06-25-2024 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 U N E 25, 2024
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
P ledge of A llegiance
Open forum
C all into the open forum by dialing 1-415-655-0001 U se webinar access code: 2631 588 9446 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) C ity C ouncil Work S ession of May 28, 2024; (2) Joint C ouncil and Transportation
C ommission Meeting of June 5, 2024; and (3) C ity C ouncil Meeting of J une 11, 2024.
P R E S E N TATIO N S
1.2024 Gene & Mary J acobsen C itizen of the Year P resentation
2.C ommissioner Goettel will present an update on the work being done by Hennepin C ounty
AG E N D A APPR O VAL
3.A pproval of the A genda
4.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 the approval of an amended agreement between the Hennepin C ounty Human S ervices and
P ublic Health D epartment, and the C ity of Richfield P olice D epartment for two full time S enior S ocial
Workers, one embedded and one on the alternative response team.
S taff Report No. 82
B .C onsider the approval of an agreement for P rosecution S ervices with the C ity of Richfield and H/J L aw.
S taff Report No. 83
C .C onsider the adoption of a resolution supporting hazard mitigation planning efforts and adopting the
Hennepin C ounty A ll-Hazard Mitigation P lan.
Staff Report No. 84
D.Consider a resolution extending American Rescue Plan Act funding contract with VEAP, Inc. from June 30,
2024, to December 31, 2024.
Staff Report No. 85
E.Consider adoption of a resolution approving a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Edina for speed
limits on shared local streets.
Staff Report No. 86
F.Consider adoption of a resolution approving a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Minneapolis
for speed limits on shared local streets.
Staff Report No. 87
G.Consider a resolution approving a Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Minneapolis, et al. regarding
the Climate Pollution Reduction Grant (CPRG) partnership and scope of work.
Staff Report No. 88
H.First reading of a transitory ordinance providing funding for certain capital improvements from the Liquor
Contribution Special Revenue Fund.
Staff Report No. 91
5.Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar
PROPOSED ORDINANCES
6.Consider a first reading of an ordinance amendment adjusting parking requirements.
Staff Report No. 89
RESOLUTIONS
7.Summary of the City Manager's annual performance evaluation for the period of July 2023 to June 2024, held on
June 11 and June 18, 2024, as required by Minn. Statutes 13D.05 Subd. 3(a), and consider a resolution
amending the employment agreement between the City of Richfield and City Manager Katie Rodriguez.
Staff Report No. 90
8.Consider the adoption of a resolution approving the contract with Law Enforcement Labor Services (Police
Officers) for the period January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2025 and authorize the City Manager to execute
the agreement.
Staff Report No. 92
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
9.City Manager's Report
CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
10.Claims and Payroll
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
11.Hats Off to Hometown Hits
12.Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at
least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-97 11.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
City Council Work Session
May 28, 2024
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Supple called the work session to order at 5:15 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room.
Council Members
Present:
Mary Supple, Mayor; Simon Trautmann, Sharon Christensen; Sean Hayford
Oleary, Ben Whalen
Staff Present:
Others Present:
Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Jay Henthorne, Director of Public
Safety/Chief of Police; Mike Dobesh, Director of Fire Services/Fire Chief;
Kate Aitchison, Communications and Engagement Manager
Cassy Jerrett, Hennepin County Social Worker; John Brooks, Edina
Paramedic; Todd Axtell, Axtell Group; Rob Thomasser, Axtell Group
ITEM #1
THE ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE TEAM PRESENTATION ON THE
INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE PROGRAM WITH INFORMATION REGARDING
ANTICIPATED RESPONSE CRITERIA, REFERRALS, AND FOLLOW-UP
City Manager Rodriguez provided a summary on the agenda and turned the first item over to
Chief Henthorne.
Chief Henthorne presented the Alternative Response Team (ART) infrastructure on the
program discussing their work in progress and the benefits of the Alternative Response Team’s model
for Richfield. He then discussed the executive team for the joint community Police partnership,
including the Board Chair and members from both departments. He stated a mental health detective
would follow-up on cases and would triage cases with different referral processes in each department.
Chief Henthorne proposed a centralized hub for mental heath calls between Brooklyn Park
and Edina, with embedded social workers triaging the calls along with follow-up assessment needed
for appropriate call types and documentation, with ongoing collaboration between the cities. He
presented a pilot project to gather data on an alternative response model for Richfield and Edina.
Chief Dobesh emphasized the importance of collecting data on the impact of the program on the
community and discussed the need to collect broad data sets to make informed decisions later on.
Paramedic Brooks explained the activation process such as responding to calls involving
mental health issues without violence or transportation holds. He noted that ART aims to narrow the
scope based on utilization and data collection with potential expansion, if needed. He indicated the
City Council Work Session Minutes
-2- May 28, 2024
program aims to collect individuals in crisis with resources and support them through personalized
follow-ups and community outreach.
Paramedic Brooks noted the program seeks to facilitate relationships between social workers
and individuals in need, rather than standing in the way of existing support systems. He indicated
mental health calls that are non-violent or meet certain criteria, such as suicide ideation, could be
directed to a middle ground between primary care and emergency services. Social Worker Jerret
stated suicidal threats or ideation might not always mean immediate harm, and a team such as this
could help connect individuals with resources and support.
Council Member Trautmann questioned the coding of events or calls for service as violent or
nonviolent, highlighting the need for flexible responses. He emphasized value added through
immediate help.
Council Member Trautmann, Paramedic Brooks and Social Worker Jerrett discussed staffing
models but did express concerns about the team’s capacity.
Council Member Whalen expressed his excitement about the program.
Chief Henthorne expressed concerns regarding violence during the ART’s responses and
wanted to develop good codes for when to use them. Social Worker Jerrett indicated officer response
to calls could drop from three to one percent with ART’s involvement which would free up resources
for other calls.
Mayor Supple thanked everyone for their presentation.
ITEM #2
REVIEW OF THE ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING STUDY BY THE AXTELL
GROUP
Chief Henthorne introduced Todd Axtell and Rob Thomasser of the Axtell Group to present
their organization and staffing study.
Mr. Axtell presented the police staffing assessment indicating the community members
expressed trust in Richfield’s Police but had varying experiences with law enforcement. He indicated
the community wanted more interaction with the Police, including in the business zones and the
parks. He noted the community desired increased transparency and victim-centered approach to
criminal justice. He highlighted the importance of strategic thinking to address police officer
retirements in Minnesota.
With respect to the Police Department’s structure, staffing, and training, Mr. Thomasser
praised the department’s leadership and staff for their care and dedication. He noted research
involved community input, employee surveys, and department data for a comprehensive assessment.
He stated the department prioritized community involvement in the strategic plan and the department
prioritized hiring ten people, including 8 sworn officers and 2 non-sworn personnel to address staffing
challenges and improve wellness for first responders.
Mr. Thomasser stated their report recommended mission-specific recommendations to
enhance training, address mental health concerns, and improve overall department efficiency.
With respect to the Police Department’s staffing level and investigative functions, Mr.
Thomasser stated the 12-hour shift schedule had advantages such as it was manageable and it
City Council Work Session Minutes
-3- May 28, 2024
appealed to the officers as well as disadvantages such as fatigue and reduced staff redundancy. He
noted proper staffing was crucial to avoid challenges and risks associated with the 12-hour schedule.
He indicated the investigators wanted to solve every crime, but workload and staffing limitations
hindered their ability to do that. He noted the investigators recommended additional resources to
improve outcomes and shift from reactive to proactive approach.
Mr. Axtell indicated the Police Chief emphasized the importance of having analysts to help
officers solve crimes. He noted the Department aims to prevent crimes by investing in staffing,
technology, and community engagement and they want to leverage the community’s strength to
address challenges and improve the quality of life.
Mr. Axtell stated recommendations included hiring two Sergeants and a Community
Engagement Specialist to help prevent crime and suggested adding more Police officers to bridge the
gap between uniform and non-uniform sides of the Department.
Mayor Supple asked for feedback on adding patrol positions, citing potential impact on budget
and priorities. Mr. Thomasser emphasized the importance of adequate staffing for patrol units to
reduce liability and improve outcomes.
Mayor Supple agreed highlighting the impact on first responders’ health and ability to do their
job effectively.
Mr. Axtell highlighted the challenges of managing sick leave for law enforcement officers,
including the impact on officer well-being and the need for flexible scheduling solutions.
Council Member Trautmann agreed with the approach to prioritizing employee happiness and
health, including asking team members what they want and providing adjunct roles to address
capacity issues.
Mr. Axtell discussed changes in Police officers’ attitudes toward work, overtime, and mental
wellness and recommended a City led initiative to complement the Police Department’s efforts in
attracting candidates.
The Council expressed appreciation for the Police presence in the community and desires
more community engagement noting that community engagement and crime prevention strategies
could help reduce Police staffing needs.
With respect to the Police Department’s training and staffing needs, Mr. Thomasser
recommended increased Police hiring to improve community relations. He indicated the department
should aim to free up schedules and add a training Sergeant to improve training delivery and the
department should try to create a training Sergeant position to alleviate scheduling stress and provide
more dynamic training. He noted the department also prioritizes training to stay out of trouble and
maintain a well-trained Police force. He also discussed challenges in providing in-service training due
to increased mandates and limited time.
Council Member Whalen expressed an interest in learning more about proactive police work in
Richfield and raised concern about over-policing, particularly affecting individuals with records trying
to redeem themselves.
Mr. Axtell emphasized the importance of strategic policing, using data and analysis to pinpoint
areas of concern and prevent crimes.
Mayor Supple thanked everyone for coming and participating in the Work Session.
City Council Work Session Minutes
-4- May 28, 2024
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Supple adjourned the work session at 6:55 pm.
Date Approved: June 11, 2024
Mary B. Supple
Mayor
Kelly Wynn Katie Rodriguez
Administrative Assistant City Manager
MINUTES
RICHFIELD TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING
JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL
BARTHOLOMEW ROOM, CITY HALL
Wednesday, June 5th, 2024, 7:00 PM
Councilmembers in attendance: Sean Hayford Oleary, Mary Supple
Commission Members in attendance: Husniyah Bradley (Chair), Jim Mahoney, McKenzie
Burke, David Gepner, Eli Straub, Adam Knosalla, Lou Dzierzak, Stacey Fuentes, Jaz Warren
Alex Valle-Osornio
Councilmembers not in Attendance: Ben Whalen, Sharon Christensen, Simon Trautmann
Commission Members not in Attendance: Jan Matheus, Michael Devane, Tim Brackett
City Staff: Joe Powers, Matt Hardegger, Olivia Wycklendt, Katie Rodriguez, Kristin Asher
Nicollet Avenue Project Staff: Tyler McLeete, Miranda Swanson, Matt Huggins, Dan
Edgerton
1. Call meeting to order
Chair Bradley called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM
2. Review & approve agenda
Motion by Commissioner Mahoney to approve agenda. Second by Commissioner
Gepner. Motion carried.
3. Review & approve minutes for April 3rd, 2024 meeting
Motion by Commissioner Mahoney to approve previous meeting minutes. Second by
Commissioner Dzierzak. Motion carried.
4. Nicollet Avenue Discussion
Hennepin County Project Manager Matt Huggins kicked off the Nicollet Avenue
discussion by providing an overview of the scope of the project, and collaboration
with the city and the Transportation Commission thus far.
Dan Edgerton from ZAN Associates followed by reviewing the ways project staff has
pursued public engagement through open houses, virtual open houses, and pop-up
events. He highlighted key findings from Phase I and II of the public engagement
process which indicated a desire from the public to improve pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, managing vehicle speeds, and the overall look and feel of the Nicollet Ave
corridor.
In Phase III of public engagement key findings were determining a preferred corridor
layout, support for roundabouts, desire for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and
improvements with pedestrian crossings, as well as a desire for green space through
boulevards. He also touched on how the decisions for the project have been made,
which he clarified that the project layout is determined not only just by Hennepin
County, but also the desire of general public as well as city policies.
MINUTES
Tyler McLeete from Stantec followed Edgerton with additional project updates from a
technical standpoint. He stated that Nicollet Avenue was currently identified as a
potential bus rapid transit (BRT) service in the future, and that the current layout has
taken that into consideration. For example, McLeete mentioned that in-line bus stops
have been modeled with the proposed layout and have shown not to provide a
significant impact to the corridor.
Commissioner Jim Mahoney asked whose policy it was for the bus stops to be in-lane.
McLeete responded that it was Metro Transit’s, and that in-line bus stops provide a
higher value of service.
Mayor Supple mentioned that with in-lane stops it helps to occasionally stop traffic
and give pedestrians an opportunity to cross the street.
McLeete summarized that the preliminary layout consists of a 3-lane layout for the
corridor, in addition to one-way cycle tracks on each side of the street in addition to
sidewalks. Currently the layout also has roundabouts proposed at 67 th, 70th, 73rd and
76th St, as well as right-in right out intersections at 69th St, 71st, and 74th St.
Commissioner Jaz Warren asked if there are tabled crossings for pedestrian facilities
along the layout. McLeete confirmed there are tabled crossings on the city owned
local legs off the corridor. Warren also inquired if buses and large trucks are able to
navigate the roundabouts on the corridor, which McLeete confirmed .
Councilmember Sean Hayford Oleary asked project staff if the layout currently shows
all the medians as concrete. Huggins responded that the project hasn’t quite reached
that level of detail where that has been decided, however it could be possibly added
to the design in the future.
Councilmember Hayford Oleary asked if two-phase crossings were considered for the
design. Huggins answered that based on crossing data collected for the corridor, the
current layout meets county standards, but is open to discussion.
McLeete said that no shoulders are included along the corridor as a means of
narrowing the corridor and helping to control vehicle speeds.
Commissioner Gepner asked if the city was financially participating in this project and
to what degree. Huggins answered that cost participation percentages had not yet
been negotiated. Huggins did add that the city will have a significant investment but
does not anticipate the city’s participation being 50% or greater. Gepner asked if
negotiations from the city are honored, and Huggins said they could be and that
overall, the project will not move forward without municipal consent.
Commissioner Mahoney asked who would be responsible and what the impacts would
be for the boulevard space between the sidewalk and the roadway. Transportation
Engineer Hardegger responded that the residents would be responsible for
maintaining the boulevard per city policy. He added that if the project impacts other
areas of private property such as a fence, more discussions would be had with the
property owner about the impact. city Engineer Powers stated that these acquisitions
or impacts are done in a way that avoids disadvantaging homeowners to the best of
the projects’ ability.
Councilmember Hayford Oleary asked why parking bays or a narrow boulevard could
not be added between 70th and 71st St. Huggins said that if the city would like to
make a request to add street parking in this area, the cost of the added parking lane
MINUTES
and any right-of-way acquisition would be 100% the city’s responsibility. Huggins and
Edgerton both mentioned that the demand for parking has not been evident based on
data collected and public input.
Commissioner Dzierzak asked who would be parking in these areas anyways, which
Councilmember Hayford Oleary answered residents and some businesses, particularly
near 77th St.
Councilmember Hayford Oleary made an additional comment stating that his
preference is to allow for wider driveways as well along the corridor for those that are
existing to allow for easier turning movements with the addition of center medians,
which Huggins stated the county was allowing for wider driveways for these specific
circumstances.
Commissioner Mahoney asked if there were specific items that project staff was
looking for feedback on.
Transportation Engineer Hardegger clarified that one of the discussion points staff
would like to go over is if there is a preference for the location of the centerline, and
whether it should be equally between the property lines versus the equal distance of
space between the public sidewalk and their home.
Commissioner Mahoney asked how many parcels would be impacted with acquisition
to accommodate the sidewalk should. Huggins answered that likely 80 parcels would
be impacted by strip taking.
Councilmember Hayford Oleary stated that he doesn’t want to acquire strips of land
for the sake of perceived right-of-way rather than purely out of project necessity.
Commissioner Dzierzak stated that since the corridor does have some curves in it
rather than a straight run, how perceptive will that be to those traveling on the
corridor. McLeete responded that the corridor is still linear and that any curves will be
felt, however, should not be drastic from a driver’s experience.
Transportation Engineer Hardegger summarized that the Commission and the Council
would prefer to maximize the use of the existing right-of-way, except in cases where
easements would be acquired for serious project modifiers or conflicts like the
relocation of a gas main, to which both the council and commission agreed.
Transportation Engineer Hardegger asked the Council and the Commission if they
were supportive of the right-in right-out intersections at several points throughout
the corridor. Several of these intersections would also have raised crossings, but not
all of them.
