2025-06-10 City Council AgendaREGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
JUNE 10, 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 from May 27, 2025, and (2) City
Council Regular Meeting from May 27, 2025.
PRESENTATIONS
1. Proclamation celebrating Juneteenth
2. Recognition of retiring Fire Chief Mike Dobesh
3. Swearing-in Ceremony for Fire Chief Jenell Brooks
AGENDA APPROVAL
4. Approval of the Agenda
5.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 approval of Adams Hill Pond Maintenance Project change orders in the net amount of
$167,137.77 for various project elements related to water quality improvements and landscape and riparian
restoration.
Staff Report No. 74
B. Consider the approval of the first amendment of the Response Sustainability agreement with the City of
Bloomington.
Staff Report No. 75
6. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar
RESOLUTIONS
7. Consider a request for site plan approval, a preliminary plat, a final plat, and a variance, for 42 units of multifamily
housing at 6501 and 6525 Penn Avenue South.
Staff Report No. 76
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
8. City Manager's Report
CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
9. Claims and Payroll
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
10. Discuss funding contingency plan and final project approval for federally-funded 73rd Street Safe Routes to
School (SRTS) trail project.
Staff Report No. 77
11. Hats Off to Hometown Hits
12. Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96
hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9739.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
City Council Work Session
May 27, 2025
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Supple called the work session to order at 5:45 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room.
Council Present:
Mary Supple, Mayor; Sharon Christensen; Walter Burk, Sean Hayford Oleary, Rori A. Coleman-Woods Staff Present:
Guests:
Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Joe Powers, City Engineer; Kristin Asher,
Public Works Director; Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer; Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk. Andrew Latuya and Ryan Wilson, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
ITEM #1
DISCUSSION ON I-494 PHASE 2 FOLLOWING AN UPDATE PRESENTATION FROM MNDOT STAFF.
City Engineer Powers introduced the agenda item and turned the presentation over to Andrew Latuya from MnDOT.
Andrew Latuya provided a comprehensive overview of the corridor vision and implementation plan. He explained that decision-making for the corridor vision is conducted through a designated committee and provided insight into how various committees and working groups—particularly the bike and pedestrian work groups—contributed to shaping the design process. Mr. Latuya highlighted the anticipated community benefits of the project and noted funding from multiple sources, including Federal and State grants, as well as County and City funds.
Mr. Latuya presented a detailed overview of the corridor vision's scope and outlined the evaluation criteria used in the implementation plan. Mr. Latuya noted the full implementation plan was shared, showing how the project has been divided into four independent components, each of which can be developed separately. Mr. Latuya also discussed the evaluation process and reported that the decision regarding the 2nd Street pedestrian bridge was based on recommendations from the bike work group.
During the Council discussion, questions were raised about the composition of the bike work group and the process by which its decisions were made. City Engineer Power provided additional context on the role and structure of the pedestrian and bike work group. Mr. Latuya addressed
several of the Council's questions related to the pedestrian bridge decision. Council also raised
City Council Work Session Minutes -2- May 27, 2025
concerns about potential discrimination and accessibility issues that the existing bridge may present for individuals with disabilities.
Mr. Latuya also noted new information on highway noise mitigation measures are being considered by MnDOT on the project. He outlined the noise wall re-evaluation process and responded to Council’s questions about whether residents would have the opportunity to reconsider construction
of noise walls if updated noise data becomes available. Council was adamantly firm if new information was available, residents should also have an opportunity to reevaluate construction of noise walls. In addition, Mr. Latuya provided preliminary information on the project's environmental
impacts, specifically related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. He noted that some evaluation criteria are still under review for Phase 2. Council members indicated a strong interest in receiving further details on the air quality and greenhouse gas studies and requested that this information be presented at the next work session meeting.
Mr. Latuya noted feedback from Council and community input regarding the proposed project completion timeline. He presented a draft proposal for traffic management and construction staging, noting that the project is expected to span three years of construction. As part of the presentation, he provided information on the planned bridge closure and shared data on current daily traffic volumes for both the bridge and surrounding loops.
Council inquired about the timeline for gathering community input, to which Mr. Latuya responded that feedback would be collected by the end of the year with updates to project documentation. During the discussion, Council and Staff expressed concerns about being unaware of certain road closures. Mr. Latuya acknowledged the challenges and outlined both the benefits and potential difficulties associated with the proposal. Staff requested a more detailed analysis of anticipated road closures to be presented at the next work session and communicated more clearly throughout project construction.
ADJOURNMENT Mayor Supple adjourned the work session at 6:52 pm. Date Approved: June 10, 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 Present:
Mary Supple, Mayor; Sharon Christensen; Walter Burk; Sean Hayford Oleary; and Rori A. Coleman-Woods.
Staff Present:
Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney;
Melissa Pohlman, Community Development Director, Kristin Asher, Public Works Director; and Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk.
Others Present: Human Rights Commissioner Mara Glubka
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Supple led the Pledge of Allegiance.
OPEN FORUM
Mayor Supple reviewed the participation options for residents at the Council meeting including 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.
Pat Paulson, 62nd and Vincent, noted he is opposed to the restrictions that are being suggested for short-term rentals.
John Lucas Erikson, 7014 Elliot Avenue, thanked the Council for the amendment made at the first reading of the short-term rentals ordinance. He urged the Council to amend the ordinance to a
three-day minimum because limiting to one week will significantly reduce stays in Richfield. He added that he and many other hosts have accepted reservations for up to 18 months in advance. Putting the ordinance into effect sooner than that will result in penalties on the hosts and their properties. He explained that the implementation of a 3-day minimum seems doable for most hosts. Lance Bondis, 7108 Chicago Avenue, stated his appreciation for lowering the minimum stay for
short-term rentals. He added that he is in support of a 3-day minimum.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Regular Council Meeting
May 27, 2025
City Council Meeting Minutes -2- May 27, 2025
Maria Erikson shared that many people use short-term rentals for a short amount of time and would
not be able to use these if one week is the minimum option. She added that these are very beneficial for the community and urged the Council to consider a 3-day minimum. Ava McKnight, 6935 11th Avenue, thanked the Richfield-Bloomington Water Management Organization for moving forward with resident grants. City Clerk Friedrich read a comment from Jason McDonald relating to short-term rental limitations. Mr. McDonald urged the Council to reject a blanket ban and instead adopt a balanced license and
enforcement approach. City Clerk Friedrich read a comment from Max Cozak regarding amending the short-term rental regulations. Mr. Cozak noted that this one-week minimum will most likely shut down many businesses and urged the Council to consider a 2-3 night minimum stay.
City Clerk Friedrich read a comment from Joy Meadows who shared that she stayed in a short-term rental in Richfield last September and would like to be able to continue using short-term rentals in the future.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: made by Councilmember Christensen, seconded by Councilmember Burk, to approve the minutes of the: (1) City Council Work Session Meeting from May 13, 2025, and (2) City Council
Regular Meeting from May 13, 2025. Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #1 PROCLAMATION CELEBRATING PRIDE MONTH
Mayor Supple formally presented a proclamation and invited Human Rights Commissioner Mara Glubka to accept the proclamation. Commissioner Glubka read selected statements from LGBTQ+ community members and expressed appreciation to the City and Council for their support.
ITEM #2 APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: made by Councilmember Hayford Oleary, seconded by Councilmember Christensen for Approval of Agenda.
Councilmember Burk requested item 3H, Second Reading of Ordinance Amendment to Short-Term Rentals, be pulled from the Consent Calendar for further Council discussion. AMENDED MOTION: made by Councilmember Burk, seconded by Hayford Oleary to move item 3H from Consent Calendar, to Consideration of Consent Calendar Item Pulled (Item 4) for further Council discussion, and approve the agenda as amended.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #3 CONSENT CALENDAR
City Council Meeting Minutes -3- May 27, 2025
Councilmember Burk pulled item H from the consent calendar. City Manager Rodriguez presented the consent calendar items A-G. A. Consider approval of a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for their annual wrestling event scheduled to take place July 5, 2025, at Fred Babcock VFW #5555, located at 6715 Lakeshore Drive. (Staff Report No. 65)
B. Consider the approval of a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for the Fourth of July Committee events scheduled at Veterans Memorial Park, July 3 - 4, 2025. (Staff Report No. 66)
C. Consider approval of an agreement between the City of Richfield and JLG Architects for professional services in the design and engineering for the Richfield Outdoor Pool improvements.
(Staff Report No. 67)
D. Consider approval of a resolution authorizing execution of Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Agreement No. 1059794 for the disbursement of state general funds for the 70th Street Safe Routes to School project. (Staff Report No. 68) RESOLUTION NO. 12320 EXECUTION OF MNDOT AGREEMENT #1059794 SETTING GRANT TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE DISBURSEMENT OF STATE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING FOR SAP 157-113-008
E. Consider approval of a bid tabulation and award of contract to Corrective Asphalt Materials,
LLC for the 2025 Maltene Pavement Rejuvenation Project in the amount of $690,250.00, and authorize the City Manager to approve contract changes under $175,000 without further City Council consideration.
(Staff Report No.69) F. Consider the approval of a resolution authorizing a grant agreement and acceptance of grant funds in the amount of $69,644.00 on behalf of the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization from the Board of Water and Soil Resources for: 1. A green infrastructure rain garden grant program; and 2. A fisheries/aquatic invasive species study. (Staff Report No. 70)
RESOLUTION NO. 12321 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO ENTER INTO A GRANT AGREEMENT AND ACCEPT GRANT FUNDS FROM THE BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF THE RICHFIELD-BLOOMINGTON WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION (RBWMO) G. Consider approval of a resolution accepting the conveyance of real property located
approximately east of Cedar Avenue South, west of Trunk Highway 77, south of 69th Street, and north of Diagonal Boulevard from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Staff Report No. 71) RESOLUTION NO. 12322
City Council Meeting Minutes -4- May 27, 2025
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO ACCEPT PROPERTY CONVEYANCE NO. 2024-0038 FROM THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MnDOT) FOR A PARCEL OF LAND EAST OF CEDAR AVE S, WEST OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 77, SOUTH OF 69TH ST, AND NORTH OF DIAGONAL BLVD MOTION: made by Councilmember Hayford Oleary, seconded by Councilmember Christensen, to approve the Consent Calendar items A-G. Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #4 CONSIDERATION OF ITEM 3H, REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
H. Consider a second reading and summary publication of an ordinance restricting short-term rentals. (Staff report no. 72) Councilmember Burk presented Staff Report 72. Council discussed the possibility of lowering the minimum stay to accommodate business owners. MOTION: made by Councilmember Hayford Oleary to approve the second reading of the ordinance restricting short-term rentals to no less than one week, unless the licensee resides on-site and
approve the summary publication of the ordinance. Motion fails for lack of second. MOTION TO TABLE ITEM: made by Burk to table the second reading of the ordinance, due to recent public feedback, for additional study and review at a future work session. Motion fails for lack of second.
Council and staff discussed tabling item, and noted limited work session schedule availability, and reviewed timelines regarding the short-term rental ordinance. MOTION TO TABLE ITEM: made by Burk, seconded by Christensen to table the second reading of the ordinance, due to recent public feedback, for additional study and review at a future work session in September, and to allow staff time to develop a business program.
Staff noted tabling item to a date certain is not available, and Council may vote to deny or reject the proposed ordinance and staff would bring back to Council at a future date. MOTION TO WITHDRAW: made by Burk to withdraw Motion to Table Item. MOTION: made by Councilmember Hayford Oleary, seconded by Mayor Supple, to approve the
second reading of the ordinance restricting short-term rentals to no less than one week, unless the licensee resides on-site and approve the summary publication of the ordinance.
Council expressed a hesitancy to approve the amendment and considered how residents have shared issues they have experienced with short-term stays under a month and effects to other small businesses. MOTION TO AMEND: made by Councilmember Coleman-Woods, seconded by Councilmember Christensen, to amend the ordinance to require at least a 3-day minimum stay for short-term rentals.
City Council Meeting Minutes -5- May 27, 2025
Council noted original 30-day minimum stay and residents who have contacted Council have not been heard, and the benefits to the community of families living in the home rather than visitors in short-term rentals. Council shared concern for how much time this ordinance is taking and discussed that adding a 3-day minimum seems too short. Council discussed moving to a 7 or 5-day minimum as a middle ground and suggested limiting the number of short-term rentals allowed in the City. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO MOTION: made by Councilmember Coleman-Woods, seconded by Councilmember Christensen, to amend the ordinance to require at least a 5-day minimum stay for
short-term rentals. Voting Aye: Christensen, Coleman-Woods, and Hayford Oleary Voting Nay: Burk and Supple Motion carried: 3-2 MOTION: made by Councilmember Hayford Oleary, seconded by Mayor Supple, to approve a second reading of an ordinance, as amended, restricting short-term rentals to no less than 5-day minimum stay unless the licensee resides on site, and restricting business licenses to a limited
number of short-term rental licenses, and approve a resolution authorizing summary publication of said ordinance. BILL NO. 2025-04 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RICHFIELD BUILDING, HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS (CHAPTER IV OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE) TO LIMIT RENTALS TO NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK Voting Aye: Christensen, Coleman-Woods, Hayford Oleary, and Supple Voting Nay: Burk Motion carried: 4-1 MOTION: made by Councilmember Hayford Oleary, seconded by Councilmember Christensen, to adopt a resolution authorizing summary publication of the short-term rental ordinance. RESOLUTION NO. 12323 RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE MUNICIPAL CODE IN RELATION TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #5
PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF NEW ON-SALE WINE AND 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR LICENSES FOR MC RICHFIELD LLC DBA DRAGON POT, LOCATED AT 9 66TH STREET EAST. (STAFF REPORT NO. 73)
Councilmember Coleman-Woods presented Staff Report 73 and opened the public hearing. MOTION: made by Coleman-Woods, seconded by Councilmember Hayford Oleary, to close the
public hearing. Motion carried: 5-0
City Council Meeting Minutes -6- May 27, 2025
MOTION: made by Councilmember Coleman-Woods, seconded by Councilmember Hayford Oleary,
to approve new On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses for MC Richfield LLC dba Dragon Pot, located at 9 66th Street East. Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #6
CONSIDER CONFIRMATION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF JENELL BROOKS AS FIRE CHIEF/FIRE SERVICES DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD EFFECTIVE JUNE 12, 2025
Councilmember Christensen presented the Staff Report. City Manager Rodriguez commented on her excitement about recommending Janell Brooks for this position. Council welcomed Janell Brooks into the position of Fire Chief/Fire Services Director, and shared how impressed they are by Ms. Brooks. MOTION: made by Councilmember Christensen, seconded by Councilmember Coleman-Woods, to confirm the appointment of Jenell Brooks as the Fire Chief/Fire Services Director for the City of Richfield. Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #7 CITY MANAGER’S REPORT City Manager Rodriguez noted nothing further to report.
ITEM #8 CLAIMS AND PAYROLL
MOTION: made by Councilmember Coleman-Woods, seconded by Councilmember Hayford Oleary, to approve the following claims and payrolls:
U.S. BANK 05/23/2024
A/P Checks: 336237-336495 $1,543,564.85
Payroll: 196790-197110; and manual check 44143 $1,404,938.03
TOTAL $2,948,502.88
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #9 HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS
Councilmember Burk noted nothing to report.
City Council Meeting Minutes -7- May 27, 2025
Councilmember Hayford Oleary thanked the Human Rights Commission for their update on the
proclamation for Pride Month after he raised some concerns. Councilmember Christensen shared information on the ceremony for the new Woodlake Nature Center. She added that there is an event for dog owners at the dog park. Councilmember Coleman-Woods congratulated the Richfield High School 2025 graduates. Mayor Supple gave hats off to the Richfield Chamber of Commerce, for their Circle of Excellence
Awards, and congratulated all the award winners.
ITEM #10 ADJOURNMENT MOTION: made by Councilmember Burk, seconded by Councilmember Coleman-Woods, to adjourn the meeting at 8:06 p.m. Motion carried: 5-0 Date Approved: June 10, 2025
Mary Supple Mayor
Michelle Friedrich Katie Rodriguez
City Clerk City Manager
Proclamation of the City of Richfield
WHEREAS, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, declaring “that all persons held as slaves” within the rebellious states “are, and henceforward shall be free”; and WHEREAS, the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to states loyal to the Union, including border states with a considerable enslaved population; and
WHEREAS, many slaveholders worked to keep word of the proclamation from enslaved persons, and some went so far as to forcefully relocate over 150,000 enslaved Black persons into Texas; WHEREAS, over two years after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued and two months after the surrender of the Confederacy to General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House in Virginia, Union General Gordon Granger and his troops traveled to Galveston, Texas and announced
General Order No. 3, freeing the last enslaved Americans on June 19, 1865; WHEREAS, on that day, June 19th, 1865 over 250,000 Black Americans embraced freedom by
executive decree in what became known as Juneteenth, or Freedom Day; and WHEREAS, Juneteenth marks our country’s second Independence Day, celebrating freedom and
justice, and emphasizing the achievements of Black Americans after gaining their freedom; and WHEREAS, in the wake of the Civil War, the Constitution of the United States was amended for the 14th time to include the promise that America will not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” WHEREAS, we failed this promise to Black Americans, who experienced both legally sanctioned and de facto forms of oppression for generations, significantly impacted by the unjust decision in the
1896 U.S. Supreme Court decision Plessy v. Ferguson, which legally barred countless Black Americans from enjoying the same privileges and successes as their white counterparts; and WHEREAS, 71 years after the historic 9-0 Brown v. Board of Education decision outlawed segregation in all public facilities, we acknowledged the continued existence of racism today; WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is committed to doing the work required to deconstruct systemic racism, honor the promise of the 14th Amendment, and secure an equitable future for all citizens; Now, THEREFORE, I, Mary Supple, mayor of Richfield, on behalf of the Richfield City Council, do acknowledge the relevance of June 19, 1865 and celebrate every June 19 as Juneteenth Freedom Day in the City of Richfield, and call on the people of Richfield to observe this day with appropriate programs, activities and ceremonies, and continue to honor the contributions of African Americans throughout the year. PROCLAIMED this 10th day of June, 2025.
Mary B. Supple, Mayor
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM # 5.A.
STAFF REPORT NO. 74
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
6/10/2025
REPORT PREPARED BY:Scott Kulzer, Senior Analyst
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Kristin Asher - Public Works Director
6/3/2025
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez - City Manager
6/4/2025
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consider approval of Adams Hill Pond Maintenance Project change orders in the net amount of
$167,137.77 for various project elements related to water quality improvements and landscape and
riparian restoration.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Adams Hill Pond Maintenance Project (Project) was identified in 2024 as the next pond
improvement project within the City’s Pond Priority Plan. The improvements included dredging and
disposing of pond sediment, furnishing and installing new storm sewer, and improving the storm lift
station and ancillary site features including the retaining wall and trail.
Staff solicited sealed bids for this project and awarded the contract to Blackstone Contractors, LLC
on December 10, 2024 in the amount of $845,290.41. During construction of the Project, certain
change directives were deemed necessary to better deliver the designed improvements and improve
functionality of Adams Hill Pond. The changes included the addition of a trash collecting structure to
improve water quality, removal of more trees to facilitate earth work activities, seed and plantings in
the terrestrial area to minimize soil erosion, and partial trail reconstruction where it was failing. These
change directives resulted in a gross increase of $202,227.76 to the base value of the contract. The
deductions to the base contract due to the modest change in work and less measured quantities is
$35,089.99. This results in a net increase to the total contract of $167,137.77.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the Adams Hill Pond Maintenance Project change orders in the net amount of
$167,137.77 for various project elements related to water quality improvements and landscape and
riparian restoration.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT
See executive summary.
B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS
Equity Considerations
Equity is a component in the City's plan for prioritization of stormwater ponds for maintenance, recognizing the
co-benefits they provide as stormwater treatment systems and valuable green space in an urban setting.
Strategic Considerations
Pond improvement projects focus on stormwater management, water quality improvements, and flood control
and result in Sustainable Infrastructure that is built with climate resilience as a priority.
C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
Contracts, contract change orders, or purchases over $175,000 must be considered and approved by the
City Council.
After consulting with the City Attorney, staff was advised to bring these change orders to City Council for
approval since the total gross increase to the contract exceeded $175,000 despite the net increase in
costs falling below that threshold.
Three of the four change orders have been previously signed by City staff because the increased cost
was below the required threshold for City Council consideration at that time.
D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
The contract requires project completion on or before June 30, 2025. Approval of the change orders at this
meeting allows for the work to be completed and City staff to reconcile the contract budget prior to this deadline.
E.FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The original construction contract was awarded to Blackstone Contractors, LLC on December 10, 2024
in the amount of $845,290.41.
The change order costs total $167,137.77. These new expenses will be paid from utility user fees (rates)
and break down as follows:
$202,227.76 for additional/new work;
($35,089.99) for project deductions from original contract;
$167,137.77 net cost of change orders
F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
none
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
none
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
none
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Change Order 1 Exhibit
Change Order 2 Exhibit
Change Order 3 Exhibit
Change Order 4 Exhibit
Rev. December 2023
CHANGE ORDER Page 1 of 1
WSB Project No. 026869-000 Owner Project No. 24-05 Change Order No. 1
Project Title/Description: Adams Hill Pond Maintenance
Owner: City of Richfield
Owner Address: 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423-2560
Contractor: Blackstone Contractors, LLC
Contractor Address: 9520 County Rd 19, Suite D Loretto, MN 55357
Total Change Order Amount: $61,710.01
Reason:The Engineer has determined the Contract needs to be revised in accordance with specification name
Issue:Removing Bid Alternate 2 pay items and adding Bid Alternate 3 pay item.
Resolution:
The Agency will
The Contractor will
Entitlement:
Contract Time:is not changed
Estimate Of Cost: (Include any increases or decreases in contract items, any negotiated or force account items.)
Group/Funding
Category Item No.Description Unit Unit Price + or –
Quantity
+ or –
Amount $
Local 2506.502
CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE
DESIGN SPECIAL 3 EACH $76,230.00 1 $76,230.00
Local 2506.502 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH $1,000.00 -1 ($1,000.00)
Local 2506.503
CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE
DES 60-4020 L F $1,229.09 -11 ($13,519.99)
Net Change This Change Order $61,710.01
Approved By Project Engineer:Date: December 26, 2024
Approved By Contractor:Date:
Approved By Owner:Date:
12/30/2024
12/31/2024
Rev. December 2023 CHANGE ORDER Page 1 of 1
WSB Project No. 026869-000 Owner Project No. 24-05 Change Order No. 2 Project Title/Description: Adams Hill Pond Maintenance
Owner: City of Richfield
Owner Address: 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423-2560
Contractor: Blackstone Contractors, LLC
Contractor Address: 9520 County Rd 19, Suite D Loretto, MN 55357
Total Change Order Amount: $34,398.01
Reason: The Engineer has determined the Contract needs to be revised. Issue: Removing & adding line items. Resolution: NA Entitlement: NA Contract Time: is not changed Estimate Of Cost: (Include any increases or decreases in contract items, any negotiated or force account items.)
Group/Funding
Category Item No. Description Unit Unit Price + or –
Quantity
+ or –
Amount $
Local
2101.501
/WR02 CLEARING AND GRUBBING L S $47,124.00 1 $47,124.00
Local 2501.502 72" RC PIPE APRON EACH $13,426.00 -1 ($13,426.00)
Local 2503.503 72" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III L F $893.00 -8 ($7,144.00)
Local 2506.601 STRUCTURE 5001 ALUMINUM HATCH LS $2,638.00 1 $2,638.00
Local 2506.601
STRUCTURE 5002 DOUBLE LEAF
HATCH LS $5,206.01 1 $5,206.01
Net Change This Change Order $34,398.01
Approved By Project Engineer: Date: February 19, 2025
Approved By Contractor: Date:
Approved By Owner: Date:
Rev. December 2023
CHANGE ORDER Page 1 of 1
WSB Project No. 026869-000 Owner Project No. 24-05 Change Order No. 3
Project Title/Description: Adams Hill Pond Maintenance
Owner: City of Richfield
Owner Address: 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423-2560
Contractor: Blackstone Contractors, LLC
Contractor Address: 9520 County Rd 19, Suite D Loretto, MN 55357
Total Change Order Amount: $48,924.94
Reason:The Engineer has determined the Contract needs to be revised.
Issue:Adding items.
Resolution:
The Contractor will complete the additional items.
Entitlement:NA
Contract Time:is not changed.
Estimate Of Cost: (Include any increases or decreases in contract items, any negotiated or force account items.)
Group/Funding
Category Item No.Description Unit Unit Price + or –
Quantity
+ or –
Amount $
Local 2501.601 RESTORE 72" FES LS $1,211.00 1 $1,211.00
Local 2503.601
REMOVE AND REPLACE 42" AND 24"
RC PIPE APRON LS $3,122.40 1 $3,122.40
Local 2571.601 LANDSCAPE PLAN LS $43,391.54 1 $43,391.54
Local 2575.608 MNL SAVANNAH SEED MIX LB $100.00 12 $1,200.00
Net Change This Change Order $48,924.94
Approved By Project Engineer:Date: May 29, 2025
Approved By Contractor:Date:
Approved By Owner:Date:
05/29/2025
Rev. December 2023 CHANGE ORDER Page 1 of 1
WSB Project No. 026869-000 Owner Project No. 24-05 Change Order No. 4 Project Title/Description: Adams Hill Pond Maintenance
Owner: City of Richfield
Owner Address: 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423-2560
Contractor: Blackstone Contractors, LLC
Contractor Address: 9520 County Rd 19, Suite D Loretto, MN 55357
Total Change Order Amount: $27,310.82
Reason: The Engineer has determined the Contract needs to be revised. Issue: Adding items.
Resolution: The Contractor will complete the additional items.
Entitlement: NA
Contract Time: is not changed.
Estimate Of Cost: (Include any increases or decreases in contract items, any negotiated or force account items.)
Group/Funding
Category Item No. Description Unit Unit Price + or –
Quantity
+ or –
Amount $
Local 2211.507 AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 5 C Y $55.00 54 $2,970.00
Local 2360.504
TYPE SP 9.5 WEAR CRS MIX(3,C)3.0"
THICK S Y $40.50 325 $13,162.50
Local 2506.601
MH5002 REMOVAL AND VERTICAL
ADJUSTMENT LS $11,178.32 1 $11,178.32
Net Change This Change Order $27,310.82
Approved By Project Engineer: Date: June 3, 2025
Approved By Contractor: Date:
Approved By Owner: Date:
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM # 5.B.
STAFF REPORT NO. 75
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
6/10/2025
REPORT PREPARED BY:Jennifer Anderson, Support Services Manager
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Jay Henthorne, Director of Public Safety/Chief of Police
5/29/2025
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager
6/4/2025
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consider the approval of the first amendment of the Response Sustainability agreement with the City
of Bloomington.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Response Sustainability grant funds are specifically appropriated for public health emergency
preparedness and response work.
The purpose of this funding and agreement is to support a robust response to emergencies through planning,
training, exercises, and response at the local level. Grant activities will align with the approved areas of focus
that include workforce capacity, sustainability, health equity and communication.
The City Council approved the new funding from Minnesota Department of Health at the January 9, 2024 City
Council meeting.
The first amendment adds FY2025 funds to the agreement and extends the term of the agreement to June 30,
2026.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Approve the first amendment to the Response Sustainability agreement with the City of
Bloomington.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Public health departments receive annual Public Health Emergency Preparedness/Cities Readiness Initiative
funding (PHEP/CRI) funding that enhances preparedness in the nation’s largest population centers, where
nearly 60% of the population resides. The program prepares jurisdictions to effectively respond to large public
health emergencies with life-saving medicines and medical supplies.
State and large metropolitan public health departments use CRI funding to develop, test, and maintain
emergency response plans. These plans detail how health departments will quickly receive medical
countermeasures from the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) and distribute them to local communities.
The Response Sustainability agreement will specifically address the four focus areas mentioned in the
Executive Summary; workforce capacity, sustainability, health equity, and communication.
B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS
Response Sustainability funding specifically calls out health equity and the need to ensure preparedness plans
and activities address health equity gaps and populations, including finding new equity partners to bring into the
work.
C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
Public Health departments across Minnesota are mandated by Minnesota Statute 145A to provide 6 areas of
public health responsibilities;
Assure an adequate local public health infrastructure
Promote healthy communities and healthy behaviors
Prevent the spread of communicable disease
Protect against environmental health hazards
Prepare for and respond to emergencies
Assure health services
D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
None
E.FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Richfield's allotment of Response Sustainability funds is $105,272.00 for work between July 1, 2025 - June 30,
2026. Richfield will use this funding to pay for Response Sustainability agreement services with the City of
Bloomington.
F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement and approves of its contents.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
The City Council could decide not to approve the agreement and direct staff on how to proceed.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
RS grant first amendment Cover Memo
Agreement ID: 2025-0540
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MINNESOTA CITIES OF BLOOMINGTON AND RICHFIELD
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made on ____________________ by and between CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 1800 West Old Shakopee Road, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 (“Bloomington”), and CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield,
Minnesota 55423 (“Richfield”). Bloomington and Richfield are herein referred to collectively as
the “Parties.” WHEREAS, Bloomington and Richfield are parties to an Agreement dated January 1, 2024,
(Agreement ID - 2024-083) pursuant to which Bloomington is responsible for providing the
residents of Richfield with Response Sustainability Services (“Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the term of the Agreement ends June 30, 2025. Richfield and Bloomington desire to amend the Agreement to extend the term until June 30, 2026; and
WHEREAS, Bloomington and Richfield desire to amend the Agreement to include additional services as detailed in Exhibit C; and WHEREAS, Bloomington and Richfield desire to amend the Agreement to increase the total amount of work authorized, including reimbursable expenses, by $105,272.00 for a total contract
not-to-exceed of $208,961.00; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions expressed in this First Amendment, Bloomington and Richfield agree as follows:
1. Paragraph 1 of the Agreement shall be amended to read: “Services to be Provided: Bloomington agrees to provide the residents of Richfield with Response Sustainability Services as described in the Scope of Services attached to this Agreement as Exhibits A, B and C or any supplemental letter agreements, or both entered into between Bloomington and Richfield (“Services”). The Services referenced in the attached Exhibits A, B and C
or any supplemental letter agreements shall be incorporated into this Agreement by reference. All Services shall be provided in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by contractors currently providing similar services.” 1. Paragraph 2 of the Agreement shall be amended to read: “Time for Completion. This
Agreement shall remain in force and effect commencing from January 1, 2024 and continuing until the earlier of June 30, 2026 or completion of the Services unless terminated by either party or amended pursuant to the Agreement.” 2. Paragraph 3 of the Agreement shall be amended to read: “Consideration: The
consideration, which Richfield shall pay to Bloomington, shall not exceed $208,961.00, as set forth in Exhibits A, B and C and incorporated into this Agreement.”
