The URL can be used to link to this page

2025-04-08 WS City Council Agenda W ORK SESSION RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, BARTHOLOMEW ROOM APRIL 8, 2025 5:00 PM Call to order 1.Legislative Update - MSA Standards Bill Discuss the City Council's position on Senate File 2162/House File 2505: State-aid engineering and design standards variances modification. 2.City Council Policy Proposals Council and staff discussion on policy proposals for consideration as part of annual workplan and budget planning. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9739. AGENDA SECTION:Work Session Items AGENDA ITEM #1. STAFF REPORT NO. 10 WORK SESSION 4/8/2025 REPORT PREPARED BY: Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Kristin Asher, Public Works Director OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 4/2/2025 ITEM FOR WORK SESSION: Legislative Update - MSA Standards Bill Discuss the City Council's position on Senate File 2162/House File 2505: State-aid engineering and design standards variances modification. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This bill would provide cities with more local design control on their state-aid roadways. These roadways receive money from the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund (gas tax money), and are subject to Minnesota Rules Section 8820, which outlines standards for financing and design of the roadways. SF 2162/HF 2505 would allow political subdivisions to adopt a qualifying alternative roadway design standard for roads under their jurisdiction. Political subdivisions who do adopt an alternative standard would then be solely responsible for ensuring that their designs meet that standard. SF 2162/HF 2505 also revises the variance process for political subdivisions who do not adopt an alternative standard. It specifies scenarios in which the Commissioner could not require a variance. It also expands and modifies the makeup of the committee that approves design variances to include more elected officials and MnDOT employees. DIRECTION NEEDED: Discuss the City Council's position on Senate File 2162/House File 2505: State-aid engineering and design standards variances modification. A draft letter has been presented for consideration. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT In 2024, Richfield began developing a project on 70th Street at the STEM/RDLS campus, funded by MnDOT's Safe Routes to School Infrastructure grant program. As part of this project, based on feedback heard from the community, one goal was to shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians at intersections. The project team attempted to do this using a combination of curb extensions (bumpouts) and by reducing the vehicle lane width from 11-ft to 10-ft. The current state aid rules were formalized in 2017, and had been interpreted to allow political subdivisions to use 10-ft vehicle lanes in low-volume, low speed situations (such as 70th Street) without a variance, so long as any other geometric design items were not also the minimum width (typically bike lane, parking lane, or shoulder). While the 70th Street project plans were under development, city staff were informed that county staff had been directed to seek a variance to use 10-ft vehicle lanes on their upcoming Nicollet Ave reconstruction, and that the interpretation now included "constrained right of way" as a requirement to use 10-ft lanes without a variance. City staff chose to clarify this with MnDOT State Aid staff in November 2024, since the variance committee only meets quarterly, and the two next meetings were in December 2024 and March 2025. City staff were informed that they would need to seek a variance to use 10-ft vehicle lanes, and submitted all the required materials prior to the meeting. This variance request was one of four on the meeting agenda, and was the only one which was denied. The City appealed this denial, and per statute, requested a contested case hearing in front of an administrative judge. Prior to the March Variance Committee meeting, State Aid recommended that city staff re-submit their request to be heard in front of this quarter's committee. Staff re-submitted the city's request at the March meeting and it was approved. SF 2162 had a Senate Transportation Committee hearing on March 12th, 2025, where it was passed and moved to the State and Local Government Committee. The variance process which Richfield staff undertook was referenced by the lead author several times during discussion about the bill, as an example of a variance that never should have been needed in the first place and justification for amending these standards via legislation. HF 2505 had a subsequent partial House Transportation Committee hearing on March 26th, where it was laid over for future consideration. In Richfield, the State Aid road network (both Municipal State Aid and County State Aid) makes up around 25% of the city's local roads. Because cities can designate up to 20% of their roadways as State Aid Routes, the Municipal State Aid network includes both "major roads" like 77th Street and "minor roads" like Vincent Ave from 70th Street to 65th Street. A map of the Municipal State Aid network in the city has been attached. All Hennepin County roads in Richfield are State Aid roads (66th Street, Penn Ave, Nicollet Ave, Portland Ave). B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Strategic Considerations: This discussion supports the strategic goal of "City infrastructure supports service needs" Equity Considerations: State Aid roads in Richfield tend to have higher traffic speeds and traffic volumes. These also tend to be the roads on which multi-unit residential properties are concentrated. The higher traffic speeds can create barriers to accessing other city amenities, especially for those who rent their primary home. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): The changes that are proposed in this bill would support the city's Complete Streets Policy and goals laid out in the Active Transportation Action Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, and Bicycle Master Plan. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The legislature is currently in session. Typical committee hearing agendas are announced less than a week prior to the meeting. Having a position would allow Council Members or staff to testify if requested. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: ALTERNATIVE(S): PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Map of State Aid Routes in Richfield - 2024 Exhibit Proposed Bill Text - Senate Version Exhibit Draft Letter to Legislature Exhibit SHEET 1 OF 1 GrassLake Milner Norby's MotherLake WoodLake AdamsHill SmithPond Legion LakeRichfieldLake TaftLake DiamondLake Pond Pond Pond PGRPGRPGRAdams HillPark StrachauerPark ChristianPark CookPark DonaldsonPark FairwoodPark FenlasonPlayground FremontPark JeffersonPark KennyPark Lincoln Field LittleBobsPark LyndaleField MadisonPark MonroeField NicolletPark RooseveltPark SheridanPark SmithPark TaftPark WashingtonPark WilsonPark WoodLakeNatureCenter RichfieldLakePark VeteransMemorialPark EdinboroughPark T4AT4BT6A T8 T9C T12A T2B T3 T9A T5A T3 T2C T5B T9B T11 T10A ¬121 ¬77 $+53 $+35 $+31 $+53 $+32 $+35 354277105 4 3 8 361145 361 366271 174 364 354 106 102 199 276 4 4 2115199114 353 113 143 108 115436§¨¦494 §¨¦494 §¨¦35W 363372444 354 385 364 365369271 4263683 9 9 430165399363376 370 372360 385 364 354 361365 3694 1 9 368383361375374366374 1 0 8 3701 1 4115106 360 101353366 113 105 103 103 104104363373 373 364 102 101$+31 ¬77 ¬62$+52 §¨¦35W ¬62 §¨¦35W ¬121 $+53 $+32 $+32 $+52 $+52 $+35 276 153 199 159 136 436$+152 354 438368114 113 415277361 166 377 378108PortlandAveSSheridanAveS12thAveSE67thStOliverAveS E 67th STLyndaleAveSLoganAveSHumboldtAveSW 70th ST IrvingAveSNokomis LaXerxes Ave SMNTH121 W 76th StW 76th StXerxes Ave S ColumbusAveSCedarAveSKnoxAveSKnoxAveSChicago AVEThomasAveSW 76th StW 76th St Pleasant Ave S 80 1/2 ST W XerxesAveS Northwest CT W 65th ST Bob's PL Wentworth Ct W Grass Lake TerW 64th ST Wentworth Ct E BloomingtonAveS22nd AVE Morgan Ct Richfield PKWY S14thAveSE 64th St Washburn CirW761/2 S tSouthtown East Central Ent. SSouthtown East Entrance S Southtown East Central Ent. NSouthtown East Entrance N Girard CtMT C RD Ple asantAVESDiagonal Blv d Southdale CTR ESouthdale CTR SE W 72 1/2 St W761/2 StBryantAveSLakeshoreDr W 62nd ST E 62nd StQueenAveS QueenAveSW 82nd St NW MallExitThunderbird RDW761/2S tW 62nd StAldrichAveS W 65 1/2 St 18thAveSW 64 1/2 St S W 73 1/2 St E 68th ST Pleasent La 18thAVESSouthdale RAMP NE OliverAveS W 76 1/2 St GrandAveSJamesAveSW 76 1/2 StWashburnAveSE62ndSt W 76 1/2 St W 62nd St 59th St W W80thSt W 62nd St E 62nd St GarfieldAveS18thAVESSouthdale CTR E W 76 1/2 St W 62ndSt WoodlakeLN PVT-2144 NWMall EntranceW 81st St E 59th St PVT-2145 W 62nd St W 59th St E 73rd Ave Irving AveW 62nd St SouthdaleBusw ayW 75th StW74thSt NewtonAveSGrandAveSW761/2St W 81st ST S Southtown Entrance W67th ST S o utht ownDRSouthdale CTRW 761/2St 78th ST W HarrietAVESThomas CirWoodlawn TER FremontAveSParklawn AVE Hazelton Rd L Servi ce RD5thAveSRaeDr MNTH 62 EmersonAVES22ndAVESMorgan Cir2ndAveSW 64th St ISTH 494 ChicagoAveSE 61st St ISTH 494 GrandAVESFernDr 14thAveSBloomingtonAveSAldrichAveLoganAveSE62ndSt RaeDrColfaxAveSMorganAveSPillsburyAveSE 83rd StDupontAveSBlaisdellAveSW 60th St BryantAveSIrvingAveSW78thSt W 67th St W 66th St 81st St NWSouth townRDHarrietAveSSout hdaleCirE57thSt E 58th St 13thAveS15thAveS14thAveS15thAveSBloomingtonAveS16thAveSW 66th St 22ndAveSYork Ter1stAveSStevens AVELyndaleAVESWentworthAveSAldrichAveSAldrichAveSOaklandTerOliverAveSLyndaleAVES81st ST W NewtonAVESPillsburyAveSRi chfi eldPKWYNGrandAveSW 71st St Humboldt AveS1stAVE75thSTE 4thAveSRi c hfi eldPKWYNOliverAveSE 81st St IrvingAveSThomas LaAldrichAVESMorganAveSW 76 1/2 St LongfellowAveSJamesAveSChicagoAveSW S e rviceRD SheridanAveSE 58th St Richfield PKWY QueenAveSMNTH 62 10thAveS15thAveS14thAveSE 62nd St 11thAveSW 76 1/2 St W 62nd St 18thAveSE 78th StUptonAveSMildredDRDupontAVES E 82nd St W 62 n d S tStevensAveSClintonAveSMNTH 121HarrietAveSHarrietAveSGarfieldAveS2ndAveSN Southtown Entrance 21stAveSYorkAveSCedarAveSH umbol dt AveSE 6 3 rdST LoganAveS15thAveSNewtonAveSKnoxAveSSWSouthtownServiceRD LyndaleAVESW 76 1/2 St E Southtown RDLoganAveSSheridanAVESRoslyn Pl VincentAVESWashburnAveSThomasAVES5thAveSUptonAVESQueenA V E SPrivate Access80th ST W NE Target Access RD Lakevie w Ave E 82nd St W 71st St W 80th St W 59th 1/2 St GirardAveSW 67th St LorenDr XerxesAVESGrandAveSEmerson LN E 67th St HarrietAveSXerxesAVESNokomis Ct GarfieldAveSForest Dr JamesAveSHumboldtAveWPleasantAveSVincentAveS 20thAveS78thSTW 75th St 19thAveSSFrontageR d LynwoodBlvd2ndAveSColfax La S W 59th St E62nd St GirardAveSBarrie RdAugsburgAVESDupontAveSW 81st St 14thAveSW 83rd St W 83rd St E 71st St DupontAveSIkeaWa yE 70th St W 71st St W 77th St Clover Dr S W 59th StJamesAveS DiamondL ake La W 76th St OldCedarAveE 69th St E80th St 14th AVEPleasantAVESCedarAveSAppleLa W 58th St W 78th St W 70th ST W 