The areas where right-in, right-out were not implemented like 68th, 72nd, and 70th St
are due to the east-west connection from Lyndale across the railroad, added Huggins.
Huggins stated that there is a roundabout located within 1 block either north or south
of the intersections that would be right-in right-out.
Transportation Engineer Hardegger refocused the discussion, asking the Commission
and Council if they support the feature of raised crossings on local non-municipal
state aid intersections and the benefits it could provide from a traffic calming,
pedestrian and bicycle facility standpoint.
MINUTES
Commissioner Straub voiced his support, followed by the rest of the Commissions
agreement.
Councilmember Hayford Oleary turned the discussion to a designated left turn lane
with a median rather than a center turn lane, voicing his support for that type of
crossing.
Commissioner Straub added that if there is room for the center turn lanes, having left
turn lanes and having a center median to aid in pedestrian crossing would be
desirable.
McLeete and Huggins pulled out a layout showing what would be required for a two-
stage crossing. Huggins summarized that if there is a desire to two-stage crossing it
is feasible however it would widen the overall width of the roadway to allow for those
turn lanes and appropriate site lines for turning vehicles.
Commissioner Warren mentioned that the 72nd crossing of Nicollet could be a
candidate for either a raised crossing or rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs).
McLeete stated that a raised crossing on Nicollet Avenue is not feasible due to state
aid standards. As for RRFBs, those are a feasible consideration but have not been
included in the layout yet.
Councilmember Hayford Oleary asked if the road is designed for a speed of 35 mph,
to which Huggins responded that the design and intent of the corridor is changing to
ideally lower speeds, yes, however the road is not specifically designed to have a
roadway with a posted speed of 35 mph in mind.
Mayor Supple expressed her concerns of emergency vehicles being able to navigate
the corridor with right-in right-outs. Public Works Director Asher responded that
emergency vehicles tend to find a way to get to their destination and that they know
which routes are most efficient to get to their destination best and that emergency
vehicles are factored into the design.
Transportation Engineer Hardegger summarized that the Commission and Council felt
that the applications and locations of the right-in right outs and the tabled crossings
are acceptable, however that there is a desire to see more pedestrian-focused
infrastructure at 68th St, 72nd and 75th St, and potentially restricting left-turns going
southbound on at 72nd.
Transportation Engineer Hardegger asked the Commission and Council for direction
regarding RRFBs, and that for any areas that aren’t warranted by the County the city
would incur 100% of those costs.
Commissioner Dzierzak stated that 70th St is one of the busiest intersections for
pedestrians, and that RRFBs would be desired at this location.
There was some discussion from the Commission and the Council about creating a
two-lane section near Augsburg Park with a shift in alignment to make it safer for
pedestrians, however it seems that the shift in alignment would not be the most
beneficial for pedestrians due to sight-line issues.
Mayor Supple inquired if the changes to the Hennepin County Library near Augsburg
Park would happen in coordination to this project. Huggins replied that the library’s
project is further ahead of schedule than the Nicollet project and will be constructed
prior to the Nicollet Avenue Reconstruction project breaking ground.
MINUTES
There was discussion from multiple members of the council and commission regarding
a type of slip ramps on the local roadways for pedestrians or bicyclists to travel north
or southbound on the corridor. City and County Staff indicated that this could be
looked into further.
Commissioner Straub mentioned that any infrastructure like lights to make things
safer to cross as a pedestrian or a bicyclist is ideal. Huggins stated that anything
above and beyond county warrants can possibly be added at the request of the city,
but further discussion is needed regarding cost and maintenance with the city.
Councilmember Hayford Oleary commented that other than a few items, he is
supportive of the current layout and is appreciative of the work that project staff has
done so far.
Transportation Engineer Hardegger relayed to the commission that if any
councilmembers or commission members that they are welcome to e-mail him with
additional feedback.
Commissioner Gepner expressed his concern as to why Nicollet Avenue i s being
reconstructed before Penn Avenue despite its condition. Huggins responded that the
County’s CIP comes out later this year in fall and is expected to include a Penn
Avenue project.
5. External Grant Funding Update
Transportation Engineer Hardegger reported to the Commission and the Council that
the city has submitted 26.4 million dollars in grant applications to various federal and
state agencies, including a 10-million-dollar request to the state legislature.
Transportation Engineer Hardegger provided an overview of the different grant
applications the city has submitted for external funding, and the status of those
applications.
The city’s Reconnecting Communities application was not successful but will be
resubmitted in the next round with a slightly smaller scope, as the amount of funding
available will decrease next year.
The city submitted five projects to the Metropolitan Council Regional Solicitation in
December, which will be announced in July. Transportation Engineer Hardegger said
staff are optimistic about potentially receiving multiple grants through this, but
nothing will be final until July.
Commissioner Mahoney notified Transportation Engineer Hardegger that all the
bollards near the STEM school are gone, and asked if it was a pilot project. Hardegger
confirmed it was a pilot project, however those changes will be permanent in 2025 as
the city did just receive funding in the form of a $586,000 grant to move forward with
the project.
The city also received a design assistance grant to examine intersections and
roadways around Sheridan Hills, Richfield Middle School, and Richfield High School.
MINUTES
The school district also received grant funding for planning assistance, so the Safe
Routes to School Plan for the district will be updated over the next year,
Transportation Engineer Hardegger mentioned.
Transportation Engineer Hardegger stated that the 73rd St Bridge project was
submitted through Representative Omar’s office for community project funding for
design and engineering costs, and that the Congresswoman selected the project to
submit to the Appropriations Committee.
Transportation Engineer Hardegger told the Commission and Council that the city is
currently projecting 5-6 million dollars in state and federal grant funding, with a city
match of 1.4 million dollars, for projects submitted in 2023.
City Manager Rodriguez expressed her gratitude to city staff and acknowledged the
difficulty that comes with securing outside funding for infrastructure projects.
6. Project Updates
Transportation Engineer Hardegger provided an update on the sidewalk construction
on 71st St outside of STEM/RDLS will be beginning construction in mid-June.
Following that, construction is expected to begin on the pedestrian ramps at Richfield
Parkway and 66th St.
Civil Engineer Wycklendt provided a brief project update on 65th St, stating that
striping for 65th St has been completed and that only landscaping restoration
remains.
7. Other Business
There was no other business.
8. Upcoming events/meeting(s)
Motion to move to cancel the July 3rd meeting. Motion seconded by Commissioner
Mahoney. Seconded by Commissioner Dzierzak. Motion carried.
The next regularly scheduled Transportation Commission Meeting is on Wednesday,
August 7th.
9. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 9:05 PM.
Mary B. Supple
Mayor
Kelly Wynn Katie Rodriguez
Interim City Clerk 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; Sharon Christensen; Simon Trautmann;
Sean Hayford Oleary; and Ben Whalen
Staff Present:
Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Jennifer Anderson, Health
Administrator; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney; Melissa Poehlman,
Community Development Director; Jay Henthorne, Public
Safety Director/Police Chief; and Kelly Wynn, Administrative
Assistant
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Supple led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mayor Supple requested a moment of silence to honor the life and service of Officer Jamal
Mitchell of Minneapolis who lost his life in the line of duty.
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
Mayor Supple read a statement clarifying one of the agenda items passed at the last meeting
with respect to a construction agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to
construct a noise wall along Highway 62, noting the wall would begin at Xerxes Avenue with the
ending point between Russell Avenue and Penn Avenue. The specific terminus is .08 miles west of
Penn Avenue S.
M/Whalen, S/Trautmann to approve the minutes of the: (1) City Council Meeting May 28,
2024.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Regular Council Meeting
June 11, 2024
City Council Meeting Minutes -2- June 11, 2024
Motion carried: 5-0
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
M/Whalen, S/Christensen to approve the Agenda.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #1
PROCLAMATION CELEBRATING JUNETEENTH
Mayor Supple invited Dr. Joyce Marrie to accept the proclamation and read aloud the
proclamation.
Dr. Joyce Marrie thanked the city and the government officials for awarding this proclamation.
ITEM #2
PRESENTATION OF FOOD SAFETY AWARDS
Administrator Anderson awarded the 2023 full-service restaurant award to Broadway Pizza.
She awarded the 2023 fast food, pizza carry out award to Taco Bell. She thanked the businesses for
their commitment to food safety.
ITEM #3
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Manager Rodriguez presented the consent calendar.
A. Consider approval of a Temporary on Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for an event
scheduled to take place July 6, 2024, at Fred Babcock VFW #5555, located at 6715
Lakeshore Dr (Staff Report No. 75)
B. Consider the approval of a resolution for reimbursement of certain expenditures from the
proceeds of street reconstruction bonds and utility bonds to be issued by the City for the
Nicollet Avenue (CSAH 52) Reconstruction Project. (Staff Report No. 76)
RESOLUTION NO. 12212
RESOLUTION DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY
THE CITY WITH RESPECT TO THE NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
C. Consider adoption of a resolution modifying a Health Care Savings Plan for International
Association of Firefighters (IAF), Local 1215 bargaining unit employees (Staff Report No.
77)
City Council Meeting Minutes -3- June 11, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. 12213
RESOLUTION AMENDING POST EMPLOYMENT HEALTH CARE SAVINGS PLAN FOR
FIRE EMPLOYEES (IAF 1215)
M/Hayford Oleary, S/Trautmann to approve the consent calendar.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #5
CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT
CALENDAR
None.
ITEM #6
CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF THE SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING SECTION 925.02 RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF VACANT
BUILDINGS. (STAFF REPORT NO. 78)
Trautmann presented Staff Report 78.
M/Trautmann, S/Hayford Oleary to approve the second reading of an ordinance amending
Section 925.02 of the Richfield City Code relating to regulation of vacant buildings and required
maintenance of grass and weeds on vacant properties, as well as a resolution and summary publication
of said ordinance.
BILL NO. 2024-06
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION 925.02 OF THE RICHFIELD
CODE OF ORDINANCES RLEATING TO REGULATION OF VACANT BUILDINGS
RESOLUTION NO. 12214
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 9 OF THE CITY CODE
SUMMARY PUBLICATION
BILL NO. 2024-02
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9, SECTION 925 OF THE CITY CODE
Council Member Hayford Oleary thanked City staff for their quick response on this.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #7
CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE APPROVED PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT/FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AUTHORIZING
EXECUTION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PARKING
AGREEMENT WITH PARTNERSHIP ACADEMY AT 6500 NICOLLET AVENUE.
(STAFF REPORT NO. 79)
City Council Meeting Minutes -4- June 11, 2024
Hayford Oleary presented Staff Report 79.
M/Hayford Oleary, S/Whalen to approve the resolution amending the approved Planned Unit
Development/Final Development Plan and authorizing execution of the proposed amendment to the
Parking Agreement at 6500 Nicollet Avenue.
RESOLUTION NO. 12215
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PARKING AGREEMENT
ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING ADDITION FOR PARTNERSHIP
ACADEMY AT 6500 NICOLLET AVENUE SOUTH
Council Member Trautmann stated he was pleased to support this motion and he liked the idea
of not holding a devastating penalty over a school’s head. He asked if there were any tools available if
they needed to enforce the agreement. Director Poehlman explained the penalty remained in the
agreement and if it were to be waived again, it would need to be approved by the Council.
Council Member Hayford Oleary noted he appreciated the recommendation. He asked if it was
deliberate that the Planning Commission recommended five years rather than the 10 years as
requested by the applicant. Director Poehlman responded the Planning Commission had changed the
time period.
Council Member Hayford Oleary questioned the procedure of annual renewal. Director
Poehlman explained why they were requiring an annual renewal.
M/Supple, S/Trautmann to amend the motion adding item number three to the resolution to say
the penalty for non-compliance by April 12, 2024, shall be waived.
Council Member Hayford Oleary noted staff recommended prorating a two-month delinquency
period. He asked what are the thoughts on that versus waiving it. Mayor Supple explained she had
spoken with the Planning Commission members and obtained their thoughts on this and she had also
spoken with Director Poehlman for the staff’s intent, so she thought it should be clarified.
Council Member Hayford Oleary indicated he did not want the City’s penalties to not mean
anything, but he was also not in favor of a penalty for parking in general. He asked if they had been
working with staff prior to the deadline passing. Director Poehlman acknowledged they had reached
out to staff prior to the deadline.
Amended Motion carried: 5-0.
Council Member Trautmann noted if they were able to waive any fees if they were moving in the
direction that the law required he was in favor of this, but he also wanted to make sure they had an
enforcement tool. He did not think the goal should be punitive. Director Poehlman noted there was a
mechanism to make sure they would not be charged a fee.
Council Member Hayford Oleary stated he would be voting in support of this as amended and
he appreciated the Planning Commission’s solution about the demolishing of an existing commercial
building.
Mayor Supple stated she would be voting in favor, but she was concerned because it was not
ideal if students and teachers had to carry their bags and books 4 to 5 blocks to get to the school and
she hoped this got resolved in a manner that worked for everyone.
Original motion as amended carried: 5-0
City Council Meeting Minutes -5- June 11, 2024
ITEM #8
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Rodriguez stated she had no report.
ITEM #9
CLAIMS AND PAYROLL
M/Trautmann, S/Whalen that the following claims and payrolls be approved:
U.S. BANK 06/07/2024
A/P Checks: 328827-392109 $1,078,818.70
Payroll: 187716-188029 43919-43923 $1,018,227.72
TOTAL $2,097,046.42
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #10
HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS
Council Member Whalen thanked everyone who had a role in the State of the Community event.
Council Member Christensen gave hats off to the Richfield Arts Commission noting they had
many different types of projects for both youth and adults. She noted they would be doing a seed bomb
event at the Richfield Farmer’s Market this Saturday.
Council Member Hayford Oleary thanked Public Works for their work on the 25 mph speed limit
signs.
Council Member Trautmann gave hats off to the Public Works team who have the public pool
up and running.
Mayor Supple gave hats off to the Police Department for their coverage during the memorial
service. She gave hats off to the 2024 graduates. She thanked everyone who made the State of the
Community event possible.
ITEM #11
CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING THE CITY MANAGER’S ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. COUNCIL WILL MOVE TO THE BABCOCK
ROOM FOR THE CLOSED SESSION PORTION OF THE MEETING (STAFF
REPORT NO. 80)
Mayor Supple noted the Council would now be going into a closed session to discuss the City
Manager’s performance valuation.
M/Christensen, S/Trautmann to recess the meeting to enter and hold a closed meeting for the
purpose of conducting a performance evaluation of City Manager Katie Rodriguez, pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes Section 13D.05, subd. 3(a).
Motion carried: 5-0
City Council Meeting Minutes -6- June 11, 2024
ITEM #12
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Supple noted the Council conducted a closed session for a performance valuation of
the City Manager and will hold another closed performance valuation meeting on June 18. As
required by law the Council will provide a summary of the performance evaluation at its next regular
Council meeting on June 25, 2024.
M/Trautmann, S/Hayford Oleary to adjourn the meeting at 8:42 p.m.
Motion carried: 5-0
Date Approved: June 25, 2024
Mary B. Supple
Mayor
Kelly Wynn Katie Rodriguez
Administrative Assistant City Manager
AGENDA SECTION:PRESENTATIONS
AGENDA ITEM #1.
CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING
6/25/2024
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y:Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice
6/18/2024
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
6/19/2024
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
2024 Gene & Mary Jacobsen Citizen of the Year Presentation
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
The Richfield Human Rights Commission has selected a Citizen of the Year award recipient since 1971. The
award is given to a family, group, organization, business or individual who lives or works in Richfield and whose
actions demonstrate an awareness and commitment to the attitudes and practices that foster human
understanding, tolerance and the spirit of human relations.
The Human Rights Commission has awarded the 2024 Gene and Mary J acobsen Outstanding Citizen award to
Scott Ramsay.
Scott has dedicated himself to over forty years of environmental education in his career as an interpretative
naturalist. He has impacted hundreds of thousands of kids over the years, and has inspired them to be
stewards of the natural word. Scott is so energetic each and everyday and so passionate about his work. His
commitment to Woodlake Nature Center and the activities that are demonstrated there has shown his
commitment to the community of Richfield.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
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
S ee E xecutive S ummary
B .E QU ITAB L E OR S T R AT E GIC C ON S ID E R AT ION S OR IMPAC T S
C .P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
D .C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
E .F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
F.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C OMME N D AT ION(S):
P R IN C IPAL PAR T IE S E X P E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
K im Jacobsen S cott Ramsay
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #4.A.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 82
CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING
6/25/2024
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y:Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice
6/17/2024
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
6/19/2024
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider the approval of an amended agreement between the Hennepin County Human Services and
Public Health Department, and the City of Richfield Police Department for two full time Senior Social
Workers, one embedded and one on the alternative response team.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Hennepin County has presented an agreement on behalf of the Hennepin County Human Services and Public
Health Department for a Mental Health Program in the Richfield Police Department.