2
3. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement not modified by this First Amendment shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to the Agreement have caused this First Amendment to be
executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA
BloomingtonSign
DATED: DateBloomingtonSigns BY: ________________________________ Its: Mayor BloomingtonSignTitle
DATED: DateBloomingtonSigns BY: ________________________________
Its: Interim City Manager Reviewed and approved by the Bloomington Attorney. BloomingtonAttySign
____________________________________ Melissa J. Manderschied CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
RichfieldSigner DATED: Richfielddate BY: ________________________________ Its: City Manager Richfieldtitle
3
EXHIBIT C TO AMENDMENT TO SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MINNESOTA CITIES OF BLOOMINGTON AND RICHFIELD
TERMS OF PAYMENT A. The Parties agree to allocate the costs of the Services in accordance with each city’s share of the total services provided by Bloomington to all three cities (Bloomington, Edina, and
Richfield) as identified below.
During the term of this Agreement, Richfield shall pay Bloomington the total not-to-exceed amount of $208,961.00 for Response Sustainability Services.
Share of total cost
Allocation Method Bloomington Edina Richfield
Costs shared equally with an adjustment for social vulnerability index of each city
38% 31% 31%
B. Bloomington will provide quarterly itemized invoices to Richfield on the following:
Invoice Dates: July 15, 2025 October 15, 2025 January 15, 2026
April 15, 2026
July 15, 2026
C. Richfield shall make payment to Bloomington within 30 days of receipt of Bloomington’s invoice.
AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS
AGENDA ITEM # 7.
STAFF REPORT NO. 76
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
6/10/2025
REPORT PREPARED BY:Ruby Villa, Planner I
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Melissa Poehlman, Community Development Director
6/3/2025
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager
6/4/2025
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consider a request for site plan approval, a preliminary plat, a final plat, and a variance, for 42 units of
multifamily housing at 6501 and 6525 Penn Avenue South.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
JO Companies (Applicant) has submitted an application for land use approvals to construct a 5-story, 42-unit
housing development on Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) owned land north of Dunkin Donuts, at
the southeast corner of 65th Street West and Penn Avenue South. As a Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
(MHFA) funded project, it is geared towards low-income families looking for safe and affordable housing.
Affordability levels would range from 30-60% of Area Median Income (AMI).
The proposal includes a unit mix ranging from 1 to 4 bedrooms, an enclosed parking garage and exterior
parking lot, and ground level common areas and amenities, such as a bicycle parking room,
business/homework center, fitness center, lounge, and an indoor family playroom. (See also Applicant’s
narrative and floor plans, attached.)
Site Plan Approval
The subject property is zoned MU-C, “Mixed Use Community” and lies within the Penn Avenue Corridor (PAC)
Overlay District. Site plan approval is required for all new buildings in the Mixed Use Districts, not otherwise
approved by a conditional use permit or planned unit development. Except for a retaining wall that exceeds
height requirements along the east property line (unrelated to the building itself), the proposed site plan
complies with all aspects of the Code.
Plat
A preliminary plat is required to combine two parcels into one development site. Although a final plat
typically comes later, the Applicant has submitted both for approval at this time. Simultaneous
approval is at the discretion of the City.
Variance
The variance being requested is a 7.5-foot variance from the 6-foot maximum retaining wall/fence height to
allow a 13.5-foot-tall, combined retaining wall and fence along the east property line of the site. As explained in
the Policy Section below, the request is reasonable and based on unique on-site grading differences.
Staff finds that the proposed project meets the intent and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the PAC overlay
district and all other Zoning Code requirements except the retaining wall height variance. Consequently, staff
supports all aspects of the request and recommends approval, subject to the conditions listed in the draft
resolutions of approval.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 28. Two members of the public spoke and expressed
concern that the project would increase and worsen traffic along 65th Street. The Planning Commission voted
(5-1) to recommend approval of the requests.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Approve the proposed site plan, preliminary plat, final plat, and variance for the multi-family
residential development of 42 units at 6501 and 6525 Penn Avenue South.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The property is made up of two HRA-owned parcels – 6501 and 6525 Penn Avenue South.
o 6501 Penn Avenue South was purchased by the HRA in 2018 and the two buildings on site
were demolished in 2022. Prior to being sold to the HRA, one of the buildings had been
occupied by a Bumper to Bumper Auto Parts Store and the other was vacant.
o 6525 Penn Avenue South was more recently acquired by the HRA in 2024 after tax forfeiture
of the property. The buildings on site are currently vacant and were previously occupied by
Canine College (dog training classes).
Disposition of the parcels for multifamily housing (with or without a commercial component) was approved
by the Planning Commission on April 22, 2024, for 6525 Penn, and on August 27, 2018, for 6501 Penn.
Planning and redevelopment efforts for the PAC area date back to the 1980’s. The most recent Penn
Corridor planning process took place in 2008, the result of which concluded with the adoption of the Penn
Avenue Corridor Master Revitalization Plan and Design Guidelines, as well as the formal adoption of the
PAC Overlay District in 2009.
Along with the adoption of the PAC Overlay District, the majority of parcels within the PAC Overlay
District area, including 6501 and 6525 Penn Avenue South, were re-guided to “Mixed Use” and re-zoned
to “MU-C – Mixed Use Community” in 2009. As such, the subject parcels have been slated for
redevelopment for at least 16 years.
On April 15, 2024, at a joint work session of the City Council, HRA, and Planning Commission, the
Applicant presented conceptual plans for the development of approximately 40 units affordable rental
housing at 6501 & 6525 Penn Avenue South.
On June 17, 2024, the HRA approved a Preliminary Redevelopment Agreement with the Applicant.
Although not required, the Applicant held three neighborhood meetings in order to garner feedback from
neighbors:
o June 17, 2024, the Applicant held a virtual neighborhood meeting; 17 people virtually
attended.
o June 24, 2024, the Applicant held a second virtual neighborhood meeting. Approximately 11
neighbors attended.
o February 19, 2025, the Applicant held a final in-person neighborhood meeting. The only
people in attendance (5) were individuals interested in living in the new apartments.
On July 9, 2024, the HRA approved an amendment to the Preliminary Redevelopment Agreement and on
February 18, 2025, the HRA approved a Second amendment to the Agreement to extend it through
August of 2025.
B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS
Equity: The project is designed to serve low-income families and includes large units and family-
oriented amenities. The proposed building will comply with ADA guidelines and will include two
fully accessible dwelling units. Bicycle parking will be provided in the parking garage and at the
ground level of the building. Enhanced pedestrian connections will also be provided along Penn
Avenue and 65th Street, which will be a benefit to bicyclists and wheelchair users.
Strategic Plan: This project aligns most with the Community Development priority. The project will contribute
deeply affordable units to the community, thereby helping to maintain Richfield as an affordable place to live. The
addition of 42 units, in general, also helps to increase the amount of housing and helps alleviate housing
shortages.
C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
Comprehensive Plan
The property is guided “Mixed Use” by the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which within the Penn Avenue
Corridor, provides for a density range from 25 to 100 dwelling units per acre. At under an acre, density is
within limits (47 dwelling units per acre).
The 2040 Comprehensive Plan calls for a full range of housing choices that meets residents' needs at
every stage of their lives and ensures a healthy balance of housing types that meet the needs of a diverse
population with diverse needs. Further, the Comprehensive Plan encourages improvements to the
housing stock to better serve families with children and seniors. The inclusion of 3 - 4 bedroom units and
family-oriented aspects of the project help further these objectives.
Site Plan
The site layout pushes the building as far west as possible, to encourage an activated streetscape along
Penn Avenue and 65th Street, as well as to maximize the amount of space between the building and the
single-family and two-family residential properties to the east. Significant grading differences (the site
dramatically slopes down in elevation going north to south) necessitate two retaining walls on site: one
along the west side of the parking lot and one along the east property line.
West retaining wall: Due to the proximity of this retaining wall to the west property line, the Applicant
is unable to provide the required streetside parking lot perimeter plantings. In lieu of perimeter
plantings, this approximately 2-foot-tall wall will include a short, decorative aluminum fence to
provide screening and contribute to an attractive, pedestrian friendly street front. The Applicant has
acknowledged that payment into the City’s Tree Fund will be required for any missing trees.
East retaining wall; along single-family/two-family and multifamily homes: At its tallest, this wall and
fence combination will be 13.5 feet tall, exceeding maximum retaining wall and fence height (6
feet). Staff support a variance to exceed the 6-foot height maximum, as explained below and in the
findings of fact, due to the unique topography of the site as well as the added advantage of ample
screening between this higher density project and the low density residential to the east.
The Applicant has worked with staff to activate ground floor walls as much as possible and avoid blank
walls, such as adding additional windows, reconfiguring the ground level floor plan, and committing to
providing a mural along the building’s southwest, ground level, brick wall (see attached west elevation).
Staff review and approval of the mural is a condition of approval.
Due to limited space, as well as concerns with planting trees along the east side of the property which
contains overhead power lines, the Applicant has chosen to pay into the City Public Tree Planting Fund,
for planting of trees on public property on behalf of the development, as allowed by Section 544.03, Subd.
8. With a deficit of 27.5 caliper inches (21 trees are required; 13 are provided), and at a rate of $160 per
caliper inch, the Applicant must provide payment of $4,400 at the time of application for building permits.
All other aspects of the Zoning Code, including building height, architecture, electric vehicle charging,
parking, bike parking, solar access, and impervious area, will be met.
Preliminary and Final Plat
This project has proven to be complex due to uncertainty regarding reconstruction of the Penn Avenue
Corridor (scheduled for 2028; planning to begin in 2025/2026). While the County has expressed general
support for the project, there are items that require further discussion between the City, Applicant, and
County, particularly regarding stormwater drainage. It is unlikely that significant changes in the site or
building layout would be necessary to resolve the remaining stormwater items.
The City attorney has provided a Preliminary Plat Opinion Letter with conditions that must be met prior to
final plat recording.
Retaining Wall Height Variance
All retaining walls, fences, and combinations thereof in the City are limited to a maximum of 6 feet in
height. The proposed retaining wall/fence along the east property line is 13.5 feet tall at its highest points –
a 10-foot-tall retaining wall, 3.5-foot-tall fence. The existing site drops off abruptly to the south from 65th
Street. In order to construct a ramp/driveway within the east side of the property, without exceeding a
maximum 5% slope (anything higher would cause difficulties in vehicle maneuvering), the grading must be
elevated significantly. Ultimately, the difference between the grade on the east side of Penn Station will
differ greatly with the grade on abutting parcels to the east. Thus, a retaining wall taller than 6 feet is
structurally required to retain the difference in elevation.
While a large retaining wall is not ideal, the location of the driveway off of 65th Street, and along the east
side of the property, is an important aspect of the site plan. It allows the building to be pushed up against
Penn Avenue and 65th Street, which encourages a pedestrian friendly and activated experience and
pushes the building as far away from abutting single family and two-family homes as possible. With the
building as close to the corner of Penn and 65th Street, the only other option for access would be directly
from Penn Avenue into the south side of the site. This is not a viable option given the proximity to the
Dunkin Donuts drive through lane and it only being accessible via one way traffic.
The addition of a fence, which increases the amount of variance being requested, is required due to
Building Code regulations.
Traffic
Traffic was discussed internally, including with the City’s Transportation Engineer, and while the project is
expected to increase traffic marginally in the area, it is significantly lower than the number of trips a
commercial/retail use would generate. Additionally, the site will be adequately parked by meeting the
City’s parking requirements.
The Traffic Control Committee has received a request to examine traffic in the neighborhood and will be
discussing the matter at their next monthly meeting.
D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
The HRA will hold a public hearing on the sale of the property to Penn Station Apartments, LLLP, on June
16, 2025.
The 60-day clock started when a complete application was received on May 14, 2025. Therefore, the 60-
day clock ends on July 13, 2025. A decision is required by this date, or the City must notify the Applicant
that it is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional days or 120 days total) for issuing a
decision.
E.FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Preliminary and final plat fees will be paid prior to building permit issuance.
F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 28, 2025.
Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current and mailed to properties within 350 feet of
the subject site.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
Approve the request with additional and/or modified stipulations.
Deny the request with a finding that the proposal does not meet City requirements.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
Johnny Opara, Applicant Erik Bjorum, POPE Design Group
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Draft Site Plan and Variance Resolution of Approval Resolution Letter
Draft Plat Resolution of Approval Resolution Letter
Required Findings Backup Material
Location and Zoning Map Backup Material
Applicant's Narrative Backup Material
Site Plan Backup Material
Exterior Renderings Backup Material
Elevations Backup Material
East Retaining Wall Section Backup Material
Survey and Plat Backup Material
Floor Plans Backup Material
Landscape Plan Backup Material
Photometric Plan Backup Material
Shadow Study Backup Material
RESOLUTION NO. ______ RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE PLAN
AND VARIANCE FOR PENN STATION AT 6501 & 6525 PENN AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, an application has been filed by JO Companies, with the City of
Richfield which requests approval of a proposed site plan, and a 7.5-foot height
variance for a 13.5-foot tall retaining wall and fence, in order to construct 42 units of affordable apartment homes at 6501 and 6525 Penn Avenue South, property legally described in Exhibit A, attached; and WHEREAS, Zoning Code Section 509.15, Subdivision 4, part d establishes a
maximum retaining wall and fence height of 6 feet; and WHEREAS, Zoning Code Section 509.15, Subdivision 4, part e states that, whenever a fence and wall are used in combination, the combined height shall not
exceed the permitted heights outlined within that same subdivision; and WHEREAS, the proposed site plan provides a combined 13.5-foot-tall retaining wall and fence along the east property line; and
WHEREAS, the property is unique in regard to significant grading differences as
the property slopes north to south; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6, provides for the granting of variances to the literal provisions of the zoning regulations in instances
where enforcement would cause “practical difficulty” to the owners of the property under
consideration; and WHEREAS, the retaining wall and fence height variance meets the requirements of Zoning Code Section 547.11, Subdivision 1, as detailed in the “required findings”
statement; and WHEREAS, the proposed site plan meets the requirements necessary for granting site plan approval as specified in Zoning Code Section 547.13, Subdivision 8, as detailed in City Council Staff Report No.____; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was mailed to properties within 350 feet of the subject property and published in the Sun Current newspaper on May 15, 2025; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield held a public hearing at its May 28, 2025 meeting and recommended approval of the requested site
plan and variance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has fully considered the request for site plan approval and variance;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City Council adopts as its Findings of Fact the WHEREAS clauses set forth above.
2. The City Council further adopts as its Findings of Fact the findings listed in the Required Findings Statement. 3. The requested site plan and variance are hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
a. Separate sign permits are required for signage greater than 6 square feet in size. b. All required parking spaces shall remain available year-round and shall not be
used for snow storage. c. The property owner is responsible for the ongoing maintenance of all exterior improvements, including landscaping, in accordance with approved plans.
d. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required permits, compliance with all requirements detailed in the City’s Administrative Review Committee Report dated May 5, 2025, and compliance with all other City, County and State regulations.
e. The applicant will continue to work with the City and County to resolve identified stormwater items and requirements. Final stormwater management plans must be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall:
f. Provide proof of having recorded a copy of this resolution of approval. g. Enter into a construction and maintenance agreement with the City.
h. Provide revised plans indicating the extension of the 65th Street sidewalk to Oliver Avenue.
i. Provide revised plans indicating a 3-foot sidewalk setback for the east and west retaining walls, as required by Zoning Code Section 509.15, Subdivision 6.
Additionally, no wall may exceed 4 feet in height within the front yard area, as
required by that same section. j. Provide construction level retaining wall and fence details/elevations.
k. Provide a screening plan for the on-site transformer that meets Zoning Code
Section 544.05. l. Provide revised plans that indicate at least two bike racks provided outside, near the main entrance of the building.
m. Provide bike rack details for staff review and approval; bike racks shall be installed according to manufacturer specifications. n. Provide a traffic control plan, for staff review and approval.
o. Provide a final mural design for staff review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall: p. Enter into an escrow agreement for outstanding items and provide a surety
equal to 125% of the value of any improvements not yet complete. q. Provide proof of having recorded the construction and maintenance agreement.
r. The final plat shall be recorded and mylar copies provided to the City. Prior to the release of the surety: s. All exterior improvements shall be installed.
t. All requirements of the escrow agreement shall be met. 4. This approval shall expire one year from issuance unless the use for which the permit was granted has commenced, substantial work has been completed or
upon written request by the applicant, the Council extends the expiration date for an additional period, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 547.13, Subd. 9. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of
June, 2025.
Mary B. Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk
Exhibit A Legal Description
Tract A
The West ½ of the North ¾ of the West ¼ of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter except the North 876.8 Feet thereof, Section 28, Township 28, Range 24,
Village of Richfield, Hennepin County Minnesota.
Being Registered land as evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 1434874 Tract B
Par 1: The West ½ of the South 109.6 feet of the North 767.2 feet of the North ¾ of the West ¼ of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter except the North 30 feet thereof;
Par 2: The West ½ of the South 109.6 feet of the North 876.8 feet of the North ¾” of the West ¼” of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter;
All in Section 28, Township 28, Range 24, in Village of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Being Registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 1478347
RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR PENN STATION WHEREAS, JO Companies, (“Applicant”) has requested approval of a preliminary and final plat that combines parcels generally located at 6501 and 6525 Penn Avenue South, legally described in Exhibit A, attached; and WHEREAS, the proposed plat is to be known as PENN STATION ADDITION; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held for the proposed plat on Wednesday, May 28, 2025, at which all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, as follows: 1. The proposed plat of PENN STATION ADDITION satisfies the requirements of the City’s subdivision ordinances.
2. Approval of the plat of PENN STATION ADDITION is granted subject to the following conditions:
a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must address to the City Attorney’s satisfaction all items listed in the plat opinion letter dated May 16, 2025.
b. The Applicant must address any/all comments by the City Engineering Division and Hennepin County.
c. Compliance with any other applicable requirements of the Richfield City Code.
d. The Applicant must file the final plat within two years of the date of this approval, unless a written request for a time extension is approved by the City Council, or the plat will expire. Evidence of proper filing must be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of any final occupancy permits.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of June 2025. Mary B. Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk
Exhibit A Legal Description
Tract A The West ½ of the North ¾ of the West ¼ of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter except the North 876.8 Feet thereof, Section 28, Township 28, Range 24, Village of Richfield, Hennepin County Minnesota. Being Registered land as evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 1434874
Tract B
Par 1: The West ½ of the South 109.6 feet of the North 767.2 feet of the North ¾ of the
West ¼ of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter except the North 30 feet
thereof;
Par 2: The West ½ of the South 109.6 feet of the North 876.8 feet of the North ¾” of
the West ¼” of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter;
All in Section 28, Township 28, Range 24, in Village of Richfield, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
Being Registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 1478347
Required Findings Penn Station / 6501 & 6525 Penn Avenue South Part 1: Development proposals in the Mixed Use Districts shall be reviewed for compliance with the following (537.01, Subd.3): a) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the City’s development guides,
including the Comprehensive Plan and any redevelopment plans established for the area.
As outlined in the policies section of the staff report, the proposed development complies with all zoning requirements, save the retaining wall and fence height variance being requested.
The proposal also supports the purpose and intent of the Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay District, which is to provide for a balanced mix of commercial, office and residential uses that create a cohesive and pedestrian-friendly area.
The project advances the following objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan: i. Includes site design and architectural characteristics that provide appropriate transitions between lower and higher intensity uses. ii. Focuses commercial and higher density residential development along major thoroughfares. iii. Strongly encourages pedestrian-friendly and transit friendly building and
site design through measures such as higher density development and growth, which is located along major transportation routes. iv. Encourages the creation of “move-up” housing through new construction. v. Uses quality, durable building and landscaping materials to maintain a high-quality standard. vi. Provides quality amenities and a safe living environment. vii. Encourages improvements to the housing stock to better serve families with children. viii. Supplies part of the City’s allocation of the region’s need for affordable housing. ix. Furthers the development of a balanced housing stock that is available to
a range of income levels. b) Consistency with the regulations of the Mixed Use Districts as described by Section 537
of the Code.
As noted above, the proposed development is consistent with the Mixed Use
District regulations. c) Creation of a design for structures and site features which promotes the following:
i. An internal sense of order among the buildings and uses.
The location of the building and parking lot, as well as building entrances, provide orderly and safe accessibility that will adequately serve residents. The project is designed to accommodate those arriving by all transportation modes; bike racks will be added outside, near the front entrance of the building. The 65th Street
sidewalk will be extended to Oliver Avenue to increase pedestrian and bike connections. Further, the front of the building is activated by large windows and street level active uses and amenities, such as a lounge, family playroom, and
fitness center. ii. The adequacy of vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public
streets, width or interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of
parking.
See c.i, above
iii. Energy conservation through the design of structures and the use of landscape
materials and site grading.
The proposal adds new landscaping along Penn Avenue and 65th Street, which will be particularly beneficial for pedestrians. The design and placement of windows allows natural light into the building.
iv. The minimization of adverse environmental effects on persons using the
development and adjacent properties.
No adverse environmental effects are anticipated. Part 2 - Site Plan Approval (Subsection 547.13) In evaluating a site plan, the Planning
Commission and Council shall consider its compliance with the following:
a) Consistency with the various elements and objectives of the City’s long range plans
including, but not limited to, the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed use is consistent with long-range plans and the Comprehensive Plan. See
item a in Part 1, above.
b) Consistency with the purposes of the Zoning Code.
Except for the variance requested, the proposed use is consistent with the Zoning Code and is allowed in the MU-C zoning district.
c) Preservation of the site in its natural state, insofar as practicable, by minimizing tree and soil removal, and designing any grade changes so as to be in keeping with the general
appearance of neighboring developed or developing areas.
The land was originally developed in the 1940’s and most natural features were lost at
that time. There are no existing trees to preserve. The proposed grading changes, particularly regarding the driveway, are necessary in order to allow maneuvering of vehicles into and out of the parking lot. A retaining wall will be added to the east side of the site to provide screening for abutting neighbors and to retain the site. Previous development of the site also appears to have been difficult due to the sloping of the site from north to south; the proposed grading changes would likely be necessary for any type of new development.
d) Creation of a harmonious relationship of buildings and open spaces with the terrain and with
existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the proposed development.
The proposed site layout is harmonious with nearby existing and future buildings, by
placing the building as far north and west on the site as possible, and by placing the parking lot on the south side of the property. This allows vehicular access to be as far from the intersection as possible and the building to be as far from the low density residential as possible. Additionally, by placing the building as close to the intersection of Penn Avenue and 65th Street, the site layout stimulates pedestrian-friendly design and continues the activated street-front on this block that began with redevelopment of the southern parcel (Dunkin Donuts).
e) Creation of a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features including:
i. Creation of an internal sense of order for the various functions and buildings on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the
general community;
The site layout is logical and provides a desirable environment in the context of
the area.
ii. Appropriateness of the amount and arrangement of open space and landscaping to the design and function of the development;
At under an acre in size, there is good design and function of open space. The site layout includes the required 15’ parking lot setback from single-family and
two-family residential, with a row of shrubs and a retaining wall for screening. Plantings along the street sides of the site consider access to sunlight and include perennials. Along the west side of the parking lot, a short retaining wall and decorative fence will provide screening along the Penn Avenue public sidewalk. iii. Appropriateness of the materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an
expression of the design concept of the project and the compatibility of the same
with the adjacent and neighboring structures and functions;
The building utilizes a mix of high-quality exterior materials, such as brick and fiber cement, and applies a generally equal façade treatment to all four sides. A large vertical break in the building along the west elevation provides articulation
and relief on Penn Avenue. Details of construction are compatible to the area.
iv. Adequacy of vehicular, cycling and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking, in terms of location and number of access points to the
public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian, cycling and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking so as to be safe, convenient and, insofar as practicable, compatible with
the design of proposed buildings, structures and neighboring properties.
The site will provide excess bicycle parking, including racks in the underground garage and the bicycle storage room. Bike racks will be added to the outside of the building, near the entrance. The bicycle storage room is located at the ground level along 65th Street and allows access into and out of the building. Underground and at grade parking levels provide adequate parking; required ADA stalls are located at the underground level to ensure the safety of residents in need of them. The proposal includes an extended 65th Street sidewalk (to Oliver Avenue) and pedestrian connections to the main entrance. The arrangement of parking is safe, convenient and compatible with
surrounding properties.
f) Creation of an energy-conserving design through design location, orientation and elevation
of structures, the use and location of glass in structures, and the use of landscape materials
and site grading.
The site will follow the requirements set forth by SB2030 80% compliance, ENERGYSTAR, and several other sustainability guidelines. The landscape plan is well designed and considers the surrounding context to allow the comfortable growth of trees
and shrubs.
g) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provisions for such
matters as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and
air, and those aspects of design, not adequately covered by other regulations, which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
The building does not unreasonably block light or air to adjacent residences. Neighboring properties to the east would be protected by a retaining wall and robust landscaping. Perimeter plantings along the south property line screen the parking lot from abutting commercial uses.
Part 3 - Variance (Subsection 547.11)
The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 509.15, Subd. 4, part d to construct a retaining wall and fence combination that exceeds the 6-foot maximum by 7.5 feet (total combined height of 13.5 feet). In evaluating a variance, the Planning Commission and City Council shall consider the following: a) There are unusual or unique circumstances that apply to the property which were not
created by the applicant and do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity.
The topography of the site is a unique circumstance that does not generally apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity. b) There are “practical difficulties” that prevent the property owner from using the property in a reasonable manner.
Although the site is bounded by two streets, access off of Penn Avenue is not a viable option, and is not supported by the County due to potential conflicts with Dunkin Donuts drive through traffic and limited one-way access. With the building as close to the intersection as possible (in order to comply with the intent of the PAC Overlay District, and goals of the Comprehensive Plan), the proposed driveway location is the only other realistic access point into and out of the site. In order for vehicles to safely maneuver into and out of the parking lot, the driveway must be elevated in grade which necessitates the additional height of the retaining wall. The limited options for access into the site, as well as difficulties in the drop in elevation from north to south, constitute a practical difficulty preventing the applicant from
constructing a retaining wall/fence combination that complies with Zoning Code height requirements.
c) The variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood or the locality.
Currently, there is an existing fence along the east property line that is very old and
frequently falls into disrepair. The applicant is proposing to remove this fence and replace it with the proposed retaining wall and fence, which will be more architecturally compatible with the building and will provide enhanced screening for
abutting parcels to the east. The location directly west of the abutting parcels (as opposed to north) is unlikely to block access to sunlight. Negative impacts related to the granting of this variance are not anticipated.
d) The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty.
The proposed variance is the minimum necessary to locate the driveway as indicated and to structurally retain the east side of the site. The retaining wall will exceed 6 feet for approximately 170 feet in length (around 63% of the total length of the wall). The
additional height being requested, for the addition of a 3.5-foot fence, is due to building code requirements.
e) The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
In relation to the zoning ordinance, the purpose of retaining wall and fence height limits are to ensure that fences and walls are constructed at a reasonable height, and
do not negatively impact pedestrian experiences and visibility angles. The location of the proposed retaining wall and fence is along the rear yard of abutting parcels, as opposed to a major pedestrian thoroughfare, and provides ample screening for low
density uses. The proposed variance is the minimum necessary in order to retain the east side of the site. The requested variance is not anticipated to adversely impact the aesthetics of the community or its health, safety and welfare, the preservation of which are the principal objectives of the zoning code.
In relation to the Comprehensive Plan, retaining walls and fences are not specifically mentioned. The variance, in general, helps to further the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as discussed in Part 1, item a, above.
66TH ST WQUEENAVES PENN AVE S65TH ST W
OLIVER AVE S65 1/2 ST W
QUEEN AVE S±
Location and Zoning Map
0 160 32080ft
I:\GIS\Community Development\Case Maps\2025\Penn Station SPA - 6501 & 6525 Penn Ave.mxd
6501 & 6525 Penn Avenue South
Case #:Z25-3
SUBJECTSITE
MU-C Mixed Use-Community
Legend
R Low Density Residential
PMR Planned Multi-Family
MR-2 Multi-Family
MR-3 High-Density Multi-Family
C-1 Community Commercial
C-2 General Commercial
PMU Planned Mixed UselDunkin Donuts
Subway
CVS
Penn Avenue Corridor (PAC)Overlay District
767 N. Eustis St., Ste 190
St. Paul, Minnesota 55114
651.642.9200
popedesign.com
April 11, 2025
Re: 6501 Penn Ave – Project Description
The project we are proposing at 6501 Penn Ave, in Richfield, MN is a multi – family residential project comprised of 42 1-
bedroom, 2-bedroom, 3-bedroom, and 4-bedroom living units. The project also includes an enclosed parking garage and
exterior parking lot for a total of 46 vehicles parking stalls. The building amenities include a secure, interior bicycle parking
room, business/homework center, fitness center, lounge, and an indoor family playroom. This is an MFHA funded project
and is geared towards low-income families looking for safe and affordable housing. As such, the building amenities are
geared towards family uses. There are offices for onsite building management staff and supportive housing staff.
The one-story parking structure will be precast concrete and type IA construction. The upper 5-stories will be wood
construction of type IIIB. Exterior finishes include Masonry, metal panel, and fiber cement panels. We will also be using
storefront glazing along the main level of the building for a more transparent and engaging building along the streetscape.