59th St W 69th St W 70th ST W 69th St W 80th St W62ndSt E 66th ST 73rd ST E American BLVD W E 66th STGrassLakeTer Southtown RDW 62nd ST NMall BeltwayWashburnCirKnoxAVES 17thAveSGarfieldAveS16thAveSHarrietAveSHeritage Dr 16thAveSGrandAveSWentworthAveSS Southt o wnService RD W S outhtown Ent rance 4thAveSKnoxAveSLakeshore DR 5thAveSW 60th St JamesAveS3rdAveS4thAveSSheridanAveSClintonAveSKnoxAveSBryantAveSE 80th St NorthwestCTBloomingtonAveSYorkAveSZenithAveSW 64th St W 69th St E 80th StGarfieldAVES W 81st St W 64th St LyndaleAVESLyndaleAVESW 63rd St E 73rd St Southtown DR Chester St W 72nd St W 75th St Dixon Dr MorganAveSLoganAveSW 74th St W 76th St E 69th StEPleasantAveSW 60th St UptonAveSDiagonal BlvdOliverAveSW 72nd ST W 7 8 thStVincentAveSN Southtown RD E 71st St E 79th 1/2 StQueenAveS WentworthAveS15thAveSHarrietAveSBlaisdellAveSW 59th St BlaisdellAveSPillsburyAveSGrandAveSW 63rd St W78thSTWentworthAveSW 69th STSouthdaleCTR W 71 1/2 St BloomingtonAveWentworthAveSBlaisdellAveSW 60th St W78th St W So uthtown RD AldrichAveSSunrise DrW 61st St ThomasAveSW Mall RAMPYorkAveSCedarAVESWashburnAveSLindau LN Lindau LNPillsburyAveSW59thStBlaisdellAveSCargo R d C a r g o R d BryantAveSDupontAveS18thAVESEmersonAveSColfaxAveSPleasantAveS13thAveSE 58th St PillsburyAveSOaklandAveSParkAveS16thAveSE 78th St Centr alTargetAccessRD QueenAveSBloomingtonAveSW 59th St G irard A v e S WPleasantAveSChicagoAveSE 65th StGrandAveS RussellAveSE 74th St W 83rd St WentworthAveSEPleasantAveSPillsburyAveSE 63rd ST FremontAveSE 62nd St2ndAveS PortlandAVESPortlandAVESL ServiceRD TargetAccess RD 14thAveSNicolletAVESThomasAveSFremontAveSRichfieldPKWY5thAveSDupontAveSWashburnAveSUptonAveSColfaxAveSClintonAveSW 6 2 nd St VincentAveSGrandAveSWPleasantAveS5thAveSE 64th StFremontAveS E 65th St E 72nd St RussellAVESW 61st St ColumbusAveSW 80th1/2St C rosstownServiceRoadNicolletAVESThomasAveSEmersonAveSMNTH7777th ST E StevensAveS4thAveS3rdAveS2ndAveS77th ST E ClintonAveS1stAveSBloomingtonFWYEOakGroveBLVD5thAveSW 6 2 nd S t OaklandAveSE 83rd StGirardAveS 78th ST EGirardAveS XerxesAveSJamesAveSW 68th StOliverAveS W 71st St NewtonAveSRussellAVESEmersonAveSColfaxAveSW 70th St W 63rd St NicolletAveSKnoxAveSJamesAveS10thAveSW 82nd ST EPleasantAveSE 81st St E 78th St E 82nd ST W 70 1/2 St GarfieldAveSW 73rd St E 76th StQueenAveSW75thST W 7 9 t h S T E 59th St 17thAveS13thAVESVincentAveSMNTH 77W 64th St E78thSt W 65thS t DupontAveSHumboldtAveS15thAveSS o u t h t o w n D rWashburnAveSWashburnAveS W 83rd St ParkAveSW 74th St AldrichAveSRussellAveSVincentAveSBryantAveSYork AveXerxesAveSUptonAveSSheridanAveSZenith AveElliotAveSAbbott Ave5thAveS1stAveS12thAveSNewtonAveS10thAveS11thAveSPillsburyAveSBlaisdellAveSWentworthAveSPennAveSW 76th StThomasAveSSheridanAveS CedarAveSCedarAveS17thAveSXerxesAveSLoganAveSKnoxAveS11thAveSMorganAveSNewtonAveS18thAveS10thAveSStevensAveSThomasAveSW 74th StMorganAveSW 73rd St LyndaleAVES2ndAveSE 71st St PennAveSW 67th St 2ndAveSStevensAveSHarrietAveS77th ST W W 72nd St 77th ST W E 69th StLyndaleAVES 11thAveSE58thSt E 61st St American BLVD W 16thAveSE 72nd STXerxesAveS E 73rd St W 69th ST W 61st St 1stAveSW 68th St E 74th St E 60th St IrvingAveS4thAVESClintonAVESParkAveSOaklandAveSChicagoAVESColumbusAveSElliotAVESE 66th ST Longfell o wAVEE 76th ST E 75th St W 82nd STYorkAVESPennAveSPennAveS 3rdAveSE American BLVD E American BLVD 13thAveSNicolletAVESNicolletAVESW 76th ST W 65th STWPleasantAveSWPleasantAveSWoodlawn TER 13. 13 11. 11 12. 12 1. 1 9. 9 15. 15 5. 5 6. 6 4. 4 3. 3 8. 8 10. 10 14. 14 7. 7 2. 2 MinneapolisJewishCemetery Oak HillCemetery UnitedHebrewCemetery B'Nai EmetCemetery AssumptionChurchCemetery RICHFIELD FORTSNELLING EDINA BLOOMINGTON MINNEAPOLIS Elliot Ave STo request information from this document in an alternative format, call 651-366-4718 or 1-800-657-3774 (Greater Minnesota); 711 or 1-800-627-3529 (Minnesota Relay). You may also send an e-mail to ADArequest.dot@state.mn.us. (Please request at least one week in advance.) MUNICIPALITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY Population (U.S Census 2020): 36994 IN COOPERATION WITHU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONFEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION MUNICIPALITY OFRICHFIELD 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.80.1 Kilometers 0.15 0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.60.075 Miles SC AL E 1 in = 800 ft PREPARED BY THEMINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONOFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT LAST EDITED ON 12-07-2023 2 0 2 3µProjection:Transverse MercatorNAD 1986UTM Zone 15 North American Datumof 1986 1.1 A bill for an act 1.2 relating to transportation; modifying state-aid engineering and design standards 1.3 variances; authorizing local road authorities to adopt design elements without 1.4 state-aid engineering and design variances; modifying state-aid variance procedures; 1.5 establishing advisory committee on design variances; requiring legislative 1.6 notification for denied variances; requiring a report; amending Minnesota Statutes 1.7 2024, sections 162.02, subdivision 3a, by adding subdivisions; 162.09, subdivision 1.8 3a, by adding subdivisions; 162.155; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota 1.9 Statutes, chapter 162; repealing Minnesota Rules, parts 8820.3300, subparts 1, 1a, 1.10 3, 4; 8820.3400. 1.11 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 1.12 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2024, section 162.02, is amended by adding a subdivision 1.13 to read: 1.14 Subd. 1a.Local design control.(a) A political subdivision may use a roadway design 1.15 that is different than the design rules adopted and promulgated by the commissioner if the 1.16 political subdivision adopts, by resolution, a qualifying alternative roadway design standard. 1.17 A political subdivision that adopts a qualifying alternative design standard is solely 1.18 responsible for ensuring that the design or designs meet the adopted standard. The 1.19 commissioner must forgo review of geometric designs, except for the review of design 1.20 standards for the vertical clearances for underpasses in Minnesota Rules, part 8820.2500, 1.21 for county state-aid roadway projects in a city or county adopting alternative design standards 1.22 for that project. If a city has adopted an alternative design standard for a past roadway design 1.23 project in that city, a county may elect to use the same alternative design standard for the 1.24 geometric design of a county state-aid project within that city. For purposes of this 1.25 subdivision, "qualifying alternative roadway design standard" includes any of the following 1.26 publications: 1Section 1. S2162-1 1st EngrossmentSF2162 REVISOR KRB SENATE STATE OF MINNESOTA S.F. No. 2162NINETY-FOURTH SESSION (SENATE AUTHORS: DIBBLE, Wiklund, Johnson Stewart, Nelson and McEwen) OFFICIAL STATUSD-PGDATE Introduction and first reading65103/06/2025 Referred to Transportation Comm report: To pass as amended and re-refer to State and Local Government825a03/17/2025 Authors added Nelson; McEwen874 2.1 (1) the latest edition of the Department of Transportation Facility Design Guide or 2.2 successor document; 2.3 (2) the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) 2.4 A Policy on Geometric Design Highways and Streets or other AASHTO design guides 2.5 formally recognized by the Federal Highway Administration; 2.6 (3) the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: 2.7 A Context Sensitive Approach and Implementing Context Sensitive Design Handbook; 2.8 (4) the National Association of City Transportation Officials' (NACTO) Urban Street 2.9 Design Guide and other NACTO design guides formally recognized by the Federal Highway 2.10 Administration; 2.11 (5) the Global Designing Cities Initiative's (GDCI) Global Street Design Guide and 2.12 Designing Streets for Kids supplement; or 2.13 (6) any other design guide recognized or approved by the Federal Highway 2.14 Administration in United States Code, title 23, section 109(o)(B). 2.15 (b) This subdivision does not apply to a natural preservation route established under 2.16 section 162.021. 2.17 (c) The commissioner, Metropolitan Council, or any other metropolitan planning 2.18 organization in this state must not require a political subdivision that adopts a qualifying 2.19 alternative design standard to meet minimum state-aid geometric design standards for 2.20 state-funded or federally funded county state-aid roadway projects. 2.21 (d) The commissioner may require a resolution by a political subdivision adopting a 2.22 qualifying alternative roadway design under this section that indemnifies, saves, and holds 2.23 harmless the state and its agents of and from claims, demands, actions, or causes of action 2.24 arising out of by reason adopting the alternative design standard. The political subdivision 2.25 must further agree to defend at its sole cost and expense any action or proceeding begun 2.26 for asserting any claim of whatever character against the state arising as a result of adopting 2.27 the qualifying alternative roadway design. 2.28 (e) A political subdivision adopting a qualifying alternative design standard is exempt 2.29 from municipal liability claims as provided under section 466.03, subdivision 5. 2.30 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective July 1, 2025, for county state-aid roadway 2.31 projects on or after that date. 2Section 1. S2162-1 1st EngrossmentSF2162 REVISOR KRB 3.1 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2024, section 162.02, subdivision 3a, is amended to read: 3.2 Subd. 3a.Variances from rules and engineering standards.(a) The commissioner 3.3 may grant variances from the rules and from the engineering standards developed pursuant 3.4 to section 162.021 or 162.07, subdivision 2. A political subdivision in which a county 3.5 state-aid highway is located or is proposed to be located may submit a written request to 3.6 the commissioner for a variance for that highway. The commissioner shall must comply 3.7 with section 174.75, subdivision 5, in evaluating a variance request related to a complete 3.8 streets project. A political subdivision must not be required to seek a variance from county 3.9 state-aid design standards if the proposed deviation from rules is designed in accordance 3.10 with a qualifying alternative roadway design standard under subdivision 1a. 3.11 (b) The commissioner may grant or deny the variance within 30 days of receiving the 3.12 variance request. If the variance is denied, the political subdivision may request, within 30 3.13 days of receiving notice of denial, and shall must be granted a contested case hearing. The 3.14 commissioner must use the criteria set forth in subdivision 3c to evaluate the variance 3.15 request. The commissioner must give special consideration to proposed modifications for 3.16 safety considerations if the proposed design is intended to increase the safety of nonmotorized 3.17 transportation to and from a school. 