12-14-2021 City Council MeetingREGULAR CIT Y COUNCIL MEETING
VIRTUAL MEETIN G HEL D VIA WEBEX
DECEMBE R 14, 2021
7:00 PM
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
Call to order
Pledge of Allegiance
Open forum
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others.
Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council. Individuals who wish to address the Council
must have registered prior to the meeting.
Approve the Minutes of the (1) City Council Work Session of November 23, 2021; (2) City Council Meeting of
November 23, 2021; and (3) Special City Council Meeting of November 30, 2021.
PRESENTATIONS
1. Sustainability Commission annual presentation given by Amanda Kueper.
2. Civil Service Commission annual presentation given by Mary Stratton.
3. Presentation of the Edwina Garcia Community Builder Award and proclamation to Maureen Scaglia.
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 to approve the renewal of the 2022 licenses for On-Sale Intoxicating/Club, Wine and 3.2 Malt
Liquor licenses.
On Sale Intoxicating/Club/Sunday License Holders
El Tejaban
Fireside Foundry
Frenchmans
Giordano's
Los Sanchez Taqueria
Lyndale S mokehouse
P izza L uce
V.F.W.
On Sale Wine, On Sale 3.2 License Holders
C hipotle
D avanni's
Joy's P attaya
M N Magicians @ Ice A rena
My B urger
P atrick's C afe
Red P epper
S andy's Tavern
On Sale 3.2 License Holder
Vina
S taff Report No. 177
B .C onsider to approve the renewal of the 2022 licenses for On-S ale 3.2 P ercent Malt L iquor, Off-S ale 3.2
P ercent Malt L iquor, S econdhand Goods D ealer and taxi companies doing business in Richfield.
Licenses to Operate in Richfield Licenses to sell 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor
Gold S tar Taxi - 1 vehicle L a Vaquita S hort S top- Off-S ale
L a Vaquita 2- Off-S ale
Secondhand Goods Dealers P ortland F ood Mart - Off-S ale
Gamestop P ump & Munch - Off-S ale
Wedding D ay Jewelers Richfield Minnoco - Off S ale
S peedway #4186 - Off-S ale
S peedway #4188 - Off-S ale
S peedway #4191 - Off-S ale
S peedway #4615 - Off-S ale
Target C orporation - Off-S ale
Vina Restaurant - On-S ale
S taff Report No. 178
C .C onsider approval of a third amendment to the C onsent D ecree in the S tate of Minnesota by C ity of
Minneapolis, et al. v. Metropolitan A irports C ommission, et al., Hennepin C ounty C ase No. 27-C V-0S -
S 474.
S taff Report No. 179
D .C onsider approval of a second amendment to the agreement with the C ity of B loomington for the provision
of public health services for the C ity of Richfield for 2022.
S taff Report No. 180
E .C onsider a resolution to accept $1,923,436 in funds from the American Rescue Plan Act
(ARPA) grant and a second supplemental payment of $62,987.23 in additional funds.
S taff Report No. 181
F.C onsider the adoption of a resolution authorizing the Richfield Recreation S ervices D epartment to accept
2021 Round-up donations.
S taff Report No. 182
G.C onsider the approval of a resolution in support for P ublic Works' S afe Routes to S chool grant application
to MnD O T for the installation of pedestrian improvements on 71st S t near Richfield S TE M E lementary and
D ual L anguage S chools.
S taff Report No. 183
H.C onsider the approval of a resolution removing parking restrictions along 70th S t from P enn Ave to L ake
S hore D r.
S taff Report No. 184
I.C onsider the approval of a resolution authorizing the "Preparing for Emerald Ash Borer" grant
agreement with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry in
the amount of $99,840.00.
S taff Report No. 185
J.C onsider a resolution authorizing condemnation of property for the reconstruction of 65th S treet.
S taff Report No. 186
K .C onsider the approval of a work order amendment from K imley-Horn & A ssociates, Inc., for additional
design engineering services for the 65th S treet Improvements P roject.