Officers utilize their experience and training in crisis/conflict management, persuasion, de-escalation, mental
health, and serving those with autism to safety resolve crisis incidents while ensuring the individual receives the
necessary services and/or medical attention. Officers also routinely partner with Community Outreach for
Psychiatric Emergencies (C OP E) to assist with calls where a person is in crisis. C OP E provides emergency
intervention services 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, when an adult is experiencing an emotional crisis that
threatens their personal safety.
Richfield Police Officers respond to a multitude of calls for service - typically around 35,000 calls per year.
Notably, mental health-related calls for service have consistently increased over the past 4+ years.
The Richfield Police Department implemented an embedded social worker program in September 2020.
Several other communities throughout Hennepin County already have similar programs in place. Through
collaborative efforts, the embedded social worker program will help achieve numerous goals.
More timely engagement of Senior Social Worker (S S W ) with individuals
I ncreased use of community resources to support individuals
I ncreased use of public assistance programs
I ncreased use of non-urgent health care systems
I mproved engagement of current service providers
Ongoing collaboration and learning between Hennepin County Human Service and Public Health and
police department
I mproving the quality of life for those who suffer from mental illness and have encounters with law
enforcement
Reducing use of force, injury or death to officers and community members
Reducing rate of arrests/prosecution of persons in mental health crisis and increase the number of
persons who remain in community settings with services and supports
Creating cost-savings through reduction of (incarceration and hospitalization) 911 calls regarding mental
health crisis
Reducing repeat calls and visits to the same issue
I mproving efficiency of law enforcement response to emergency and non-emergency mental health
issues
I ncreasing public satisfaction with the response to mental health emergencies and other metrics
developed during the pilot utilizing key stakeholder and community input
The comprehensive approach to mental illness will ensure community members receive the
assistance/treatment they need.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve the amended agreement between the Hennepin County Human Services and
Public Health Department and the City of Richfield Police Department for two full-time social workers
to the Police Mental Health Program.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A .H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
The Richfield P olice D epartment has a Mental Health P rogram which includes two embedded full-time S enior
S ocial Workers assigned to the Richfield P olice D epartment.
B .E QU ITAB L E OR S T R AT E GIC C ON S ID E R AT ION S OR IMPAC T S
C .P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
The Richfield P ublic S afety/P olice D epartment wishes to contract with Hennepin C ounty for the P olice Mental
Health P rogram.
D .C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The agreement must be signed for the P olice Mental Health P rogram.
E .F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
No changes were made financially to the contract.
F or the period J anuary 1, 2024, through D ecember 31, 2024, the not-to-exceed amount of $145,412 annually.
For the period January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025, the not-to-exceed amount of
$145,412 annually.
F.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
This contract has been reviewed by the C ity A ttorney
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C OMME N D AT ION(S):
The C ouncil may choose to not approve the contract; and therefore not allow the C ity of Richfield P olice D epartment
to partner with Hennepin C ounty Human S ervices and P ublic Health D epartment and continue a P olice Mental
Health P rogram
P R IN C IPAL PAR T IE S E X P E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
None
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
J PA C ontract/A greement
HC# A2110930
1
AMENDMENT #2 TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
BETWEEN HENNEPIN COUNTY
AND CITY OF RICHFIELD
This Joint Powers Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between the County
of Hennepin, Minnesota (“COUNTY”) on behalf of its Human Services and Public Health
Department (“HSPHD”) and City of Richfield, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota
55423, pursuant to the authority conferred upon them by Minn. Stat. § 471.59 and on behalf of it’s
police department, (referred to herein as “POLICE DEPARTMENT”). The parties to this
Agreement may also be referred to individually as “Party” and collectively as “Parties”.
IT IS HEREBY AGREED that Agreement No. A2110930 between the above-named parties,
including any prior amendments, is hereby amended in accordance with the provisions set forth
below.
The third WHEREAS clause will be amended to read:
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to jointly and cooperatively coordinate their expertise and
delivery of services to further the interests of providing follow up care by a Senior Social Worker
(SSW) embedded with POLICE DEPARTMENT to prevent reoccurrences of emergency crises in
a manner that most effectively and efficiently supports and protects the physical, mental and
behavioral health of individuals in Hennepin County, subject to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
Clause 4, CONSIDERATION, paragraph A. and paragraph B., shall be amended to read:
4. CONSIDERATION
A. POLICE DEPARTMENT shall pay Sixty Thousand dollars ($60,000) for the period
January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022.
POLICE DEPARTMENT shall pay One Hundred Thirty-Two Thousand Seven Hundred
Six dollars ($132,706) for the period January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023.
POLICE DEPARTMENT shall pay Ninety-Six Thousand Nine Hundred Forty-One dollars
($96,941) for the period January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024.
POLICE DEPARTMENT shall pay Seventy-Two Thousand Seven Hundred Six dollars
($72,706) for the period January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025.
B. For the period January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022, one SSW will be employed,
and equipped by HSPHD and participate in supervision and training by HSPHD in
accordance with local, state, federal, and professional licensure requirements.
For the period January 1, 2023, through April 30, 2024, two SSWs will be employed, and
equipped by HSPHD and participate in supervision and training by HSPHD in accordance
with local, state, federal, and professional licensure requirements.
HC# A2110930
2
For the period May 1, 2024, through December 31, 2025, one SSW will be employed, and
equipped by HSPHD and participate in supervision and training by HSPHD in accordance
with local, state, federal, and professional licensure requirements.
EXHIBIT A: Description of Services, shall be replaced with the following revised EXHIBIT A:
Description of Services, as attached which is updated to remove the second SSW.
This amendment shall be effective April 30, 2024.
Except as hereinabove amended, the terms, conditions and provisions of said Contract No.
A2110930 shall remain in full force and effect.
(The remainder of this page intentionally left blank.)
HC# A2110930
3
The Parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions set forth in this Agreement.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Reviewed for COUNTY by the County STATE OF MINNESOTA
Attorney’s Office
By:
Chair of Its County Board
Date:
ATTEST:
Deputy/Clerk of County Board
Date:
By:
County Administrator
Date:
City of Richfield through Richfield Police
Department:
By: ___________________________________
Title: __________________________________
Date: __________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Title: __________________________________
Date: __________________________________
Contract #A2110930
EXHIBIT A: Description of Services
1
May 2024
POLICE DEPARTMENT and HSPHD staff will work collaboratively to prevent
reoccurrences of emergency crises.
Roles and Responsibilities of Parties
A. POLICE DEPARTMENT will provide office space for the Senior Social Worker (SSW).
B. POLICE DEPARTMENT will run DSL lines at designated office space, as needed, if SSW
are otherwise unable to access to COUNTY network.
C. POLICE DEPARTMENT will work with the HSPHD Social Work Unit
Supervisor (SWUS) to establish criteria for referrals.
D. POLICE DEPARTMENT will work with the SWUS to develop a referral process.
E. POLICE DEPARTMENT will track referrals and repeat calls.
F. POLICE DEPARTMENT will track mental health calls that involve weapons, use of force
and transportation holds being written.
G. POLICE DEPARTMENT will accompany the SSW to home visits as needed.
H. HSPHD will be responsible for providing the SSW with equipment that is
necessary for completing their work. This includes but is not limited to laptop
computer, cell phone, and office supplies.
I. The SSW will report directly to the HSPHD SWUS.
J. HSPHD will be responsible for transportation/mileage expenses for the SSW.
The SSW will be responsible following the HSPHD transportation/mileage
reimbursement policies.
K. The SSW will provide short-term assistance to individuals in order to connect
the individuals with internal and/or community resources to help meet their
needs. Services will be provided in an ethical and culturally sensitive manner.
L. After being assigned a case, the SSW will complete a file clearance of the various
systems to determine if the individual is open to social services, county of
financial responsibility, and public assistance programs.
Contract #A2110930
EXHIBIT A: Description of Services
2
May 2024
M. The SSW will meet the individual, assess the individual’s needs, note
formal and informal supports, and determine where gaps exist.
N. The SSW will request a new or updated diagnostic assessments as needed.
O. The initial assessment should include the risks to the safety and stability of the
individual as well as the individual’s ability to address such concerns. The SSW
will also evaluate the need for emergency services and if needed will assist in
making those connections.
P. The SSW will work with the individual to develop an initial plan that addresses
gaps that exist in the individual’s support system and will work with the
individual to identify and connect with community resources. This plan will be
signed by both the individual and the SSW.
Q. The SSW will ensure that release of information forms are signed and that other
paperwork is completed in a timely manner.
R. Client information can only be shared with law enforcement when there is an ongoing
emergency situation and the client information is necessary to protect the health or safety of
the individual or other people. Information disclosed would be limited to that necessary to
address the emergency situation.
S. If community and/or county resources are needed, the SSW will collect
information needed to determine eligibility for those services. The SSW will
facilitate referrals to appropriate resources.
T. The SSW will collaborate with other involved parties as indicated.
U. If eligible for county operated or contracted case management services, the
SSW will complete the necessary paperwork to transfer the individual to case
management.
V. The SSW will document all activities and data as requested for tracking
purposes.
W. Participation is voluntary, and the individual served has a right to refuse services.
Contract #A2110930
EXHIBIT A: Description of Services
3
May 2024
Goals of the Police-Mental Health Unit include, but are not limited to:
A. More timely engagement of SSW with individuals;
B. Increased use of community resources to support individuals;
C. Increased use of public assistance programs;
D. Increased use of non-urgent health care systems;
E. Improved engagement of current service providers;
F. Ongoing collaboration and learning between HSPHD and POLICE DEPARTMENT;
G. Improving the quality of life for those who have encounters with law
enforcement;
H. Reducing use of force, injury or death to officers and community members;
I. Reducing rate of arrests/prosecution of persons in mental health crisis and increase
the number of persons who remain in community settings with services and
supports;
J. Creating cost-savings through reduction of incarceration and hospitalizationresulting
from mental health crisis;
K. Reducing repeat calls and visits for the same issue;
L. Improving efficacy of law enforcement response to emergency and
non-emergency mental health issues; and
M. Increasing public satisfaction with the response to mental health emergencies and
other metrics developed utilizing key stakeholder and community input.
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #4.B.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 83
CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING
6/25/2024
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y:Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice
6/17/2024
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
6/19/2024
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider the approval of an agreement for Prosecution Services with the City of Richfield and H/J
Law.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
The City of Richfield Department of Public Safety is required to have a attorney licensed to practice law in
Minnesota, to advise and represent the City in municipal prosecutions relating to criminal and civil statutes and
ordinances.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve the contract agreement for Prosecution Services with H/J Law for the City of
Richfield Department of Public Safety.
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
H/J L aw has represented the C ity of Richfield D epartment of P ublic S afety for municipal prosecution
since J uly 1, 2022.
P revious to that Martin C ostello served as prosecuting attorney for 33 years.
B .E QU ITAB L E OR S T R AT E GIC C ON S ID E R AT ION S OR IMPAC T S
C .P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
The C ity of Richfield D epartment of P ublic S afety is required by law to have a municipal prosecutor to handle
state statute, and local ordinance violations; along with expungements, and diversions.
D .C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The C ity of Richfield D epartment of P ublic S afety is required to have a prosecuting attorney. The current contract
with H/J L aw expires on June 30, 2024.
E .F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
F or all prosecution services, the C ity of Richfield shall pay a monthly retainer fee of $15,500.00, with an annual
limit of $186,000.00, plus out of pocket expenses.
F.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The contract agreement for a municipal prosecutor is to process those violations that are within the scope of city
ordinance and non felony level under state statute. The prosecutor also guides and educates city staff on
appropriate action and helps the city manage risk in those situations which are legal in nature.
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C OMME N D AT ION(S):
The C ity C ouncil could decide to not approve the agreement, however the D epartment of P ublic S afety would then
need to find another law firm to handle the department's municipal prosecutions.
P R IN C IPAL PAR T IE S E X P E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
C ontract C ontract/A greement
AGREEMENT FOR PROSECUTION SERVICES
BETWEEN
CITY OF RICHFIELD
AND
HJ LAW, LLC
This Agreement for Prosecution Services (Agreement) is effective as of July 1, 2024, by and
between the City of Richfield, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (City),
and HJ Law, LLC, 900 American Boulevard East, Suite 145, Bloomington, MN. 55420
(Prosecutor).
WHEREAS, the City requires attorneys licensed to practice law in Minnesota to advise
and represent the City in municipal prosecutions; and
WHEREAS, the attorneys working with the Prosecutor are licensed to practice law in
Minnesota and are experienced in and familiar with all phases of municipal prosecution and
desire to provide the prosecution services required by the City; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto want to enter into a written agreement to set forth the
terms, conditions, compensation, duties, responsibilities and other matters relating to the
Prosecutor providing said services to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the City and the Prosecutor that the
City does hereby retain and designate the Prosecutor as the Richfield City Prosecutor, effective
July 1, 2024, and the Prosecutor does hereby accept the position of Richfield City Prosecutor and
agrees to perform the requirements of that position, all on the terms and conditions hereinafter
set forth.
A. Services.
1. The Prosecutor hereby agrees to perform and furnish these legal services to the
City:
a. Appearing at all required court hearings, including arraignments, pretrial and
omnibus hearings, court trials, jury trials, sentencing hearings, probation
violation hearings, and other appearances for non-felony cases;
b. Assembling all required case files and providing timely discovery to criminal
defense attorneys and/or defendants;
c. Charging non-felony cases;
d. Prosecuting forfeitures related to non-felony cases;
e. Prosecuting all City ordinance violations;
- 2 -
f. Working collaboratively with the City’s domestic abuse victim advocates;
g. Advising the City Council and staff on ordinance drafting, code enforcement,
and related matters;
h. Providing police training on a mutually-agreed upon basis with the
Department of Public Safety, but at least annually;
i. Consulting with and advising the Department of Public Safety command staff,
investigators, patrol officers, and administrative staff on all matters relating to
non-felony prosecutions. This includes being available by telephone to
consult with officers after business hours and on the weekends, as needed;
j. Attending all necessary meetings with City and Department of Public Safety
staff;
k. Making reports, as requested, to the City Council regarding non-felony
prosecutions;
l. Speaking at City-related functions on criminal law-related topics;
m. Maintaining an office presence at the Police Department, to include at least 3
half-days per week at the Department of Public Safety; and
n. Completing any other duties and responsibilities necessary to effectively
prosecute the City’s criminal, traffic, and ordinance violations.
B. Fees and Costs.
1. For all prosecution services, the City shall pay the Prosecutor a monthly retainer
fee of $15,500.00, with an annual limit of $186,000.00, plus out-of-pocket
expenses.
2. Monthly bills will be for the above monthly retainer fee, plus identify and itemize
any and all out-of-pocket expenses, e.g., certified documents or witness subpoena
fees.
3. Additional costs of $250 per hour when representing the City in appeals arising
from non-felony prosecutions;
C. Conflicts of Interest.
1. The Prosecutor will not represent any clients in legal actions involving Richfield
or with interests adverse to those of Richfield, including any units of government
having jurisdiction within or contiguous to Richfield. The Prosecutor shall use
best efforts to meet all professional obligations to avoid conflicts of interest and
appearances of impropriety.
- 3 -
2. In the event that a conflict of interest arises in any cases, the Prosecutor, with the
consent of the City, agrees to refer those matters to outside counsel for
prosecution at the City’s expense.
D. Insurance.
1. The Prosecutor will maintain malpractice insurance coverage for all attorneys
providing prosecution services to the City.
E. Term of Contract - Termination.
1. The term of this Agreement shall be one year unless amended in writing by the
mutual agreement of the parties hereto or terminated in accordance with the
conditions hereinafter contained. The last day of the one-year term is June 30,
2025.
2. This Agreement may be terminated by the City at any time or by the Prosecutor
upon sixty (60) days’ written notice to the City. In either event, on the termination
of this Agreement, all finished and unfinished documents and work papers
prepared by the Prosecutor pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property
of the City and the Prosecutor will be paid for services satisfactorily performed up
to the date of termination.
F. Miscellaneous.
1. All services provided by the Prosecutor pursuant to this Agreement are provided
by the Prosecutor as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the City
for any purpose, including but not limited to: income tax withholding, workers’
compensation, unemployment compensation, FICA taxes, liability for torts and
eligibility for employee benefits.
