREAS, the current round of Corridors of Commerce grant funding totals $250 million; and WHEREAS, the Corridors of Commerce program is designed to fund worthy projects on the trunk highway network that are not otherwise programmed for construction by the State; and WHEREAS, each eligible entity may submit one project for consideration by the Corridors of Commerce Program and is encouraged to formally support other projects via resolution; and WHEREAS, the Trunk Highway 62/Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Improvements Project proposes the addition of an eastbound auxiliary lane on TH 62 between Portland Ave and TH 77, removal of the 14th Ave pedestrian bridge and construction of an ADA- compliant pedestrian bridge at 12th Ave, construction of noise walls along TH 62 between 11th Ave and Bloomington Ave, and removal of the westbound TH 62 to southbound TH 77 loop and construction of a controlled intersection north of the interchange; and WHEREAS, this project would benefit Richfield via a reduction in traffic volumes on local roadways—specifically Portland Ave and 66th St—by retaining more eastbound traffic on TH 62, replacing an out of date regional pedestrian connection, and providing sound barriers along the freeway; and WHEREAS, this project would meet the stated Corridors of Commerce goals by improving highway operations on segments where bottlenecks currently exist and therefore improving the movement of freight and reducing barriers to regional commerce. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that it supports the Trunk Highway 62/Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Improvements Corridors of Commerce Project application. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of February, 2023. Mary Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON’S 82ND STREET INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS CORRIDORS OF COMMERCE PROJECT SUBMITTAL WHEREAS, the Corridors of Commerce program was created in 2013 by the Minnesota Legislature to focus additional transportation investments in state highway projects that directly and indirectly foster economic growth for the State; and WHEREAS, the Corridors of Commerce program has funded 34 projects to date with cumulative legislative appropriations of nearly $932 million; and WHEREAS, the current round of Corridors of Commerce grant funding totals $250 million; and WHEREAS, the Corridors of Commerce program is designed to fund worthy projects on the trunk highway network that are not otherwise programmed for construction by the State; and WHEREAS, each eligible entity may submit one project for consideration by the Corridors of Commerce Program and is encouraged to formally support other projects via resolution; and WHEREAS, the City of Bloomington’s 82nd St Interchange Improvements Project proposes the reconstruction of the 82nd St bridge and ramps at I-35W in addition to reconstruction of the railroad bridge over I-494 at Pleasant Ave; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is adjacent to this project and adjacent municipality support is a valued scoring element in the project evaluations; and WHEREAS, the project will benefit a key regional partner (Bloomington) in their efforts to improve their local system to accommodate the changes that will be constructed with the upcoming I-494 Project 1; and WHEREAS, improvements to the 82nd St interchange will provide more reliable operations and service for the Metro Transit Orange Line bus rapid tr ansit route; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has participated in and supported the development of the I-494: Airport to Hwy 169 Vision, and this project submittal consists of project elements identified in the I-494: Airport to Hwy 169 Vision Study; and WHEREAS, this project would advance the I-494: Airport to Hwy 169 Vision, which meets the stated Corridors of Commerce goals by improving highway operations on segments where bottlenecks currently exist and therefore improving the movement of freight via highway and rail and reducing barriers to regional commerce. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that it supports City of Bloomington’s 82nd St Interchange Improvements Project Corridors of Commerce application. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of February, 2023. Mary Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE I-494 CORRIDOR COMMISSION E-ZPASS LANE CORRIDORS OF COMMERCE PROJECT SUBMITTAL WHEREAS, the Corridors of Commerce program was created in 2013 by the Minnesota Legislature to focus additional transportation investments in state highway projects that directly and indirectly foster economic growth for the State; and WHEREAS, the Corridors of Commerce program has funded 34 projects to date with cumulative legislative appropriations of nearly $932 million; and WHEREAS, the current round of Corridors of Commerce grant funding totals $250 million; and WHEREAS, the Corridors of Commerce program is designed to fund worthy projects on the trunk highway network that are not otherwise programmed for construction by the State; and WHEREAS, each eligible entity may submit one project for consideration by the Corridors of Commerce Program and is encouraged to formally support other projects via resolution; and WHEREAS, the I-494 Corridor Commission E-ZPass Lane Project will construct new E-ZPass lanes