S taff Report No. 187
L .C onsider the approval of a cost share agreement between the C ity and Hope P resbyterian C hurch for the
construction of public storm sewer across the church's private parking lot and authorize C ity staff to execute
and record the dedication of a drainage and utility easement over the public storm sewer.
S taff Report No. 188
M.C onsider the approval of a revised agreement between the C ity of Richfield and the Woodlawn Terrace
C ooperative for the use of a 4,690 square-foot strip of land along the edge of L incoln F ield.
S taff Report No. 189
N.C onsider approval of a Resolution for the C ity of Richfield to opt-into the national opioid settlement.
6.C onsideration of items, if any, removed from C onsent C alendar
PR O P O S E D O R D IN AN C E S
7.C onsider approval of the second reading of an ordinance amending S ection 1202.07 of the Richfield C ity C ode
relating to license eligibility of intoxicating liquor, wine and beer establishments.
S taff Report No. 190
P U B LIC H E AR IN G S
8.P ublic hearing and consider to approve the renewal of 2022 P awnbroker and S econdhand Goods D ealer
licenses for Metro P awn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue S outh.
S taff Report No. 191
9.P ublic hearing and consider the approval of a new On S ale Intoxicating and S unday L iquor licenses for
D agobah, L L C d/b/a P rotagonist K itchen and B ar located at 6601 P enn Avenue S outh.
S taff Report No. 192
10.P ublic hearing to approve host designation for the C ity of B ethel to issue housing bonds to finance an affordable
housing development to be constructed by M W F P roperties at 7700 P illsbury Avenue S outh.
S taff Report No. 193
11.P ublic hearing to approve host designation for the C ity of B ethel to issue tax exempt B onds to finance capital
improvements at P artnership A cademy.
S taff Report No. 194
R E S O L U T IO N S
12.C onsider resolutions approving the 2021 Revised/2022 P roposed budget and tax levy and related resolutions.
S taff Report No. 195
13.C onsider a resolution designating buildings located at 6501-13 P enn Avenue S outh as structurally substandard
within the Richfield Redevelopment P roject A rea and authorizing their demolition.
S taff Report No. 196
14.C onsider the adoption of a resolution authorizing Richfield P ublic S afety/P olice D epartment to accept donations
from the listed agencies, businesses and private individuals for designated uses.
S taff Report No. 197
C IT Y MAN AG E R’S R E P O R T
15.C ity Manager's Report
C LAIMS AN D PAYR O L LS
16.C laims and P ayroll
C O U N C IL D ISC U SSIO N
17.Hats Off to Hometown Hits
18.A djournment
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 612-861-9738.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
City Council Work Session
November 23, 2021
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Regan Gonzalez at 5:47 p.m. in the
Bartholomew Room.
Council Members
Present:
Mary Supple, Mayor Pro Tempore; Sean Hayford Oleary; and Simon
Trautmann (arrived 6:14 p.m.)
Council Members
Absent:
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor; and Ben Whalen
Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Mike Petersen, Assistant Utility
Superintendent; Kristin Asher, Public Works Director; Joe Powers, City
Engineer; Chris Swanson, Management Analyst; Blanca Martinez Gavina,
Equity Administrator; Neil Ruhland, Communications and Engagement
Manager; and Kari Sinning, City Clerk
ITEM #1
ASSISTANT UTILITY SUPERINTENDENT MIKE PETERSEN WILL PRESENT A
HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW OF THE CITY’S UTILITY RISK AND RESILIENCY PLANS
FOR WATER, SANITARY AND STORMWATER. ALL THREE UTILITIES ARE
DISTINCTLY UNIQUE WHEN IT COMES TO IDENTIFYING THE RISKS AND HOW
TO APPROACH REINVESTMENT TO ENSURE LONG-TERM RESILIENCY
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple introduced Public Works Director Asher who gave a brief
description of the history of the utility risk and resiliency plan and introduced Assistant Utility
Superintendent Petersen. Assistant Utility Superintendent Petersen thanked GIS Coordinator Geizon
Santana for his proficiency in data collection for this plan and reminded the Council that we are
investing for the future and will continue to develop this plan to maintain the high quality of life in
Richfield. He shared maps and data with the council that described the current state of our utilities
and water plant, the strategies for solutions, and the future challenges that the City might face.