2. Except as provided in Section C(2) of this Agreement relating to conflicts of
interest, the rights and obligations created by this Agreement may not be assigned
by either party.
3. Data provided to the Prosecutor under this Agreement shall be administered in
accordance with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 13.
4. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the City from retaining legal counsel
other than the Prosecutor in any legal matters including, but not limited to,
litigation and other specialized areas of law.
5. The Prosecutor agrees not to discriminate in providing services under this
Agreement on the basis of race, color, sex, creed, national origin, disability, age,
sexual orientation, status with regard to public assistance, or religion.
6. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of Minnesota. Any disputes, controversies, or claims arising out of
this Agreement shall be heard in the state or federal courts of Minnesota, and all
- 4 -
parties to this Agreement waive any objection to the jurisdiction of these courts,
whether based on convenience or otherwise.
7. In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall be illegal or otherwise
unenforceable, such provision shall be severed, and the balance of the Agreement
shall continue in full force and effect.
8. This Agreement, including any addenda or amendments subsequently signed by
both parties, shall constitute the entire agreement between the City and the
Prosecutor, and supersedes any other written or oral agreements between the City
and the Prosecutor. This Agreement can only be modified in writing signed by
both the City and the Prosecutor.
Executed this _____ day of June, 2024.
H|J LAW CITY OF RICHFIELD
Gregory P. Holly Mary Supple
Attorney at Law Mayor
Katrina E. Joseph Katie Rodriguez
Attorney at Law City Manager
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #4.C.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 84
CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING
6/25/2024
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y:Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice
6/17/2024
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
6/19/2024
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 hazard mitigation planning efforts and adopting the
Hennepin County All-Hazard Mitigation Plan.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
The City of Richfield has participated in the Hazard Mitigation planning process as established under the
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The Act, as part of the planning process, requires public involvement and local
coordination among neighboring local units of government and businesses. The Hennepin County All-Hazard
Mitigation Plan (the "Plan") includes a risk assessment including past hazards, hazards that threaten the
County, an estimate of structures at risk, a general description of land uses and development trends. The Plan
includes a maintenance or implementation process including plan updates, integration of the plan into other
planning documents, and how Hennepin County will maintain public participation and coordination. The Plan
will make the county and participating jurisdictions, including the City of Richfield, eligible to receive F E MA
Hazard Mitigation assistance grants.
The Plan is over 300 pages and portions of it are not public; therefore, it is not included here as an attachment.
A copy is available for review at the Public Safety Department.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Adopt a resolution supporting hazard mitigation planning efforts and adopting the
Hennepin County All-Hazard Mitigation Plan.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A .H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
The P lan is a guide for all communities that have participated in the preparation of the P lan, and the
preparation of it fulfills the requirements of the F ederal D isaster Mitigation A ct (D MA 2000) as
administered by the Minnesota D epartment of Homeland S ecurity and E mergency Management (HS E M)
and the F ederal E mergency Management A gency (F E M A ). Hazard mitigation is any action taken to
permanently reduce or eliminate long-term risks to people and their property from the effects of hazards.
Natural hazards come in many forms, including: tornadoes, floods, severe storms, drought, earthquakes,
winter storms, or dam failures resulting from natural disaster crises. C ommunities can take steps to
prepare and implement mitigation techniques for almost any type of hazard that may threaten its citizens,
businesses and institutions.
A ll county and municipalities adopting this plan will be eligible to receive F E MA hazard mitigation
assistance grants.
B .E QU ITAB L E OR S T R AT E GIC C ON S ID E R AT ION S OR IMPAC T S
C .P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
S ection 409 of the Robert T. S tafford D isaster Relief and E mergency A ssistance A ct (P ublic L aw 93-288
as amended), Title 44 C F R, as amended by S ection 102 of the D isaster Mitigation A ct of 2000, provides
the framework for state and local governments to evaluate and mitigate all natural hazards as a condition
for receiving F ederal disaster assistance. A major requirement of the law is the development of a local
natural hazard mitigation plan.
The Hennepin C ounty Multi-J urisdictional A ll-Hazards Mitigation P lan has been reviewed by F E MA , has
met all the criteria and has been given an “approved pending adoption” status.
D .C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
A ll municipalities must approve the P lan so that it can go before the Hennepin C ounty B oard for approval.
E .F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
A ll county and municipalities adopting this plan will be eligible to receive F E MA hazard mitigation assistance
grants.
F.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C OMME N D AT ION(S):
P R IN C IPAL PAR T IE S E X P E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Resolution Resolution L etter
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING HAZARD MITIGATION
PLANNING EFFORTS AND ADOPTING THE HENNEPIN
COUNTY ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has participated in the hazard mitigation
planning process as established under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Act establishes a framework for the development of a multi-
jurisdictional County Hazard Mitigation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Act as part of the planning process requires public involvement
and local coordination among neighboring local units of government and businesses;
and
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Plan includes a risk assessment including past
hazards, hazards that threaten the County, an estimate of structures at risk, a general
description of land uses and development trends; and
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Plan includes a mitigation strategy including
goals and objectives and an action plan identifying specific mitigation projects and
costs; and
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Plan includes a maintenance or
implementation process including plan updates, integration of the plan into other
planning documents and how Hennepin County will maintain public participation and
coordination; and
WHEREAS, the Plan has been shared with the Minnesota Division of Homeland
Security and Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management
Agency for review and comment; and
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County All-Hazard Mitigation Plan will make the
county and participating jurisdictions eligible to receive FEMA hazard mitigation
assistance grants; and
WHEREAS, this is a multi-jurisdictional Plan and cities that participated in the
planning process may choose to also adopt the County Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield supports the
hazard mitigation planning effort and wishes to adopt the Hennepin County All-Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of
June, 2024.
Mary Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kelly Wynn, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #4.D.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 85
CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING
6/25/2024
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y:Julie Urban, A sst. C ommunity D evelopment D irector
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:Melissa P oehlman, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
6/18/2024
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
6/19/2024
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider a resolution extending American Rescue Plan Act funding contract with V E AP, Inc. from
June 30, 2024, to December 31, 2024.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
On March 22, 2023, the City Council awarded $81,854.56 in American Rescue Plan Act (A RPA) funds to
V E A P, I nc. (V E A P). The term of the contract ran from April 1, 2023, to March 31, 2024. The Council
approved an extension of the contract until J une 30, 2024.
V E A P offers housing advocacy, financial assistance, case management, and resource navigation for
economically-disadvantaged households. V E A P has spent $34,440.12 of its contract to-date, with $47,414.44
remaining. V E A P has adjusted its reporting and application process and increased marketing efforts in order to
more efficiently use the awarded funds. W hile they have increased the number of people they are serving, they
are requesting an extension until December 31, 2024, to complete the expenditure of funds.
W ith the contract extension, the organization will still be within the required spending deadlines. A RPA rules
require all funds to be committed by December 31, 2024, and spent by December 31, 2026.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute a contract
amendment with V E AP, Inc., extending contract end-date to December 31, 2024.
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 C ity was allocated $3.972 million in C oronovirus L ocal F iscal Recovery F unds under A RPA in 2021
to assist the C ity in the recovery from the C OV ID -19 pandemic. The C ouncil allocated $420,000 of these
funds to social services agencies for direct service to community members disproportionately impacted
by the pandemic.
On D ecember 15, 2022, the C ity issued a Request for P roposals (RF P ) for $150,000 of A RPA social
services funds, seeking proposals from non-profit organizations that provide services and activities that
help mitigate the negative impacts caused by the pandemic on economically disadvantaged Richfield
community members. S everal priorities were identified for the funds, including:
promoting housing security and stability, promoting healthy childhood environments, promoting
healthy and safe living environments, promoting economic stability, improving healthy food access,
building strong communities, and reducing racial disparities.
On March 14, 2023, the C ouncil approved contracts with seven non-profit organizations, including V E A P,
awarding $160,000 in A RPA funds.
On F ebruary 28, 2024, the C ouncil approved a contract extension with V E A P through J une 30, 2024.
B .E QU ITAB L E OR S T R AT E GIC C ON S ID E R AT ION S OR IMPAC T S
A RPA funds were specifically dedicated to address equity by focusing on the needs of residents
disproportionately impacted by the C O V ID -19 pandemic. P eople disproportionately impacted included
B lack, Indigenous, and P eople of C olor (B IP OC ) and people with low incomes.
In the first four quarters of V E A P 's contract they served 48 individuals. A ll of the individuals were
economically disadvantaged and 81% were B IP O C .
The contract is for services consistent with the C ity's strategic plan initiatives: C ommunity D evelopment
(maintaining affordability) and E quity and Inclusion.
C .P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
T he final ARPA rules provide flexibility to the City in determining how to spend the funds, and the
Council determined that it was important to provide some direct support to the community and to
those community members disproportionately impacted by the pandemic.
D .C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
A RPA funds must be obligated by D ecember 31, 2024, and spent by D ecember 31, 2026.
E .F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
$420,000 in A RPA funds were designated for social services. Of that amount, $266,000 has been committed
and $171,000 spent. The remaining $154,000 will be designated for additional social services in 2024.
F.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The proposed extensions meet required commitment and expenditure deadlines.
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C OMME N D AT ION(S):
D ecide not to extend the contract.
P R IN C IPAL PAR T IE S E X P E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
NA
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Resolution Resolution L etter
C ontract E xtension C ontract/A greement
RESOLUTION NO. ______
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT
CONTRACT WITH VEAP, INC
WHEREAS, Congress adopted the American Rescue Plan Act in March 2021
(“ARPA”), which included $65 billion in recovery funds for cities across the country; and
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2022, the City of Richfield received its final allocation of
ARPA funds in the amount of $1,986,423.23, bringing the total amount of ARPA funds
received by the City to $3,972,846.46; and
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2022, the City Council awarded $120,000 in ARPA funds
to VEAP and Cornerstone Advocacy Services for immediate pandemic relief social service
needs; and
WHEREAS, on September 13, 2022, the City Council approved various project
proposals for ARPA funds and designated and additional $300,000 to social services; and
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2022, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP)
seeking proposals from non-profit organizations to provide social services and activities to
community members negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2023, the City awarded contracts in the amount of
$201,854.56 to seven organizations, including VEAP and the Conflict Resolution Center,
to provide services and activities consistent with the priorities of the City’s RFP; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2024, The City Council approved a contract extension
for VEAP until June 30, 2024; and
WHEREAS, VEAP has requested an additional contract extension until December
31, 2024, to enable them to complete the services proposed in their contracts; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as follows:
1. The City Council agrees to extend VEAP’s contract to December 31, 2024.
2. The Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized to execute contract
amendments granting these extensions.
3. This resolution shall be in full force and effect as of the date hereof.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of
June, 2024.
2
Mary B. Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kelly Wynn, Interim City Clerk
AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Amendment (the “Amendment”) is made as of the 25th day of June, 2024, by and
between the City of Richfield, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of the
State of Minnesota (the “City”), a public body corporate and politic under the laws of the
State of Minnesota, and VEAP, Inc. (the “Contractor”), a Minnesota nonprofit corporation.
This Amendment amends the Professional Services Agreement, dated March 14, 2023
(the “Original Agreement”). The Original Agreement, as amended by this Amendment is
referred to herein as the “Agreement,”
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Original Agreement, the Contractor agreed to provide
services to the HRA; and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement as hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual obligations of the
parties under the Agreement and this Amendment, the parties hereby agree that the
Agreement is amended as follows:
1. Amendment to Item 1: Effective Date, Term, and Period of Performance. The
end of the Effective Date is extended to December 31, 2024.
2. Confirmation of Agreement. Except as specifically amended herein, the
Agreement is hereby ratified and confirmed, and remains in full force and effect.
The Contractor having signed this Amendment, and the City having duly approved this
Amendment on June 25, 2024, and pursuant to such approval and the proper City officials
having signed this contract, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein
set forth.
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By:
Mayor
By:
City Manager
VEAP, INC.
By: ______________________________
Executive Director
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #4.E.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 86
CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING
6/25/2024
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
6/18/2024
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
6/19/2024
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 approving a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Edina for
speed limits on shared local streets.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Both Edina and Richfield have developed policies and procedures to set municipal speed limits under MN
Statute 169.14. This agreement formalizes that the procedures for both cities would set the speed limit of
Xerxes Avenue to 25 miles per hour between W est 66th Street and W est 71st ½ Street and between 400’ north
of W est 74th Street and 200’ south of W ashburn Circle, and that the cities agree that 25 miles per hour shall be
the speed limit on these segments of roadway.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By Motion: Adopt the resolution approving a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Edina for speed
limits on shared local streets.
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 C ity of E dina lowered their citywide speed limit to 25 miles per hour in 2021. D ue to the shared ownership of
the roadway on X erxes Avenue and to avoid public confusion, the speed limit on X erxes Avenue remained 30
miles per hour in both directions.
S ince the C ity of Richfield's citywide speed limit of 25 miles per hour goes into effect on J une 25th, 2024, a Joint
P owers A greement will allow the cities to formally agree that, based on their policies and procedures, the speed
limit on this shared road will match the citywide speed limits in both cities at 25 miles per hour.
B .E QU ITAB L E OR S T R AT E GIC C ON S ID E R AT ION S OR IMPAC T S
This resolution constitutes standard city business to implement a C ity C ouncil approved policy.
C .P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
This agreement is necessary to complete the citywide speed limit changes that were approved in Richfield B ill
No. 2023-17, which created Richfield Ordinance 1305.41.
Minn. S tat. § 471.59 authorizes two or more government units to enter into agreements to jointly or cooperatively
exercise any power common to the contracting parties or any similar power.
D .C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
Richfield's citywide speed limit goes into effect on J une 25, 2024.
E .F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
There is no financial impact to this agreement.
F.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The J oint P owers A greement has been reviewed by the C ity A ttorney and they will be available for questions.
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C OMME N D AT ION(S):
P R IN C IPAL PAR T IE S E X P E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Richfield - E dina X erxes Ave S peed L imit J PA C ontract/A greement
E dina J PA Resolution Resolution L etter
1
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDINA AND THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR
SPEED LIMITS ON SHARED LOCAL STREETS
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the CITY OF EDINA, a Minnesota
municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Edina") and the CITY OF RICHFIELD, a
Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Richfield"), with the parties
collectively hereinafter referred to as the "Cities".
WHEREAS, the existing speed limit on one or more of the Cities’ streets is 30 miles
per hour (mph), which is the statutory speed limit for urban districts; and
WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 169.14 authorizes cities to establish speed limits for local
streets under their jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the corporate limit between the two Cities is at the centerline of Xerxes
Avenue; and
WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 471.59 authorizes two or more government units to enter
into agreements to jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting
parties or any similar power; and
WHEREAS, the Cities desire to reduce speed limits on their respective local streets
to promote safety for all modes of transportation; and
WHEREAS, the Cities have each developed a procedure to set speed limits in a
consistent and understandable manner, based on safety, engineering and traffic analysis in
conjunction with national urban speed limit guidance; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants the parties agree as
follows:
1. SPEED LIMITS ON SHARED LOCAL STREETS. The Cities agree to
establish a speed limit of 25 mph on Xerxes Avenue between West 66th Street and
West 71st ½ Street and between 400’ north of West 74th Street and 200’ south of
Washburn Circle.
2. RULES AND REGULATIONS. The Cities shall abide by Minnesota
Department of Transportation standard specifications.
3. SIGNAGE. The Cities agree to install the necessary traffic control signs to
communicate the speed limit to the public and will own and maintain signage locate d
within each city’s respective corporate boundaries.
RC160\4\957568.v1 2
4. ENFORCEMENT. The Cities’ respective police departments shall have
equal authority to enforce the speed limits on shared local streets as necessary.
5. FUTURE CHANGES. Any future change to speed limits on shared local
streets shall require a supplemental agreement approved by the Cities prior to
implementation.
6. INTEGRATION. The entire and integrated agreement of the parties
contained in this Agreement shall supersede all prior negotiations, representations, or
agreements between Edina and Richfield regarding speed limits; whether written or
oral.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be executed
by their duly authorized officials.
CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF EDINA
BY: __________________________ BY: __________________________
Its Mayor Its Mayor
AND _________________________ AND _________________________
Its City Manager Its City Manager
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF EDINA AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR SPEED LIMITS ON SHARED LOCAL
STREETS
WHEREAS, the City Council of Richfield is the official governing body of the City
of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, the corporate limit between the Cities of Richfield and Edina is at the
centerline of Xerxes Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Cities desire to reduce speed limits on their respective local
streets to promote safety for all modes of transportation; and
WHEREAS, the Cities have each developed a procedure to set speed limits in a
consistent and understandable manner, based on safety, engineering and traffic
analysis in conjunction with national urban speed limit guidance;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby approves and adopts the Joint
Powers Agreement attached to this resolution.
2. That the City Council of the City of Richfield will execute the Joint Powers
Agreement, and that a certified copy of this resolution approving it will be filed with
the City Clerk of Richfield, Minnesota.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of
June, 2024.
______________________________
Mary Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Kelly Wynn, Interim City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #4.F.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 87
CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING
6/25/2024
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
6/18/2024
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
6/19/2024
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 approving a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of
Minneapolis for speed limits on shared local streets.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Both Minneapolis and Richfield have developed policies and procedures to set municipal speed limits under MN
Statute 169.14. This agreement establishes a speed limit of 25 mph on 62nd Street East between Bloomington
Avenue South and just east of 13th Avenue South.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By Motion: Adopt the resolution approving a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of
Minneapolis for speed limits on shared local streets.
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 C ity of Minneapolis lowered their citywide speed limit to 20 miles per hour in 2020. D ue to the shared
ownership of the roadway on 62nd S treet and to avoid public confusion, the speed limit on 62nd S treet remained
30 miles per hour in both directions.
S ince the C ity of Richfield's citywide speed limit of 25 miles per hour goes into effect on J une 25th, 2024, a
Memorandum of Understanding will allow the cities to formally agree on a speed limit for the shared roadway. A
speed limit of 25 miles per hour has been agreed to for 62nd S treet E ast between B loomington Avenue S outh
and just east of 13th Avenue S outh.
B .E QU ITAB L E OR S T R AT E GIC C ON S ID E R AT ION S OR IMPAC T S
This resolution constitutes standard city business to implement a C ity C ouncil approved policy.
C .P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
This agreement is necessary to complete the citywide speed limit changes that were approved in Richfield B ill
No. 2023-17, which created Richfield Ordinance 1305.41.
Minn. S tat. § 471.59 authorizes two or more government units to enter into agreements to jointly or cooperatively
exercise any power common to the contracting parties or any similar power.
D .C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
Richfield's citywide speed limit goes into effect on J une 25, 2024.
E .F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
There is no financial impact to this agreement.
F.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The Memorandum of Understanding has been reviewed by the C ity A ttorney and they will be available for
questions.
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C OMME N D AT ION(S):
P R IN C IPAL PAR T IE S E X P E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Richfield - Minneapolis 62nd S t M OU C ontract/A greement
Richfield - Mpls M OU Resolution Resolution L etter
1
Memorandum of Understanding
Between the City of Richfield and the City of Minneapolis for
Speed Limits on Shared Local Streets
This Memorandum of Understanding is made this 25th day of June, 2024, by and
between the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as
"Richfield") and the City of Minneapolis, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter
referred to as "Minneapolis"), with the parties collectively hereinafter referred to as the
"Cities".
RECITALS
1. The corporate limit between the two Cities is at the centerline of 62nd Street East between
Bloomington Avenue South and just east of 13th Avenue South.
2. The existing speed limit of the Cities’ shared streets is 30 miles per hour (mph), which is
the statutory speed limit for urban districts.
3. Minn. Stat. § 169.14 authorizes cities to establish speed limits for local streets under their
jurisdiction.
4. Minn. Stat. § 471.59 authorizes two or more government units to enter into agreements to
jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting parties or any
similar power.
5. The Cities desire to reduce speed limits on their respective local streets to promote safety
for all modes of transportation.
6. The Cities have each developed a procedure to set speed limits in a consistent and
understandable manner, based on safety, engineering and traffic analysis in conjunction
with national urban speed limit guidance.
AGREEMENT
1. Speed Limits On Shared Local Streets. The Cities agree to establish a speed limit of
25 mph on 62nd Street East between Bloomington Avenue South and just east of 13th
Avenue South.
2. Rules And Regulations. The Cities shall abide by Minnesota Department of
Transportation standard specifications.
3. Signage. The Cities agree to install the necessary traffic control signs to communicate
the speed limit to the public and will own and maintain signage located within each
2
city’s respective corporate boundaries.
4. Enforcement. The Cities’ respective police departments shall have equal authority to
enforce the speed limits on shared local streets as necessary.
5. Future Changes and Additions. Any future change to speed limits on shared local
streets, or the future addition of non-local streets where the speed limit will change
shall require a supplemental agreement approved by each City’s respective City
Engineer/Engineering Director prior to implementation. This agreement does not
waive each City’s established process for changing speed limits on roadways.
6. Integration. The entire and integrated agreement of the parties contained in this
Agreement shall supersede all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements
between Richfield and Minneapolis regarding speed limits; whether written or oral.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement by their duly
authorized officials.
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS CITY OF RICHFIELD
BY: __________________________ BY: __________________________
Its City Engineer Its Mayor
AND _________________________ AND _________________________
Its Public Works Director Its City Manager
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR SPEED LIMITS
ON SHARED LOCAL STREETS
WHEREAS, the City Council of Richfield is the official governing body of the City
of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, the corporate limit between the Cities of Richfield and Minneapolis is
at the centerline of 62nd Street between Bloomington Avenue South and just east of 13th
Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Cities desire to reduce speed limits on their respective local
streets to promote safety for all modes of transportation; and
WHEREAS, the Cities have each developed a procedure to set speed limits in a
consistent and understandable manner, based on safety, engineering and traffic
analysis in conjunction with national urban speed limit guidance;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby approves and adopts the
Memorandum of Understanding attached to this resolution.
2. That the City Council of the City of Richfield will execute the Memorandum of
Understanding, and that a certified copy of this resolution approving it will be filed
with the City Clerk of Richfield, Minnesota.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of
June, 2024.
______________________________
Mary Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Kelly Wynn, Interim City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #4.G.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 88
CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING
6/25/2024
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y:Rachel L indholm, S ustainability C oordinator
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:K arl Huemiller, Recreation S ervices D irector
6/18/2024
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
6/19/2024
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider a resolution approving a Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Minneapolis, et al.
regarding the Climate Pollution Reduction Grant (C P R G) partnership and scope of work.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Richfield signed on to participate in a C P RG application led by the City of Minneapolis and including several
other government and business/non-profit partners. This memorandum of agreement outlines the scope of work
involved for all partners and agrees on responsibilities, becoming active only if the grant funds are awarded.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion, approve a resolution approving a Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Minneapolis,
et al. for the C P R G partnership and scope of work.
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 C ities of Minneapolis, S t. P aul, B loomington, B urnsville, E agan, E den P rairie, E dina, Hopkins, Inver Grove
Heights, Richfield, Roseville and S t. L ouis P ark, the Midway C hamber of C ommerce, the A frican E conomic
D evelopment S olutions, the L ake S treet C ouncil, and E nergy S mart have formed a coalition applying for federal
funding to provide grant funding around commercial energy efficiency initiatives to eligible businesses, property
owners, nonprofits and government organizations.
The initial application was submitted in A pril 2024 and applicants expect to learn of award notification status from
the US E PA in June 2024. However, to keep the process and timeline on track, the memorandum needs to be
revised and signed potentially before receiving the award notice.
B .E QU ITAB L E OR S T R AT E GIC C ON S ID E R AT ION S OR IMPAC T S
This resolution constitutes standard city business to implement a C ity C ouncil approved policy. While there are
no equity or strategic plan impacts to this specific action, overall, the project addresses the following:
E quity: The fund will set aside 50% of the funding for environmental justice communities to meet and surpass the
Justice 40 (J 40) requirements. Richfield has two C limate and E conomic Justice S creening Tool (C E J S T)
census tracts and additional census tracts identified under the D ept. of E nergy's E nergy J ustice Mapping Tool.
Targeted individual outreach will be done to businesses in these census tracts, and cultural/business community
organizations will be contacted to help ensure all businesses are reached. E ducational materials will be created
in multiple languages as well.
S trategic P lan: This program would support the C ity's equity goals and community development/core services
work. It also advances the C ity's sustainability priorities.
C .P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
None for this specific action. The grant and related programming aligns with the city's C limate A ction P lan,
specifically Goal 1:D evelop and P romote E nergy E fficiency E fforts.
The C ities of Minneapolis, S t. P aul, B loomington, B urnsville, E agan, E den P rairie, E dina, Hopkins, Inver Grove
Heights, Richfield, Roseville and S t. L ouis P ark are authorized to work cooperatively pursuant to the authority
contained in Minnesota S tatutes § 471.59, commonly known as the J oint P owers A ct.
D .C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The final signed memorandum must be emailed to E PA by J uly 1, 2024. A ll parties involved need to sign and
send to C ity of Minneapolis staff by June 28, 2024.
E .F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None
F.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The memorandum has been reviewed by the C ity A ttorney who will be available for questions.
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C OMME N D AT ION(S):
None
P R IN C IPAL PAR T IE S E X P E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
C P RG M OA draft - Minneapolis, et al.C ontract/A greement
1
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA,
THE CITY OF ST. PAUL , MINNESOTA,
THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA,
THE CITY OF BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA,
THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA,
THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA,
THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA,
THE CITY OF HOPKINS, MINNESOTA,
THE CITY OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA,
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA,
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA,
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA,
THE MIDWAY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
THE AFRICAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS,
THE LAKE STREET COUNCIL, AND
ENERGY SMART
2
REGARDING THE
CLIMATE POLLUTION REDUCTION GRANT
TWIN CITIES COMMERCIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY COLLABORATION
3
PREAMBLE
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul, Bloomington, Burnsville, Eagan, Eden
Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Inver Grove Heights, Richfield, Roseville and St. Louis Park, the Midway
Chamber of Commerce, the African Economic Development Solutions, the Lake Street Council,
and Energy Smart seek to form a coalition of local governments and nonprofits from the Twin
Cities Metropolitan area to provide grant funding to eligible businesses, property owners,
nonprofits and government organizations through a program built on the foundation of success
Minneapolis has had with the Minneapolis Green Cost Share program; and
WHEREAS, with the funding made available through the Climate Pollution Reduction Grant
recently awarded to several Minnesota units of government the participating Minnesota cities
that are parties to this agreement will expand the Green Cost Share program to those parties by
providing program dollars to support Green Cost Share programs in those cities; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul, Bloomington, Burnsville, Eagan, Eden
Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Inver Grove Heights, Richfield, Roseville and St. Louis Park are
authorized to work cooperatively pursuant to the authority contained in Minnesota Statutes §
471.59, commonly known as the Joint Powers Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Minnesota Cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul, Bloomington, Burnsville,
Eagan, Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Inver Grove Heights, Richfield, Roseville and St. Louis Park
enter into this Memorandum of Agreement and agree as follows:
I. SCOPE OF THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
The parties to this Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA” or “Agreement”) agree:
a. That the City of Minneapolis will cooperate with the other parties to establish
commercial energy efficiency initiatives such as green cost share programs or to provide funding
for existing municipal cost share programs through funding received from the United States
Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grant.
b. To work cooperatively with existing implementation partners of City of Minneapolis
such as Energy Smart, the Lake Street Council, African Economic Development Solutions and the
Midway Chamber of Commerce.
c. To actively promote the program to business and property owners in their community.
d. To collaborate with Black, Indigenous, People of Color and Immigrant (BIPOCI)
community organizations to help promote the program.
e. To participate in four annual meetings of this coalition.
4
f. To s hare information with local, state, and federal staff to improve programming and
results over time.
g. Exhibit A is for reference only and is not part of the parties’ agreement herein.
II. PARTICIPATING PARTIES’ RESPONSIBILITIES
The Minnesota cities that are parties to this Agreement agree that they are accountable to the
City of Minneapolis and accept full responsibility for effectively carrying out the full scope of
work and the proper financial management of the program as defined in Section I: Scope of this
Memorandum of Agreement and as stated below:
• The City of Minneapolis will act as the contract manager and be responsible for
reporting progress semi-annually and coordinate the collection of results from all
partners. Minneapolis will also use existing infrastructure to pay grants to participants
and manage all invoicing and budget between partners and the EPA.
• The City of St. Paul will conduct extensive outreach to Saint Paul businesses, with a focus
on smaller businesses located in Low-Income and Disadvantaged census tracts, to
encourage utilization of grant funds to pursue weatherization and decarbonization
projects. The City of Saint Paul has a long history of delivering programs that benefit
local businesses as well as programs targeting greenhouse gas reductions and energy
efficiency. City of St. Paul will use staff funding to establish the City’s first St. Paul Cost
Share Program that will continue on after the CPRG grant period.
• Cities of Edina, Hopkins and St. Louis Park will administer the distribution of grant funds
as they have staff and resources to do this at no cost to the grant. They are interested in
growing their programs with the support of the CPRG grant. This is an example of the
work these three cities will perform as part of the grant implementation: Edina has years
of experience delivering incentives for commercial efficiency, like providing free ASHRAE
Level 1 Audits and matching utility rebates for equipment maintenance and
replacement. The coalition proposal will allow Edina to scale up citywide efforts to
decrease building energy emissions and achieve Climate Action Plan goals. As part of the
coalition, Edina will promote energy efficiency and building electrification opportunities
for commercial buildings; and administer cost-share funds for buildings located in the
city of Edina.
• Cities of Bloomington, Burnsville, Eagan, Eden Prairie, Inver Grove Heights, Richfield, and
Roseville will utilize Energy Smart’s turnkey services to manage the energy audits and
cost share distribution and reporting on behalf of the cities. Minneapolis will contract
with Energy Smart to disburse fund to Energy Smart on behalf of projects in these
communities. This is an example of the work these seven cities will perform as part of
the grant implementation: In 2018, Bloomington adopted a goal to reduce energy-
related greenhouse gas emissions by 75% by 2035 (from a 2016 baseline). Commercial
5
energy use contributes a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions to
Bloomington's overall total. This opportunity will allow Bloomington to scale up citywide
efforts to meet emission reduction goals.
III. GOVERNMENT DATA
The parties acknowledge that this Agreement, as well as any data created, collected, stored, or
maintained under the terms of this Agreement, are “Government Data” within the meaning of
the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) (Minnesota Statutes chapter 13). The
civil remedies of Minn. Stat. §13.08 apply to the release of the data governed by the MGDPA.
IV. CONTACTS
The primary contacts of each party to this Agreement are:
City of Minneapolis:
Patrick Hanlon
Deputy Commissioner: Sustainability, Healthy Homes, and Environment
Patrick.Hanlon@minneapolismn.gov
612-716-0873
City of Saint Paul:
Russ Stark
Chief Resilience Officer
Russ.stark@ci.stpaul.mn
651-324-2807
City of Bloomington:
Emma Struss
Sustainability Coordinator
estruss@Bloomingtonmn.gov
952-563-4862
City of Burnsville:
Bridget Rathsack
Sustainability Coordinator
Bridget.Rathsack@burnsvillemn.gov
952-895-4524
City of Eagan:
Gillian Catano
Sustainability Coordinator
6
gcatano@cityofeagan.com
651-675-5518
City of Eden Prairie:
Jennifer Fierce
Sustainability Coordinator
jfierce@edenprairie.org
(952) 949-8313
City of Edina:
Marisa Bayer
Sustainability Manager
MBayer@EdinaMN.gov
952-826-1621
City of Hopkins:
Mikala Larson
Sustainability Specialist
mlarson@hopkinsmn.com
952-548-6368
City of Inver Grove Heights:
Ally Sutherland
Environmental Specialist
asutherland@ighmn.gov
651-604-8511
City of Richfield:
Rachel Lindholm
Sustainability Specialist
rlindholm@richfieldmn.gov
612-861-9188
City of Roseville:
Noelle Bakken
Sustainability Specialist
Noelle.bakken@cityofroseville.com
651-792-7057
City of St. Louis Park:
Emily Ziring
Sustainability Manager
EZiring@stlouisparkmn.gov
7
952-924-2191
The Midway Chamber of Commerce:
Chad Kulas
Executive Director
chad@midwaychamber.com
651-646-2636
The African Economic Development Solutions:
Dr. Gene Gelgelu
Founder, President, CEO
ggelgelu@aeds-mn.org
651-646-9411 x.101
The Lake Street Council:
Matt Kazinka
Senior Strategic Initiatives Manager
mkazinka@lakestreetcouncil.org
612-823-0096
Energy Smart:
Patrick Deal
Program Manager
pdeal@mnchamber.com
651-292-3902
The parties agree that if there is a change regarding the information in this section, the party
making the change will notify the other party in writing of such change.