between I-35W and Trunk Highway 77 ensuring the completion of the E-ZPass Lane segment already planned west of I-35W as part of the upcoming I- 494 Project 1; and WHEREAS, the project would also necessitate the reconstruction of the railroad bridge at Pleasant Ave; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is adjacent to this project and adjacent municipality support is a valued scoring element in the project evaluations; and WHEREAS, the project would benefit Richfield via relief of the future E-ZPass Lane bottleneck at I-35W which will concentrate I-494 congestion in Richfield; and WHEREAS, without the full length E-ZPass Lanes, there will be no reduced congestion alternative for transit or other high-occupancy vehicles to pass through the corridor resulting in more vehicles in the general-purpose lanes and contributing to congestion; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has participated in and supported the development of the I-494: Airport to Hwy 169 Vision, and this project submittal consists of project elements identified in the I-494: Airport to Hwy 169 Vision Study; and WHEREAS, this project would advance the I-494: Airport to Hwy 169 Vision, which meets the stated Corridors of Commerce goals by improving highway operations on segments where bottlenecks currently exist and therefore improving the movement of freight via highway and rail and reducing barriers to regional commerce. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that it supports the I-494 Corridor Commission E-ZPass Lane Corridors of Commerce Project application. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of February, 2023. Mary Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Chris Swanson, Acting City Clerk AGENDA SECTION:OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM #6. STAFF RE P ORT NO. 32 CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING 2/28/2023 RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Lynnette C hambers, Multifamily Housing C oordinator D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: Julie Urban, A cting C ommunity D evelopment D irector 2/22/2023 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 2/22/2023 I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N: Consider the approval of Agreements with non-profit organizations to provide social services to the City of Richfield and authorize the City Manager to execute Agreements with those agencies. E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY: In November 2022, staff distributed a Request for Proposals for Social Services to non-profit agencies serving the City of Richfield for services to be provided in 2023. T he 2023 City Budget includes funding for organizations that provide social services that are deemed to be of benefit to the City and the community in general. T he 2023 Budget includes $75,500 for this purpose. A total of eight proposals were received from the following agencies: Headway Emotional Health Cornerstone Advocacy Services The Family Partnership V E A P (Volunteers Enlisted to Assist People) Loaves and Fishes Senior Community Services Modulo De I nformacion De Recursos Y Apoyo (MI RA) TRA I L (Transportation Resource to Aid I ndependent Living) T he proposals represent a wide variety of social services offered to Richfield residents. T he organizations requested a total amount of $105,365, exceeding the City's available funding by $29,865. Two Richfield residents, two staff members and one Council member comprise the committee that reviewed the proposals and makes funding recommendations. The review committee's recommendations took into account the type of service(s) to be provided, the target population(s) to be served, and past performance of the social service agency. All eight of the proposals were recommended for funding. The following table details the review committee's recommendations: Organization 2023 Proposal Request 2023 Recommendation Headway/Storefront $12,000 $8,500 Cornerstone $20,000 $12,000 V E A P $25,000 $22,000 Loaves and Fishes $8,000 $7,500 The Family Partnership $20,000 $10,500 Senior Community Services $10,000 $8,000 MI RA $5,865 $3,500 TRA I L $4,500 $3,500 TO TAL $105,365 $75,500 A complete overview of all services to be provided by the various organizations is attached. RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N: By motion: Approve the Agreements between the recommended non-profit organizations and the City of Richfield, and authorize the City Manager to execute Agreements for services with those agencies. 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 of Richfield has historically allocated funds on an annual basis to social service agencies serving the Richfield community. T he City is not authorized to provide grant funding to social service agencies; however, it has been determined that the City can enter into agreements for services with agencies for specific services that are compatible with City activities. T he 2023 recommendations are based on the following criteria: Demonstrated need of the proposed service for the targeted population. Compatibility with City functions/activities. Partnership and/or assistance with various City services (e.g., public safety). Efforts to serve low-income persons of all races/cultures/ethnicity. Demonstrated value to the community. Past performance. Cost of services and number