3.18 (c) If the commissioner denies a variance, the commissioner must notify the chairs and 3.19 ranking minority members of the legislative committees with jurisdiction over transportation 3.20 and provide justification for denying the variance within 30 days of notifying the political 3.21 subdivision of the denial. The justification must include the commissioner's reasoning for 3.22 the denial, the recommendation of the advisory committee on variances, and the reasoning 3.23 used by the committee to approve or deny the variance. 3.24 (c) (d) For purposes of this subdivision, "political subdivision" includes (1) an agency 3.25 of a political subdivision which has jurisdiction over parks, and (2) a regional park authority. 3.26 (e) The commissioner must not require a political subdivision to seek a variance from 3.27 design rules under this section for: 3.28 (1) narrowing lanes from 11 feet to ten feet for roadways in an urban or suburban context, 3.29 except where specifically prohibited in adopted state-aid rules; 3.30 (2) designs allowed in the current Department of Transportation Facility Design Guide 3.31 or successor document for roadways of similar context; 3.32 (3) designs allowed by current Department of Transportation trunk highway standards 3.33 for roadways of similar context; or 3Sec. 2. S2162-1 1st EngrossmentSF2162 REVISOR KRB 4.1 (4) any design element in a project funded by the safe routes to school program, except 4.2 where specifically prohibited in adopted state-aid rules or the current Department of 4.3 Transportation Facility Design Guide. 4.4 (f) Paragraph (e) does not apply to a natural preservation route established under section 4.5 162.021. 4.6 (g) The commissioner may require a resolution by the recipient of a variance that 4.7 indemnifies, saves, and holds harmless the state and its agents and employees of and from 4.8 claims, demands, actions, or causes of action arising out of or by reason of granting the 4.9 variance. The recipient of the variance must further agree to defend at its sole cost and 4.10 expense any action or proceeding begun for asserting any claim of whatever character arising 4.11 as a result of granting the variance. 4.12 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective July 1, 2025, for county state-aid roadway 4.13 projects on or after that date. 4.14 Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 2024, section 162.02, is amended by adding a subdivision to 4.15 read: 4.16 Subd. 3c.Variance format.To submit a formal request for a variance from county 4.17 state-aid design rules, a political subdivision must submit a written request to the 4.18 commissioner. The written request must be in the form of an adopted resolution. The request 4.19 must: 4.20 (1) identify the project by location and termini; 4.21 (2) cite the specific part or standard for which the variance is requested from county 4.22 state-aid design rules; 4.23 (3) describe the proposed modification; 4.24 (4) describe the economic, social, safety, and environmental impacts that may result 4.25 from the requested variance; 4.26 (5) identify the project's effectiveness in eliminating an existing and projected deficiency 4.27 in the transportation system, including identifying and citing whether the existing roadway's 4.28 design meets: 4.29 (i) current Department of Transportation Facility Design Guide or successor material 4.30 criteria for a similar road context; or 4.31 (ii) a recognized or approved Federal Highway Administration design guide standard 4.32 for a similar road context; 4Sec. 3. S2162-1 1st EngrossmentSF2162 REVISOR KRB 5.1 (6) identify effects on adjacent lands; 5.2 (7) identify the number of persons affected; and 5.3 (8) identify safety considerations as they apply to: 5.4 (i) pedestrians; 5.5 (ii) bicyclists; 5.6 (iii) vulnerable road users; 5.7 (iv) the motoring public; and 5.8 (v) fire, police, and emergency service providers. 5.9 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective July 1, 2025, for county state-aid roadway 5.10 projects on or after that date. 5.11 Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 2024, section 162.09, is amended by adding a subdivision to 5.12 read: 5.13 Subd. 1a.Local design control.(a) A political subdivision may use a roadway design 5.14 that is different than the design rules adopted and promulgated by the commissioner if the 5.15 political subdivision adopts, by resolution, a qualifying alternative roadway design standard. 5.16 A political subdivision that adopts a qualifying alternative design standard is solely 5.17 responsible for ensuring that the design or designs meet the adopted standard. The 5.18 commissioner must forgo review of geometric designs, except for the review of design 5.19 standards for the vertical clearances for underpasses in Minnesota Rules, part 8820.2500, 5.20 for municipal state-aid roadway projects in a city or county adopting alternative design 5.21 standards for that project. If the county where a municipal state-aid project is located has 5.22 adopted an alternative design standard for a past roadway design project in that city, a city 5.23 may elect to use the same alternative design standard for the geometric design of a municipal 5.24 state-aid project. For purposes of this subdivision, "qualifying alternative roadway design 5.25 standard" includes any of the following publications: 5.26 (1) the latest edition of the Department of Transportation Facility Design Guide or 5.27 successor document; 5.28 (2) the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) 5.29 A Policy on Geometric Design Highways and Streets or other AASHTO design guides 5.30 formally recognized by the Federal Highway Administration; 5Sec. 4. S2162-1 1st EngrossmentSF2162 REVISOR KRB 6.1 (3) the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: 6.2 A Context Sensitive Approach and Implementing Context Sensitive Design Handbook; 6.3 (4) the National Association of City Transportation Officials' (NACTO) Urban Street 6.4 Design Guide and other NACTO design guides formally recognized by the Federal Highway 6.5 Administration; 6.6 (5) the Global Designing Cities Initiative's (GDCI) Global Street Design Guide and 6.7 Designing Streets for Kids supplement; or 6.8 (6) any other design guide approved or recognized by the Federal Highway 6.9 Administration. 6.10 (b) The commissioner, Metropolitan Council, or any other metropolitan planning 6.11 organization in this state must not require a political subdivision that adopts a qualifying 6.12 alternative design standard to meet minimum state-aid geometric design standards for 6.13 state-funded or federally funded municipal state-aid roadway projects. 6.14 (c) The commissioner may require a resolution by a political subdivision adopting a 6.15 qualifying alternative roadway design under this section that indemnifies, saves, and holds 6.16 harmless the state and its agents of and from claims, demands, actions, or causes of action 6.17 arising out of by reason adopting the alternative design standard. The political subdivision 6.18 must further agree to defend at its sole cost and expense any action or proceeding begun 6.19 for asserting any claim of whatever character against the state arising as a result of adopting 6.20 the qualifying alternative roadway design. 6.21 (d) A political subdivision adopting a qualifying alternative design standard is exempt 6.22 from municipal liability claims as provided under section 466.03, subdivision 5. 6.23 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective July 1, 2025, for municipal state-aid 6.24 roadway projects on or after that date. 6.25 Sec. 5. Minnesota Statutes 2024, section 162.09, subdivision 3a, is amended to read: 6.26 Subd. 3a.Variances from rules and engineering standards.(a) The commissioner 6.27 may grant variances from the rules and from the engineering standards developed pursuant 6.28 to section 162.13, subdivision 2. A political subdivision in which a municipal state-aid street 6.29 is located or is proposed to be located may submit a written request to the commissioner 6.30 for a variance for that street. The commissioner shall must comply with section 174.75, 6.31 subdivision 5, in evaluating a variance request related to a complete streets project. A 6.32 political subdivision must not be required to seek a variance from municipal state-aid design 6Sec. 5. S2162-1 1st EngrossmentSF2162 REVISOR KRB 7.1 standards if the proposed deviation from rules is designed in accordance with a qualifying 7.2 alternative roadway design guide provided in subdivision 1a. 7.3 (b) The commissioner may grant or deny the variance within 30 days of receiving the 7.4 variance request. If the variance is denied, the political subdivision may request, within 30 7.5 days of receiving notice of denial, and shall must be granted a contested case hearing. The 7.6 commissioner must use the criteria set forth in subdivision 3b to evaluate the variance 7.7 request. The commissioner must give special consideration to proposed modifications for 7.8 safety considerations if the proposed design is intended to increase the safety of nonmotorized 7.9 transportation to and from a school. 7.10 (c) If the commissioner denies a variance, the commissioner must notify the chairs and 7.11 ranking minority members of the legislative committees with jurisdiction over transportation 7.12 and provide justification for denying the variance within 30 days of notifying the political 7.13 subdivision of the denial. The justification must include the commissioner's reasoning for 7.14 the denial, the recommendation of the advisory committee on variances, and the reasoning 7.15 used by the committee to approve or deny the variance. 7.16 (c) (d) For purposes of this subdivision, "political subdivision" includes (1) an agency 7.17 of a political subdivision which has jurisdiction over parks, and (2) a regional park authority. 7.18 (e) The commissioner must not require a political subdivision to seek a variance under 7.19 this section from the design rules for: 7.20 (1) narrowing lanes from 11 feet to ten feet for roadways in an urban or suburban context, 7.21 except where specifically prohibited in adopted state-aid rules; 7.22 (2) designs allowed in the current Department of Transportation Facility Design Guide 7.23 or successor document for roadways of similar context; 7.24 (3) designs allowed by current Department of Transportation trunk highway standards 7.25 for roadways of similar context; or 7.26 (4) any design element in a project funded by the safe routes to school program, except 7.27 where specifically prohibited in adopted state-aid rules or the current Department of 7.28 Transportation Facility Design Guide. 7.29 (f) The commissioner may require a resolution by the recipient of a variance that 7.30 indemnifies, saves, and holds harmless the state and its agents and employees of and from 7.31 claims, demands, actions, or causes of action arising out of or by reason of granting the 7.32 variance. The recipient of the variance must further agree to defend at its sole cost and 7Sec. 5. S2162-1 1st EngrossmentSF2162 REVISOR KRB 8.1 expense any action or proceeding begun for asserting any claim of whatever character arising 8.2 as a result of granting the variance. 