Council Member Hayford Oleary asked about the lining of water supply pipes and how water
main breaks are seen. Assistant Utility Superintendent Petersen stated that the water supply pipes
are lined with the same material that sewer pipes are which does not lose any capacity or pressure
and water main breaks are seen by usually water bubbling up from the ground of which most leaks
are caught during a yearly test. Public Works Director Asher stated that most other cities do not do a
yearly test to find the smaller leaks before they are major issues.
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple asked about increasing the size of stormwater pipes in
redevelopment areas. Assistant Utility Superintendent Petersen stated that projects like Richfield
Council Work Session Minutes -2- November 23, 2021
Parkway help to drive the replacement of the infrastructure to help prevent against flooding and
stormwater runoff issues.
Council Member Hayford Oleary asked about implementing rain gardens. Assistant Utility
Superintendent Petersen stated that a couple of factors go into deciding on rain gardens or
stormwater runoff sites. One of those factors is that during redevelopment the City asks the
developers to keep the stormwater runoff on site as a part of their plan. The other factor is Richfield’s
wellhead water protection plan (groundwater) could be affected by rain gardens due to the sandy soil
of Richfield. Public Works Director Asher gave examples of one area that is used for a stormwater
runoff along Knox Ave and Monroe Park.
Council Member Hayford Oleary questioned how the reconstruction of roads is affected by the
resiliency plan and how the infrastructure would be replaced if a road is being redone. Assistant Utility
Superintendent Petersen stated that the pavement improvement plan is coordinated with the
replacement of the infrastructure.
Assistant Utility Superintendent Petersen shared the future challenges that the department
faces such as funding to keep up the infrastructure while still keeping water rates affordable for
residents, emerging contaminants (such as PFAS) that could pose a problem to our drinking water,
and the effects of climate change. Council Member Trautmann appreciated and asked for more detail
on how the City is proactive against PFAS. Assistant Utility Superintendent Petersen stated that the
City is a part of a program that does regular monitoring of their wells and stated that generally we are
not getting any results except for a small trace back in 2019. Assistant Utility Superintendent
Petersen also explained that there are preparations for the water plant if something is detected and
there is an emergency water replacement plan in the works as required by law. Council Member
Trautmann thanked Assistant Utility Superintendent Petersen for their preparedness of this issue.
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple appreciated the department’s leading of a risk analysis study and
asked about emergency water replacement plan. Assistant Utility Superintendent Petersen explained
that we have an emergency plan with the City of Edina which we are planning for longer term
interconnectivity and shorter term emergency plans with the Fire Department.
City Manager Rodriguez thanked Assistant Utility Superintendent Petersen for his many years
of service for the City of Richfield and explained that he will be leaving the City.
ITEM #2
CITY MISSION, VISION AND CORE VALUES FINALIZATION
City Manager Rodriguez introduced Communications and Engagement Manager Ruhland who
presented the edits and updates that staff created for the vision, mission, and core values.
Communications and Engagement Manager Ruhland presented the changes that were
gathered at previous council work sessions and explained the brainstorming process for the updated
vision statement.
Communications and Engagement Manager Ruhland read a statement by Council Member
Whalen who could not be present for the meeting that stated approval for the values and mission and
offered suggestions for the vision statement regarding the word “intentional” that could be replaced
with “dedicated” or similar that would describe the commitment of staff and residents to make
Richfield the best it can be. He described the reason for the use of the word “intentional” which is
derived from intentional inclusion to correlate with our focus on equity. The words “purposeful” or
Council Work Session Minutes -3- November 23, 2021
“deliberate” were suggestions made by staff to replace “intentional”. Council Member Trautmann
thanked Communications and Engagement Manager Ruhland for his wordsmithing and added that
the vision statement seems to be missing description of prosperity that the City should strive for which
could be adding words like “flourish”.