SSHHVLTEEEEEEEEEE
FFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFF
GGGGGGGGGG
GOHEEEEEEEEEEFFFFOH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH
OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH
G G G G G G G G G G G G GPENN AVENUE S65TH STREET W(C.R. NO. 32)SCXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX12SCALE IN FEET0H:20 4041352>>>>KEYNOTESB-612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER. REFER TO DETAIL 1/C-501.B-624 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER. REFER TO DETAIL 2/C-501.ASPHALT PAVEMENT. MATCH IN-PLACE BITUMINOUS SECTION.ASPHALT PAVEMENT. REFER TO DETAIL 3/C-501.CURB TAPER. REFER TO DETAIL 4/C-501.CONCRETE SIDEWALK. REFER TO DETAIL 5/C-501PARKING STRIPING.CONCRETE DRIVE APPROACH. REFER TO DETAIL 6/C-501CONCRETE PAVEMENT. REFER TO DETAIL 5/C-501RETAINING WALLCONCRETE STEPS, (4) 6-INCH RISERS.ALUMINUM FENCE1234567891011121. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL AND/OR STRUCTURAL PLANS FOR ACTUAL BUILDING DIMENSIONS,STOOP AND RAMP DETAILS.2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT ALL PAVEMENTS TO CONFORM WITH THE CORRECT LINESAND FINISHED GRADES AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS AND TO MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT GRADESAT TIE-IN POINTS. NO PONDING OF WATER WILL BE ALLOWED.3. SAW ALL CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION JOINTS, CLEAN THEM OF DEBRIS, BLOW THEM DRY ANDIMMEDIATELY SEAL WITH JOINT SEALANT.4. REINFORCE ODD SHAPED PAVING PANELS WITH #3 BARS AT 24" EACH WAY. AN ODD SHAPEDPANEL IS CONSIDERED TO BE ONE IN WHICH THE SLAB TAPERS TO A SHARP ANGLE WHEN THELENGTH TO WIDTH RATIO EXCEEDS 3 TO 1 OR WHEN A SLAB IS NEITHER SQUARE NORRECTANGULAR.5. PARKING QUANTITIES:9'X19' STANDARD STALLS - 14ADA PARKING STALLS - 0TOTAL PARKING STALLS -14SITE PLAN NOTES
D E S I G N
G R O U P
Autodesk Docs://45359-24130 JO Properties Penn
Station/45329-24130_6501 Penn Ave_R23.rvt
JO Companies - Penn Station Apartments | NORTHWEST CORNER RENDERING
Richfield, MN | 05/14/25 | 45359-24130
D E S I G N
G R O U P
Autodesk Docs://45359-24130 JO Properties Penn
Station/45329-24130_6501 Penn Ave_R23.rvt
JO Companies - Penn Station Apartments | SOUTHWEST CORNER RENDERING
Richfield, MN | 05/14/25 | 45359-24130
FIRST LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
111'-8 1/8"
THIRD LEVEL
122'-4"
ROOF LEVEL
154'-0 5/8"
FOURTH LEVEL
132'-11 7/8"
FIFTH LEVEL
143'-7 3/4"56'-6 5/8"FIBER CEMENT SIDING
BRICK
METAL PANEL METAL BLADE BUILDING
SIGNAGE
PREFINISHED STOREFRONT
SYSTEM AT LEVEL 1
FIRST LEVEL100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
111'-8 1/8"
THIRD LEVEL122'-4"
ROOF LEVEL
154'-0 5/8"
FOURTH LEVEL
132'-11 7/8"
FIFTH LEVEL
143'-7 3/4"
LOWER LEVEL
88'-1"56'-6 5/8"FIBER CEMENT SIDING
BRICK
METAL PANEL
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM BALCONY
FIBER CEMENT PANEL
PREFINISHED STOREFRONT
SYSTEM AT LEVEL 1
METAL PANEL
D E S I G N
G R O U P
Autodesk Docs://45359-24130 JO Properties Penn
Station/45329-24130_6501 Penn Ave_R23.rvt
JO Companies - Penn Station Apartments | OVERALL ELEVATIONS
Richfield, MN | 05/14/25 | 45359-24130
1/8" = 1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"
WEST ELEVATION
MATERIAL CALCULATION SCHEDULE
MATERIAL AREA (SF) PERCENTAGE (%)
WEST
BRICK 3484.52 25.59%
FIBER CEMENT 1789.29 13.14%
GLAZING 3075.62 22.59%
METAL PANEL 5266.07 38.68%
13615.5 100.00%
MATERIAL CALCULATION SCHEDULE
MATERIAL AREA (SF) PERCENTAGE (%)
NORTH
BRICK 426.79 11.78%
FIBER CEMENT 705.11 19.46%
GLAZING 686.83 18.96%
METAL PANEL 1804.31 49.80%
3623.04 100.00%
FIRST LEVEL100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL111'-8 1/8"
THIRD LEVEL122'-4"
ROOF LEVEL
154'-0 5/8"
FOURTH LEVEL
132'-11 7/8"
FIFTH LEVEL
143'-7 3/4"
LOWER LEVEL
88'-1"59'-5 5/8"FIBER CEMENT PANEL
BRICK FIBER CEMENT PANEL
BRICK
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
BALCONY
11'-11"71'-4 5/8"FIRST LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
111'-8 1/8"
THIRD LEVEL
122'-4"
ROOF LEVEL154'-0 5/8"
FOURTH LEVEL
132'-11 7/8"
FIFTH LEVEL
143'-7 3/4"
LOWER LEVEL
88'-1"56'-6 5/8"FIBER CEMENT SIDINGBRICKMETAL PANEL
11'-11"68'-5 5/8"D E S I G N
G R O U P
Autodesk Docs://45359-24130 JO Properties Penn
Station/45329-24130_6501 Penn Ave_R23.rvt
JO Companies - Penn Station Apartments | OVERALL ELEVATIONS
Richfield, MN | 05/14/25 | 45359-24130
1/8" = 1'-0"
EAST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"
SOUTH ELEVATION
MATERIAL CALCULATION SCHEDULE
MATERIAL AREA (SF) PERCENTAGE (%)
EAST
BRICK 2038.97 16.13%
FIBER CEMENT 7950.58 62.88%
GLAZING 2654 20.99%
12643.55 100.00%
MATERIAL CALCULATION SCHEDULE
MATERIAL AREA (SF) PERCENTAGE (%)
SOUTH
BRICK 2630.61 62.45%
FIBER CEMENT 975.46 23.16%
GLAZING 606 14.39%
4212.07 100.00%
865
870875
866867868869871872873874876877
861862863864 86186
2
863
865
870
8
6
2
864
866867868869
871872 873874875876S
S
HH
VLT
EEEEEEEEEEFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFGGGGGGGGGGGOHE
E
E E E
E
E
E E E
FFF
F OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHGGGGGGGGGGGGGPENN AVENUE S65TH STREET W
(C.R. NO. 32)S
C
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX865
870
875
864
866
867
868
869
871
872
873
874
876
876
65.08
65.27
TW 68.23
TW 65.92
TW 67.05
63.52
75.2675.91
BW 61.96TW 61.94
TW 66.32BW 63.00
BW 63.98
BW 76.03
TW 76.01
76.3276.84
71.27
70.82
65.68 65.20
63.50 63.08
65.00
TW 70.27
8618628638
7
0
8
7
5
867
868
869871872873874876
64.84
64.57 0.60%1.75%4.65%4.77%4.73%3.04%0.51%0.51%
63.93
BW 64.78
66.88
77.0077.001.90%1.52%1.48%5.64%BW 63.94
BW 65.62
BW 67.09
TW 73.87
PROPOSED MULTI-STORYAPARTMENT BUILDINGONE LEVEL OF INTERNALPARKING
FFE = 877LFE = 865
65.15
63.10 EOF ROUTE877 860
865
870
875
880
885
860
865
870
875
880
885
ALGN-(4)
860
865
870
875
860
865
870
875
C:\ACC\ACCDocs\WSB\028200-000\Project Files\05_Discipline\Site\Exhibits\028200-000-CP-Retaining Wall Sections.dwg 5/15/2025 10:59:42 AMAS SHOWN XXX
XXXXXX
N
SCALE IN FEET
0
H:
20 40
RETAININGWALLSECTION
SCALE:
PLAN BY:
DESIGN BY:
CHECK BY:
SHEET
WSB PROJECT NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.LIC. NO:DATE:REVISIONSNO.DATEDESCRIPTIONLIC. NO:DATE:PENN STATION APARTMENTS028200-000 Vicki Van Dell05/13/2025104/07/2025CITY SUBMITTAL205/13/2025REVISED CITY SUBMITTAL41352A A
BB
SECTION A-A
SECTION B-B
PROPOSED RETAINING
WALL BIG BLOCK
ALUMINUM FENCE
PROPOSED RETAINING
WALL BIG BLOCK
ALUMINUM FENCE
PROPOSED BUILDING
PROPOSED
DRIVEWAY
PROPOSED
DRIVEWAY
PROPOSED BUILDING
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
S
RIM:875.61 9" S865.36INV:INV:INV:INV:INV:INV:
S
RIM:864.96 9" N853.06INV:9" S852.96INV:INV:INV:INV:INV:
HH
COCOVLT
ST
RIM:862.39 N 8PVC857.79INV:INV:INV:INV:INV:INV:
15"
12"
11"
13"12"12"
28"
7"6"
10"
8"
36"
RD
RD
RD
RD
RD
6"4"6"EEEEEEEEEEFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFGGGGGGGGGGGOHE
E
E E E
E
E
E E E
FFF
F
OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHMETAL POSTBROKEN OFF AT
GROUND LEVEL
8" CAPPEDHORIZONTAL
PVC PIPE
8" OPENPVC PIPEINV=857.8
VERTICAL METALSTRUCTURES.POSSIBLE TANKACCESS
56" VERTICAL CMP
8" CAPPED PVC
TOP OF PVC=860.9
SATELLITE
DISH
3.34.0 37.54.03.38.5 3.98.326.220.4
30.147.3 18.021.1
18.21.1
34.41.9
1.020.1
10.422.2
10.115.210.230.6GGGGGGGGGG
GGTRACT B
(PARCEL 1)
TRACT B
(PARCEL 2)
TRACT A
LANDSCAPE &CONCRETE
24" ARCH RCP
18" SAN 18" SAN
9" SAN9" SANSAN SERV.
(PLAN)
SAN SERV.(PLAN)
SAN SERV.(PLAN)
SAN
SERV.(PLAN)
BM1
BM2 16" CIP (PLAN)16" CIP (PLAN)GAS (PLAN)GAS (PLAN)16" CIP (PLAN)
ABANDONDEDGAS PER GOPHER
LOCATE
ABANDONDEDGAS PER GOPHERLOCATE
DRYSTRUCTURENO FLOW
18" CMP
INV=858.8
FFE=868.7
FFE=868.8
BUILDINGHEIGHT=886.8 BUILDING
HEIGHT=886.2 FFE=860.8BUILDINGHEIGHT=875.5
FFE=860.8
FFE=860.7FFE=866.0FFE=870.0OVERHANGOVERHANGDECKLOWEST
OPENING=862.7
LOWESTOPENING=860.4COLUMNCONCRETE CURBCONCRETE CURBCONCRETE CURBCONCRETE CURBCONCRETE CURB
ACCESS
ACCESS
S89°30'08"E 164.31
S00°13'51"E 298.65N89°30'50"W 164.27N00°14'18"W 298.68CONCRETE CURB CURB STOPSN01°28'23"W 109.51N02°08'23"W 174.38N44°08'18"E20.7348.00 116.31
41.65 122.62
HIGHWAYEASEMENT 875876
865
870875
866
867868
869871872873874876 860865870875859861862863864866867868869871872873874876860
865
870
875
859
861
862
863
864
866
867
868
869
871
872
873
874
865870863864866867868869871872873874865862863864866867868869865
8
6
3
86
4
866
867
868
8618628638648628638648678688758
7
1872873874876 877875873874876877878877 877
861862860859862863863
863
862861862861
860861862
863864
866
867
868
869
870
870 86386386
4865869874
PENN AVENUE S65TH STREET W
(C.R. NO. 32)HIGHWAYEASEMENTN00°14'18"W 30.00N00°14'18"W657.65N00°14'18"W1315.12NW COR. SEC. 28-28-24FOUND MAGNETIC NAIL
NW COR. SW 14 NW 14
NW COR.
SW 14 SW 14 NW 14 N. LINE SW 14SW 14 NW 14
30PUBLIC STREET
(TRACT B-PARCEL 1 EXCEPTION)
SW COR. NW 14 SEC. 28-28-24FOUND CAST IRON MONUMENTS00°14'18"E 328.78NE COR.
LOT 1, BLOCK 1, NORA CORNER
FOUND 58" REBAR
N. LINELOT 1, BLOCK 1
NORA CORNER
S. LINE N 34SW 14 NW 14
S. LINE N. 876.8' N 34SW 14 NW 14 876.8N. LINE
SW 14 NW 14
N. LINE
NW 14
E. LINEW 12 W 14 SW 14 NW 14W. LINE
NW 14
S. LINE NW 14
FOUND 12" PIPE0.56' E & 0.43' SOF PROP. COR.
W. EDGERET. WALL ONPROP. LINE
W. EDGE
RET. WALL 0.3' W.OF PROP. LINE
FENCE 0.3' E.
OF PROP. LINE
FENCE 0.6' W.OF PROP. LINE
FENCE END ONPROP. LINE
FENCE COR.1.8' W. OFPROP. LINE
FOUND 12" PIPE1.7' E. OFPROP. LINE
BUILDINGBUILDINGS. LINE N. 767.2'
N 34 SW 14 NW 14 767.2FOUND 38"REBAR
NW COR. LOT 1
FOUND 58" REBAR 109.6109.6RET. WALL & FENCES. OF PROP. LINE
S. LINE N. 30'S.109.6' N. 767.2'
N 34 SW 14 NW 14
20.8
18.4
2.114.4
14.8
RET. WALL COR.0.7' S. OF PROP. LINE
RET. WALL COR.0.4' S. OF PROP. LINEPUBLIC STREET(VARIABLE WIDTH R/W)S
RIM:876.41 W853.76INV:E853.76INV:INV:INV:INV:INV:
ST
RIM:876.75 E 24" ARCH RCP855.45INV:W 24" ARCH RCP855.45INV:NW 24" RCP871.35INV:INV:INV:INV:24" ARCH RCP
SET MAGNETICNAIL
SET MAGNETICNAIL
NW COR.
NORA CORNERFOUND IRON PIPERLS 44900 SET MAGNETICNAILSurveyed By:
Drawn By:
Checked By:
Scale:
Date:
JJR
JJR
1" = 50'
02/06/2025
JS
027863 V-ALTACAD No.
JO COMPANIES
Job No. 027863
Client:
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
TOP OF HYDRANT NUTS WEST SIDE
PENN AVENUE S (SEE SURVEY)
BM1: ELEVATION = 879.60
BM 2: ELEVATION = 868.65
BENCHMARKS
N
SCALE IN FEET
0 20' 40'
ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY
PART OF SW 14 NW 14SEC. 28-28-24
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2 EXCEPTIONS
GENERAL NOTES
To JO Companies, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company; and Guaranty Commercial Title, Inc.:
This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the 2021 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land
Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6(a), 6(b), 7(a), 7(b)(1), 7(c), 8, 9, 10, 11(a), 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19 ofTable A thereof. The field work was completed on February 5, 2025.
Dated this _____ day of _____________, 2025.
______________________________________Jeffrey J. Rolfson, PS, Minnesota License No. 49003
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION
Items 1-8 are not survey related, and therefore, are not shown on this survey.
Highway easement(s) over part of the Land in favor of County of Hennepin, as created in Corrected Final Certificate dated June 19, 1992, filed June 23, 1992
as Document No. T2281638. (Tract A and B)
(Surveyor's Note: The described location of said easement appears to fall within the subject properties boundary and is shown.)
(GN1) Location, sizes and types of underground utilities shown are a combination of observed evidence and plan information, together with field markings by those utility
locators that responded to Gopher State One Call Ticket No. 250210294 & 250210295. However, lacking excavation, the exact location of underground features cannotbe accurately, completely, and reliably depicted. WSB LLC makes no guarantee that the utilities shown comprise all of the utilities in the area. Where additional or moredetailed information is required, the client is advised that excavation and/or a private utility locate request may be necessary.
(GN2) Easements shown are as identified in Guaranty Commercial Title, Inc. File No. 68397 with a commitment date of December 22, 2024. No other search of the public
records for easements or encumbrances was made by the undersigned.
Tract A
The West 1/2 of the North 3/4 of the West 1/4 of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter except the North 876.8 feet thereof, Section 28, Township 28, Range24, Village of Richfield, Hennepin County Minnesota.
Being Registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 1434874.
Tract B
Par 1: The West 1/2 of the South 109.6 feet of the North 767.2 feet of the North 3/4 of the West 1/4 of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter except the
North 30 feet thereof;
Par 2: The West 1/2 of the South 109.6 feet of the North 876.8 feet of the North 3/4 of the West 1/4 of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter;
All in Section 28, Township 28, Range 24, in the Village of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Being Registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 1478347.
(Per Guaranty Commercial Title, Inc. File No. 68397with a commitment date of December 22, 2024.)
Table A Items 1, 5, 7(a), 7(b)(1), 7(c), 8, 11(a), 13, 14, are as shown on survey.
2. Property address: 6501 and 6525 Penn Ave S., Richfield, MN 55423
3. Said described property is located within "Zone X", as determined by the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 27053C0368F with an effective date of November 4,2016. Zone "X" areas are determined to be outside 500 year floodplain.
4. The total area of the property described above is 49,063 square feet (1.13 acres), as surveyed. The area of the property described above lying outside of the
highway easement is 37,682 square feet (0.87 acres), as surveyed.
6. (a)(b) No zoning or setback information was supplied by the client, and therefore none are shown.
9. The total number of visible striped parking spaces as presently marked on the subject property is 0 regular spaces and 0 handicap spaces.
10. No division or party walls were specified by the client, and therefore none are shown.
16. No visible evidence of current earth moving work, building construction or building additions observed within the subject property boundaries.
17. No known changes in street right of way lines. No observed evidence of recent street or sidewalk construction or repairs.
18. There does not appear to be any offsite easements according to the Record Documents provided to the surveyor.
TABLE A ITEMS
LEGEND
3701 40th Avenue NW
Rochester, MN 55901
507-218-3745www.wsbeng.com
F
G
OH
E
UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
UNDERGROUND GAS
OVERHEAD POWER
UNDERGROUND POWER
SANITARY LINE
STORM LINE
WATERMAIN LINE
FENCE
S SANITARY MANHOLE
STORM MANHOLE
ROOF DRAIN
CLEAN OUT
GATE VALVE
ST
LIGHT POLE
SIGN
HAND HOLE
VAULT
GAS METER
CONCRETE
BITUMINOUS
DATUM
UTILITY POLE
CO
HYDRANT
GUY WIRE
BOLLARD / POST
TREE
RD
HH
VLT
HORIZONTAL: HENNEPIN COUNTY NAD83/86 ADJ.
VERTICAL: 2011/MN18
FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT (SEE SURVEY)
ARE SET 5/8" I.D. CAPPED REBARWITH LICENSE NO. 49003 UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED
S
RIM:875.61 9" S865.36INV:INV:INV:INV:INV:INV:
S
RIM:864.96 9" N853.06INV:9" S852.96INV:INV:INV:INV:INV:
HH
COCOVLT
ST
RIM:862.39 N 8PVC857.79INV:INV:INV:INV:INV:INV:
15"
12"
11"
13"12"12"
28"
7"6"
10"
8"
36"
RD
RD
RD
RD
RD
6"4"6"EEEEEEEEEEFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFGGGGGGGGGGGOHE
E
E E E
E
E
E E E
FFF
F
OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHMETAL POSTBROKEN OFF AT
GROUND LEVEL
8" CAPPEDHORIZONTAL
PVC PIPE
8" OPENPVC PIPEINV=857.8
56" VERTICAL CMP
8" CAPPED PVC
TOP OF PVC=860.9GGGGG
GGGGGGGTRACT B
(PARCEL 1)
TRACT B
(PARCEL 2)
TRACT A
24" ARCH RCP
18" SAN 18" SAN
9" SAN9" SANSAN SERV.
(PLAN)
SAN SERV.(PLAN)
SAN SERV.(PLAN)
SAN
SERV.(PLAN)
BM1
BM2 16" CIP (PLAN)16" CIP (PLAN)GAS (PLAN)GAS (PLAN)16" CIP (PLAN)
ABANDONDEDGAS PER GOPHERLOCATE
ABANDONDEDGAS PER GOPHER
LOCATE
DRYSTRUCTURENO FLOW
18" CMP
INV=858.8
LOWEST
OPENING=862.7
LOWESTOPENING=860.4CONCRETE CURBCONCRETE CURBCONCRETE CURBCONCRETE CURBCONCRETE CURB
ACCESS
ACCESS
S89°30'08"E 164.31
S00°13'51"E 298.65N89°30'50"W 164.27N00°14'18"W 298.68CONCRETE CURB CURB STOPSN01°28'23"W 109.51N02°08'23"W 174.3820.73N44°08'18"E48.00 116.31
HIGHWAYEASEMENT
PER DOC. NO.T2281638 875876
865
870875
866
867868
869871872873874876 860865870875859861862863864866867868869871872873874876860
865
870
875
859
861
862
863
864
866
867
868
869
871
872
873
874
865870863864866867868869871872873874865862863864866867868869865
8
6
3
86
4
866
867
868
861862863864862863864867868875871872873874876877875873874876877878877 877
861862860859862863863
863
862861862861
860861862
863864
866
867
868
869
870
870 86386386
4865869874
PENN AVENUE S65TH STREET W
(C.R. NO. 32)N00°14'18"W 30.00N00°14'18"W657.65N00°14'18"W1315.12NW COR. SEC. 28-28-24FOUND MAGNETIC NAIL
NW COR. SW 14 NW 14
NW COR.
SW 14 SW 14 NW 14 N. LINE SW 14SW 14 NW 14
30PUBLIC STREET
(TRACT B-PARCEL 1 EXCEPTION)
SW COR. NW 14 SEC. 28-28-24FOUND CAST IRON MONUMENTS00°14'18"E 328.78NE COR.
LOT 1, BLOCK 1, NORA CORNER
FOUND 58" REBAR
N. LINELOT 1, BLOCK 1
NORA CORNER
S. LINE N 34SW 14 NW 14
S. LINE N. 876.8' N 34SW 14 NW 14 876.8N. LINE
SW 14 NW 14
N. LINE
NW 14
E. LINEW 12 W 14 SW 14 NW 14W. LINE
NW 14
S. LINE NW 14
FOUND 12" PIPE0.56' E & 0.43' SOF PROP. COR.
W. EDGERET. WALL ONPROP. LINE
W. EDGE
RET. WALL 0.3' W.OF PROP. LINE
FENCE 0.3' E.
OF PROP. LINE
FENCE 0.6' W.OF PROP. LINE
FENCE END ONPROP. LINE
FENCE COR.1.8' W. OFPROP. LINE
FOUND 12" PIPE1.7' E. OFPROP. LINE
BUILDINGBUILDINGS. LINE N. 767.2'
N 34 SW 14 NW 14 767.2FOUND 38"REBAR
NW COR. LOT 1
FOUND 58" REBAR 109.6109.6RET. WALL & FENCES. OF PROP. LINE
S. LINE N. 30'S.109.6' N. 767.2'
N 34 SW 14 NW 14
RET. WALL COR.0.4' S. OF PROP. LINEPUBLIC STREET(VARIABLE WIDTH R/W)S
RIM:876.41 W853.76INV:E853.76INV:INV:INV:INV:INV:
ST
RIM:876.75 E 24" ARCH RCP855.45INV:W 24" ARCH RCP855.45INV:NW 24" RCP871.35INV:INV:INV:INV:24" ARCH RCP
SET MAGNETICNAIL
NW COR.
NORA CORNERFOUND IRON PIPERLS 44900 FOUND MAGNETICNAILC
8" PVCOWNER:SAMARA 6529 PENN AVE S LLC
OWNER:DEAN M AKINS
OWNER:ATKINS 6520-26-32OLIVER LLC
OWNER:STEVEN J & CARRIE SPETERSEN
OWNER:M KOVAC & J KOVAC
OWNER:CLAIRE MARIEST AUBIN
OWNER:CITY OFRICHFIELD
BLOCK 1
LOT 1
HIGHWAY
EASEMENTPER DOC. NO.T2281638 9.39N44°08'18"EN01°55'02"W 292.11EXISTINGBUILDING
49.99 114.28
S
PROPOSED BUILDINGPROPOSED BUILDINGPROPOSED BUILDING
PROPOSED BUILDINGPROPOSEDSANITARYPROPOSED WATERMAIN
5' SETBACK 5' SETBACK15' SETBACK15' SETBACK3' SETBACK3' SETBACK3' SETBACKPROPOSED STORM SEWER 5' SETBACKSurveyed By:
Drawn By:
Checked By:
Scale:
Date:
JJR
JJR
1" = 50'
04/10/2025
JS
028200 V-PPCAD No.
POPE ARCHITECTS
Job No. 028200
Client:
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
TOP OF HYDRANT NUTS WEST SIDE
PENN AVENUE S (SEE SURVEY)
BM1: ELEVATION = 879.60
BM 2: ELEVATION = 868.65
BENCHMARKS
N
SCALE IN FEET
0 20' 40'
PRELIMINARY PLAT
PART OF SW 14 NW 14SEC. 28-28-24
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
GENERAL NOTES
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION
(GN1)Location, sizes and types of underground utilities shown are a combination of observed evidence and plan information, together with field markings by those
utility locators that responded to Gopher State One Call Ticket No. 250210294 & 250210295. However, lacking excavation, the exact location of underground
features cannot be accurately, completely, and reliably depicted. WSB LLC makes no guarantee that the utilities shown comprise all of the utilities in the area.Where additional or more detailed information is required, the client is advised that excavation and/or a private utility locate request may be necessary.
(GN2) Easements shown are as identified in Guaranty Commercial Title, Inc. File No. 68397 with a commitment date of December 22, 2024. No other search of thepublic records for easements or encumbrances was made by the undersigned.
(GN3) Property address: 6501 and 6525 Penn Ave S., Richfield, MN 55423
Tract A
The West 1/2 of the North 3/4 of the West 1/4 of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter except the North 876.8 feet thereof, Section 28, Township 28, Range24, Village of Richfield, Hennepin County Minnesota.
Being Registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 1434874.
Tract B
Par 1: The West 1/2 of the South 109.6 feet of the North 767.2 feet of the North 3/4 of the West 1/4 of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter except the
North 30 feet thereof;
Par 2: The West 1/2 of the South 109.6 feet of the North 876.8 feet of the North 3/4 of the West 1/4 of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter;
All in Section 28, Township 28, Range 24, in the Village of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Being Registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 1478347.
(Per Guaranty Commercial Title, Inc. File No. 68397with a commitment date of December 22, 2024.)
LEGEND
3701 40th Avenue NW
Rochester, MN 55901
507-218-3745www.wsbeng.com
F
G
OH
E
UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
UNDERGROUND GAS
OVERHEAD POWER
UNDERGROUND POWER
SANITARY LINE
STORM LINE
WATERMAIN LINE
FENCE
S SANITARY MANHOLE
STORM MANHOLE
ROOF DRAIN
CLEAN OUT
GATE VALVE
ST
LIGHT POLE
SIGN
HAND HOLE
VAULT
GAS METER
CONCRETE
BITUMINOUS
DATUM
UTILITY POLE
CO
HYDRANT
GUY WIRE
BOLLARD / POST
TREE
RD
HH
VLT
HORIZONTAL: HENNEPIN COUNTY NAD83/86 ADJ.
VERTICAL: 2011/MN18
FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT (SEE SURVEY)
ARE SET 5/8" I.D. CAPPED REBAR
WITH LICENSE NO. 49003 UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED
C UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATION
PENN STATION ADDITION
SITE DATA SUMMARY
TOTAL AREA = 1.13 ACRES
AREA DEVOTED TO PUBLIC USE = 0.31 ACRES
NUMBER OF LOTS PROPOSED = 1
NUMBER OF OUTLOTS PROPOSED = 0
CONTACT INFORMATION
PENN STATION ADDITION
I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and
that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Dated this _____ day of _____________, 2025.
______________________________________
Jeffrey J. Rolfson, PS, Minnesota License No. 49003
OWNER:
City of Richfield Housing Development
DEVELOPER / SUBDIVIDER:
JO Companies, LLC
510 Brunson Street, Suite 100
Saint Paul, MN 55130
SURVEYOR / DESIGNER:
WSB LLC
701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300
Golden Valley, MN 55416
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Prepared on April 10, 2025
S89°30'08"E 164.31
S00°13'51"E 298.65N89°30'50"W 164.27N00°14'18"W 298.68N01°28'23"W 109.51N02°08'23"W 174.3820.73N44°08'18"E48.00 116.31
HIGHWAY
EASEMENTPER DOC. NO.T2281638
PENN AVENUE S(C.R. NO. 32)N00°14'18"W 30.00N00°14'18"W657.65N00°14'18"W1315.12NW COR. SEC. 28-28-24
FOUND MAGNETIC NAIL
NW COR. SW 14 NW 14
NW COR.
SW 14 SW 14 NW 14 N. LINE SW 14SW 14 NW 14
30EXCEPTION
SW COR. NW 14 SEC. 28-28-24FOUND CAST IRON MONUMENTS00°14'18"E328.78NE COR.
LOT 1, BLOCK 1NORA CORNER
FOUND 58" REBAR
N. LINELOT 1, BLOCK 1NORA CORNER
S. LINE N 34SW 14 NW 14
S. LINE N. 876.8' N 34SW 14 NW 14 876.8N. LINE
SW 14 NW 14
N. LINE
NW 14
E. LINEW 12 W 14 SW 14 NW 14W. LINE
NW 14
S. LINE NW 14 FOUND 12" PIPE0.56' E & 0.43' SOF PROP. COR.FOUND 12" PIPE1.7' E. OFPROP. LINES. LINE N. 767.2'
N 34 SW 14 NW 14 767.2FOUND 38"REBAR
NW COR.
LOT 1, BLOCK 1NORA CORNER
FOUND 58" REBAR 109.6109.6S. LINE N. 30'S.109.6' N. 767.2'
N 34 SW 14 NW 14
(VARIABLE WIDTH R/W)FOUNDMAGNETIC
NAIL
NW COR.NORA CORNERFOUND IRON PIPE
RLS 44900
FOUNDMAGNETIC
NAIL
BLOCK 1
LOT 1
HIGHWAYEASEMENT
PER DOC. NO.T2281638 9.39N44°08'18"E50.00 114.27
S89°30'08"E
N00°14'18"W 1315.12N01°55'06"W 292.11N89°29'13"W 2633.12
1315.19657.59164.40
N89°29'13"W
1316.56
S00°07'08"E 2628.751314.381314.38S89°30'08"E 2630.38
164.40 328.80
1314.75S00°10'43"E 2629.501314.75N89°31'04"W 2627.63
1316.56
1313.81656.91328.45164.23 164.23 E. LINENW 14E. LINESW 14 NW 14E. LINEW 12 SW 14 NW 14E. LINEW 14 SW 14 NW 14NE COR. NW 14(THEORETICAL POSITION)30SE COR. NW 14(THEORETICAL POSITION)SE COR.SW 14 NW 14NE COR.SW 14 NW 14NE COR.SE 14 NW 14NE COR.
NW 14 NW 14
PENN STATION ADDITION
BASIS OF BEARING SYSTEM :ALL BEARINGS ARE IN RELATIONSHIP WITH THE WESTLINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SEC. 28, T.28N,
R.24W, WHICH IS ASSUMED TO BE N00°14'18"W.
