Loading...
2025-01-14 City Council AgendaREGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 14, 2025 7:00 PM INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Pledge of Allegiance Open forum Participants can share their comments in person, by voicemail, or email, and may also request to participate virtually. For more information on submitting comments, refer to the Council Agenda and Minutes page on richfieldmn.gov/citycouncil Approval of the Minutes of the (1) City Council Work Session Meeting and (2) City Council Regular Meeting from December 10, 2024. AGENDA APPROVAL 1.Approval of the Agenda 2.Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action on these items is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A.Consider Annual Designation of Mayor Pro Tempore, Council Representatives, and Acting City Manager. Mayor Pro Tempore Consider a Mayor Pro Tempore designation for 2025. Council Representatives Consider representatives to serve as the 2025 City Council Commission liaisons for various local, regional, and state organizations, and City boards and commissions for 2025. Acting City Manager Consider an Acting City Manager designation for 2025. Staff Report No. 1 B.Consider the approval of the first reading of an ordinance updating requirements for maintenance of fowl and birds, and schedule a public hearing and second reading for January 28, 2025. Staff Report No. 2 C.Consider a resolution designating an official newspaper for 2025. Staff Report No. 3 D.Consideration of the approval of Cannabis and Substance Use Prevention (CSUP) funding from the Minnesota Department of Health. Staff Report No. 4 E.Consider approval for a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for the Blessed Trinity Catholic School, located at St. Richard's Catholic Church, 7540 Penn Avenue South, for their 2025 Sno*ball Dance taking place February 1, 2025. Staff Report No. 5 F.Consider a Grant Compliance Agreement with Penn Station Apartments, LLLP regarding a Livable Communities Demonstration Account Pre-Development Grant for 6501-6525 Penn Avenue South. Staff Report No. 6 G.Consider adoption of a resolution of support for a grant application to MnDOT'S Safe Routes to School Infrastructure grant program for a sidewalk project on streets adjacent to Sheridan Hills Elementary School. Staff Report No. 7 H.Consider adoption of a resolution of support for Richfield's application for federal funding for a reconstruction project on 77th Street via the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Grant Program. Staff Report No. 8 I.Consider: Adoption of a resolution authorizing the City of Richfield to accept grant funds in the amount of $10,000.00 and enter into a Source Water Protection Grant Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) to seal a non-municipal community water supply well; and Authorizing the City to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with Woodlawn Terrace Cooperative to assist with the sealing of their 'out of service' community water supply well. Staff Report No. 9 J.Consider approval of the bid tabulation and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a contract with Visu-Sewer for the 2025 Sanitary Sewer Cured-in-Place-Pipe (CIPP) Lining Project in the amount of $1,034,497.00, and authorize the City Manager to approve contract changes up to $175,000 without further City Council consideration. Staff Report No. 10 K.Consider resolutions designating official depositories for the City of Richfield for 2025, including the approval of collateral. Staff Report No. 11 3.Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar PROPOSED ORDINANCES 4.Consider approval of the second reading of an ordinance amending City Code section 550: Floodplain Management Regulations and approval of a resolution authorizing summary publication. Staff Report No. 12 5.Consider a first reading of an ordinance amendment regarding drive-through signs. Staff Report No. 13 RESOLUTIONS 6.Consider adoption of a resolution approving the contract with Teamsters #320 (Sergeants) bargaining unit for the period January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2025 and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. Staff Report No. 14 CITY MANAGER’S REPORT 7.City Manager's Report CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 8.Claims and Payroll COUNCIL DISCUSSION 9.Hats Off to Hometown Hits 10.Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9739. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota City Council Work Session December 10, 2024 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Supple called the work session to order at 5:47 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room. Council Members Present: Mary Supple, Mayor; Simon Trautmann, Sharon Christensen; Sean Hayford Oleary, Ben Whalen Staff Present: Guests: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Karl Huemiller, Recreation Services Director; and Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk. Glenn Waguespack, HGA; Andrew Holgren, HGA ITEM #1 UPDATE AND DISCUSSION OF WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER BUILDING DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Mayor Supple gave a summary of the agenda item and turned the discussion over to Director Huemiller. Recreation Services Director Huemiller gave an update on the project’s progress and highlighted the topics being discussed tonight. Mr. Waugespack discussed the nature elements that will be developed as a part of the building itself. He also mentioned the changes in the amphitheater. He gave an update on the parking lot. Council Member Whalen asked if people who drive bigger vehicles like school buses and fire trucks. Mr. Waguespack noted that fire trucks do have good access to the parking lot. He also mentioned that school buses would be able to turn around easily in the parking lot rather than having to back out. Mr. Holgren presented views of the entry points to the nature center. He also discussed the bike racks and the surface they will be placed on. Council Member Hayford Oleary added that he feels the uneven surface before the bike rack may be a safety issue and he would like to see the bike racks placed on pavement. Council Member Trautmann asked how the impervious sidewalk will last long term and how they need to be maintained. City Council Work Session Minutes -2- December 10, 2024 Mr. Waguespack noted that they need less maintenance than a parking lot would. Recreation Services Director Huemiller noted surmountable curbs on all sides towards the lake due to turtles getting stuck in the parking lot. Council Member Whalen added his concern for cars being able to easily drive up onto the sidewalk. Council Member Hayford Oleary expressed agreement with Council Member Whalen. Mr. Holgren gave an update on the nature play area. He also presented an overview of the play area. Recreation Services Director Huemiller described the goal for the play area. Mr. Holmgren displayed the aerial view of the amphitheater in relation to the nature center. Mayor Supple asked if they will be clearing the amphitheater and deck in the winter, or if they will just use them in the other three seasons. Recreation Services Director Huemiller noted that they don’t plan on having them shoveled. Council Member Whalen asked if they could consider adding a railing to the amphitheater. Mr. Waugespack presented an overview and aerial view of the outdoor patio. He also gave an overview of the elevated deck plans. He gave updates on the building design plan. Council Member Whalen asked if the rooms are soundproof enough that you could hold three separate classes at once without being able to hear what is happening in the next room. Recreation Services Director Huemiller noted that the moveable partitions are STC-rated, but they are not as good as a wall. Mr. Holmgren highlighted the aspects of the entry/coffee bar/ lounge area. He presented some views of the area. Mr. Waguespack discussed some of the materials planned to be used in the building. Mr. Holmgren discussed the flooring for the interior of the building. Council Member Hayford Oleary added that he would like to see a different type of flooring in the multi-purpose room, and did not object to the flooring in the building broadly. Mr. Holmgren provided more views of the lounge area and provided more details on the area. He presented an overview of the waste management for the building and where it is being placed. He provided samples of different exterior cladding/wood siding. Recreation Services Director Huemiller presented the list of the alternate and buyback options. Mr. Holgren, Council and staff reviewed the different alternate/buyback options. City Manager Rodriguez gave a summary of the discussion. City Council Work Session Minutes -3- December 10, 2024 ADJOURNMENT Mayor Supple adjourned the work session at 6:59 p.m. Date Approved: January 14, 2025 Mary B. Supple Mayor Michelle Friedrich Katie Rodriguez 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; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney; Kumud Verma, Finance Director; and Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk. Others Present: John Bjostad; Rebecca Kurtz, Ehlers Senior Municipal Advisor. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Supple led the Pledge of Allegiance. OPEN FORUM Mayor Supple reviewed the participation options for residents at the Council meeting include in- person comments, comments by voicemail or email, and an option to request to participate virtually with advance notice. Mayor Supple noted more information on submitting comments can be reviewed at www.richfieldmn.gov/citycouncil. No residents participated in the Open Forum public comment opportunity. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: made by Trautmann, seconded by Christensen to approve the minutes (1) Commission Interviews from November 16, 2024; (2) City Council Work Session Meeting of November 26, 2024; (3) City Council Truth in Taxation Meeting of November 26, 2024; and (5) City Council Regular Meeting from November 26, 2024. Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #1 PRESENTATION OF THE EDWINA GARCIA COMMUNITY BUILDER AWARD AND PROCLAMATION TO JOHN BJOSTAD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Regular Council Meeting December 10, 2024 City Council Meeting Minutes -2- December 10, 2024 Mayor Supple read aloud the proclamation and invited John Bjostad to accept the proclamation. John Bjostad thanked Council for the honor. Mr. Bjostad stated the actions which earned him the award were simply everyday tasks he felt needed to be done and genuinely enjoyed completing. ITEM #2 APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: made by Hayford Oleary, seconded Whalen to approve the Agenda. Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #3 CONSENT CALENDAR City Manager Rodriguez presented the consent calendar. A. Consider a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 115-child daycare at 7132 Portland Avenue at Hope Church. (Staff Report No. 167) RESOLUTION NO. 12272 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAY CARE AT 7132 PORTLAND AVENUE B. Consider the approval of the first reading of an ordinance amending City Code section 550: Floodplain Management Regulations. (Staff Report No. 168) BILL NO. 2024-16 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER V OF THE RICHFIELD CODE OF ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS C. Consider the approval of the Local Public Health and Foundational Public Health Responsibilities (FPHR) grants for 2025 provided by the Minnesota Legislature and administered through the Minnesota Department of Health. (Staff Report No. 169) D. Consider the adoption of the City’s legislative priorities for 2025. (Staff Report No. 170) E. Consider the adoption of a resolution authorizing Richfield Public Safety/Police Department to accept donations from the listed agencies, businesses and private individuals for designated uses. (Staff Report No. 171) RESOLUTION NO. 12273 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ACCEPT DONATIONS FROM THE LISTED AGENCIES, BUSINESSES AND PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS FOR DESIGNATED USES F. Consider a motion to approve the renewal of the 2025 licenses for On-Sale Intoxicating, Club, On-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor and Wine, and Off-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor doing business City Council Meeting Minutes -3- December 10, 2024 in Richfield. (Staff Report No. 172) License to sell Wine & 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor - ON SALE Davanni's Joy’s Pattaya Kataki My burger Patrick’s Bakery Red Pepper Sandy’s Tavern License to sell 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor - OFF SALE Assal/Winner Gas/Pump N Munch La Vaquita 2 La Vaquita Short Stop Portland Food Mart Target Corporation Richfield Minnoco Speedway #4186 Speedway #4188 Speedway #4191 Speedway #4615 On Sale Intoxicating El Tejaban Fireside Foundry Frenchman's Pub Giordano's Los Sanchez Taqueria Lyndale Smokehouse Pizza Luce Fred Babcock VFW Post 5555 (Club) G. Consider a resolution requesting a variance from State Aid Rule 8820.9941 for the design of the 70th Street Safe Routes to School project. (Staff Report No. 173) RESOLUTION NO. 12274 REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM STANDARD FOR STATE AID OPERATION FOR PROJECT NO. SAP 157-113-008 H. Consider the approval of a contract with Graymont (WI) LLC for the purchase of 1,400 tons of quick lime annually in 2025, 2026 & 2027 for water treatment purposes in the amount of $992,572.00. (Staff Report No. 174) I. Consider the approval of the bid tabulation and award a contract to Blackstone Contractors LLC, for the Adam's Hill Pond Maintenance Project in the amount of $845,290.41, which includes the base bid and alternates 1 and 2, and authorize the City Manager to approve contract changes up to $175,000 without further City Council consideration. (Staff Report No. 175) J. Consider adoption of a resolution designating polling places for 2025. (Staff Report No. 176) City Council Meeting Minutes -4- December 10, 2024 RESOLUTION NO. 12275 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING POLLING PLACES FOR THE RICHFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION IN 2025 K. Consideration of an Amended Professional Services Agreement awarding American Rescue Plan Act funding to VEAP for services and activities that aid in the recovery of Richfield community members negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. (Staff Report No. 177) RESOLUTION NO. 12276 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ALLOCATION OF AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT FUNDING TO VEAP TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO RESIDENTS IMPACTED BY THE COVID- 19 PANDEMIC L. Consider a resolution adopting an updated Capital Assets Policy for the City. (Staff Report No. 178) RESOLUTION NO. 12277 RESOLUTION APPROVING CAPITAL ASSETS POLICY MOTION: made by Whalen, seconded by Hayford Oleary to approve the consent calendar items 3A-L. Mayor Supple thanked all donors who donated to the public safety police department. Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #4 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR None. ITEM #5 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND APPROVE THE RENEWAL OF 2025 PAWNBROKER LICENSE FOR METRO PAWN & GUN, INC., 7529 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH. (STAFF REPORT NO. 179) Council Member Hayford Oleary presented Staff Report 179 and opened the public hearing. John Gunst, 7529 Lyndale Avenue South, noted that he came to show his respect and be available for any questions regarding Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc. MOTION: made by Hayford Oleary, seconded by Whalen to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 5-0 Council Member Hayford Oleary stated he appreciates that Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., are good neighbors to the City. MOTION: made by Hayford Oleary, seconded by Trautmann to approve the renewal of 2025 Pawnbroker License for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue South. Motion carried: 5-0 City Council Meeting Minutes -5- December 10, 2024 ITEM #6 CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE SECOND READING OF A NEW ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A LOCAL SALES AND USE TAX IN RICHFIELD. COUNCIL APPROVED THE FIRST READING AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON NOVEMBER 26, 2024. (STAFF REPORT NO. 180) Council Member Trautmann presented Staff Report 180. City Manager Rodriguez thanked the voters for voting in favor of investing in the City parks and assets. She also thanked the Council for their work on this topic as well as others involved. Council Member Whalen also thanked the voters. He asked Staff about the timeline of the three projects. City Manager Rodriguez stated that the Wood Lake Nature Center project timeline is 2026 to 2027. The Vets Park will start in 2026 and take a longer amount of time. The pool liners will be done after the 2026 season. The Community Center is looking like 2030, possibly 2029. Council Member Trautmann also thanked staff for all of their time-consuming and hard work. He thanked the Community for choosing to invest in these great amenities. Mayor Supple thanked the voters, as well as staff and volunteers. MOTION: made by Trautmann, seconded by Whalen to approve the second reading and adopt a new ordinance establishing a local sales and use tax in Richfield. Council approved the first reading at the City Council meeting on November 26, 2024. BILL NO. 2024-15 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RICHFIELD CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER RELATED TO A LOCAL SALES AND USE TAX RESOLUTION NO. 12278 RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE 2024-15 AMENDING THE RICHFIELD CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER RELATED TO LOCAL SALES AND USE TAX Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #7 CONSIDER RESOLUTIONS APPROVING THE 2024 REVISED/2025 PROPOSED BUDGETS, TAX LEVY AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS. (STAFF REPORT NO. 181) Council Member Christensen presented Staff Report 181. City Manager Rodriguez thanked Director Verma and Finance Department staff for all their work on the budget. City Manager Rodriguez noted Director Verma will be leaving in January and thanked her for leaving the department very stable and strong. Mayor Supple also thanked Director Verma for her hard work. City Council Meeting Minutes -6- December 10, 2024 Council Member Whalen highlighted countless hours of Council and staff work related to the budget this year. Council Member Whalen noted the primary increase in this year’s budget includes necessary staffing in the public safety department. Mayor Supple mentioned that there is a breakdown of what the budget is being used for on the City website. MOTION: made by Christensen, seconded by Hayford Oleary to approve resolutions approving the 2024 revised/2025 proposed budgets, tax levy and related resolutions. RESOLUTION NO. 12279 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 2024 BUDGET OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 12280 RESOLUTION ADOPTING A BUDGET AND TAX LEVY FOR THE YEAR 2025 RESOLUTION NO. 12281 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PUBLIC WORKS ON-CALL COMPENSATION RATES FOR 2025 RESOLUTION NO. 12282 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WASTEWATER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES, WATER RATES AND CHARGES, SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES, STORM SEWER RATES AND CHARGES, STREET LIGHT RATES AND CHARGES, AND 6.5% PENALTY ON PAST DUE ACCOUNTS RESOLUTION NO. 12283 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2025 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 12284 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2026-2029 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO. 12285 RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2025 GENERAL PAY PLAN RESOLUTION NO. 12286 RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2025 SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #8 CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF $10,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2024A. (STAFF REPORT NO. 182) Council Member Whalen presented Staff Report 182. Senior Municipal Advisor Rebecca Kurtz from Ehlers noted the City has received a AA+ rating. Ms. Kurtz noted some of the highlights in the rating report. Ms. Kurtz noted a premium bid was received and explained a premium bid means more money was received for the bond than anticipated. Ms. Kurtz noted additional information is available in the packet. City Council Meeting Minutes -7- December 10, 2024 MOTION: made by Whalen, seconded by Trautmann to adopt a resolution awarding the sale of $10,000,000 general obligation sales tax revenue bonds, series 2024A, in the original aggregated principal amount of $10,000,000; fixing their form and specifications; directing their execution and delivery; and providing for their payment. RESOLUTION NO. 12287 A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION SALES TAX BONDS, SERIES 2024A, IN THE ORIGINAL AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $10,000,000; FIXING THEIR FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS; DIRECTING THEIR EXECUTION AND DELIVERY; AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #9 CITY MANAGER’S REPORT City Manager Rodriguez noted there were no public comments received at the last meeting. City Manager Rodriguez thanked Council Members Trautmann and Whalen for their time served as Council Members and noted the December 10 Council meeting will be their last meeting as Council Members. ITEM #10 CLAIMS AND PAYROLL MOTION: made by Trautmann, seconded Whalen to approve the following claims and payroll: U.S. BANK 12/06/2024 A/P Checks: 333160 – 333286 $536,626.07 Payroll: 192967 – 193301; (Manual checks 44112-44117) $998,501.50 TOTAL $1,535,127.57 Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #11 HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS Mayor Supple thanked the Richfield staff for their help in hosting the second-grade students from the STEM School and gave a special commendation to the students and their teachers. Council Member Christensen highlighted the Lights Parade being held on Thursday evening. She invited everyone to come out and see the parade. Council Member Hayford Oleary thanked Council Member Trautmann for his positive influence on the Council and his strong support for equity issues. Hayford Oleary also expressed appreciation for Council Member Whalen's thoughtful contributions to discussions on policy and priorities. City Council Meeting Minutes -8- December 10, 2024 Mayor Supple echoed thanks and gratitude. Mayor Supple thanked Council Member Whalen for his service and his passion regarding housing issues. Mayor Supple thanked Council Member Trautmann for his mentorship and his valuable assistance in supporting new Council Members. Council Member Whalen reflected on the positive changes and growth in Richfield during his time on the Council. He highlighted his involvement in affordable housing and climate change initiatives, expressing pride in these projects. Whalen also thanked residents, staff, and his family for their support during his six years as a Council Member. Council Member Trautmann expressed gratitude for the opportunity to serve, noting that he had learned a great deal from Council Member Whalen. He thanked the staff for their support throughout his two terms serving on the Council and took pride in the accomplishments achieved during his time in office. Council Member Trautmann also acknowledged the sacrifices made by his family during his tenure. ITEM #12 ADJOURNMENT MOTION: made by Whalen, seconded by Trautmann to adjourn the meeting at 7:59 p.m. Motion carried: 5-0 To Be Approved: January 14, 2025 Mary Supple Mayor Michelle Friedrich Katie Rodriguez City Clerk City Manager AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #2.A. STAFF REPORT NO. 1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1/14/2025 REPORT PREPARED BY:Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 1/8/2025 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider Annual Designation of Mayor Pro Tempore, Council Representatives, and Acting City Manager. Mayor Pro Tempore Consider a Mayor Pro Tempore designation for 2025. Council Representatives Consider representatives to serve as the 2025 City Council Commission liaisons for various local, regional, and state organizations, and City boards and commissions for 2025. Acting City Manager Consider an Acting City Manager designation for 2025. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Mayor Pro Tempore The City Charter states it is necessary to designate a City Council Member to serve as the Mayor Pro Tempore for those times when the Mayor is absent from the City. Mayor Supple recommends Council Member Hayford Oleary serve as the Mayor Pro Tempore. Council Liaisons Members of the City Council serve as the City’s representatives on various local, regional and state organizations, and City boards and commissions. Each year, the Mayor recommends a list of City Council representatives to the City Council for approval. The list is attached to this staff report. Acting City Manager It is necessary to designate a person to serve as the Acting City Manager for those times when the City Manager is absent from the City. The City Manager recommends the Assistant City Manager or an available Department Director as Acting City Manager for 2025. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Designate Council Member Hayford Oleary as Mayor Pro Tempore for 2025; designate City Council liaison appointments to various local, regional and state organizations, and City boards and commissions; designate the Assistant City Manager or an available Department Director as Acting City Manager for 2025 in the event the City Manager is absent from the City. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT This information is contained in the Executive Summary. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS One of the City's Strategic Plan desired outcomes is that staff, boards and commissioners reflect the diversity of the community. The City's Equity Coordinator has been guiding improvements to recruiting processes to attract more diverse candidate pools and the City now tracks and reports staff, board and commission demographics annually. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): The City Council typically considers the designation of a Mayor Pro Tempore at the first meeting in January of each year. Section 2.06. The Mayor. Subdivision 1, of the City Charter states: “The Mayor shall be the presiding officer of the Council, except that the Council shall choose from its members a president pro temp who shall hold office at the pleasure of the Council and shall serve as president in the Mayor’s absence and as Mayor in case of the Mayor’s disability or absence from the City.” The City Council considers the designation of liaisons at a meeting in January of each year. Past practice has been for the City Council to designate an Acting City Manager for times when the City Manager is absent from the City. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: It is necessary to designate a Mayor Pro Tempore and an Acting City Manager to ensure continuation of City operations during the Mayor and City Manager absences. City Council liaison representation on local, regional and state organizations, City boards and commissions is a City priority. All designations should be made at the first meeting in January each year. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no additional cost to the City. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: None ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): The City Council may defer this designation to a future City Council meeting. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Council/Commission Liaison 2025 Backup Material 12/20/24 AGENCY 2024 LIAISON/ REPRESENTATIVE 2025 LIAISON/ REPRESENTATIVE METRO CITIES SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY, REP. SIMON TRAUTMANN, ALT. SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY, REP. WALTER BURK, ALT. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES MARY SUPPLE, REP. BEN WHALEN, ALT. MARY SUPPLE, REP. RORI COLEMAN-WOODS, ALT. NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (3rd Wednesday, odd # months 1:30pm) CHRIS SWANSON, REP. BEN WHALEN, ALT. COURTNEY MILLER, STAFF LIA. COURTNEY MILLER, REP. RORI COLEMAN-WOODS, ALT. I-35W SOLUTIONS ALLIANCE (2nd Thursday 7:30am) SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY, REP. MARY SUPPLE, ALT. JOE POWERS, STAFF LIA. SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY, REP. MARY SUPPLE, ALT. JOE POWERS, STAFF LIA. 494 CORRIDOR COMMISSION (2nd Wednesday 7:30am) MARY SUPPLE, REP. SIMON TRAUTMANN, ALT. MATT HARDEGGER, STAFF LIA. MARY SUPPLE, REP. SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY, ALT. MATT HARDEGGER, STAFF LIA. RICHFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT (1st and 3rd Monday 7:00pm) MARY SUPPLE, LIA. SHARON CHRISTENSEN, ALT. MARY SUPPLE, LIA. RORI COLEMAN-WOODS, ALT. FOWL BOARD (3rd Thursday 4:30pm) SIMON TRAUTMANN, LIA. BEN WHALEN, ALT. WALTER BURK, LIA. RORI COLEMAN-WOODS, ALT. SOUTHWEST CABLE COMMISSION (2-4 times per year) MARY SUPPLE, REP. KATIE RODRIGUEZ, REP. SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY, ALT. MARY SUPPLE, REP. KATIE RODRIGUEZ, REP. SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY, ALT. RICHFIELD COMMUNITY HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING COUNCIL (Meets once a year) SHARON CHRISTENSEN, REP. BEN WHALEN, ALT. RORI COLEMAN-WOODS, REP. SHARON CHRISTENSEN, ALT. ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH (4th Monday Jan-Feb and 3rd Monday Mar-Oct 6:00pm) SIMON TRAUTMANN, LIA. BEN WHALEN, ALT. JENNIFER ANDERSON, STAFF LIA. SHARON CHRISTENSEN, LIA. RORI COLEMAN-WOODS, ALT. JENNIFER ANDERSON, STAFF LIA. ARTS COMMISSION (1st Thursday 7:00pm) SHARON CHRISTENSEN, LIA. MARY SUPPLE, ALT. KARL HUEMILLER, STAFF LIA. SHARON CHRISTENSEN, LIA. MARY SUPPLE, ALT. JILL MURPHY, STAFF LIA. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (As needed) SHARON CHRISTENSEN, LIA. KELLY WYNN, STAFF LIA. SHARON CHRISTENSEN, LIA. KELLY WYNN, STAFF LIA. COMM. SERVICES COMMISSION (3rd Tuesday 7:00pm) BEN WHALEN, LIA. SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY, ALT. JILL MURPHY, STAFF LIA. RORI COLEMAN-WOODS, LIA. WALTER BURK, ALT. JOHN EVANS AND KARL HUEMILLER, STAFF LIA. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (1st Tuesday 6:30pm) SIMON TRAUTMANN, LIA. SHARON CHRISTENSEN, ALT. MIKE FLAHERTY, STAFF LIA. BRITTANY BARTLETT, STAFF LIA. WALTER BURK, LIA. SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY, ALT. BRITTANY BARTLETT AND MIKE FLAHERTY, STAFF LIA. PLANNING COMMISSION (4th Monday 7:00pm) MARY SUPPLE, LIA. SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY, ALT. SAM CROSBY, STAFF LIA. WALTER BURK, LIA. MARY SUPPLE, ALT. SAM CROSBY, STAFF LIA. 12/20/24 AGENCY 2024 LIAISON/ REPRESENTATIVE 2025 LIAISON/ REPRESENTATIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (1ST Wednesday 7:00pm) SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY, LIA. SIMON TRAUTMANN, ALT. MATT HARDEGGER, STAFF LIA. SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY, LIA. WALTER BURK, ALT. MATT HARDEGGER, STAFF LIA. RICHFIELD HISTORICAL SOCIETY (3rd Monday 7:00pm) SHARON CHRISTENSEN, REP. MARY SUPPLE, ALT. SHARON CHRISTENSEN, REP. SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY, ALT. SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION (4th Thursday 7:00pm) BEN WHALEN, LIA. SEAN HAYFORD OLEARY, ALT. RACHEL LINDHOLM, STAFF LIA. RORI COLEMAN-WOODS, LIA. WALTER BURK, ALT. RACHEL LINDHOLM, STAFF LIA. RICHFIELD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SIMON TRAUTMANN, LIA. MARY SUPPLE, ALT. MARY SUPPLE, LIA. WALTER BURK, ALT. AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #2.B. STAFF REPORT NO. 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1/14/2025 REPORT PREPARED BY:Rachel Lindholm, Sustainability Coordinator DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Karl Huemiller, Recreation Services Director OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:Jennifer Anderson, Public Safety Tim Mahoney, Public Safety CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez 1/8/2025 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider the approval of the first reading of an ordinance updating requirements for maintenance of fowl and birds, and schedule a public hearing and second reading for January 28, 2025. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Section 905.37 of Richfield City Code pertains to regulations around owning fowl (chickens, ducks, etc.). Sustainability Commissioners and residents wanted to increase the number of fowl allowed to be kept to be more in line with average flock sizes and what neighboring cities allow. These proposed revisions also include detailed requirements for coop space and other reasonable conditions, nuisance language, and requiring a permit application to be submitted. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve first reading of the ordinance updating requirements for maintenance of fowl and birds, and schedule a public hearing and second reading for January 28, 2025. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT Richfield City Code has allowed ownership of 3 fowl since the original ordinance was passed in 1955. The Sustainability Commission proposed revising existing code when it was identified that the current code did not meet the realities of owning a small flock. Commission members identified updates needed to improve bird quality of life and enable residents with flocks to more easily introduce new birds to the flock. Commissioners researched code examples from other nearby cities and proposed recommendations to staff on changes to Richfield city code. The City's Sustainability Coordinator, Public Safety Admin Services Supervisor, and Code Compliance Officer collaborated to revise code language to include community requests as well as permit application language that public safety staff wanted. The City Attorney's office reviewed and revised the proposed draft before approving it. The Sustainability Commission approved the proposed code at their meeting on 11/21/24. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Strategic: Updating the Fowl Ordinance is one aspect of updating and improving processes related to permitting of flocks and enforcement of city code relating to fowl. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): This will replace existing city code section "905.37. - Maintenance of fowl and birds." The City Charter requires a first and second reading of ordinances. A public hearing is not required unless a separate statute, charter provision or ordinance requires it. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: None E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: There will be a nominal permit fee intended to cover staff time for application processing. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City Attorney has reviewed and helped revise the proposed code. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): None PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Proposed Fowl Ordinance Ordinance BILL NO. 2025-__ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER IX OF THE RICHFIELD CODE OF ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO MAINTENANCE OF BIRDS AND FOWL THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Chapter IX, Section 905 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is repealed in its entirety and replaced as follows: 905.37. - Maintenance of fowl and birds. Subdivision 1. Prohibitions. a. No person shall own or keep any chickens, ducks, geese, pigeons or other fowl or birds without obtaining a permit from the City. b. No person owning or keeping chickens, ducks, geese, pigeons or other fowl or birds may abandon such birds or fowl or permit the same to run at large or enter upon the premises of another without permission, nor may any such fowl or birds be kept, raised or permitted to run at large on any street, park, lake or public ponding area. c. No person shall slaughter any chickens, ducks, geese, pigeons or other fowl or birds within the City of Richfield. d. No person shall sell or breed any chickens, ducks, geese, pigeons or other fowl or birds within the City of Richfield. Subd. 2. Limitation on number. No more than six (6) fowl or birds may be kept or raised on any residential property in the City. This limitation does not apply to the keeping of pigeons pursuant to a license under the provisions of this section. Subd. 3. Injury or annoyance to others. For public nuisances related to fowl or birds, the City shall follow the notice and abatement procedure in Section 925. The following standards shall apply to all birds kept or raised on residential property in the City, and violations of such standards shall be considered a public nuisance: a. No such fowl or birds may be kept or raised in a manner as to cause injury or annoyance to persons on other property in the vicinity by reason of noise, odor or filth. b. Fecal waste or litter shall be removed at such reasonable times to prevent odors from emitting over property lines. Subd. 4. Impounding of fowl or birds. A fowl or bird at large in violation of subdivision 1 may be impounded by the City, and, after being impounded for three (3) days or more without being reclaimed by the owner, may be destroyed or sold. A person reclaiming any impounded fowl shall pay the cost of impounding and keeping the same. Subd. 5. Permit requirements and process. a. The application shall be on a form developed by the City. The application form shall be made available at City Hall. The fees for such permits shall be payable upon submission of application and are as described in Appendix D. b. The City may inspect the premises annually or as deemed necessary. RC160\3\977267.v3 c. Approval of application is subject to reasonable conditions listed below. The City may impose any other reasonable conditions. Failure to adhere to permit conditions shall constitute cause for adverse action against the permit and shall be a violation of this section. A site plan demonstrating adherence to the following reasonable conditions must be submitted as part of the permit application to Business Licensing. Reasonable conditions include: i. Coops must contain four (4) square feet per fowl; ii. Runs must contain ten (10) square feet per fowl; iii. Coops must contain one (1) foot of roosting space per fowl; iv. Coops must contain one (1) nesting box per every three (3) hens; v. Coops must provide adequate ventilation, including a window or opening for air flow; vi. Coops must provide adequate predator proofing with hardware cloth, not chicken wire, which should extend at least twelve (12) inches underground and twelve (12) inches out from the coop; vii. Coops must not exceed one hundred and seventy five (175) total square feet; and viii. Coops must be setback at least three (3’) feet from each property line. d. A permit may be granted pursuant to this section only after the applicant has met any educational requirements as established by the City’s code compliance officer or their designee, including completing an approved backyard fowl course from an approved vendor as referenced on the application form. e. If the applicant is a renter, the applicant must provide evidence of written approval of the property owner in conjunction with the permit application. f. All permits are valid indefinitely unless otherwise revoked by reason of any violation of this subsection or by reason of violation of any other provisions of this code or any order, law or regulation. Before revoking a fowl or bird license, the licensee shall be given notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meeting before a hearing officer designated by the City Manager at which such revocation will be considered. Written notice shall either be delivered personally or mailed to the address of the licensee as set forth in the license application at least five (5) days before the meeting. At the meeting, the licensee must be given an opportunity to be heard. Following the meeting, the hearing officer shall issue a written decision regarding the revocation. g. The requirements of this section shall not prohibit the adoption of fowl to the public by any releasing agency, private shelter, rescue group, or public sheltering agency provided the adoption contract specifies that the animal cannot be sold, transferred, or otherwise disposed of for a period of six (6) months following the adoption without written consent of the releasing agency, except for euthanization by a licensed veterinarian to prevent pain and suffering or disease transmission. Section 2. This ordinance will be effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the City Charter. Adopted by the City of Richfield on this 28th day of January 2025. RC160\3\977267.v3 Mary Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #2.C. STAFF REPORT NO. 3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1/14/2025 REPORT PREPARED BY:Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 1/8/2025 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider a resolution designating an official newspaper for 2025. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Section 13.01 of the Charter of the City of Richfield requires the City Council annually designate an official newspaper for the City. The Richfield Sun-Current has served as the official paper for the City since 1969 and has proven to be a reliable and professional publication that is delivered to nearly all residences in the City. The Richfield Sun- Current has expressed an interest in continuing to serve as the official newspaper of the City. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Adopt a resolution designating the Richfield Sun-Current as the official newspaper for the City of Richfield for 2025. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT This information is contained in the Executive Summary. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Prioritizing a newspaper that is widely distributed and affordable supports transparency and inclusivity in local government communications. The Sun Current subscription is less expensive for community members than other regional newspapers and includes a print option without additional cost. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): This information is contained in the Executive Summary. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The City Council typically considers the designation of an official newspaper at the first meeting in January of each year. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: The 2025 price quote from the Sun-Current for the publication of legal notices is reasonable. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: A newspaper must be designated each year by the City for publication of all official and legal City business. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): The City Council may choose to postpone designation of an official newspaper to a future meeting and request the City Clerk’s office to gather quotes from other newspapers. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type 01-14 Resolution Official Newspaper Resolution Letter 2025 Sun Current Rates Backup Material City of Richfield January 11, 2024 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. Motion by: Seconded by: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING AN OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 2025 WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Richfield requires in Section 13.01 thereof that the City Council annually designate an official newspaper for the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Richfield Sun-Current is designated the official legal newspaper for the City of Richfield for 2025 for all publications required to be published therein. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Supple, Mary Supple, Mary Coleman-Woods, Rori Coleman-Woods, Rori Burk, Walter Burk, Walter Christensen, Sharon Christensen, Sharon Hayford Oleary, Sean Hayford Oleary, Sean Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 14th day of January 2025. Mary B. Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #2.D. STAFF REPORT NO. 4 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1/14/2025 REPORT PREPARED BY:Jennifer Anderson, Support Services Manager DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Jay Henthorne, Director of Public Safety/Chief of Police 12/20/2024 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 1/8/2025 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the approval of Cannabis and Substance Use Prevention (CSUP) funding from the Minnesota Department of Health. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of the CSUP funding is to support the implementation of CSUP responsibilities by community health boards. Activities and work need to be evidence-based or promising practices in cannabis and substance use education, prevention and policy, systems and environmental change. Richfield's allotment for 2025 is $109,779 for November 1, 2024 - October 31, 2025. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve the CSUP funding for 2025, administered through the Minnesota Department of Health. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT This is new funding for community health boards, approved by the Minnesota Legislature when the Adult-Use Cannabis legislation was passed in 2023. Communication from MDH to health boards was sent in late October 2024. MDH anticipates funds may be added for a second year - November 1, 2025 - October 31, 2026 - if additional funds are allocated for CSUP community health board grants in future legislation. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS The workplan, once developed, will include a lens on equity. The majority of the funds will focus on a regional approach by Bloomington, Edina and Richfield, with Richfield keeping $20,000 for the Advisory Board of Health to set additional priorities and activities. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): The Richfield City Council has passed zoning and registration policies regarding cannabis in 2024. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: N/A E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: Richfield's grant allotment is $109,779. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement and approved of its contents. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): The City Council could choose not to accept the CSUP funds and direct staff on how to proceed PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Richfield's award letter Cover Memo An equal opportunity employer. October 24, 2024 Jennifer Anderson City of Richfield Community Health Board 6700 Portland Avenue So. Richfield, MN 55423 jenniferanderson@richfieldmn.gov Dear Jennifer Anderson: We are pleased to inform you that the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Cannabis and Substance Use Prevention (CSUP) Program is awarding funds to all Community Health Boards (CHBs) as a formula grant. The award for City of Richfield Community Health Board is $109,779. Please see the attached spreadsheet for a breakdown of all CHB awards. The budget year will be November 1, 2024-October 31, 2025. The grant will have an initial end date of June 30, 2026, to allow for spend down of any carryover. We anticipate that funds may be added for a second year-- November 1, 2025-October 31, 2026--if additional funds are allocated for CSUP Community Health Board grants in future legislation. We would like to get these funds out to the CHBs as soon as possible and anticipate a grant start date of November 1, 2024; however, work may not begin until a grant agreement between your agency and MDH is fully executed. In order to process the grant agreement, the two items below should be returned at your earliest convenience. Please return the completed items to the CSUP general email at: health.csup.MDH@state.mn.us. 1. Applicant/Recipient Conflict of Interest Disclosure form 2. High level budget breakdown of your award amount* *The CSUP Grant Guide includes a high-level list of general activities to help inform the budget. We understand that the budget you submit is subject to revision based on a more detailed work plan and you will be allowed to revise the budget you submit. MDH will provide guidance on completing and submitting a detailed work plan after the grant is executed. We look forward to working with you on our mutual goals of reducing cannabis and substance misuse in Minnesota. Please contact us at health.csup.MDH@state.mn.us if you have questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Kristine Igo, Director Office of Statewide Health Improvement Initiatives Community Health Division P.O. Box 64975, St. Paul, MN 55164-0975 www.health.state.mn.us Attachments: Funding Award Amounts COI Form for CSUP Applicant Cannabis Grantee Budget Template CSUP Grant Guide AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #2.E. STAFF REPORT NO. 5 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1/14/2025 REPORT PREPARED BY:Jennifer Anderson, Support Services Manager DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Jay Henthorne, Director of Public Safety/Chief of Police OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:N/A CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 1/8/2025 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider approval for a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for the Blessed Trinity Catholic School, located at St. Richard's Catholic Church, 7540 Penn Avenue South, for their 2025 Sno*ball Dance taking place February 1, 2025. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On December 22, 2024, the City received application materials for a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for the Blessed Trinity Catholic School, located at St. Richard's Catholic Church, 7540 Penn Avenue South, for their 2025 Sno*ball Dance taking place February 1, 2025. They will serve intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturday, February 1, 2025, only. They will provide food and snacks for dinner. The Blessed Trinity Catholic School has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure proper food handling practices are followed. The Director of Public Safety has reviewed all required information and documents and has found no basis for denial. The City Council has previously granted this license in conjunction with this event. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve issuance of a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for the Blessed Trinity Catholic School, located at St. Richard's Catholic Church, 7540 Penn Avenue South for their 2025 Sno*ball Dance taking place February 1, 2025. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for the issuance of this license: The required licensing fee has been paid. Proof of liquor liability insurance has been provided showing the Catholic Mutual Relief Society of America affording the coverage. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): Richfield City Code Section 1202.05 requires all applicants to comply with all of the provisions of this code, as well as the provisions of Minnesota Statute Chapter 340A. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The event takes place on February 1, 2025; therefore, consideration of the license is required at the City Council's January 14, 2025 meeting. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: The required licensing fees have been received. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: There are no legal considerations. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): The Council could deny the approval of the Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for the Blessed Trinity Catholic School. This would mean the applicant would not be able to serve intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 percent malt liquor; however, Public Safety has not found any basis for denial. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: Blessed Trinity Catholic staff has been notified of the date of this meeting. AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #2.F. STAFF REPORT NO. 6 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1/14/2025 REPORT PREPARED BY:Julie Urban, Asst. Community Development Director DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Melissa Poehlman, Community Development Director 1/7/2025 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 1/8/2025 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider a Grant Compliance Agreement with Penn Station Apartments, LLLP regarding a Livable Communities Demonstration Account Pre-Development Grant for 6501-6525 Penn Avenue South. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On September 11, 2024, the City was awarded a Livable Communities Demonstration Account Pre- Development Grant (Grant) from the Metropolitan Council in the amount of $100,000 to undertake activities related to redevelopment of 6501-6525 Penn Avenue South. These activities include architectural designs and financial studies for development of approximately 40 affordable apartments. On June 17, 2024, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) entered into a Preliminary Development Agreement with JO Companies, LLC for the redevelopment of 6501-6525 Penn Avenue South. JO Companies, LLC has formed a subsidiary partnership, Penn Station Apartments LLLP (Developer) that will undertake the activities and will be reimbursed with the Grant proceeds. The Grant Compliance Agreement lays out the terms and conditions for reimbursing the Developer for those activities. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve a Grant Compliance Agreement with Penn Station Apartments, LLLP regarding a Livable Communities Demonstration Account Pre-Development Grant for 6501-6525 Penn Avenue South. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT On June 17, 2024, the HRA entered into a Preliminary Development Agreement with JO Companies, LLC for the redevelopment of 6501-6525 Penn Avenue South. On September 11, 2024, the City was awarded an LCDA Grant from the Metropolitan Council for pre- development activities to further the redevelopment of 6501-6525 Penn Avenue South. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS The proposed affordable housing development associated with the Grant would help meet the Strategic Plan goal to maintain Richfield as an affordable place to live. As part of the predevelopment process, the Developer is seeking input from the community on the design of the project and is specifically reaching out to people with disabilities; Black, Indigenous and People of Color; people who are or have been unsheltered; and large families with children. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): The signed Preliminary Development Agreement between JO Companies, LLC and the HRA indicates that the HRA will cooperate with the redeveloper to obtain various grants. The City and the Metropolitan Council have executed a Grant Agreement that lays out the terms of the Grant. The Grant Compliance Agreement conveys those terms to Penn Station Apartments, LLLP, a subsidiary of JO Companies, LLC. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The Grant expires December 31, 2026. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City was awarded $100,000 in Grant funds from the Metropolitan Council. The City intends to provide the proceeds of the Grant to the Developer. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The HRA Attorney prepared the Grant Compliance Agreement. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. Decide to not approve the Agreement. 2. Approve the Agreement with changes. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Grant Agreement Contract/Agreement 1 RC125-399-994027.v4 GRANT COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT This GRANT COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into this ___ day of January, 2025, between the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the “City”), and Penn Station Apartments LLLP, a Minnesota limited liability limited partnership (the “Developer”). RECITALS WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the “Authority”) and the Developer entered into a Preliminary Development Agreement, dated June 17, 2024 and amended on July 9, 2024 (the “Agreement”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement, the Developer proposed to acquire certain property (the “Redevelopment Property”) from the Authority, demolish the blighted building on the Redevelopment Property, and construct a building with approximately 40 affordable housing units, with a portion of the units occupied by residents whose incomes do not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the area median gross income, a portion occupied by residents whose incomes do not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the area median gross income, and the remainder of the units occupied by residents whose incomes do not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the area median gross income, and the Authority agreed to consider financial assistance for the Project in an amount of up to $1,485,000 by selling the Redevelopment Property at a reduced cost and providing financial assistance from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund; and WHEREAS, to assist the Developer in obtaining additional financing for the Project, the City submitted an application to the Metropolitan Council for funds available under the Livable Communities Demonstration Account Pre-Development Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the City was awarded and accepted a Livable Communities Demonstration Account Grant (Pre-Development Grant Program) in the maximum amount of $100,000 from Metropolitan Council (the “LCDA Grant”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Livable Communities Demonstration Account Grant Agreement (Pre- Development Grant Program) Agreement (the “LCDA Grant Agreement”), proceeds of the LCDA Grant may be used for building or site design and financial studies as more fully described in the LCDA Grant Agreement (the “Eligible Costs”); and WHEREAS, a copy of the LCDA Grant Agreement has been provided to the Developer; and WHEREAS, the City intends to provide the proceeds of the LCDA Grant Authority to the Developer to pay for Eligible Costs; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between the Authority, the City and the Developer as follows: 1. The LCDA Grant Agreement is incorporated herein by reference. 2. The Developer has read the LCDA Grant Agreement and agrees to comply with all terms, conditions, and obligations of the City under the LCDA Grant Agreement, including but not limited to providing evidence of expenditures for Eligible Costs, providing deliverables, establishing and maintaining records, consenting to audits, and providing project progress reports. 2 RC125-399-994027.v4 3. The Developer agrees to fully indemnify the City for any liability incurred by the City with respect to the LCDA Grant Agreement. (The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.) S-1 RC125-399-994027.v4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Grant Compliance Agreement effective the date and year first written above. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By Its Mayor By Its City Manager PENN STATION APARTMENTS LLLP By Name Its RC125-399 (JAE) 994027v4 AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #2.G. STAFF REPORT NO. 7 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1/14/2025 REPORT PREPARED BY:Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Kristin Asher, Public Works Director 1/6/2025 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 1/8/2025 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider adoption of a resolution of support for a grant application to MnDOT'S Safe Routes to School Infrastructure grant program for a sidewalk project on streets adjacent to Sheridan Hills Elementary School. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In 2024, Richfield and ISD #280 participated in a design assistance study for the Sheridan Hills Elementary School campus through a MnDOT Safe Routes to School grant. This study identified opportunities on streets around the campus for projects to improve conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists. From that study, staff have identified this project to advance for funding consideration in the 2025 cycle. This project would construct a sidewalk on the west side of Russell Ave from 65th Street to 64th Street and a sidewalk on the north side of 64th Street from Thomas Ave to just east of Russell Ave, as well as reconstruct pedestrian ramps at intersections. These projects were identified as separate projects in the Design Assistance Study (Projects B and C), with a recommendation that the projects be combined to maximize the benefits of the new sidewalk construction. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt a resolution of support for a grant application to MnDOT'S Safe Routes to School Infrastructure grant program for a sidewalk project on streets adjacent to Sheridan Hills Elementary School. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT See executive summary. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Strategic Considerations: By adopting these resolutions, the city is leveraging external funding sources to ensure sustainable infrastructure financing. Additionally, safer walking and biking conditions create city infrastructure that supports service needs and can lead to a mode shift away from parental vehicles for students commuting to school, which emphasizes that climate resilience is a priority. Equity Considerations: The student body of Richfield Public Schools is more economically and demographically diverse than the city as a whole. Providing safe infrastructure for students to travel to school helps to remove a safety barrier that disproportionately affects lower-income and BIPOC residents. A safe route to school helps remove some of the stress burden affecting students and parents from traditionally underserved communities, potentially leading to positive educational outcomes such as arriving safely, alert, and on time to school each day. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): All design will conform to the city's Complete Streets Policy and all design will be conducted utilizing the the city's public engagement process. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: Applications for infrastructure funding are due January 17th, 2025. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: No immediate financial impact. The grant request will be for $545,000, which is the estimated cost of the combination of Projects B and C from the Design Assistance Study. The city would be responsible for any project elements that exceed the grant award, as well as design and construction administration costs associated with the capital construction. Typical design and construction administration costs are approximately 16-22% of total construction cost. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: None ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): None PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Sheridan Hills SRTS ROS Resolution Letter Sheridan Hills Sidewalk Expansion Concept Exhibit 2014 Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan Exhibit RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR SHERIDAN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING APPLICATION WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT’s) Safe Routes to School Infrastructure Funding solicitation is a competitive state funding allocation process available to local governments, school districts, and other schools in the state of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Infrastructure Funding program’s purpose is to fund school-adjacent pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements; and WHEREAS, infrastructure improvements near Sheridan Hills Elementary School have been identified by a 2024 Safe Routes to School Design Assistance Study; and WHEREAS, approximately 8% of Sheridan Hills students walked or biked to school as of the most recent tally report in 2022; and WHEREAS, improving sidewalks and pedestrian crossings will increase safety and improve the experience of the entire community, including students traveling to and from school; and WHEREAS, no local government match funding is required for capital construction if the project is selected; and WHEREAS, the City will be responsible for funding engineering, right of way, inspection, and other non-SRTS eligible costs, as well as SRTS-eligible items in excess of the SRTS Infrastructure Funding grant amount if the project is selected; and WHEREAS, if the above project is selected, construction is tentatively scheduled for 2026; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield invests in infrastructure to best serve today’s and tomorrow’s residents, businesses, and visitors; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield ensures that City services are accessible to people of all races, ethnicities, incomes, and abilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richfield supports Public Works’ Safe Routes to School Infrastructure Funding application for pedestrian infrastructure near the Sheridan Hills Elementary School campus. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of January, 2025. Mary B. Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk PROJECT B: SIDEWALK – W 64 TH STREETFROM THOMAS AVENUE TO 140 FEET EAST OF RUSSELL AVENUE PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST ESTIMATE W 64th Street is located at the northern end of Sheridan Hills Elementary School and operates as an east-west connection to the school. The Project B segment, located between Thomas Avenue and roughly Russell Avenue, lacks pedestrian infrastructure which creates a gap in the sidewalk network. The project will install a new sidewalk along the north side of the corridor and include intersection improvements with curb extensions on W 64th Street at Thomas Avenue, Sheridan Avenue, and Russell Avenue. The project will provide a safe route for walking, rolling, and biking, while increasing accessibility and reducing crossing distances. $445,000 KEY DATA STEPP SCORE Sheridan Hills Elementary School: 5 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1,875 AADT (2023) SAFETY Safety concerns present are due to students walking in-road because of the gap in infrastructure. TRAFFIC SPEEDS 25 mph posted speed Project B will construct a new six-foot-wide sidewalk with a six-foot turf boulevard along the north side of the roadway, connecting to existing sidewalk east of Russell Avenue. A six-to-ten-inch curb is proposed to act as a retaining wall in between the sidewalk and adjacent properties. The project also includes curb extensions with high visibility crossing markings at the Thomas Avenue, Sheridan Avenue, and Russell Avenue intersections. These markings will be detectable to pedestrians and drivers, allowing for better visibility. Infrastructure Benefit Estimated 2024 Cost CRFs* Sidewalk Dedicated space for walking, separate from vehicle traffic $12 per square foot 40% High Visibility Crosswalk Markings (thermoplastic) Visually identifies and reduces vehicular encroachment of pedestrian space $3,500 per crossing 60% Curb Extension An extension of the sidewalk in the roadway to decrease the crossing distance and improve pedestrian visibility to drivers. $10,000 - $15,000 per quadrant 30% *Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) are used to compute the expected number of crashes reduced after implementing a countermeasure on a road or intersection. RECOMMENDED PROJECT Coordination with the adjacent property owners. This project could be divided into two separated phases to lower project costs: ƒ Phase 1: 140 feet of sidewalk east of Russell Ave and the W 64th St/Russell Ave intersection ƒ Phase 2: Sidewalk from Russell Ave to Thomas Ave and the intersections of Sheridan Ave and Thomas Ave It is also recommended that Projects B and C be considered for construction as one larger project to maximize the benefit of new sidewalk construction. NEXT STEPS PROJECT C: SIDEWALK – RUSSELL AVENUE FROM W 64 TH STREET TO W 65TH STREET PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST ESTIMATE Russell Avenue is located at the eastern side of Sheridan Hills Elementary School and operates as a north-south connection to the school. The Russell Avenue segment between W 64thStreet and W 65th Street does not have sidewalk which creates a gap in the network. Project C will install a sidewalk along the west side of Russell Avenue from W 64 th Street to W 65th Street, serving as a connection between existing and proposed sidewalk connections in the neighborhood. $100,000 KEY DATA STEPP SCORE Sheridan Hills Elementary School: 5 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Not Available SAFETY Safety concerns present are due to students walking in-road because of the gap in infrastructure. TRAFFIC SPEEDS 25 mph posted speed Project C will construct new six-foot-wide sidewalk with a six-foot-wide turf boulevard along the west side of the roadway. Infrastructure Benefit Estimated 2024 Cost CRFs* Sidewalk Dedicated space for walking, separate from vehicle traffic $12 per square foot 40% *Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) are used to compute the expected number of crashes reduced after implementing a countermeasure on a road or intersection. RECOMMENDED PROJECT It is recommended that Projects B and C be considered for construction as one larger project to maximize the benefit of new sidewalk construction. NEXT STEPS Richfield Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan April 2014 Prepared By: Acknowledgements This Safe Routes to School plan could not have been created without the time, energy, knowledge, and input of the following individuals and agencies: Jeff Pearson, City of Richfield Public Works Michael Schwartz, Richfield Public Schools Jessica Smith, Bloomington Public Health Julie Zamora, Bloomington Public Health Lee Ann Wise, Centennial Elementary School Principal Marta Shahsavand, Richfield Dual Language School Principal Jason Wenschlag, Richfield High School Principal Brian Zambreno, Richfield Middle School Principal Jodi Markworth, Sheridan Hills Elementary School Principal Joey Page, Richfield STEM School Principal ii Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. E-1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Process ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Existing Conditions Assessment ............................................................................................................... 2 Student Data ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Infrastructure....................................................................................................................................... 4 Centennial Elementary ..................................................................................................................... 5 Richfield Dual Language and STEM Schools ....................................................................................... 6 Sheridan Hills Elementary ................................................................................................................. 7 Richfield Middle School .................................................................................................................... 8 Richfield High School ...................................................................................................................... 10 Policy and Programming .................................................................................................................... 11 Challenges and Opportunities ................................................................................................................ 11 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 12 Short-Term ........................................................................................................................................ 13 Mid-Term........................................................................................................................................... 14 Long-Term ......................................................................................................................................... 15 Funding and Implementation ................................................................................................................ 