8.3 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective July 1, 2025, for municipal state-aid 8.4 roadway projects on or after that date. 8.5 Sec. 6. Minnesota Statutes 2024, section 162.09, is amended by adding a subdivision to 8.6 read: 8.7 Subd. 3b.Variance format.To submit a formal request for a variance from municipal 8.8 state-aid design rules, a political subdivision must submit a written request to the 8.9 commissioner. The written request must be in the form of an adopted resolution. The request 8.10 must: 8.11 (1) identify the project by location and termini; 8.12 (2) cite the specific part or standard for which the variance is requested from municipal 8.13 state-aid design rules; 8.14 (3) describe the proposed modification; 8.15 (4) describe the economic, social, safety, and environmental impacts that may result 8.16 from the requested variance; 8.17 (5) identify the effectiveness of the project in eliminating an existing and projected 8.18 deficiency in the transportation system, including identifying and citing whether the existing 8.19 roadway's design meets: 8.20 (i) current Department of Transportation Facility Design Guide or successor material 8.21 criteria for a similar road context; or 8.22 (ii) a recognized or approved Federal Highway Administration design guide standard 8.23 for a similar road context; 8.24 (6) identify effects on adjacent lands; 8.25 (7) identify the number of persons affected; and 8.26 (8) identify safety considerations as they apply to: 8.27 (i) pedestrians; 8.28 (ii) bicyclists; 8.29 (iii) vulnerable road users; 8.30 (iv) the motoring public; and 8Sec. 6. S2162-1 1st EngrossmentSF2162 REVISOR KRB 9.1 (v) fire, police, and emergency service providers. 9.2 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective July 1, 2025, for municipal state-aid 9.3 roadway projects on or after that date. 9.4 Sec. 7. [162.095] ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON DESIGN VARIANCES. 9.5 Subdivision 1.Establishment.An advisory committee on design variances is established 9.6 to investigate and determine a recommendation for each variance submitted under sections 9.7 162.02, subdivision 3a, and 162.09, subdivision 3a. 9.8 Subd. 2.Membership; legislators.(a) The advisory committee on design variances 9.9 called by the commissioner under subdivision 3 must consist of the following members: 9.10 (1) two members of the senate, one appointed by the senate majority leader and one 9.11 appointed by the senate minority leader; 9.12 (2) two members of the house of representatives, one appointed by the speaker of the 9.13 house and one appointed by the house minority leader; 9.14 (3) not more than two county highway engineers, only one of whom may be from a 9.15 county containing a city of the first class; 9.16 (4) not more than two city engineers, only one of whom may be from a city of the first 9.17 class; 9.18 (5) not more than two county officials, only one of whom may be from a county 9.19 containing a city of the first class; 9.20 (6) not more than two officials of an urban municipality, only one of whom may be from 9.21 a city of the first class; 9.22 (7) not more than two representatives of the Office of Transit and Active Transportation 9.23 in the Department of Transportation, one of whom must be an engineer; and 9.24 (8) one representative from the State Aid for Local Transportation Office in the 9.25 Department of Transportation with experience in project design and the safety factors 9.26 specified in sections 162.02, subdivision 3c, and 162.09, subdivision 3b. 9.27 (b) The committee must have at least six elected officials, including the four legislators 9.28 in paragraph (a), clauses (1) and (2). No legislator may serve on the advisory committee on 9.29 design variances if the proposed project is located within the legislator's district. No elected 9.30 or appointed official that represents a political subdivision may serve on the committee. 9Sec. 7. S2162-1 1st EngrossmentSF2162 REVISOR KRB 10.1 (c) The committee must have at least one member but not more than 12 members from 10.2 a metropolitan area as defined in section 473.121, subdivision 2, as well as cities with a 10.3 population over 50,000 according to the most recent federal census. 10.4 Subd. 3.Operating procedure; open meeting law.(a) The advisory committee must 10.5 meet at the call of the commissioner, at which time the committee must be instructed as to 10.6 the committee's responsibilities by a designee of the commissioner. The members of the 10.7 advisory committee must elect a chair from the members of the group at the initial meeting 10.8 and may set bylaws and procedures to investigate the requested variance. 10.9 (b) An advisory committee organized under this section is subject to the Minnesota Open 10.10 Meeting Law under chapter 13D. 10.11 Subd. 4.Factors considered.The advisory committee must make a recommendation 10.12 for a variance based on criteria set forth in sections 162.02, subdivision 3c, and 162.09, 10.13 subdivision 3b. The advisory committee must give special consideration to safety if the 10.14 proposed project design is intended to increase the safety of nonmotorized transportation 10.15 to and from a school. The advisory committee may not recommend to deny a variance for 10.16 a project seeking to narrow lanes from 11 feet to ten feet for roadways in an urban or 10.17 suburban context, except where specifically prohibited in adopted state-aid rules. 10.18 Subd. 5.Recommendation.After considering all data pertinent to the requested variance, 10.19 the advisory committee must recommend to the commissioner approval or denial of the 10.20 request. If the committee denies the variance, the committee must provide specific reasoning 10.21 for the denial and identify the design standard used to evaluate the denial. 10.22 Subd. 6.Administration.Upon request of the advisory committee, the commissioner 10.23 must provide meeting space, technical support, and administrative services for the group. 10.24 Subd. 7.Legislative report.By January 15 of each even-numbered year, the 10.25 commissioner of transportation must submit a report to the chairs and ranking minority 10.26 members of the legislative committees with jurisdiction over transportation policy and 10.27 finance. The report must summarize the activities of any advisory committee on variances 10.28 from the prior two years, identify the committees' analysis and findings for each variance 10.29 approved or denied, identify whether the commissioner and the advisory committee came 10.30 to a different decision on a requested variance and identify the reasons for the difference, 10.31 and provide recommendations on improvements to the advisory committee. 10.32 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective July 1, 2025, for state-aid design variances 10.33 sought on or after that date. 10Sec. 7. S2162-1 1st EngrossmentSF2162 REVISOR KRB 11.1 Sec. 8. Minnesota Statutes 2024, section 162.155, is amended to read: 11.2 162.155 RULEMAKING. 11.3 (a) The commissioner shall adopt rules setting forth the criteria to be considered by the 11.4 commissioner in evaluating requests for variances under sections 162.02, subdivision 3a 11.5 and 162.09, subdivision 3a. The rules must include, but are not limited to, economic, 11.6 engineering and safety guidelines. 11.7 (b) (a) The commissioner shall adopt rules establishing the engineering standards for 11.8 cost estimation under sections 162.07, subdivision 2, and 162.13, subdivision 2. 11.9 (c) (b) The rules adopted by the commissioner under this section, and sections 162.02; 11.10 162.07, subdivision 2; 162.09; and 162.13, subdivision 2, are exempt from the rulemaking 11.11 provisions of chapter 14. The rules are subject to section 14.386, except that, notwithstanding 11.12 paragraph (b) of that section, the rules continue in effect until repealed or superseded by 11.13 other law or rule. 11.14 Sec. 9. REPEALER. 11.15 Minnesota Rules, parts 8820.3300, subparts 1, 1a, 3, and 4; and 8820.3400, are repealed. 11Sec. 9. S2162-1 1st EngrossmentSF2162 REVISOR KRB 8820.3300 VARIANCE. Subpart 1.Written requests.A formal request by a political subdivision for a variance from this chapter must: A.be submitted to the commissioner in writing in the form of a resolution; B.identify the project by location and termini; and C.cite the specific part or standard for which the variance is requested and describe the modification proposed. Subp. 1a.Additional information.Additional information needed: A.index map; B.typical section: (1)inplace section; (2)proposed section; C.reasons for the request; D.the economic, social, safety, and environmental impacts which may result from the requested variance; E.effectiveness of the project in eliminating an existing and projected deficiency in the transportation system; F.effect on adjacent lands; G.number of persons affected; and H.safety considerations as they apply to: (1)pedestrians; (2)bicyclists; (3)motoring public; and (4)fire, police, and emergency units. Subp. 3.Decision.The commissioner shall base the decision on the criteria in part 8820.3400, subpart 3 and shall notify the political subdivision in writing of the decision. The commissioner may require a resolution by the recipient of the variance that indemnifies, saves, and holds harmless the state and its agents and employees of and from claims, demands, actions, or causes of action arising out of or by reason of the granting of the variance. The recipient of the variance shall further agree to defend at its sole cost and expense any action or proceeding begun for asserting any claim of whatever character arising as a result of the granting of the variance. Subp. 4.Contested case hearing.Any variance objected to in writing or denied by the commissioner is subject to a contested case hearing as required by law. 8820.3400 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON VARIANCES. Subpart 1.Appointment.The commissioner may appoint a committee to serve as required to investigate and determine a recommendation for each variance. No elected or appointed official that represents a political subdivision requesting a variance may serve on the committee. Subp. 2.Membership.The committee shall consist of any five of the following persons: not more than two county highway engineers, only one of whom may be from a county containing a city of the first class; not more than two city engineers, only one of whom may be from a city of the first class; not more than two county officials, only one of whom may be from a county containing a city of the first class; and not more than two 1R APPENDIX Repealed Minnesota Rules: S2162-1 officials of an urban municipality, only one of whom may be from a city of the first class. The committee must have at least two elected officials as members. The committee shall have at least one member but not more than four members from a metropolitan area, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 473.121, subdivision 2, as well as cities with a population of over 50,000 according to the most recent census. Subp. 3.Operating procedure; factors considered.The committee shall meet on call from the commissioner at which time they must be instructed as to their responsibilities by a designee of the commissioner, shall elect a chairperson, and shall establish their own procedure to investigate the requested variance. The committee shall consider the: A.economic, social, safety, and environmental impacts which may result from the requested variance; B.effectiveness of the project in eliminating an existing and projected deficiency in the transportation system; C.effect on adjacent lands; D.number of persons affected; E.effect on future maintenance; F.safety considerations as they apply to pedestrians, bicyclists, motoring public, and fire, police, and emergency units; and G.effect that the rule and standards may have in imposing an undue burden on a political subdivision. Subp. 4.Recommendation.The committee after considering all data pertinent to the requested variance shall recommend to the commissioner approval or disapproval of the request. 