N
SCALE IN FEET
0 20 40
3701 40th Avenue NW
Rochester, MN 55901
507-218-3745
www.wsbeng.com
NOTE:
ALL MONUMENTS SHOWN THUS:
ARE SET 38 INCH BY 14 INCH CAPPED IRON REBAR MONUMENTS WITHLICENSE NO. 49003 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
ALL MONUMENTS SHOWN THUS:ARE FOUND IRON MONUMENTS (SEE PLAT FOR DETAILS).
ALL MONUMENTS SHOWN THUS:ARE FOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY MONUMENTS (SEE PLAT FOR DETAILS).
U.E. = UTILITY EASEMENT
D.U.E. = DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT
NOTE: SURVEYOR LOCATED NORTHWEST QUARTER AND WESTQUARTER CORNER. HELD SECTION BREAKDOWN PER ADJACENTRECORDED PLAT OF NORA CORNER.
R.T. DOC. NO.
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That xxxxx, a xxxxxx, owner of the following described property:
The West 1/2 of the North 3/4 of the West 1/4 of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter except the North 876.8 feet thereof, Section 28, Township 28, Range 24, Village of Richfield,
Hennepin County Minnesota.
ALSO
The West 1/2 of the South 109.6 feet of the North 767.2 feet of the North 3/4 of the West 1/4 of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter except the North 30 feet thereof;
The West 1/2 of the South 109.6 feet of the North 876.8 feet of the North 3/4 of the West 1/4 of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter;
All in Section 28, Township 28, Range 24, in the Village of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as PENN STATION ADDITION, and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use the drainage and utility easements as created by this plat.
In witness whereof said XXXX, a XXXXXX has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this _______ day of ____________________, 20_____.
By: XXXXXXXX
XXXX, XXXX
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
This instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of ____________________, 20_____, by xxx, xxxxx, a xxxxx.
Notary Signature Notary Printed Name
Notary Public, County, Minnesota
My Commission Expires
I Jeffrey J. Rolfson do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct
representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within one
year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are
shown and labeled on this plat.
Dated this day of , 20 .
Jeffrey J. Rolfson, Licensed Land Surveyor
Minnesota License No. 49003
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
This instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of ____________________, 20_____ by Jeffrey J. Rolfson.
Notary Signature Notary Printed Name
Notary Public, County, Minnesota
My Commission Expires
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
This plat of PENN STATION ADDITION was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, at a regular meeting thereof held this ______ day of
____________________, 20_____, and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subdivision 2.
City Council, City of Richfield, Minnesota
By: Mayor By: Manager
COUNTY AUDITOR, Hennepin County, Minnesota
I hereby certify that taxes payable in 20_____ and prior years have been paid for land described on this plat, dated this _______ day of ____________________, 20_____.
Daniel Rogan, County Auditor
By: , Deputy
SURVEY DIVISION, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 383B.565 (1969), this plat has been approved this _______ day of ____________________, 20_____.
Chris F. Mavis, County Surveyor
By:
REGISTRAR OF TITLES, Hennepin County, Minnesota
I hereby certify that the within plat of PENN STATION ADDITION was filed in this office this _______ day of ____________________, 20_____, at ______ o'clock ____ .M.
Amber Bougie, Registrar of Titles
By: , Deputy
PROPERTY LOCATION MAP
SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 28N, RANGE 24W
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN
NOT TO SCALEPENN AVE N2120
2829
28
65TH ST W
66TH ST WSITE
107 SF
ELEV
76 SF
ELEV LOBBY
192 SF
STAIR B
188 SF
STAIR A
229 SF
ELECTRICAL
232 SF
WATER
304 SF
TRASH
11,756 SF
PARKING
19'-0"24'-0"19'-0"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 33 32 3136 35 3446
EV EV EV
EVEV
WALL MOUNTED HANGING BIKE RACKS,
1 PER STANDARD STALL, 30 TOTAL
201'-0"63'-4"201'-0"63'-4"5% SLOPE
232'-2 5/8"5'-2"1,388 SF
UNIT C1
1,360 SF
UNIT C1
1,035 SF
UNIT B2.3
963 SF
UNIT B2.1
993 SF
UNIT B2.2
994 SF
FAMILY PLAY ROOM512 SF
FITNESS
328 SF
STORAGE UNITS
414 SF
BUSINESS CENTER
83 SF
TLT
177 SF
STAIR A
181 SF
STAIR B
77 SF
ELEV
70 SF
TRASH
1,078 SF
CORRIDOR
326 SF
STAFF OFFICES
81 SF
MAINT
491 SF
BIKE STORAGE
103 SF
MAIL
134 SF
VESTIBULE
688 SF
LOBBY
44'-3"8'-7 1/8"148'-5 5/8"
201'-3 3/4"63'-3 5/8"34'-4 3/8"11'-6 1/2"93'-8 7/8"17'-5"44'-3"63'-3 5/8"2'-6 3/8"15'-0 3/4"1'-0"681 SF
LOUNGE
120 SF
STORAGE
D E S I G N
G R O U P
Autodesk Docs://45359-24130 JO Properties Penn
Station/45329-24130_6501 Penn Ave_R23.rvt
JO Companies - Penn Station Apartments | OVERALL FLOOR PLANS
Richfield, MN | 05/14/25 | 45359-24130
NORTH
NORTH
3/32" = 1'-0"
LOWER LEVEL
3/32" = 1'-0"
FIRST LEVEL
0'10'-8"5'-4"21'-4"
0'10'-8"5'-4"21'-4"
70 SF
TRASH
84 SF
ELEC
77 SF
ELEV
174 SF
STAIR B
1,218 SF
CORRIDOR
1,381 SF
UNIT C1
1,360 SF
UNIT C1
969 SF
UNIT B2
963 SF
UNIT B2.1 993 SF
UNIT B2.2 (TYPE A)707 SF
UNIT A1
761 SF
UNIT A2
1,007 SF
UNIT B1
1,352 SF
UNIT D1
177 SF
STAIR A
148'-5 5/8"8'-7 1/8"44'-3"63'-3 5/8"34'-5 5/8"11'-5 1/4"93'-8 7/8"17'-5"44'-3"
201'-3 3/4"63'-3 5/8"1'-0"2'-6 3/8"15'-0 3/4"OPEN TO
BELOW
120 SF
STORAGE
707 SF
UNIT A1
761 SF
UNIT A2
1,007 SF
UNIT B1
1,352 SF
UNIT D1
969 SF
UNIT B2
963 SF
UNIT B2.1
993 SF
UNIT B2.2
993 SF
UNIT B2.2
1,381 SF
UNIT C1
1,360 SF
UNIT C1
77 SF
ELEV
174 SF
STAIR B
177 SF
STAIR A
1,222 SF
CORRIDOR
70 SF
TRASH
84 SF
ELEC
148'-5 5/8"8'-7 1/8"44'-3"63'-3 5/8"34'-5 5/8"11'-5 1/4"93'-8 7/8"17'-5"44'-3"
201'-3 3/4"63'-3 5/8"15'-0 3/4"2'-6 3/8"1'-0"120 SF
STORAGE
D E S I G N
G R O U P
Autodesk Docs://45359-24130 JO Properties Penn
Station/45329-24130_6501 Penn Ave_R23.rvt
JO Companies - Penn Station Apartments | OVERALL FLOOR PLANS
Richfield, MN | 05/14/25 | 45359-24130
3/32" = 1'-0"
SECOND FLOOR
3/32" = 1'-0"
THIRD FLOOR
NORTH
NORTH
0'10'-8"5'-4"21'-4"
0'10'-8"5'-4"21'-4"
1,007 SF
UNIT B1
1,352 SF
UNIT D1
761 SF
UNIT A2
707 SF
UNIT A1
969 SF
UNIT B2
963 SF
UNIT B2.1
993 SF
UNIT B2.2
993 SF
UNIT B2.2
70 SF
TRASH
84 SF
ELEC
77 SF
ELEV
174 SF
STAIR B
177 SF
STAIR A
1,124 SF
CORRIDOR
9'-1 1/4"148'-5 5/8"14'-7"46'-2 1/4"2'-6 3/8"17'-11 1/8"93'-8 7/8"11'-5 1/4"34'-5 5/8"63'-3 5/8"157'-6 7/8"
127 SF
STORAGE 1'-0"1,222 SF
CORRIDOR
177 SF
STAIR A
1,007 SF
UNIT B1
969 SF
UNIT B2
963 SF
UNIT B2.1
993 SF
UNIT B2.2
993 SF
UNIT B2.2
707 SF
UNIT A1
761 SF
UNIT A2
1,352 SF
UNIT D1 (TYPE A)
1,381 SF
UNIT C1
1,360 SF
UNIT C1
84 SF
ELEC
174 SF
STAIR B
77 SF
ELEV
70 SF
TRASH
120 SF
STORAGE
45'-2 1/2"16'-11 1/4"93'-8 7/8"11'-5 1/4"34'-5 5/8"
201'-9 1/2"64'-3 1/8"44'-8 3/4"8'-7 1/8"148'-5 5/8"63'-3 5/8"1'-0"2'-6 3/8"15'-0 3/4"D E S I G N
G R O U P
Autodesk Docs://45359-24130 JO Properties Penn
Station/45329-24130_6501 Penn Ave_R23.rvt
JO Companies - Penn Station Apartments | OVERALL FLOOR PLANS
Richfield, MN | 05/14/25 | 45359-24130
NORTH
3/32" = 1'-0"
FIFTH LEVEL
0'10'-8"5'-4"21'-4"
3/32" = 1'-0"
FOURTH LEVEL
NORTH
0'10'-8"5'-4"21'-4"
S
S
HH
VLT
EEEEEEEEEEFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFGGGGGGGGGGGOHE
E
E E E
E
E
E E E
FFF
F OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHGGGGGGGGGGGGGPENN AVENUE S65TH STREET W
(C.R. NO. 32)S
C
LANDSCAPE EDGING
NEW ROW LINE (TYP.)
NEW ROW LINE (TYP.)
LANDSCAPE EDGING
SOD, TYP.SOD, TYP.
OVERHEAD POWERLINES, TYP.
OVERHEAD POWERLINES, TYP.
SOD, TYP.SOD, TYP.
Red Maple
2.5" Cal B&B
3
Honey Locust
3.5" Cal B&B
3
Hackberry
4.5" Cal B&B
4
Swamp White Oak
4.5" Cal B&B2
Serviceberry
7' Tall B&B1
RETAINING WALL (TYP.)
TRANSFORMER PAD
Chokeberry
#5 cont.7
Yew
#5 cont.
7
Daylilly
#1 cont.
16
Chokeberry
#5 cont.7
Chokeberry
#5 cont.7
Chokeberry
#5 cont.7
Yew#5 cont.7
Yew
#5 cont.7
Yew
#5 cont.
5
Yew#5 cont.8
Chokeberry
#5 cont.7
Chokeberry
#5 cont.7
Chokeberry
#5 cont.
7
Yew
#5 cont.
7
Yew
#5 cont.7
Yew#5 cont.7
Hydrangea
#5 cont.
5
Chokeberry
#5 cont.
14
SYMBOL QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT
TREES
3 ACER RUBRUM / RED MAPLE 2.5" CAL B&B
3 GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS / HONEY LOCUST 3.5" CAL B&B
4 CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS / HACKBERRY 4.5" CAL B&B
SYMBOL QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE
SHRUBS
63 ARONIA MELANOCARPA 'AUTUMN MAGIC' / AUTUMN MAGIC BLACK
CHOKEBERRY
#5 CONT.55 TAXUS X MEDIA 'TAUNTONII' / TAUNTON YEW
#5 CONT.
PERENNIALS
16 HEMEROCALLIS "STELLA DE ORO" / STELLA DE ORO DAY LILLY 1 GAL
QUERCUS BICOLOR / SWAMP WHITE OAK 4.5" CAL B&B2
AMELANCHIER X GRANDIFLORA 'AUTUMN BRILLIANCE /
SERVICEBERRY
7' - 5 TRUNK
B&B1
5 HYDRANGEA ARBORESCENS 'ANNABELLE' / ANNABELLE
HYDRANGEA 3 GAL
C:\ACC\ACCDocs\WSB\028200-000\Project Files\05_Discipline\Site\03_Sheets\028200-000-CP-LAND-PLAN.dwg 5/13/2025 12:44:01 PML-101
N
SCALE IN FEET
0H:20 40
LANDSCAPEPLAN
SCALE:
PLAN BY:
DESIGN BY:
CHECK BY:
SHEET
WSB PROJECT NO.REVISIONSNO.DATEDESCRIPTION104/07/2025CITY SUBMITTAL205/13/2025REVISED CITY SUBMITTALLANDSCAPE PLAN GENERAL NOTES
LEGEND
WOOD MULCH IN PLANT BED. SAMPLESREQUIRED PROVIDE EDGING AS SHOWNON PLAN / LANDSCAPE DETAILS
PROPOSED SOD ANDIRRIGATION EXTENTS
1. ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT 811 FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48
HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT ARE
DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.
2. WHERE SHOWN, SHRUB & PERENNIAL BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH 4" DEPTH (MINIMUM AFTERINSTALLATION AND/OR TOP DRESSING OPERATIONS) OF ROCK MULCH.
3. ALL TREES SHALL BE MULCHED WITH SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER OR TO
EDGE OF PLANTING BED, IF APPLICABLE. ALL MULCH SHALL BE KEPT WITHIN A MINIMUM OF 2" FROM TREE
TRUNK.
4. PLANT MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN STANDARDS ANDSHALL BE OF HARDY STOCK, FREE FROM DISEASE, DAMAGE AND DISFIGURATION. CONTRACTOR ISRESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PLUMPNESS OF PLANT MATERIAL FOR DURATION OF ACCEPTANCE PERIOD.
5. UPON DISCOVERY OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE QUANTITY OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE SCHEDULE AND
THE QUANTITY SHOWN ON THE PLAN, THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN.
6. CONDITION OF VEGETATION SHALL BE MONITORED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THROUGHOUT THEDURATION OF THE CONTRACT. LANDSCAPE MATERIALS PART OF THE CONTRACT SHALL BE WARRANTED FORTWO (2) FULL GROWING SEASONS FROM SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION DATE.
7. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL RECEIVE 6" LAYER TOPSOIL AND SOD AS
SPECIFIED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS.
8. COORDINATE LOCATION OF VEGETATION WITH UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES, LIGHTINGFIXTURES, DOORS AND WINDOWS. CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE IN THE FIELD FINAL LOCATION OF TREES ANDSHRUBS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
9. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE WATERED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL ACCEPTANCE.
10. REPAIR AT NO COST TO OWNER ALL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES.
11. SWEEP AND MAINTAIN ALL PAVED SURFACES FREE OF DEBRIS GENERATED FROM LANDSCAPE
CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES.
12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SPOIL ANY EXCESS TOPSOIL LOCATED ON THE SITE THAT IS NOT REQUIRED TO
PERFORM LANDSCAPE OPERATIONS. IF SUFFICIENT TOPSOIL IS NOT PRESENT ON SITE, THE CONTRACTORSHALL IMPORT TOPSOIL TO THE SITE IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE LANDSCAPE OPERATIONS. THECONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM A SOIL TEST ON THE EXISTING AND IMPORTED TOPSOIL AND APPLY LIMEAND FERTILIZER AS RECOMMENDED BY THE TESTING AGENCY.
13. ALL PLANT MATERIAL MUST BE IRRIGATED BY AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM, OR ALL PLANT MATERIAL
MUST BE WITHIN 100' OF A HOSE BIB.
14. IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED BY CONTRACTOR. IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BEAN AUTOMATIC UNDERGROUND SPRINKLER SYSTEM. THE SYSTEM SHALL BE PROTECTED BY AN RP TYPEBACKFLOW PREVENTER.
15. BACKFLOW PREVENTION ASSEMBLIES INSTALLED OUTDOOR SHALL BE PROTECTED BY AN ENCLOSURE
WHICH COMPLIES WITH THE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS SET FORTH BY THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF
SANITARY ENGINEERING (ASSE).
16. ALL DISTURBED AREAS NOT TO BE LANDSCAPE BEDS OR SODDED SHALL BE SEEDED. INSTALL SEED AT ARATE OF 2 LBS PER 1,000 SF. APPLY 13-13-13 FERTILIZER AT A RATE OF 300 LBS PER ACRE OR AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL TEST RESULTS.
17. SOD LOCATED ON SLOPES 20% OR GREATER, THE CORNERS OF THE SOD MUST BE PINNED. THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL WATER AND MAINTAIN THE GRASS UNTIL A HEALTHY PERMANENT STAND IS
ESTABLISHED.
18. ALL AREAS TO BE SODDED SHALL BE FERTILIZED AT A RATE OF 250 POUNDS PER ACRE.
19. EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SHALL BE SHORT-TERM DOUBLE NET BLANKET SHALL BE A MACHINE
PRODUCED MAT OF 100% AGRICULTURAL STRAW WITH A FUNCTIONAL LONGEVITY OF UP TO 12 MONTHS.
INSTALLED BLANKET PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION. SECURED WITH 8" WIRE STAPLES AT 18"INTERVAL MINIMUM.
20. PROVIDE SITE WIDE IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN AND INSTALLATION. SYSTEM SHALL BE FULLY
PROGRAMMABLE AND CAPABLE OF ALTERNATE DATE WATERING. THE SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE HEAD TO
HEAD OR DRIP COVERAGE AND BE CAPABLE OF DELIVERING ONE INCH OF PRECIPITATION PER WEEK.
SYSTEM SHALL EXTEND INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT/BACK OF CURB.
21. CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE APPROVAL OF PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM INLCUDING PRICING FROMOWNER, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
CITY OF RICHFIELD LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS:
REQUIRED LANDSCAPE:
1.1 TREE PER EVERY 0.5 RES. UNITS (21 TOTAL TREES REQUIRED)
2.TREE SIZES: 2.5" CAL. (30%) - 6 TREES
3.5" CAL. (40%) - 9 TREES
4.5" CAL. (30%) - 6 TREES
3.FOUNDATION PLANTINGS ARE REQUIRED ON ALL VISIBLE SIDES
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE:
1.TREES PROVIDED: 13
2.FOUNDATION PLANTINGS ARE PROVIDED ON ALL STREETFRONTAGE SIDES OF BUILDING.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.LIC. NO:DATE:Kevin Teppen26980xx / xx / 2025PENN STATION APARTMENTS028200-000
RIP TO 12"4"
8"(SOIL+COMPOST)
12" MAX
1.RIP SOIL TO 12" MINIMUM DEPTH-12" MAXIMUM TOOTH SPACING-TILLING ALONE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE
2.INCORPORATE 1.75" OF MNDOT 3890 GRADE 2 COMPOST*INTO THE TOP 6.25 INCHES OF SOIL TO CREATE A TOPSOILLAYER WITH A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 8 INCHES.
3.SOILS BELOW THE TOPSOIL LAYER SHOULD BE SCARIFIEDTO AT LEAST 4 INCHES.
4.THE BULK DENSITY OF ALL UNPAVED PERVIOUSSURFACES INTENDED FOR SEEDING AND PLANTING SHALLHAVE A MAXIMUM BULK DENSITY OF 1.60 G/CM3.
*COMPOST MUST BE FROM MNDOT CERTIFIED VENDOR FORMNDOT 3890 GRADE 2 COMPOST.
DECIDUOUS TREE1L101
SHRUB2L101
PERENNIAL / ORNAMENTAL GRASS3L101
PLANTING SOIL MIX, AS SPECIFIED
REMOVE BURLAP FROM TOP THIRD OF ROOTBALL,CUT WIRE BASKET IN FOUR PLACES AND FOLDDOWN 8 INCHES
PROVIDE 6" MIN. CLEARANCE BETWEEN BALL & PITWALLS. ALL WALLS SHALL BE FRACTURED &UNGLAZED
TREE GUARD LARGE SIZE
KRAFT PAPER TREE WRAP, REMOVE AT THE ENDOF THE WARRANTY PERIOD.
PRUNE AS SPECIFIED TO RETAIN NATURALFORM
* PLANT ALL TREES TO HAVE THE SAMERELATIONSHIP TO FINISH GRADE AS ORIGINALLYGROWN IN THE NURSERY.
PLANTING SOIL MIX, AS SPECIFIED
REMOVE BURLAP FROM TOP THIRD OF ROOTBALL,CUT WIRE BASKET IN FOUR PLACES AND FOLDDOWN 8 INCHES
TREE GUARD LARGE SIZE
KRAFT PAPER TREE WRAP, REMOVE AT THE ENDOF THE WARRANTY PERIOD.
PRUNE AS SPECIFIED TO RETAIN NATURALFORM
ANCHOR STAKING IS OPTIONAL. UTILIZE FLAT,GROMMETED STRAPS THAT LIE FLAT AGAINSTTHE TRUNK. TIE STRAPS BACK TO WOOD ORMETAL POSTS. PLACE CAPS ON METAL POSTSFOR SAFETY. PLACE POSTS AT LEAST 3 INCHESFROM THE OUTSIDE EDGE OF THE ROOTBALL.
MULCH PER PLANS, PULL MULCH AWAY FROM ALLTRUNKS OF TREES
3X THE WIDESTDIMENSION OF THEROOT BALL
FINISH GRADE
6" MIN. CLEARANCE
NOTE:PROVIDE 2 AGRI-FORM TABLETSPER SHRUB
PRUNE AS SPECIFIED, TO RETAINNATURAL PLANT FORM.
PLANTING MIX, AS SPECIFIED.PLANTING DEPTH TO MATCH FINISHGRADE.
TOPSOIL
REMOVE CONTAINER BEFOREPLANTING. TAKE CARE TO NOTDISTURB ROOTBALL. BOTTOM ANDSIDES OF PIT WALL SHALL BEFRACTURED AND UNGLAZED.
PRUNE AS SPECIFIED, TO RETAINNATURAL PLANT FORM.
WEED BARRIER PER PLANS
PLANTING MIX, AS SPECIFIED.PLANTING DEPTH TO MATCH FINISHGRADE.
TOPSOIL
REMOVE CONTAINER BEFOREPLANTING. TAKE CARE TO NOTDISTURB ROOTBALL. BOTTOM ANDSIDES OF PIT WALL SHALL BEFRACTURED AND UNGLAZED.
MULCH PER PLANS, PULL MULCHAWAY FROM ALL STEMS OF PLANTS
REMOVE CONTAINER BEFOREPLANTING. TAKE CARE TO NOTDISTURB ROOTBALL. BOTTOM ANDSIDES OF PIT WALL SHALL BEFRACTURED AND UNGLAZED.
6" MIN. CLEARANCE
NOTE:PROVIDE 1 AGRI-FORM TABLETPER PERENNIAL
PLANTING SOIL, AS SPECIFIED
REMOVE CONTAINER BEFOREPLANTING. TAKE CARE TO NOTDISTURB ROOTBALL. BOTTOM ANDSIDES OF PIT WALL SHALL BEFRACTURED AND UNGLAZED.
MULCH PER PLANS, PULL MULCHAWAY FROM ALL STEMS
8" STAPLES TO ANCHOR WEED BARRIERAT 3' O.C.; 12" O.C. AT SEAMS ASREQUIRED
LANDSCAPE MULCH, 3" DEPTH, SEEPLANS FOR TYPE
TYPAR 3301 WEED BARRIER FABRIC
HEAVY DUTY PLASTIC TO BE USEDONLY IN AREAS NOTED ON PLANS
ALUMINUM METAL EDGING BETWEENVARYING MULCH TYPES - REFER TOPLANS FOR LOCATIONS
3" DEPTH
METAL EDGING, WEED FABRIC & PLANTING BED MULCH4L101
WEED BARRIERS PER PLANS
ADJACENT MULCH
SOIL AMENDMENT5L101
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 5.6 10.7 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 19.4 0.5 0.9 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.3 11.5 0.6 1.2 1.4 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.2 9.6 0.7 1.5 1.7 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.7 1.5 1.8 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.7 1.4 1.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 6.3 0.7 1.2 1.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 5.3 0.7 1.1 1.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.1 1.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.1 9.6 0.7 1.3 1.4 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.9 0.7 1.5 1.7 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2
8.9
0.7 1.6 1.8 1.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 1.2 0.7 1.5 1.8 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.3 1.4 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.7 1.1 1.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 1.1 1.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 1.2 1.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.3 1.5 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.5 1.8 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.5 1.8 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.4 1.5 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.8 10.2 6.5 5.8 4.8 7.7 0.8 1.2 1.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.4 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.4 1.2 1.2 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Calculation Summary
Label CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min
East Prop Line Illuminance Fc 0.14 0.3 0.0 N.A. N.A.
NE Building Entrance Illuminance Fc 16.88 20.0 15.0 1.13 1.33
North Prop Line Illuminance Fc 0.09 0.3 0.0 N.A. N.A.
NW Building Entrance Illuminance Fc 17.83 22.3 12.6 1.42 1.77
Site Illuminance Fc 0.48 19.4 0.0 N.A. N.A.
South Building Entrance Illuminance Fc 8.42 10.0 5.2 1.62 1.92
South Prop Line Illuminance Fc 0.00 0.0 0.0 N.A. N.A.
West Prop Line Illuminance Fc 0.50 3.2 0.0 N.A. N.A.
Parking Lot Illuminance Fc 1.24 1.8 0.6 2.07 3.00
P1
24'-0"
P2
24'-0"
W1 W110'-0"10'-0"
W1
10'-0"
L1
L1
L1
L1
P3
P3
P3
W1
10'-0"
W1
10'-0"
W1
W1
W1
W1
W1
10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
D1
15'-0"
15'-0"
15'-0"
GRADE
24" IN PAVEMENT
AREA
24"
24' OR 15'
SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS FOR
MORE DETAIL. BASE
PROVIDED BY CONCRETE
CONTRACTOR, COORDINATED
BY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR.
BOND TO
GROUND
LUG
BOND TO
REBAR
#4 B.C.
TYPICAL
LUMINAIRE
HAND
HOLE
ELECTRICAL
CONDUIT
REFER TO STRUCTURAL DETAILS
FOR BASE DIMENSIONS AND
REBAR SIZE/SPACING
23'-0" LIGHT
POLE
A. MOUNTING HEIGHTS SHOWN ARE TO TOP OF FIXTURE.
B. LIGHTING LEVELS SHOWN ARE MAINTAINED. LIGHT LOSS FACTOR OF 0.9
WAS USED TO ACCOUNT FOR DIRT AND LUMEN DEPRECIATION.
C. REFER TO SHEET E0.3 FOR FIXTURE SCHEDULE AND CUTSHEETS.
GENERAL NOTES:
D E S I G N
G R O U P
ISSUES & REVISIONS
COMMISSION NO:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET
767 N. EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 190
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55114
651.642.9200
WWW.POPEDESIGN.COM
POPE DESIGN GROUP
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0"1/2"1"
TRUE SHEET SCALE
DATE
E0.2
ELECTRICAL SITE
PHOTOMETRIC
PLAN
BWJ
BWJ
5158.0000
JO Companies
Penn Station
Apartments
Richfield, MN
SCALE:1" = 20'-0"
ELECTRICAL SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN1
NO SCALE
POLE BASE DETAIL2
D E S I G N
G R O U P
ISSUES & REVISIONS
COMMISSION NO:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET
767 N. EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 190
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55114
651.642.9200
WWW.POPEDESIGN.COM
POPE DESIGN GROUP
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0"1/2"1"
TRUE SHEET SCALE
DATE
E0.3
ELECTRICAL SITE
PHOTOMETRIC
DETAILS
BWJ
BWJ
5158.0000
JO Companies
Penn Station
Apartments
Richfield, MN
1. COORDINATE POLE HEIGHT AND CONCRETE BASE. REFER TO POLE BASE DETAILS.
FIXTURE NOTES:
H. EQUALS ARE ACCEPTABLE AND WILL BE REVIEWED AS PART OF THE SHOP DRAWING PROCESS.
F. COORDINATE THE COMPATIBILITY OF DIMMING WITH SPECIFIED CONTROLS. DIMMING SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH NO VISIBLE FLICKER.
E. SAMPLES OF ALL FIXTURES SHALL BE AVAILABLE AT THE ENGINEERS REQUEST DURING SHOP DRAWING REVIEW.
D. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR EXTRA MATERIALS REQUIRED FOR LIGHT FIXTURES.
C. ALL FINISHES SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ORDERING FIXTURES. FINISH SELECTION TO BE FROM MANUFACTURER'S STANDARD FINISHES UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. FINISHES SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE TIME OF SHOP DRAWING SUBMITTAL.
B. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING FIXTURE LOCATIONS, MOUNTING, AND REQUIREMENTS WITH ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, SECTIONS, ELEVATIONS, AND REFLECTED CEILING PLANS PRIOR TO ORDERING FIXTURES.
A. CATALOG NUMBER INDICATES BASIC FIXTURE TYPE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT AND MAY NOT BE COMPLETE. VERIFY WITH MANUFACTURER TO INCLUDE ALL OPTIONS AND ACCESSORIES REQUIRED FOR THIS INSTALLATION.
GENERAL NOTES:
LIGHT FIXTURE SCHEDULE
TYPE DESCRIPTION VOLT LAMPS VA /
FIXT.MANUFACTURER CATALOG NUMBER NOTES TYPETYPEQTY / FIXT.