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple asked if the statements are for external or internal use.
Communications and Engagement Manager Ruhland explained that externally people like to know
these statements but they are primarily focused for internal use as an aspirational creed or code.
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple stated that if it is for internal use that “intentional” would work because it
expresses the goal of the City. Mayor Pro Tempore Supple also agreed with Council Member
Trautmann about the use of the word “flourish”.
Council Member Hayford Oleary expressed support for the changes given and the changes
brought up by Council Member Trautmann and Mayor Pro Tempore Supple.
City Manager Rodriguez explained that this will be available to the public on the website and
used for recruitment purposes. City Manager Rodriguez offered the word “thrive” to promote
prosperity and reminded Council of the word “dedicated” instead of “intentional”. Mayor Pro Tempore
Supple supported the word “purposeful” instead of “dedicated” because everyone knows the intent
behind that word. Council Member Trautmann and Council Member Hayford Oleary expressed that
they would be comfortable with “purposeful”.
Communications and Engagement Manager Ruhland went over the changes for the mission
statement and core values. There was approval from the Council Members and Mayor Pro Tempore
Supple on the mission statement and core values.
Communications and Engagement Manager Ruhland confirmed the changes to the vision
statement were “intentional” to “purposeful” and then changing “… can access opportunities” to “…can
thrive”.
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple thanked staff for their work.
ADJOURNMENT
The work session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:40 p.m.
Date Approved: December 14, 2021
Maria Regan Gonzalez
Mayor
Kari Sinning Katie Rodriguez
City Clerk City Manager
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro Tempore Supple at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers.
Council Members
Present:
Mary Supple, Mayor Pro Tempore; Sean Hayford Oleary; and Simon
Trautmann
Council Members
Absent:
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor; and Ben Whalen.
Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney; John Stark,
Community Development Director; Melissa Poehlman, Assistant Community
Development Director; Kristin Asher, Public Works Director; Bob Baltgalvis,
Transportation Engineer; Jay Henthorne, Director of Public Safety; Jennifer
Anderson, Support Services Supervisor; Neil Ruhland, Communications and
Engagement Manager; Kelly Wynn, Administrative Assistant; Chris Swanson,
Management Analyst; and Kari Sinning, City Clerk
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple led the Pledge of Allegiance
OPEN FORUM
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple stated that there was one person for the open forum.
Terry Carlson, 63rd and 15th Ave S, expressed concern with organized hauling.
Administrative Assistant Wynn reviewed the options to participate and stated that there were
no callers.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Hayford Oleary, S/Trautmann to approve the minutes of the: (1) Special City Council Work
Session of November 5, 2021; (2) Special City Council Work Session of November 6, 2021; (3) City
Council Work Session of November 9, 2021; and (4) City Council Meeting of November 9, 2021.
Motion carried 3-0.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Regular Council Meeting
November 23, 2021
Council Meeting Minutes -2- November 23, 2021
ITEM #1
ARTS COMMISSION ANNU AL PRESENTATION GIVEN BY KARIN
WOLVERTON AND LARRY NELSON
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple introduced Co-Chairs Karin Wolverton and Larry Nelson from the
Richfield Arts Commission who gave a brief presentation of their events, projects throughout the past
year, and thanked staff liaison, MaryKaye Champa, for her support.
Council Member Trautmann thanked the co-chairs and the arts commission for their
opportunities for art throughout the City.
Council Member Hayford Oleary showed appreciation for the Commission’s work throughout
the year.
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple, as the liaison for the commission, spoke highly of the co-chairs
and shared the many activities she was involved in with the commission throughout the year.