16 Appendix ..............................................................................................................................................A-1 Student Travel Tally Results ..............................................................................................................A-2 Parent Survey Results .......................................................................................................................A-3 Resources .........................................................................................................................................A-7 References ...................................................................................................................................... A-12 E-1 Executive Summary The purpose of a Safe Routes to School Plan (ARTS) is to identify opportunities and priorities to increase walking and biking to schools, and develop an implementation plan for making improvements in these areas. A comprehensive process involving Richfield School District, City of Richfield, parents, and residents was begun in 2012 to develop a plan for the six public schools in Richfield. Through site visits, principal interviews, data gathering, and stakeholder input, a set of recommendations has been developed to address the needs of students walking and biking to school. These improvements involve actions by multiple stakeholders and include both infrastructure and policy changes. Introduction Walking and biking to school in the United States has decreased dramatically, from over 60 percent in the 1960s to an average of less than 10 percent today. This reduction in active transportation, and corresponding increase in vehicular transportation, negatively affects students’ health, vehicle congestion, traffic safety, and environmental quality around schools. Many factors contribute to the reduction in walking and bicycling to school. A survey of parents across the United States was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to find out why their children did not walk or bike to school. The most common reasons cited by parents were distance, traffic safety, weather, and crime. Examining the underlying issues for each of these barriers provides an opportunity to understand how they can be addressed. To reverse this decades-long trend of decreased walking and biking, the nationwide Safe Routes to School (SRTS) initiative was created to increase walking and biking to school through the implementation of each of the five “E’s”: §Education – Teaching children to walk and bike safely §Encouragement – Developing programs that get children excited about walking or biking to school §Enforcement – Having law enforcement support along the designated routes to school §Engineering – Identifying infrastructure barriers to walking and biking §Evaluation – Measuring the effectiveness of the various components of the SRTS project This Safe Routes to School Plan plays an important function of connecting the roles of the school district and the city in jointly seeking to increase walking and biking to school. It is intended to complement and support the work and planning already completed, while also capturing all the factors that influence choices about transportation. The plan builds on the infrastructure improvements previously identified, but also addresses the other four areas of SRTS including policy and programming. Richfield has already taken a number of significant steps to improve walking and bicycling in the community, including: §Safe Routes to School Study (2009) §Arterials Study (2009) §Bicycle Master Plan (2012) §Complete Streets Policy (2013) §Bicycle Friendly Assessment (2013) E-2 The benefits of a comprehensive SRTS plan are to provide an all-inclusive picture of the needs throughout the school district and community, allowing for programming and prioritization. In addition, it provides the opportunity to address district and city policies and programs related to walking and biking, and having a plan puts the agencies in a favorable position when applying for funding. At the school and neighborhood level, increased walking and biking to school has been shown to improve student health and academic performance, reduce traffic congestion around the school, and thereby also improve air quality and reduce traffic noise. Project Process This plan was developed with input from the key SRTS stakeholders in Richfield, including school staff, parents, school district staff, city staff, and students. The initial phases included significant data collection and assembly, along with site observations at each school, discussions with stakeholders, and development of recommendations. Recommendations The following sections present the recommendations of the Comprehensive SRTS Plan to increase walking and biking to schools in Richfield. Some recommendations could be feasibly implemented in the next year, while others may require longer timelines due to policy changes or funding. Each measure has been classified according to the agency that would lead its implementation. Existing Conditions Assessment Site Visits Principal InterviewsParent Survey ARTS Working Group Data Gathering ARTS Comprehensive Plan Pedestrian/Bicycle Needs/Opportunities Improvement Priorities Plan Recommendations Stakeholder Input E-3 City of Richfield Improvements §Install No Parking signing to increase visibility at the 12th Avenue/71st Street marked crosswalk §Mark 70th Street/Harriet Avenue intersection with high visibility crosswalks §Repaint bicycle pavement markings on 75th Street §Provide periodic speed enforcement on 70th Street near Richfield Dual Language and STEM Schools §Replace sidewalk and construction pedestrian ramps on Elliot Avenue near 71st Street §Prioritize snow plowing and removal at schools and on school routes §Construct sidewalk on 73rd Street or designate an on-street pedestrian route east of Centennial Elementary §Construct sidewalk on 71st Street from Elliot Avenue to 12th Avenue §Implement the Bicycle Master Plan, with priority placed on routes that connect to schools §Implement the Richfield Sidewalk Plan as identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan §Pursue opportunities for bicycle land and sidewalk construction as roadways are repaved or resurfaced Richfield Public Schools Improvements §Direct students walking and biking to Centennial Elementary to cross 73rd Street at Bloomington Avenue instead of 16th Avenue §Train adult crossing guards to patrol the 70th Street/Elliot Avenue intersection §Install bicycle racks on the east side of Sheridan Hills Elementary §Install a bicycle rack on the west side of Richfield Middle School §Develop a walking/bicycling section of the school district website §Designate a SRTS coordinator at the school district level §Incorporate walking and bicycling to school into the school district wellness policy §Utilize existing high school and middle school clubs to support walking and bicycling activities §Replace and improve bicycle racks at all school sites §Construct sidewalk connections on Centennial Elementary site §Construct a sidewalk connection from 65th Street to the entrance of Sheridan Hills Elementary §Reconstruct Sheridan Hills driveway onto 65th Street §Introduce walking and bicycling into the physical education curriculum Joint City-District Improvements §Continue student travel tallies on at least an annual basis §Establish a permanent Richfield Safe Routes Working Group Based on its past planning and active efforts to improve its bicycle and pedestrian facilities, Richfield is well-positioned to implement infrastructure improvements and effect the cultural and policy changes necessary to see long-term shifts in travel behavior. 1 Introduction Walking and biking to school in the United States has decreased dramatically, from over 60 percent in the 1960s to an average of less than 10 percent today. This reduction in active transportation, and corresponding increase in vehicular transportation, negatively affects students’ health, vehicle congestion, traffic safety, and environmental quality around schools. In Hennepin County, only 24 percent of children age 6 to 17 years get the minimum amount of physical activity recommended by the Centers for Disease Control.1,2 Many factors contribute to the reduction in walking and bicycling to school. A survey of parents across the United States indicated that the most common reasons cited by parents were distance, traffic safety, weather, and crime.3 Examining the underlying issues for each of these barriers provides an opportunity to understand how they can be addressed. To reverse this decades-long trend of decreased walking and biking, the nationwide Safe Routes to School (SRTS) initiative was created to increase walking and biking to school through the implementation of each of the 5 “E’s”: §Education – Teaching children to walk and bike safely §Encouragement – Developing programs that get children excited about walking or biking to school §Enforcement – Having law enforcement support along the designated routes to school §Engineering – Identifying infrastructure barriers to walking and biking §Evaluation – Measuring the effectiveness of the various components of the SRTS project Locally, SRTS projects have been initiated and funded through federal transportation funds, as well as the Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP). SHIP is dedicated to promote active living in communities throughout Minnesota, with the goal of reducing obesity and preventing disease. The purpose of this Comprehensive Safe Routes to School Plan is to document the existing walking and biking environment in Richfield, identify opportunities and priorities to increase walking and biking to schools, and develop an implementation plan for making the improvements. The comprehensive nature of the plan provides an overall view of the needs and priorities in the city. Background The Richfield SRTS Study completed in 2009 established a strong foundation for improving walking and biking infrastructure at the elementary and middle schools in the city. Since that time, several other walking and biking related plans and studies have been completed and policies enacted in the city and school district, including: §Arterials Study (2009) §Bicycle Master Plan (2012) §Complete Streets Policy (2013) §Bicycle Friendly Assessment (2013) This plan is intended to complement and support the work and planning already completed. It builds on the infrastructure improvements previously identified, but also addresses the other four areas of SRTS 2 including policy and programming. The benefits of a SRTS plan are to provide a comprehensive overview of the needs throughout a school district or city, allowing for programming and prioritization. In addition, it provides the opportunity to address district and city policies and programs related to walking and biking, and having a plan puts the agencies in a favorable position when applying for funding. At the school and neighborhood level, increased walking and biking to school has been shown to improve student health and academic performance, reduce traffic congestion around the school, and thereby also improve air quality and reduce traffic noise. Project Process This plan was developed with input from the key SRTS stakeholders in Richfield, including school staff, parents, school district staff, city staff, and students. The initial phases included significant data collection and assembly, along with site observations at each school, followed by evaluations, and development of recommendations, and implementation. Stakeholder input was gathered at several key points in the process, as highlighted in the diagram below. Existing Conditions Assessment The City of Richfield encompasses seven square miles and has a population of approximately 35,000 residents. It is a first-ring suburb of Minneapolis and much of the city was developed with a grid street network, contributing to a more urban environment compared to other suburbs in the Twin Cities area. Existing Conditions Assessment Site Visits Principal InterviewsParent Survey ARTS Working Group Data Gathering ARTS Comprehensive Plan Pedestrian/Bicycle Needs/Opportunities Improvement Priorities Plan Recommendations Stakeholder Input 3 Student Data The Richfield School District serves nearly 4,300 total students across four elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. Walk boundaries for each school, which are established by the school district, set the distance within which students are not provided bus transportation. These boundaries for the Richfield School District are generally one mile for elementary schools, and two miles for middle and high school. On a district wide basis, approximately 30 percent of students live within the walk boundary of their school. A more detailed summary for each school, based on 2012-2013 enrollment data, is shown in Table 1. The students that live within the walk boundary represent the greatest opportunities for increasing walking and biking. Table 1. Richfield Students within Walk Zone Boundaries School Total Enrollment Students Within Walk Boundary Open Enrolled Provided Bus Transportation Centennial Elementary 455 33%9%58% Richfield Dual Language 470 4%19%77% Richfield STEM 780 12%10%77% Sheridan Hills Elementary 490 22%7%70% Richfield Middle 920 35%12%53% Richfield High School 1,145 57%20%23% Total 4,260 31%14%55% Student travel tallies were conducted for kindergarten through 8th grade classrooms in fall 2012 using the National Center for Safe Routes to School standard forms. The tallies showed that an average of six percent of elementary students and 14 percent of middle school students walked or biked to school. The predominant mode at all sites was School Bus, followed by Family Vehicle. More than 25 percent of all students arrive to or from school by Family Vehicle, which accounts for significant volumes of traffic at each of the school sites.Table 2 shows the average mode results by school. A breakdown of mode for travel to and from school for each site is included in the Appendix. Counts of pedestrians and bicyclists were also conducted as part of the field observations at each site, which are described further in the next section. 4 Table 2. Richfield Student Travel Tallies School Modes To/From School Walk Bike School Bus Family Vehicle Carpool Other Centennial Elementary 8%2%76%14%0%0% Richfield Dual Language 2%1%65%31%1%0% Richfield STEM 5%1%64%28%1%1% Sheridan Hills Elementary 4%0%66%29%1%0% Richfield Middle 9%5%54%29%2%1% A parent survey, developed by the National Center for Safe Routes to School, was conducted in August and September 2013 with 240 responses. The survey questions are directed at concerns and attitudes related to walking and biking, and parents’ perceptions of barriers to walking and biking. As shown in Table 3, the most-cited reasons by parents for not regularly walking or biking to school were distance, followed by traffic concerns (intersection safety, amount of traffic, speed of traffic). The age at which parents said they would allow their child to walk or bike to school without an adult was 5th to 6th grade. In the comments section of the survey, 66th Street and Penn Avenue were specifically mentioned multiple times as being crossing barriers for students walking and biking. A full summary of the survey results is included in the Appendix. Table 3. Issues that Affect Decision to Walk or Bike Issue DistanceConvenienceofDrivingTimeBeforeorAfterSchoolActivitiesSpeedofTrafficAlongRouteAmountofTrafficAlongRouteAdultstoWalkorBikeWithSidewalksorPathwaysSafetyofIntersectionsandCrossingsCrossingGuardsViolenceorCrimeWeatherorClimatePercent of Respondents 67% 17% 27% 15% 56% 61% 23% 30% 65% 13% 32% 48% Percentages do not total 100% because respondents could select more than one issue. Infrastructure Richfield has an existing network of sidewalk and bicycle facilities that connect many of the key destinations in the city, as shown in Figure 1. However, many of the major east/west roadways and nearly all local roadways do not have sidewalks. City policy is to have sidewalks on both sides of arterial 5 streets and on one side of collector streets. On local streets, sidewalks may be constructed if needed and supported by residents through the public approval process. The City of Richfield plows all public sidewalks within the city. In addition to a citywide review, observations were conducted during school arrival and dismissal to evaluate the condition of the infrastructure, gather data on existing walking and biking numbers, and also identify the primary walk/bike routes to each school. Centennial Elementary Centennial Elementary School has approximately 460 students in kindergarten through 5th grade. The school day is from 8:40 AM to 3:10 PM. The east side of Bloomington Avenue and a portion of the south side of 73rd Street adjacent to the school have existing sidewalks. However, the sidewalk on 73rd Street ends at the school property line and as a result, students walking to and from the east were generally observed to walk in the roadway or in the grass next to the roadway. Diagonal Blvd, located one to two blocks north of the school, was reconstructed in 2010 to include an off-road trail on the north side of the roadway, as well as on-street bike lanes. All the streets near the school are two-lane roadways. The crash data showed that most of these intersections had zero or one crashes over a 10- year period. There are not any designated school zones or school crossings near the school. Since the SRTS study in 2009, a bike rack was installed on the school site and stop control was installed on 16th Avenue and 17th Avenue at 73rd Street, and on 16th Avenue, 17th Avenue, and 18th Avenue at 74th Street. Traffic volume data were available4 for the following roadway segments, which are generally the higher volume streets: §Bloomington Avenue S between Diagonal Blvd and 76th Street has 950 vehicles per day §Diagonal Blvd between 12th Avenue S and Bloomington Avenue S has 1,450 vehicles per day §76th Street between Bloomington Avenue and Cedar Avenue has 560 vehicles per day §Cedar Avenue between 72nd Street and 76th Street has 1,800 vehicles per day 6 Most of the streets around the school are residential in nature, with relatively low traffic volumes. A school staff member patrols the 73rd Street/16th Avenue intersection to assist students crossing 73rd Street to walk to the north or to walk to and from family vehicles that park and drop off along 16th Avenue. A bike rack is located on the east side of the school, next to door 2, but there is not sidewalk connecting this location to the front entrance of the school. During the observations in November 2012 and May 2013, there were less than five bicycles parked in the rack. Approximately 10 to 25 students were observed walking or biking to school, with the primary route being to/from the east on 73rd Street. This is a relatively small number considering that Centennial has more than 150 students within the walk boundary, the highest percentage of any of the elementary schools in Richfield. The designated bus loading and unloading areas are in the parking lot south of the school and along the east side of Bloomington Avenue. The primary area used for family pick-up/drop-off is on 73rd Street in front of the school and some loading/unloading on 16th Avenue north of the school. The south side of 73rd Street is signed No Parking 8AM-4PM School Days. A summary of the existing conditions at Centennial Elementary are shown in Figure 2. Richfield Dual Language and STEM Schools Richfield Dual Language School and Richfield STEM School are located on the same site, which is bounded by 70th Street, 12th Avenue, 71St Street, and Elliot Avenue. Since the previous SRTS study, this site has been converted from an intermediate school, with students in 3rd to 5th grades, to two separate elementary schools with kindergarten through 5th grades in both buildings. Richfield Dual Language has approximately 460 students and Richfield STEM has approximately 770 students, both with kindergarten through 5th grades. The school day at both schools is from 7:45 AM to 2:10 PM. There are existing sidewalks on the east side of Elliot Avenue next to the school site, the south side of 70th Street, and the west side of 12th Avenue. The sidewalk on Elliot Avenue is in poor condition and ends at 71st Street. As a result, students walking to and from school were generally observed to walk in the roadway or in the grass next to the roadway once leaving the school grounds. Diagonal Blvd, located two blocks south of the school, was reconstructed in 2010 to include an off-road trail on the north side of the roadway, as well as on-street bike lanes. All the streets near the schools are two-lane roadways. The crash data showed that most of these intersections had only zero or one crashes over a 10-year period. The 70th Street/12th Avenue intersection had 8 crashes from 2003 to 2009, but has had no crashes since the conversion from a traffic signal to all-way stop control. There have been two pedestrian crashes near the school, one at 70th Street/12th Avenue and one midblock on 12th Avenue, however neither crash involved a student. 7 Signed school crossings with high visibility crosswalk markings are located at 70th Street/Elliot Avenue and 70th Street/12th Avenue. School patrols are operated at the 70th Street/12th Avenue, 71st Street/12th Avenue, and 71st Street/Elliot Avenue intersections that assist with crossings. The principal of Richfield Dual Language School reported that the patrols were removed from the 70th Street/Elliot Avenue intersection due to safety concerns for the student patrols, based on the volume and speed of traffic on 70th Street. Traffic volume data were available4 for the following roadway segments, which are generally the higher volume streets: §70th Street between Chicago Avenue and 12th Avenue has 2,250 vehicles per day §12th Avenue S between 70th Street and Diagonal Blvd/73rd Street has 2,800 vehicles per day The remaining streets around the school are residential streets with relatively low traffic volumes. Two bike racks are located on the south side of the school buildings, one within the Richfield Dual Language playground and one near the south entrance to Richfield STEM. During the observations in November 2012 and May 2013, there were as many as 12 total bicycles parked between the two racks. Approximately 45 total students were observed walking or biking to school, with the primary routes being to/from the east on 70th Street and to/from the west on 71st Street. This is a relatively small number considering that the two schools have a total of more than 110 students within the walk boundary. The designated bus loading and unloading areas are in the parking lot on the north side of the school and along 70th Street. The primary areas used for family pick-up/drop- off were the south parking lot for Richfield Dual Language and 12th Avenue for Richfield STEM. During the site observations of afternoon dismissal, family vehicles were frequently observed parked up to the crosswalk on 12th Avenue at 71st Street, limiting the visibility of both adults and students crossing the street. A summary of the existing conditions at Richfield Dual Language and Richfield STEM are shown in Figure 3. Sheridan Hills Elementary Sheridan Hills Elementary School has approximately 490 students in kindergarten through 5th grade. The school day is from 8:40 AM to 3:10 PM. The east side of Thomas Avenue, south side of 64th Street, and north side of 65th Street have existing sidewalks. However, the sidewalk on Thomas Avenue does not extend north of the school. There is a 8 trail through Sheridan Park that begins at the 65th Street/Sheridan Avenue intersection and extends west to Vincent Avenue. All the streets near the school are two-lane roadways. The crash data for the intersections around the school showed that most of them had zero or one crashes over a 10-year period. There are not any designated school zones or school crossings near the school. Since the SRTS study in 2009, a bike rack was installed near the front door of the school, but the rack is removed during the winter months. It was also noted there are no bike racks near the playground, which is used by children outside of school hours. Traffic volume data were available4 for the following roadway segments, which are generally the higher volume streets: §65th Street between Penn Avenue and Vincent Avenue has 1,200 vehicles per day §64th Street between Penn Avenue and York Avenue has 2,050 vehicles per day Students that would need to cross Penn Avenue or 66th Street to travel to and from school are provided bus transportation, however several students were observed crossing Penn Avenue at the signalized intersection with 65th Street. The remaining roadways around the school generally have low traffic volumes. A school staff member acts as a crossing guard at the 64th Street/Thomas Avenue intersection. Approximately 10 to 15 students were observed walking or biking to school, with the primary routes being east and west on 64th Street or 65th Street. This is a small percentage of the more than 100 students that live within the walk boundary of the school. The designated bus loading and unloading areas are on Thomas Avenue. The primary area used for family pick-up/drop-off is in the parking lot near the front door of the school. The east side of 73rd Street is signed No Parking 8AM-4PM School Days. During the site observations, it was noted that the wide parking lot driveway onto 65th Street can be a barrier for pedestrians. In addition, there are not good sidewalk connections from the sidewalk on 65th Street to the front door of the school, as the existing route requires crossing the parking lot traffic twice. A summary of the existing conditions at Sheridan Hills Elementary are shown in Figure 4. Richfield Middle School Richfield Middle School has approximately 900 students in 6th through 8th grades. The school day is from 8:05 AM to 2:40 PM. 9 The east side of Oliver Avenue and the south side of 73rd Street have existing sidewalks, there is an off-road trail on the north side of 75th Street, and there is a marked bicycle facility on 75th Street. The on-street markings and crosswalks appeared to have been installed with paint and were in need of repainting to improve their visibility. All the streets adjacent to the school are two-lane roadways. However, 76th Street is located just one block south of the school and I-35W is about three blocks east of the school, both of which have very high traffic volumes and can be significant barriers to pedestrians and bicyclists. The crash data shows there have been two total crashes at any of the intersections adjacent to the school over the past 10 years. There are not any designated school zones or school crossings near the school. Since the SRTS study in 2009, 75th Street in front of the school was reconstructed and the off-road trail and on-road bicycle facility added. At the same time, the school’s parking lot was reconstructed to separate parent pick-up/drop-off traffic from bus traffic and staff parking. A locked bike corral was also constructed at the southeast corner of the school. Traffic volume data were available4 for the following roadway segments, which are generally the higher volume streets: §Humboldt Avenue between 70th Street and 76th Street has 590 vehicles per day During the observations in November 2012 and May 2013, the bike corral was well used and there were as many as 25 bicycles parked in or near the corral. It was noted during both observations that some bikes were locked to the outside fence of the corral and that most of the racks in the corral are the older style bicycle racks. There was also demand for bicycle parking at other areas of the school site, with up to five bikes observed parked at the northwest corner of the school, near 74th Street/Thomas Avenue, where there are not bike racks. Approximately 65 students were observed walking or biking to school, with the primary route being to/from the east on 75th Street. 10 The designated bus loading and unloading areas are in the parking lot south of the school and along the east side of Oliver Avenue. The primary area used for family pick-up/drop-off is in the parking lot/drive- through west of the main parking lot, with the entrance on 75th Street and exit on Oliver Avenue. The east side of Oliver Avenue is signed No Parking 8AM-4:30PM School Days. A summary of the existing conditions at Centennial Elementary are shown in Figure 5. Richfield High School Richfield High School has approximately 1,100 students in 9th through 12th grades. The school day is from 8:10 AM to 2:40 PM. Richfield High School was not included in the 2009 SRTS study because federal SRTS funding can only be used for K-8 schools. The south side of 70th Street and the east side of Harriet Avenue adjacent to the school have existing sidewalks. Many students were observed to walk in the street south of 72nd Street and along the railroad tracks that run north/south along the school. All the streets adjacent to the school are two-lane roadways and except for 70th Street, are residential in nature, with low traffic volumes. The Lyndale Avenue/70th Street, Lyndale Avenue/73rd Street, Harriet Avenue/70th Street, and Harriet Avenue/73rd Street intersections all have high visibility marked crosswalks and are signed as school crossings. The crash data shows that most intersections around the school have zero or one crash over the past 10 years. However, the 70th Street/Harriet Avenue intersection has had 2 bicycle crashes and 1 pedestrian crash, all involving high school students before or after school and there was also a mid-block pedestrian crash on 70th Street east of Harriet Avenue. The 70th Street/Pleasant Avenue intersection has had four crashes over that time period, but none involved pedestrians or bicyclists. Traffic volume data were available4 for the following roadway segments, which are generally the higher volume streets: §70th Street between Lyndale Avenue and Nicollet Avenue has 3,300 vehicles per day §73rd Street between Lyndale Avenue and Nicollet Avenue has 2,050 vehicles per day The school has bike racks located in the courtyard on the north side of the school building. During the observations in November 2012 and May 2013, there were up to 25 bicycles parked in the racks as well as a few bikes chained to sign posts and fences around the school campus. It was noted that there is one new bike rack on campus, the remainder are an older style rack that has the potential to damage bike tires. Approximately 140 students were observed walking or biking to school, with the primary routes being 70th Street and along the railroad tracks. However, there are over 600 students that live within the walk boundary. 11 The designated bus loading and unloading areas are on 70th Street adjacent to the school. The primary area used for family pick-up/drop-off is in the parking lot south of the school, west of the main parking lot. A summary of the existing conditions at Centennial Elementary are shown in Figure 6. Policy and Programming The City of Richfield was awarded SRTS grant funding in 2008, which led to the completion of the Safe Routes to School Study in 2009. A number of the recommendations from that study have already been implemented. A Safe Routes Working Group has been established in Richfield that includes City of Richfield Public Works staff, Richfield School District staff, Bloomington Public Health staff, and a Richfield school principal representative. The role of this group was to share information, identify and discuss challenges and opportunities to walking and biking to schools in Richfield, and discuss the implementation and prioritization of measures to increase walking and biking to school. At the city level, the Complete Streets Policy establishes a framework for consideration and inclusion of all users in transportation projects, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists, and freight operators. In addition, the city has a sidewalk plan included in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan and a separate Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) that was completed in 2012. The Richfield School District established a Wellness Policy in 2006 that addresses nutrition guidelines, nutrition education, physical activity, and parent education. The policy does not specifically address walking or biking to school, or the role of the district in active transportation to and from school. Several of the individual school sites also have wellness policies or plans, but these generally do not specifically speak to walking and biking to school. A number of localized SRTS activities have also been occurring at the individual school sites, such as participation in International Walk to School Day in the fall and National Bike to School Day in the spring, and hosting of a bike rodeo. The elementary schools also each operate a school patrol to provide for safe crossings immediately next to the school. However, there are not currently district-wide SRTS activities or walking/biking curriculum. Challenges and Opportunities As a community, Richfield has already taken a number of progressive steps to increase the opportunities for walking and biking. The creation of a Bicycle Master Plan and the passage of the Complete Streets Policy are two key measures that lay the groundwork for planning and construction of future infrastructure projects. The City has also led or been a key partner in the construction of several significant trail projects over the past five years, including the off-street trail along 75th Street, 76th Street, and Diagonal Boulevard and the future Intercity Regional Trail being built by Three Rivers Park District.Figure 7 shows the full network of planned bicycle and sidewalk infrastructure planned within the city. 12 Through discussions with the SRTS Working Group, interviews with school staff, and feedback from walking/biking assessments conducted in the community, several consistent themes related to infrastructure emerged: §The sidewalk and trail networks continue to be expanded across the city, but significant gaps still exist, and connections to destinations are needed §Crossings of major roadways are one of the most significant real and perceived obstacles to walking and biking §The lack of sidewalk infrastructure is seen as a barrier to walking and biking, particularly for elementary students, even when they live very close to school However, infrastructure alone is not enough to change behaviors. There remain pockets of the community that have not embraced walking and biking, and in some cases even discourage it. At the beginning of this planning process, two elementary schools in Richfield had language in their school handbooks that stated “for safety we encourage all students to ride the bus to school (or get a ride from parents”. This language has since been removed from the handbooks, but demonstrates that perceptions and attitudes towards walking and biking are currently a barrier in some school communities. Education and encouragement to these populations will be necessary to begin to see changes in attitudes and behaviors. Concerns about liability also remain a challenge. Encouraging walking and biking to school do not increase the district’s or school’s liability risk, but continued education of school and district administrators is needed to ensure this is not a barrier to walking and biking to school. The Minnesota Public Health Law Center has resources and training available to help address this issue, including a summary of liability for schools. This document has been included in the Resources section of the Appendix. Recommendations The following sections and the maps shown in Figures 8-13 present recommendations to increase walking and biking to schools in Richfield. The implementation timeline for each recommendation has been identified (short-term, mid-term, long-term, or on-going) as well as identifying the agencies or organizations that would most appropriately take the lead in implementation. The recommendations identified as short-term are generally actions that could be implemented in the next 6 to 12 months, mid-term improvements are generally considered to require 1 to 2 years to implement, and long-term recommendations are expected to require more than 2 years and may also trigger other processes such as policy changes or identification of significant funding sources. Funding of the recommendations is discussed further in the Funding and Implementation section of this report. 13 Short-Term §Install No Parking signing to increase visibility at the 12th Avenue/71st Street marked crosswalk. Although parking is already prohibited in this area, vehicles were observed to frequently park too close to the crosswalk next to Richfield STEM School, limiting the visibility of pedestrians stepping into the crosswalk.Implementation lead: City of Richfield §Direct students walking and biking to Centennial Elementary to cross 73rd Street at Bloomington Avenue instead of 16th Avenue.There are no sidewalks on 16th Avenue or pedestrian accommodations at this intersection. In addition, the current crossing location is within the parent pick-up/drop-off area, which has more potential conflicts with vehicles pulling in and out. Implementation lead: Centennial Elementary §Mark 70th Street/Harriet Avenue intersection with high visibility crosswalks. The history of pedestrian and bicycle traffic at the intersection as well as the volume of traffic on 70th Street merit additional measures to increase conspicuity of the crossings. Durable pavement markings may also be considered for this location.Implementation lead: City of Richfield §Train adult crossing guards (staff or volunteers) to patrol the 70th Street/Elliot Avenue intersection before and after school. This intersection has higher traffic volumes and speeds and was identified as a concern relative to driver compliance with the school patrols. Adult crossing guards would better be able to provide for safe crossings.Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools and Dual Language School §Install bicycle racks on the east side of Sheridan Hills Elementary. Bicycle parking in this area will better serve students traveling to school from the east, as well as children and families using the playground outside of school hours.Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools §Repaint bicycle pavement markings on 75th Street. The existing pavement markings are faded and need to be repainted to improve visibility.Implementation lead: City of Richfield §Prioritize snow plowing at schools and on school routes. A policy that identifies higher pedestrian areas, such as adjacent to schools and along primary routes to schools, will improve the safety and opportunity for walking to school in the winter.Implementation lead: City of Richfield §Install a bicycle rack on the west side of Richfield Middle School. The sports fields on the west side of the school are used by children and adults and observations showed bicycles chained to the fences in this area, indicating a demand for bicycle parking. Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools §Provide periodic speed enforcement on 70th Street near Richfield Dual Language and STEM Schools.With the roadway width and lack of parking on 70th Street, traffic speeds have been 14 identified as a key concern of the adjacent schools. Periodic speed enforcement or traffic calming measures such as dynamic speed feedback signs (“speed wagons”) can help slow drivers as well as improve pedestrians’ perceptions of safety.Implementation lead: City of Richfield §Continue twice-yearly student travel tallies to track changes in walking and biking to school. The travel tallies provide an easy way to measure the progress of the SRTS activities. In addition, having current data will support funding applications.Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools and Bloomington Public Health §Develop a walking/biking section of the school district website. Walking and biking should be treated as equal transportation alternatives to riding the school bus. The webpage should list pedestrian and bicycle safety rules and tips and could also contain the school walk/bike maps. Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools, with support from Bloomington Public Health Department. Mid-Term §Designate a SRTS coordinator at the school district level.Individual school sites need support to plan and implement SRTS programs, and coordination of all activities and policies across the district will make the best use of resources and best practices.Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools §Incorporate walking and biking to school into the school district wellness policy. The language of the current policy could be strengthened to encourage walking and biking to school as having health benefits, as well as environmental benefits around the school.Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools §Replace sidewalk on Elliot Avenue near 71st Street and construct pedestrian ramps. The intersection is school patrolled and is marked as a school crossing, however the sidewalk infrastructure does not facilitate pedestrian crossings.Implementation lead: City of Richfield §Utilize existing high school and middle school clubs to support walking and biking activities.There are a number of existing clubs or the potential for new clubs that could be used to promote walking and biking, such as a “Green Team” or bike club. The bike club could include teaching students bicycle maintenance and repair, as well as safe riding skills. These clubs, with support from the district, should plan yearly activities for International Walk to School Month in October and National Bike Month in May. High school and middle school students can also support these activities at the elementary school level.Implementation lead – Richfield High School and Richfield Middle School 15 §Establish a permanent Richfield Safe Routes Working Group. The purpose of the Safe Routes committee would be to provide on-going support and organization for walking and biking activities, as well as maintain communication and coordination among each of the agencies that have a role in walking and biking to school (city, county, school district, etc). The working group could be modeled after the Bike Task Force. Some potential activities that the working group may want to consider are planning of a Walk/Bike to School Day, organizing a family walking/biking even outside the school day.Implementation lead: Bloomington Public Health and Richfield Public Schools Long-Term §Replace old and outdated bicycle racks on all school sites.Many of the existing bicycle racks on the school sites are older style racks that provide less secure parking and can potentially damage bicycle wheels. These should be systematically replaced over the next five years. A replacement program could be initiated as part of a citywide bicycle parking program.Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools §Construct sidewalk connections on Centennial Elementary site.Direct paved connections from the south and east sides of the school will provide safer and more easily navigable routes during all weather.Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools §Construct sidewalk on 73rd Street or designate an on-street pedestrian route east of Centennial Elementary.A sidewalk gap exists east of the school and this route will connect to the future Intercity Regional Trail.Implementation lead: City of Richfield §Construct sidewalk on 71st Street from Elliot Avenue to 12th Avenue. This segment is not identified in the Richfield Sidewalk plan, but represents an existing sidewalk gap next to two school sites with more than 1,000 students.Implementation lead: City of Richfield §Construct a sidewalk connection from 65th Street to the entrance of Sheridan Hills Elementary.A sidewalk connection on the east side of the parking lot would eliminate conflicts with vehicles entering and exiting the school parking lot.Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools §Implement the Bicycle Master Plan, with priority placed on routes that connect to schools. This would specifically include the proposed on-street bicycle routes on 70th Street and Sheridan Avenue/Russell Avenue and the off-road trail along the existing railroad alignment.Implementation lead: City of Richfield §Implement the Richfield Sidewalk Plan as identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.Sidewalk segments that are adjacent to or would serve as a route to school should be prioritized, including 64th Street east of Penn Avenue, near Sheridan Hills Elementary, and 73rd Street between I-35W and Lyndale Avenue, which would provide connections to Richfield High School and Richfield Middle School.Implementation lead: City of Richfield 16 §Reconstruct Sheridan Hills driveway onto 65th Street. The existing driveway is very wide and results in a large area of potential vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools §Introduce walking and bicycling education into the physical education curriculum.Walking and bicycling safely are life-long skills for a healthy lifestyle. Students should receive education and training about how to safely walk and bicycle to school, with or without sidewalks, as well as how to safely cross at intersections. Examples of physical education curricula are found in the Resources section of this plan.Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools §Pursue opportunities for bike lane and sidewalk construction as roadways are repaved or resurfaced. The City of Richfield been proactive in seeking opportunities to narrow travel lanes when restriping roadways, which provides a small measure of traffic calming, as well as providing additional space for pedestrians and bicyclist on the shoulder. Opportunities to construct sidewalks or shoulders as part of a larger roadway projects consistent with the Complete Streets Policy should be pursued and coordinated with the citywide maintenance and operation program. Implementation lead:City of Richfield Funding and Implementation Funding for the various recommended projects may come from a variety of sources depending on the type of project and who is implementing it. Some potential funding opportunities that currently exist and may be used to fund these recommendations include, but are not limited to: §Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota §Mini-grants through the National Center for Safe Routes to School §Federal Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds administered through the Metropolitan Council §Safe Routes to School funds administered through the Minnesota Department of Transportation Over the past four years, Minnesota Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP) funds have been administered by the Minnesota Department of Health through cities and counties around the state in the form of Safe Routes to School grants, Active Living grants, and assistance with preparing grant applications for other programs. These funds may be available in some form in the future, and continued communications between school districts, cities, and counties will help identify opportunities and needs for funding in the future. 17 No one of the E’s of Safe Routes to School will by itself increase walking and biking, which emphasizes the need for cooperation among school, city, county and other agencies in the implementation of the recommendations identified in this plan. The process used to develop this plan is only the start of on- going efforts that will be needed to result in cultural changes and significant increases in walking and biking. nm nm nmnm nm nm Centennial Lake Adams Hill Park Donaldson Park Monroe Field Fairwood ParkJefferson Park Fremont Park Sheridan Park Madison Park Roosevelt Park Lincoln Field Smith Park Washington Park Wilson Park Christian Park Veterans Memorial Park Taft Park TaftLake Nicollet Park Richfield Lake Park Wood Lake Nature Center Lyndale Field Augsburg Park Strachauer Park 77 MSPAirport §¨¦494 §¨¦35W 62 62 77 Ra m p 77th St 68th St 12th Ave3rd Ave74th StNicollet Ave70th St 14th AveElliot Ave66th St 1st AveLyndale AveIrving Ave73rd St 11th AveChicago Ave61st St Oakland AveColumbus Ave65th St Vincent Ave76th St 78th St 75th St Longfellow Ave18th Ave5th Ave17th AveOliver Ave63rd St Logan Ave15th AvePenn AveMorgan AveStevens Ave70 1/2 St Bryant AveNewton AveAldrich AvePortland AveXerxes AveBlaisdell AveSouthtown Dr Colfax AveQueen AveDupont AveWentworth AveDiagonal BlvdStandish AveRussell AveHumboldt AveEmerson Ave69th StUpton Ave77 1/2 St 64th St 16th AveClinton Ave4th Ave13th Ave71 1/2 St 67th St 79 1/2 StThomas Ave80th St 71st St Fremont Ave2nd AveClover DrGirard Ave79th StPillsbury AveWashburn AveGrand AveOak Grove B l v d Harriet Ave10th AvePleasant AveGarfield AveCargo RdSheridan AveLake Shore DrHeritage Dr Park Ave Forest Dr Knox AveBarrie RdBloomington AveZenith AveYork TerJames AveLo r e n D r Colfax Ln Augsburg AveApple LnRa e D r Lynwood BlvdMeridi a n Xi n g 64 1/2 St 65 1/2 St 14th Ave16th Ave71st St 2nd Ave67th St James AveAmerican BlvdVincent Ave61st St Knox Ave61st St 68th St Humboldt AveLogan AveNewton AveJames AveSheridan AveJames AveLogan Ave5th AveDupont AvePleasant AveMorgan Ave71st St 11th AveThomas Ave66th St 16th AvePleasant Ave72nd St 63rd St Pleasant AveMorgan AveLa k e S h o r e D r 1st Ave2nd AvePillsbury Ave5th Ave64th St Harriet AveChicago AvePillsbury Ave73rd St 70th St 4th AveEmerson Ave67th St 65th St 2nd Ave13th Ave71st StVincent AveKnox Ave74th StQueen Ave64th St 65th St 12th Ave67th St Xerxes Ave64th St 63rd St Park Ave72nd St4th Ave64th St Queen AveSouthtown Dr 74th St 10th AveOliver AveWashburn Ave13th Ave71st St Garfield Ave69th St 61st St Russell AveGarfield AveUpton Ave3rd Ave16th AveAldrich AveStevens Ave75th StYork Ave63rd St Cedar AveDupont Ave18th AveSheridan AveLogan AveOliver Ave80th St 10th Ave5th Ave64th St 4th Ave75th St Wentworth Ave77th StYork Ave71st St 17th AveElliot AveGrand Ave73rd St 2nd Ave18th AveGirard AveRussell AveBlaisdell AveHarriet Ave65th St Washburn Ave76th St 15th Ave62nd St Knox Ave17th Ave15th Ave69th St69th St 2nd AveGrand AveGrand Ave74th St 11th Ave78th St 77th St 72nd St Girard Ave14th Ave80th St 5th AveClinton AveThomas AveRichfield High School Sheridan Hills Elementary Centennial Elementary Richfield Middle School Richfield S.T.E.M. SchoolRichfield Dual Language School ±0 1,250 2,500625 Feet Figure 1. Richfield City-WidePedestrian and Bicycle Existing Facilities Legend On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail Sidewalks School Walk Boundary Municipal Boundary Æó Æó Æó nm nmnm !"$!"$ !"$ èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë 89:w %&'(494 Washington Park Wilson Park Christian Park 77 Sidewalk Gap Bloomington Ave12th AveMinneapolis - St. Paul International Airport12th Ave76th St 77th St 67th StElliot AveAmerican Blvd 72nd St Cedar Ave69th St 74th St 66th St 73rd StColumbus AveCargo Rd 13th AveLongfellow Ave18th Ave17th Ave15th AveAirport Ln75th StDiagonal Blvd80th StBloomington AveChicago Ave22nd AveRac 3 RdThunderbird Rd16th Ave69th St 77th St13th Ave10th Ave15th Ave73rd StPark Ave16th Ave14th Ave71st St 78th St11th AveBloomington Ave17th Ave16th Ave14th Ave78t h S t 24th Ave75th St 14th Ave80th St14th AveOakland Ave71st St 80th St 24th Ave18th Ave10th Ave74th St Centennial Elementary Richfield S.T.E.M. School Richfield Dual Language School ±0 625 1,250312.5 Feet Figure 2. Centennial ElementaryExisting Conditions Map Enrollment: 460 studentsNumber in walk zone: 150 students Legend èéíìë Traffic Signal !"$All-Way Stop Intersection Marked School Crossing School Patrolled Intersection Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area 89:w Signed Pedestrian Crossing Æó Bicycle Racks On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail Sidewalks Half Mile Radius Æó Æó Æó 89:w 89:w nm nmnm !"$!"$ !"$ èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìë Roosevelt Park Washington Park Wilson Park Christian Park Veterans Memorial Park 77 Heredia Park Sidewalk on Elliot Ave in poor condition Sidewalk gap on 71st St Parked vehicles tooclose to crosswalk Adult crossing guards needed4th Ave12th Ave13th Ave68th St 67th St 75th St 70th StPark AveElliot Ave69th St 66th St 72nd St 74th St 14th AvePortland Ave73rd St Chicago AveOakland AveColumbus AveBloomington Ave11th Ave17th Ave71st St 10th Ave65th St 15th Ave5th AveDiagonal Blvd16th AveFe r n D rApple Ln15th Ave16th Ave69th St 11th Ave16th Ave71st St 71st St 73rd St 14th Ave5th Ave14th Ave74th St10th Ave17th Ave72nd St 15th Ave5th AveRichfield S.T.E.M. SchoolRichfield Dual Language School ±0 625 1,250312.5 Feet Figure 3. Richfield Dual Language & STEMSchools Existing Conditions Map Legend èéíìë Traffic Signal !"$All-Way Stop Intersection Marked School Crossing School Patrolled Intersection Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area 89:w Signed Pedestrian Crossing Æó Bicycle Racks On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail Sidewalks Half Mile Radius Richfield Dual Language School Enrollment: 461 students Number in walk zone: 19 studentsRichfield STEM School Enrollment: 772 students Number in walk zone: 93 students Æónm !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë Monroe Field Fairwood Park Sheridan Park Madison Park KennyPark France Ave%&'(W53 Jefferson Park ArmatagePark 62 No bike racks near playground 62 Wide driveway enterance No designated school crossings 60th St 69th St 65th St 67th St 68th StPenn AveVincent Ave64th St 61st St 63rd St 66th StYork AveXerxes AveBarrie RdOliver AveZenith AveAbbott AveRussell AveMorgan AveUpton Ave59th St Thomas AveNewton AveKnox AveWashburn AveLogan AveHeritage Dr Queen AveSheridan AveForest Dr GalleriaLakeview Ave 65 1/2 St Southdale Cir Oliver Ave61st S t 64th StSheridan AveNewton AveWashburn AveWashburn AveSheridan AveMorgan AveNewton AveThomas AveLogan AveThomas Ave59th St Queen AveYork AveUpton AveRussell AveQueen AveYork AveOliver AveRussell AveLogan AveVincent AveXerxes AveMorgan AveKnox Ave62nd St 62nd StUpton AveKnox AveQueen AveSheridan Hills Elementary ±0 625 1,250312.5 Feet Figure 4. Sheridan Hills ElementaryExisting Conditions Map Legend èéíìë Traffic Signal !"$All-Way Stop Intersection Marked School Crossing School Patrolled Intersection Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area 89:w Signed Pedestrian Crossing Æó Bicycle Racks On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail Sidewalks Half Mile Radius Enrollment: 490 studentsNumber in walk zone: 110 students Æónm !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìëèéíìëèéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë 89:w 89:w Adams Hill Park Donaldson Park MonroeFieldFairwoodPark Fremont Park Wood Lake Nature Center JeffersonPark Pedestrian Bridge §¨¦494 §¨¦35W §¨¦35W35W No bike racks on west side of school Bicycles parked outside corral Bicycle route pavement markings need to be repaintedPenn Ave76th St 69th St 70th St 73rd St 72nd St Upton AveOliver Ave75th St American Blvd 78th St 74th St Thomas AveLogan AveNewton AveMorgan Ave70 1/2 St Vincent AveIrving AveHumboldt AveJames AveFremont AveSouthtown Dr Girard AveKnox Ave71 1/2 St Clover DrLake Shore Dr77th S t 71st St Queen AveRussell AveSheridan Ave72 1/2 St 74th StRussell AveHumboldt AveVincent AveAmerican Blvd Girard Ave77th St James AveSheridan Ave73rd St Queen AveThomas AveLogan AveKnox Ave71st St American Blvd Southtown DrNewton AveMorgan AveVincent AveHumboldt AveKnox AveLake S h o r e D r Richfield Middle School ±0 620 1,240310 Feet Figure 5. Richfield Middle SchoolExisting Conditions Map Legend èéíìë Traffic Signal !"$All-Way Stop Intersection Marked School Crossing School Patrolled intersection Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area 89:w Signed Pedestrian Crossing Æó Bicycle Racks On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail Sidewalks Half Mile Radius Enrollment: 904 studentsNumber in walk zone: 317 students Æónm !"$!"$ èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë Fremont Park Roosevelt Park Augsburg Park %&'(W53 Lincoln Field RichfieldLake Park Wood Lake Nature Center Students walk along railroad tracks History of pedestrian/ bicycle crashes Bicycle racks in need of replacement 73rd St 66th St 1st AveNicollet AveLyndale Ave70th St 68th St 2nd Ave74th StHarriet Ave65th St Stevens Ave72nd St 75th StBryant AveAldrich AveBlaisdell AveDupont Ave69th St Colfax AveWentworth AveEmerson Ave67th St Pillsbury AveGrand AveOak Grove B l v d Pleasant AveGarfield AveLa k e S h o r e D r 71st St Augsburg AveRae D r Lynwood BlvdPillsbury Ln Pleasant LnWoodlake D r Bob's Pl Emerson Ave72nd St Pleasant Ave71st St 71st StGrand Ave69th St 75th StHarriet Ave2nd AvePleasant AveStevens AveBlaisdell Ave1st AveEmerson AvePillsbury Ave74th St Stevens Ave69th St Wentworth Ave67th St Pleasant Ave65th St Pleasant AveGarfield AveRichfield High School ±0 625 1,250312.5 Feet Figure 6. Richfield High SchoolExisting Conditions Map Legend èéíìë Traffic Signal !"$All-Way Stop Intersection Marked School Crossing School Patrolled Intersection Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area 89:w Signed Pedestrian Crossing Æó Bicycle Racks On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail Sidewalks Half Mile Radius Enrollment: 1,101 studentsNumber in walk zone: 626 students nm nm nmnm nm nm Centennial Lake Adams Hill Park Donaldson Park Monroe Field Fairwood ParkJefferson Park Fremont Park Sheridan Park Madison Park Roosevelt Park Lincoln Field Smith Park Washington Park Wilson Park Christian Park Veterans Memorial Park Taft Park TaftLake Nicollet Park Richfield Lake Park Wood Lake Nature Center Lyndale Field Augsburg Park Strachauer Park 77 MSPAirport §¨¦494 §¨¦35W 62 62 77 Ra m p Richfield High School Centennial Elementary Richfield Middle School Richfield S.T.E.M. School Sheridan Hills Elementary Richfield Dual Language School ±0 1,250 2,500625 Feet Figure 7. Richfield City-WidePlanned Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities Legend Off Street Trail On Street Bicycle Route BMP Preferred Future On Street Route BMP Preferred Future Trail Route Future Off Street Trail Sidewalks Proposed Sidewalks School Walk Boundary Municipal Boundary Æónm Wilson Park 77 Construct sidewalk or stripeon-road pedestrian area Improve crossing at 73rd St/16th Ave S Construct sidewalk connection from bike racks to front door Construct sidewalk connection 18th Ave17th AveCedar Ave75th St 72nd St 74th St15th Ave73rd StBloomington AveDiagonal Blvd16th Ave15th Ave16th AveCentennial Elementary ±0 150 300 Feet Figure 8. Centennial ElementarySchool Recommendations Map Enrollment: 460 studentsNumber in walk zone: 150 students Legend èéíìë Traffic Signal !"$All-Way Stop Intersection Marked School Crossing School Patrolled Intersection Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area 89:w Signed Pedestrian Crossing Æó Bicycle Racks BMP Preferred Future On Street Route BMP Preferred Future Trail Route Future Off Street Trail On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail Sidewalks Proposed Sidewalks Half Mile Radius Æó Æó Æó nm nmnm !"$!"$ !"$ èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìë 89:w 89:w 89:w bcdpf í %&'(494 Roosevelt Park Washington Park Wilson Park Christian Park Veterans Memorial Park TaftParkNicolletPark 77 Heredia Park Construct sidewalk on 71st Street Sign No Parking zone Install bike racks Reconstruct sidewalk Implement trained adult school patrol Construct pedestrian ramps Implement planned bike facility4th Ave12th Ave13th Ave68th St 67th St 75th St 70th StPark AveElliot Ave69th St 66th St 72nd St 74th St 14th AvePortland Ave73rd St Chicago AveOakland AveColumbus AveBloomington Ave11th Ave17th Ave71st St 10th Ave65th St 15th Ave5th AveDiagonal Blvd16th AveFe r n D rApple Ln15th Ave16th Ave69th St 11th Ave16th Ave71st St 71st St 73rd St 14th Ave5th Ave14th Ave74th St10th Ave17th Ave72nd St 15th Ave5th AveRichfield S.T.E.M. SchoolRichfield Dual Language School ±0 625 1,250312.5 Feet Figure 9. Richfield Dual Language & STEMRecommendations Map Richfield Dual Language School Enrollment: 461 students Number in walk zone: 19 studentsRichfield STEM School Enrollment: 772 students Number in walk zone: 93 students Legend 89:w Signed Pedestrian Crossing èéíìë Traffic Signal Marked School Crossing School Patrolled Intersection Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area !"$All-Way Stop Intersection Æó Bicycle Racks BMP Preferred Future On Street Route BMP Preferred Future Trail Route Future Off Street Trail On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail Sidewalks Proposed Sidewalks Half Mile Radius !! !!!!!!!!Æó nm !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìëèéíìë Sheridan Park Jefferson Park 62 Install bike racks Construct sidewalk to school enterance Construct narrower driveway Implement planned bike facility Sheridan Hills Elementary 64th St 65th St 66th StVincent AveRussell AveUpton AveThomas AveWashburn AveQueen AveSheridan Ave65 1/2 St Washburn AveUpton AveRussell AveThomas AveQueen AveSheridan Ave±0 150 300 Feet Figure 10. Sheridan Hills ElementaryRecommendations Map Legend èéíìë Traffic Signal !"$All-Way Stop Intersection Marked School Crossing School Patrolled Intersection Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area 89:w Signed Pedestrian Crossing Æó Bicycle Racks BMP Preferred Future On Street Route BMP Preferred Future Trail Route Future Off Street Trail On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail Sidewalks Proposed Sidewalks Half Mile Radius Enrollment: 490 studentsNumber in walk zone: 110 students Æó nm !"$ !"$!"$ !"$ èéíìëèéíìëèéíìëèéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë Donaldson ParkRichfield Middle School I 35W76th St 73rd St 75th St RampOliver AveHumboldt AveKnox AveLogan AveNewton AveMorgan AveJames Ave78th St74th St Knox AveRampLogan Ave76th St RampNewton AveMorgan Ave±0 150 300 Feet Figure 11. Richfield MiddleSchool Recommendations Map Enrollment: 904 studentsNumber in walk zone: 317 students Repaint on-street bike markings Replace bike racks Install bike rack Legend èéíìë Traffic Signal !"$All-Way Stop Intersection Marked School Crossing School Patrolled Intersection Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area 89:w Signed Pedestrian Crossing Æó Bicycle Racks BMP Preferred Future On Street Route BMP Preferred Future Trail Route Future Off Street Trail On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail Sidewalks Proposed Sidewalks Half Mile Radius Æó nm !"$!"$èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë Richfield High School 70th St 73rd StHarriet AveGarfield Ave72nd St Lyndale Ave71st St Grand AvePleasant AveWentworth AveAugsburg AvePillsbury AvePillsbury Ln Pleasant Ln 72nd StPleasant AveGrand AvePleasant AvePleasant AveLyndale AveWentworth AvePillsbury Ave±0 150 300 Feet Figure 12. Richfield High SchoolRecommendations Map Enrollment: 1101 studentsNumber in walk zone: 626 students Repaint crosswalks Replace bike racks Legend 89:w Signed Pedestrian Crossing èéíìë Traffic Signal Marked School Crossing School Patrolled Intersection Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area !"$All-Way Stop Intersection Æó Bicycle Racks BMP Preferred Future On Street Route BMP Preferred Future Trail Route Future Off Street Trail On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail Sidewalks Proposed Sidewalks Half Mile Radius Implement planned bicycle route Implement planned off street trail nm nm nmnm nm nm !"$!"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìëèéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë 62 LakePamela Centennial Lake Adams Hill Park Donaldson Park Monroe Field Fairwood ParkJefferson Park Fremont Park Sheridan Park Madison Park KennyPark Roosevelt Park Lincoln Field Smith Park Washington Park Wilson Park Christian Park Veterans Memorial Park Taft Park TaftLake Nicollet Park Richfield Lake Park Wood Lake Nature Center Lyndale Field Augsburg Park Strachauer Park %&'(W53 77 MSPAirport §¨¦494 §¨¦35W 62 62 77 Ra m p Implement on-street bicycle route with destination signing for Richfield Dual Language School, Richfield STEM School, and Richfield High School Implement off-street trail on Pleasant Ave, with connection to Richfield High School Implement on-street bicycle route on Sheridan/Russell, with connection to Sheridan Hills Elementary Implement planned sidewalk extension 77th St 68th St 12th Ave3rd Ave74th StNicollet Ave70th St 14th AveElliot Ave66th St 1st AveLyndale AveIrving Ave73rd St 11th AveChicago Ave61st St Oakland AveColumbus Ave65th St Vincent Ave76th St 78th St 75th St Longfellow Ave18th Ave5th Ave17th AveOliver Ave63rd St Logan Ave15th AvePenn AveMorgan AveStevens Ave70 1/2 St Bryant AveNewton AveAldrich AvePortland AveXerxes AveBlaisdell AveSouthtown Dr Colfax AveQueen AveDupont AveWentworth AveDiagonal BlvdStandish AveRussell AveHumboldt AveEmerson Ave69th StUpton Ave77 1/2 St 64th St 16th AveClinton Ave4th Ave13th Ave71 1/2 St 67th St 79 1/2 StThomas Ave80th St 71st St Fremont Ave2nd AveClover DrGirard Ave79th StPillsbury AveWashburn AveGrand AveOak Grove B l v d Harriet Ave10th AvePleasant AveGarfield AveCargo RdSheridan AveLake Shore DrHeritage Dr Park Ave Forest Dr Knox AveBarrie RdBloomington AveZenith AveYork TerJames AveLo r e n D r Colfax Ln Augsburg AveApple LnRa e D r Lynwood BlvdMeridi a n Xi n g 64 1/2 St 65 1/2 St 14th Ave16th Ave71st St 2nd Ave67th St James AveAmerican BlvdVincent Ave61st St Knox Ave61st St 68th St Humboldt AveLogan AveNewton AveJames AveSheridan AveJames AveLogan Ave5th AveDupont AvePleasant AveMorgan Ave71st St 11th AveThomas Ave66th St 16th AvePleasant Ave72nd St 63rd St Pleasant AveMorgan AveLa k e S h o r e D r 1st Ave2nd AvePillsbury Ave5th Ave64th St Harriet AveChicago AvePillsbury Ave73rd St 70th St 4th AveEmerson Ave67th St 65th St 2nd Ave13th Ave71st StVincent AveKnox Ave74th StQueen Ave64th St 65th St 12th Ave67th St Xerxes Ave64th St 63rd St Park Ave72nd St4th Ave64th St Queen AveSouthtown Dr 74th St 10th AveOliver AveWashburn Ave13th Ave71st St Garfield Ave69th St 61st St Russell AveGarfield AveUpton Ave3rd Ave16th AveAldrich AveStevens Ave75th StYork Ave63rd St Cedar AveDupont Ave18th AveSheridan AveLogan AveOliver Ave80th St 10th Ave5th Ave64th St 4th Ave75th St Wentworth Ave77th StYork Ave71st St 17th AveElliot AveGrand Ave73rd St 2nd Ave18th AveGirard AveRussell AveBlaisdell AveHarriet AveWashburn Ave76th St 15th Ave62nd St Knox Ave17th Ave15th Ave69th St69th St 2nd AveGrand AveGrand Ave74th St 11th Ave78th St 77th St 72nd St Girard Ave14th Ave80th St 5th AveClinton AveThomas AveSheridan Hills Elementary Richfield High School Centennial Elementary Richfield Middle School Richfield S.T.E.M. SchoolRichfield Dual Language School ±0 1,250 2,500625 Feet Figure 13. Richfield City-WideRecommendations Map Legend èéíìë Traffic Signal !"$All-Way Stop Intersection Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area Proposed Sidewalks BMP Preferred Future On Street Route BMP Preferred Future Trail Route Future Off Street Trail Off Street Trail On Street Bicycle Route Sidewalks Proposed Sidewalks School Walk Boundary Municipal Boundary A-1 Appendix A-2 Student Travel Tally Results School Modes To/From School (Fall 2012) Walk Bike School Bus Family Vehicle Carpool Other AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Centennial Elementary 7% 9% 2% 2% 73% 78% 18% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% Richfield Dual Language 2% 2% 1% 1% 61% 69% 34% 27% 2% 1% 0% 0% Richfield STEM 4% 5% 1% 1% 59% 69% 35% 22% 1% 1% 0% 2% Sheridan Hills Elementary 4% 4% 0% 0% 62% 71% 33% 25% 1% 0% 0% 0% Richfield Middle 7% 11% 5% 5% 59% 50% 26% 32% 2% 2% 1% 0% A-3 Parent Survey Results School Number of Survey Responses Centennial Elementary 0 Richfield Dual Language 73 Richfield STEM 156 Sheridan Hills Elementary 1 Richfield Middle School 1 Righfield High School 5 Total 236 Question 1. What is the grade of the child who brought home this survey? PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Percent of Respondents 0% 12%15%20%22%6% 22%0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% Question 2. Is the child who brought home this survey male or female? Male Female Percent of Respondents 41%59% Question 3. How many children do you have in Kindergarten through 8th grade? 0 1 2 3 4 5+ Percent of Respondents 2%46%41%10%1%0% Question 6. On most days, how does your child arrive and leave for school? Arrive to School Walk Bike School Bus Family Vehicle (only children in your family) Carpool (children from other families) Transit (city bus) Other (skateboard, scooter, inline skates, etc.) Percent of Respondents 6%1%58%34%1%0%0% A-4 Question 6 (continued). On most days, how does your child arrive and leave for school? Leave from School Walk Bike School Bus Family Vehicle (only children in your family) Carpool (children from other families) Transit (city bus) Other (skateboard, scooter, inline skates, etc.) Percent of Respondents 6%1%58%34%1%0%0% Question 7. How long does it normally take your child to get to/from school? Travel Time to School < 5 minutes 5-10 minutes 11-20 minutes More than 20 minutes Don't know Percent of Respondents 18%34%31%9%8% Travel Time From School < 5 minutes 5-10 minutes 11-20 minutes More than 20 minutes Don't know Percent of Respondents 17%31%35%9%8% Question 8. Has your child asked you for permission to walk or bike to/from school in the last year? Yes No Percent of Respondents 19%81% Question 9. At what grade would you allow your child to walk or bike to/from school without an adult? PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+ Percent of Respondents 0% 1% 1% 1% 5% 12% 20% 25% 12% 7% 16% A-5 Question 10. What of the following issues affected your decision to allow, or not allow, your child to walk or bike to/from school? Issue Percent of Respondents Child Already Walks/Bikes 4% Distance 67% Convenience of Driving 13% Time 27% Before/After School Activities 15% Speed of Traffic 56% Amount of Traffic 61% Adults to Walk or Bike With 23% Sidewalks or Pathways 30% Safety of Intersections and Crossings 65% Crossing Guards 13% Violence or Crime 32% Weather or Climate 48% Percentages do not total 100% because respondents could select more than one issue. Question 11. Would you probably let your child walk or bike to/from school if this problem were changed or improved? Issue Percent of Respondents Child Already Walks/Bikes 5% Distance 39% Convenience of Driving 11% Time 20% Before/After School Activities 16% Speed of Traffic 39% Amount of Traffic 42% Adults to Walk or Bike With 32% Sidewalks or Pathways 26% Safety of Intersections and Crossings 45% Crossing Guards 21% Violence or Crime 31% Weather or Climate 1% Percentages do not total 100% because respondents could select more than one issue. A-6 Question 12. In your opinion, how much does your child's school encourage or discourage walking and biking to/from school? Strongly Encourages Encourages Neither Discourages Strongly Discourages Percent of Respondents 3%20%71%5%1% Question 13. How much fun is walking or biking to/from school for your child? Very Fun Fun Neutral Boring Very Boring Not Applicable Percent of Respondents 7%34%50%4%2%3% Question 14. How healthy is walking or biking to/from school for your child? Very Healthy Healthy Neutral Unhealthy Very Unhealthy Percent of Respondents 41%39%18%2%0% Question 15. What is the highest grade or year of school you completed? School Grades 1 through 8 (Elementary) Grades 9 through 11 (Some High School) Grade 12 or GED (High school graduate) College 1 to 3 years (Some college or technical school) College 4 years or more (College graduate) Graduate School (Masters degree or doctorate) Prefer not to answer Percent of Respondents 6%6%11%29%40%1%7% A-7 Resources 1.National Center for Safe Routes to School, Ongoing Activities guide.saferoutesinfo.org/encouragement/ongoing_activities.cfm 2.Two Day Travel Tally, National Center for Safe Routes to School www.saferoutesinfo.org/program-tools/evaluation-student-class-travel-tally 3.Parent Survey, National Center for Safe Routes to School www.saferoutesinfo.org/program-tools/evaluation-parent-survey 4.Minnesota Department of Transportation Safe Routes to School resources and funding opportunities www.dot.state.mn.us/saferoutes/ 5.Minnesota Public Health Law Center legal and liability resources http://publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/active-living/physical-activity-schools/resources 6.Examples of walking and biking curriculums for elementary and middle school students http://www.dot.state.mn.us/saferoutes/toolkit.html/elementary-srts-curriculum.pdf http://www.dot.state.mn.us/saferoutes/toolkit.html/middle-school-bicycle-education.pdf 7.Information and examples of pedestrian and bicycle safety campaigns http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/pedcampaign/ http://www.bikesbelong.org/resources/stats-and-research/research/bicycle-safety-campaign- review/ Public Health Law Center 875 Summit Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 www.publichealthlawcenter.org 651.290.7506 Liability Exposure for Schools Each school day presents new opportunities for students of all ages to practice healthy behaviors. Schools and school districts are improving student and community health through programs tailored to a community’s individual needs and resources. Across Minnesota, school districts are updating their policies to include school wellness, Farm to School, Safe Routes to School programs, school gardens, and are entering into facilities use agreements to expand the recreational use of school property. Well-designed policies, led by knowledgeable and supportive staff, can advance student nutrition, increase physical activity, and help develop healthy lifestyles? While school districts are generally subject to liability for their wrongful acts as well the acts of their employees, fortunately, Minnesota law provides some significant protections. What is liability? For purposes of this publication, liability can be defined as legal responsibility for another person’s injury or damages. There are numerous provisions within both state and federal law that serve as sources of potential liability for school districts. However, when a school district is considering allowing community use of its facilities for recreational activities, the possibility that someone who is using a school facility might suffer an injury and bring a claim against the district (or its officers, employees, or agents) is arguably the district’s most significant liability concern. The standards for holding someone liable differ depending on who or what caused the injury. Typically, for a person to be held liable for someone else’s injuries, an injured person must first prove that the accused had a legal responsibility to protect him or her from harm (otherwise known as “duty of care”). Concerns about “liability” can keep schools from implementing policies that would benefit students and community members alike. minnesota recreational use Liability Exposure for Schools | 2 Public Health Law Center 875 Summit Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 www.publichealthlawcenter.org 651.290.7506 Then, the injured person has to show that the accused party failed to protect him or her (or “breached” the duty of care) and as a result, was injured in an expected (or “foreseeable”) manner.1 The general expectation is that one will act reasonably toward others.2 What is considered reasonable, however, depends on the circumstances. Failure to act with as much care as an ordinary, reasonable person in a given situation would is considered negligence.3 However, there are situations where a person or entity is held to a higher or lower standard. How are school districts protected from liability? Through governmental immunities. Immunities, provided both in state statutes4 and court decisions5, protect school districts from liability for a variety of claims. Two immunities are particularly relevant when developing policies that promote healthy, active lifestyles. First, school districts are shielded from liability that might arise from discretionary conduct.6 Statutory discretionary immunity protects policy-making decisions that require considering factors such as budget, education, resources and safety.7 For example, a school district may adopt a policy stating that, due to limited resources and a desire to cultivate independence, students are responsible for getting on the correct bus at the end of the day.8 Statutory discretionary immunity protects school districts from having their decisions “second-guessed” by the courts. Discretionary conduct is distinguished from operational-level or “ministerial” conduct. Operational activities that do not involve exercising of discretion, such as following an established plan, are not protected.9 Second, school districts are generally protected from liability when injuries result from the recreational use of school property. Local governments are generally immune from claims based on the construction, operation, or maintenance of any property owned or leased for park or recreational purposes.10 School districts are also protected against claims arising from the use of school property or school facilities that are made available for public recreational activities.11 Schools that fail to warn recreational users of known, hidden hazards may still be liable for injuries.12 Are teachers, coaches and other school personnel protected as well? Yes, school personnel are generally protected as well. “Official immunity” protects individuals from personal liability for discretionary actions taken in the course of their official duties.13 This is intended to alleviate concerns that the fear of personal liability might deter independent action.14 School districts are also generally required to defend and indemnify their employees if they are sued for something arising out of their employment.15 However, school personnel are not protected for willful or malicious conduct,16 intentionally behaving in a way that is likely to cause harm to another person. Additionally, teachers may not be protected for failing to responsibly perform their regular duties. For example, a teacher who allows students to engage in dangerous play during recess may be liable if a child gets injured.17 Liability Exposure for Schools | 3 Public Health Law Center 875 Summit Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 www.publichealthlawcenter.org 651.290.7506 What steps can a school district take to reduce the risk of liability? There are a number of common sense precautions school districts can take to reduce their risk of liability. Some common risk management strategies include: ■Creating clear policies that are based on a balancing of social, economic, financial and political factors. ■Preserving a record of the decision-making process. ■Training staff in regard to their roles in implementing policies. ■Periodically reviewing policies and procedures, revising when necessary. ■Eliminating known dangers where possible. ■Documenting all precautions taken to avoid harm or risk. ■Developing safety rules and handing them out to all students and parents. Rules should comply with any local rules, any local, state or federal laws, and any national standards. ■Requiring parents or guardians of students to sign waivers before students participate in recreational activities.18 ■Forming joint powers or facility use agreements with other public entities or community organizations that specifically outline acceptable uses of school property and facilities. ■Obtaining liability insurance that covers lawsuits arising from injuries. Last updated: May 2013 The Publication was prepared by the Public Health Law Center at William Mitchell College of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, funded by the CDC’s Community Transformation Grant initiative and a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Active Living Research grant. (#69554). The Public Health Law Center provides information and technical assistance on issues related to public health. The Public Health Law Center does not provide legal representation or advice. This document should not be considered legal advice. For specific legal questions, consult with an attorney. Liability Exposure for Schools | 4 Public Health Law Center 875 Summit Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 www.publichealthlawcenter.org 651.290.7506 Endnotes 1 Lubbers v. Anderson, 539 N.W.2d 398, 401 (Minn. 1995). 