D1 RECESSED 4" ROUND LED DOWNLIGHT. HIGH EFFICIENCY LED LIGHT ENGINE, 1000 NOMINAL LUMENS. CLEAR SEMI-DIFFUSE ALZAK REFLECTOR. TRIM TO MATCH CEILING FINISH. FINISH TO BE SELECTED BY ARCHITECT.UNV LED 3000K N/A 35 PRESCOLITE LIGHTING LTR-4RD-H-SL-10L-DM1-LTR-4RD-T-SL-30K-8-MD-SS D1
L1 OUTDOOR RATED SURFACE MOUNTED ALUMINUM CHANNEL WITH WHITE LED TAPE LIGHT. .75 W/FT. 100 NOMINAL LUMENS/FT. IP65 RATED. VERIFY CHANNEL FINISH WITH ARCHITECTURE.UNV LED 3000K N/A 0 ACOLYTE LIGHTING RB-90-SWS265-0.7530 L1
P1 RECTANGULAR LED LIGHT POLE, 24' MOUNTING HEIGHT, LEFT CORNER CUTOFF DISTRIBUTION, 1 LIGHT SQUARE, 530mA DRIVE CURRENT, 0-10V DIMMING, 3374 LUMENS, 70 CRI, IP66 RATED, FINISH TO BE SELECTED BY ARCHITECT. UNV LED 3000K N/A 34 LITHONIA DSX0-P1-30K-70CRI-LCCO-MVOLT-NLTAIR2 PIRNH-DMG-HS-EGSR 1 P1
P2 RECTANGULAR LED LIGHT POLE, 24' MOUNTING HEIGHT, RIGHT CORNER CUTOFF DISTRIBUTION, 1 LIGHT SQUARE, 530mA DRIVE CURRENT, 0-10V DIMMING, 3374 LUMENS, 70 CRI, IP66 RATED, FINISH TO BE SELECTED BY ARCHITECT. UNV LED 3000K N/A 34 LITHONIA DSX0-P1-30K-70CRI-RCCO-MVOLT-NLTAIR2 PIRNH-DMG-HS-EGSR 1 P2
P3 RECTANGULAR LED LIGHT POLE, 15' MOUNTING HEIGHT, TYPE II MEDIUM DISTRIBUTION, 1 LIGHT SQUARE, 530mA DRIVE CURRENT, 0-10V DIMMING, 3374 LUMENS, 70 CRI, IP66 RATED, FINISH TO BE SELECTED BY ARCHITECT.UNV LED 3000K N/A 34 LITHONIA DSX0-P1-30K-70CRI-T2M-MVOLT-NLTAIR2 PIRNH-DMG-HS-EGSR 1 P3
W1 7'' TALL, 4.5'' WIDE RECTANGULAR LED WALL SCONCE. ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION. 2000 NOMINAL LUMENS. OUTDOOR RATED. AWAY FROM WALL LIGHTING DISTRIBUTION. 90 CRI. FINISH TO BE SELECTED BY THE ARCHITECT.UNV LED 3000K N/A 17 WAC LIGHTING DC-WS0517-F930A W1
NO SCALE
FIXTURE D11 NO SCALE
FIXTURE P1,P2,P32
NO SCALE
FIXTURE W13 NO SCALE
FIXTURE L14
D E S I G N
G R O U P
Autodesk Docs://45359-24130 JO Properties Penn
Station/45329-24130_6501 Penn Ave_R23.rvt
JO Companies - Penn Station Apartments | SITE SHADOW STUDY
Richfield, MN | 05/14/25 | 45359-24130
1" = 100'-0"
SHADOW STUDY VERNAL EQUINOX 9 AM
1" = 100'-0"
SHADOW STUDY VERNAL EQUINOX NOON
1" = 100'-0"
SHADOW STUDY VERNAL EQUINOX 3 PM
1" = 100'-0"
SHADOW STUDY SUMMER SOLSTICE 9 AM
1" = 100'-0"
SHADOW STUDY SUMMER SOLSTICE NOON
1" = 100'-0"
SHADOW STUDY SUMMER SOLSTICE 3 PM
1" = 100'-0"
SHADOW STUDY AUTUMNAL EQUINOX 9 AM
1" = 100'-0"
SHADOW STUDY AUTUMNAL EQUINOX NOON
1" = 100'-0"
SHADOW STUDY AUTUMNAL EQUINOX 3 PM
1" = 100'-0"
SHADOW STUDY WINTER SOLSTICE 9 AM
1" = 100'-0"
SHADOW STUDY WINTER SOLSTICE NOON
1" = 100'-0"
SHADOW STUDY WINTER SOLSTICE 3 PM
AGENDA SECTION: COUNCIL DISCUSSION
AGENDA ITEM # 10.
STAFF REPORT NO. 77
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
6/10/2025
REPORT PREPARED BY:Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Kristin Asher, Public Works Director
6/3/2025
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager
6/4/2025
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Discuss funding contingency plan and final project approval for federally-funded 73rd Street Safe
Routes to School (SRTS) trail project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Due to an uncertain environment related to federal grant fulfillment, staff are seeking direction about whether to
proceed with the scheduled bid opening for the 73rd Street Trail SRTS project, currently scheduled for
Thursday, June 12.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Provide staff with direction on whether to proceed with the scheduled bid opening.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT
In 2022, Richfield applied for and was awarded a federal grant through the Metropolitan Council's Regional
Solicitation for construction of a trail on 73rd Street between Bloomington Ave and Cedar Ave adjacent to
Centennial Elementary School. The award was for fiscal year 2026 (since accelerated to 2025). The
project scope included a shared use path on one side of the road, with an associated curb
relocation to narrow the roadway to 28 feet from curb to curb.
In early 2023, Richfield and MnDOT executed a Delegated Contract Process (DCP) Agency
agreement. This agreement is a standard agreement between the agencies to allow MnDOT to
accept and distribute federal funds on behalf of a local agency. This has been a standard practice
in Minnesota for decades, simplifying the process for local agencies and ensuring that the local
agencies are able to meet the requirements set forth in federal law.
In 2023, the Centennial Elementary location was the recipient of an Active Transportation grant for a
demonstration project through MnDOT. This demonstration project has been in place since August 2023, and is
currently still in place.
Through 2024 and early 2025, the project design was completed with participation from the public, Richfield
Public Schools, and the Transportation Commission. Open Houses were held at Centennial Elementary school
in the fall of 2024. This process led to several changes to the proposed grant scope. The trail was moved from
the north side of 73rd to the south side of 73rd for better connectivity with the school, curb extensions were added
to shorten crossing distances and provide sightlines at several intersections, and raised crosswalks were added
at 3 locations.
In April 2025, staff were provided a letter from US Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy stating
that federal grant funding could be withheld for any agencies in violation of various non-
discrimination laws. Noted violations included participation in diversity, equity, and inclusion
programs or activities, the issuance of drivers licenses to individuals "present in the United States
in violation of Federal immigration law", and non-cooperation with US Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE). On May 13, 2025, the State of Minnesota joined a lawsuit with 19 other
states against the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) and Sean Duffy, specifically
challenging the April 2025 letter.
In May 2025, the project received approval of the environmental documentation from FHWA and authorization
from MnDOT Federal Aid to advertise for bids, and set a bid opening date of June 12.
Staff have asked for guidance from MnDOT regarding the USDOT letter, and have been told
that MnDOT does not have any more information than we do and to consult with our City
Attorney regarding interpretation of the April 2025 letter and any related decisions. Staff have not
received any indication from MnDOT or FHWA that the funding for this project is at risk. Funding
scenarios and possible impacts are discussed further in the Financial Impacts section of this staff
report.
B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS
Equity Considerations
An average of 8% of Centennial Elementary students walk or bike to school compared to 13% district-wide. In
the neighborhood around Centennial Elementary, households are more likely to not have a vehicle compared to
the rest of the city (9% vs 5%). The neighborhood has more people younger than 18 compared to the rest of the
city (31.5% vs 21.5%).
Strategic Considerations
Moving forward with the project would advance the strategic goal of "Sustainable Infrastructure" by constructing a
public facility that would make it easier and safer for students at Centennial Elementary to bike and walk to
school.
C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
N/A
D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
The bid opening for this project is currently scheduled for Thursday, June 12, with tentative bid award date at the
June 24 regular Council meeting.
E.FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The current estimated construction cost is $940,000. The grant award is a reimbursable grant for up to
$635,000, with a 20% local cost match. For every $1 spent on construction, $0.80 is federal funds, and $0.20 is
local funds, until the federal funds hit the maximum grant award. The estimated local funding for the construction
portion of the project is $305,000.
To date, $124,976.14 has been spent on engineering design services for this project, and additional consultant
fees will be incurred for construction management services. Typically, engineering fees are approximately 16% of
construction cost, and construction management is 10% of construction cost. Due to federal requirements, the
fee for both design and construction management is typically higher on projects with federal funding.
Staff have identified adequate fund balance within the right-of-way improvements fund from Franchise Fee
revenue to cash flow the project in the event that the federal portion of the project is not reimbursed. This would
require future cuts and deferrals to several ongoing programs in the 2026 and 2027 budgets, including the multi-
year bike and pedestrian improvement projects, cost participation on any HUB redevelopment, and reducing the
scope of pavement management and concrete replacement projects.
F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
The City Attorney has reviewed the agreements and project contract documents and is available for any
questions.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
73rd Trail Project Layout Exhibit
April 2025 USDOT Letter Exhibit
USDOT Lawsuit Exhibit
73rd Street Trail Funding
City Council Regular Meeting Joe Powers (he/him)
June 10th, 2025 City Engineer
Background
•Project first identified in 2009
–Safe Routes to School
•2022 Regional Solicitation
•$635,000 Federal Award
–Surface Transportation Block
Grant Funding
•Project Scope
–Trail from Bloomington Ave to
Cedar Ave
–Narrow road from 36 feet to 28
feet
How Federal Aid Road Projects Work
•Local Agency signs Delegated Contract Process Agreement
with MnDOT (DCP Agreement)
•MnDOT acts as intermediary between Agency and FHWA
–MnDOT receives funds on agency’s behalf and reimburses agency
–MnDOT evaluates environmental documentation and project
approvals with FHWA
•Local Agency constructs project and submits reimbursement
requests to MnDOT
–Underpass, Portland Ave, 77th Street all used this process
Funding Breakdown
Federal City City Funding Source
Engineering (spent to date) $124,976.14 MSA Construction Funds
Construction (estimate)$635,000.00 $305,000.00 MSA Construction Funds
Construction Inspection (estimate)$50,000.00 MSA Construction Funds
Estimated Total $635,000.00 $479,976.14
Total estimated project cost (combined city/federal): $1,115,000
Project Risks
•Possible USDOT Clawback
–Risk level: low
•Project has a short construction timeline
•Funding has already been distributed to MnDOT
•Possible DBE Goal Revocation
–Risk level: low
•MnDOT Office of Civil Rights requirement
•If federal program is deemed illegal, contract can be amended to
remove goal
Contingency Plan
•Defer work programmed to use Franchise Fees over next
2-4 years
2023 (Unspent)2024 (Unspent)2025 (Unspent)2026 Total
Multi-Year Bike Projects $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $160,000.00
Multi-Year Ped Projects $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $120,000.00
HUB Redevelopment Cost Participation $150,000.00 $150,000.00
North Lyndale Restripe $200,000.00 $200,000.00
Total Deferred Projects $630,000.00
Alternatives
•Continue project with funding contingency plan
–Assessed risks to funding are low
–Timeline of project is short, reducing risk
–Sufficient funds are available to shift if necessary
•Trade-offs will be required
•Cancel project and return funds
–May be less likely to receive grant funding in future if currently funds
are voluntarily returned
–Project would be more expensive in the future
Staff Recommendation
Next Steps
•June 12th: Bid Opening
•June 24th: Expected Contract Award
–Council Action at Regular Meeting
•ASAP after June 24th: Construction begins
GAS
E
S
S
S S
DDD
D
D D
D D D D
GAS
D
D
S
D D
April 24, 2025 THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
WASHINGTON, DC 20590 To All Recipients of U.S. Department of Transportation Funding: The U.S. Department of Transportation (Department or DOT) distributes substantial Federal financial assistance for thousands of projects, programs, and activities operated or initiated by diverse entities, including but not limited to State and local governments. The Department administers this Federal financial assistance to support the development and maintenance of the Nation's transportation infrastructure, pursuant to statutory authority and in accordance with binding contractual agreements in the form of Federal financial assistance agreements, usually grants, cooperative agreements, and loans. Accordingly, I write to clarify and reaffirm pertinent legal requirements, to outline the Department's expectations, and to provide a reminder of your responsibilities and the consequences of noncompliance with Federal law and the terms of your financial assistance agreements. It is the policy of the Department to award and to continue to provide Federal financial assistance only to those recipients who comply with their legal obligations. As recipients of such DOT funds, you have entered into legally enforceable agreements with the United States Government and are obligated to comply fully with all applicable Federal laws and regulations. These laws and regulations include the United States Constitution, Federal statutes, applicable rules, and public policy requirements, including, among others, those protecting free speech and religious liberty and those prohibiting discrimination and enforcing controls on illegal immigration. As Secretary of Transportation, I am responsible for ensuring recipients of DOT financial assistance are aware of and comply with all applicable legal obligations. The Equal Protection principles of the Constitution prohibit State and Federal governmental entities from discriminating on the basis of protected characteristics, including race. Indeed, as the Supreme Court declared in Students for Fair Admission, Inc. v. Harvard (SFFA), 600 U.S. 181, 206 (2023), "[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States." The Court further noted that"[ o ]ne of the principal reasons race is treated as a forbidden classification is that it demeans the dignity and worth of a person to be judged by ancestry instead of by his or her own merit and essential qualities." Id. at 220. In ruling that race-based admissions programs at universities violated the Equal Protection Clause, the Court made clear that discrimination based on race is, has been, and will continue to be unlawful, except in rare circumstances. Id. at 220-21. Similarly, sex-based classifications violate the Equal Protection Clause absent "exceedingly persuasive" justification. See United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515,533 (1996).
Page 2 These constitutional principles are reinforced by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on protected characteristics in the Federal funding and employment contexts in Title VI (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.) and Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2), as well as the applicable non-discrimination clauses in the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973 (23 U.S.C. §§ 140 and 324 et seq.), the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, (49 U.S.C. § 47123), and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.). Based on binding Supreme Court precedent and these Federal laws, DOT is prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, sex, or religion in any of its programs or activities. Moreover, because DOT may not establish, induce, or endorse prohibited discrimination indirectly, 1 it must ensure that discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, or religion does not exist in the programs or activities it funds or financially assists. These same principles apply to recipients of Federal financial assistance from DOT, as both a matter of Federal law and by virtue of contractual provisions governing receipt of DOT funding. Accordingly, DOT recipients are prohibited from engaging in discriminatory actions in their own policies, programs, and activities, including in administering contracts, and their employment practices. Whether or not described in neutral terms, any policy, program, or activity that is premised on a prohibited classification, including discriminatory policies or practices designed to achieve socalled "diversity, equity, and inclusion," or "DEI," goals, presumptively violates Federal law. Recipients of DOT financial assistance must ensure that the personnel practices (including hiring, promotions, and terminations) within their organizations are merit-based and do not discriminate based on prohibited categories. Recipients are also precluded from allocating money received under DOT awards-such as through contracts or the provision of other benefits-based on suspect classifications. Any discriminatory actions in your policies, programs, and activities based on prohibited categories constitute a clear violation of Federal law and the terms of your grant agreements. In addition, your legal obligations require cooperation generally with Federal authorities in the enforcement of Federal law, including cooperating with and not impeding U.S. Immigration and .Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other Federal offices and components of the Department of Homeland Security in the enforcement of Federal immigration law. DOT has noted reported instances where some recipients of Federal financial assistance have declined to cooperate with ICE investigations, have issued driver's licenses to individuals present in the United States in violation of Federal immigration law, or have otherwise acted in a manner that impedes Federal law enforcement. Such actions undermine Federal sovereignty in the enforcement of immigration law, compromise the safety and security of the transportation systems supported by DOT 1 See SFFA, 600 U.S. at 230; Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U.S. 455, 465 (1973).
Page 3
financial assistance, and prioritize illegal aliens over the safety and welfare of the American peo
ple whose Federal taxes fund DOT's financial assistance programs.
Under the Constitution, Federal law is "the supreme Law of the Land." U.S. Const. Art. VI. That
means that where Federal and State legal requirements conflict, States and State entities must
follow Federal law. Declining to cooperate with the enforcement of Federal immigration law or
otherwise taking action intended to shield illegal aliens from ICE detection contravenes Federal
law and may give rise to civil and criminal liability. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324 and 8 U.S.C. § 1373.
Accordingly, DOT expects its recipients to comply with Federal law enforcement directives and
to cooperate with Federal officials in the enforcement of Federal immigration law. The Depart
ment also expects its recipients to ensure that the Federal financial assistance they receive from
DOT is provided only to subrecipients, businesses, or service providers that are U.S. Citizens or
U.S. Nationals and Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) or legal entities allowed to do business
in the U.S. and which do not employ illegal aliens.
This letter provides notice of the Department's existing interpretation of Federal law. The De
partment will vigorously enforce the law on equal terms as to all its recipients and intends to take
appropriate measures to assess their compliance based on the interpretation of Federal law set
forth in this letter. Adherence to your legal obligations is a prerequisite for receipt of DOT finan
cial assistance. Noncompliance with applicable Federal laws, or failure to cooperate generally
with Federal authorities in the enforcement of Federal law, will jeopardize your continued receipt
of Federal financial assistance from DOT and could lead to a loss of Federal funding from DOT.
The Department retains authority, pursuant to its oversight responsibilities and the terms of your
agreements, to initiate enforcement actions, such as comprehensive audits and possible recovery
of funds expended in a manner contrary to the terms of the funding agreement. DOT may also
terminate funding in response to substantiated breaches of the terms of the agreement, or if DOT
determines that continued funding is no longer in the public interest. These steps, within DOT's
discretion, are intended to ensure accountability and protect the integrity of Federal programs.
To assist grant recipients in meeting their legal obligations, DOT offers technical guidance and
support through its program offices. Should you require clarification regarding your obligations,
you are encouraged to contact your designated DOT representative promptly. Proactive engage
ment is strongly advised to prevent inadvertent noncompliance.
Page 4 DOT remains committed to advancing a transportation system that serves the public interest efficiently and unleashes economic prosperity and a superior quality of life for American families. This mission depends upon your strict adherence to the legal framework governing our partnership, and I trust you will take all necessary steps to comply with Federal law and satisfy your legal obligations. Sincerely, Sean P. Duffy
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF
ILLINOIS; STATE OF NEW JERSEY;
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF MARYLAND; STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF CONNECTICUT; STATE OF DELAWARE; STATE OF HAWAII; STATE
OF MAINE; COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS; PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN; STATE OF MINNESOTA; STATE OF NEVADA; STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE OF OREGON;
STATE OF VERMONT; STATE OF WASHINGTON; AND STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiffs,
v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; SEAN DUFFY, in his official capacity as Secretary of
Transportation, Defendants.
No. 1:25-cv-__________
1. The States of California, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Maryland, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, the People of the State of Michigan,
Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin
(Plaintiff States) bring this complaint to prevent the Trump Administration from trying to strong-
arm them into participating in federal immigration enforcement by threatening to cut off billions
of dollars in transportation funding if they refuse to comply. The funding at issue was authorized
by Congress, and Congress imposed no requirement for States to cooperate with immigration
enforcement as a condition for receiving funding. Indeed, the statutes and funding at issue—
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 1 of 63 PageID #: 1
2
which sustain roads, highways, bridges, and other transportation projects—have nothing to do
with immigration enforcement. Plaintiff States therefore challenge the Trump Administration’s
unlawful attempt to usurp Congress’s power by imposing an immigration enforcement
requirement on billions of dollars in annual United States Department of Transportation (U.S.
DOT) funding.
2. To protect the liberties of States and their residents, the United States Constitution
delineates a separation of powers between the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch.
“Among Congress’s most important authorities is its control of the purse.” Biden v. Nebraska,
600 U.S. 477, 505 (2023). The Appropriations, Legislation, and Spending Clauses of the U.S.
Constitution assign to Congress the authority to create legislation authorizing and appropriating
the distribution of federal funds. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 1; id. § 8, cl. 1; id. § 9, cl. 7. While
Congress may, at times, delegate some of its authority to the Executive Branch through statute,
the Executive Branch possesses no inherent authority to rewrite statutes Congress has written.
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 438 (1998).
3. These provisions in the U.S. Constitution have the “fundamental and comprehensive
purpose . . . . to assure that public funds will be spent according to the letter of the difficult
judgments reached by Congress as to the common good and not according to the individual favor
of Government agents.” Off. of Pers. Mgmt. v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 427-28 (1990). The
Constitution places this power in the hands of Congress “to secure regularity, punctuality, and
fidelity, in the disbursements of the public money.” 2 Commentaries on the Constitution of the
United States § 1348 (3d ed. 1858) (Story, J.). “If it were otherwise, the executive would possess
an unbounded power over the public purse of the nation” and “might apply all its moneyed
resources at his pleasure” with no check upon “ corrupt influence[.]” Id.
4. For more than a century, Congress has used its constitutional authority to enact
numerous statutes that direct federal funding to the States to promote the development,
maintenance, and safety of our nation’s transportation infrastructure. State and local
governments have relied on these federal funding programs—totaling more than $100 billion
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 2 of 63 PageID #: 2
3
annually—to support the roads, highways, railways, airways, ferries, and bridges that connect
their communities and carry their residents to their workplaces and their homes.
5. All of these federal programs provide funding to Plaintiff States pursuant to statutes
that Congress enacted. All of these statutes direct Defendants to distribute funding according to
the means Congress specified. And none of these statutes concerns immigration enforcement or
identifies State cooperation with immigration enforcement as a prerequisite for federal funding.
6. Despite these constraints imposed by Congress and the Constitution, Defendants are
now attempting to seize Congress’s power of the purse by imposing a federal immigration
enforcement condition on transportation funds—funds like those intended to replace decaying
bridges, repair roads and highways, and ensure safe air travel—that have nothing to do with
federal immigration enforcement. And despite the detailed statutory schemes specific to each
federal program at issue here, Defendants effectively seek to rewrite those laws by categorically
and unlawfully imposing the same federal immigration enforcement condition across all of them.
7. On April 24, 2025, United States Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy issued a
letter (the “Duffy Directive”) to all recipients of U.S. DOT funding announcing its policy, for the
first time, of imposing an immigration enforcement condition on all U.S. DOT funding. The
Letter states that all U.S. DOT funding recipients would be required to “cooperate with Federal
officials in the enforcement of . . . Federal immigration law” (the “Immigration Enforcement
Condition”). Secretary Duffy’s letter cites no governing statute or statutory provisions that
authorize this new requirement. Nor could he. None of the U.S. DOT funding statutes
contemplate any connection whatsoever between transportation funding and federal civil
immigration enforcement. Nor do they require States to use their own resources to participate in
immigration enforcement as a condition of receiving federal transportation funds.
8. Consistent with the Duffy Directive, U.S. DOT and its subagencies have begun
imposing the Immigration Enforcement Condition—using language nearly identical to that in the
Duffy Directive—across their standard terms and conditions for federal funding, as well as
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 3 of 63 PageID #: 3
4
within the terms and conditions for specific U.S. DOT grants that are being awarded (or likely
soon will be awarded) to Plaintiff States.
9. The Duffy Directive’s announcement of the new Immigration Enforcement
Condition across all U.S. DOT funding programs, and the incorporation of the Immigration
Enforcement Condition into U.S. DOT grant agreements, exceeds Defendants’ legal authority, is
arbitrary and capricious, and is unconstitutional in several respects. The Immigration
Enforcement Condition contemplates requirements that go well beyond the statutory purposes of
the funding programs—none of which was designed to further federal civil immigration
enforcement—and exceeds the limited bases on which U.S. DOT is permitted to withhold
funding.
10. If Plaintiff States reject Defendants’ unlawful Immigration Enforcement Condition,
they will collectively lose billions in federal funding that is essential to sustain critical public
safety and transportation programs, including highway development, airport safety projects,
protections against train collisions, and programs to prevent injuries and deaths from traffic
accidents. The loss of this funding will cause state and local providers to scale back or even
terminate many of these programs and projects. More cars, planes, and trains will crash, and
more people will die as a result, if Defendants cut off federal funding to Plaintiff States.
11. If Plaintiff States agree to the unlawful Immigration Enforcement Condition,
Plaintiff States will likewise be harmed. The condition is vague, and if read broadly, agreement
could commit Plaintiff States’ law enforcement or state agency personnel to federal immigration
enforcement, incurring administrative costs and burdens by diverting limited personnel time and
resources to federal immigration responsibilities that transportation personnel have no expertise
in and have never had to handle before. Doing so could also expose States to potential civil
liability for acts in connection with federal immigration enforcement. Further, entanglement of
state and local law officials in federal immigration efforts will undermine cooperation in criminal
investigations, especially among immigrant communities. This, in turn, will undermine public
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 4 of 63 PageID #: 4
5
safety, and in some States, expose state and local officials to potential violations of state laws
enacted to encourage immigrants to report crimes they have witnessed or suffered.
12. The Duffy Directive and Immigration Enforcement Condition thereby place Plaintiff
States’ officials in an untenable position. The Immigration Enforcement Condition requires state
and local officials to choose between undermining public safety and diverting transportation
resources to unrelated federal immigration functions, on the one hand, or potentially losing
billions of dollars in federal funding, on the other.
13. Courts have repeatedly rejected similar attempts by the first Trump Administration to
unlawfully withhold federal funding from States in its attempts to strong-arm States into
diverting their limited resources to civil immigration enforcement. See, e.g., City of Providence
v. Barr, 954 F.3d 23, 45 (1st Cir. 2020); City of Philadelphia v. Att’y Gen. of United States, 916
F.3d 276, 291 (3d Cir. 2019); City of Chicago v. Barr, 961 F.3d 882, 931 (7th Cir. 2020); City &
Cnty. of San Francisco v. Barr, 965 F.3d 753, 761 (9th Cir. 2020); City of Los Angeles v. Barr,
941 F.3d 931, 944 (9th Cir. 2019); Colorado v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1034, 1040
(D. Colo. 2020); City of Evanston v. Sessions, No. 18 C 4853, 2018 WL 10228461, at *1 (N.D.
Ill. 2018); City of Albuquerque v. Barr, 515 F. Supp. 3d 1163, 1181-82 (D. N.M. 2021).
14. This Court should reject this further attempt by Defendants to hold hostage federal
funding appropriated by Congress for Defendants’ own ends.
15. Plaintiff States therefore bring this action to put a stop to the federal government’s
unconstitutional and unlawful campaign to withhold federal funds that bear no relation to
immigration enforcement in an attempt to coerce Plaintiff States into enforcing the federal
government’s preferred immigration policy.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. An actual controversy exists
between the parties within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), and this Court may grant
declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and other relief against the Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2201 and 2202 and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06.
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 5 of 63 PageID #: 5
6
17. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because this is a
civil action in which Defendants are agencies of the United States or officers of such an agency,
no real property is involved in this action, Plaintiff State of Rhode Island resides in this judicial
district, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this Complaint occurred
within the District of Rhode Island. This action seeks relief against federal agencies and federal
officials acting in their official capacities.
PARTIES
I. PLAINTIFFS
18. Plaintiff the State of California, represented by and through its Attorney General
Rob Bonta, is a sovereign State of the United States of America. As the State’s chief legal
officer, the Attorney General is authorized to act on behalf of the State in this matter.
19. Plaintiff the State of Illinois, represented by and through its Attorney General
Kwame Raoul, is a sovereign State of the United States of America. As the State’s chief legal
officer, the Attorney General is authorized to act on behalf of the State in this matter.
20. Plaintiff the State of New Jersey, represented by and through its Attorney General,
Matthew J. Platkin, is a sovereign State of the United States of America. As the State’s chief
legal officer, the Attorney General is authorized to act on behalf of the State in this matter.
21. Plaintiff the State of Rhode Island, represented by and through its Attorney General
Peter F. Neronha, is a sovereign State of the United States of America. As the State’s chief legal
officer, the Attorney General is authorized to act on behalf of the State in this matter.
22. Plaintiff the State of Maryland is a sovereign State of the United States of America.
Maryland is represented by Attorney General Anthony G. Brown, who is the chief legal officer
of Maryland.
23. Plaintiff the State of Colorado is a sovereign State of the United States of America.
Colorado is represented by Phil Weiser, the Attorney General of Colorado. The Attorney General
acts as the chief legal representative of the State and is authorized by Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-31-
101 to pursue this action.
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 6 of 63 PageID #: 6
7
24. Plaintiff the State of Connecticut is a sovereign State of the United States of
America. Connecticut is represented by and through its chief legal officer, Attorney General
William Tong, who is authorized under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 3-125 to pursue this action on behalf
of the State of Connecticut.
25. Plaintiff the State of Delaware is a sovereign State of the United States of America.
Delaware is represented by Attorney General Kathy Jennings, who is the chief law enforcement
officer of Delaware.
26. Plaintiff the State of Hawai’i is a sovereign State of the United States of America.
Hawai’i is represented by Attorney General Anne E. Lopez, who is the chief law enforcement
officer of Hawai’i.
27. Plaintiff the State of Maine is a sovereign State of the United States of America.
Maine is represented by Attorney General Aaron M. Frey, who is the chief law enforcement
officer of Maine.
28. Plaintiff the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a sovereign State of the United
States of America. Massachusetts is represented by Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, who
is the chief law enforcement officer of Massachusetts.
29. Plaintiff the People of the State of Michigan is represented by Attorney General
Dana Nessel. The Attorney General is Michigan’s chief law enforcement officer and is
authorized to bring this action on behalf of the People of the State of Michigan pursuant to Mich.
Comp. Laws § 14.28.
30. Plaintiff the State of Minnesota is a sovereign State of the United States of America.
Minnesota is represented by Keith Ellison, the Attorney General of the State of Minnesota. The
Attorney General’s powers and duties include acting in federal court in matters of State concern.
Minn. Stat. § 8.01. The Attorney General has the authority to file suit to challenge action by the
federal government that threatens the public interest and welfare of Minnesota residents and to
vindicate the State’s sovereign and quasi-sovereign interests.
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 7 of 63 PageID #: 7
8
31. Plaintiff State of Nevada, represented by and through Attorney General Aaron D.
Ford, is a sovereign State of the United States of America. The Attorney General is the chief law
enforcement of the State of Nevada and is authorized to pursue this action under Nev. Rev. Stat.
§§ 228.110 and Nev. Rev. Stat. 228.170.
32. Plaintiff State of New Mexico is a sovereign State of the United States of America.
New Mexico is represented by Attorney General Raúl Torrez, who is the chief law enforcement
officer of New Mexico authorized by N.M. Stat. Ann. § 8-5-2 to pursue this action.
33. Plaintiff the State of New York, represented by and through its Attorney General
Letitia James, is a sovereign State of the United States of America. As the State’s chief legal
officer, the Attorney General is authorized to act on behalf of the State in this matter.
34. Plaintiff the State of Oregon, represented by and through its Attorney General Dan
Rayfield, is a sovereign State of the United States of America. As the State’s chief legal officer,
the Attorney General is authorized to act on behalf of the State in this matter.
35. Plaintiff State of Vermont is a sovereign State of the United States of America.
Vermont is represented by Attorney General Charity R. Clark, who is the chief law enforcement
officer and is authorized by law to initiate litigation on behalf of the State.
36. Plaintiff the State of Washington, represented by and through its Attorney General,
Nicholas W. Brown, is a sovereign State of the United States of America. The Attorney General
of Washington is the chief legal advisor to the State and is authorized to act in federal court on
behalf of the State on matters of public concern. Wash. Rev. Code §§ 43.10.05-43.10.801.
37. Plaintiff the State of Wisconsin, represented by and through its Attorney General
Josh Kaul, is a sovereign State of the United States of America. As the State’s chief legal officer,
the Attorney General is authorized to act on behalf of the State in this matter.