2R APPENDIX Repealed Minnesota Rules: S2162-1 Richfield is writing to support several aspects of HF 2505/SF 2162. Currently, 25% of our streets fall under State Aid rule jurisdiction. While all 34 miles of Richfield’s Municipal State Aid (MSA) roads are subject to the same design rules, many of these roads are local, residential roadways where variations from the current state aid rules would allow for design elements that better support our most vulnerable users. This bill would allow greater local control to support innovative street designs that would better suit our city’s needs. While we recognize that there are benefits in the continuity created by the state aid standards, MSA roads serve a number of different land‐use cases, including residential. The current standards have limited our ability to design context‐sensitive streets that calm traffic and keep all users, especially pedestrians and bicyclists, safe. The burdensome need for variances has caused us to forego community‐requested design features entirely, in the interest of keeping projects on‐time and on‐ budget. Our highest priority for this bill is ensuring that 10’ lanes are permitted without a variance on municipal state aid routes. Additionally, we support the exploration of a limited number of alternative design manuals as a more flexible way to address this need. However, we have some concerns about the proposed changes to the make‐up of the state aid variance committee and suggest an alternative approach. Suggested change: Simplify the variance process for deviations from the state aid standards While we have experienced the flaws in the current variance process firsthand, we believe the solution proposed by the bill’s current language would add undue complexity. The current process for variances instructs cities and counties to work with their District State Aid Engineer (DSAE) to determine whether a variance request is needed. If it is, a request is made to the Variance Committee, whose makeup is outlined in 8820.3400. This committee only meets quarterly and is made up of a different membership each meeting, leading to two issues. First, small projects with short schedules that seek a variance can be delayed, since they cannot receive plan approval until after the committee meets. Second, the rotating makeup of the committee can lead to situations where two separate committees can interpret the same rule in different ways at different meetings. These barriers, along with the staff time required to research and defend a variance request, lead to cities and counties not asking for variances where they are appropriate to meet their community’s needs. We propose a three‐step system for variances from the standards: 1. Allow the DSAE to administratively review and approve or deny variance requests a. Historically, 97% of variances are approved, meaning that in many cases the staff time used to prepare for and attend committee meetings is a waste of public employee time and resources. Allowing administrative review would be a significant savings in staff time to MnDOT State Aid, cities, and counties across the state. 2. Allow appeals of variance requests denied by the DSAE to a variance committee, convened using the current requirements in 8820.3400. 3. Allow appeals of variance requests denied by the variance committee to the Variance Oversight Committee outlined in HF 2505/SF 2162. a. This committee would make the final determination of whether the request should be approved. Since this would theoretically only occur for 3% of variance requests, the overall staff time savings for public employees across the state would be significant. Currently, as required by statute, the only recourse that cities and counties have to appeal the variance committee’s decision is a time‐consuming Contested Case Hearing. By adding an initial administrative review and creating a defined appeal route, cities and counties can be more confident in the process than the current system and be more responsive to the local needs of their communities. Each community in Minnesota has slightly different needs for their roadway system, and the State Aid process should provide cities and counties with the flexibility to meet those needs. We kindly request that you support both SF 2162/HF 2505, as well as our suggested changes to the variance process. AGENDA SECTION:Work Session Items AGENDA ITEM #2. STAFF REPORT NO. 11 WORK SESSION 4/8/2025 REPORT PREPARED BY: Courtney Miller, Senior Analyst DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 4/2/2025 ITEM FOR WORK SESSION: City Council Policy Proposals Council and staff discussion on policy proposals for consideration as part of annual workplan and budget planning. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: To effectively prioritize City workplans within limited financial and staff resources, City Council submits additional policy requests for consideration before the annual budget process. This process helps determine whether a policy will be included in the following year’s workplan alongside the budget. Staff have already begun assembling workplans for the 2026 budget, which will be presented to Council later this year. If a policy request is for 2025, staff may need to adjust current workplans accordingly. Once Council submits a request, staff provide key details, including implementation challenges, estimated costs and staff time, next steps, and potential impacts on existing workplans and the Strategic Plan. Council members submitted five policy topics for consideration, with additional staff analysis attached to this report. To guide discussions, Council members ranked the proposals, and the averaged rankings are listed below in priority order: 1. 4D Tax Classification Policy 2. 30-Day Notice Before Eviction for Non-Payment of Rent 3. Traffic Calming Initiative 4. Sidewalk Policy Cleanup and Funding 5. Green-to-Go Packaging for Food Establishments DIRECTION NEEDED: Consider the five policy topics to determine if they are a priority to add to 2026 workplans and, if needed, determine existing workplan or Strategic Plan projects that will need to be deferred. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT The City Council adopted the 2023-2026 Strategic Plan in September 2022. The Plan includes 5 priorities and 15 desired outcomes. In order to make progress on the outcomes, the City Council and staff leadership meet quarterly to review progress on the Strategic Plan, teambuilding, long-term financial plans and budgets, and workplans. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS The policy topics may advance desired equity outcomes, details will be included on the individual request forms. The policy request process is a comprehensive and transparent consideration of adding to or changing workplans and should result in more focused City leadership. The more formal approach to considering additional projects should also result in a more sustainable workload which builds healthy Council-staff relationships. Both goals are desired outcomes in the Strategic Plan. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: Staff are creating their 2026 workplans in preparation for the 2025-26 budget process which begins in May 2025. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: Estimated financial impacts may be included in the individual policy requests, and would be finalized if the policy is prioritized and added to future budgets. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: Legal consideration may be included in the individual policy requests. ALTERNATIVE(S): PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type 4D Tax Classification Policy Backup Material 30 Day Notice before Eviction for Non-Payment of Rent Backup Material Traffic Calming Initiative Backup Material Sidewalk Policy Cleanup and Funding Backup Material Green-to-Go Packaging for Food Establishments Backup Material Council Policy Topic Request Date: February 18, 2025 Submitted by: Mary Supple Brief description of the topic (less than 200 words): The State of Minnesota passed legislation which changed the rules for 4D tax classification with the stated intention of encouraging affordable housing. There may, however, be some unintended consequences of the change as it shifts the tax burden from one group to another - possibly including to other housing cost-burdened residents. I would like to have a policy discussion on how the City of Richfield will move forward given the new rules so that the many possible ramifications are considered in setting that future policy. How does this topic align with city strategic priorities (less than 200 words)? Our Community Development Strategic Priority has goals for both maintaining Richfield as an affordable place to live and diversifying our tax base. We also have an Operational Excellence Strategic Priority with a goal of having the financial capacity to deliver essential services. All three of these priorities would play a part in setting future policy. Staff information: Given the recent request from Hempel, inquiries from other apartment property owners, and three potential new qualifying developments. Staff agrees that creating a 4d policy should be a high priority and that work should be shifted to accommodate this request in the second half of 2025 and early 2026. Staff began some of the background work in 2024 in response to the request from Hempel for 4d tax status for the three NOAH properties it is in the process of acquiring. The work will require additional staff time and further analysis of the potential impacts by Ehler’s. Staff can begin work on a policy after housing program evaluation is completed (expected by May/June) and could hopefully complete a policy by the end of first quarter 2026. Council Policy