2 See Flom v. Flom, 291 N.W.2d 914, 916 (Minn. 1980); 4 Minn. Prac., Jury Instr. Guides--Civil CIVJIG 25.10 (5th ed. 2010). 3 See Baker v. Amtrak Nat. R.R. Passenger Corp., 588 N.W.2d 749, 753 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). 4 minn. stat. § 466.03 (2012) (local governments); minn. stat. § 3.736 (2012) (state entities). 5 “Common law” is developed through court decisions. 6 There are many protections available to schools and the distinctions between them can be difficult to understand. In an effort to simplify the topic of school liability, we have combined discussion of statutory discretionary immunity for municipalities as per minn. stat. § 466.03, subd. 3 (2012), with discussion of common law and vicarious common law official immunity. Individual situations should be reviewed by an attorney. 7 See J.W. ex rel. B.R.W. v. 287 Intermediate Dist., 761 N.W.2d 896, 902 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009) (including consider- ation of safety issues, financial burdens, and possible legal consequences in decision-making). 8 Pletan v. Gaines, 494 N.W.2d 38, 43-44 (Minn. 1992). 9 Holmquist v. State, 425 N.W.2d 230, 232 (Minn. 1988). 10 minn. stat. § 466.03, subd. 6e (2012). 11 minn. stat. § 466.03, subd. 23 (2012). 12 Lishinski v. City of Duluth, 634 N.W.2d 456, 459-61 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). 13 Anderson v. Anoka Hennepin Indep. Sch. Dist. 11, 678 N.W.2d 651, 660 (Minn. 2004). 14 Elwood v. Rice Cnty., 423 N.W.2d 671, 678 (Minn. 1988). 15 minn. stat. § 466.07, subd. 1 (2012). 16 Gleason v. Metro. Council Transit Operations, 582 N.W.2d 216, 220 (Minn. 1998). 17 Fear v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 911, 634 N.W.2d 204, 215-16 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). 18 While waivers are not a guarantee against liability, they may reduce the likelihood of being sued. For more informa- tion, please refer to the Public Health Law Center factsheet on Waivers and Releases, available at http://www.publi- chealthlawcenter.org/resources/minnesota-recreational-use A-12 References 1 Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department. SHAPE 2010 Adult Data Book, Survey of the Health of All the Population and the Environment, Minneapolis, Minnesota, March 2011. 2 Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department. SHAPE 2010 – Child Survey Data Book, Minneapolis, Minnesota, April 2011.3 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Barriers to Children Walking to or from School United States 2004, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, September 30, 2005. 4 2009 Traffic Volumes Map, Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Transportation Data and Analysis. AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #2.H. STAFF REPORT NO. 8 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1/14/2025 REPORT PREPARED BY:Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Kristin Asher, Public Works Director 1/7/2025 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 1/8/2025 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider adoption of a resolution of support for Richfield's application for federal funding for a reconstruction project on 77th Street via the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Grant Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Public Works is preparing a grant application to seek federal funds through the USDOT RAISE Grant Program to reconstruct 77th Street between approximately Portland Avenue and Richfield Parkway. These construction limits are intended as a reference, and are subject to modification as the project develops. If grant funding is awarded, the project would conduct extensive public engagement on the final design of the roadway section, utilizing Richfield's Public Engagement Process for Public Works projects. Project goals include improving pedestrian safety along and across the roadway, adding bicycle infrastructure, decreasing impervious surface area, reducing roadway flooding, reducing the number of vehicle travel lanes, and reducing the target speed for vehicular traffic in the project area. The maximum award for construction activities is $25 million. Staff are still developing the project scope, but anticipate a total project budget between $10 to $15 million, including local share. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution of support for Richfield's application for federal funding for a reconstruction project on 77th Street via the USDOT RAISE Grant Program. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT Richfield constructed 77th Street from I-35W to Trunk Highway 77 in the 1990's as part of the ring-route vision for relieving traffic on the I-494 corridor. This included a four-lane concrete high speed roadway design with a noise wall on the north side of the road and limited pedestrian infrastructure. The roadway and noise wall construction required the purchase of nearly 40 properties on the north side of 77th Street and cut off access to numerous residential roads from 77th Street, which created a physical barrier within Richfield. From MnDOT's 2023 Average Daily Traffic counting, the stretch of 77th Street between Portland Avenue and 12th Avenue sees 5142 vehicles per day, while the stretch between 12th Avenue and Highway 77 sees 1188- 1729 vehicles per day. MnDOT's ongoing I-494 reconstruction project will remove freeway access at 12th Avenue, which is expected to further reduce traffic traveling in these stretches of roadway. The expansion of I-494 is also expected to limit the need for 77th Street to act as a reliever route for the freeway, further reducing the capacity necessary along this stretch of roadway. In 2024, the speed limit on this stretch of 77th Street was lowered from 40 mph to 30 mph. The existing design of 77th Street supports vehicle travel speeds in excess of the current speed limit, and geometric changes to the roadway will offer the chance to lower the target vehicle speed in a dense residential section of the city. Approximately 5% of the city's population lives between 77th Street and I-494, an area bounded by high speed roads with limited access to parks, schools, and other city amenities. Within a half-mile radius of the corridor, 68% of the residents are BIPOC, 42% have low income, and 11% are aged 64 or older. There is a food desert, housing burdened residents, and transportation access challenges in the area as well. RAISE (and its predecessors - TIGER and BUILD) has awarded over $15 billion in federal discretionary funds since implementation in 2009. The current program "provides grants for surface transportation infrastructure projects with significant local or regional impact" with an emphasis on projects that are focused on sustainability and equity. The program requirements are determined by the Department of Transportation and are subject to change with changes in policy by the Federal Executive Branch. The city has also applied for federal funds to perform a corridor study of 76th and 77th Streets from York Avenue to Highway 77 through the Reconnecting Communities Pilot program in 2024. Should the city be awarded funding through that grant program, the study is expected to guide the ultimate design of 77th Street. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Strategic Outcome Consideration: By adopting a resolution supporting this grant application, the city can leverage an external revenue source to provide "sustainable infrastructure financing". By completing the project if grant funding is awarded, the city can "reduce racial inequities and barriers for traditionally excluded groups" and ensure that "city infrastructure supports service needs". Equity Outcome Consideration: A reduced roadway section with a lower target speed for vehicles and safer pedestrian and bicycle accommodations would increase the quality of life for residents in a historically disadvantaged Census area. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): Resolutions and letters of support from community stakeholders or agencies will strengthen the grant application. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: Grant applications are due on January 30th, 2025, which makes the adoption of the resolution at this meeting timely. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: The maximum award is up to $25 million. Consultant staff are still working on a cost estimate for this grant, but the total project cost is expected to be from $10 million to $15 million. Federal grants require a local cost match of 20% of the total project cost. Since this program is funded through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), the State of Minnesota does have matching funds available from a legislative appropriation designed to encourage local agencies to take advantage of the BIL grants. This pool is finite and has approximately $33.7 million remaining as of November 2024 (the most recent update to the state's public website). If awarded, the city will also be responsible for design/engineering and construction administration costs, which are typically 16-22% of the total project cost. There is not grant funding available to cover these costs, and capital construction grant money cannot be used to cover these costs. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: None at this time. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): None PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Resolution of Support - 77th St RAISE Application Resolution Letter RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE 77th STREET SAFETY & MULTI-MODAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT THROUGH THE USDOT REBUILDING AMERICAN INFRASTRUCTURE WITH SUSTAINABILITY AND EQUITY (RAISE) GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION WHEREAS, the United States Department of Transportation’s Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Grant Program was created in 2009 and was partially funded through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL); and WHEREAS, the RAISE Grant Program will competitively award grants for capital and planning projects that will improve safety, environmental sustainability, quality of life, mobility and community connectivity, economic competitiveness, state of good repair, partnership and collaboration, and innovation; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield will pursue capital grant funds and provide the mandatory match of 20 percent of project costs, which combined, will be used to reconstruct 77th Street from Portland Avenue to Richfield Parkway in Richfield; and WHEREAS, 77th Street runs parallel to I-494—a freeway that carried 120,000– 140,000 vehicles per day in 2022 and is currently being expanded; and WHEREAS, 77th Street was planned as a reliever route for I-494 intended to carry high traffic volumes at high speeds; and WHEREAS, 77th Street features a noise wall located on the north side of the street for the majority of the corridor creating an obstacle to access nearby destinations like parks and jobs; and WHEREAS, the ongoing I-494 construction project will remove the existing interchange at 12th Avenue, limiting its use as a reliever route; and WHEREAS, the corridor provides limited bicycle/pedestrian accommodations along the route and poor pedestrian crossing infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the corridor contributes to a portion of the City of Richfield’s residents that live south of 77th Street—including a large area identified as a disadvantaged community by the USDOT—being pinched between two major transportation corridors that act as mobility barriers; and WHEREAS, the corridor’s lack of accessibility was identified in the 2014 Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan in collaboration with Richfield Public Schools and noted there are very high traffic volumes acting as a significant barrier to pedestrians and bicyclists, and WHEREAS, according to the EPA's EJScreen data, within a 0.5-mile radius of the corridor, 68 percent of residents are people of color, 42 percent have low income, and 59 percent rent their primary residence; and WHEREAS, EJScreen data also indicated that within a 0.5-mile radius of the corridor, there exists a food desert, housing burdened residents, and challenges related to transportation access; and WHEREAS, EJScreen data also indicated that within a 0.5-mile radius of the corridor, residents are in the 88th percentile nationally for proximity to traffic, 83rd percentile nationally for diesel particulate matter exposure, and 94th percentile nationally for nitrogen dioxide exposure; and WHEREAS, improving accessibility and removing barriers on 77th Street will increase the safety and improve the experience of students traveling to and from schools and community members accessing jobs, goods, and services; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield invests in infrastructure to best serve today’s and tomorrow’s residents, businesses, and visitors; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield ensures that City services are accessible to people of all races, ethnicities, incomes, and abilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, supports Public Works’ 2025 USDOT RAISE Grant Program application for the 77th Street Safety & Multi-modal Improvements Project. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of January, 2025. Mary B. Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #2.I. STAFF REPORT NO. 9 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1/14/2025 REPORT PREPARED BY:Chad Donnelly, Assistant Utility Superintendent DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Kristin Asher, Public Works Director 1/6/2025 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 1/8/2025 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider: Adoption of a resolution authorizing the City of Richfield to accept grant funds in the amount of $10,000.00 and enter into a Source Water Protection Grant Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) to seal a non-municipal community water supply well; and Authorizing the City to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with Woodlawn Terrace Cooperative to assist with the sealing of their 'out of service' community water supply well. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In September 2024 representatives from the Woodlawn Terrace Cooperative and Minnesota Department of Health's (MDH) Source Water Protection Unit approached the City and asked if a Source Water Protection Grant could be applied for on Woodlawn Terrace Cooperative's behalf. Eligibility for this grant program is limited to those parties that have an approved Wellhead Protection Plan, which served to exclude Woodlawn Terrace Cooperative from applying for funds alone. Woodlawn Terrace Cooperative recently connected to the City's water distribution system for potable water and the well in question is no longer in service. The City agreed to apply for the funds under the condition that Woodlawn Terrace Cooperative would enter into a separate agreement with the City to provide supplemental funding to make up the difference in the actual costs of the well sealing effort exceeding the $10,000.00 grant. The City of Richfield applied for and was awarded the grant from MDH in the amount of $10,000.00 to retain a licensed well driller to seal a non-municipal community water supply well. Both the agreement with MDH for the Source Water Protection Grant and the Cooperative Agreement are attached. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the resolution authorizing the City of Richfield to accept grant funds in the amount of $10,000.00 and enter into a Source Water Protection Grant Agreement with MDH to seal a non- municipal community water supply well. Authorize the City to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with Woodlawn Terrace Cooperative to assist with the sealing of their 'out of service' community water supply well. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT See executive summary. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Through this partnership, Woodlawn Terrace Cooperative is able to avoid a costly expense to its members as well as a timely and cumbersome process to secure permits, or prepare its own Wellhead Protection Plan, to secure funds to seal the well. The City gains the benefit of sealing a well that is within the drinking water protection area of the Wellhead Protection Plan. This project also demonstrates the City's commitment to meeting our obligations as a Wellhead Protection Plan holder for source water protection. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): Minnesota Statutes, section 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution and adopted by two-thirds majority of the City Council. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The grant agreement is effective once all signatures are obtained and will expire on December 15, 2025 or once all obligations have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of MDH, whichever occurs first. If Woodlawn Terrace Cooperative does not receive a Competitive Grant by July 1, 2025 or otherwise secure the additional funding, the City may terminate the Cooperative Agreement immediately. The City may also terminate this Agreement upon 10 days’ written notice to Woodlawn Terrace Cooperative and both parties can mutually agree to terminate the Agreement at any time. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: The grant covers 65% of the anticipated costs for sealing the well effort. The other 35% will be paid by Woodlawn Terrace Cooperative as cited in the provisions of the Cooperative Agreement. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City attorney has reviewed the MDH grant agreement and the Cooperative Agreement between the City of Richfield and Woodlawn Terrace Cooperative. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): None PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type SWP Grant Agreement Resolution Resolution Letter Sourcewater Protection Grant Contract/Agreement Cooperative Agreement Contract/Agreement RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO ACCEPT GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000.00 AND ENTER INTO A SOURCE WATER PROTECTION GRANT AGREEMENT (SWIFT CONTRACT NUMBER 261258) WITH MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO SEAL A NON-MUNICIPAL COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY WELL WHEREAS, the Richfield Public Works Department has applied for and been awarded a Source Water Protection Grant in the amount of $10,000.00; and WHEREAS, the City intends to use these funds to seal a non-municipal community water supply well located at Woodlawn Terrace Cooperative; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution adopted by a two-thirds majority of the City Council. 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 authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to enter into the Source Water Protection Grant Agreement (SWIFT Contract Number 261258) with Minnesota Department of Health in the amount of $10,000.00. 2. Appropriate City personnel are authorized to administer the funds in accordance with the grant agreement and terms described by the Minnesota Department of Health. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of January, 2025. Mary B. Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk Standard Grant Template - Version October 2024 SWIFT Contract Number 261258 Between MDH and City of Richfield REQ: 946_18 Page 1 of 18 Minnesota Department of Health Grant Agreement Cover Sheet You have received a grant agreement from the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). Information about the grant agreement, including funding details, are included below. Contact your MDH Grant Manager if you have questions about this cover sheet. Attachment: Grant Agreement Contact for MDH: Eddie Wojski, 651-201-4576, eddie.wojski@state.mn.us Grantee SWIFT Information Grant Agreement Information Program & Funding Information Name of MDH Grantee (as it appears in SWIFT): City of Richfield SWIFT Contract Number: FM will insert grant number MDH Program Name: Drinking Water Protection SWIFT Vendor Number: 0000197711 SWIFT Vendor Location Code: 001 Effective Date: December 15, 2024, OR the date all signatures are collected, and the agreement is fully executed, whichever is later. Expiration Date: December 15, 2025 Total State Grant Funds: $10,000.00 Total Federal Grant Funds: $0 Total Grant Funds (all funds): $10,000.00 Docusign Envelope ID: F2F86B30-E453-447F-AB0B-50DA4836A250 Standard Grant Template - Version October 2024 SWIFT Contract Number 261258 Between MDH and City of Richfield REQ: 946_18 Page 2 of 18 Minnesota Department of Health Grant Agreement This grant agreement is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of the Department of Health (“MDH”) and City of Richfield (“Grantee”). Grantee’s address is 6700 Portland Avenue S, Richfield, MN 55423. Recitals 1. MDH is empowered to enter into this grant agreement under Minn. Stat. §§ 144.05, 144.0742 and §114D.50 Clean Water Fund. 2. MDH is in need of assisting public water suppliers to protect the source of drinking water. 3. The vision of MDH is for health equity in Minnesota, where all communities are thriving and all people have what they need to be healthy. Health equity is achieved when every person has the opportunity to attain their health potential. Grantee agrees, where applicable, to perform its work with advancing health equity as a goal. 4. Grantee represents that it is duly qualified and will perform all the activities according to the terms of this grant agreement. Grantee agrees to minimize administrative costs as a condition of this grant agreement pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 16B.98, subd 1. Grant Agreement 1. Term of Agreement 1.1. Effective Date December 15, 2024, or the date MDH obtains all required signatures under Minn. Stat. § 16B.98, subd. 5, whichever is later. Per Minn. Stat. § 16B.98, subd 7, no payments will be made to the Grantee until this grant agreement is fully executed. Grantee must not begin work until this grant agreement is fully executed and MDH’s Authorized Representative has notified Grantee that work may commence. No costs may be incurred prior to the grant agreement being fully executed. 1.2. Expiration Date December 15, 2025, or until all obligations have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of MDH, whichever occurs first. 1.3. Survival of Terms The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this grant agreement: Liability; Financial Examinations; Government Data Practices; Tax Compliance Verification; Docusign Envelope ID: F2F86B30-E453-447F-AB0B-50DA4836A250 Standard Grant Template - Version October 2024 SWIFT Contract Number 261258 Between MDH and City of Richfield REQ: 946_18 Page 3 of 18 Ownership of Equipment and Supplies; Intellectual Property; Publicity and Endorsement; and Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue. 2. Activities 2.1. MDH’s Activities MDH activities, in accordance with the Minnesota Department of Administration's Office of Grants Management's policies and federal regulations, may include but are not limited to financial reconciliations, site visits, programmatic monitoring of activities performed, and grant activity evaluation. 2.2. Grantee’s Activities Grantee, who is not a state employee, shall conduct the activities specified in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated into this grant agreement. 3. Time Grantee is required to perform all of the activities stated in this grant agreement, and any incorporated exhibits, within the grant agreement period. MDH is not obligated to extend the grant agreement period. Failure to meet a deadline may be a basis for a determination by MDH’s Authorized Representative that Grantee has not complied with the terms of the grant agreement. 4. Award and Payment MDH will award funds to Grantee for all activities performed in accordance with this grant agreement. 4.1. Grant Award Reimbursement will be in accordance with the agreed upon budget contained in Exhibit B, which is attached and incorporated into this grant agreement. 4.2. Travel Expenses Grantee will be reimbursed for mileage at the current IRS rate in effect at the time the travel occurred; meals and lodging expenses will be reimbursed in the same manner and in no greater amount than provided in the current “Commissioner’s Plan” promulgated by the Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget (“MMB”); or, at the Grantee’s established rate (for all travel related costs), whichever is lower, at the time travel occurred. Grantee will not be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred outside Minnesota unless Grantee has received MDH’s prior written approval for out-of-state travel. Minnesota will be considered the home state for determining whether travel is out- of-state. 4.3. Budget Modifications Grantee may modify any line item in the most recently agreed-upon budget by up to 10 percent without prior written approval from MDH. Grantee must notify MDH of any modifications up to 10 percent in writing no later than the next invoice. Grantee must obtain prior written approval from MDH for line-item modifications greater than 10 percent. Grantee’s failure to obtain MDH’s prior approval may result in denial of Docusign Envelope ID: F2F86B30-E453-447F-AB0B-50DA4836A250 Standard Grant Template - Version October 2024 SWIFT Contract Number 261258 Between MDH and City of Richfield REQ: 946_18 Page 4 of 18 modification request, loss of funds, or both. The total obligation of MDH for all compensation and reimbursements to Grantee shall not exceed the total obligation listed under “Total Obligation.” 4.4. Total Obligation The total obligation of MDH for all compensation and reimbursements to Grantee under this grant agreement will not exceed $10,000.00. 4.5. Terms of Payment 4.5.1. Invoices MDH will promptly pay Grantee after Grantee presents an itemized invoice for the activities actually performed and MDH’s Authorized Representative accepts the invoiced activities. Invoices must be submitted at least quarterly or according to a schedule agreed upon by the Parties. The final invoice is due 30 calendar days after the expiration date of the grant agreement. Grantee shall email invoice to: health.swpgrants@state.mn.us Or mail to: Eddie Wojski SWP Grant Coordinator Minnesota Department of Health PO Box 64975 St. Paul, MN 55164-0975 4.6. Contracting and Bidding Requirements 4.6.1. Municipalities A grantee that is a municipality, as defined in Minn. Stat. § 471.345, subd. 1, is subject to the contracting requirements set forth under Minn. Stat. § 471.345. Projects that involve construction work are subject to the applicable prevailing wage laws, including those under Minn. Stat. § 177.41, et. seq. 4.6.2. Non-municipalities Grantees that are not municipalities must adhere to the following standards in the event that activities assigned to Grantee are to be subcontracted out to a third party: i. Any services or materials that are expected to cost $100,000 or more must undergo a formal notice and bidding process. ii. Services or materials that are expected to cost between $25,000 and $99,999 must be competitively awarded based on a minimum of three verbal quotes or bids. iii. Services or materials that are expected to cost between $10,000 and $24,999 must be competitively awarded based on a minimum of two verbal quotes or bids or awarded to a targeted vendor. Docusign Envelope ID: F2F86B30-E453-447F-AB0B-50DA4836A250 Standard Grant Template - Version October 2024 SWIFT Contract Number 261258 Between MDH and City of Richfield REQ: 946_18 Page 5 of 18 iv. Grantee must take all necessary affirmative steps to assure that targeted vendors from businesses with active certifications through the following entities are used when possible: 1) Minnesota Department of Administration’s Certified Targeted Group, Economically Disadvantaged and Veteran-Owned Vendor List (https://mn.gov/admin/osp/government/procuregoodsandgeneralservices/tge dvo-directory/); 2) Metropolitan Council’s Targeted Vendor list: Minnesota Unified Certification Program (https://mnucp.metc.state.mn.us/); or 3) Small Business Certification Program through Hennepin County, Ramsey County, and City of St. Paul: Central Certification Program (https://cert.smwbe.com/). v. Grantee must maintain written standards of conduct covering conflicts of interest and governing the actions of its employees engaged in the selection, awarding and administration of contracts. vi. Grantee must maintain support documentation of the purchasing or bidding process utilized to contract services in their financial records, including support documentation justifying a single/sole source bid, if applicable. vii. Notwithstanding parts (i) through (iv) above, MDH may waive the formal bidding process requirements when: • Vendors included in response to a competitive grant request for proposal process were approved and incorporated as an approved work plan for the grant agreement or • There is only one legitimate or practical source for such materials or services and Grantee has established that the vendor is charging a fair and reasonable price. viii. Projects that involve construction work of $25,000 or more, are subject to applicable prevailing wage laws, including those under Minn. Stat. §§ 177.41 through 177.44. ix. Grantee must not contract with vendors who are suspended or debarred in Minnesota or by the federal government. The list of debarred vendors in Minnesota is available at: https://mn.gov/admin/osp/government/suspended- debarred/index2.jsp. The list of suspended and debarred entities by the federal government is available at www.sam.gov. 5. Conditions of Payment All activities performed by Grantee pursuant to this grant agreement must be performed in accordance with the terms of this grant agreement, as determined in the sole discretion of MDH’s Authorized Representative. Furthermore, all activities performed by Grantee must be in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. Applicable state laws include, but are not limited to, the Minnesota Human Rights Act (Minn. Stat. ch. 363A) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, gender, identify, sexual orientation, age, marital status, public assistance status, familial status, and disability. MDH will not pay Grantee for work that MDH determines is noncompliant with the Docusign Envelope ID: F2F86B30-E453-447F-AB0B-50DA4836A250 Standard Grant Template - Version October 2024 SWIFT Contract Number 261258 Between MDH and City of Richfield REQ: 946_18 Page 6 of 18 terms and conditions of this grant agreement or performed in violation of federal, state, or local law, ordinance, rule, or regulation. 6. Authorized Representatives 6.1. MDH’s Authorized Representative MDH’s Authorized Representative for purposes of administering this grant agreement is Eddie Wojski, SWP Grant Coordinator, 625 Robert Street N., PO Box 64975, St. Paul, MN 55164-0975, 651-201-4576, and eddie.wojski@state.mn.us, or their successor, and has the responsibility to monitor Grantee’s performance and the final authority to accept the activities performed under this grant agreement. If the activities performed are satisfactory, MDH’s Authorized Representative will certify acceptance on each invoice submitted for payment. 6.2. Grantee’s Authorized Representative Grantee’s Authorized Representative is Chad Donnelly, Assistant Utilities Superintendent, 6700 Portland Avenue S, Richfield, MN 55423, 612-861-9797, moddsson@richfieldmn.gov, or their successor. Grantee’s Authorized Representative has full authority to represent Grantee in fulfillment of the terms, conditions, and requirements of this grant agreement. If Grantee selects a new Authorized Representative at any time during this grant agreement, Grantee must immediately notify MDH’s Authorized Representative in writing, via e-mail or letter. 7. Assignment, Amendments, Waiver, and Grant Agreement Complete 7.1. Assignment Grantee shall neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this grant agreement. 7.2. Amendments If there are any amendments to this grant agreement, they must be in writing. Amendments will not be effective until they have been executed and approved by MDH and Grantee. 7.3. Waiver If MDH fails to enforce any provision of this grant agreement, that failure does not waive the provision or MDH’s right to enforce it. 7.4. Grant Agreement Complete This grant agreement, and any incorporated exhibits, contains all the negotiations and agreements between MDH and Grantee. No other understanding regarding this grant agreement, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party. 8. Liability Grantee must indemnify and hold harmless MDH, its agents, and employees from all claims or causes of action, including attorneys’ fees incurred by MDH, arising from the performance of this grant agreement by Grantee or Grantee’s agents or employees. This clause will not be construed to Docusign Envelope ID: F2F86B30-E453-447F-AB0B-50DA4836A250 Standard Grant Template - Version October 2024 SWIFT Contract Number 261258 Between MDH and City of Richfield REQ: 946_18 Page 7 of 18 bar any legal remedies Grantee may have for MDH’s failure to fulfill its obligations under this grant agreement. Nothing in this clause may be construed as a waiver by Grantee of any immunities or limitations of liability to which Grantee may be entitled pursuant to Minn. Stat. ch. 466, or any other statute or law. 9. Financial Examinations The relevant books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of Grantee and any entity with which Grantee has engaged in carrying out the purpose of this grant agreement are subject to examination under Minn. Stat. § 16B.98, subd. 8. Examinations may be conducted by MDH, the Minnesota Commissioner of Administration, the Minnesota State Auditor, or and the Minnesota Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of this grant agreement, receipt and approval of all final reports, or the required period of time to satisfy all state and program retention requirements, whichever is later. 10. Government Data Practices MDH, Grantee, and any other entity that the Grantee has contracted with to fulfill the purpose of this grant agreement, must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. ch. 13, as it applies to all data provided by MDH under this grant agreement, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by Grantee under this grant agreement pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13.05, subd. 11(a). The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. § 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either Grantee or MDH. If Grantee receives a request to release the data referred to in this clause, Grantee must immediately notify MDH. MDH will give Grantee instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before any data is released. Grantee’s response to the request must comply with the applicable law. 11. Tax Compliance Verification Grantee, and any other entity that the Grantee has contracted with to fulfill the purpose of this grant agreement, consents to disclosure of its Social Security Number (SSN), Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN), Employer Identification Number (EIN), or Minnesota Tax Identification Number (TIN)--which may have already been provided to MDH--to federal and state tax agencies and state personnel involved in the payment of state obligations pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 270C.65, subd. 3, and all other applicable laws. These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and state tax laws, which could result in action requiring Grantee to file tax returns and pay delinquent tax liabilities, if any, or pay other state liabilities. 12. Ownership of Equipment and Supplies 12.1. Equipment “Equipment” is defined as tangible personal property having a useful life of more than one year and a per-unit acquisition cost which equals or exceeds $10,000. MDH shall have the right to require transfer of all Equipment purchased with grant funds (including title) to MDH or to an eligible non-State party named by MDH. MDH may require the transfer of Equipment if the grant program is transferred to another grantee. At the end of this grant agreement, grantee must contact MDH’s Authorized Representative for further instruction regarding the disposition of Equipment. Docusign Envelope ID: F2F86B30-E453-447F-AB0B-50DA4836A250 Standard Grant Template - Version October 2024 SWIFT Contract Number 261258 Between MDH and City of Richfield REQ: 946_18 Page 8 of 18 12.2. Supplies “Supplies” is defined as all tangible personal property other than those described in the definition of Equipment. Grantee must notify MDH’s Authorized Representative regarding any remaining Supplies with an aggregate market value of $10,000 or more for further instruction regarding the disposition of those Supplies. For the purpose of this section, Supplies includes but is not limited to computers and incentives. 