38. Plaintiff States have standing to bring this action because Defendants’ Duffy
Directive and their decisions to require the Immigration Enforcement Condition harm the States’
sovereign, proprietary, and quasi-sovereign interests and will continue to cause injury unless and
until enforcement of this policy is permanently enjoined.
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 8 of 63 PageID #: 8
9
II. DEFENDANTS
39. Defendant United States Department of Transportation is an executive department of
the United States. 49 U.S.C. § 102(a). U.S. DOT is a federal agency and engages in agency
action within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 702. U.S. DOT is responsible for administering federal
funding programs at issue in this complaint.
40. Defendant Sean Duffy is the Secretary of Transportation for the United States and
the head of U.S. DOT. See 49 U.S.C. § 301. He is sued in his official capacity.
BACKGROUND
I. FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY, STATES HAVE RELIED ON FEDERAL FUNDING APPROPRIATED BY CONGRESS TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT, MAINTENANCE,
AND SAFETY OF TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
41. For more than a century, Congress has authorized and directed federal funding to
support States’ development of transportation infrastructure to knit this nation’s communities
together. See, e.g., Federal Aid Road Act of 1916, Pub. L. No. 64–156, 39 Stat. 355 (Jul. 11,
1916).
42. Congress has consistently and steadily increased the federal government’s financial
assistance to state and local governments, and has expanded that aid to cover all aspects of travel
across this nation’s roads, railroads, bridges, highways, waterways, and airways.
43. Indeed, Congress enacted these statutes recognizing that American communities
need such infrastructure, and that neither the federal government nor the States can develop this
critical infrastructure alone.
44. Consistent with the statutes created by Congress over the course of many decades,
state and local governments annually receive more than $100 billion to build and maintain
reliable, safe, and efficient transportation systems for their residents.
45. This federal funding typically supports transportation programs or projects that
would not exist but for the federal funds. State transportation budgets are largely committed to
preexisting priorities—including, for example, the maintenance of existing state infrastructure.
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 9 of 63 PageID #: 9
10
And Plaintiff States do not have sufficient funding or budgetary flexibility to cover the loss of
U.S. DOT funding if Defendants were to deny that funding.
46. The breadth of projects funded by the federal government is reflected in the many
different sub-agencies within U.S. DOT that administer the dozens of different funding programs
to support Plaintiff States’ transportation systems, including: the Federal Highway
Administration; the Federal Transit Administration; the Federal Railroad Administration; the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration; the Federal Aviation Administration; the Federal Maritime Administration; and
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration.1
A. Federal Funding from the Federal Highway Administration
47. Recognizing the need for federal support to develop an interconnected system of
roads throughout the States, Congress first created the Federal-Aid Highway program in 1916.
Federal Aid Road Act of 1916, Pub. L. No. 64–156, 39 Stat. 355. When signing the program into
law, President Woodrow Wilson observed that federal funding would contribute to a “more
effective highway machinery in each State,” and that “the development of good road building”
would “add greatly to the convenience and economic welfare of all the people, and strengthen
the national foundations.” Richard F. Weingroff, U.S. Dep’t of Transp., Creation of a Landmark:
The Federal Aid Road Act of 1916 74-75 (quoting Letter from President Woodrow Wilson to A.
F. Lever, in Agricultural Legislation in the First Wilson Administration, DOCUMENTS OF
AMERICAN HISTORY 295-96 (Commanger ed., 3d Ed. 1947)).
48. Since then, Congress has regularly passed legislation providing federal funding to
States to further develop the nation’s highways, enacting dozens of statutes to that end. See, e.g.,
U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP., FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMIN., AMERICA’S HIGHWAYS 1776-1976: A
HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL-AID PROGRAM, 546-47 (1977); The Federal Highway Act of 1921,
Pub. L. No. 67-87, 42 Stat. 212; Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, Pub. L. No. 84-627, 70 Stat.
1 Below, Plaintiff States discuss many of the U.S. DOT funding programs upon which they rely. The
sources of U.S. DOT funding discussed below are illustrative, not exhaustive, and Plaintiff States seek relief as to all funding administered by Defendants, not merely those discussed here.
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 10 of 63 PageID #: 10
11
374; Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-87, 87 Stat. 250; Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429 (Nov. 15, 2021).
1. Federal Highway-Aid Program
49. The primary means by which Congress allocates highway funding to the States is
through the Federal Highway-Aid Program. The program provides federal formula funding to the
States for the construction, maintenance and operation of the country’s 3.9 million-mile highway
network, including the Interstate Highway System, primary highways, and secondary local roads.
50. The Federal Highway-Aid Program is administered by the Federal Highway
Administration, a sub-agency within U.S. DOT. See 49 U.S.C. § 104(a).
51. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act authorized $356.5 billion for fiscal years
2022 through 2026 to be used for the Federal Highway-Aid Program.
52. Currently, there are nine core formula funding programs within the Federal
Highway-Aid Program: the National Highway Performance Program, 23 U.S.C. § 119; the
Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, 23 U.S.C. § 133; the Highway Safety
Improvement Program, 23 U.S.C. § 148; the Railway-Highway Crossings Program, 23 U.S.C. §
130 and 23 C.F.R. Part 924; the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program,
23 U.S.C. § 149; the Metropolitan Planning Program, 23 U.S.C. § 104(d); the National Highway
Freight Program, 23 U.S.C. § 167; the Carbon Reduction Program, 23 U.S.C. § 175; and the
PROTECT Formula Program, 23 U.S.C. § 176.
53. Each of the core formula programs has unique purposes, none of which are related to
immigration enforcement. For example, the purposes of the National Highway Performance
Program are to provide support for the condition and performance of the National Highway
System; to provide support for the construction of new facilities on the National Highway
System; to ensure that investments of federal funds in highway construction support progress
toward performance targets established in a State’s asset management plan for the National
Highway System; and to provide support for activities to increase the resiliency of the National
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 11 of 63 PageID #: 11
12
Highway System to mitigate the cost of damages from sea level rise, extreme weather events,
flooding, wildfires, or other natural disasters. 23 U.S.C. § 119(b).
54. Congress directed funding for all core Federal-Aid Highway programs to be
apportioned among the States by formula. See 23 U.S.C. § 104. Because federal highway-aid
funding is disbursed through formula funding, and not competitive grants, each State is entitled
to a specific allocation of funding by law. See id.
55. The Federal-Aid Highway statutes do not authorize U.S. DOT to impose the
Immigration Enforcement Condition as a requirement for participation in Federal-Aid Highway
funding.
56. Plaintiff States receive and rely upon substantial sums of funding from these federal
highway formula programs. Tallying both the actual amounts received in fiscal years 2022 and
2023 with estimated funds awarded for fiscal years 2024 through 2026, Plaintiff States expect to
receive the following amounts on average each year from federal highway formula funds:2
• California: $5,712,406,670
• Colorado: $802,058,625
• Connecticut: $824,220,886
• Delaware: $281,784,462
• Hawaii: $309,599,980
• Illinois: $2,287,392,926
• Maine: $303,389,649
• Maryland: $939,441,101
• Massachusetts: $1,093,675,864
• Michigan: $1,595,420,115
• Minnesota: $977,931,098
2 As reported on U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP., FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMIN., FY 2022 - FY 2023 ACTUAL AND FY
2024 - 2026 ESTIMATED STATE-BY-STATE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM APPORTIONMENTS AND FUNDING FOR
THE BRIDGE FORMULA PROGRAM, NATIONAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE FORMULA PROGRAM, AND
APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM UNDER THE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND JOBS ACT, PUBLIC LAW 117-58, available at https://tinyurl.com/4j9sryyw.
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 12 of 63 PageID #: 12
13
• Nevada: $553,285,185
• New Jersey: $1,643,735,917
• New Mexico: $559,033,747
• New York: $2,758,572,196
• Oregon: $757,332,328
• Rhode Island: $357,117,356
• Vermont: $329,090,548
• Washington: $1,079,603,509
• Wisconsin: $1,098,227,514
57. Plaintiff States have applied for or intend to apply for federal-aid highway funds in
fiscal year 2025 and future fiscal years when these funds are available.
2. Other Federal Highway Grant Programs
58. In addition to the billions of dollars in annual funding Congress directs U.S. DOT to
provide to Plaintiff States through federal highway-aid formula funding programs, Congress also
authorized the Federal Highway Administration to administer other highway funding.
59. For instance, Congress enacted and appropriated federal funding for the
Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) grant program to assist States in developing
improvements to freight and highway projects of national or regional significance. 23 U.S.C.
§ 117; see also Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-94,
§ 1105, 129 Stat. 1312, 1332. In creating INFRA, Congress authorized U.S. DOT to issue grants
to state and public agencies for various highway and bridge projects to improve the safety,
efficiency, and reliability of the movement of freight and people across rural and urban areas;
generate national and regional economic benefits; and address the impact of population growth
on the movement of people and freight. See 23 U.S.C. § 117(c)-(d).
60. Another example is the Wildlife Crossing Pilot Program. When enacting the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, Congress authorized funding for the Wildlife
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 13 of 63 PageID #: 13
14
Crossing Pilot Program to aid States in improving safety for motorists by reducing the number of
wildlife-vehicle collisions. See 23 U.S.C. § 171.
61. None of the statutes underlying these other Federal Highway Administration funding
programs describe immigration enforcement as a purpose for which the funds are awarded. None
of the statutes underlying these other Federal Highway Administration funding programs
describe immigration enforcement as a condition or criterion for U.S. DOT awarding funding
under these programs.
62. For instance, the statute authorizing INFRA grants requires the Secretary to only
consider a project’s funding sources, cost-effectiveness, and other factors relating to the project.
23 U.S.C. § 117(g)-(h). It provides no authority for U.S. DOT to place additional conditions on
grant funding determinations, and certainly not conditions relating to immigration enforcement.
63. Similarly, the statutory provisions authorizing wildlife crossing grants state that the
primary criteria for selecting grant recipients is “the extent to which the proposed project of an
eligible entity is likely to protect motorists and wildlife by reducing the number of wildlife-
vehicle collisions and improve habitat connectivity for terrestrial and aquatic species.” 23 U.S.C.
§ 171(e)(1); see also id. § 171(f)(1) (Secretary of Transportation “shall ensure that a grant
received under the pilot program is used for a project to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions”).
64. Plaintiff States receive and rely upon substantial federal grants from these and other
Federal Highway Administration programs for critical projects.
65. For example, such funding has supported bridge restoration or replacement projects.
In Rhode Island, INFRA grants have been key to funding the reconstruction of the Washington
Bridge, which abruptly closed due to severe safety concerns. Reconstruction of this bridge is
vital for ensuring the safe travel of persons and goods in and out of Rhode Island’s capital city
and port. Without a full capacity bridge crossing the Seekonk River, Providence and the West
Bay of Rhode Island remain cut off from the East Bay of Rhode Island and critical points in
southeastern Massachusetts, including Fall River and Cape Cod.
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 14 of 63 PageID #: 14
15
66. In fiscal year 2024, Michigan received $196,005,837 in INFRA grants for its River
Raisin Bridge and Interstate 75 Revitalization Project. The River Raisin Bridge carries about
61,000 vehicles daily—about a quarter of which are trucks—between Detroit and Toledo. Built
in 1955, the bridge’s combination of age and high use presents safety concerns that the
replacement project aims to address, in addition to reconstruction of more than three miles of the
connecting Interstate 75.
67. Similarly, in fiscal year 2024, Minnesota and Wisconsin were awarded just over $1
billion in INFRA grants for the replacement of Blatnik Bridge. The Blatnik Bridge connects
Minnesota and Wisconsin and serves an average of 33,000 cars traveling between the two States
each day. Built in 1961, the aging Blatnik Bridge is now in poor condition, has weight
restrictions and traffic safety issues, and is nearing the end of its service life. Without the
replacement project—and the funds to support it—the Blatnik Bridge is predicted to close by
2030.
68. Oregon, too, has recently been awarded more than $2 billion in Bridge Investment
Project and other federal highway grants to support the replacement of the I-5 Columbia River
Interstate Bridge connecting Oregon and Washington. The current bridge is a major corridor
between communities, with over 120,000 average daily crossings and over $132 million in
freight commodity value crossing the bridge daily in 2020. Replacement of the interstate bridge
is necessary to replace the aging structure with an earthquake-resistant bridge that can address
heavy congestion, safety issues, and limited public transit options. And federal funding is
essential for the replacement project, as the project previously suffered interruptions due to
insufficient funding.
69. Federal Highway Administration funding has supported other vital infrastructure
projects as well. For instance, California has been granted an INFRA award of $105,000,000 to
improve state and U.S. highways, create jobs, and improve freight movement. Specifically, the
$105,000,000 award funds the State Route 84 – Interstate 101 Interchange project in San Mateo
County to replace ramps, widen local roads connected to them, add signals, and add pedestrian
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 15 of 63 PageID #: 15
16
and bicycle paths on local connecting roads. These developments will alleviate significant freight
bottlenecks to the nearby Port of Redwood City and reduce congestion in the Redwood City to
South San Francisco Bay region, a fast growing area. Though California is being awarded the
$105,000,00, U.S. DOT has not yet obligated the funds.3
70. In fiscal year 2024, Illinois received INFRA grants totaling $81,589,533 to make
improvements along a three-mile elevated rail corridor on Chicago’s South Side.
71. Further, U.S. DOT has allocated $350 million in funding to the States for fiscal
years 2022 through 2026 to assist with the Wildlife Crossing Pilot Program. These funds support
programs including the building of overpasses and underpasses, the restoration of habitat to
facilitate animal crossings, and other types of efforts including safety innovation research and the
mapping of wildlife-vehicle collisions.
72. For instance, the California Department of Transportation received an $8 million
wildlife crossing grant in fiscal years 2022 and 2023 for work on the Gaviota Pass Wildlife
Connectivity and Vehicle Collision Reduction Project. The project aims to reduce vehicle
collisions and connect wildlife habitat on State Park lands across either side of Highway 101,
including through expansion of a culvert and construction of miles of fencing that allows animals
to cross the highway without endangering either drivers or wildlife.
73. Similarly, the Maryland State Highway Administration has been awarded a Wildlife
Crossing Pilot Program grant of $387,424 for federal fiscal years 2024 and 2025.
74. Moreover, in 2022-2023, the Vermont Agency of Transportation received a $1.6
million award to design a wildlife crossing to reduce wildlife vehicle collisions and reestablish
wildlife connectivity in the heart of the Green Mountains, between some of the largest and least
fragmented forest blocks in the northeastern United States.
3 Federal funds are “obligated” when the federal government has taken a legal commitment to pay those funds. See 23 U.S.C. § 106(a)(3).
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 16 of 63 PageID #: 16
17
75. Plaintiff States have applied or intend to apply for federal highway funds under these
various funding programs in fiscal year 2025 and future fiscal years when these funds are
available.
B. Federal Funding from the Federal Transit Administration
76. Congress created the Federal Transit Administration to administer federal funding to
support transit systems across the States—including buses, subways, light rail, commuter rail,
trolleys, and ferries—and the millions of Americans who rely upon them every day. See 49
U.S.C. § 5301 (“It is in the interest of the United States . . . to foster the development and
revitalization of public transportation systems . . . .”). The Federal Transit Administration is a
sub-agency within U.S. DOT. 49 U.S.C. § 107(a).
77. The Federal Transit Administration oversees thousands of grants provided to States,
tribes, and local public agencies to support public transportation. Among other funding
programs, the Federal Transit Administrations administers formula grants for urban areas, rural
areas, and the enhanced mobility of seniors and individuals with disabilities. See, e.g., 49 U.S.C.
§§ 5307, 5310, 5311.
78. For example, the Federal Transit Administration oversees formula grants for rural
areas to ensure that all communities, not just urban centers, have access to public transportation.
49 U.S.C. § 5311. Entities eligible for funding under these grants include States and Indian
tribes. 49 U.S.C. § 5311(a).
79. For the Federal Transit Administration’s formula grants, each State is entitled to a
specific allocation by law. See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. § 5311(c).
80. The statutes authorizing these grants do not authorize U.S. DOT to impose the
Immigration Enforcement Condition as a requirement for the Federal Transit Administration’s
formula funding.
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 17 of 63 PageID #: 17
18
81. Plaintiff States receive and rely upon substantial sums of funding from Federal
Transit Administration grant programs. For fiscal year 2025, Plaintiff States expect to receive the
following funding apportioned from all Federal Transit Administration formula grants:4
• California: $2,085,116,209
• Colorado: $200,765,144
• Connecticut: $265,353,760
• Delaware: $37,469,784
• Hawaii: $65,879,982
• Illinois: $860,700,111
• Maine: $50,281,879
• Maryland: $364,735,296
• Massachusetts: $545,571,942
• Michigan: $203,427,466
• Minnesota: $174,069,813
• Nevada: $105,591,696
• New Jersey: $868,923,367
• New Mexico: $78,497,808
• New York: $2,331,328,789
• Oregon: $164,236,846
• Rhode Island: $59,539,397
• Vermont: $16,014,805
• Washington: $390,420,253
• Wisconsin: $120,360,892
82. The Federal Transit Administration also administers several other major competitive
grants, in addition to the formula funds it distributes to States. For instance, the Federal Transit
4 As reported on U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP., FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, FY 2025 FULL YEAR APPORTIONMENT STATE TOTALS, available at https://tinyurl.com/ysdfthsa.
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 18 of 63 PageID #: 18
19
Administration authorized a grant of $7,407,963 to Rhode Island in fiscal year 2024 to support
the State’s replacement, repair, or purchase of buses and bus facilities. Oregon similarly received
a bus and bus facility grant of $3,743,883 in fiscal year 2022. Maryland also received an award
of $213,696,341 for replacement of aging light rail vehicles for federal fiscal years 2024 and
2025.
83. No statute authorizes U.S. DOT to impose the Immigration Enforcement Condition
as a requirement for Federal Transit Administration funding. Neither the purpose of these
programs, nor their grant criteria, are in any way connected to immigration enforcement.
84. Plaintiff States have applied or intend to apply for Federal Transit Administration
federal grant funding, including formula grants for rural areas, in fiscal year 2025 and future
fiscal years when these funds are available.
C. Federal Funding from the Federal Railroad Administration
85. The United States has long subsidized the development of railroads systems
connecting the country. See, e.g., Pacific Railway Act, 12 Stat. 489 (July 1, 1862); Darwin P.
Roberts, The Legal History of Federally Granted Railroad Rights-of-Way and the Myth of
Congress’s ‘1871 Shift’, 82 U. Colo. L. Rev. 85, 97-98 (2011). While newer forms of
transportation have emerged since the advent of the railroad, railroads and railcars continue to
provide a vital means of overland transport, covering nearly 140,000 miles across the country
and carrying 1.9 billion tons of raw material every year. Brian Chansky and Michael Schultz,
Tracking Productivity in Line-Haul Railroads, BEYOND THE NUMBERS: PRODUCTIVITY, U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Mar. 2024.
86. To ensure safety and efficiency throughout these railroad networks, a sub-agency
within U.S. DOT, the Federal Railroad Administration, administers federal funding to support
both passenger and freight rail development, maintenance, and safety throughout the States. See
49 U.S.C. § 103. These include, among other grants, federal grants to Amtrak; the Consolidated
Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement Program; Corridor Identification and Development
Program; Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program; Railroad
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 19 of 63 PageID #: 19
20
Crossing Elimination Grant Program; Railroad Safety State Participation Grant Program; and
Special Transportation Safety Circumstances Grant Program.
87. None of the statutes underlying these Federal Rail Administration funding programs
describes immigration enforcement as a criterion for U.S. DOT awarding federal funds under
these programs. None of these statutes announce program purposes nor grant criteria involving
immigration enforcement.
88. For instance, the Rail Crossing Elimination Grant Program was created by Congress
to eliminate the dangers caused by stopped trains blocking rail grade crossings. See 49 U.S.C.
§ 22909(b).
89. Congress has made such funding available to the States to eliminate the hazards of
railway crossings since at least the 1970s. See, e.g., Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, Pub. L.
No. 93-87, § 203(b), 87 Stat. 283 (appropriating $175 million “for projects for the elimination of
hazards of railway-highway crossings”). More recently, in 2021, Congress appropriated $3
billion over five years, and authorized to be appropriated an additional $500 million per year
over that same period, to fund grants under a program to eliminate especially problematic grade
crossings. See Passenger Rail Expansion and Rail Safety Act of 2021, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135
Stat. 720 (codified at 49 U.S.C. 22909(b)(1)); see also Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 695-696
(authorizing to be appropriated $500 million each fiscal year from 2022 through 2026 for the
program); Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 1436
(appropriating $3 billion for the program).
90. The authorizing statute for rail crossing elimination grants states that the Secretary
“shall” evaluate certain criteria for selecting projects funded by the grants, including, among
other things, whether the proposed projects would “improve safety at highway-rail or pathway-
rail crossings”; “grade separate, eliminate, or close highway-rail or path-way rail crossings”;
“improve the mobility of people or goods”; “reduce emissions, protect the environment, and
provide community benefits, including noise reduction”; “improve access to emergency
services”; “provide economic benefits”; and “improve access to communities separated by rail
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 20 of 63 PageID #: 20
21
crossings.” 49 U.S.C. § 22909(f). None of these criteria include federal immigration
enforcement.
91. Plaintiff States receive and rely upon substantial sums of funding from Federal Rail
Administration grant programs, including from the Rail Crossing Elimination Grant Program.
For instance, Illinois has been awarded $43,125,000 in Rail Crossing Elimination Grant funding
for grade crossing and bridge-related improvements in the Greater Chicago region. Illinois has
also been awarded $38,629,295 under the Restoration and Enhancements Grants program to
support the development of a new daily roundtrip Amtrak Borealis service from Chicago,
Illinois, to Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota. Separately, under the Consolidated Rail
Infrastructure and Safety Improvement Program, New York has been awarded $215,104,000 for
its projects ensuring and improving the safety of its rail systems.
92. Maryland has received funding awards from the Federal Rail Administration
including: Rail Crossing Elimination Grants of $1,534,280 for federal fiscal years 2022 to 2025
and $3,108,969 for federal fiscal year 2024; and Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety
Improvement Program grants of $8,800,000 for federal fiscal year 2022, $800,000 for federal
fiscal year 2024, and $11,584,317 for federal fiscal years 2022 to 2026.
93. Plaintiff States have applied or intend to apply for Federal Rail Administration funds,
including railroad crossing elimination grants, in fiscal year 2025 and future fiscal years when
these funds are available.
D. Federal Funding from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
94. Established in 2000, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s primary
mission is to prevent injuries and deaths that result from crashes involving commercial vehicles,
such as large trucks and buses. See Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, Pub. L. No.
106-159, 113 Stat. 1748. According to a 2017 report, more than 11 million large trucks travel
U.S. roads, with almost four million people holding commercial driver’s licenses. David Randall
Peterman, Cong. Research. Serv., R44792, Commercial Truck Safety: Overview 1 (2017). In
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 21 of 63 PageID #: 21
22
2015, large trucks were involved in more than 400,000 motor vehicle crashes, with nearly
100,000 of those crashes causing injuries and 3,600 resulting in fatalities. Id.
95. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is a sub-agency within U.S. DOT.
49 U.S.C. § 113(a). Though the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration promulgates
regulations to govern commercial drivers, the volume of commercial vehicles in this country
requires the federal agency to rely heavily on state partners to enforce safety measures
nationwide. See David Randall Peterman, Cong. Research Serv., R43026, Federal Traffic Safety
Programs: In Brief 3-4 ( 2024). To enable state partners to fulfill the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration’s safety mission, the agency awards grants to state and local law
enforcement offices to support on-site and roadside inspections, measures to secure the integrity
of state commercial driver’s license programs, and commercial driver safety trainings.
96. None of the statutes underlying these Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
grant programs describes federal immigration enforcement as a criterion for U.S. DOT awarding
a federal grant under these programs. None of these statutes announce program purposes nor
grant criteria involving federal immigration enforcement.
97. For instance, the Motor Carrier Safety Administration administers the Motor Carrier
Safety Assistance Program. The program provides grants to promote the safe transportation of
passengers and hazardous materials and reduce the number and severity of crashes, and resulting
injuries and fatalities, involving commercial motor vehicles. 49 U.S.C. § 31102(b); 49 C.F.R.
§ 350.201.
98. Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program funds have been available to States since
Congress first authorized the program in 1982. See Surface Transportation Assistance Act of
1982, Pub. L. No. 97-424, 96 Stat. 2097, 2155.
99. Congress has authorized funds be used to carry out the Motor Carrier Safety
Assistance Program, including approximately $487 million for fiscal year 2025. See 49 U.S.C.
§ 31104(a)(1).
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 22 of 63 PageID #: 22
23
100. The Secretary of Transportation is required to allocate Motor Carrier Safety
Assistance Program funds pursuant to allocation criteria that the Secretary must prescribe
through regulation. 49 U.S.C. § 31102(j); see 49 C.F.R. § 350.217. The Secretary is prohibited
from decreasing a State’s funding levels from the allocation amount by more than three percent
in a fiscal year, with exceptions. 49 U.S.C. § 31102(j).
101. The Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program statutes do not authorize U.S. DOT to
impose the Immigration Enforcement Condition as a requirement for Motor Carrier Safety
Assistance Program funding.
102. Plaintiff States receive and rely upon substantial sums of funding from Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration grant programs, including the Motor Carrier Safety
Assistance Program. For instance, for fiscal year 2024, U.S. DOT estimated that it would award
Plaintiff States the following amount of funding from all Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Program grants:5
• California: $30,491,529
• Colorado: $7,915,874
• Connecticut: $4,268,837
• Delaware: $1,849,251
• Hawaii: $1,849,251
• Illinois: $17,435,739
• Maine: $2,525,332
• Maryland: $7,968,726
• Massachusetts: $8,169,109
• Michigan: $13,997,207
• Minnesota: $9,814,543
• Nevada: $4,319,104
5 As reported on U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP., MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMIN., FY 2024 ESTIMATED MCSAP FUNDING - ROUNDED, available at https://tinyurl.com/24xt3y39.
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 23 of 63 PageID #: 23
24
• New Jersey: $11,157,256
• New Mexico: $6,742,920
• New York: $19,850,351
• Oregon: $6,320,241
• Rhode Island: $1,849,251
• Vermont: $2,086,673
• Washington: $9,835,684
• Wisconsin: $9,636,095
103. Plaintiff States depend upon these funds to sustain their programs ensuring
commercial vehicle safety. For instance, the Washington State Patrol relies on annual Motor
Carrier Safety Assistance Program funding to promote traffic safety programs in the State. The
Washington State Patrol expects to deplete its current Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program
funding by mid-June 2025; if unable to draw from the $5.4 million in Motor Carrier Safety
Assistance Program funding that it has been awarded for fiscal year 2025, the Washington State
Patrol may not be able to sustain programs necessary to prevent commercial vehicle crashes.
104. Similarly, in fiscal year 2024, Vermont received over $1.7 million from the Motor
Carrier Safety Assistance Program through its High Priority Innovative Technology Deployment
program, which provides financial assistance to States to deploy advanced technological safety
solutions and intelligent transportation systems for commercial vehicle operations.
105. Plaintiff States have applied or intend to apply for Motor Carrier Safety
Administration funds, including Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program grants, in fiscal year
2025 and future fiscal years when these funds are available.
E. Federal Funding from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
106. “The development of the automobile gave Americans unprecedented freedom to
travel, but exacted a high price for enhanced mobility.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 32-33 (1983). Since 1929, car accidents have
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 24 of 63 PageID #: 24
25
become a “leading cause of accidental deaths and injuries in the United States.” Id. at 33; see
also Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention, About Transportation Safety (Nov. 19, 2024),
https://tinyurl.com/348kk847 (“In the United States, motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of
death, and kill over 120 people every day.”).
107. To protect the lives of Americans as they travel freely throughout the country,
Congress created the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a sub-agency of the U.S.
DOT, in 1966. See National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Pub. L. No. 89-563,
80 Stat. 718 (codified at 49 U.S.C. § 105(a)). Among other functions, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration’s Office of Regional Operations and Program Deliveries
administers state highway safety formula grant programs to the States to support data-driven,
evidence-based programs to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce economic costs due to traffic
crashes.
108. None of the statutes underlying the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration’s grant programs describe federal immigration enforcement as a purpose or
criterion for U.S. DOT awarding a federal grant under these programs.
109. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s largest safety grant programs
include its National Priority Safety Program and its State and Community Highway Safety
Program.
110. First, the National Priority Safety Program provides several grants to encourage
States to take specific actions promoting use of seat belts and child restraints; reduce impaired or
distracted driving; require graduated licenses for teen drivers; address the safety of motorcyclists,
bicyclists, and pedestrians; and improve the quality of state traffic safety information systems. 23
U.S.C. § 405(a).
111. Funds appropriated to carry out the National Priority Safety Program shall be
apportioned to States pursuant to a statutory formula based on population and total public road
mileage of each State, subject to a minimum apportionment for all States that meet certain
requirements. 23 U.S.C. § 405(a). Because National Priority Safety grants are formula grants and
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 25 of 63 PageID #: 25
26
not competitive grants, each State is entitled to a specific allocation when the State authority files
an application for such funding. 23 U.S.C. § 405(a).
112. Second, the Highway Safety Program provides grants to reduce traffic crashes and
deaths, injuries, and property damage resulting from those crashes. 23 U.S.C. § 402(a)(1)(i).
113. Funds appropriated to carry out the Highway Safety Program “shall be used” to aid
States’ implementation of their approved highway safety programs. 23 U.S.C. § 402(c)(1); 23
C.F.R. § 1300.15.
114. Funds appropriated to carry out the Highway Safety Program “shall be apportioned”
to States pursuant to a statutory formula based on population and total public road mileage of
each State, subject to a minimum apportionment for all States. 23 U.S.C. § 402(c)(2). Because
Highway Safety Program grants are formula grants and not competitive grants, each State is
entitled to a specific allocation when the State authority files an application for such funding.
115. The National Priority Safety and Highway Safety Program statutes do not authorize
U.S. DOT to impose the Immigration Enforcement Condition as a requirement for Highway
Safety Program funding.
116. Plaintiff States receive and rely upon substantial sums of funding from National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration grant programs. For instance, Congress authorized a total
of $395 million for fiscal year 2024 to carry out the Highway Safety Program. In fiscal year
2024, the below States were awarded the following amounts of federal funding under the
Highway Safety Program6:
• California: $35,835,906
• Colorado: $6,662,797
• Connecticut: $3,376,382
• Delaware: $2,960,775
• Hawaii: $2,960,775
6 As reported on U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP., NAT’L HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN., FY 2024 GRANT FUNDING TABLE, available at https://tinyurl.com/yc79fyzc (figures rounded to the nearest dollar).