Topic Request Date: March 2, 2025 Submitted by: Walter Burk A. Brief description of the topic (less than 200 words): It is proposed that the City of Richfield create a new ordinance that would require a written 30-day pre-eviction notice by landlords to tenants before initiating evictions due to non-payment of rent or other financial obligations. Written notice should be on a form provided by the City of Richfield and should include the following information: • Name, mailing address and phone number of person who receives rent; • Total money owned including past due rent, late fees, and other charges; • Date due that is no earlier than 30 days from delivery date of the notice. B. How does this topic align with city strategic priorities (less than 200 words)? Community development, in particular maintaining Richfield as an affordable place to live, is a Richfield strategic priority. This proposed ordinance would give tenants who are struggling to pay their rent timely. The additional 16 days (more than what state law provides) would give tenants the extra time to avoid an eviction record. The extra time would allow tenants to access emergency rent help with greater success. Reducing the amount of tenant turnover in Richfield would help with reducing the affordability of obtaining and maintaining rental housing. This topic may also have implications for another Richfield strategic priority: Equity and Inclusion, by reducing racial inequities and barriers for traditionally excluded groups. Minn. Stat. §504B.321, Subd. 1a requires only a 14-day written notice to tenants before an eviction action is begun for nonpayment of rent or another financial obligation. Some Minnesota cities expanded the amount of notice required to 30-day prior to initiating an eviction for nonpayment of rent or other financial obligations: Brooklyn Center Code of Ordinances 12-912D-4a St. Louis Park City Code Section 8-335 Minneapolis Code of Ordinances Section 244.2060 Richfield should do the same. C. Staff information: Considerations: - Is this a significant problem to which resources should be diverted? (167 filings and 59 completed evictions in 2024; 80-90% estimated to be from non-payment of rent) - Is this an effective strategy to increase renter stability? If a landlord is found to be in violation, remedies include financial punishment of landlord or revocation of rental license which could displace many more households. In order to allow tenant additional time under ordinance, city would need to start civil action and ask court to intervene. This is a difficult, time-consuming, and costly endeavor. Do not have capacity for this as of now. - City Attorney has concerns and would recommend additional study before consideration. - Are there other ways to encourage housing stability? (e.g., Apartment Navigator in work plan, ensure that VEAP has adequate funding for emergency rent assistance) - Other items on the 2025-2026 housing work plan: Housing program evaluation and related program changes (SP), Affordable housing dashboard and tracking impact of Inclusionary Housing Policy (SP), 4d Policy (also proposed policy request), Affordable housing developments (SP), Point of Sale Escrow policy revisions (auditor-identified item), Apartment Navigator Program (SP), Bring It Home Minnesota program development and implementation (new state funds), Comprehensive Plan preparation (state mandate). Tasks to be undertaken include: - legal review, - survey of other communities’ ordinances and experiences, - review of eviction data, - engagement with tenants and landlords, - ordinance drafting, - creation and dissemination of information materials, and - evaluation of funding/staffing for enforcement. Accounting for current work plan, project could potentially be taken on at end of 2026, but more-likely 2027. Work plan includes primarily time-sensitive items. Of those listed, Apartment Navigator is movable but does little to speed up timeline and may be a more effective way to address tenant stability. Alternative option: Consider inclusion in City’s policy platform for State action. Council Policy Topic Request Date: March 2, 2025 Submitted by: Walter Burk A. Brief description of the topic (less than 200 words): Residents have voiced concerns about speeding in their respective neighborhoods. One solution is making various traffic calming methods available to them. In particular, speed cushions, speed tables and raised crosswalks are effective ways to reduce speeds on local roads while minimizing problems for emergency vehicles, snow removal, and long term maintenance. It is proposed that residents on both sides of a given stretch or local road may petition the City of Richfield to install a traffic calming device on their stretch of local road if the petition is signed by a certain threshold percentage of those residents, the residents understand the benefits and possible detriments of the traffic calming device, and agree to pay for a certain percentage of the installation of the traffic calming device. B. How does this topic align with city strategic priorities (less than 200 words)? This proposal aligns with the strategic priorities of Sustainable Infrastructure and Operational Excellence. A basic need for residents is to feel that their roads are safe from speeding vehicles, especially in front of their homes. Richfield’s roads should be enhanced in order to meet this need, especially if a great majority of the local residents agree on the need for traffic calming in their immediate area and are willing to contribute directly to the cost of installation. The City of Richfield should show it has the operational capacity to deliver this essential service by working cooperatively with residents who know their particular neighborhood’s need and are willing to work with the City to meet that need. Discussion and planning would be needed to develop an ordinance for this proposal. Guidance is available from other Minnesota cities that already have traffic calming devices available to their residents in their respective city ordinances: Minneapolis: https://www2.minneapolismn.gov/government/departments/public- works/traffic-parking-services/traffic-calming/ Bloomington: https://www.bloomingtonmn.gov/eng/neighborhood-traffic- management-program-ntmp Brooklyn Center: https://www.brooklyncentermn.gov/government/departments/public- works/engineering/traffic-calming Woodbury: https://www.woodburymn.gov/275/Traffic-Calming Moorhead: https://www.cityofmoorhead.com/departments/engineering/forms- resources/traffic-calming-policy C. Staff information: Clarification points • Staff are assuming this initiative is to consider a well-thought-out policy with a logical framework to follow to avoid accepting petitions and implementing calming measures without vetting the need and other options. • Consideration of calming measures on residential roads only, nothing on the Municipal State Aid system due to State Aid design standards. Traffic Control Committee The city has a Traffic Control Committee (TCC) process that receives and considers traffic concerns and requests, including speeding concerns. This committee has representation from Public Works Operations & Engineering, Community Development, and Public Safety. The TCC has worked well for all traffic control requests and concerns in the past. Overall, requests to address speeding have dropped since the 25mph speed limit was put in effect, and those that we do receive are commonly determined to be an enforcement issue that result in no infrastructure changes. Traffic Control Requests Summarized (Numbers below may be off by +/- 1 or 2) • In 2023, there were 42 requests evaluated at a TCC meeting: o 14 speed or traffic calming related o 2 speed studies that had “excessive” speeding, both on MSA routes (69th Street, 70th Street) • In 2024, there were 43 requests evaluated at a TCC meeting: o 12 speed or traffic calming related o 3 speed studies that had “excessive” speeding, all on MSA routes (63rd (east of Penn), 64th, 69th) o Spike in speed-related requests in July (after 25 mph limit went into effect) and then very few over the remainder of 2024. Things to Consider • The grid system Richfield enjoys makes it more challenging to control speeds, even with large investments towards calming. • State Aid routes tend to have the most speeding concerns, these routes would not be eligible for consideration under a proposed future program for traffic calming (assuming current State Aid design standards stay in place). • Equity consideration: only those that can afford it will get traffic calming. • The Strategic Plan currently has staff evaluating core services to see where there are existing gaps, it may not be the right time to add services/costs until we have a clear understanding of where we are at holistically first. • There are thousands of residential blocks and hundreds of intersections in Richfield. Next Steps if Selected for Implementation • Active Transportation Plan – supports identifying additional funding to pursue traffic calming measures to ensure lower speeds by design, development of a traffic calming toolbox and a process for community groups to engage and propose projects. Staff had identified this for 2027-28 workplan. • Transportation Commission – could lead the policy and framework development for this effort after the Penn Avenue public engagement efforts wrap up (likely 2027 after core services evaluation is completed). • Traffic Control Committee – this existing committee can vet initial speed requests to determine if a specific block “qualifies” for traffic calming measures. • Council Action Item: Identify a funding source and set an annual budget. Council Policy Topic Request — Sidewalk Policy Cleanup and Funding Date: March 3, 2025 Submitted by: Sean Hayford Oleary Brief description of the topic (less than 200 words): Richfield is a leader in pedestrian-friendly design on major streets. Our new 66th Street, Lyndale Avenue, and others have vastly improved pedestrian safety and dignity. However, our approach to routine sidewalk maintenance and infill — not part of a large reconstruction — is more disjointed. Specifically there are interrelated issues that would be best addressed as a package: 1. Sidewalk inclusion policy Our current sidewalk standards policy (2016) does not reflect actual practice, and it is inconsistent with the recommendations of the more recent 2018 Pedestrian Master Plan. It does not address land use, which has led to conflict — for example, it becomes more difficult for pedestrians to share the road with cars where on-street parking is well-utilized. I propose we update this with a policy that provides a framework for including sidewalks on any street, and identifies priority streets where sidewalks should be installed. 2. Sidewalk plowing policy Since the 1990s, Richfield has been plowing its sidewalks. However, even with our existing sidewalk coverage, this approach is financially unsustainable. Every time we add a new sidewalk, we create an annual operational cost — this is a strong disincentive to providing more sidewalks in the community. We should focus on a network of plow routes we can commit to, rather than overpromising and underdelivering on clearing all sidewalks. 