V. RESOLUTION OF DISAGREEMENTS
Should disagreement arise on the interpretation of the provisions of this MOA, or amendments
and/or revisions thereto, that cannot be resolved at the operating level, the area(s) of
disagreement shall be stated in writing by each party in dispute and presented to the other
parties for consideration. If agreement on interpretation is not reached within thirty (30) days,
the parties in dispute shall forward the written presentation of the disagreement to their
respective higher officials for appropriate resolution.
VI. LIABILITY
Each party agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof to the
extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other parties and the
results thereof.
8
Subject to the limitations of Minnesota Statutes sections 466.01 to 466.15 and other applicable
law, every municipality is subject to liability for its torts and those of its officers, employees and
agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties whether arising out of a
governmental or proprietary function, in accordance with Minn. Stat. §466.02.
VII. EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT AND AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
This Agreement will become effective after each respective party signs the Agreement and all
parties have been notified that the Climate Pollution Reduction Grant has been awarded to
parties of this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended only by written agreement of all
the parties.
VIII. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
This agreement will terminate upon written notice of the final close out report that the City of
Minneapolis will submit to the parties or seven (7) years from the effective date of this
Memorandum of Agreement. The foregoing notwithstanding, any party may withdraw from this
agreement upon ninety (90) days’ notice to the other parties.
BY THEIR SIGNATURES, THE UNDERSIGNED REPRESENT THAT THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO
BIND THE PARTIES THEY REPRESENT.
(Official Signature Blocks of Each City Pursuant to their Contracting and Procurement Policies)
THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA
THE CITY OF BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA
THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA
By: _______________________________
Mike Maguire
Its: Mayor
By: _______________________________
Elizabeth VanHoose
Its: City Clerk
9
THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
_____________________________
Public Works Director, City of Eden Prairie
THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
THE CITY OF HOPKINS, MINNESOTA
THE CITY OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
_______________________________
Mary Supple, Mayor
_______________________________
Katie Rodriguez, City Manager
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
THE MIDWAY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
THE AFRICAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS
THE LAKE STREET COUNCIL
ENERGY SMART
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #4.H.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 91
CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING
6/25/2024
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y:K umud Verma, F inance D irector
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
6/20/2024
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
First reading of a transitory ordinance providing funding for certain capital improvements from the
Liquor Contribution Special Revenue Fund.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
As part of the Capital I mprovement Budget (C I B) and annual City Budget process, certain special revenue
funds are allocated each year to fund capital projects identified through the budget process.
The source of the special revenue funds are profits derived from the City’s Liquor Store operation. These
profits are transferred to the Liquor Contribution Special Revenue Fund.
Before the funds can be used for the identified capital projects, the City Charter requires that a transitory
ordinance be used to authorize the expenditure of the funds.
The proposed funding for 2024, per the approved C I B budget, totals $500,000 and encompasses several park
and recreation related projects. The projects are listed below.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
Approve the attached transitory ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds from the Liquor
Contribution Special Revenue Fund for certain capital improvements.
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
A t the D ecember 12, 2023 C ity C ouncil meeting, the C ity C ouncil authorized $500,000 of S pecial Revenue
F unds for improvements to several C ity capital improvements in 2024. Included in the $500,000 are:
The 2024 C IB also provides for expenditures for all types of funds contained in the budget including municipal
state aid, user fees, state grants, county funds, and issuance of debt.
A uthorization by ordinance is not required for expenditures other than S pecial Revenues.
A second reading of the attached ordinance is scheduled on July 9, 2024.
B .E QU ITAB L E OR S T R AT E GIC C ON S ID E R AT ION S OR IMPAC T S
C .P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
C ity C harter S ection 7.12, S ubd. 2 requires that S pecial Revenue F unds used for capital improvements must be
authorized by ordinance
D .C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
Under S ection 3.09 of the C ity C harter, a transitory ordinance becomes effective 30 days after publication of the
second hearing notice. The ordinance requirements must be completed early enough in 2024 so that the capital
projects can be initiated on a timely basis, completed and the funds expended.
E .F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
W hile the total 2024 C IB includes total budgeted expenditures of $7,591350, the portion of the C IB concerning
proposed funding from the S pecial Revenue fund is $500,000.
A transitory ordinance is necessary to finalize the appropriations utilizing special revenue funds pursuant to C ity
C harter.
The source of S pecial Revenue funds is municipal liquor profits.
F.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The C ity C harter requires that a transitory ordinance be used to authorize the expenditure of S pecial Revenue
funds.
The C ity A ttorney has reviewed the transitory ordinance and approved of its contents and its compliance with the
C ity C harter.
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C OMME N D AT ION(S):
None
P R IN C IPAL PAR T IE S E X P E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
None
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Transitory Ordinance for the expenditure from L iquor
C ontribution S pecial Revenue F und Ordinance
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE LIQUOR
CONTRIBUTION SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the City to expend
money from the Liquor Contribution Special Revenue Fund for the making of capital
improvements listed in Section 2 hereof, for which the City would be authorized to issue general
obligation bonds.
Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures for such improvements
which are authorized to be paid from the Liquor Contribution Special Revenue Fund under
Section 7.12, Subdivision 2 of the City Charter, are as follows:
Section 3: The expenditures authorized herein shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are
authorized from time to time by Council action.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 25th day of June 2024.
AGENDA SECTION:PROPOSED
ORDINANCES
AGENDA ITEM #6.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 89
CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING
6/25/2024
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
6/17/2024
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
6/19/2024
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider a first reading of an ordinance amendment adjusting parking requirements.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
At its April 25, 2023, work session on policy topic priorities, the Counc il direc ted staff to examine parking
requirements; to address a few long-standing issues and to continue working on broader city-wide objectives.
A joint work session was held with the Planning C ommission and the C ity C ounc il on February 26, 2024. The
attached ordinance is a result of the direc tion provided by Council Members and Commissioners at the work
session. I n short, the ordinance updates the City’s parking requirements in the following ways:
Reduce the requirements for a Class I I I Restaurant.
Create a requirement for libraries, museums, and art galleries.
Expand the Council’s flexibility in relation to non-driving populations.
Adjust the requirement for multi-family housing to be consistent across all zoning districts at 1.25.
Staff from several departments have concerns with this proposed change. While on-
street parking is not a problem in theory, there are concerns with the design of some
rights-of-way that lead to safety issues. Specifically:
A lack of sidewalks to replace on-street walking/biking space;
Narrow rights-of-way (less than 36 feet wide), particularly on east-west roads,
makes emergency vehicle access tight when there’s snow.
Restrictions to on-street parking (on these narrow roads) lead to police enforcement
issues, and push parking deeper into neighborhoods, resulting in additional
complaints.
Staff recommends retaining and expanding the current discretionary language; allowing a
reduction to 1.25 stalls and including “roadway width and orientation” in factors to be considered.
Revise the parking maximum, for multi-family only.
Due to the proposed adjustment to the minimum requirement for multi-family, staff recommends
also adjusting the parking maximum for multi-family. This would help ensure that new multi-family
residential development has the flexibility needed to secure funding, see the policies section.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 29th. The Commission recommended approval of the
ordinance as presented, and recommended that the Council consider additional study of the City’s sidewalk
policies and funding, as well as additional study of reducing or eliminating parking requirements in areas of
close proximity to high-frequency transit lines and stations.
Staff agrees that there is a direct nexus between sidewalks and parking, as well as the factors like road width,
and that is why we continue to recommend that the discretionary language be retained, and even expanded.
However, the ordinance reflects the direction provided at the work session and by the Planning Commission
and does not include this discretionary language.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve a first reading of an ordinance amendment to adjust parking requirements.
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
F irst initiated by C ounci l when establishing the 2023 poli cy priorities. A joint work session was held with the
P lanning C ommission and C ity C ouncil on F ebruary 25, 2024. The minutes and staff report from the work
session are attached.
B .E QU ITAB L E OR S T R AT E GIC C ON S ID E R AT ION S OR IMPAC T S
S trategic Outcomes:
S ustainable Infrastructure – A s pointed out in the initial policy proposal, the availability of parking induces
driving, and driving is a major source of carbon emissions. Therefore, parking contributes to climate
change. It also increases run-off and exacerbates urban heat islands effects.
Maintain Richfield as an A ffordable P lace to L ive – A s land costs rise, and land availability decreases,
the cost of parking increases the cost of housing.
D iversified Tax B ase – Making sure the C ity’s parking requirements are not excessive will allow more
flexibility in the use of existing commercial space, and may facilitate the construction of more floor area
per project.
E quity C onsiderations:
Reducing parking minimums has the potential to increase housing supply, and reduce both fuel
consumption and emissions. It also has the potential to create more room for either green space or
additional development, the latter of which could increase tax base and help keep residential taxes lower.
Most often, the cost of parking is passed down to all. Those that do not own a vehicle, (which tend to be
more marginalized groups) should benefit from reduced parking requirements because it will reduce the
amount that they are subsidizing those that do own a vehicle. Those who own a vehicle may perceive
themselves as burdened by parking reductions. P otential unintended consequences include reducing the
amount of A D A parking (as it is determined by the amount of the provided parking), increased amounts of
on-street parking, and reduced mobility for walkers/bikers on streets accommodating spillover parking.
C .P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
D iscretion is important because without the ability to consider the impact of parking reductions on the
immediately surrounding area, we lose the potential to negotiate the mitigation of those impacts. S idewalk
installation has further impacts; most often, either street trees will need to be removed, or the curb
relocated. P lanning staff has started discussing potential ways to link on-street parking to sidewalk
construction with the C ity A ttorney. A lso, there is a P edestrian Master P lan that was approved in 2018, but
the recommended policy changes have not been formally adopted. S uch work would be in strong
collaboration with, if not led by, the E ngineering D epartment and would involve the S ustainability
C ommission as well as the Transportation C ommission. If desired, the C ouncil could propose the study of
the C ity’s sidewalk policies via the annual P olicy P roposal P rocess. Once policies and/or infrastructure
are in place, discretion would no longer be needed.
In relation to the transit-oriented reductions, staff has recently learned that the Metropolitan C ouncil has
awarded the C ity $35,000 for the research, outreach, and rewrite of the MR-2 and MR-3 zoning districts.
That project will include study of transit-oriented reductions.
F inally, staff recommends revising the parking maximums for multi-family residential only - from a
percentage of the minimum, to 1.5 stalls per unit. S ubsection 544.13, S ubd. 6 of the Richfield Zoning
C ode establishes standards for parking maximums. C urrently parking maximums are set at a percentage
of the minimum, (either 110% or 120%) depending upon the size of the project. F inancial institutions
require a certain amount of parking in order to fund new housing projects. S taff wanted to be sure that the
decreased multi-family parking requirement didn’t “pull down” the maximum such that projects would no
longer be financially supported. S ee the revised Table B of “A pproved and E xisting A partment B uildings”
attached. In two of the eight examples, the parking bumped-up against the current maximum. Raising the
maximum to 1.5 stalls per unit would ensure that various project types have the flexibility needed to secure
funding.
F or exact ordinance language, see the ordinance, attached.
D .C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
In early 2023, the C ity C ouncil requested that this issue be addressed as one of its policy topic priorities. It has
since been included in the P lanning & Zoning work plan and was scheduled to be completed in the first half of
2024.
E .F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
It is anticipated that certain multifamily development projects will create the need for on-street parking restrictions
or eliminations. The cost of coordinating, imposing, and enforcing parking restrictions would need to be
absorbed by P ublic Work’s and P ublic S afety’s daily operations.
F.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
Notice of the public hearing at the P lanning C ommission meeting was published in the S un C urrent
newspaper on May 16th.
The P lanning C ommission recommended approval of the attached ordinance at its May 29th meeting.
A S econd Reading and S ummary P ublication of the ordinance has been tentatively scheduled for July 9,
2024.
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C OMME N D AT ION(S):
A pprove the first reading of the attached ordinance amendment with additional and/or modified stipulations.
D eny the first reading of the attached ordinance amendment with a finding that the proposal does not meet
C ity requirements.
P R IN C IPAL PAR T IE S E X P E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
None
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
P arking A mendment - D raft Ordinance Ordinance
Revised Table B B ackup Material
02-26-24 Work S ession P acket B ackup Material
02-26-24 Work S ession Minutes B ackup Material
Page 1 of 5
BILL NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RICHFIELD ZONING CODE
REGULATIONS RELATED TO PARKING
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1 Subsection 525.11 of the Richfield Zoning Code, relating to parking
regulations for multi-family structures in the MR-2 zoning district, is
amended at Subdivision 2, to read as follows:
Subd. 2. Minimum parking for multi-family structures (excluding cluster home
develompments). Two A minimum of 1.25 off-street parking spaces shall be
provided for each dwelling unit. The Council, at its discretion, may reduce the
minimum required parking to not less than 1.5 parking spaces per unit for
multifamily structures with seven or more units, after conside ration of factors
including but not limited to the present or future availability of transit services,
shared parking, pedestrian orientation, and occupancy characteristics . In addition,
Tthe Council may further reduce the parking requirement for senior housing
complexes, or other similarly low-driving populations, including but not limited to,
households earning below 60% AMI, people who are neuro -diverse, and/or people
with disabilities. (Amended Bill No. 2024 -__)
Section 2 Subsection 527.11 of the Richfield Zoning Code, relating to parking
regulations for multi-family structures in the MR-3 zoning district, is
amended at Subdivision 2, to read as follows:
Subd. 2. Minimum parking. Two A minimum of 1.25 off-street parking spaces shall
be provided for each dwelling unit. The Council, at its discretion, may reduce the
minimum required parking to not less than 1.25 parking spaces per unit for
multifamily structures with ten (10) or more units, after conside ration of factors
including but not limited to the present or future availability of transit services,
shared parking, pedestrian orientation, and occupancy characteristics . In addition,
tThe Council may further reduce the parking requirement for senior housing
complexes or other similarly low-driving populations, including but not limited to,
households earning below 60% AMI, people who are neuro -diverse, and/or people
with disabilities. (Amended, Bill No. 2011-19; Bill No. 2024-__)
Section 3 Subsection 537.09 of the Richfield Zoning Code, relating to parking
regulations in the Mixed Use zoning districts, is amended at Subdivision 1,
to read as follows:
Subdivision 1. Off Street Parking Ratios. The following table establishes minimum
parking standards for uses within the Mixed Use Districts.
Table 3
Page 2 of 5
Minimum Parking Standards for Mixed Use Districts
(Amended, Bill No. 2009-6; Bill No. 2019-4; Bill no. 2024- __)
Land Use Type Off Street Parking Ratio
MU-R and MU-C MU-N
Commercial Retail * 4 3
Commercial Services * 3 2
Office * 3.3 2
Civic * 3 2
Hotel or motel (per room) 1 1
Residential Townhouse ** 1.5 1.5
Residential Multifamily ** 1.25 1.25
Other Uses As determined by the Zoning Administrator
City Planner or Designee
*Per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.
**Per dwelling unit. The Council may reduce the parking requirement for
senior housing, or other similarly low -driving populations, including but not
limited to, households earning below 60% AMI, people who are neuro -
diverse, and/or people with disabilities.
Subd. 2. Other Parking Requirements. All other parking requirements shall be
dictated by Section 544 of this Code.
Section 4 Subsection 544.13 of the Richfield Zoning Code, relating to the number of
off-street spaces required, the following excerpts from the table in
Subdivision 6, is amended to read as follows (entire table not included):
Subd. 6. Number of Off-Street Spaces Required. Off-street parking spaces shall be
provided according to the following minimum standards. Parking for land uses not
listed below shall be regulated according to the most similar use and/or
authoritative sources as determined by the City Planner.
Land Use Minimum Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required*
COMMERCIAL USES
Libraries, museums or art
galleries
3.33 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.
Page 3 of 5
Land Use Minimum Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required*
Class III (Fast
food/convenience)
17 7 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.
RESIDENTIAL USES
Multiple-family housing
Single and Two Family For R “Low Density Residential” zones, see Section 514.15, Subd.4
For R-1 “Single Family Residential” zones, see Section 518.15, Subd.3
Multifamily Dwelling 1.25 per unit.
MR-1 District: two-
family dwelling
2 per housing unit, 1 of which must be enclosed. Only one (1) curb cut
is permitted to the property.
MR-2 District: 8 or
fewer units; 9 to 25 units
as a conditional use.