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 26 of 63 PageID #: 26
27
• Illinois: $13,588,437
• Maine: $2,960,775
• Maryland: $5,692,502
• Massachusetts: $6,473,201
• Michigan: $10,851,031
• Minnesota: $7,827,576
• Nevada: $3,564,794
• New Jersey: $8,328,358
• New Mexico: $3,336,441
• New York: $18,792,047
• Oregon: $5,194,602
• Rhode Island: $2,960,775
• Vermont: $2,960,775
• Washington: $7,983,382
• Wisconsin: $7,354,781
117. Plaintiff States employ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration funds for a
range of programs that seek to reduce traffic injuries and deaths. For instance, California’s Office
of Traffic Safety subgrants Highway Safety Program funds to entities promoting educational
campaigns on safe driving; it also subgrants funds to support law enforcement efforts to police
and prevent traffic violations, like driving under the influence, that could endanger drivers on the
road. Federal funding sustains a substantial majority of California’s traffic safety program
administration—of California’s 47 Office of Traffic Safety employees, 32 are 100 percent
federally funded, and the remaining 15 employees are majority-funded by federal funding (more
than 70 percent).
118. Similarly, Vermont uses Highway Traffic Safety funds to address safety risks
associated with unrestrained passenger vehicle occupants, impaired driving, speeding, and
distracted and reckless driving.
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 27 of 63 PageID #: 27
28
119. The Washington Traffic Safety Commission also receives and subgrants National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration funding. It subgrants that funding to 143 entities—
including law enforcement agencies, tribes, non-profits, state agencies, universities, and city and
county governments—to develop and coordinate statewide and local behavioral traffic safety
programs. Among other things, this federal funding has helped expand traffic enforcement units
by resulting in the creation or hiring of 9.5 positions across seven local law enforcement
agencies; funded positions at the Department of Licensing, the Office of the Administrator of the
Courts, and toxicologists at the Washington State Patrol Toxicology Lab; and helped expand the
number of young driver traffic safety programs to more middle schools, high schools, and
colleges, as well as to drivers under age 25 through an app-based rewards program.
120. In fiscal year 2024, the Washington Traffic Safety Commission also received
$358,117 in funding to support a Fatality Analysis Reporting System and Crash Reporting
Sampling System that supplies data for a nationwide, annual census that informs the creation of
public policies to further reduce fatal injuries from traffic crashes. The Washington Traffic
Safety Commission anticipates receiving $368,452 in fiscal year 2025 to support the same data
collection systems.
121. During its most recent budget cycle for 2023 to 2025, 80 percent of the Washington
Traffic Safety Commission’s operating budget originates from funds awarded by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
122. Plaintiff States have applied or intend to apply for National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration grants in fiscal year 2025 and future fiscal years when these funds are available.
F. Federal Funding from the Federal Aviation Administration
123. Congress created the Federal Aviation Agency in 1958 to form an entity that would
focus solely on ensuring civil aviation safety. See Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Pub. L. No. 85-
726, 85 Stat. 726. The Agency was later renamed the Federal Aviation Administration and
transferred to the purview of U.S. DOT in 1966. See 49 U.S.C. § 106(a). In its most recent
reauthorization of the agency in 2024, Congress charged the Federal Aviation Administration
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 28 of 63 PageID #: 28
29
with a number of duties, including the hiring and training of air traffic controllers; the
modernization of the national airspace system; the administration of aviation workforce
development grants to train future pilots and maintenance technicians; and the establishment of
aviation safety initiatives, including inspections of repair stations, qualifications for aircraft
maintainers, and aircraft certification processes. FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, Pub. L. No.
118-63, 138 Stat. 1025.
124. Recent tragedies highlight the importance of the Federal Aviation Administration’s
safety mission. On January 29, 2025, an American Airlines plane and U.S. Army Black Hawk
helicopter collided mid-air over the Potomac River in Washington, D.C. All 67 passengers on
board both aircraft were killed in the tragic crash. A week later, a regional airline flight crashed
off the coast of Alaska, resulting in the deaths of all 10 passengers onboard. And several small
plane crashes have occurred since then, in Arizona, Florida, Pennsylvania, and New York.
125. To prevent such disasters, the Federal Aviation Administration seeks to ensure safe
airways by, among other things, administering federal funding programs to state and local
governments to improve airport needs and safety under the Airport Improvement Program. The
Airport Improvement Program has provided federal funding to the States for airport development
and planning since 1982. Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-248, 95
Stat. 671.
126. The Airport Improvement Program provides federal funding to States to maintain a
safe and efficient system of public-use airports that meets the present and future needs of civil
aeronautics. Its funding generally supports airport runways, taxiways, noise abatement, and
safety or emergency equipment. In doing so, the federal funding program allows States to
improve the safe operation of their airports and increase the capacity of their facilities to
accommodate passenger and cargo traffic.
127. The Federal Aviation Administration funds both formula and competitive grants
under the Airport Improvement Program.
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 29 of 63 PageID #: 29
30
128. For its formula funding, the Airport Improvement Program provides several formula
grants, including those supporting primary airports (large airports that satisfy a certain passenger
volume), cargo service airports, and general aviation airports. 49 U.S.C. § 47114.
129. Because these airport grants are formula grants and not competitive ones, each State
is entitled to a specific allocation when the State authority files an application for such funding.
49 U.S.C. § 47114.
130. Additionally, the Airport Improvement Program includes grants awarded on a
competitive basis. These funds are granted on a per-project basis by the Secretary of
Transportation from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. 49 U.S.C. § 47104.
131. States, local governments, public agencies, and private owners of public-use airports
are eligible to apply for Airport Improvement Program grants. 49 U.S.C. §§ 47102, 47105. States
can receive and administer funds from the Airport Improvement Program through the state block
grant program for airports in the State classified as non-primary by the Federal Aviation
Administration. 49 U.S.C. § 47128.
132. The Secretary can only place specific conditions on the issuance of Airport
Improvement Program grants; these conditions are spelled out in the Airport Improvement
Program statutes. 49 U.S.C. §§ 47106, 47107. These conditions are all related to the projects
funded by the Airport Improvement Program. Id. § 41707. The Secretary is authorized to modify
these conditions, but these changes must be published in the Federal Register and open to a
comment period. Id. § 41707(h)(1).
133. Additionally, the Secretary is authorized to impose terms on a grant offer, but only
those terms necessary to carry out the priorities of the Airport Improvement Program. Id. at §
47108(a).
134. The Airport Improvement Program statutes do not authorize U.S. DOT to impose the
Immigration Enforcement Condition as a requirement for Airport Improvement Program
funding. None of the statutes underlying the Federal Aviation Administration’s grant programs
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 30 of 63 PageID #: 30
31
describe immigration enforcement as a purpose or criterion for U.S. DOT awarding a federal
grant under these programs.
135. Plaintiff States receive and rely on Airport Improvement Program grants for critical
airport projects within their States. In Fiscal Year 2024, Plaintiff States received the following
formula apportionments under the Airport Improvement Program:7
• California: $18,861,826
• Colorado: $5,222,633
• Connecticut: $1,431,328
• Delaware: $422,708
• Hawaii: $845,270
• Illinois: $6,262,073
• Maine: $1,565,306
• Maryland: $2,541,522
• Massachusetts: $2,782,647
• Michigan: $6,500,087
• Minnesota: $4,671,007
• Nevada: $4,488,870
• New Jersey: $3,516,075
• New Mexico: $4,482,919
• New York: $8,741,925
• Oregon: $4,509,547
• Rhode Island: $431,216
• Vermont: $520,827
• Washington: $4,888,477
• Wisconsin: $4,076,549
7 As reported on U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP., FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION., FISCAL YEAR 2024 STATE APPORTIONMENT, available at https://tinyurl.com/2v9y6ks4.
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 31 of 63 PageID #: 31
32
136. Plaintiff States have applied or intend to apply for Federal Aviation Administration
grants, including the Airport Improvement Program, in fiscal year 2025 and future fiscal years
when these funds are available.
G. Federal Funding from the Federal Maritime Administration
137. The Maritime Administration is the sub-agency within U.S. DOT responsible for the
nation’s waterborne transportation systems. 49 U.S.C. § 109(a). It supports the nation’s ships,
shipyards, ports, and shipping lanes and waterways, and it oversees other related issues like
environmental protection and vessel safety.
138. As part of its responsibilities, the Maritime Administration administers federal
funding to state and local governments related to water transportation.
139. None of the statutes underlying the Maritime Administration’s funding programs
describe federal immigration enforcement as a purpose or criterion for U.S. DOT awarding a
federal grant under these programs.
140. For instance, the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP) exists to provide
federal grants to states, local governments, and public agencies for the purpose of improving the
safety, efficiency, or reliability of the movement of goods through ports and intermodal
connections to ports. 46 U.S.C. § 54301(a)(1). In 2022, nearly 300 ports throughout the United
States handled 2.6 billion short tons of cargo. Bureau of Transp. Statistics, U.S. Dep’t of Transp.,
Port Performance Freight Statistics: 2025 Annual Report 6 (2025).
141. PIDP was authorized by Congress as part of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-84, § 3512, 123 Stat. 2190, 2722-24. The program is
codified at 46 U.S.C. § 54301.
142. U.S. DOT gives these grants for port projects and projects directly related to port
operations or to an intermodal connection to a port. 46 U.S.C. § 54301(a)(3)(A)(i). Recipients of
PIDP funds must use the funds to improve the safety, efficiency, or reliability of the loading and
unloading of goods at the port, the movement of goods into, out of, around, or within a port,
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 32 of 63 PageID #: 32
33
operational improvements, environmental and emission mitigation measures, and port
infrastructure. Id. § 54301(a)(3)(A)(ii).
143. The PIDP statute only requires and authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to
impose grant conditions related to maintenance of records related to the grant project. Id.
§ 54301(a)(10).
144. The PIDP statute does not authorize U.S. DOT to impose the Immigration
Enforcement Condition as a requirement for PIDP funding.
145. Plaintiff States receive and rely upon substantial sums of Maritime Administration
funding, such as PIDP funding, for important projects developing their ports, harbors, and
shipyards. For instance, Rhode Island has been awarded $26,380,000 in total PIDP funding
throughout fiscal years 2022, 2023, and 2024 for its port development projects. In fiscal year
2024, Rhode Island received $11.25 million to improve the Port of Davisville’s terminal access;
build a new 8.6-acre terminal to facilitate greater transport of large cargo; support the
development of the new Frys Cove Road to provide further access to another 19.3 acres of area
around the port; and add improvements to reinforce the port’s security and resilience against sea
level rise.
146. Plaintiff States have applied or intend to apply for Maritime Administration grants,
including PIDP, in fiscal year 2025 and future fiscal years when these funds are available.
H. Federal Funding from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
147. The United States has approximately 3.3 million miles of pipelines transporting
natural gas, crude oil, and other hazardous liquids onshore throughout the country. To guarantee
that these pipelines can power the States’ communities safely and reliably, Congress charged the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, a sub-agency within U.S. DOT, with
developing and enforcing regulations to ensure safe, reliable, and environmentally sound
transportation of energy and other hazardous materials. See 49 U.S.C. § 108.
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 33 of 63 PageID #: 33
34
148. Pipeline accidents may cause devastating environmental damage and harm to public
safety. For instance, in 2023, a natural gas pipeline-related explosion and fire at a factory in West
Reading, Pennsylvania, killed seven people and caused 10 others to be hospitalized. In 2018,
overpressure in a natural gas pipeline in Merrimack Valley, Massachusetts led to explosions and
fires that killed one person, injured 21 others, damaged 131 structures, and forced 30,000
residents to evacuate. And in 2015, the Aliso Canyon Underground Storage Facility in Los
Angeles County experienced an uncontrolled natural gas leak that released about 109,000 metric
tons of methane. This noxious gas leak forced the temporary relocation of over 8,000 households
and two schools in the nearby Porter Ranch community.
149. To prevent and mitigate such accidents, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration’s pipeline safety program “relies heavily on state partnerships” to maintain safe
and reliable energy pipelines throughout the country. Paul W. Parfomak, Cong. Research Serv.,
R44201, DOT’s Federal Pipeline Safety Program: Background and Issues for Congress, (2023).
The statute provides for States to assume authority to oversee the safety of intrastate gas
pipelines, hazardous liquid pipelines, and underground natural gas storage pursuant to
certifications and agreements formed with the federal government establishing, among other
things, minimum federal pipeline safety standards. The District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and
all States except Alaska and Hawaii participate in this pipeline safety program, overseeing over
85 percent of the pipeline infrastructure subject to the agency’s authority.
150. As part of this partnership, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration administers the distribution of federal funding through several funding programs,
including the Pipeline Safety Program State Base Grant (State Pipeline Safety Grants). The
statute requires the agency to provide these federal grants to reimburse States up to 80 percent of
the total cost of the personnel, equipment, and activities reasonably required “to provide
adequate protection against risks to life and property,” including through the “design,
installation, inspection, emergency plans and procedures, testing, construction, extension,
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 34 of 63 PageID #: 34
35
operation, replacement, and maintenance of pipeline facilities.” 49 U.S.C. §§ 60102(a)(1),
(a)(2)(B), 60107(a)(1)-(2).
151. State Pipeline Safety Grant funds have been available to States since 2003. See Pub.
L. No. 108-7, 117 Stat. 11, 405 (codified at 49 U.S.C. § 60107).
152. Because State Pipeline Safety Grants are formula grants and not competitive grants,
each State is entitled to a specific allocation when the State authority files an application for such
funding. 49 U.S.C. § 60107(a).
153. No statute authorizes U.S. DOT to impose the Immigration Enforcement Condition
as a requirement for State Pipeline Safety Grant funding. Neither the purpose of the program nor
the grant criteria are in any way connected to federal immigration enforcement.
154. Plaintiff States rely on funding from Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, including through Pipeline Safety grants, to ensure the safety of their
communities. For example, in fiscal year 2024, California’s Office of the State Fire Marshal, a
division of the Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention, received $6,375,627 in
reimbursements under State Pipeline Safety Grants for the regular safety inspections of oil
pipelines running throughout the State, including personnel costs, equipment, training, and
travel. Rhode Island was also awarded nearly $400,000 in total from fiscal years 2022 through
2024, under the Hazardous Material Emergency Preparedness program, to support the State’s
training and emergency protocols for handling and transporting hazardous materials.
155. Plaintiff States have applied for or intend to apply for Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Administration grants, including State Pipeline Safety and Hazardous Material
Emergency Preparedness grants, in fiscal year 2025 and future fiscal years when these funds are
available.
II. STATES HAVE EXERCISED THEIR SOVEREIGN PREROGATIVE TO CHOOSE HOW TO DEPLOY LAW ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES IN THEIR STATES
156. In our “system of dual sovereignty between the States and the Federal Government,”
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991), States retain the general police power “to protect
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 35 of 63 PageID #: 35
36
the people, property, and economic activity within [their] borders,” New York v. New Jersey, 598
U.S. 218, 225 (2023). “[I]n the exercise of such powers the state has wide discretion in
determining its own public policy and what measures are necessary for its own protection and
properly to promote the safety, peace and good order of its people.” Terrace v. Thompson, 263
U.S. 197, 217 (1923). That means “the Federal Government may not compel the States to
implement, by legislation or executive action, federal regulatory programs.” Printz v. United
States, 521 U.S. 898, 925 (1997). Nor may the federal government “impress into its service—and
at no cost to itself—the police officers of the 50 states.” Id. at 922.
157. When exercising that police power, one critical choice that Plaintiff States must
make is whether to task their state agencies or law enforcement officers with assisting the federal
government in enforcing federal immigration law.
158. Many Plaintiff States and their political subdivisions, for decades, have chosen to
limit their entanglement in the enforcement of federal immigration law. See, e.g., Cal. Penal
Code § 422.93(a), (b); Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 7282-7282.5, 7284-7284.12; 5 Ill. Comp. Stat. 805/1
to /20; N.J. Att’y Gen. Directive 2018-6 (rev. 2019); Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 5-104; Colo.
Rev. Stat. § 24-76.6-102 to -103; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-192h; D.C. Code § 24-211.07; N.Y.
Exec. Orders 170 and 170.1; Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 181.850, 181A.820; R.I. State Police Gen. Order
56A10; Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 20, §§ 2366, 4651; Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§ 10.93.160, 43.10.315.
These laws and policies uniformly authorize state and local authorities to comply with applicable
federal laws but impose limitations on the circumstances under which state and local officers can
devote their own, limited resources to assisting the federal government in enforcing federal
immigration law.
159. These laws and policies are based on the considered experience of state agencies and
law enforcement officers, who found that immigrants are less likely to participate in public
health programs or to report crimes if they fear that the responding official or officer will turn
them over to immigration authorities. For the latter, this reluctance makes it increasingly difficult
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 36 of 63 PageID #: 36
37
for officers to solve crimes and bring suspects to justice, putting all residents at risk. See, e.g.,
N.J. Att’y Gen. Directive 2018-6, at 1; Cal. Gov. Code § 7284.2.
160. These States’ determinations are also well-supported by empirical data. Numerous
studies have confirmed that laws entangling state agencies with immigration enforcement deters
immigrants from seeking necessary healthcare, harming the health of the entire community. See,
e.g., Steven Asch et al., Does Fear of Immigration Authorities Deter Tuberculosis Patients from
Seeking Care?, 161 W. J. of Med. 373 (1994). Studies have also confirmed that immigration-
related fears prevent witnesses, victims, and others from reporting crimes. Surveys of law
enforcement officers and analyses of victim reporting data conclude that fear of immigration
enforcement decreased immigrant victims’ likelihood of making police reports and reporting
domestic violence, participating in investigations, and working with prosecutors. See Rafaela
Rodrigues et al., Promoting Access to Justice for Immigrant and Limited English Proficient
Crime Victims in an Age of Increased Immigration Enforcement: Initial Report from a 2017
National Survey, National Immigrant Women’s Advocacy Project 72-73 (2018). One study
estimated that policies designed to foster greater cooperation between immigrant communities
and police could cause an additional 90,000 violent incidents per year to be reported to law
enforcement nationwide. See Ricardo D. Martínez-Schuldt & Daniel E. Martínez, Immigrant
Sanctuary Policies and Crime-Reporting Behavior: A Multilevel Analysis of Reports of Crime
Victimization to Law Enforcement, 1980 to 2004, 86 Am. Sociological Rev. 154, 170 (2021).
And one study examined 2,492 counties throughout the United States and found that counties
with such policies had statistically significant lower levels of crime—35.5 fewer crimes per
10,000 people—than comparable counties without such policies. Tom K. Wong, The Effects of
Sanctuary Policies on Crime and the Economy, Ctr. for Am. Progress 4-6 (Jan. 26, 2017).
161. Participation in federal immigration enforcement efforts also imposes substantial
costs on state and local law enforcement by diverting their limited resources and exposing them
to potential civil liability for acts connected to immigration enforcement.
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 37 of 63 PageID #: 37
38
162. For example, California enacted Senate Bill 54, known as the California Values Act,
Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 7284-7284.12, to foster “trust between California’s immigrant community
and state and local agencies,” to “ensure effective policing, to protect the safety, well-being, and
constitutional rights of the people of California,” and “to direct the state’s limited resources to
matters of greatest concern to state and local governments.” Id. § 7284.2. In furtherance of those
objectives, the Values Act sets the parameters under which California law enforcement agencies
may assist in immigration enforcement. For example, the Values Act: (a) prohibits compliance
with detainer hold requests, id. § 7284.6(a)(1)(B); (b) defines when California law enforcement
agencies may comply with requests by immigration authorities seeking the release date and time
of a person in advance of the person’s release, id. §§ 7282.5(a), 7284.6(a)(1)(C); (c) defines
when California law enforcement agencies may transfer an individual to immigration
authorities—including when authorized by a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause
determination, id. §§ 7282.5(a), 7284.6(a)(4); and (d) restricts California law enforcement
agencies from “[p]roviding personal information . . . about an individual” for “immigration
enforcement purposes,” unless that information is publicly available, id. § 7284.6(a)(1)(D).
163. The Values Act, however, does not prohibit California law enforcement agencies
from asserting its own jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement matters, id. § 7284.6(f), and
permits other forms of cooperation with immigration authorities. It does not restrict law
enforcement agencies from responding to requests from immigration authorities for a specific
person’s criminal history. Id. § 7284.6(b)(2). The Values Act permits law enforcement agencies
to participate in task forces with immigration authorities and share confidential information if the
“primary purpose” of the task force is not immigration enforcement. Id. § 7284.6(b)(3). And it
expressly authorizes compliance with all aspects of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644. Id. § 7284.6(e).
164. Illinois has codified its commitment to building trust between immigrant
communities and state and local law enforcement officers in the TRUST Act, which was enacted
in 2017 by the Illinois General Assembly and signed into law by Bruce Rauner, then the
Republican Governor of Illinois. The TRUST Act provides that law enforcement agencies and
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 38 of 63 PageID #: 38
39
officers in Illinois may not detain a person solely on the basis of an “immigration detainer” or a
civil immigration warrant, 5 Ill. Comp. Stat. 805/15(a), and generally prohibits them from
detaining people solely on the basis of citizenship or immigration status, id. § 805/15(b). The
statute also prohibits state and local law enforcement officials from assisting federal immigration
agents in any enforcement operations, id. § 805/15(h)(1); providing access to detained
individuals to immigration agents, id. § 805/15(h)(2); and giving immigration agents non-public
information about the release dates of detained individuals, id. § 805/15(h)(7). But the TRUST
Act expressly allows state and local law enforcement officers to cooperate with federal
immigration enforcement actions when “presented with a federal criminal warrant” or “otherwise
required by federal law,” id. § 805/15(h), and also expressly states that it should not be read to
“restrict” information-sharing regarding “citizenship or immigration status” in accordance with
two federal statutes, 8 U.S.C. § 1373 and § 1644, id. § 805/5.
165. Maryland law enables law enforcement to investigate crime regardless of
immigration status while also encouraging immigrant communities to cooperate with law
enforcement. Maryland law generally prohibits law enforcement agents from inquiring about an
individual’s “citizenship, immigration status, or place of birth during a stop, a search, or an
arrest,” while engaging in the performance of “regular police functions.” Md. Code Ann., Crim.
Proc. § 5-104. It also prohibits law enforcement agents from detaining, or extending the
detention of, an individual for the purposes of “investigating the individual’s citizenship or
immigration status, or based on the suspicion that the individual has committed a civil
immigration violation.” Id. Maryland law further prohibits law enforcement agents from
intimidating, threatening, or coercing any individual on the basis of the actual or perceived
immigration status of the individual or their family member, legal guardian, or someone for
whom they serve as a guardian, and from transferring an individual to federal immigration
authorities unless specifically required to do so by federal law. Id. The law specifically states,
“Nothing in this subsection shall prevent a law enforcement agent from inquiring about any
information that is material to a criminal investigation.” Id.
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 39 of 63 PageID #: 39
40
166. Moreover, Maryland law restricts State and local officials from sharing an
individual’s photograph or “personal information,” such as their address, with a federal agency
seeking to enforce the immigration laws. Md. Code Ann., Gen Prov. § 4-320.1(b). However, it
will share such information with a federal agency seeking to enforce immigration laws when a
judicial warrant is presented. Id.
167. Other Plaintiff States have made different decisions or are subject to different rules
in this context. For instance, some Plaintiff States must comply with state court rulings that
prevent them from cooperating with civil immigration detainer requests. See Lunn v.
Commonwealth, 477 Mass. 517, 518-19 (2017).
168. Still other Plaintiff States without codified directives of the kind described above
have not imposed categorical limitations on the use of law-enforcement or state agency resources
to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law. However, they nonetheless do not to
impose categorical requirements of this kind on their law enforcement officers and state agency
employees, either.
169. Some of these States have concluded that participating in federal immigration
enforcement efforts imposes substantial costs on local jurisdictions, not only in the form of
personnel and resources but also in the form of potential civil liability. And some such States
have reasoned that even where law enforcement resources are dedicated to assisting with
enforcement of federal immigration law, it is preferable to retain critical decision-making
authority regarding when to offer those resources and how many resources to offer.
170. Thus, although Plaintiff States have made different decisions regarding the use of
their law enforcement and agency resources, all Plaintiff States’ decisions in this area are
consistent with the basic rule that the States “remain independent and autonomous within their
proper sphere of authority,” Printz, 521 U.S. at 928—a principle that has no greater force than in
the context of States’ exercise of their police powers for the protection of their residents.
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 40 of 63 PageID #: 40
41
III. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S ATTEMPTS TO DEFUND STATE AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS FOR EXERCISING THEIR SOVEREIGN PREROGATIVES
171. Through the Duffy Directive and Immigration Enforcement Condition, Defendants
seek to unilaterally restrict all federal funding intended to support States’ roads, highways,
railways, waterways, and airways for entirely unrelated federal immigration ends. Defendants’
actions challenged here are the latest of many attempts by the Trump Administration, in both its
first and second terms, to coerce States and local governments into becoming mere extensions of
the federal government’s civil immigration enforcement efforts.
A. The First Trump Administration’s Efforts to Defund and Take Enforcement Actions Against State and Local Officials for Declining to Enforce Federal Immigration Law
172. In January 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13,768. 82 Fed. Reg.
8,799 (Jan. 25, 2017) (2017 Executive Order). The 2017 Executive Order directed the U.S.
Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to “ensure that jurisdictions that willfully
refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive
Federal grants . . . .” Id. at 8801. It also directed the U.S. Attorney General to “take appropriate
enforcement action against any entity that violates 8 U.S.C. § 1373, or which has in effect a
statute, policy, or practice that prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law.” Id.
173. In response, the City and County of San Francisco and County of Santa Clara filed
suits challenging the 2017 Executive Order. See City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Trump, 897
F.3d 1225, 1230 (9th Cir. 2018). The Ninth Circuit held that the 2017 Executive Order violated
the constitutional separation of powers because Congress did not authorize the administration to
“redistribute or withhold properly appropriated funds in order to effectuate its own policy goals.”
Id. at 1235.
174. Nonetheless, the Trump Administration took several other actions targeting several
Plaintiff States.
175. The Trump Administration brought a civil lawsuit against California, seeking to
invalidate the California Values Act and other state laws under the Supremacy Clause. United
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 41 of 63 PageID #: 41
42
States v. California, 921 F.3d 865, 872-73 (9th Cir. 2019). As to the Values Act, the district court
denied the United States’ motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed its complaint, and
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the Act is not preempted,
and it “does not directly conflict with any obligations that the INA or other federal statutes
impose on state or local governments,” including 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Id. at 887-93.
176. Moreover, the federal government repeatedly endeavored to defund many Plaintiff
States—in particular, by imposing immigration enforcement conditions on funding Plaintiff
States received from the Byrne Justice Access Grants Program. These immigration enforcement
conditions prompted extensive litigation, in which courts, including the First Circuit, repeatedly
held the immigration enforcement conditions to exceed the United States Department of Justice’s
statutory authority. City of Providence v. Barr, 954 F.3d 23, 42 (1st Cir. 2020); City of
Philadelphia v. Att’y Gen. of United States, 916 F.3d 276, 291 (3d Cir. 2019); City of Chicago v.
Barr, 961 F.3d 882, 931 (7th Cir. 2020); City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Barr, 965 F.3d 753,
766 (9th Cir. 2020); City of Los Angeles v. Barr, 941 F.3d 931, 945 (9th Cir. 2019); Colorado v.
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 455 F. Supp.3d 1034, 1053-54 (D. Colo. 2020); see also City of
Albuquerque v. Barr, 515 F. Supp. 3d 1163, 1180 (D.N.M. 2021) (granting preliminary
injunction); City of Evanston v. Sessions, No. 18 C 4853, 2018 WL 10228461, at * (N.D. Ill.
2018) (same). But see New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 951 F.3d 84, 123 (2d Cir. 2020).
B. The Current Trump Administration’s Efforts to Defund and Threaten Enforcement Actions Against Plaintiff States
177. Hours after the inauguration, the current Trump Administration quickly renewed its
efforts to defund so-called sanctuary jurisdictions. On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed
Executive Order 14,159. 90 Fed. Reg. 8,443 (Jan. 20, 2025) (2025 Executive Order). The 2025
Executive Order commands the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to
“undertake any lawful actions to ensure that so-called ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions, which seek to
interfere with the lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations, do not receive access to
Federal funds,” and to “undertake any other lawful actions, criminal or civil, that they deem
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 42 of 63 PageID #: 42
43
warranted based on any such jurisdiction’s practices that interfere with the enforcement of
Federal law.” Id. at 8,446.
178. On January 29, 2025, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy issued an order to
“update[] and reset[] the principles and standards underpinning U.S. Department of
Transportation (Department or DOT) policies, programs, and activities.” Ex. A (Duffy Order).
The Order states that, “[t]o the maximum extent permitted by law, DOT-supported or -assisted
programs and activities, including without limitation, all DOT grants, loans, contracts, and DOT-
supported or -assisted State Contracts, shall prioritize projects and goals” that “require local
compliance or cooperation with Federal immigration enforcement and with other goals and
objectives specified by the President of the United States or the Secretary.”
179. On April 24, 2025, Secretary Duffy issued a letter to “all recipients” of U.S. DOT
funding to “clarify and reaffirm pertinent legal requirements, to outline the Department’s
expectations, and to provide a reminder of your responsibilities and the consequences of
noncompliance with Federal law and the terms of your financial assistance agreements,”
including “terminat[ion of] funding.” Ex. B at 1 (Duffy Directive).
180. The Duffy Directive announces U.S. DOT’s policy of imposing an Immigration
Enforcement Condition as a requirement for all U.S. DOT funding. The Duffy Directive asserts
that recipients’ “legal obligations require cooperation generally with Federal authorities in the
enforcement of Federal law, including cooperating with and not impeding U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other Federal offices and components of the Department of
Homeland Security in the enforcement of Federal immigration law.” Id. at 2. The Duffy
Directive further claims that there are “reported instances where some recipients of Federal
financial assistance have declined to cooperate with ICE investigations, have issued driver’s
licenses to individuals present in the United States in violation of Federal immigration law, or
have otherwise acted in a manner that impedes Federal law enforcement.” Id. It warns that
“failure to cooperate . . . in the enforcement of Federal law” will “jeopardize your continued
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 43 of 63 PageID #: 43
44
receipt of Federal financial assistance from DOT and could lead to a loss of Federal funding
from DOT.” Id. at 3.
181. Numerous state agencies within Plaintiff States received a copy of the Duffy
Directive directly from U.S. DOT. Additionally, the Duffy Directive was published on the U.S.
DOT website along with a press release quoting Secretary Duffy as stating, among other things,
that “Federal grants come with a clear obligation to adhere to federal laws,” that recipients must
“enforce our immigration rules,” and that Secretary Duffy “will take action to ensure
compliance.” Ex. C (U.S. DOT Press Release).