13. Ownership of Materials and Intellectual Property Rights 13.1. Ownership of Materials “Materials” is defined as any inventions, reports, studies, designs, drawings, specifications, notes, documents, software, computer-based training modules, and other recorded materials in whatever form. Grantee shall own all rights, title, and interest in all of the materials conceived, created, or otherwise arising out of the performance of this grant agreement by it, its employees, or subgrantees, either individually or jointly with others. Grantee hereby grants to MDH a perpetual, irrevocable, no-fee license and right to reproduce, modify, distribute, perform, make, have made, and otherwise use the Materials for any and all purposes, in all forms and manners that MDH, in its sole discretion, deems appropriate. Grantee shall, upon the request of MDH, execute all papers and perform all other acts necessary to document and secure this right and license to the Materials by MDH. At the request of MDH, Grantee shall permit MDH to inspect the original Materials and provide a copy of any of the Materials to MDH, without cost, for use by MDH in any manner MDH, in its sole discretion, deems appropriate. 13.2. Intellectual Property Rights Grantee represents and warrants that Materials produced or used under this grant agreement do not and will not infringe upon any intellectual property rights of another including but not limited to patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trade names, and service marks and names. Grantee shall indemnify and defend MDH, at Grantee’s expense, from any action or claim brought against MDH to the extent that it is based on a claim that all or parts of the materials infringe upon the intellectual property rights of another. Grantee shall be responsible for payment of any and all such claims, demands, obligations, liabilities, costs, and damages including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney fees arising out of this grant agreement, amendments and supplements thereto, which are attributable to such claims or actions. If such a claim or action arises or in Grantee’s or MDH’s opinion is likely to arise, Grantee shall at MDH’s discretion either procure for MDH the right or license to continue using the materials at issue or replace or modify the allegedly infringing materials. This remedy shall be in addition to and shall not be exclusive of other remedies provided by law. 14. Workers’ Compensation Grantee certifies that it is in compliance with Minn. Stat. § 176.181, subd. 2, which pertains to workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Grantee’s employees and agents, and any contractor hired by Grantee to perform the work required by this grant agreement and its employees, will not be considered State employees. Any claims that may arise under the Minnesota Workers’ Docusign Envelope ID: F2F86B30-E453-447F-AB0B-50DA4836A250 Standard Grant Template - Version October 2024 SWIFT Contract Number 261258 Between MDH and City of Richfield REQ: 946_18 Page 9 of 18 Compensation Act on behalf of these employees, and any claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of these employees, are in no way MDH’s obligation or responsibility. 15. Publicity and Endorsement 15.1. Publicity Any publicity given to the program, publications, or activities performed resulting from this grant agreement, including but not limited to, notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for Grantee or its employees individually or jointly with others, or any subgrantees, must identify MDH as the sponsoring agency. If publicity is not specifically authorized under this grant agreement, Grantee must obtain prior written approval from MDH’s Authorized Representative. If federal funding is being used for this grant agreement, the federal program must also be recognized. 15.2. Endorsement Grantee must not claim that MDH endorses its products, services, or activities. 16. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue This grant agreement, amendments and supplements to it, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. Venue for all legal proceedings arising out of this grant agreement, or for breach thereof, shall be in the state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 17. Clerical Error Notwithstanding Clause “Assignment, Amendments, Waiver, and Grant Agreement Complete” of this grant agreement, MDH reserves the right to unilaterally fix clerical errors, defined as misspellings, minor grammatical or typographical mistakes or omissions, that do not have a substantive impact on the terms of the Grant Agreement without executing an amendment. MDH must inform Grantee of clerical errors that have been fixed pursuant to this paragraph within a reasonable period of time. 18. Lobbying 18.1. Grantee must ensure that grant funds are not used for lobbying, which includes paying or compensating any person for influencing or attempting to influence legislators or other public officials on behalf or against proposed legislation, in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, or the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. 18.2. In accordance with the provisions of 31 USC § 1352, if Grantee uses any funds other than federal funds from MDH to conduct any of the aforementioned activities, Grantee must complete and submit to MDH the disclosure form specified by MDH. Further, Grantee must include the language of this section in all contracts and subcontracts, and all contractors and subcontractors must comply accordingly. Docusign Envelope ID: F2F86B30-E453-447F-AB0B-50DA4836A250 Standard Grant Template - Version October 2024 SWIFT Contract Number 261258 Between MDH and City of Richfield REQ: 946_18 Page 10 of 18 18.3. Providing education about the importance of policies as a public health strategy, however, is allowed. Education includes providing facts, assessment of data, reports, program descriptions, and information about budget issues and population impacts, but stopping short of making a recommendation on a specific piece of legislation. Education may be provided to legislators, public policy makers, other decision makers, specific stakeholders, and the general community. 18.4. By signing this grant agreement, Grantee certifies that it will not use any funds received from MDH to employ, contract with, or otherwise coordinate the efforts of a lobbyist, as defined in Minn. Stat. § 10A.01, subd. 21. This requirement also applies to any subcontractors or subgrantees that Grantee may engage for any activities pertinent to this grant agreement. 19. Voter Registration Requirement Grantee will comply with Minn. Stat. § 201.162, by providing voter registration services for its employees and for the public served by Grantee. 20. Debarment, Suspension and Responsibility Certification Federal regulation 2 CFR § 200.214 prohibits MDH from purchasing goods or services with federal money from any party that has been suspended or debarred by the federal government. Similarly, Minn. Stat. §§ 16C.03, subd. 2, and 16B.97, subd. 3, provides the Commissioner of Administration with the authority to debar and suspend any party that seeks to contract with MDH. Anyone may be suspended or debarred when it is determined, through a duly authorized hearing process, that they have abused the public trust in a serious manner. In particular, the federal government expects MDH to have a process in place for determining whether a vendor has been suspended or debarred, and to prevent such vendors from receiving federal funds. By signing this grant agreement, Grantee certifies that it and its principals: a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from transacting business by or with any federal, state or local governmental department or agency; b) Have not within a three-year period preceding this grant agreement: a) been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract; b) violated any federal or state antitrust statutes; or c) committed embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements or receiving stolen property; c) Are not presently indicted or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity for: a) commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain or performing a public (federal, state of local) transaction; b) violating any federal or state antitrust statutes; or c) committing embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statement or receiving stolen property; and Docusign Envelope ID: F2F86B30-E453-447F-AB0B-50DA4836A250 Standard Grant Template - Version October 2024 SWIFT Contract Number 261258 Between MDH and City of Richfield REQ: 946_18 Page 11 of 18 d) Are not aware of any information and possess no knowledge that any subcontractor(s) that will perform work pursuant to this grant agreement are in violation of any of the certifications set forth above. 21. Incentives When included in the approved Work Plan or Budget, the following language applies. 21.1. Handling of Incentives Grantee is required to have policies and procedures in place addressing the purchasing, security, distribution, and asset tracking of incentives. All grantee staff involved in the purchase, distribution, security, and reconciling of incentives must be trained on the grantee’s policies and procedures prior to the grantee placing any order for incentives. Those policies and procedures must, at a minimum, include the provisions outlined in this section. 21.2. Separation of duties More than one Grantee staff person must be involved in the management and handling of the incentives. The Grantee staff who authorizes the purchase of incentives must not have sole physical access to the incentives. The Grantee staff who will have physical access to the incentives cannot have sole access to modify the incentives records. Handoff of incentive from one person to another must be documented. 21.3. Distribution of Incentives Incentives may only be used for approved purposes by MDH. a) Only one incentive can be given to an individual per occurrence/event. b) Undistributed incentives must always be kept in a secure location. Incentive instruments must never be stored in any personal homes, they must always be securely stored in the grantee’s business space. c) Grantee will purchase and have on hand no more than three months’ worth of incentives at any given time. The three months’ worth must be based off the most currently approved workplan. All incentives must be distributed prior to grantee purchasing additional incentives. d) Grantee will be responsible for the costs of any incentives that remain undistributed at the end of the grant agreement. e) If MDH provided the grantee with the incentives, the return of undistributed incentives to MDH must occur in person with the State’s Authorized Representative within 30 calendar days of the grant expiration date. If in-person return is not possible, the grantee must return undistributed incentives via courier or via US Mail that requires signatures and a tracking number within 30 calendar days of the grant expiration date. f) The tracking log must be returned separately from the physical cards. Electronic return is the preferred method for the tracking log. Docusign Envelope ID: F2F86B30-E453-447F-AB0B-50DA4836A250 Standard Grant Template - Version October 2024 SWIFT Contract Number 261258 Between MDH and City of Richfield REQ: 946_18 Page 12 of 18 21.4. Incentive tracking documentation The tracking documentation the Grantee is required to maintain must not contain any private data. The tracking system must record the following: a) Number of incentives on hand, including starting balance and any additional incentives purchased; b) description of the incentives; c) quantity of incentive(s) distributed to each participant; d) the last four digits of any pre-paid card number; e) value/amount; f) a unique non-identifiable data point for each participant (e.g. case number, file number); g) date participant received incentive(s); and h) signature of Grantee staff member providing incentive(s) to participant(s). 21.5. Reconciliation At least two different Grantee staff must reconcile the incentives at least quarterly. The Grantee staff conducting the reconciliation must not also be the handlers of the incentives. The reconciliation must include the dates and signature of the two people who perform the reconciliation. Grantee must submit the reconciliation documentation to the State’s Authorized Representative no less than two weeks after each reconciliation. 21.6. Subcontracting/Subgranting The Grantee must communicate and verify that their subcontracts/subgrants will only use incentives for MDH approved purposes. The Grantee will be responsible for monitoring, oversight, and reconciliation of any incentives that its subcontractors or subgrantees purchase and distribute and will include this same language in any of its subgrants or subcontracts that it enters as part of its work for MDH. 21.7. Lost or stolen incentives The Grantee bears all financial responsibility for any unaccounted for, lost, or stolen incentives. 21.8. Invoicing If the Grantee purchased the incentives themselves, the Grantee must only invoice MDH for the incentives after they’ve been distributed. 21.9. Failure to Comply For grantees who do not have effective written policies and procedures in place before purchasing incentives, MDH reserves the right to withhold payment and or request reimbursement in the amount equal to the unallowable costs. Withheld payments will be released when the grantee provides documentation to MDH that it has written effective policies and procedures in place. Grantees who do not comply with this requirement may be subject to increased monitoring and will be offered technical assistance. MDH also reserves the right to terminate a grant agreement for failure to comply with these requirements. Docusign Envelope ID: F2F86B30-E453-447F-AB0B-50DA4836A250 Standard Grant Template - Version October 2024 SWIFT Contract Number 261258 Between MDH and City of Richfield REQ: 946_18 Page 13 of 18 22. Conflict of Interest Grantee will notify MDH’s Authorized Representative when they become aware of any potential, perceived, or actual conflict of interests as it relates to this grant agreement. 23. Mandatory Disclosures An applicant, recipient, or subrecipient of funding under this grant agreement must promptly disclose whenever, in connection with this grant agreement (including any activities or subawards thereunder), it has credible evidence of the commission of a violation of criminal law involving fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, or gratuity violations found in Title 18 of the United States Code or Minn. Stat., ch. 609, or a violation of the civil False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. 329–3733) or Minn. Stat. § 609.465 (prohibiting the presentation of false claims to a public officer or body). The disclosure must be made in writing to the Federal agency (if applicable), the Federal agency’s Office of Inspector General (if applicable), and MDH. Applicants, recipients, and subrecipients are also required to report matters related to recipient integrity and performance in accordance with Appendix XII of 2 CFR § 200. Failure to make required disclosures can result in any of the remedies described in 2 CFR § 200.339. (See also 2 CFR § 180, 31 U.S.C. 3321, and 41 U.S.C. 2313.) 24. Whistleblower Protections An employee of a recipient or subrecipient must not be discharged, demoted, or otherwise discriminated against as a reprisal for disclosing to a representative of MDH or a person or body described in paragraph (a)(2) of 41 U.S.C. 4712 information that the employee reasonably believes is evidence of gross mismanagement of a Federal or state contract or grant, a gross waste of Federal or state funds, an abuse of authority relating to a Federal or state contract or grant, a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or a violation of law, rule, or regulation related to a Federal or state contract (including the competition for or negotiation of a contract) or grant. The recipient and subrecipient must inform their employees in writing of employee whistleblower rights and protections under 41 U.S.C. 4712 and Minn. Stat. §§ 15C.145 and 181.932 - .935. See statutory requirements for whistleblower protections at 10 U.S.C. 4701, 41 U.S.C. 4712, 41 U.S.C. 4304, and 10 U.S.C. 4310. 25. Termination 25.1. Termination by MDH or Grantee MDH or Grantee may terminate this grant agreement without cause, with at least 21 calendar days’ written notice (i.e., by mail, email, or both) to the other party. Upon termination, Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for activities satisfactorily performed. 25.2. Termination for Cause MDH may immediately terminate this grant agreement if MDH finds there has been a failure to comply with the provisions of this grant agreement, that timely progress has not been made, or that the purposes for which the funds were granted have not been or will not be fulfilled. MDH may take action to protect the interests of the State of Minnesota, including the refusal to disburse additional funds and requiring the return of all or part of the funds already disbursed. Docusign Envelope ID: F2F86B30-E453-447F-AB0B-50DA4836A250 Standard Grant Template - Version October 2024 SWIFT Contract Number 261258 Between MDH and City of Richfield REQ: 946_18 Page 14 of 18 25.3. Termination for Insufficient Funding MDH may immediately terminate this grant agreement if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature or other funding sources; or if funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the work scope covered in this grant agreement. Termination must be by written notice to Grantee; i.e., mail, email, or both. MDH is not obligated to pay for any work performed after notice and effective date of the termination. However, Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for activities satisfactorily performed to the extent that funds are available. MDH will not be assessed any penalty if this grant agreement is terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding source, not to appropriate funds. MDH must provide Grantee notice of the lack of funding within a reasonable time of MDH receiving notice of the same. 25.4. Termination by Commissioner of Administration The Commissioner of Administration may immediately and unilaterally cancel this grant agreement if further performance under the agreement would not serve MDH’s purposes or is not in the best interests of the State of Minnesota. [Signatures on following page] Docusign Envelope ID: F2F86B30-E453-447F-AB0B-50DA4836A250 Standard Grant Template - Version October 2024 SWIFT Contract Number 261258 Between MDH and City of Richfield REQ: 946_18 Page 15 of 18 APPROVED: 1. State Encumbrance Verification Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered as required by Minn. Stat. §§ 16A.15 and 16C.05. Signature: SWIFT Contract & Initial PO: 2. Grantee Grantee certifies that the appropriate persons(s) have executed the grant agreement on behalf of Grantee as required by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions, or ordinances. Signature: Title: Date: Signature: Title: Date: Signature: Title: Date: Signature: Title: Date: 3. Minnesota Department of Health Grant agreement approval and certification that State funds have been encumbered as required by Minn. Stat. §§ 16A.15 and 16C.05. Signature: (with delegated authority) Title: Date: Distribution: All parties on the DocuSign envelope will receive a copy of the fully executed grant agreement. 261258/3000120029/REQ 946_18 Rachel LeBlanc Digitally signed by Rachel LeBlanc Date: 2024.12.12 09:07:46 -06'00' Docusign Envelope ID: F2F86B30-E453-447F-AB0B-50DA4836A250 Standard Grant Template - Version October 2024 SWIFT Contract Number 261258 Between MDH and City of Richfield REQ: 946_18 Page 16 of 18 Exhibit A – Grantee’s Activities / Scope of Work Grantee is expected to perform the following activities. Modifications to Exhibit A must be discussed with MDH. MDH will communicate, in writing, with Grantee as to whether modifications are approved or require a formal grant amendment. Activity/Work Plan Anticipated Outcome 1. Sealing of Woodlawn Terrace Cooperative well. Decommissioning and sealing of a housing cooperative’s private well with known contamination issues. Terms and Conditions Additional Notes/Requirements 1. Grantee shall contact MDH Well Management 24 hours prior to beginning any well construction or sealing work. Contact either Patrick Sarafolean, MDH Hydrologist, at 651-201-3962 or Jennifer Weier, MDH Hydrologist Supervisor, at 651-201- 3658 during normal business hours Monday to Friday between 8:00 am and 4:30 pm to ensure that MDH has the opportunity to inspect during the well construction or sealing process. In compliance with MDH standards 2. Grantee agrees that work shall take place only in the MDH approved Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA). Grantee will be reimbursed only for work that takes place in the DWSMA. In compliance with MDH standards 3. Grantee shall pay in full any licensed contractor or consultant hired for the purpose of completing any work under this Grant Agreement. In compliance with MDH standards 4. Grantee will provide the unique well numbers with the Well Sealing Record(s) with the final invoice. Request records from your contractor 5. On or before the end date of this Agreement, the Grantee shall provide MDH with one electronic copy of all final products produced under this Grant Agreement, including reports, publications, software and videos. If required by the nature of the project, data collected during the project shall be reported in a format acceptable to MDH. In compliance with MDH standards Docusign Envelope ID: F2F86B30-E453-447F-AB0B-50DA4836A250 Standard Grant Template - Version October 2024 SWIFT Contract Number 261258 Between MDH and City of Richfield REQ: 946_18 Page 17 of 18 Terms and Conditions Additional Notes/Requirements 6. In the event the Grantee is unable to satisfactorily complete all the duties specified in this grant agreement, the Grantee will forfeit payment. A Grantee who has not satisfactorily fulfilled the grant obligations, including but not limited to paying the contractor in full for all work performed by the contractor, will be denied participation in the next grant cycle. In compliance with MDH standards Grantee is subject to a variety of compliance activities, as outlined below. Report Type Reporting Period / Due Date Due Date Grant Narrative Report Upon completion of the project, Grantee shall complete and submit an itemized Grant Invoice and a Grant Narrative Report to MDH SWP Grant Coordinator. The Grant Narrative Report and the Grant Invoice shall be due no later than the expiration day of this Grant Agreement. Plan Implementation Grant Invoice (PDF) Grant Narrative Report (PDF) 12/15/2025 Docusign Envelope ID: F2F86B30-E453-447F-AB0B-50DA4836A250 Standard Grant Template - Version October 2024 SWIFT Contract Number 261258 Between MDH and City of Richfield REQ: 946_18 Page 18 of 18 Exhibit B – Grantee’s Budget The budget shown below is for reference only and is non-binding. Activity Summary Budget Period Grant Amount Sealing of Woodlawn Terrace Cooperative well. 12/15/2024 to 12/15/2025 $10,000.00 Total Grant Amount $10,000.00 Grantee’s Indirect Cost Rate for this Grant Agreement is as follows: Indirect costs are not allowed by Funder. Permitting fees payable to MDH (i.e. well construction fee; well sealing fee) are not eligible and will be deducted from the final invoice, before reimbursement. Pressure tanks are grant eligible, as part of a new well construction and pump system project. The pressure tank must be appropriately sized for the pump being proposed for the new well and not sized for additional water storage. Pressure tank designed to serve the purpose of water storage, as well as the replacement or maintenance of pressure tanks, remains ineligible for grant reimbursement. Water lines may be reimbursed only from the well to the pressure tank or to the building, whichever comes first. Docusign Envelope ID: F2F86B30-E453-447F-AB0B-50DA4836A250 Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: F2F86B30-E453-447F-AB0B-50DA4836A250 Status: Sent Subject: Complete with Docusign: 261258_REQ_946_18_GA_City_of_Richfield.pdf Source Envelope: Document Pages: 18 Signatures: 0 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Eddie Wojski AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada) 625 Robert St. N PO Box 64975 St. Paul, MN 55164 eddie.wojski@state.mn.us IP Address: 156.98.136.30 Record Tracking Status: Original 12/12/2024 2:36:48 PM Holder: Eddie Wojski eddie.wojski@state.mn.us Location: DocuSign Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: Department of Health Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Chad Donnelly cdonnelly@richfieldmn.gov Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 12/12/2024 2:41:18 PM Resent: 12/30/2024 9:38:30 AM Viewed: 12/30/2024 9:42:54 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign MDH Delegated health.Delegated_Signature@state.mn.us Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp health.encumbrance@state.mn.us health.encumbrance@state.mn.us Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Chad Donnelly cdonnelly@richfieldmn.gov Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Abby Shea abby.shea@state.mn.us Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Witness Events Signature Timestamp Notary Events Signature Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 12/12/2024 2:41:18 PM Payment Events Status Timestamps 1 RC160\4\978158.v5 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR WELL IMPROVEMENTS This COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR WELL IMPROVEMENTS (the “Agreement”) is made this _____ day of _______________, 2025 (the “Effective Date”), by and between the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”) and Woodlawn Terrace Cooperative, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (“Owner”). RECITALS WHEREAS, the Owner owns certain real property located at 7421 Lyndale Ave S, Richfield, MN 55423 (PID # 3402824320015), which is legally described in the attached Exhibit A (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Owner currently owns and operates a private well and related improvements that serve as the single source of drinking water for the Property (the “Well Improvements”); and WHEREAS, the Owner intends to seal and abandon the Well Improvements (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the City supports the Owner’s intention as drinking water source protection provides public health and safety benefits to the entire community; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) provides grants to local governments to support the implementation of Source Water Protection plans (“Implementation Grant”); and WHEREAS, MDH also provides Source Water Protection competitive grants to non- community public water systems to manage or eliminate potential sources of contamination to public water systems (“Competitive Grant”); and WHEREAS, the City agrees to apply for an Implementation Grant under the conditions of this Agreement, including the Owner’s agreement to apply for a Competitive Grant and otherwise accept all responsibilities and costs for the Project. 2 RC160\4\978158.v5 NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above and any exhibits are incorporated in this Agreement as though set forth in full. 2. Project Responsibilities and Grant Funding. a. The Owner shall be responsible for all Project costs, expenses, and obligations, with the exception of applying for an Implementation Grant. b. The City shall only be responsible for applying for and disbursing an Implementation Grant to the Owner as discussed in this paragraph 2. The parties estimate that the amount of the grant request in the Implementation Grant application will be $10,000. With the exception of applying for and disbursing the Implementation Grant funds to the Owner, the City shall not be responsible for any other Project costs, expenses, or obligations. c. The Owner shall be responsible for applying for a Competitive Grant. The parties estimate that the amount of the grant request in the Competitive Grant application will be $5,000. The Owner shall comply with all grant timelines, conditions, and requirements of the Competitive Grant. d. The Owner’s responsibilities shall also include entering into a contract with a licensed well drilling contractor to seal the existing well the Project. Upon the contractor’s completion of the Project, the Owner shall request an invoice and any supporting documentation from the contractor. The owner shall make timely payment to the contractor regardless of the disbursement status of either the Competitive Grant or Implementation Grant. The Owner shall also present such invoice and any supporting documentation to the City. If the invoice and any supporting documentation are satisfactory to the City, the City shall present such invoice and supporting documentation to MDH for disbursement of the Implementation Grant. Upon its receipt of the Implementation Grant funds, the City shall disburse such funds to the Owner. The Owner shall then be responsible for any additional Implementation Grant timelines, conditions, and requirements unless explicitly stated otherwise in a written agreement between the City and MDH. e. If the Project costs and expenses exceed the total amount of the Implementation Grant and Competitive Grant, the Owner shall fund such Project costs and expenses. 3. Termination. a. If the City does not receive an Implementation Grant, or if the Owner does not receive a Competitive Grant by July 1, 2025, the City may terminate this Agreement immediately. b. The City may terminate this Agreement upon 10 days’ written notice to the Owner. 3 RC160\4\978158.v5 c. The parties may terminate this Agreement by written, mutual agreement at any time. 4. Assumption of Risk. The Owner shall remain responsible for the Project. The Owner, including its successors and assigns, hereby irrevocably waives any and all claims against the City or any of its officials, agents, and employees, for any bodily injury (including death), loss, or property damage incurred by the Owner, or their successors and assigns, as a result of the Project. The Owner hereby irrevocably releases and discharges the City and any of its officials, agents, and employees from any and all claims of liability. 5. Indemnification. The Owner shall hold harmless, defend, and indemnify the City and its officials, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, demands, damages, and causes of action arising under this Agreement. The Owner specifically releases the City and its officials, agents, and employees for any and all risks or claims, demands, damages, and causes of action related to the future maintenance, operation, and use of the Well Improvements, whether foreseen or unforeseen. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver or limitation of any immunity or limitation on liability to which the City is entitled under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466, or otherwise. 6. Recording. The City shall record this Agreement with the Hennepin County Recorder/Registrar of Titles. 7. Compliance with Laws. The Owner shall comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, and legal conditions, and shall be responsible for obtaining and paying the cost for any necessary permits to conduct any required work. 8. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 9. Waiver. The waiver by either party of any breach or failure to comply with any provision of this Agreement by the other party shall not be construed as, or constitute a continuing waiver of such provision or a waiver of any other breach of or failure to comply with any other provision of this Agreement. 10. Savings Clause. If a court finds any portion of this Agreement to be contrary to law or invalid, the remainder of the Agreement will remain in full force and effect. 11. Amendments. Any modification or amendment to this Agreement shall require a written agreement signed by both Parties. 12. Entire Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any prior or contemporaneous representations or agreements, whether written or oral, between the Parties and contains the entire agreement. 4 RC160\4\978158.v5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective the day identified above. WOODLAWN TERRACE COOPERATIVE By: ______________________________ Its: President Dated: ______________________________ By: ______________________________ Its: Vice President Dated: ______________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ____________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ________________, 2024, by ________________________________ and ________________________________, the ________________________________ and ________________________________, respectively, of Woodlawn Terrace Cooperative, on behalf of the Owner. ______________________________ Notary Public NOTARY STAMP OR SEAL 5 RC160\4\978158.v5 CITY OF RICHFIELD By: ______________________________ Its: Dated: ______________________________ By: ______________________________ Its: Dated: ______________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ________________, 2024, by ________________________________ and ________________________________, the ________________________________ and ________________________________, respectively, of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, on behalf of the City. ______________________________ Notary Public NOTARY STAMP OR SEAL This instrument was drafted by: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered (SBK) 150 South 5th Street, Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 A-1 RC160\4\978158.v5 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Property Located at 7421 Lyndale Avenue South The South five (5) acres of the North ten (10) acres and the North four feet (4') of the South twenty (20) acres of the North thirty (30) acres of the Northwest One Quarter of the Southwest One Quarter of Section 34, Township 28 North, Range 24, West of the Fourth Principal Meridian, except railroad right-of-way, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel ID No.: 34-028-24-32-0015 Abstract Property AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #2.J. STAFF REPORT NO. 10 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1/14/2025 REPORT PREPARED BY:Jake Whipple, Civil Engineer DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Kristin Asher, Public Works Director 1/6/2025 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 1/8/2025 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider approval of the bid tabulation and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a contract with Visu-Sewer for the 2025 Sanitary Sewer Cured-in-Place-Pipe (CIPP) Lining Project in the amount of $1,034,497.00, and authorize the City Manager to approve contract changes up to $175,000 without further City Council consideration. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City is continuing to update outdated sanitary sewer infrastructure throughout the City by implementing CIPP lining. Notable areas to be lined in 2025 are Nicollet Ave from 62nd Street to 77th Street, a large City main that crosses the HUB property, and the neighborhood West of Portland Ave, North of 66th Street, and East of Nicollet. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the bid tabulation and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a contract with Visu-Sewer for the 2025 Sanitary Sewer CIPP Lining Project in the amount of $1,034,497.00, and authorize the City Manager to approve contract changes up to $175,000 without further City Council consideration. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT See executive summary. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Equity: Executing an agreement like this is standard city business. City staff is focusing on prioritizing aging infrastructure that poses the highest risk of failure. This proactive approach not only addresses critical infrastructure needs but also enhances public health by helping to prevent sewer backups and leaks. Strategic Initiatives: Lining sanitary sewer pipes instead of replacing them is a good strategy for sustainable infrastructure management, as it results in like-new quality pipe without the significant added cost of full replacement. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): Contracts estimated to have a value over $175,000 must be made by sealed bids, solicited by public notice, and awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: Public Works staff is in communications with the prospective contractor about the project schedule. Award of the contract at the January 14, 2025 City Council meeting will allow the contractor to begin ordering construction materials and will ensure project completion by the end of Fall 2025. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: Five bids were opened and read aloud at the bid opening on December 19th, 2024, ranging from $1,034,497 to $1,289,460. This project is programmed in the 2025 CIP and will be funded using sanitary sewer enterprise funds. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The bid opening held on December 19, 2024 was in accordance with legal requirements. The ad for bid was published on December 11, 2024 in the Sun Current and December 4, 2024 on QuestCDN. The City Attorney will review the final construction contract prior to execution by the Mayor and City Manager. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): None PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Bid Tab Backup Material CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening December 19,2024 1:00 p.m. PROJECT: 2025 Sanitary Sewer CIPP Bid No.: 2024-07 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015 and the City Code, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by City Clerk Friedrich who announced the purpose of the meeting was to receive; open and read aloud bids for the 2025 Sanitary Sewer CIPP Lining Project, as advertised in the official newspaper on December 12, 2024. Present: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk Jake Whipple, Civil Engineer Scott Kulzer, Senior Analyst Russ Lupkes, Utility Superintendent The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Bidder’s Name Bond Non- Collusion Intent to Comply Responsible Contractor Certificate Total Base Bid Visu-Sewer Provided Provided Provided Provided $1,034,497.00 Hydro-Klean Provided Provided Provided Provided $1,238,982.04 Veit & Company, Inc. Provided Provided Provided Provided $1,261,880.00 Insituform Technologies USA, LLC Provided Provided Provided Provided $1,287,240.83 SAK Construction, LLC Provided Provided Provided Provided $1,289,460.00 The City Clerk announced the bids would be tabulated and considered at the January 14, 2025 City Council Meeting. _______________________ Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #2.K. STAFF REPORT NO. 11 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1/14/2025 REPORT PREPARED BY:Mary Bogie, Finance Director DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Mary Bogie, Finance Director OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 1/8/2025 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider resolutions designating official depositories for the City of Richfield for 2025, including the approval of collateral. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In compliance with Minnesota statutes, the City of Richfield must designate on an annual basis those financial institutions it does business with. U.S. Bank acts as the banking institution in the City’s banking arrangement with the 4M Fund. The following resolutions for the City Council’s consideration will designate U.S Bank/4M Fund as a depository of City funds, and designate certain savings and loan associations, banks, credit unions and financial institutions as depositories for the investment of City funds. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolutions designating official depositories, with the understanding that the City could not invest in any of the depositories beyond the level of insurance coverage or the pledged collateral. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT N/A B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Developing more inclusive procurement is a long-term equity project. Currently there are very limited financial institutions owned by underrepresented groups. Also, it is the League of Minnesota Cities that selects the depository for the 4M Fund which provides significant value in excellent services at lower costs. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): In accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 118A.01 - 118A.06, the City of Richfield must designate financial institutions annually. The institutions must pledge the collateral over and above the amount of federal insurance, as public depositories. U.S. Bank acts as the banking institution in the City’s banking arrangement with the 4M Fund. Monies received, checks written by the City, flow through U.S. Bank, however, at the end of each business day, any proceeds remaining in City U.S. Bank accounts are swept to the 4M Fund to be invested. Therefore, at the end of the business day the City accounts are zero, which means the collateral requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 118A.03 are not required. Accordingly, U.S. Bank has met all other statutory requirements and should be considered as a depository for the City’s Deputy Registrar, payroll and vendor accounts and all savings deposits. The City must also annually designate certain savings and loan associations, banks, and credit unions as official depositories for deposit and investment of certain City funds. With approval of these official depositories, the City will be able to deposit and invest funds in these institutions, not exceeding the federal insurance of $250,000. Currently US Bank is the only bank designated as the official depository of the City. An annual designation must also be made for certain financial institutions as depositories for the investment of City funds for 2025. These institutions, such as investment brokerage firms, offer government securities in the manner required by law. These financial institutions include RBC Capital Markets, Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Northland Securities, Oppenheimer & Co., Principal Custody Solutions, Moreton Capital Markets, Pershing Wealth Solutions BNY Mellon, and the 4M Fund. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City is required by Minnesota Statute 118A.01 - 118A.06, to designate as a depository of funds, insured banks or thrift institutions. Any collateral so deposited is accompanied by an assignment pledged to the City in the amount specified in the attached resolutions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): None PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Resolution designating US Bank as a 2025 depository Cover Memo Resolution designating Bank and Credit Unions as 2025 depositories Cover Memo Resolution designating Financial Institutions as 2025 depositories Cover Memo RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING U.S. BANK A DEPOSITORY OF FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR THE YEAR 2025 BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield (the City) as follows: That, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 118A.01- 118A.06, U.S. Bank be, and hereby is designated a depository of the funds of the City, subject to modification and revocation at any time by said city, and subject to the following terms and conditions: The said depository shall not be required to give bonds or other securities for such deposits provided that the total sum thereof shall not at any time exceed in any depository the sums for which its deposits are insured under the Acts of Congress of the United States relating to insurance of bank deposits; but that in case such deposits in any such depository shall at any time exceed such insured sum, said depository shall immediately furnish bonds or other security for such excess according to law, approved by the City Council of said city. That said depository shall pay on demand all deposits therein; and shall pay all time deposits, at or after the end of the period for which the same shall be deposited, on demand. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that there shall be maintained a general account in which shall be deposited all monies from the water, sewer, storm sewer, liquor, swimming pool/ice arena, deputy register fees, city permits and other deposits not otherwise specifically provided for. The following officers or their facsimile signatures shall sign checks on this account; KATIE RODRIGUEZ, CITY MANAGER LISA PARADISE, CITY TREASURER BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all funds remaining in the account at the end of each business day will be transferred from U.S. Bank to the 4M Fund where funds deposited are invested and insured. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of January, 2025. ATTEST: Mary Supple, Mayor Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN SAVING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS, BANKS, AND CREDIT UNIONS AS DEPOSITORIES FOR THE DEPOSIT AND INVESTMENT OF CITY FUNDS IN 2025 BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of City of Richfield (City), Minnesota WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 118A.01 – 118A.06, municipal funds may be deposited in any Savings and Loan Association, Bank or Credit Union which has its deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) or the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA); and WHEREAS, the amount of said deposits may not exceed the FDIC/NCUA insurance covering such deposits which insurance amount is presently $250,000; and WHEREAS, the deposit of City funds in Savings and Loan Associations and Banks would provide greater flexibility in the City’s investment program and maximize interest income thereon; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. It is hereby found and determined that it is in the best interest of the property management of City funds that various banks be designated as additional depositories for City funds for 2025. 2. It is further found and determined that the purpose of such depository designation is to facilitate the proper and advantageous deposit and investment of City funds and that such designation is not exclusive, nor does it preclude the deposit of any City funds in other officially designated depositories of the City. 3. The Finance Director is hereby authorized to deposit City funds in various depositories up to the amount of $250,000, or such other amount as may be subsequently permitted by law, such deposits to be in the form of demand accounts, payable to the City on the signature of the Finance Director. Such deposits may be made and withdrawn from time to time by the Finance Director as their best judgment and the interests of the City dictates. 4. The investment of funds and the reporting thereof pursuant to this resolution shall be conducted in accordance with established policies of the City regarding the investment of City funds. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of January, 2025. Mary Supple, Mayor ATTEST Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AS DEPOSITORIES FOR THE INVESTMENT OF CITY OF RICHFIELD FUNDS IN 2025 and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield (City) has money available for investment; and WHEREAS, different financial institutions offer different rates of return on investments; WHEREAS, the City shall purchase U.S. Treasury Bills, U.S. Treasury Notes and other such government securities in the manner required by law from the institution offering the highest rate to the City, providing greater flexibility in the investment program and maximize interest income thereon; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Richfield, Minnesota, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 118A.01 – 118A.06, as follows: 1. It is hereby found and determined that it is in the best interest of the proper management of City funds that certain financial institutions be designated as additional depositories for City fund in 2025. 2. The following financial institutions designated as depositories for City funds: RBC Capital Markets Raymond James & Assoc. Principal Custody Solutions 4M Fund Northland Securities, Inc. Oppenheimer & Co. Moreton Capital Markets Pershing Wealth Solutions BNY Mellon 3. The Finance Director is hereby authorized to deposit City funds in any or all of the depositories herein designated. Such deposits may be made and withdrawn from time to time by the Finance Director’s discretion and as the interest of the City dictates. 4. The investment of funds and the reporting thereof pursuant to this resolution shall be conducted in accordance with established policies regarding the investment of these funds. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of January 2025. Mary Supple, Mayor ATTEST Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION:PROPOSED ORDINANCES AGENDA ITEM #4. STAFF REPORT NO. 12 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1/14/2025 REPORT PREPARED BY:Chad Donnelly, Assistant Utility Superintendent DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Kristin Asher, Public Works Director 1/6/2025 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 1/8/2025 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider approval of the second reading of an ordinance amending City Code section 550: Floodplain Management Regulations and approval of a resolution authorizing summary publication. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In April of 2024, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District adopted new rules applicable to Floodplain Management. The proposed revisions align City ordinances with new District requirements while maintaining established requirements concerning the FEMA-designated floodplain. The proposed revisions also clarify administration of the ordinance by designating the Water Resources Engineer as the official responsible for administering the ordinance. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the second reading of an ordinance amending City Code section 550: Floodplain Management Regulations and approve the resolution authorizing summary publication. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT A 2009 memorandum of understanding between the City of Richfield and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, grants exclusive regulatory authority to the City in matters of erosion control, stormwater management, wetland protection, and floodplain management, provided that the City adopt standards at least as protective as District rules. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Ensuring compliance with all relevant federal, state, and local floodplain management regulations this ordinance revision helps preserve Richfield's natural resources, supporting climate resilience and sustainable management of stormwater infrastructure. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): The City Charter requires a first and second reading of ordinances. A public hearing is not required unless a separate statute, charter provision or ordinance requires it. City Code subsection 550.15 requires approval of proposed ordinance changes by the MnDNR prior to adoption. This process has been complete and the City has received conditional approval from the MnDNR which is attached to this report. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The first reading of the ordinance took place at the December 10, 2024 regular meeting. Approval of the second reading of the ordinance at this meeting will ensure that the ordinance is on track to receive approval within the timeframe required by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: No initial financial impact is expected, as existing staff resources are sufficient to implement the revised ordinance. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The proposed ordinance has been reviewed by the City Attorney and conditionally approved by the MN DNR. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): none PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: none ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Floodplain Ordinance Summary Publication Resolution Resolution Letter Ordinance Ordinance MnDNR Conditional Approval Letter Backup Material RESOLUTION NO. _____ RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE UPDATING FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS AMENDING SECTION 550 OF THE CITY CODE WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above-referenced amendment of the Richfield City Code; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication: SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL NO. ________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 550 OF THE CITY CODE This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. This ordinance, which amends City Code Section 550: Floodplain Management Regulations, does the following: aligns City ordinances with new Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requirements while maintaining established requirements concerning the FEMA-designated floodplain and clarifies that the Richfield Water Resources Engineer is the official responsible for administering the ordinance. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office during normal business hours or upon request by calling the City Clerk at 612- 861-9739. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of January, 2025. Mary B. Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk BILL NO. 2024- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER V OF THE RICHFIELD CODE OF ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Chapter V, Section 550 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is amended as follows: 550.01. Statutory authorization and purpose. Subdivision 1. Statutory Authorization. The legislature of the State of Minnesota has, in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103F and Chapter 462, delegated the responsibility to local government units to adopt regulations designed to minimize flood losses. Subd. 2. Purpose. (a) This ordinance regulates development in the flood hazard areas of Richfield. These flood hazard areas are subject to periodic inundation, which may result in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base. It is the purpose of this ordinance to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by minimizing these losses and disruptions. (b) National Flood Insurance Program Compliance. This ordinance is adopted to comply with the rules and regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program codified as 44 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 59-78, as amended, so as to maintain the community's eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. (c) This ordinance is also intended to preserve the natural characteristics and functions of watercourses and floodplains in order to moderate flood and stormwater impacts, improve water quality, reduce soil erosion, protect aquatic and riparian habitat, provide recreational opportunities, provide aesthetic benefits and enhance community and economic development. 550.03. General provisions. Subdivision 1. Lands to Which Ordinance Applies. This ordinance applies to all lands within the jurisdiction of the City of Richfield shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps adopted in Subsection 550.03, Subdivision 2 as being located within the boundaries of the Floodplain District. The Floodplain District is an overlay district that is superimposed on all existing zoning districts. The standards imposed in the overlay districts are in addition to any other requirements in this ordinance. In case of a conflict, the more restrictive standards will apply. For areas within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), the MCWD’s Floodplain Alteration Rule, as may be amended from time to time, and subsection 550.15 shall apply, whichever is most restrictive. Subd. 2. Adoption of Flood Insurance Study and Maps. The following maps together with all attached material are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of the Official Zoning Map and this ordinance. The attached material includes the Flood Insurance Study for Hennepin County, Minnesota, and Incorporated Areas, dated November 4, 2016 and the Flood Insurance Rate Map panels enumerated below, dated November 4, 2016, all prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. These materials are on file in the Public Works Maintenance Facility at 1901 E 66th St, Richfield, MN 55423. Effective Flood Insurance Rate Map panels: 27053C0364F 27053C0368F 27053C0369F 27053C0388F 27053C0452F 27053C0456F 27053C0457F 27053C0476F Subd. 3. Interpretation. The boundaries of the Floodplain District are determined by scaling distances on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. (a) Where a conflict exists between the floodplain limits illustrated on the official zoning map and actual field conditions, the flood elevations must be the governing factor. The Zoning Administrator Water Resources Engineer must interpret the boundary location based on the ground elevations that existed on the site on the date of the first National Flood Insurance Program map showing the area within the regulatory floodplain, and other available technical data. (b) Persons contesting the location of the district boundaries will be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case to the Planning Commission and to submit technical evidence. Subd. 4. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions. It is not intended by this ordinance to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this ordinance imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this ordinance prevail. All other ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of the inconsistency only. Subd. 5. Warning and Disclaimer of Liability. This ordinance does not imply that areas outside the floodplain districts or land uses permitted within such districts will be free from flooding or flood damages. This ordinance does not create liability on the part of the City of Richfield or any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. Subd. 6. Severability. If any section, clause, provision, or portion of this ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of law, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected and shall remain in full force. Subd. 7. Definitions. Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this ordinance must be interpreted so as to give them the same meaning as they have in common usage and so as to give this ordinance its most reasonable application. (a) Base Flood - The flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. (b) Base Flood Elevation - The elevation of the "regional flood," as defined. The term "base flood elevation" is used in the flood insurance survey. (c) Development - Any manmade change to improved or unimproved real estate including, but not limited to, buildings, manufactured homes, and other structures, recreational vehicles, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, drilling operations, or storage of materials or equipment. (d) Farm Fence - A fence as defined by Minn. Statute § 344.02 Subd. 1(a)—(d). An open type fence of posts and wire is not considered to be a structure under this ordinance. Fences that have the potential to obstruct flood flows, such as chain link fences and rigid walls, are not permitted in the Floodplain District. (e) Flood Fringe - The portion of the floodplain located outside of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous with the term "floodway fringe" used in the Flood Insurance Study, Hennepin County, Minnesota and Incorporated Areas. (f) Flood Insurance Rate Map - An official map on which the Federal Insurance Administrator has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. A FIRM that has been made available digitally is called a Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM). (g) Floodplain - The areas adjoining a watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. (h) Floodway - The bed of a wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and those portions of the adjoining floodplain which are reasonably required to carry or store the regional flood discharge. (i) Manufactured Home - A structure, transportable in one (1) or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. The term "manufactured home" does not include the term "recreational vehicle." (j) Obstruction - Any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence (with the exception of farm fences), stockpile, refuse, fill, structure, or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel, watercourse, or regulatory floodplain which may impede, retard, or change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water. (k) Recreational Vehicle - A vehicle that is built on a single chassis, is 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection, is designed to be self- propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck, and is designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use. For the purposes of this ordinance, the term recreational vehicle is synonymous with the term "travel trailer/travel vehicle." (l) Regional Flood - A flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in Minnesota and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the one (1) percent chance/100-year recurrence interval. Regional flood is synonymous with the term "base flood" used in the Flood Insurance Study. (m) Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation - An elevation no lower than one (1) foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the floodplain that result from designation of a floodway. (n) Structure - Anything constructed or erected on the ground or attached to the ground, including, but not limited to, buildings, factories, sheds, detached garages, cabins, manufactured homes, and other similar items. (o) Substantial Damage - Damage of any origin sustained by a structure where the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. (p) Substantial Improvement - Within any consecutive 365-day period, any reconstruction, rehabilitation (including normal maintenance and repair), repair after damage, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. This term includes structures that have incurred "substantial damage," regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either: (i) Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions. (ii) Any alteration of a "historic structure," provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure's continued designation as a "historic structure." For the purpose of this ordinance, "historic structure" is as defined in 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 59.1. 550.05. Establishment of floodplain district. Subdivision 1. Areas Included. The Floodplain District for the City of Richfield includes those areas designated as Zone AE on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps adopted in Subsection 550.03, Subdivision 2. The Floodplain District is an overlay district to all existing land use districts. The requirements of this ordinance apply in addition to other legally established regulations of the community. Where this ordinance imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this ordinance apply. Subd. 2. Compliance. No new structure or land shall hereafter be used and no structure shall be constructed, located, extended, converted, or structurally altered without full compliance with the terms of this ordinance and other applicable regulations. Within the Floodplain District, all uses not listed as permitted uses in Subsection 550.07 are prohibited. 550.07. Permitted uses and standards in the floodplain district. Subdivision 1. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted within the Floodplain District without a permit provided that they are allowed in any underlying zoning district and not prohibited by any other ordinance; and provided that they do not require structures, fill, obstructions, excavations, drilling operations, storage of materials or equipment or any other form of development as defined in Subsection 550.03, Subdivision 7 of this ordinance. If the use does require fill, obstruction, excavation, storage of materials or any other form of development as defined in Subsection 550.03, Subdivision 7 of this ordinance, a permit and compliance with Subsection 550.07, Subdivision 2 of this ordinance is required. The permit requirement may be waived if there is an application for a public waters work permit from the Department of Natural Resources. (a) Agricultural uses such as general farming, pasture, grazing, forestry, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting. Farm fences that do not obstruct flood flows are permitted. (b) Outdoor plant nurseries and horticulture. (c) Private and public recreational uses such as golf courses, tennis courts, driving ranges, archery ranges, picnic grounds, boat launching ramps, swimming areas, parks, wildlife and nature preserves, game farms, shooting preserves, target ranges, hunting and fishing areas, and single or multiple purpose recreational trails. (d) Lawns, gardens, parking areas, and play areas. (e) Railroads, roads, bridges, utility transmission lines, pipelines and other public utilities, provided that the Department of Natural Resources is notified at least ten (10) days prior to issuance of any permit. Subd. 2. Standards for Permitted Uses. (a) The use must have low flood damage potential. (b) The use must not cause any increase in the stage of the one (1) percent chance or regional flood or cause an increase in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected. This provision applies to structures (temporary or permanent), fill (including fill for roads and levees), deposits, obstructions, storage of materials or equipment, and all other uses. (c) Floodplain developments must not adversely affect the hydraulic capacity of the channel and adjoining floodplain of any tributary watercourse or drainage system. (d) Public utilities, roads, railroad tracks and bridges to be located within the floodplain must be designed in accordance with Subsection 550.07, Subdivision 2, Clauses (b) and (c) above, or must obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision meeting the requirements of 44 CFR 603(d). (i) When failure or interruption of these public facilities would result in danger to the public health or safety or where such facilities are essential to the orderly functioning of the area, such facilities must be elevated to the regulatory flood protection elevation. (ii) Where failure or interruption of service would not endanger public health or safety, minor or auxiliary roads, railroads or utilities may be constructed at a lower elevation. (e) New or replacement water supply systems and sanitary sewage systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters. 550.09. Administration. Subdivision 1. Zoning Administrator. A Zoning Administrator The Water Resources Engineer or other official designated by the City Council must administer and enforce this ordinance. Subd. 2. Development Approvals. Any construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, improvement, moving or demolition of any building or structure must comply with the requirements of this ordinance. No mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, obstruction, drilling operation or other form of development as defined in Subsection 550.03 of this ordinance are allowed, other than the uses permitted in Subsection 550.07, Subdivision 1 and the activities allowed under Subsection 550.11. Subd. 3. Permit Required. A permit must be obtained from the Zoning Administrator Department of Public Works prior to conducting the following activities: (i) Expansion, change, enlargement, or alteration of a nonconforming use as specified in Subsection 550.11 of this ordinance. Normal maintenance and repair also requires a permit if such work, separately or in conjunction with other planned work, constitutes a substantial improvement as defined in Subsection 550.03, Subdivision 7 of this ordinance. (ii) Any use that requires fill, obstruction, excavation, storage of materials, or any other form of development as defined in Subsection 550.03, Subdivision 7 of this ordinance. (a) Permit applications must be submitted to the Department of Public Works Zoning Administrator on forms provided for that purpose and shall include the following where applicable: plans drawn to scale, showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the lot; existing or proposed structures, fill, or storage of materials; and the location of the foregoing in relation to the stream channel. (b) Prior to granting a permit, the Zoning Administrator Water Resources Engineer must verify that the applicant has obtained all necessary state and federal permits. Subd. 4. Variances. An application for a variance to the provisions of this ordinance will be processed and reviewed in accordance with applicable state statutes. A variance to the standards outlined in this Section may be requested under City zoning code Section 547.11. (a) A variance must not allow a use that is not allowed in that district, permit a lower degree of flood protection than the regulatory flood protection elevation for the particular area, or permit standards lower than those required by state law. (b) The following additional variance criteria of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must be met: (i) Variances must not be issued by a community within any designated regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. (ii) Variances may only be issued by a community upon (i) a showing of good and sufficient cause, (ii) a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and (iii) a determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. (iii) Variances may only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. (c) The City Council must submit hearing notices for proposed variances to the Department of Natural Resources sufficiently in advance to provide at least ten (10) days' notice of the hearing. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist. (d) A copy of all decisions granting variances must be forwarded to the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of such action. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist. (e) The Zoning Administrator Water Resources Engineer must notify the applicant for a variance that: 1) The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25.00 for $100.00 of insurance coverage and 2) Such construction below the base or regional flood level increases risks to life and property. (f) The Zoning Administrator Water Resources Engineer must maintain a record of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance, and must report such variances in an annual or biennial report to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, when requested by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Subd. 5. Notifications for Watercourse Alterations. Before authorizing any alteration or relocation of a river or stream, the Zoning Administrator Water Resources Engineer must notify adjacent communities. If the applicant has applied for a permit to work in public waters pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 103G.245, this will suffice as adequate notice. A copy of the notification must also be submitted to the Chicago Regional Office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Subd. 6. Notification to FEMA When Physical Changes Increase or Decrease Base Flood Elevations. As soon as is practicable, but not later than six (6) months after the date such supporting information becomes available, the Zoning Administrator Water Resources Engineer must notify the Chicago Regional Office of FEMA of the changes by submitting a copy of the relevant technical or scientific data. 550.11. Nonconformities. Subdivision 1. Continuance of Nonconformities. A use, structure, or occupancy of land which was lawful before the passage or amendment of this ordinance but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance may be continued subject to the following conditions. Historic structures, as defined in Subsection 550.03, Subdivision 7, Clause (o)(2) of this ordinance, are subject to the provisions of Subsection 550.11, Subdivision 1, Clauses (a)—(d) of this ordinance. (a) A nonconforming use, structure, or occupancy must not be expanded, changed, enlarged, or altered in a way that increases its nonconformity. There shall be no expansion to the outside dimensions of any portion of a nonconforming structure located within the Floodplain District. (b) The cost of all structural alterations or additions to any nonconforming structure over the life of the structure may not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure unless the conditions of this Subsection are satisfied. The cost of all structural alterations and additions must include all costs such as construction materials and a reasonable cost placed on all manpower or labor. If the cost of all previous and proposed alterations and additions exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure, then the structure must meet the standards of Subsection 550.11, Subdivision 2 of this ordinance. (c) If any nonconforming use, or any use of a nonconforming structure, is discontinued for more than one (1) year, any future use of the premises must conform to this ordinance. The Assessor must notify the Zoning Administrator Water Resources Engineer in writing of instances of nonconformities that have been discontinued for a period of more than one (1) year. (d) If any nonconformity is substantially damaged, as defined in Subsection 550.03, Subdivision 7 of this ordinance, it may not be reconstructed unless it is located in the flood fringe portion of the floodplain and it is reconstructed in accordance with the standards of Subsection 550.11, Subdivision 2 of this ordinance. (e) Any substantial improvement, as defined in Subsection 550.03, Subdivision 7 of this ordinance, to a nonconforming structure, then the existing nonconforming structure must be located in the flood fringe portion of the floodplain and meet the requirements of Subsection 550.11, Subdivision 2 of this ordinance. Subd. 2. Standards for Reconstruction of Nonconforming Structures. The following standards and procedures apply to nonconforming structures in the flood fringe portion of the floodplain, as allowed under Subsection 550.11, Subdivision 1. (a) All structures, including manufactured homes, must be elevated on fill so that the lowest floor including basement floor is at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The finished fill elevation for structures shall be no lower than one (1) foot below the regulatory flood protection elevation and the fill shall extend at such elevation at least 15 feet beyond the outside limits of the structure. (b) Fill must be properly compacted and the slopes must be properly protected by the use of riprap, vegetative cover or other acceptable method. (c) Floodplain developments must not adversely affect the hydraulic capacity of the channel and adjoining floodplain of any tributary watercourse or drainage system. (d) All manufactured homes must be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system that resists flotation, collapse and lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable state or local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces. (e) On-site Sewage Treatment and Water Supply Systems. Where public utilities are not provided: 1) On-site water supply systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems; and 2) New or replacement on-site sewage treatment systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters and they shall not be subject to impairment or contamination during times of flooding. Any sewage treatment system designed in accordance with the State's current statewide standards for on-site sewage treatment systems shall be determined to be in compliance with this Subsection. (f) Certification. The applicant is required to submit certification by a registered professional engineer, registered architect, or registered land surveyor that the finished fill and building elevations were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. Floodproofing measures must be certified by a registered professional engineer or registered architect. (g) Record of First Floor Elevation. The Zoning Administrator Water Resources Engineer must maintain a record of the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new structures and alterations to existing structures in the floodplain. The Zoning Administrator Water Resources Engineer must also maintain a record of the elevation to which structures and alterations or additions to structures are floodproofed. 