3. Tree planting policy Currently, our approach to boulevard tree installations is inconsistent, with new trees planted anywhere from 3’ to 10’ behind the curb. This harms the effectiveness of boulevard trees as a street feature, and it adds needless expense and harm to any future sidewalk installation. 4. Funding sidewalk infill (starting in 2027) We do not have any dedicated funding source for infill of sidewalks — whether to address existing gaps, or to fund routine needs like extending developer-installed sidewalks to the corner after a new apartment building is built. I propose we create an annual fund for this purpose. These four problems and example solutions are discussed in Appendix A. How does this topic align with city strategic priorities (less than 200 words)? Pedestrian infrastructure was not a priority area directly in the 2023-2026 plan — it is an ongoing need and priority. However, I believe this still relates to the following areas: Operational Excellence — Financial capacity The example policies shown in Appendix A would limit the growing cost of City sidewalk plowing, and would allow for lower-cost sidewalk installations. Community Development – A vibrant downtown The example policies shown in Appendix A would allow infill of sidewalks in higher-density areas adjoining local/side streets. This would particularly help to resolve pedestrian safety concerns downtown (64th & Harriet neighborhood) Sustainable Infrastructure This would provide a clearer, more consistent path toward funding sidewalk infill needs. By modifying boulevard tree planting practices, we can help make Richfield’s neighborhood grid of streets more climate-resilient, by providing shade to streets sooner, and minimizing the need to remove trees if/when sidewalk installation occurs. Staff information: Things to Consider • More sidewalks would increase the maintenance and replacement costs; however, annual operational costs have not been a disincentive for adding sidewalks. • Yes, sidewalks should be wheelchair accessible through the winter months. We could discuss ordinance changes to require snow and ice clean up/maintenance by adjacent property owners. Will require some ordinance modifications and discussion of an enforcement mechanism (staff & resources). • There are currently 45 miles of sidewalks throughout the city. The majority of them are on arterials, collectors and priority routes. • Using the 2024 Active Transportation Plan (ATP) staff could develop preliminary designs for the larger sidewalk projects, gather cost estimates, and forego any tree planting on those routes until a sidewalk project is completed (staff & resources). • If residential sidewalk snow and ice removal is put onto the residents, there will be added burden on staff and residents as well as service delivery decline for residents who are now depending on their neighbors to clear the snow:  City code updates  Inspection by Environmental Services and enforcement actions  The timeline for snow removal will be extended (residents pace/schedule) • Although not specifically outlined in the tree planting policy, for the past 5-10 years trees have been planted 2-3 feet off the property lines to avoid damage to the curbs, to allow the tree the best chance of long-term survival and thriving, and to avoid underground utilities (i.e., gas mains, telecom). • Small sidewalk projects that are identified in the ATP can be constructed using the existing funds identified using Franchise Fees. Larger projects have had some success obtaining outside funding. Estimated need of $1M/year for 5 years to complete the remaining 12 PMP identified routes (4.5 miles). Full build out of the 15 identified recommendations would add 6.75 miles of sidewalk to the system. • The Strategic Plan currently has staff evaluating core services to see where there are existing gaps, it may not be the right time to add services/costs until we have a clear understanding of where we are at holistically first. Next Steps if Selected for Implementation • Depending on the scope of changes, this could mean additional staff or consultant time due to existing workloads that are set (Reconstruction of Nicollet, Penn, 494). • If the City Council chooses to move forward with this policy proposal, staff would likely request multiple work sessions to gain council direction on how to proceed.  Snow removal – do we want to prioritize routes and turn back snow removal for non-prioritized or future sidewalks to residents? ▪ An extensive public engagement process would need to be a part of any change in the current sidewalk plowing policy.  Sidewalk standards policy review  Framework development for residential streets desiring a sidewalk Appendix A: Example Policies Note: These are example policies, intended to show the breadth and approach I envision. Approving / prioritizing this council topic policy request does not mean acceptance of any specific rules, dimensions, etc. Ultimately, any policy changes would be a collaborative process between staff, council, and other stakeholders. These are simply initial suggestions for discussion A1. Sidewalk inclusion policy Problem: Our current sidewalk standards policy (2016) is inconsistent with actual practice — for example, it specifies only one sidewalk on the side of collector streets, while general practice has been to do both sides in most projects since 2000. In addition, it fails to address land-use concerns that may cause a need for sidewalks (e.g., adjacent to apartment buildings). Finally, it fails to provide any direction for sidewalks that are simply preferred as a pedestrian amenity (e.g., during reconstruction of a local street). Example solution: The current sidewalk policy could be updated to better reflect the recommendations of the 2018 Pedestrian Master Plan. This is an example of a table that both reflects those recommendations, as well as a possible plowing policy (see item A2). Yellow highlight indicates priority streets where tree conflict should be avoided (referenced in item A3). Street type Desired sidewalk coverage Sidewalk width Plowing policy Trigger to install sidewalks Arterial (e.g., 66th, Lyndale) Both sides Min. 6', wider where land use requires City clears all sidewalks, in some cases collaborating w/ owner Existing arterials all have full sidewalk coverage. Maintain during reconstruction. Collector (e.g., 70th, 73rd) Both sides, or one side if both are unfeasible Min. 6', wider where land use requires City clears all sidewalks, in some cases collaborating w/ owner During reconstruction, or as-needed if an existing safety challenge is identified. Local streets (where land use is denser than LDR) Both sides or one side Min 4', or 6' if on an identified city sidewalk plow route Adjacent property owners clear, unless on an identified plow route. During reconstruction, as-needed, or in conjunction with a redevelopment project Local streets (all-LDR blocks) Both sides, one side, or none Min 4', or 6' if on an identified city sidewalk plow route Adjacent property owners clear, unless on an identified plow route. During reconstruction or by resident petition. A2. Address sidewalk plowing policy Problem: Clearing our sidewalks by plow is a convenience for residents that Richfield has offered since the 1990s. However, the results are imperfect: virtually none of our sidewalk network is accessible to people with disabilities during the winter. In addition, its financial sustainability is predicated on Richfield continuing to have very few sidewalks. Plowing all sidewalks creates an annual "operational" cost to every foot we add. And because sidewalks must fit a plow, it means building them wider than many streets require, increasing cost, impervious surface, and impact to trees. Example solution: We should instead shift to have a city plowed-sidewalk map, that we extend only where need justifies (such as a collector or arterial route, or a school route). The vast majority of existing sidewalks would qualify for inclusion on this map. See the example from the City of Edina showing their hybrid approach, that would be similar to this. Sidewalks not covered by this map could be required to be cleared by adjacent property owners, or could be considered seasonal. My preference would be to have them cleared by adjacent property owners, but allow a generous transitional period. A2 Illustrations: Although a sidewalk plow has serviced both of these sidewalks, neither is accessible to wheelchair users or pedestrians with balance issues. Conditions like this are typical results on older sidewalks. We cannot improve on this without more funding, better equipment, and/or limiting the obligation we take on. A3. Tree planting policy Problem: Currently, street trees are planted in various locations, ranging from 3' behind the curb to 10' behind the curb. Although there are conveniences to placing trees further from the curb, this means future sidewalks must cut down trees, or must be immediately adjacent to the curb — creating ADA challenges at driveways, and making snow clearing difficult. In addition to impeding sidewalks, boulevard trees planted far from the curb simply do not perform as street trees: they take a decade or more longer to provide shade to the street, and they fail to provide a sense of enclosure to help calm traffic. Example solution: I propose that we guide that street trees to be planted to allow placement of a sidewalk between the tree and property line, plus at least 2' to the center of the trunk. (ie, on collectors and arterials, place tree at least 8' inward from property line; on local streets, place tree at least 6' inward from property line). Additional comments: A tradeoff to this approach is that it may increase the need for hand-digging where utilities are present. If staff does not feel this is feasible on all streets, I would suggest we at least do this for the highlighted priority streets shown in A1 — eliminating conflicts where they are most likely to occur. A3 Illustrations On this block of 16th Avenue, a new boulevard tree was planted in 2018, in the obvious path of an existing sidewalk. The tree was removed in 2024 when the sidewalk was extended to the corner. Current typical conditions: inconsistent from street to street, and tree to tree. Sometimes trees are planted nearly at the property line, others are close to the curb. This impedes sidewalks, and prevents a consistent sense of enclosure that would calm traffic. Proposed conditions for new trees: plant sufficiently close to curb to allow sidewalk installation in boulevard, and to shade and enclose the street more quickly. A4. Funding sidewalk infill (defer to 2027) Problem: Often, redevelopment will create a more intense use at one end of the block, without changing most of the block. Although the city requires sidewalk installation adjacent to the redeveloped parcel, this is not a