182. In recent weeks, U.S. DOT has added substantially similar immigration enforcement
language to its general terms and conditions for federal funding programs and grants.
183. On April 16, 2025, the Federal Railroad Administration amended its general terms
and conditions for all federal grants administered by the agency. Specifically, it amended the
language in section 20.2, governing “Federal Law and Public Policy Requirements.” Ex. D
(Excerpts of Federal Railroad Administration General Terms and Conditions). The new language
requires recipients to “cooperate with Federal officials in the enforcement of Federal law,
including cooperating with and not impeding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
and other Federal offices and components of the Department of Homeland Security in and the
enforcement of Federal immigration law.”
184. A few days later, on April 22, 2025, the Federal Highway Administration amended
its general terms and conditions for all competitive grant programs administered by the agency.
In doing so, it added the same new language to section 18.2(a), governing “Federal Law and
Public Policy Requirements,” amending it to require recipients to “cooperate with Federal
officials in the enforcement of Federal law, including cooperating with and not impeding U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other Federal offices and components of the
Department of Homeland Security in and the enforcement of Federal immigration law.” Ex. E
(Excerpts of Federal Highway Administration General Terms and Conditions).
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 44 of 63 PageID #: 44
45
185. On April 25, 2025, the Federal Transit Administration followed suit and amended its
Master Agreement—which provides the terms and conditions governing all Federal Transit
Administration grants—to include, for the first time, the Immigration Enforcement Condition. It
amended section 12(m) to change a civil rights provision to instead address “Federal Law and
Public Policy Requirements,” including new language requiring recipients to “cooperate with
Federal officials in the enforcement of Federal law, including cooperating with and not impeding
U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) and other Federal offices and components of
the Department of Homeland Security in the enforcement of Federal immigration law.” Ex. F
(Excerpts of Federal Transit Administration Master Agreement); Ex. G (Excerpts of Federal
Transit Administration Master Agreement Changes, version 33).
186. On the same day—April 25, 2025—the Federal Aviation Administration posted its
fiscal year 2025 grant agreement template on the agency’s website. This grant agreement
template also includes the Immigration Enforcement Condition under condition number 32,
requiring recipients of funding to “cooperate with Federal officials in the enforcement of Federal
law, including cooperating with and not impeding U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement
(ICE) and other Federal offices and components of the Department of Homeland Security in the
enforcement of Federal immigration law.” Ex. H (Excerpts of Federal Aviation Administration
Template Grant Agreement for Fiscal Year 2025).8
187. Nearly identical language was also recently added to the terms and conditions of
specific grant award documents.
188. For example, on May 2, a Federal Transit Administration staff person orally
informed a staff member of the Maryland Transit Administration, a component of the Maryland
Department of Transportation, that the Immigration Enforcement Condition in the revised Master
Agreement would apply to all future and existing Federal Transit Administration funding. In
response to this oral representation about the immigration condition, Maryland Transit
8 In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration grant agreement template requires recipients to “follow
applicable laws” in the Immigration and Nationality Act, including “the penalties set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1324, Bringing in and harboring certain aliens, and 8 U.S.C. § 1327, Aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter.” Ex. H.
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 45 of 63 PageID #: 45
46
Administration staff requested that the representation be provided in writing, but Maryland has
not received a response as of the date of this filing.
189. Since issuing the revised Master Agreement, the Federal Transit Administration has
issued administrative amendments to several existing grants made to the Maryland Transit
Administration. These amendments have the effect of conditioning Maryland’s access to
hundreds of millions of dollars in funding—which have already been allocated and awarded—
upon acceptance of the Immigration Enforcement Condition.
190. Federal officials have also pressured Maryland transportation officials to quickly
execute pending grant agreements that contain the Immigration Enforcement Condition and have
warned that failure to do so would be seen as a refusal to cooperate that could broadly jeopardize
Maryland’s Department of Transportation funding, which totals more than a billion dollars
annually.
191. These experiences are not isolated—they are echoed throughout Plaintiff States. In
the last few weeks, U.S. DOT has also imposed the Immigration Enforcement Condition on
specific grants in the process of being awarded to: California (Bridge Investment Program and
Advanced Transportation Technology and Innovation); Illinois (Rail Crossing Elimination
Program); Massachusetts (Rail Crossing Elimination Program); Michigan (Advanced
Transportation Technology Innovation, Wildlife Crossing Pilot Project, Rail Crossing
Elimination Program, and Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement); Minnesota
(Airport Infrastructure Grants and Airport Improvement Project Grants); New York (Motor
Carrier Safety Assistance Program, Railroad Crossing Elimination Program, and Wildlife
Crossing Pilot Program); Rhode Island (Bridge Investment Program); Washington (Motor
Carrier Safety Assistance Program); and Wisconsin (Advanced Transportation Technology and
Innovation and Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program).
192. In some of these instances, U.S. DOT staff have demanded that state officials
execute these grant agreements containing the Immigration Enforcement Condition in a matter of
days.
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 46 of 63 PageID #: 46
47
193. Other federal agencies—including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and
Department of Housing and Urban Development—have issued similar conditions, threatening to
withhold federal funding unless Plaintiff States partake in federal immigration enforcement
actions. For instance, on March 27, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security issued its fiscal
year 2025 “Standard Terms and Conditions” that include several conditions relating to federal
immigration enforcement.
194. On April 28, 2025, President Trump issued another Executive Order rrequiring “the
Attorney General, in coordination with [DHS]” to publish a list of “sanctuary jurisdictions” and
to “notify each sanctuary jurisdiction regarding its defiance of Federal immigration law
enforcement and any potential violations of Federal criminal law.” Id. The Attorney General and
DHS are to publish this list within 30 days of the issuance of the Executive Order—i.e., May 28,
2025. Id.
195. Section 3(a) of the April 28 Executive Order then directs agencies to “identify
appropriate Federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions, including grants and contracts, for
suspension or termination, as appropriate,” 90 Fed. Reg. at 18,761-62, expanding to all federal
agencies a similar directive in the January 20 Executive Order that applied only to the Attorney
General and DHS, 90 Fed. Reg. at 8,446.
IV. THE DUFFY DIRECTIVE AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT CONDITION IRREPARABLY HARM PLAINTIFF STATES
196. Defendants’ unlawful actions irreparably harm Plaintiff States by forcing them into
an impossible dilemma. On the one hand, Plaintiff States can stand firm and collectively lose
billions of dollars in critical funding for transportation and safety programs. On the other hand,
Plaintiff States can capitulate to an unlawful Immigration Enforcement Condition that could
divert Plaintiff States’ limited resources to federal immigration enforcement, while undermining
core public safety imperatives by eroding trust and cooperation between immigrant communities
and state and local law enforcement.
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 47 of 63 PageID #: 47
48
197. Plaintiff States have received and relied upon the federal funding at issue to support
safe and extensive transportation infrastructure for decades—and in some cases, for more than a
century. These funds enable Plaintiff States to develop safe and effective means of transportation
for hundreds of millions of Americans in ways they could not without this financial support.
These funds develop and sustain the highways that carry Plaintiff States’ residents to and from
home; the airports that enable them to cross the country and the globe; the safety measures that
protect drivers from fatal accidents; the signals and barriers that prevent train collisions; and the
firefighters that inspect and ensure safe pipelines that cross millions of miles throughout Plaintiff
States. Due to the consistent, regular receipt of these funds, and the multi-year cycles for which
these funds are granted, these federally funded activities are closely woven together with
Plaintiff States’ efforts to maintain, develop, and ensure the safety of their roads, bridges,
highways, railroads, ferries, ports, and airports. There is no realistic way for Plaintiff States to
borrow funds, shift existing funds, or obtain funds from other sources sufficient to counteract an
abrupt and unlawful withdrawal of this federal funding.
198. If Plaintiff States do not submit to Defendants’ unlawful Immigration Enforcement
Condition, Defendants threaten to restrict billions of dollars in transportation funding, posing an
immediate risk to countless transportation systems, projects, and safety measures. Supra ¶¶ 41-
156. A loss, even a temporary one, of this federal funding—and the resulting impacts to the
public safety efforts that it enables—poses irreparable harm to the residents of Plaintiff States
who will be exposed to greater risk of tragic accidents.
199. Moreover, many of the federal funds at issue are passed on by Plaintiff States to
subrecipient local governments whose projects or programs may be funded at least in large part
by those federal funds, and which therefore may incur substantial harms in the wake of the Duffy
Directive and Immigration Enforcement Condition. For example, California’s Office of Traffic
Safety subgrants National Highway Traffic Safety Administration funding to approximately 500
state, regional, and local agencies, including public health departments, fire departments, and law
enforcement offices. These grant funds support safety initiatives targeted at the State’s most
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 48 of 63 PageID #: 48
49
critical traffic-safety needs, including those that combat alcohol and drug-impaired driving;
prevent distracted driving; ensure use of seat belts and child safety seats; guarantee bicycle and
pedestrian safety; and provide emergency medical services. A loss of federal funding could result
in these critical safety programs being terminated or scaled back.
200. Further, the loss of these billions of dollars in federal funding constitutes irreparable
harm because Plaintiff States lack any damages remedy that would enable them to recover these
funds due to the federal government’s sovereign immunity. The States also would be unable to
obtain compensation for the harms they would suffer as a consequence of an abrupt and unlawful
denial of funding.
201. The unlawful condition also inflicts additional irreparable harm on the States by
infringing their sovereign rights, damaging public trust, and harming public safety.
202. First, Defendants’ introduction of the unlawful condition interferes with Plaintiff
States’ sovereign right to enact policies that best protect their communities, potentially requiring
state or local personnel to violate state laws limiting the use of state or local resources for federal
civil immigration purposes. See supra ¶¶ 159-67; cf. Printz, 521 U.S. at 925 (“The Federal
Government may not compel the States to implement, by legislation or executive action, federal
regulatory programs.”).
203. Second, submitting to Defendants’ unlawful condition would also cause Plaintiff
States to incur administrative costs and burdens from the diversion of personnel time, the
development and administration of new training programs, and the creation of new guidelines for
how staff must participate in federal immigration enforcement. Submission to Defendants’
unlawful condition may also result in limited state or local resources being diverted to pursue
federal civil immigration enforcement activities, taking those resources away from Plaintiff
States’ commitments to ensuring the safety of their roads, highways, railroads, airways, or
waterways. It could also expose Plaintiff States and their officers to civil liability for acts
performed in connection with federal immigration enforcement. These, again, represent fiscal
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 49 of 63 PageID #: 49
50
losses that could not be recovered as damages due to the federal government’s sovereign
immunity.
204. Third, accepting Defendants’ unlawful condition would cause Plaintiff States to
undermine the trust they have cultivated between law enforcement and immigrant communities.
That breach of goodwill, trust, and cooperation cannot be easily restored once this litigation has
concluded. Without that trust, members of immigrant communities will be less likely to
participate in public health programs or help police officers, detectives, and prosecutors
investigate crimes, identify offenders, or press charges. Accepting Defendants’ unlawful
condition could thus result in irreparable harm by exposing Plaintiff States’ residents to greater
incidents of illness and crime.
205. In sum, Plaintiff States have relied upon U.S. DOT funding for more than a century
to sustain vital transportation infrastructure that connects their communities and this country.
The Duffy Directive and Defendants’ adoption of the unlawful Immigration Enforcement
Condition force the Plaintiff States into a Hobson’s choice: forgo billions of dollars essential for
critical transportation infrastructure or accept an unlawful and unconstitutional condition that
surrenders the States’ sovereignty, damages community trust, and undermines public safety.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Ultra Vires Agency Action Not Authorized by Congress
206. Plaintiff States reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every
allegation and paragraph set forth previously.
207. An executive agency “has no power to act . . . unless and until Congress confers
power upon it.” Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 374 (1986); see also Nat’l
Fed. Indep. Business v. Dep’t of Labor, 595 U.S. 109, 117 (2022) (“Administrative agencies are
creatures of statute. They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided.”).
208. Defendants may exercise only that authority which is conferred by statute. See City
of Arlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290, 297 (2013) (federal agencies’ “power to act and how they are
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 50 of 63 PageID #: 50
51
to act is authoritatively prescribed by Congress, so that when they act improperly, no less than
when they act beyond their jurisdiction, what they do is ultra vires”).
209. Federal courts possess the power in equity to grant injunctive relief “with respect to
violations of federal law by federal officials.” Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 575
U.S. 320, 326-27 (2015). Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly allowed equitable relief
against federal officials who act “beyond th[e] limitations” imposed by federal statute. Larson v.
Domestic & Foreign Com. Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 689 (1949).
210. As described above, Defendants lack any statutory authority to impose the
Immigration Enforcement Condition as a requirement for federal funding. None of the statutes
governing the federal funding at issue mentions state cooperation with federal immigration
enforcement as a criterion for eligibility. Given that the Defendants adopted the Immigration
Enforcement Condition to conscript the machinery of State government into federal immigration
enforcement efforts, there is special reason to question the lawfulness of their actions. Gregory v.
Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 461 (1991) (statutes should not be read to alter the “usual constitutional
balance between the States and the Federal Government” unless that intention is “unmistakably
clear in the language of the statute”); see also Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 275-76 (2006)
(concluding that “the background principles of our federal system” foreclosed reading a statute
to confer authority on a federal agency to regulate areas traditionally supervised by the States).
211. Indeed, under the Trump Administration’s first term, courts repeatedly held the
administration’s efforts to impose similar immigration enforcement conditions on U.S.
Department of Justice grants to be ultra vires. See supra ¶ 177.
212. Defendants’ ultra vires actions have caused and will continue to cause ongoing,
irreparable harm to Plaintiff States for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of the Spending Clause, U.S. Const. Art. I, § VIII, cl. 1.
213. Plaintiff States reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every
allegation and paragraph set forth previously.
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 51 of 63 PageID #: 51
52
214. The Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides that “Congress”—not the
Executive—“shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the
Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . . .” U.S.
Const. Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1.
215. Even when Congress has delegated some of its federal funding authority to the
Executive Branch, including the authority to condition funding, there are limits to the conditions
that can be imposed by Congress. See S. Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207-08 (1987).
216. Thus, even if Congress has delegated some authority to U.S. DOT to limit federal
funds, Defendants have overstepped clear restrictions on Congress’s spending authority. See City
of Los Angeles v. Barr, 929 F.3d 1163, 1176 n.6 (9th Cir. 2019).
217. First, the Spending Clause requires any conditions on federal funds to be imposed
“unambiguously,” Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17 (1981), so that
States deciding whether to accept such funding can “exercise their choice knowingly, cognizant
of the consequences of their participation,” Dole, 483 U.S. at 207. This is because “legislation
enacted pursuant to the spending power is much in the nature of a contract,” where Congress’s
authority “to legislate . . . rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms
of the ‘contract.’” Pennhurst, 451 U.S. at 17. Accordingly, Congress must provide States clear
notice of the applicable funding conditions. See, e.g., Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v.
Murphy, 548 U.S. 291, 296 (2006). Plaintiff States never received any clear notice from
Congress that transportation funding would be conditioned on participation in federal
immigration enforcement—which is unsurprising, because Congress never intended any such
condition.
218. The Immigration Enforcement Condition is impermissibly vague, ambiguous, and
retroactively imposed. The Duffy Directive, by asserting that funding may be “terminated” due
to noncompliance with the Immigration Enforcement Condition, declares Defendants’ decision
to impose this new condition on already awarded federal funding to Plaintiff States. Doing so
alters the terms upon which those funds were obligated and disbursed. Moreover, the
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 52 of 63 PageID #: 52
53
Immigration Enforcement Condition requires Plaintiff States to broadly “cooperate” in the
enforcement of federal civil immigration law without providing any definitions or criteria that
might suggest what conduct that would encompass, thereby imposing an ambiguous condition.
219. Second, the Spending Clause requires conditions on federal funding to be related to
“the federal interest in” the particular project or program. Dole, 483 U.S. at 207. Here, the
Immigration Enforcement Condition is unlawful because it imposes a condition entirely
unrelated to the transportation funding it encumbers.
220. Third, the federal government may not impose conditions upon funding “so coercive
[upon the States] as to pass the point at which ‘pressure turns into compulsion.’” Dole, 483 U.S.
at 211; see also Nat. Fed. of Indep. Business v. Sebelius (NFIB, 567 U.S. 519, 585 (2012)
(opinion of Roberts, C.J.) (striking down individual mandate of Affordable Care Act on grounds
that it exceeded the Spending Clause authority by “conscript[ing] state [agencies] into the
national bureaucratic army”).
221. Here, Defendants’ threat to restrict all U.S. DOT funding to Plaintiff States
(collectively, more than $24 billion in just formula highway funds alone) “is much more than
‘relatively mild encouragement’—it is a gun to the head” for the Plaintiff States. NFIB, 567 U.S.
at 581 (opinion of Roberts, C.J.); see also id. (declaring funding threats to be coercive in
violation of the Spending Clause where a State “stands to lose not merely ‘a relatively small
percentage’” of funding from the agency, “but all of it”). The Plaintiff States’ recipient agencies
do not have the budgets to offset this loss of federal funding, and much of their overall budgets
are already committed to fixed expenditures, such as public safety staff salaries. Consequently,
losing this federal funding “would have significant effects on [the States’] ability to provide
services to [its] residents.” Cnty. of Santa Clara v. Trump, 275 F. Supp. 3d 1196, 1215 (N.D.
Cal. 2017), aff’d in part, vacated in part, remanded sub nom. City & Cnty. of San Francisco v.
Trump, 897 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2018).
222. Both the financial scale of the affected funding programs and the substantial
human cost of forgoing them each render the Immigration Enforcement Condition
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 53 of 63 PageID #: 53
54
sufficiently coercive as to be unconstitutional. Such threats to Plaintiff States’ critical
infrastructure and safety programs constitute “economic dragooning that leaves the States with
no real option but to acquiesce” to federal dictates. NFIB, 567 U.S. at 582 (opinion of Roberts,
C.J.); see also id. at 582 n.12 (“‘Your money or your life’ is a coercive proposition, whether you
have a single dollar in your pocket or $500.”).
223. Federal courts possess the power in equity to “grant injunctive relief … with respect
to violations of federal law by federal officials.” Armstrong, 575 U.S. at 327; see also Panama
Ref. Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388, 414 (1935) (noting that plaintiffs are “entitled to invoke the
equitable jurisdiction to restrain enforcement” of unconstitutional acts by federal officials).
224. Defendants’ violations of the Spending Clause have caused and will continue to
cause ongoing, irreparable harm to Plaintiff States for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C), in Excess of Statutory Authority
225. Plaintiff States reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every
allegation and paragraph set forth previously.
226. Defendant U.S. DOT is an “agency” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),
5 U.S.C. § 551(1), and the Duffy Directive and the Defendants’ adoption of the Immigration
Enforcement Condition constitute “[a]gency action made [judicially] reviewable by statute and
final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.” Id. § 704; see
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177-78 (1997).
227. Under the APA, a “court shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency actions,
findings, and conclusions found to be . . . in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or
limitations, or short of statutory right.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C).
228. As described above, Defendants exceed their statutory authority by issuing the Duffy
Directive and introducing the Immigration Enforcement Condition as a requirement of federal
funding. No statutory authority permits Defendant to threaten to deny billions of dollars unless
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 54 of 63 PageID #: 54
55
Plaintiff States comply with the Immigration Enforcement Condition. The Immigration
Enforcement Condition is unauthorized and should be set aside by this Court.
229. Defendants’ violations of the APA have caused and will continue to cause
ongoing, irreparable harm to Plaintiff States for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), Arbitrary and Capricious
230. Plaintiff States reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every
allegation and paragraph set forth previously.
231. Defendant U.S. DOT is an “agency” under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 551(1), and the
Duffy Letter and the Defendants’ adoption of the Immigration Enforcement Condition constitute
“[a]gency action made [judicially] reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there
is no other adequate remedy in a court.” Id. § 704; see Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177-78
(1997).
232. Under the APA, a “court shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency actions,
findings, and conclusions found to be . . . arbitrary, , capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
233. An agency action is arbitrary or capricious where it is not “reasonable and
reasonably explained.” Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n v. Prometheus Radio Project, 592 U.S. 414,
423 (2021). Thus, an agency action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency “relied on factors
which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of
the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the
agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of
agency expertise.” Melone v. Coit, 100 F.4th 21, 29 (1st Cir. 2024) (citation omitted).
234. Defendants’ policy of imposing the Immigration Enforcement Condition as a
requirement for U.S. DOT funding is arbitrary and capricious because Defendants have provided
inadequate explanation for changing their position and imposing this condition on billions of
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 55 of 63 PageID #: 55
56
federal dollars in transportation funding for the first time. See FCC, 592 U.S. at 423. Further, the
Immigration Enforcement Condition is arbitrary and capricious because Defendants imposed it
by relying on factors that Congress did not intend, such as its policy preferences on federal civil
immigration enforcement. Defendants’ policy of imposing the Immigration Enforcement
Condition is also arbitrary and capricious because Defendants failed to consider statutory
authority, failed to consider the reliance interests of Plaintiff States, and failed to consider
reasonable alternatives. See Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1,
29-31 (2020).
235. Finally, Defendants’ decision to impose the Immigration Enforcement Condition is
arbitrary and capricious because Defendants fail to consider important aspects of the problem.
Defendants fail to consider the significant harm this condition may threaten to Plaintiff States
and their residents, who rely on the impacted federal funding for vital transportation programs
and services. Defendants also fail to consider the significant harm this condition may threaten to
Plaintiff States and their residents by deterring immigrant communities from reporting crimes to
law enforcement or participating in public health programs.
236. Defendants’ violations of the APA have caused and will continue to cause
ongoing, irreparable harm to Plaintiff States for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B), Contrary to Constitutional Right or Power
237. Plaintiff States reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every
allegation and paragraph set forth previously.
238. Defendant U.S. DOT is an “agency” under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 551(1), and the
Duffy Directive and Immigration Enforcement Condition constitute “[a]gency action made
[judicially] reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no other adequate
remedy in a court.” Id. § 704; see Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177-78 (1997).
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 56 of 63 PageID #: 56
57
239. Under the APA, a “court shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency actions,
findings, and conclusions found to be . . . contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or
immunity.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B).
240. As described above, the Duffy Directive and the Defendants’ adoption of the
Immigration Enforcement Condition violate constitutional provisions and principles, including
the Spending Clause.
241. Defendants’ violations of the APA have caused and will continue to cause
ongoing, irreparable harm to Plaintiff States for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff States respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its
favor and grant the following relief:
1. Declare that the Defendants’ adoption of the Immigration Enforcement Condition is
unconstitutional and/or unlawful because it: (a) violates the APA; (b) is ultra vires; and (c) to the
extent it relies on congressional authority, exceeds Congress’s powers under the Spending
Clause;
2. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from
implementing or enforcing the Immigration Enforcement Condition as set forth in the Duffy
Directive;
3. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from
withholding or terminating federal funding based on the Immigration Enforcement Condition
absent specific statutory authorization;
4. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from taking
adverse action against any state entity or local jurisdiction, including debarring it or making it
ineligible for federal funding, based on the Immigration Enforcement Condition, absent specific
statutory authorization;
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 57 of 63 PageID #: 57
58
5. Vacate the Defendants’ decisions adopting the Immigration Enforcement Condition,
and any actions taken by Defendants to implement or enforce the Immigration Enforcement
Condition;
6. Retain jurisdiction to monitor Defendants’ compliance with this Court’s judgment;
7. Award Plaintiff States costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
8. Award such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
May 13, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
ROB BONTA
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA Michael L. Newman* Senior Assistant Attorney General
Joel Marrero*
James E. Stanley* Supervising Deputy Attorneys General Luke Freedman* Newton Knowles*
Christopher Medeiros*
Alexis Piazza* Deylin Thrift-Viveros* Deputy Attorneys General
/s/ Delbert Tran
Delbert Tran* Deputy Attorney General California Department of Justice 455 Golden gate Ave., Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 229-0110 delbert.tran@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for the State of California
KWAME RAOUL
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ILLINOIS /s/ Alex Hemmer Alex Hemmer*
Deputy Solicitor General
Christopher G. Wells* Chief of the Public Interest Division Darren Kinkead* Public Interest Counsel
R. Sam Horan*
Michael M. Tresnowski* R. Henry Weaver* Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Illinois Attorney General
115 LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60603 (773) 590-7932 alex.hemmer@ilag.gov
Attorneys for the State of Illinois
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 58 of 63 PageID #: 58
59
MATTHEW J. PLATKIN ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
/s/ Shankar Duraiswamy Shankar Duraiswamy* Deputy Solicitor General Mayur P. Saxena*
Assistant Attorney General
Maryanne M. Abdelmesih* Surinder K. Aggarwal* Yael Fisher* Nathaniel Rubin*
Deputy Attorneys General
New Jersey Office of Attorney General 25 Market Street, PO Box 093 Trenton, NJ 08625-0093 (609) 376-2745 shankar.duraiswamy@law.njoag.gov
Attorneys for the State of New Jersey
PETER F. NERONHA ATTORNEY GENERAL OF RHODE ISLAND
/s/ Patrick Reynolds Kathryn M. Sabatini (RI Bar No. 8486) Civil Division Chief Special Assistant Attorney General
Patrick Reynolds (RI Bar No. 10459)
Special Assistant Attorney General Rhode Island Attorney General’s Office 150 South Main Street Providence, RI 02903
(401) 274-4400, Ext. 2109
preynolds@riag.ri.gov ksabatini@riag.ri.gov Attorneys for the State of Rhode Island
ANTHONY G. BROWN
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND /s/ James C. Luh James C. Luh* Senior Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Maryland Attorney General 200 Saint Paul Place 20th Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 (410) 576-6411
jluh@oag.state.md.us Attorneys for the State of Maryland
PHILIP J. WEISER
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF COLORADO /s/ Sam Wolter Sam Wolter* Assistant Attorney General
Colorado Department of Law 1300 Broadway, #10 Denver, CO 80203 (720) 508-6000 samuel.wolter@coag.gov
Attorneys for the State of Colorado
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 59 of 63 PageID #: 59
60
WILLIAM TONG
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CONNECTICUT
/s/ Michael K. Skold Michael K. Skold* Solicitor General Connecticut Office of the Attorney General
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 808-5020 michael.skold@ct.gov
Attorneys for the State of Connecticut
KATHLEEN JENNINGS
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DELAWARE
/s/ Ian R. Liston Ian R. Liston* Director of Impact Litigation Vanessa L. Kassab*
Deputy Attorney General
Delaware Department of Justice 820 North French Street Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 683-8899
ian.liston@delaware.gov
Attorneys for the State of Delaware ANNE E. LOPEZ
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF HAWAIʻI /s/ Kalikoʻonālani D. Fernandes David D. Day* Special Assistant to the Attorney General
Kalikoʻonālani D. Fernandes* Solicitor General Department of the Hawaiʻi Attorney General 425 Queen Street Honolulu, HI 96813
(808) 586-1360 david.d.day@hawaii.gov kaliko.d.fernandes@hawaii.gov Attorneys for the State of Hawaiʻi
AARON M. FREY
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MAINE /s/ Vivian A. Mikhail Vivian A. Mikhail* Deputy Attorney General
Office of the Maine Attorney General 6 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0006 (207) 626-8800 vivian.mikhail@maine.gov
Attorneys for the State of Maine
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 60 of 63 PageID #: 60
61
ANDREA JOY CAMPBELL ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS
/s/ Katherine Dirks Katherine Dirks* Chief State Trial Counsel Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General
1 Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108 (617) 963-2277 katherine.dirks@mass.gov
Attorneys for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts
DANA NESSEL
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MICHIGAN
/s/ Neil Giovanatti Neil Giovanatti* Michael Dittenber* Assistant Attorneys General
Michigan Department of Attorney General
525 W. Ottawa Street Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 335-7603 GiovanattiN@michigan.gov
DittenberM@michigan.gov
Attorneys for the People of the State of Michigan KEITH ELLISON
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MINNESOTA /s/ Brian S. Carter Brian S. Carter*
Special Counsel Minnesota Attorney General’s Office 445 Minnesota Street Suite 1400 St. Paul, MN 55101
(651) 757-1010 brian.carter@ag.state.mn.us Attorneys for the State of Minnesota
AARON D. FORD ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEVADA /s/ Heidi Parry Stern Heidi Parry Stern*
Solicitor General Office of the Nevada Attorney General 1 State of Nevada Way, Ste. 100 Las Vegas, NV 89119 hstern@ag.nv.gov
Attorneys for the State of Nevada
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 61 of 63 PageID #: 61
62
RAÚL TORREZ
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW MEXICO
/s/ Steven Perfrement Steven Perfrement* Senior Litigation Counsel New Mexico Department of Justice
P.O. Drawer 1508
Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508 (505) 490-4060 sperfrement@nmdoj.gov
Attorneys for the State of New Mexico
LETITIA JAMES ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK
/s/ Zoe Levine Zoe Levine* Special Counsel for Immigrant Justice Julie Dona*
Special Counsel
Rabia Muqaddam*
Special Counsel for Federal Initiatives Mark Ladov* Special Counsel
28 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10005 (212) 907-4589 zoe.levine@ag.ny.gov Attorneys for the State of New York
DAN RAYFIELD
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OREGON
/s/ Thomas H. Castelli Thomas H. Castelli* Senior Assistant Attorney General Oregon Department of Justice 100 SW Market Street
Portland, OR 97201 (971) 673-1880 thomas.castelli@doj.oregon.gov Attorneys for the State of Oregon
CHARITY R. CLARK
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VERMONT
/s/ Julio A. Thompson Julio A. Thompson* Assistant Attorney General Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit Officer of the Vermont Attorney General
109 State Street Montpelier, VT 05609 (802) 828-3657 julio.thompson@vermont.gov
Attorneys for the State of Vermont
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 62 of 63 PageID #: 62
63
NICHOLAS W. BROWN ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
/s/ Benjamin Seel Benjamin Seel* Tyler Roberts* Cristina Sepe*
Marsha Chien*
Assistant Attorneys General Washington State Office of the Attorney General 800 Fifth Avenue
Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188 (206) 464-7744 Benjamin.Seel@atg.wa.gov Tyler.Roberts@atg.wa.gov Cristina.Sepe@atg.wa.gov
Marsha.Chien@atg.wa.gov Attorneys for the State of Washington
JOSHUA L. KAUL
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WISCONSIN
/s/ Frances Reynolds Colbert Frances Reynolds Colbert* Assistant Attorney General Wisconsin Department of Justice
Post Office Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857 (608) 266-9226 frances.colbert@wisdoj.gov
Attorneys for the State of Wisconsin
* pro hac vice applications forthcoming
Case 1:25-cv-00208 Document 1 Filed 05/13/25 Page 63 of 63 PageID #: 63