550.13. Penalties and Enforcement. Subdivision 1. Violation Constitutes a Misdemeanor. Violation of the provisions of this ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of variances) constitutes a misdemeanor and is punishable as defined by law. Subd. 2. Other Lawful Action. Nothing in this ordinance restricts the City of Richfield from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the Zoning Administrator Water Resources Engineer within the specified period of time, each additional day that lapses will constitute an additional violation of this ordinance and will be prosecuted accordingly. Subd. 3. Enforcement. In responding to a suspected ordinance violation, the Zoning Administrator Water Resources Engineer and City Council may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available to it including, but not limited to, prosecution and fines, injunctions, after-the-fact permits, orders for corrective measures or a request to the National Flood Insurance Program for denial of flood insurance availability to the guilty party. The City must act in good faith to enforce these official controls and to correct ordinance violations to the extent possible so as not to jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. 550.15. Floodplain alteration within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Subdivision 1. Applicability. This sub-section shall apply to those areas within the MCWD. The MCWD’s Floodplain Alteration Rule and all its definitions are hereby incorporated by reference. For the purposes of this sub-section only, within the MCWD, for areas outside the Floodplain District depicted by the Flood Insurance Rate Maps adopted in section 550.03 Subd. 3, the floodplain is defined as area adjoining a watercourse or water basin that is covered by the regional flood (i.e., 100 year flood). In determining the applicability of this section and the location of the floodplain, the Water Resources Engineer shall use the best available data, including, but not limited to City hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, Watershed District modeling, mapped floodplain areas, and adopted water management plans. Subd. 2. Permit Required. Within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, a permit is required to fill, excavate or grade within the floodplain of a waterbody. For all work requiring a permit, a structure intended for residential, commercial, industrial or institutional occupancy must be constructed so that door and window openings are at least two feet above the 100-year high water elevation of the waterbody. Subd. 3. Exception. A permit is not required for soil cultivation, soil amendment, or topsoil or sod addition for ordinary landscaping purposes. Subd. 4. Criteria. Fill, excavation or grading must conform to the following standards: (a) Any floodplain fill must be offset so there is no loss in flood storage between the ordinary high water and 100-year high water elevations. There may not be net positive fill at any time during the work, unless applicant has demonstrated it is impractical and has obtained District approval of a sequencing plan for which applicant’s registered professional engineer has demonstrated that the No-Rise Standard is met. (b) Offset for fill in a waterbody other than a watercourse is not required if the applicant demonstrates that fill on all riparian properties to the extent proposed by the applicant would meet the No-Rise Standard and not restrict flood flows. (c) Fill in a watercourse must meet the following criteria: (i) No impervious surface may be placed within the 10-year floodplain or within 25 feet of the watercourse centerline, whichever greater, unless the surface is: (1) no more than 10% of the site 10-year floodplain area; or (2) a linear component of a public roadway or trail. (ii) Applicant must meet the No-Rise Standard. (d) Ice ridge grading within a waterbasin must conform to the pre-existing basin cross- section. Soil material may be neither imported into nor removed from the floodplain. Subd. 5. Submittals. The following submittals must accompany the permit application: (a) Site plan showing property lines, delineation of the work area, existing elevation contours of the work area, and ordinary high water (OHW) and 100-year high water elevations. All elevations must be reduced to NGVD (1929 datum). (b) Grading plan with proposed elevation changes. (c) Preliminary plat, if applicable. (d) Professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota’s determination of the 100- year high water elevation before and after the project and, if paragraph 4(c) applies, of the edge of the 10-year watercourse floodplain. A DNR No-Rise Certificate may be submitted to document conformance with the No-Rise Standard, where applicable. (e) Computation by a professional engineer, architect, land surveyor or landscape architect of volumes of floodplain fill and excavation and, if paragraph 4.c applies, of impervious surface area adjacent to a watercourse. (f) If not otherwise subject to the MCWD erosion control rule or City Code section 428, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Regulations, an erosion control plan conforming to the requirements of subsection 428.11. (g) If more than 50 cubic yards of fill have been placed, on project completion applicant must submit an as-built survey prepared by a professional engineer, architect, land surveyor or landscape architect documenting locations of floodplain disturbance and the volumes of fill and created flood storage. 550.157. Amendments. Subdivision 1.Floodplain Designation—Restrictions on Removal. The floodplain designation on the Official Zoning Map shall not be removed from floodplain areas unless it can be shown that the designation is in error or that the area has been filled to or above the elevation of the regulatory flood protection elevation and is contiguous to lands outside the floodplain. Special exceptions to this rule may be permitted by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources if the Commissioner determines that, through other measures, lands are adequately protected for the intended use. Subd. 2.Amendments Require DNR and FEMA Approval. All amendments to this ordinance must be submitted to and approved by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) prior to adoption. The Commissioner of the DNR must approve the amendment prior to community approval. Subd. 3.Map Amendments Require Ordinance Amendments. The floodplain district regulations must be amended to incorporate any revisions by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the floodplain maps adopted in Subsection 550.03, Subdivision 2 of this ordinance. Section 2. This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield on this __ day of ___________, _____. Mary B. Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk Minnesota Department of Natural Resources • Division of Ecological and Water Resources 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25, Saint Paul, MN 55155-4025 January 3, 2025 The Honorable Mary Supple Mayor, City of Richfield Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mayor Supple: RE: CONDITIONAL STATE APPROVAL OF FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE & REQUIRED NEXT STEPS On behalf of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), I am writing to conditionally approve the City of Richfield’s draft floodplain management ordinance. We received a draft of the City’s revised floodplain ordinance from the City’s Water Resources Engineer, Mattias Oddsson, on November 25, 2024. This ordinance is being amended as part of the City’s initiative to update their floodplain ordinance. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 103F.121, we find that the City’s draft floodplain management ordinance substantially complies with the state floodplain management rules (Minnesota Rules, parts 6120.5000 to 6120.6200) and, to the best of our knowledge, with the floodplain management standards of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It is hereby conditionally approved. We will provide final approval of the City’s draft floodplain management ordinance once the following conditions have been met: • Submit the following materials to the DNR: o one (1) copy each of the signed adopted ordinance, o the affidavit of publication, and o the completed “Ordinance Processing Checklist” (attached). Please forward these documents via email to the DNR Floodplain Program email at floodplain.dnr@state.mn.us, and copy the DNR’s State NFIP Coordinator, Ceil Strauss at ceil.strauss@state.mn.us. Upon receipt and verification, we will send a final approval letter. Ms. Strauss will then transmit the ordinance and final approval letter to our contacts at FEMA’s Chicago Regional Office. Be advised that any future amendments of this ordinance or change in the designation of flood prone areas require prior DNR approval. In addition, you are required to send copies of hearing notices and final decisions pertaining to variance, conditional uses, and ordinance amendments to this agency. Please email these notices to Ceil Strauss. Should you have any questions on this ordinance or related matters, please contact Ms. Strauss via email or at (651) 259-5713. While our office in St. Paul will be the main contact for this floodplain ordinance update, your DNR Area Hydrologist will continue to be your main contact for day-to-day assistance with administering your floodplain management ordinance and questions about other DNR water-related programs and permits. Your Area Hydrologist is Wes Saunders-Pearce, who can be contacted at 651-259-5822 or wes.saunders- pearce@state.mn.us. The DNR greatly appreciates your community’s cooperation and initiative in providing for the reduction of flood damages through the adoption and administration of this ordinance. Sincerely, Emily Javens, PE Land Use Unit Supervisor DNR Ecological & Water Resources Attachments: Ordinance Processing Checklist Sample Ordinance Summary c: Mattias Oddsson, Water Resources Engineer – City of Richfield Dan Lais, DNR EWR Regional Manager Megan Moore, DNR EWR District Manager John Gleason, District Hydrologist Supervisor Wes Saunders-Pearce, DNR Area Hydrologist Ceil Strauss, DNR State Floodplain Manager/NFIP Coordinator AGENDA SECTION:PROPOSED ORDINANCES AGENDA ITEM #5. STAFF REPORT NO. 13 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1/14/2025 REPORT PREPARED BY:Ruby Villa, Planner I DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Melissa Poehlman, Community Development Director 12/24/2024 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 1/8/2025 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider a first reading of an ordinance amendment regarding drive-through signs. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Border Foods (Applicant) proposes to replace their existing menu board sign at Taco Bell (7740 2nd Avenue South) with a dynamic display. The Zoning Code currently does not address dynamic display drive-through signs. The Sign Code permits only one dynamic display sign per property and limits the area of the dynamic display to no more than 35% of the sign area. In practice, these regulations make it difficult for existing drive-through uses to convert their existing menu boards to digital displays, as they often already have a primary dynamic display or multiple drive-through signs. The 35% limitation is also impractical, as it would require the drive-through sign to be majority static. The Applicant has thus requested an ordinance amendment that would establish regulations specifically for dynamic drive-through signs. Currently, the Zoning Code only addresses drive-through signs within the conditional uses section of the Mixed-Use Districts. “Order boards” are limited to 40 square feet and 8 feet in height, and they must be located within 60 feet of the business which they serve. Although drive-up uses are also allowed conditionally in the C-2 District, there is no mention of “order boards” within the listed conditions in that District. For consistency and clarity, staff proposes moving "order board" regulations to the sign section of the Code and reclassifying them as “drive-through signs.” This would be in keeping with cities in the metro area, such as Bloomington, Golden Valley, and White Bear Lake, that define drive-through or menu board “signs” and have separate regulations and/or exemptions for them. In regard to dynamic display regulations, staff is proposing certain exemptions for drive-through signs, as described in the policy section below. With new advancements in technology - that often make it difficult to tell the difference between static and digital menu boards - there is merit in updating and modernizing the Zoning Code to allow drive-through uses to convert their existing drive-through signs to digital. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 9th. Aside from the Applicant, no members of the public spoke. The Commission unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance amendment as proposed. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve a first reading of an ordinance amendment regarding drive-through signs. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT The dynamic display section of the Zoning Code was added in 2007. While it has had some minor updates since then, it does not address dynamic drive-through signs. “Order board” regulations were added to the Mixed-Use Districts in 2015. Because these regulations were not added to the sign section of the Code, it is not entirely clear whether "order boards" are allowed in addition to maximum sign regulations. Staff identified 17 properties throughout the City that provide drive-up window or teller service, six of which are not fast-food restaurants or coffee shops (see the included Attachment “A”). Although this amendment is primarily aimed at addressing drive-through signs for fast food uses, the manner of the ordinance will allow any use that provides drive up window or teller service to install a “drive-through sign.” Limiting the ordinance to only allow “menu boards” could be considered content-based regulation – which is generally considered unconstitutional. Of sign permits on file, staff compiled a list of drive-through sign heights and sizes throughout the city: Property Address Use Type Height Area Dynamic?Year of Permit Issuance 1601 66th St E - Caribou Coffee shop 6' 7"38 sq ft No 2021 6545 Lyndale Ave - Caribou Coffee shop 6' 7"38 sq ft No 2021 6645 Lyndale Ave - McDonalds Fast food 5' 11"20 sq ft1 Yes - special PUD approval 2019 980 78th St W – Panera Bread Fast food 5' 11"35 sq ft No 2017 2800 66th St W - Dairy Queen Fast food 7' 3"38 sq ft No 2007 7740 2nd Ave S - Taco Bell Existing Fast food 7' 2"44 sq ft No 2013 7740 2nd Ave S - Taco Bell Proposed Fast food 6' 1"25 sq ft Yes - AVERAGE (not including Taco Bell’s proposed sign) 6’ 7”35.5 sq ft 1 Two primary drive-through signs (one per lane) were permitted at McDonalds, each 20 square feet. Two smaller drive-through signs were also permitted per lane, each 10 square feet. A total of 60 square feet of drive-through sign area was allowed. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Strategic Outcomes: While the amendment does not support a specific strategic outcome, it does allow drive-through businesses to modernize operations. It also helps to reduce the burden on fast food workers who would otherwise have to manually change the messaging, particularly during the winter months. Equity Considerations: Drive-throughs serve as an important option for people with disabilities to access retailers. This amendment could help to improve and modernize their drive-through experience. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): Section 537.05, Subd. 5 establishes the conditions that must be met for Class III restaurants or drive-up window or teller service uses in the Mixed-Use Community and Mixed-Use Regional Districts. “Order board” regulations are included within these conditions. Staff proposes removing order board regulations from this section, as explained in the executive summary. Section 549 of the Zoning Code contains the City’s sign regulations. The following is a discussion of the proposed ordinance amendment to establish regulations for “drive-through signs.” For exact language, see the ordinance attached. o Create a definition for “drive-through sign” which references the specific language used by the code to refer to what would conventionally be thought of as a “drive-through”; “uses which provide drive-up window or teller service” (Section 534.07, Subd. 7 and Section 537.05, Subd. 5). o Reorganize the freestanding size and height sign regulations table for commercial, mixed use, and industrial districts, and move the size and height regulations for additional freestanding signs from a footnote to the “main” table. o Remove language regarding size increases for Planned Unit Developments (PUD), which is redundant as a deviation from the Code would require separate approval and would be regulated by the PUD section of the Code. o Include a footnote regarding drive-through signs, allowing up to two per drive-up lane. While staff only identified one fast food restaurant with more than one drive-up lane (McDonalds), and not more than one drive-up lane is allowed in the mixed-use districts, more than one lane is allowed in the C-2 District. o Allow two drive-through signs not to exceed a total of 50 square feet in area, and 8 feet in height each. A singular sign may not exceed 32 square feet in area. Staff finds it reasonable to allow two signs per drive-up lane, but to limit total square footage to already established sign area and height limits for additional freestanding signs. The limitation of a single sign is based on existing drive-through signs in the City, as well as drive-through sign regulations in neighboring cities. Of note, it would appear that dynamic display drive-through signs are typically smaller than static signs. This may be because static drive-through signs need to accommodate entire menus or order information within the sign area, while digital drive-through signs are capable of changing menus automatically throughout the day. o As a type of freestanding sign, drive-through signs would not be exempt from maximum freestanding sign area, which varies depending on the amount of lot frontage that a property has. o Provide exemptions for the following dynamic display requirements: § Section 549.25, Subd. 2, a: “Dynamic displays are allowed only on monument and pylon signs for nonresidential uses in the residential districts and for all uses in other districts. Dynamic displays may occupy no more than 35 percent of the actual copy and graphic area, must be contiguous to the static copy and graphic area, and must include an enclosing framework of not less than three (3) inches around the dynamic display. The remainder of the sign must not have the capability to have dynamic displays even if not used. Only one (1) contiguous dynamic display area is allowed on a sign face, except when installed as part of a scoreboard for public parks and public or private schools;” – The nature of digital drive-through signs require that 100% of the sign be dynamic. Digital drive-through signs also often have separate “panels” within the same sign, creating non-contiguous dynamic displays. § Section 549.25, Subd. 2, b: “Only one (1) dynamic display sign is permitted on any individual site;” – Drive-throughs often have multiple signs per drive-up lane. It is also reasonable to provide this exemption for sites that already have a monument or pylon dynamic display. § Section 549.25, Subd. 2, c: “A dynamic display may not change or move more often than once every 60 seconds, except one (1) for which changes are necessary to correct hour-and-minute, date, or temperature information. Time, date or temperature information is considered one (1) dynamic display and may not be included as a component temperature information is considered one (1) dynamic display and may not be included as a component of any other dynamic display. A display of time, date, or temperature must remain for at least 60 seconds before changing to a different display, but the time, date, or temperature information itself may change no more often than once every three (3) seconds;” – Many digital drive-through signs now have the capability of displaying a customer’s order directly on the screen. Customers can see additions and changes to their order in real time as they communicate with an employee through the exterior loudspeaker. They are also able to see their order total. These types of instantaneous changes would not comply with the 60 second rule. Staff finds an exemption to this rule reasonable as well. The concern for driver distraction is less when it is likely that changes to the drive-through sign would not be noticeable to vehicles in adjacent roadways. o All other sign and dynamic display regulations would apply, such as the general sign setback of 5 feet from all property lines, the required 100-foot separation between dynamic displays and residential properties, and the brightness standards contained in Section 549.25, Subd. 3. o Aside from the removal of order board regulations from the Mixed-Use Districts, this amendment would not affect the approval process for a drive-through use itself. Drive-through uses are, and will continue to be, conditional in all zoning districts that they are allowed in (C-2, MU-C, MU-R). The conditions that must be met for a drive-through use to be established already preemptively address many of the concerns that would arise for a drive-through sign. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The 60-day clock ‘started’ when a complete application was received on November 13, 2024, and would have ended on January 12, 2025. As the second reading of the ordinance is scheduled for January 28, the City would not be able to render a decision in time to meet the 60-day deadline. Staff has notified the Applicant that the City is exercising its right to extend the deadline for issuing a decision by an additional 60 days (120 days total). A decision is required by March 13, 2025. Extensions beyond 120 days require written consent and approval from the applicant. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: None, all application fees have been paid. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper as required. Second reading and summary resolution are currently scheduled for the January 28th City Council meeting. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve the first reading of the attached ordinance amendment with additional and/or modified stipulations. Deny the first reading of the attached ordinance amendment with a finding that the proposal does not meet City requirements. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Draft Drive-Through Signs Ordinance Amendment Cover Memo Attachment A: Drive-Through Uses Throughout the City Cover Memo Page 1 of 4 BILL NO. _____ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RICHFIELD ZONING CODE REGULATIONS RELATED TO DRIVE-THROUGH SIGNS THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1 Subsection 537.05 of the Richfield Zoning Code (Conditional Uses) is amended at Subdivision 5, to read as follows: Subd. 5. Restaurant Class III or Drive-Up Window or Teller Service. Uses with drive-up window or teller service provided the following conditions are met: a) A minimum distance of 500 feet must be maintained between substantially similar uses with drive-up window or teller service (as measured from property line to property line); b) Uses with drive-up window or teller service may not be located adjacent to a property with an existing drive-up window or teller service unless an applicant can demonstrate that the use will not be detrimental to pedestrian, bicycle or vehicle movements; c) No drive-up window or lane shall be adjacent to a public street; d) Drive-up uses shall be limited to one (1) service window which is part of a primary structure and a single queuing lane and order board/station: (i) The content portion of order boards is limited to 40 square feet; (ii) Order board content may not extend above eight (8) feet in height on the supporting structure; (iii) Order boards/stations must be located within 60 feet of the business which they serve. e) The City may consider one (1) additional service lane for automated teller machines (ATMS) or similar facilities; f) Drive-up facilities must be designed to minimize impacts to the pedestrian environment and adequately address circulation issues and potential noise or light pollution; g) Drive-through canopies and other structures, where present, shall be constructed from the same materials as the primary building and with a similar level of architectural quality and detailing; h) There shall be no curb cuts on public streets exclusively for the use of drive-up queuing or exit lanes. Drive-up traffic shall enter and exit from internal circulation drives; i) Queuing space for at least four (4) cars (70 feet) shall be provided as measured from, but not including, the first drive-up service window or teller station. Such queuing space shall not interfere with parking spaces or traffic circulation; j) Any drive-up service window, teller or order station, or exterior loudspeaker shall be located at least 150 feet from any parcel with residential uses on the first floor; k) The applicant shall demonstrate that such use will not significantly lower the existing level of service on streets and intersections; l) The City shall encourage operators to permit bicyclist use of sales and service windows; m) Alcoholic beverages shall not be served through a drive-up window; and Page 2 of 4 n) Exterior speakers shall comply with the noise control limits set by Subsection 930 of the City Code. (Amended, Bill No. 2015-1) (Amended, Bill No. 2025- ) Section 2 Subsection 549.05 of the Richfield Zoning Code (Sign Definitions) is amended as follows, with all following subdivisions renumbered accordingly: Subd. 11. “Drive-through sign.” A sign located in close proximity to a drive-up window or teller service lane located on the subject site. In no event shall a drive- through sign be located more than 60 feet from the business which it serves. (Added, Bill No. 2025-__) Section 3 Subsection 549.23 of the Richfield Zoning Code (Permitted Signs By District) is amended at Subdivision 2, to read as follows: Subd. 2. Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Industrial Districts. a) Within commercial, planned mixed use, mixed-use neighborhood, mixed-use community, mixed-use regional, and industrial zoning districts, one (1) freestanding signs per site is are permitted as follows 1 : District Total area of all freestanding signs Maximum sign area of single primary freestanding sign Maximum height Maximum sign area of additional freestanding sign/s (except drive- through signs)1 SO, C-1, MU-N 1 square foot per linear foot of lot frontage 60 square feet per surface, 15 feet tall 15 feet 50 square feet per surface, 8 feet tall C-2, MU-C, PMU Sites <1 acre 1 square foot per linear foot of lot frontage 100 square feet per surface, 20 feet tall2 20 feet 2 50 square feet per surface, 8 feet tall C-2, MU-C, PMU Sites 1-2 acres 1 square foot per linear foot of lot frontage 150 square feet per surface, 20 feet tall2 20 feet 2 50 square feet per surface, 8 feet tall Page 3 of 4 C-2, MU-C, PMU Sites >2 acres 1 square foot per linear foot of lot frontage 200 square feet per surface, 20 feet tall2 20 feet 2 50 square feet per surface, 8 feet tall I, MU-R 1 square foot per linear foot of lot frontage 250 square feet per surface, 27 feet tall2 27 feet 50 square feet per surface, 8 feet tall 1 Additional freestanding signs on a site shall not exceed 8 feet in height and 50 square feet in area. Planned Unit Development sites greater than 2 acres may request additional signs exceeding 8 feet in height and 50 square feet in area. For uses which provide drive-up window or teller service, up to two drive-through signs not to exceed a total of 50 square feet in area, and 8 feet in height each, are permitted per drive-up lane. A singular drive-through sign may not exceed 32 square feet in area. Drive-through signs shall not be exempt from the total area of all freestanding signs allowed on a property. (Amended, Bill No. 2025- ) 2 On properties abutting an interstate or state highway or the adjacent frontage road, one freestanding sign with a maximum height of 27 feet may be located within 100 feet of the lot line abutting the highway or frontage road. b) Within commercial, mixed-use neighborhood, mixed-use community, mixed-use regional, and industrial zoning districts, wall signs may not exceed 15 percent of the total wall area of the wall to which sign is attached. In the case of multiple occupancy, the total area of wall signs which each occupant may display shall not exceed 15 percent of the exterior wall of the portion of the building occupied by that tenant. (Amended, Bill No. 2011-13) (Amended, Bill No. 2025- ) c) Window signs that do not exceed 30 percent of the window area; d) Canopies, marquees, projecting signs and fixed awnings that are an integral part of the structure to which they are attached are allowed in the Ccommercial, Mmixed-Uuse, and Iindustrial districts if they meet the following requirements: i. An awning, canopy, marquee or projecting sign may not project into the public right-of-way; ii. Awnings, canopies, marquees and projecting signs may have no part of the structure other than supports nearer the ground surface than seven (7) feet; iii. The architectural style on the awning, canopy or marquee must be consistent with the building being served; iv. For the purposes of size limitation calculations, awning, canopy, marquee and projecting signs shall be counted as wall signs; v. Awnings, canopies or marquees projecting into required yards may not be enclosed; and vi. Awnings or canopies shall not be internally illuminated. e) Any sign not expressly permitted by this subdivision is prohibited in commercial, mixed-use and industrial districts. Page 4 of 4 f) Cannabis businesses shall also comply with applicable advertisement limitations imposed by Minnesota Statutes, section 342.64, as amended (Amended Bill No. 2024-__) Subd. 3. (Repealed, Bill No. 2011-13) Section 4 Subsection 549.25 of the Richfield Zoning Code (Dynamic Displays) is amended at Subdivision 2, to read as follows: Subd. 2. Regulations. Dynamic displays are allowed subject to the following conditions: a) thru i) no change j) Dynamic drive-through signs are exempt from Section 549.25, Subdivision 2, items a through c. (Amended, Bill No. 2025- ) Section 5 This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this ___ day of ___, 2025. Mary B. Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk Attachment A Drive-throughs in Richfield Zoning District Number of drive-up lanes 1601 66th St E - Caribou PC-2 Planned General Commercial 1 96 66th St W - Burger King PC-2 Planned General Commercial 1 220 66th St W - Popeyes C-2 General Commercial 1 6545 Lyndale Ave - Caribou PC-2 Planned General Commercial 1 6500 Lyndale Ave - Wendys C-2 General Commercial 1 6645 Lyndale Ave - McDonalds PC-2 Planned General Commercial 2 980 78th St W - Panera PC-2 Planned General Commercial 1 6529 Penn Ave - Dunkin MU-C Mixed Use Community 1 2800 66th St W - Dairy Queen C-2 General Commercial 1 6445 Nicollet Ave – Wells Fargo Bank C-2 General Commercial 5 7740 2nd Ave - Taco Bell MU-C Mixed Use Community 1 7744 5th Ave - Arbys MU-R Mixed Use Regional 1 345 77th St E - My Credit Union MU-C Mixed Use Community 3 6540 Penn Ave - CVS PMU Planned Mixed Use 2 6544 Lyndale Ave - Chase Bank PMU Planned Mixed Use 1 6625 Lyndale Ave - BMO Harris Bank PC-2 Planned General Commercial 5 6501 Richfield Pkwy - Huntington Bank PC-2 Planned General Commercial 4 AGENDA SECTION:RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM #6. STAFF REPORT NO. 14 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1/14/2025 REPORT PREPARED BY:Jamie Haefner DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Sack Thongvanh 1/3/2025 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:Sack Thongvanh - Administrative Services Katie Rodriguez - Executive CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez 1/8/2025 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider adoption of a resolution approving the contract with Teamsters #320 (Sergeants) bargaining unit for the period January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2025 and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: City staff has completed labor negotiations with Teamsters #320 (Sergeants). The provisions of the 2024-2025 labor agreement cover all nine Sergeant positions. 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. Wage adjustments to include a 3.0% COLA and an 8.4% market adjustment for the top step in 2024 and a 3.0% COLA and 1.0% market adjustment for all steps in 2025. Add a new Specialty Pay of $300.00/month effective January 1, 2025. The higher starting pay is consistent with the wages required to compete in the historically tight market for law enforcement personnel. The introduction of Specialty Pay is similar to the police officers pay plan that includes additional compensation for special assignments. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Adopt a resolution approving the provisions of the 2024-2025 labor agreement with the Teamsters #320 bargaining unit and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT The tentatively approved two-year contract settlement includes the following significant changes: Wages: A 3.0% wage adjustment and an 8.4% market adjustment for 2024 (top step) and a 3.0% wage adjustment plus a 1.0% market adjustment (all steps) for 2025. Health and Dental Insurance to match what is provided to non-represented groups. Increasing vacation sell back to 64 hours per year. Increasing Holiday Leave to 104 hours to accommodate the Juneteenth holiday. Introducing a new Specialty Pay at $300/month for all Sergeants. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Implementing these pay strategies helps us better align with the current market to aide in the recruitment and retention of Sergeants which is a strategic priority. Another strategic outcome is to recruit and retain staff that reflect the diversity of the community. Competitive compensation and benefits is an important tool to improve staff diversity. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): The City has met and negotiated in good faith with the Unions and its representatives and is bound under the Public Employer's Labor Relations Act 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 City employees. The City has a long history of providing the same level of insurance benefits to all eligible City employees. The wage increases and equity adjustments are similar to comparable cities used in our recent compensation and classification study and represents best practices in order to maintain competitiveness. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: In order to allow the City's accounting staff time to modify payroll records and to expedite retroactive pay due to employees, it is recommended that the City Council act on January 14, 2025, to adopt a resolution providing for contract changes, effective January 1, 2024. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: The 2024 wage increase for Sergeants, totaling 11.4% (8.4% market adjustment and 3.0% COLA) at the top step, and the 2025 increase of 4.0% (1.0% market adjustment and 3.0% COLA) at the top step, have been accounted for within the respective annual budgets. However, the 2025 budget will need to be revised to include specialty pay for Sergeants at $300 per month, resulting in a total impact of $28,800. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: If the terms of this agreement are not approved, further negotiation and/or mediation will be necessary. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): Do not approve the terms of this agreement and prepare for further negotiation and/or mediation. Defer discussion to another date. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Resolution Resolution Letter RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND TEAMSTERS #320 (SERGEANTS) BARGAINING UNIT FOR YEARS 2024-2025 WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Law Enforcement Teamsters #320 (Sergeants) have reached an understanding concerning conditions of employment for 2024 and 2025; and WHEREAS, it would be inappropriate to penalize Teamsters 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 Teamsters 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 14th day of January 2025. _______________________________ Mary B. Supple Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Michelle Friedrich City Clerk