ITEM #2
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ANNUAL PRESENTATION GIVEN BY MARA
GLUBKA
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple introduced Mara Glubka who stated the annual report for the
Human Rights Commission that detailed the struggles and successes throughout 2020-2021.
Council Member Trautmann expressed gratefulness for the quality of work that the
commission has been able to complete over the past year and thanked Chair Glubka profusely.
Council Member Hayford Oleary thanked Chair Glubka and the Commission for their work and
shared his experience of being on the commission.
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple echoed the praises and appreciated the leadership of Chair
Glubka to the commission and for the City.
ITEM #3
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
M/Hayford Oleary, S/Trautmann to approve the agenda.
Motion carried 3-0.
ITEM #4
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Manager Rodriguez presented the consent calendar.
A. Consider a resolution accepting the transfer of funds from the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority's General Fund to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. (Staff
Report No. 163)
Council Meeting Minutes -3- November 23, 2021
RESOLUTION NO. 11899
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE TRANSFER OF HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SALES PROCEEDS TO THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND
B. Consider the approval of setting a public hearing to be held on December 14, 2021, to
consider the issuance of new On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor and Sunday Sale Liquor licenses
for Dagobah LLC, d/b/a Protagonist Kitchen and Bar, located at 6601 Lyndale Avenue S,
Suite 130. (Staff Report No. 164)
C. Consider approval to renew the contract with Chief's Towing, Inc., for Public Safety towing
services for December 1, 2021 through November 30, 2023. (Staff Report No. 165)
D. Consider the approval of setting a public hearing to be held on December 14, 2021, to
consider the renewal of the Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods Dealer license for 2022
for Metro Pawn and Gun, Inc. (Staff Report No. 166)
E. Consider the approval of an agreement between the Hennepin County Human Services
and Public Health Department, and the City of Richfield Police Department for a full time
embedded Senior Social Worker. (Staff Report No. 167)
F. Consider the approval of a license agreement between the City and Qwest Corporation for
access to their property located at 300 66th Street West to conduct grading, turf
restoration, and driveway restoration related to the 65th Street Reconstruction Project.
(Staff Report No. 168)
G. Consider the approval of the first reading of an ordinance amending Section 1202.07 of the
Richfield City Code relating to license eligibility of intoxicating liquor, wine and beer
establishments. (Staff Report No. 169)
H. Consider approval of a contract renewal with Adesa Minneapolis for 2021-2022 for
auctioning forfeited vehicles from Public Safety/Police. (Staff Report No. 170)
I. Consider approval of the purchase of five (5) Ford Hybrid SUV Police Interceptor vehicles
for Public Safety from Tenvoorde Ford, Inc., for $187,331.90 plus tax, title, and license
fees. (Staff Report No. 171)
M/Trautmann ,S/Hayford Oleary to approve the consent calendar.
Council Member Trautmann recognized and appreciated Hennepin County Human Services
for their continued support with the City regarding the need for social workers.
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple read an email comment from Council Member Whalen who
expressed excitement for a full time Senior Social Worker. Mayor Pro Tempore Supple also shared
her support for the full time senior social worker.
Motion carried 3-0.
ITEM #5
CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT
CALENDAR
Council Meeting Minutes -4- November 23, 2021
None.
ITEM #6
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING MUNICIPAL CONSENT FOR THE I-494:
AIRPORT TO HIGHWAY 169 PROJECT 1 PROPOSED FINAL LAYOUT (STAFF
REPORT NO. 172)
Council Member Trautmann gave a brief description of the public hearing and introduced
Public Works Director Asher who then introduced Amber Blanchard from MNDot who presented a
summary of the I-494 Project.
Council Member Trautmann opened the public hearing.
Sherry Cyza, 7426 Oakland Ave, expressed concern regarding the amount of traffic that would
be routed to Portland Avenue.
Public Works Director Asher explained that there was extensive research on traffic and there
will be more traffic and also stated that the projections are for 2040.