2 per housing unit. May be reduced to 1.25 spaces per unit for 7 or
more units if factors warrant.
MR-3 District: 20 or
fewer units; more than 20
units as a conditional use.
2 per housing unit. May be reduced to 1.25 spaces per unit for ten (10)
or more units if factors warrant.
INSTITUTIONAL/PUBLIC USES
No Changes Proposed
*If calculation results in a fraction, the next higher whole number shall be used traditional rounding
applies. For Mixed Use zones, see Section 537.09.
(Amended, Bill No. 2011-8; Bill No. 2011-13; Bill No. 2013-22; Bill No. 2015-15; Bill No. 2024-__)
Section 5 Subsection 544.13 of the Richfield Zoning Code is further amended at
Subdivision 9.d, to allow administrative approval of on-street parking toward
off-street requirements, to read as follows:
Page 4 of 5
d) Parking for retail and service uses may be reduced if on -street parking is adjacent
to the parcel and where all of the following conditions exist: (Amended, Bill No.
2021-17 )
i. The principal building is located within 20 feet of the front property line;
ii. No parking exists between the front face of the principal building and the street;
iii. A sidewalk exists along all sides of the lot that abut a public street;
iv. A primary building entrance must face the street with parking; and
v. If the Council Director finds that such parking will not be detrimental to the
surrounding neighborhood. (Amended Bill No. 2024-__)
Section 6 Subsection 544.13 of the Richfield Zoning Code is further amended at
Subdivision 8, to adjust the parking maximums for multi-family residential to
1.5 stalls per unit, to read as follows:
Subd. 8. Parking Maximums. The maximum number of parking spaces for any
building or use shall not exceed the amount determined as follows: (Amended, Bill
No. 2022-3;)
a) Except for Multifamily Residential, p Parking lots of more than 20 and less than 51
spaces. Parking lots may not have more than 120 percent of the number of
spaces identified in the above table, not including accessible spaces.
b) Except for Multifamily Residential, p Parking lots of 51 spaces or more. No more
than 110 percent of the number of spaces required as identified in the above
table, not including accessible spaces, are permitted.
c) Multifamily Residential parking lots. No more than 1.5 stalls per unit. (Added, Bill
No 2024-__)
c d) Additional parking may be provided if it does not increase impervious surface
beyond that which would be provided by meeting the maximum parking required.
Examples of additional parking include, but are not limited to, under structure
parking, roof top parking, or structured parking above a surface parking lot.
d e) An applicant may request a modification of the maximum allowed number of
parking spaces by submitting a study of anticipated parking demand. Parking
studies shall be prepared by a professional e ngineer with expertise in traffic and
parking analysis, unless the Director authorizes an equally qualified individual.
Section 7 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 ___, 2024.
Page 5 of 5
Mary B. Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kelly Wynn, Acting City Clerk
Table B: Approved and Existing Apartment Buildings
Studios 1-bed 2-bed 3-bed Total
#
Beds
Total
#
Units Parking Req @ 1.25 /unit With 10% Credit # Parking Built @ Per
Unit
Ratio
Per
Bed
Ratio Zoning Year
Built Current max (110%) If max. is 1.5/unit * If in St. Louis Park * If in Hopkins Emi
101 E. 66th Str.
38 30 11 1 93 80 100 90 116^ 1.45 1.25 PMU N/A 110 120 91 92
RF Flats
7700 Pillsbury
0 13 27 15 112 55 69 62 83 1.5 .75 PMR N/A 76 83 84 97
Novo
2400 66th Str.
29 94 56 0 235 179 224 202 259< 1.45 1.10 PMR 2018 246 269 217 235
Landsby
6200 Penn
21 52 49 5 186 127 159 143 159 1.25 .85 MU-
C
2019 175 191 154
181
Chamberlain
6700 RF Pkwy.
138 59 82 2 367 284 355 319 333 1.17 .90 PMR 2018 391 426 340 365
Concierge
7700 Penn
0 696 2 0 700 698 873 786 1,079 1.55 2.8 MR-
3
1968 960 1047 734 700
Riley
600 W. 64th Str.
78 25 1 0 105 104 130 117 121 1.16 1.15 PMU 2021 143 156 110 105
Rya
6400 RF Pkwy
50 86 74 8 308 218 273 246 297 1.36 0.96 PMR 2021 300 327 276 300
# For being within a quarter mile of a frequent transit route
@ Both Emi and RF Flats have not been constructed yet – just approved.
* Number of parking spaces required if St. Louis Park or Hopkins regulations were applied.
^ Includes a small commercial space on the first floor.
< parking above the maximum allowed b/c it did not increase impervious surface (interior to garage).
JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION
RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, BARTHOLOMEW ROOM
FEBRUARY 26, 2024
6:00 PM
Call to order
1.Discuss potential reductions to parking requirements.
Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96
hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9739.
AGENDA SECTION:Work Session Items
AGENDA ITEM #1.
STAFF REPORT NO. 5
WORK SESSION
2/26/2024
REPORT PREPARED BY: Sam Crosby, Planner II
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Melissa Poehlman, Community Development Director
2/14/2024
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager
2/20/2024
ITEM FOR WORK SESSION:
Discuss potential reductions to parking requirements.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
As the City considered sustainability and affordability at its April 25, 2023, work session on policy topic
priorities, the City Council directed staff to examine parking requirements; to address both long-standing
issues, and continuing to work on broader city-wide solutions.
In response, staff is proposing to update the City’s parking requirements in five ways:
Reduce the requirements for a Class III Restaurant.
Create a specific requirement for libraries, museums, and art galleries.
Adjust the requirement for multi-family housing to be consistent across zoning districts (impacts MR-2
the most).
Expand the Council’s flexibility in relation to non-driving populations.
Make a couple minor housekeeping changes.
Staff is also using this opportunity to outline transit-oriented reductions for future consideration.
DIRECTION NEEDED:
Staff would most appreciate feedback in relation to the recommended multi-family changes and the
potential for transit-oriented reductions.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Included in policy summaries below.
B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS
Reducing parking minimums has the potential to increase housing supply, reduce commute times, and reduce
both fuel consumption and emissions. It also has the potential to create more room for either green space or
additional development, the latter of which could increase tax base and help keep lower residential taxes.
Most often, the cost of parking is passed down to all. Those that do not own a vehicle, (which tend to be more
marginalized groups) should benefit from reduced parking requirements because it will reduce the amount that
they are subsidizing those that do own a vehicle. Those who own a vehicle may perceive themselves as
burdened by parking reductions. Potential unintended consequences include reducing the amount of ADA
parking (as it is determined by a percentage of the provided parking) and increased amounts of on-street
parking.
C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
REDUCE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CLASS III RESTAURANT
The parking requirement for a Class III (fast food/convenience) restaurant is currently 17 stalls per 1,000
square feet of Gross Floor Area (GFA). A review of some of the existing Class III restaurants in the City results
in an average of 10.9 stalls per 1,000. If you frequent fast food and convenience restaurants throughout the City,
you may notice the parking lot is never full, meaning that too much parking has been built.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation, 4th Edition manual for “Fast Food with
Drive Though Window”, cites a parking demand of 8.69 to 11.27 stalls per 1,000 square feet of gross floor
area on the weekdays, and a 6.89 to 10.43 parking ratio on the weekends. (This boils down to an overall
average of 9.3.)
Staff is proposing a number that more closely aligns with the number provided by ITE for “a non-hamburger
restaurant without drive thru”. ITE uses 8.2/1,000 - we’re proposing 7/1,000. Keeping in mind that the vast
majority of commercially zoned parcels are located on, or within a quarter mile of, a frequent transit route, the
required total would therefore be further reduced by 10% if pedestrian connections are present. This number is
comparable to St. Paul, which has a requirement of 1/150 sq. ft. (6.66/1,000 GFA).
CREATE A REQUIREMENT FOR LIBRARIES, MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES
The City Code does not currently have a parking requirement for libraries and the most similar use (places of
worship and/or assembly) does not correspond appropriately. The Augsburg library has expressed an interest
in redesigning their parking lot - an innovative project that aims to reduce hard-surface, enhance pedestrian
circulation, and incorporate stormwater management. Staff took a look at the ITE, aerial photos, and what other
cities require. Given the information available, staff recommends creating a requirement of 3.33 per 1,000
GFA, knowing that the library is along a frequent service transit line, and therefore a 10% credit would apply,
reducing the requirement to 3 per 1,000 GFA, or 45 stalls.
FINE TUNE THE MR-2 & MR-3 REQUIREMENTS
The Code currently requires:
Mixed Use: 1.25 stalls per unit
MR-2: 2 stalls per unit, unless 7 units or more, then Council discretion to reduce to 1.5
MR-3: 2 stalls per unit, unless 10 units or more, then Council discretion to reduce to 1.25
Elsewhere: 2 stalls per unit;
The Council discretion calls for contextual consideration (such as transit services, shared parking, pedestrian
orientation, and occupancy characteristics). A few recent housing projects indicate that the discretion is still
appropriate and further considerations should be added.
Staff recommends:
Changing the MR-2 parking reduction to align with the Mixed Use requirement and MR-3 parking
reduction at 1.25 stalls per unit;
Eliminating from both MR-2 & MR-3 the minimum number of units required to quality for the reduction: all
MR-2 and MR-3 projects could potentially qualify depending upon context;
Keeping the Council discretion; and adding additional language of “roadway width and orientation” to
the contextual considerations listed for the parking reduction.
Allowing the reduction to 1.25 elsewhere (namely C-1 & C-2).
One alternative considered was to switch from a per unit requirement to a per bed requirement, as it is a more
sophisticated calculation, tailored to the housing unit sizes, rather than “one size fits all” approach. Other City
comparisons for a per bedroom requirement are provided in Table A. We spoke with staff at St. Louis Park
and learned that more bedrooms do not always equate to more cars. Moreover, staff finds that, with the 10%
credit for being along a frequent transit route, our current requirements are most often lowest; see attached
Table B.
The Concierge is almost entirely one bedrooms, so it seems evident that 1.5 stalls per one bedroom is too high
of a requirement. Particularly given today’s usage of the parking lot. It is also interesting to note that 5 out of the
8 properties provide more than 1.25 stalls per unit. Which, at least for newer properties, indicates that the 1.25
requirement is relatively low, particularly when combined with the 10% reduction for being within a quarter mile
of transit.
Some on-street parking issues have emerged with recent multi-family developments. Neighbors have reported
concerns about on-street parking near Chamberlain, Riley and Novo. With all three projects, the surrounding
rights-of-way are less than 36 feet wide, which makes emergency vehicle access tight when there’s snow.
Parking at Novo has been reduced to one side of the abutting roads, year-round, and parking at Riley will likely
be reduced to one side of the road during the winter season. See attached pavement width map. Of note is that
north-south roads are less of a concern; for example Pleasant Avenue is approximately 20 feet wide, but
doesn’t have concerning winter issues. Having learned from these lessons, rather than restricting reductions to
wider roadways only, staff would rather try to mitigate potential issues thru design, and then address resulting
issues (ie: restrict on street parking) if they arise after the fact.
Finally, either way, the City should take extra care to assess the pedestrian amenities near each redevelopment
project. Knowing that over-flow parking onto the street will increase with reduced off-street parking
requirements, the City should aim to ensure that sidewalks are provided in these areas.
EXPAND COUNCIL FLEXIBILITY
In the MR-2 and MR-3 zoning districts, there is a clause that allows the Council to reduce parking requirements
for senior housing complexes. Staff is proposing to expand the scope of this flexibility by including other non-
driving populations. Adding to the end of the sentence “and other similarly low-demand uses, such as those
earning below 60% Area Median Income (AMI), neuro-diverse, and physically challenged." We also
recommend adding similar language to the Mixed Use districts, and the standard parking table.
HOUSEKEEPING UPDATES
Apply traditional rounding to parking calculations.
Allow on-street parking to count towards off-street requirements by right when all of the listed
requirements have been met.
OPTIONAL: INCREASE TRANSIT-ORIENTED REDUCTIONS
Finally, staff is also considering increasing transit-oriented reductions. The Zoning Code currently allows a 10%
parking reduction for developments within a quarter mile of a “frequently operating” transit line, (a route with 30
minute service) provided pedestrian connections are present. Outside of its downtown, the City of St. Paul
provides 25% reduction in certain neighborhoods within a quarter mile of the green line. Staff is contemplating
a two-part adjustment. First, a slightly larger credit, such as a 15% or 20% reduction, for being directly on the
route of a frequent transit line. Second, an even larger credit, such as a 33% or 50% reduction, for being within
1/8 of a mile of stop on a “high frequency route” – a route with 15 minute service. See attached “Draft Bus
Service” map.
For the second part, such a credit would have an immediate impact on the Nicollet and 66th parcels, as well as
the parcels around the 78th street stops. However, it would not have much impact beyond that, as the vast
majority of the properties within those proximities are single-family homes – see attached “Zoning Breakdown”
map. This aspect is something that could be more broadly considered, and can perhaps be studied, as part of
our visioning process with MR-2 & MR-3 district updates later this year, which is intended to make sure that
development parameters for multi-family housing are realistic.
D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
None.
E.FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
ALTERNATIVE(S):
None.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Table A - Other C ity’s P er-B edroom Requirements B ackup Material
Table B - A pproved and E xisting A partments B ackup Material
E dina's P arking by Use C omparison, 2022 B ackup Material
Office B ank and L ibrary P arking C omparisons, Jan. 2024 B ackup Material
P avement Width Map B ackup Material
D raft B us S ervice Map 1-30-24 B ackup Material
Zoning B reakdown of L and A rea within 1/8 Mile of High-
F requency B us S tops B ackup Material
TABLE A – Other City’s Per-Bedroom Requirements
Hopkins 1-4 units: 2 per dwelling unit
5+ units: 1 per studio/one bedroom
2 per two bedroom or larger
St Louis Park • Studios & One bedroom – 1 space
• Two bedroom – 1.5 spaces
• Three & Four bedroom – 2 spaces
An additional 5% of the required parking shall be provided for guest
parking.
Bloomington One bedroom and efficiencies: 1.6 spaces per dwelling unit
Two or more bedrooms: 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit
Additional requirements for units of all sizes:
Of the above requirements, at least 1 space per unit must be within a fully enclosed
garage or covered within a structured parking ramp; guest parking spaces must be
appropriately provided and dispersed throughout the development, subject to
approval of the issuing authority.
Table B: Approved and Existing Apartment Buildings
Studios 1-bed 2-bed 3-bed Total
#
Beds
Total
#
Units Parking Req @ 1.25 /unit With 10% Credit # Parking Built Per
Unit
Ratio
Per
Bed
Ratio Zoning Year
Built * If in St. Louis Park * If in Hopkins Emi
101 E. 66th Str.
38 30 11 1 93 80 100 90 116^ 1.45 1.25 PMU N/A 91 92
RF Flats
7700 Pillsbury
0 13 27 15 112 55 109 98 83 1.5 .75 PMR N/A 84 97
Novo
2400 66th Str.
29 94 56 0 235 179 224 202 259 1.45 1.10 PMR 2018 217 235
Landsby
6200 Penn
21 52 49 5 186 127 159 143 159 1.25 .85 MU-
C
2019 154
181
Chamberlain
6700 RF Pkwy.
138 59 82 2 367 284 355 319 333 1.17 .90 PMR 2018 340 365
Concierge
7700 Penn
0 696 2 0 700 698 873 786 1,079 1.55 2.8 MR-
3
1968 734 700
Riley
600 W. 64th Str.
78 25 1 0 105 104 130 117 121 1.16 1.15 PMU 2021 110 105
Rya
6400 RF Pkwy
50 86 74 8 308 218 273 246 297 1.36 0.96 PMR 2021 276 300
# For being within a quarter mile of a frequent transit route
* Number of parking spaces required if St. Louis Park or Hopkins regulations were applied.
^ Includes a small commercial space on the first floor.