of persons served. Certified non-profit agency. T he following chart provides a recent history of social service funding: 2021 Funding 2022 Funding 2023 Funding Recommendation Cornerstone $ 10,550 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 The Family Partnership $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,500 Headway $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,500 Loaves and Fishes $ 6,000 $ 6,600 $ 7,500 MI RA $ 3,270 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 Planned Parenthood $ 4,000 $ -$ - Senior Community Services $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 8,000 TRA I L $ -$ 3,000 $ 3,500 V E A P $ 21,160 $ 22,000 $ 22,000 TO TAL $ 70,480 $ 72,600 $ 75,500 B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): The City partners with other agencies as warranted and practical to assist in the delivery of services to City residents. C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S: Services are to be provided in the calendar year 2023. A Request for Proposals was issued in December for the City's American Rescue Plan Act (A RPA) social service funds. Four of these agencies have also applied for A RPA funds and will be considered for additional funding through that source. A RPA award recommendations will be brought before the Council on March 14. D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: A City Council/Administration 2023 allocation of $75,500 is budgeted for social services. A four percent increase from the 2022 allocation allows for a slight increase in funding for several of the organizations. The review committee prioritized increases for those organizations that are not requesting A RPA funding. The amount requested exceeded the City’s available funding by $29,865. E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION: The City Attorney has reviewed the Agreements. ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S): Approve the recommendations with revised allocations. Do not approve the recommendations. P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G: Representatives of the Social Service Agencies have been invited to attend. AT TAC H ME N T S: D escription Type 2023 D escription of S ervices B ackup Material 2023 RF P C over Memo CITY OF RICHFIELD 2023 APPLICANT SERVICES DESCRIPTIONS FOR OTHER AGENCY DIVISION SOCIAL SERVICE FUNDING ASSISTANCE Agency-Program Description of Services Headway/The Storefront Group – Youth Counseling Program Provides outpatient services, community-based counseling, case management, and supportive services to youth and families in Richfield. Modulo de Informacion, Recursos y Apoyo (MIRA) Funding is to support MIRA’s ongoing services to assist the City of Richfield to address areas of need identified in the 2019 survey and 2020 focus groups with Latino residents: ● City of Richfield Latino Focus Groups ● City of Richfield Classes and Information Sessions in Spanish ● City of Richfield Communications to Latino Residents TRAIL TRAIL’s Social Service Assistance proposal funds will be used to subsidize the cost for transportation to 132 Richfield Recreation AR&LE programs. Cornerstone Advocacy Service – Crisis Intervention Funding is to support Cornerstone’s full continuum of services. Cornerstone pr ovides comprehensive services for Richfield residents who have experienced domestic violence, sexual violence, human trafficking and general crime. Cornerstone is a pioneer in developing primary prevention and early intervention programs for children and youth. Cornerstone offers crisis intervention services 24/7 and their emergency shelter provides safe refuge when a victim is in imminent danger of assault. Cornerstone provides assistance to victims needing to file an Order for Protection or Harassment Order without cost to that victim. Loaves & Fishes – meals, referrals, and advocacy services Loaves and Fishes is a long-established, volunteer-driven, nonprofit organization providing healthy meals people in need. Our holistic recipe for success is predicated on the knowledge that food is medicine and a basic human right, serving just any kind of meal to hungry residents is shortsighted and ultimately more costly, and proper nutrition helps open the door to opportunity. We offer prepared meal service with social service advocacy at 2 community-access locations – at Hope Presbyterian Church and Woodlake Lutheran Church in Richfield. Our robust food rescue operation, as well as our status as the only Minnesota redistributor of Second Harvest Heartland food, supports our meal services in the City of Richfield. Senior Community Services Senior Outreach provides service/case management and supportive counseling to frail older adults and their caregivers to help senior remain as independent as possible and to ass ist caregivers in providing care while maintaining balance in their lives. VEAP (Volunteers Enlisted to Assist People) VEAP’s Social Services program’s primary goal is to create a path to stability for low-income individuals, seniors, youth, and families in the City of Richfield. The program strives to do this by providing food, financial, and supportive services that increase access to healthy food and stable housing, minimize or prevent crisis situations, and increase client resourcefulness. The Family Partnership The Family Partnership’s School-Linked Mental Health program provides one-to-one mental health therapy co-located within Richfield Public Schools. The program acts as a mental health resource for school staff, students, and parents, providing referrals as well as vital information on mental health. The Family Partnership’s School-Linked Mental Health program is currently in Richfield STEM and Centennial Elementary schools and Richfield Pre-K programs. CITY OF RICHFIELD REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR SOCIAL SERVICES 2023 The City of Richfield is seeking proposals for social services from non-profit agencies serving the City of Richfield. Funding parameters and priority goals for the purpose of making the best use of funds are as follows: Funding Parameters  Any non-profit organization is eligible to apply.  