complete solution. Redevelopment often means more traffic and more parked cars throughout the whole block, which means pedestrians may need sidewalks for the entire block, not merely next to the new building. Example solution: I propose that we create an annual sidewalk fund that allows for infill to extend developer-installed sidewalks to logical termini. In years where this fund is not fully utilized, we could also consider petitions from residents to use this fund for another local sidewalk. I envision this as a $200,000-$300,000 annual fund starting in budget year 2027, similar to the funding we designate for ADA improvements for existing sidewalks. This should be an unrestricted, steady, annual resource — I believe this would have to initially be done through general fund revenues. However, this could be expanded and transitioned to franchise fee funding in the future, after bonds for the 2010s repaving project in the future. This funding should be in addition to grant-funded projects, such as Safe Routes to School, and in addition to current ADA transition dollars. Council Policy Topic Request Date: March 2, 2025 Submitted by: Walter Burk A. Brief description of the topic (less than 200 words): It is proposed that the City of Richfield create a new ordinance that would require food establishments in Richfield to use only “Green-to-Go” packaging for take-out or to-go food. This would apply to any establishment that sells take-out or to-go food, including but not limited to restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores, gas stations, food trucks and schools. B. How does this topic align with city strategic priorities (less than 200 words)? This proposal furthers the City of Richfield’s commitment to a Sustainable Infrastructure, which is a Richfield strategic priority. In particular, it aligns with the specific priority of Climate Resiliency. By requiring compostable or recyclable packaging by food establishments in Richfield, the people of Richfield will learn about how everyday decisions about food can affect the environment and climate. It will also demonstrate that local decisions can reduce single-use packaging and utensils, to the benefit of the environment and climate. A number of local businesses already use Green-to-Go packaging. Businesses unfamiliar with Green-to-Go requirements have resources available to them for help with transitioning to Green-to-Go packaging (e.g. MNimize (https://mnimize.org/). Discussion and planning would be needed to develop an ordinance for this proposal. Guidance is available from other Minnesota cities that already have Green-to-Go packaging requirements in their respective city ordinances: Minneapolis Code of Ordinances Title 10, Chapter 204 St. Paul Code of Ordinances Chapter 236 St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 12, Article VI Edina Code of Ordinances Chapter 20, Article XII Roseville City Code Title 4, Chapter 412 C. Staff information: Diverting waste from Richfield's waste stream is a long-term goal and it is important that the City takes actions to achieve this goal. Styrofoam and other disposable to-go packaging materials do contribute to the amount of single-use plastic and paper products in the landfill and incinerator. However, there is a lack of evidence that a to- go packaging ordinance would have a meaningful impact on the waste stream. Hennepin County’s Zero Waste Plan states that efforts to introduce a zero-waste packaging ordinance would have a “negligible impact” on waste diversion. For this initiative to be successful, staff believe there are infrastructure and education initiatives that need to be implemented or strengthened first. Most multi-unit housing does not have adequate recycling capacity, let alone onsite organics collection, to correctly dispose of recyclable or compostable to-go packaging. Updating multi-family recycling capacity requirements is a current staff project, but enforcement of that, along with resident education, is a substantial and ongoing undertaking. Additionally, other cities with green-to-go ordinances require that restaurants and food establishments which offer single-use products must provide customers with recycling and compost bins. Many Richfield businesses currently do not offer front of house recycling, let alone organics collection. City staff do not have complete data (only anecdotal evidence) to best understand citywide compliance with city and county infrastructure requirements. A significant barrier to this initiative is confusion around what is actually recyclable or compostable, especially as it relates to smaller items (condiment cups, lids, paper wrappers, etc.) and utensils. This will require consistent consumer education by businesses and the City to ensure correct disposal. Staff will also need to provide individualized communication and education to business owners/managers to ensure they are ordering BPI-certified compostable materials and that all items being provided to customers are recyclable in the Twin Cities Metro. Staff have experience on a smaller scale helping Farmers Market vendors with their purchasing and it is difficult to gain compliance, especially with language barriers and budget. An initiative that would have a greater impact on current waste trends would be to improve bulky and heavy materials disposal, such as furniture, construction/demolition debris, and electronics/hazardous waste. Multiple nearby cities devote significant time and resources towards holding special collection events and developing programs to reduce barriers residents face when trying to dispose of these items. New in 2025, staff have added limited electronic recycling to the annual free shred event and are interested in adding additional waste-diverting services to future events. Another alternative that would be easier to start and enforce is a serveware requirement for events and food trucks through our existing event permitting process. For staff to take on this initiative as proposed, they would need to pause existing projects which include special and bulky item drop-off events, multi-unit recycling education and enforcement, and municipal building recycling and organics program implementation. Hennepin County has included actions related to county and municipal packaging regulations in their solid waste management and zero waste plans. If this policy proposal advances, it could benefit Richfield to wait to start related work until the County allocates more resources towards packaging ordinances. Cities that have already implemented a citywide packaging ordinance are larger, have more resources (regarding staff capacity and budget), and/or have significant numbers of food service establishments covered under their policy. Considerations around education and outreach: • There would be a significant amount of staff time and budget needed for bilingual mailers/surveys/flyers/door to door outreach, all before the actual implementation and enforcement of an ordinance. o Recent Richfield citywide education campaigns have cost between $60- 85,000. Other cities have created their educational and survey materials entirely in house. • Roseville’s extensive outreach efforts only achieved a 13% feedback rate (19/142 businesses). Their Sustainability Specialist is currently spending 15-30 hours per month on green to go ordinance education (they are not enforcing yet). Enforcement (both initial and ongoing): • Based on ordinances in other cities, potential covered entities could include restaurants, bakeries, gas stations, food trucks, schools, grocery stores, and convenience stores. o Gas stations, grocery stores and convenience stores are licensed by the Department of Agriculture, so the City doesn’t have any authority with those establishments. o At one point, the schools were asking for a reduced food license fee so staff would be concerned about adding this expense to their budget. • If this became code, it would have to be added to Bloomington Environmental Health’s contract as a deliverable to check during a routine inspection of the food establishment. That would result in an increase more than the 3% increase seen in the last several years. • If there were complaints of non-compliance, Richfield staff would be responsible for enforcement and we don’t have the bandwidth to manage that along with cannabis coming, the illegal flavored product sales we’re seeing, the new fowl code and inspections for those, as well as the food truck ordinance that will soon be brought to Council. This is all in addition to the already high number of vacant homes and hoarded homes staff are trying to tackle. • Staff would also be concerned about businesses coming together to push back on this. Our food establishments are small in size and number compared to other cities, but it’s a tight knit community and they were vocal during Covid and its restrictions. • Staff time and resources would be needed to stay on top of product exemptions (i.e. fast-food paper wrappers are currently exempt in SLP due to not having a viable recyclable and compostable replacement). Equity aspects: • Small businesses could be inadvertently penalized financially. In Richfield, there are several small, BIPOC-owned food businesses. • An ordinance could have a regressive effect on low-income households if business owners raise prices in response to the added costs of recyclable and compostable to-go packaging. o Cost of compostable and recyclable to-go items is approx. 2-2.5 times higher for utensils, 1.5 to 2 times higher for compostable compartmented containers, and approximately 1.5 times higher for compostable non- compartmented containers. Staff have also found that recyclable containers are priced immensely higher than single-use containers. o Lower income households have been found to purchase takeout/delivery more often than higher income households.1 • This initiative could unintentionally create an additional barrier to food access, and we already have food deserts in Richfield. Environmental Impact: • In 2023, staff and a consultant identified priority sustainability projects from the Climate Action Plan. None were related to solid waste because the impact of actions around solid waste and greenhouse gas emission reduction is far less than actions around sectors like transportation and buildings/energy efficiency. • It isn’t feasible to quantify the impact of a packaging ordinance as it relates to waste reduction. Minneapolis waste composition studies state: o Styrofoam (EPS) was reported to make up .3-.5% of the city’s waste stream in 2015. It was projected that around 80% of EPS waste came from grocery stores, which results in an estimated .24-.36% of EPS in the waste stream coming from food retailers. o If this math is applied to Richfield’s waste stream, about .64-1.96% of the total waste stream is projected to be non- or difficult to recycle materials often generated from grocery, food, and other to-go retail establishments. 1 https://www.zionandzion.com/download/research/FoodDeliveryAppsUsageandDemographics.pdf