City Office Medical Office Retail Shopping
Center Restaurants Apartments Sr apartments
Edina - Current Ordinance 1/200-1/250 sf 1/200 sf 1/167- 1/200
1/200+1/10 seats
(formula)1/3 seats + employ 2/unit .75+employ
Edina 1-27 draft 1/250 sf 1/250 sf 1/250 sf 1/300 sf
1/100 s.f. plus 1/150 s.f
of outdoor space 1-1.25/unit .75+employ
Edina 2-24 draft 1/300 sf (1/200 max)1/300 sf 1/250 sf 1/350 sf 1/100 sf + employee
1-1.25/unit with
1.75 max .75+employ
ITE Parking Standard 1/380 s.f.1/375 sf 1/380 sf
1/244 sf (December)
1/343 (non Dec.)1/81 sf + employee
1/unit - high rise
1.32/unit - mid rise .61+employ
Eden Prairie 1/200-333 max 1/200- 333 max 1/200- 1/333 1/200- 1/333 max 1/3-1/2max1/3-1/2 max 1/unit TBD
Minnetonka 1/250 1/175- 20 min 1/250 1/250 1/2.5 seats 2/unit 1/unit
Saint Louis Park 1/200-250 max 1/200-250 max 1/250- 1/150 max 1/250 1/60 sq ft 1/bed 1/unit
Richfield 1/275- 350 max 1/200- 250 max 1/200-1/285 1/250 1/100 sq ft 2/unit/1.25TBD TBD
Bloomington 1/285 1/285 1/180- 1/220 460+1/285 1/ 3 seats 1.8/1 bed-.75 1.5/unit
Golden Valley 1/250 1/200 1/250 1/200 1/60-100 sq ft 1.5/unit .5/1/unit
Apple Valley 1/150-200 1/150 1/150 1/200 1/2.5 seats 1.5/unit 1.5 TBD
Crystal 4+1/200-500 4+1/200-500 4+1/250 4+1/500 4+1/100 sq ft 2/per unit 2/unit
Plymouth 1/250 - 300 1/200 1/200 1/200-300 1/40+1/80 kit 2/per unit 1.5/unit
New Hope 1/300 1/300 1/200 1/200 1/40+1/80 kit 2.25 unit 1/unit+employ
Brooklyn Park 1/181/200 1/150+Dr.1/200 1/200-240 1/40+1/80 kit 2/unit+.5 outside .5/unit
Roseville 1/275-1/325 1/250 1/325 1/325 1/3 seats 1/employ 1.25/unit 1.25 unit
Burnsville 1/666 - 200 3/Dr. 1/empl 1/150 - 1/200 1/200 1/3 seats1/2em 1/table 1,5 - 2.5 unit .5/unit
Mpls 2/1000-1/200 2/1000 2/1000-1/200 1/200 2/1000-1/75 qs ft 1/unit 1/unit
Highland Park*
Office sites in Commercial
Districts sites <15,000 sf:
2.5/1,000 >15,000 sf: 0 for
first 2,000 sf, then 2.5/1000
additional sf >15,000 sf: 0 for
first 2,000 sf, then 2.5/1000
additional sf
4.11 spaces per
1000 sf
Development site
<15000: 2.5/1000sf
>15000: none for
first 2000 sf then 2.5
spaces per 1000 sf
20 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.
GFA for kitchen area,
serving counter and
waiting area, plus 0.5
spaces per seat
See attached word
doc
Nursing
Facility: .33
space per
resident
Durham, NC* 1/250 1/250 1/200 to 1/250 sf 1/100 sf 2/unit .6/unit
Edina's Comparison of Other Cities 2022
Park Ridge, IL* Office Park: 5/1000 /
Professional Office 4/1000 1.5/exam room 3/1000
1/60 sf pulbic seating
(excludes outdoor
seating)
1.5 to 2 per
dwelling unit
.25 per bed + 1
per 2
employees
Glenview, IL*1/300 1/300 1/300 1/3 people per max
capacity 2 per unit 1/3 units
Nashville, Tenn.1/300 sf 1/200 sf 1/200 sf
1 space per 250
square feet to 200
s.f.
1/100 sf and 10 spaces
for takeout
1 to 1.5 per
bedroom
.5 spaces per
unit
Birmingham, Ala 1/300 sf 1/150 sf 1/300 sf 1/300-550 sf 1/75 sf 1.5-2/UNIT
.5 spaces per
unit
Dublin Ohio 1/250 sf 1/200 sf 1/200 sf 1/200 sf 1/50 sf 2/unit 1/unit
Charlotte, NC 1/300 sf 1/200 sf 1/200 sf 1/250 sf 1/75 sf 1.5-2/unit .25/unit
Office, Bank and Library Parking Comparisons, Jan. 2024
Bank Parking Requirement Comparison
Richfield 1 space per 250 square feet of gross floor area
Edina (same as office) At least one space per 300 square feet plus
one space for a loading zone dock minimum with a
maximum of one space per 200 square feet.
St Louis Park One space per each 250 square feet floor area
Hopkins (not specified, seems to be same as office) No minimum
requirement in certain mixed use/TOD districts; 1 per 400 sf
in all other districts
Bloomington With or without drive through=
Office Use Parking Requirement Comparison
Richfield Floor area of less than 50,000 square feet = 1 per 275 square feet
of floor area
Floor area of 50,000 to 200,000 square feet = 1 per 300 square
feet of floor area
Floor area of 200,000 to 400,000 square feet = 1 per 325 square
feet of floor area
Floor area of more than 400,000 square feet = 1 per 350 square
feet of floor area
Other businesses or industries, including wholesale = 1 per 2
employees plus 1 per vehicle used in conduct of the enterprise
OR 1 per 800 square feet of gross floor area, whichever is
greater.
Edina At least one space per 300 square fe et plus one space for a loading
zone dock minimum with a maximum of one space per 200 square feet.
St Louis Park Less than 50,000 square feet floor area: one space per each 250
square feet floor area.
Between 50,000 square feet floor area and 200,000 square feet
floor area: one space per each 275 square feet floor area.
Between 200,000 square feet floor area and 400,000 square feet
floor area: one space per each 300 square feet floor area.
Greater than 400,000 square feet floor area: one space per each
325 square feet floor area.
Hopkins No minimum requirement in certain mixed use/TOD districts; 1 per 400 sf
in all other districts
Bloomington General, medical or dental and medical marijuana distribution
facilities = 1 space per 285 square feet of gross floor area
High intensity/call centers and telemarketing = 1 space per 165
square feet of gross floor area
Minneapolis 1 space per 500 sq. ft. of GFA in excess of 4,000 sq. ft.; max: 1 space
per 200 sq. ft. of GFA
St Paul Maximum: General office, studio, general retail, general service business,
alternative financial establishment, animal boarding/shelter/day care,
business sales and services, dry cleaning commercial laundry,
furniture/appliance store, gun shop, shooting gallery, lumber yard, pawn
shop, tattoo shop, tobacco shop, veterinary clinic/hospital = 1 space per
250 sq. ft. GFA OR 1 space per 300 sq. ft. GFA if within transit districts
1 space per 240 square feet of gross floor area; additional 6
queuing spaces per lane
Minneapolis 1 space per 500 sq. ft. of GFA in excess of 4,000 sq. ft.;
max = 1 space per 200 sq. ft. of GFA
St Paul (same as office?) 1 space per 250 sq. ft. GFA OR 1 space
per 300 sq. ft. GFA if within transit districts
Specific Library Parking Requirements (not based on assembly/capacity):
St Paul:
Public library
Maximum: 1 space per 300 sq. ft. GFA
Maximum if transit district: 1 space per 350 sq. ft. GFA
Augsburg Library= ~15,000 sq ft/300 = 50 spaces max or 43 spaces max if near transit
Minneapolis:
Library
Minimum 1 space per 500 sq. ft. of GFA in excess of 4,000 sq. ft.
Maximum 1 space per 200 sq. ft. of GFA
Augsburg Library = ~15,000 sq ft 11,000 sq ft/500 sq ft = 22 spaces min, 75 max
Edina:
Libraries, art galleries.
Ten spaces, plus one space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area.
Augsburg Library= 15,000 sq ft/300 sq ft = 50 + 10 = 60 spaces
St Louis Park:
Libraries, museums, art
One space per each 300 square feet floor area in principal structure
Augsburg Library = 15,000 sq ft/300 sq ft = 50 spaces
Work Session Minutes
Planning Commission, and City Council
February 26, 2024
PC MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Eddie Holmvig-Johnson, and Commissioners Brendan Kennealy, Benjamin
Surma, Brett Stursa, Cole Hooey, and Stephanie Hollman
PC MEMBERS ABSENT: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS Mayor Mary Supple, and Council Members Simon Trautmann, Sharon
Christensen, Sean Hayford Oleary, and Ben Whalen
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Melissa Poehlman, Community Development Director; Samantha Crosby,
Planner II; and Ruby Villa, Assistant Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: None
Chair Holmvig-Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ITEM #1 Discuss potential reductions to parking requirements.
Community Development Director Poehlman introduced Planner II Crosby who gave an overview of the work
session agenda.
Housekeeping Changes
• Planner Crosby explained staff proposed changes of using traditional rounding and allowing on-street
parking to be used in parking minimum calculations by right.
• Several Council members and Commissioners expressed their agreement in the proposed changes.
Expanding Council Flexibility
• Planner Crosby explained the proposal for expanding the Council’s flexibility in allowing lower parking
for low demand populations, not just seniors as currently stated in the code.
• There was consensus that allowances in reductions should not be limited to the listed low demand uses.
Planner Crosby stated that she would consult with the City Attorney to determine whether the proposed
language would limit flexibility or if it could be interpreted as mere examples, as intended.
Libraries, Museums, and Art Galleries
• Planner Crosby explained the proposal for adding a parking requirement for libraries, museums, and art
galleries. The addition of this parking requirement would facilitate the Augsburg Library renovation
project.
• Making sure the historical society is also included, several Council members and Commissioners
expressed their agreement in the proposed change.
AGENDA SECTION:RESOLUTIONS
AGENDA ITEM #7.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 90
CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING
6/25/2024
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
6/19/2024
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Summary of the City Manager's annual performance evaluation for the period of July 2023 to June
2024, held on June 11 and June 18, 2024, as required by Minn. Statutes 13D.05 Subd. 3(a), and
consider a resolution amending the employment agreement between the City of Richfield and City
Manager Katie Rodriguez.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Each year the City Council conducts a review of the City Manager's performance for the previous year. The
review considers the performance of the City Manager and the organization as measured against the goals
and expectations of the City Council. Such performance evaluations are conducted in a closed session
pursuant to MN State Statutes and summarized in an open meeting.
I n addition to the performance evaluation, the City Council also takes this opportunity to review the City
Manager's salary and benefits to make any adjustments that may be warranted.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
Motion to approve the Resolution amending the City’s Manager ’s employment agreement with the City
reflecting a salary adjustment.
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 C ity C ouncil has conducted a review of the C ity Manager's performance for the past year and must now, per
S tate S tatute, make a summary report of the outcome of that evaluation.
In addition, the C ity C ouncil has reviewed the compensation of the C ity Manager and has made a conclusion
concerning the C ity Manager’s employment agreement.
B .E QU ITAB L E OR S T R AT E GIC C ON S ID E R AT ION S OR IMPAC T S
C .P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
The C ity Manager is given an evaluation by the C ity C ouncil each year as part of the C ity Manager ’s
contract.
A s part of the evaluation process, a review of the C ity Manager’s compensation package is also
performed each year.
A s compensation comparisons, salaries of C ity Managers in comparable cities are considered, as is the
base salary structure adjustments of other C ity employees.
D .C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The annual performance evaluation for C ity Manager Rodriguez was scheduled for June so any merit increases
will be effective on July 1.
E .F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
In order to be consistent with other employee groups, the C ity Manager received the same cost-of-living
adjustment given to staff in the Management P ay P lan on January 1. A ny merit increase will be considered
following a performance evaluation in J une, effective J uly 1.
F.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The C ity Manager’s contract with the C ity requires that an annual performance evaluation be conducted.
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C OMME N D AT ION(S):
The C ity C ouncil may defer the compensation portion of this review to a future meeting.
P R IN C IPAL PAR T IE S E X P E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Resolution C over Memo
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND
CATHERINE RODRIGUEZ, CITY MANAGER
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
The following section of the Employment Agreement between the City of
Richfield, Minnesota and Catherine Rodriguez, City Manager, originally dated
December 2018, is amended as follows:
Section 2. Salary
Employer agrees to pay Employee for her services an annual base salary of
$185,422.34 payable in installments at the same time as other employees of the
Employer are paid.
The City Manager’s salary adjustment outlined above is effective on July 1, 2024.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 25th day of
June 2024.
Mary B. Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kelly Wynn, Interim City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:RESOLUTIONS
AGENDA ITEM #8.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 92
CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING
6/25/2024
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y:Jamie Haefner, Human Resources Manager
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:S ack Thongvanh, A ssistant C ity Manager
6/20/2024
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
6/20/2024
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 approving the contract with Law Enforcement Labor Services
(Police Officers) for the period January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2025 and authorize the City
Manager to execute the agreement.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
City staff has completed labor negotiations with Law Enforcement Labor Services (L E L S). The provisions of
the 2024-2025 labor agreement cover all of the Police Officers.
The two-year contract provides the following changes:
Increase in vacation sell back from 48 hours to 64 hours to match our non-union policy.
Increase the total annual Holiday Leave from 96 hours to 104 hours because of the additional
Juneteenth holiday.
Include the same employer-provided Health and Dental insurance contributions as given to the
non-represented employee groups.
I ncrease the monthly pay ment for those Employees in a special assignment from $275 to $300/month.
This includes:
J uvenile I nvestigator/School Liaison Officer,
Special I nvestigative Unit,
Hennepin County Violent Offender Task Force,
Crime Prevention and;
An Employee who holds the rank of Police Officer and is assigned by the Employer as
an Officer assigned to Investigations.
Adjusting the special pay for Canine Handlers to follow state statute.
Wage adjustments to include a 3% COLA and an 8% market adjustment for the top step in
2024 and a 3% COLA and 1% market adjustment for all steps in 2025. In addition, the 6-step
scale system was equally divided to provide 5.5% increases between steps. Previously the step
increases were not equally divided and varied each year. In order to reduce the step increases,
the starting steps were increased by a greater percentage. T he higher starting pay is consistent
with the wages required to compete in the historically tight market for law enforcement
personnel.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Adopt a resolution approving the provisions of the 2024-2025 labor agreement with the
LE L S bargaining unit and authorize the City Manager to execute the 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
The tentatively approved two year contract settlement includes the following significant changes:
Wages: A 3.00% wage adjustment and an 8% market adjustment for 2024 (top step) and a 3.00% wage
adjustment and 1% market adjustment (all steps) for 2025.
A n increase in S pecial A ssignment pay from $275/month to $300/month
A djusting the C anine Handler pay to follow state statute
Health and D ental Insurance to match what is provided to non-represented groups
Increasing vacation sell back to 64 hours per year
Increasing Holiday L eave to 104 hours to accommodate the J uneteenth holiday.
B .E QU ITAB L E OR S T R AT E GIC C ON S ID E R AT ION S OR IMPAC T S
Implementing these pay strategies helps us better align with the current market to aide in the recruitment and
retention of Officers.
C .P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
The C ity has met and negotiated in good faith with the Unions and its representatives and is bound under
the P ublic E mployer's L abor Relations A ct to meet and bargain over the terms and conditions of
employment.
The proposed settlement for the health and dental insurance provisions is identical to those provided to
both union and non-union C ity employees. The C ity has a long history of providing the same level of
insurance benefits to all eligible C ity employees.
The wage increases and equity adjustments are comparable to the cities used in our recent
compensation and classification study and represents best practices in order to maintain
competitiveness.
D .C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
In order to allow the C ity's accounting personnel to modify payroll records in a timely manner for 2024-2025
wages and benefits and in order not to
further delay any pay due to employees, it is recommended that the C ity C ouncil act on June 25, 2024, to adopt a
resolution providing for
contract changes, effective January 1, 2024.
E .F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
Wage increases as specified above for the different contracts and nominal adjustments to special assignment
pay.
F.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
If the terms of this agreement are not approved, further negotiation and/or mediation will be necessary.
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C OMME N D AT ION(S):
D o not approve the terms of this agreement and prepare for further negotiation and/or mediation.
D efer discussion to another date.
P R IN C IPAL PAR T IE S E X P E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
None
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES (LELS #123)
BARGAINING UNIT FOR YEARS 2024-2025
WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Law Enforcement Labor Services (LELS
#123) have reached an understanding concerning conditions of employment for 2024 and
2025; and
WHEREAS, it would be inappropriate to penalize LELS members who have
negotiated in good faith; and
WHEREAS, the City Ordinance requires that contracts between the City and the
exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be
completed by Council resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve
the Labor Agreement between the City of Richfield and LELS for 2024 and 2025 under the
provisions of the Labor Agreement to be implemented effective January 1, 2024 and
authorize the City Manager to execute the contracts.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of June
2024.
_______________________________
Mary B. Supple
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Kelly Wynn
Interim City Clerk