Projects must serve Richfield residents.  Services must be compatible with City functions and activities. Priority Goals Projects must address at least one of the following areas:  Services for vulnerable senior residents.  Services for individuals, families, teens and/or children at risk .  Housing support services for low-income persons and persons at risk. Award Criteria Proposals must meet one or more of the following criteria:  Demonstrated need of the proposed service for the targeted population.  Compatibility with City functions/activities.  Partnership and/or assistance with various City services (i.e., public safety).  Efforts to serve low-income persons of all races/cultures/ethnicities.  Demonstrated value to the community.  Certified Non-Profit agency. Proposal’s must be submitted by 4:30 p.m. January 12, 2023 LATE PROPOSALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED Proposals must be submitted by 4:30 p.m. January 12, 2023 LATE PROPOSALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS The information requested in the attached Request for Proposals must be addressed in your proposal. Submit 1 electronic copy of your agencies proposal by 4:30 p.m. January 12, 2023 (LATE PROPOSALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED) to: Lynnette Chambers City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 lchambers@richfieldmn.gov Applicants may be asked to respond in writing to additional questions. The Richfield City Council will tentatively award contracts for services in March 2023. Agencies awarded contracts will be required to sign a service agreement for calendar year 2023 and submit semi-annual reports on service outcomes. Please contact Lynnette Chambers at 612-861-9773 or lchambers@richfieldmn.gov with any questions. Proposals must be submitted by 4:30 p.m. January 12, 2023 LATE PROPOSALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED CITY OF RICHFIELD 2023 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR SOCIAL SERVICE ASSISTANCE Proposals for social services must include the following: PROPOSAL HEADING 1. Agency name, address, contact person, and phone/fax/email 2. Amount of request 3. Brief description of service(s) provided 4. Identify priority area(s) you are addressing: a) Services for vulnerable senior residents b) Services for individuals, families, teens and/or children at risk c) Housing support services for low-income persons and persons at risk d) Other: Please Specify 5. Explain how the services you are proposing to provide will benefit the City of Richfield. 6. Explain any formal or informal partnership you have with the City of Richfield (i.e., assisting Public Safety through the services you provide, etc.) ADMINISTRATION 1. Provide a mission statement for your agency. 2. Provide verification of your organization’s non-profit legal status. 3. Indicate your total agency budget for 2023. 4. Indicate your proposed project budget for 2023. Itemize proposed expenses and describe as applicable. Indicate both proposed City funds and other funds to support the project. PROGRAM 1. Describe service to be funded, including: a) Brief statement detailing the service and how it is provided b) Target population(s); estimated number of unduplicated individuals you plan to serve residing in the City of Richfield c) Eligibility criteria and process d) How clients are involved in the planning process for service e) Desired client outcomes and methods of evaluating and measuring client progress (use attached “Proposed Outcome/Evaluation Methods” form) 3. Demonstrate the need for the proposed service. 4. Describe outreach efforts to target populations, including immigrant and low-income individuals. Please contact Lynnette Chambers at 612-861-9773 or lchambers@richfieldmn.gov with any questions. Proposals must be submitted by 4:30 p.m. January 12, 2023 LATE PROPOSALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED City of Richfield Social Service Programs - 2023 Proposed Outcomes/Evaluation Methods Name of Applicant Organization: Address: Contact Person: Phone: Email: Brief description of service(s): Outcomes: State 3 to 5 measurable outcomes of proposed service(s) – relate outcomes to client progress Outcomes indicate what result, benefit, or change would come from the service provided. Outcomes can be: 1) initial, such as increased knowledge, understanding, or skills; 2) intermediate, such as change in a specific behavior or attitude; or 3) long term, such as a change in the condition or status of people. Indicators: Describe methods of evaluating proposed outcomes – how you will measure client progress