Council Member Trautmann verified that there were no more residents for the public hearing.
M/Trautmann, S/Hayford Oleary to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 3-0
Council Member Trautmann thanked Sherry Cyza for her comments and concerns.
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple shared the previous concerns and comments given and reminded
residents that it will be voted on in February.
ITEM #7
SECOND READING AND SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF A PROPOSED
ORDINANCE AMENDING RULES RELATED TO BICYCLE PARKING (STAFF
REPORT NO. 173)
Council Member Hayford Oleary presented Staff Report 173.
Assistant Community Development Director Poehlman expressed the excitement from staff for
the ordinance amendment.
M/Hayford Oleary, S/Trautmann to 1) approve a second reading of the attached ordinance
amending rules related to bicycle parking and 2) approve a resolution authorizing summary
publication of said ordinance.
BILL NO. 2021-17
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RICHFIELD ZONING CODE
REGULATIONS FOR BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
RESOLUTION NO. 11900
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING THE RICHFIELD ZONING CODE REGULATIONS FOR BICYCLE
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple read comments expressed by Council Member Whalen who
supported of the ordinance updates.
Council Meeting Minutes -5- November 23, 2021
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple thanked staff for their work on this ordinance update.
Motion carried 3-0.
ITEM #8
CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
FOR 2022 (STAFF REPORT NO. 174)
Council Member Hayford Oleary presented staff report 174.
Management Analyst Swanson made himself available for questions and explained that the
legislative breakfast will be held virtually on December 9.
Council Member Trautmann thanked staff for their work on the legislative priorities.
M/Hayford Oleary, S/Trautmann to adopt the proposed legislative priorities for 2022. By
adopting the legislative platform formally, the City Council shows these priorities are in the best
interest of the community and provides increased visibility for the issues.
Mayor Pro Tempore thanked staff for the new format.
Motion carried 3-0.
ITEM #9
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Rodriguez introduced Support Services Supervisor Anderson who gave a covid
update. City Manager Rodriguez also stated that the City has started to collect vaccine status of staff
and thanked IT for their help on creating a form for collection of the data.
Council Member Trautmann shared his experience with covid and how important it is to get
vaccinated.
ITEM #10
CLAIMS AND PAYROLL
M/Trautmann, S/Hayford Oleary that the following claims and payrolls be approved:
U.S. Bank _ 11/23/2021
A/P Checks: 301692 - 302128 $ 1,353,360.33
Payroll: 166210 - 166515 697,470.92
TOTAL $ 2,050,831.25
Motion carried 3-0
ITEM #11
HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS
Council Meeting Minutes -6- November 23, 2021
Council Member Trautmann expressed his appreciation for Sustainability Specialist Rachel
Lindholm and shared an anecdote about an organized hauling confusion with a resident.
Council Member Hayford Oleary also shared celebratory thoughts regarding organized
hauling.
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple shared that Community Development Director Stark will be the
new City Manager for the City of North Saint Paul and wished him the best in his new role. She
showed appreciation for the previous work session and promoted risk analysis throughout the city.
She also mentioned the liquor store round up program and emphasized the winter VEAP food drive.
She also shared information about the Every Meal program at the community center and the winter
farmer’s market.
ITEM #12
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:21 p.m.
Date Approved: December 14, 2021
Maria Regan Gonzalez
Mayor
Kari Sinning Katie Rodriguez
City Clerk City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Special City Council Meeting
November 30, 2021
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro Tempore Supple at 6:18 p.m. in the
Council Chambers.
Council Members
Present:
Mary Supple, Mayor Pro Tempore; Sean Hayford Oleary; Simon Trautmann
(arrived 6:32); and Ben Whalen
Council Members
Absent:
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Jane Skov, IT Manager; Kelly Wynn,
Administrative Assistant; and Kari Sinning, City Clerk
Others Present: Steven Unowsky, Richfield Public Schools Superintendent.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple led the Pledge of Allegiance
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple announced that future meetings will be virtual and information about
how to join will be on the City’s website.
ITEM #1 PROCLAMATION IN SUPPORT OF INCLUSIVE SCHOOL WEEK
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple presented a summary of Inclusive School Week and gave a
proclamation to Superintendent Unowsky who thanked the City for their support for the schools.
Council Member Whalen added that this work is so important to make this City more equitable for
all and appreciated the partnership with the schools.
Mayor Pro Tempore thanked Superintendent Unowsky and staff present for their support.
ITEM #2
CONDUCT A TRUTH IN TAXATION PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE 2022
PROPERTY TAX LEVY AND 2021 REVISED/2022 PROPOSED BUDGET AND
PROPOSED 2022 UTILITY RATES
Council Member Whalen presented agenda item number two and introduced City Manager Rodriguez
who gave a presentation regarding the 2022 budget and tax levy.
Council Member Whalen opened the public hearing and Administrative Assistant Wynn stated that
there were no callers.
Ruane Onesirosan, 2421 West 65th, spoke in opposition of using tax dollars to update communication
systems and how recordings capture her and the public.
Ron Capone, 6517 14th Ave, thanked the City Manager for the presentation for answering a couple of
his questions and asked a question regarding the increase of 13.8% that has been added to his taxes. He also
asked about how the public can get more involved with the process.
Council Member Whalen verified that there were no other residents that wanted to speak for the public
hearing.
M/Whalen, S/Trautmann to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 4-0
M/Whalen, S/Hayford Oleary to schedule final action on the 2022 property tax levy and 2021
Revised/2022 Proposed Budget and proposed 2022 utility rates, for the regular City Council meeting of
December 14, 2021.
Mayor Pro Tempore Supple mentioned that due to technical difficulties residents may speak at the
December 14, 2021 Council Meeting regarding this item.
Motion carried 4-0
ITEM #3
CONSIDER ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROPOSAL PROVIDED BY TIERNEY FOR
AUDIO VISUAL UPGRADES TO THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND THE VIDEO
CONTROL ROOM, AND ADDITIONAL QUOTE FOR UPGRADES TO CONFERENCE,
TRAINING AND BRIEFING ROOMS WITHIN CITY HALL, FIRE DEPARTMENT,
PUBLIC WORKS AND PUBLIC SAFETY (STAFF REPORT NO. 176)
Council Member Hayford Oleary presented Staff Report No. 176.
IT Manager Jane Skov gave a brief summary of the upgrades that would allow for all the
conference rooms and council chambers to be more accessible for residents and staff. As tonight’s
meeting is indicative of need for the upgrades, IT Manager Skov explained that these upgrades would
make hybrid meetings easier allowing more accessibility.
Council Member Hayford Oleary asked for clarification on the motion and if it included the police
training room quote that was just received. City Manager Rodriguez stated that it should be included in the
motion.
Council Member Whalen thanked for staff for their work on getting the outdated software updated
and appreciated the opportunity this upgrade brings.
Council Member Trautmann stated how the meeting illustrated the need for the upgrades and
reiterated how important that it is to provide clear communication to all residents.
M/Hayford Oleary, S/Whalen to approve acceptance of the proposal provided by Tierney for audio
visual upgrades to the council chambers and the video control room, and additional quote for upgrades to
conference, training and briefing rooms within City Hall, the Fire Department, Public Works and Public
Safety.
Mayor Pro Tempore appreciated the added accessibility that these upgrades would bring.
Motion carried 4-0.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:58 p.m.
Date Approved: December 14, 2021
Mary B. Supple
Mayor Pro Tempore
Kari Sinning Katie Rodriguez
City Clerk City Manager
Proclamation of the City of Richfield
WHEREAS, Maureen Scaglia has received the second annual Edwina Garcia Community
Builder Award for her commitment to the Richfield community; and
WHEREAS, Maureen Scaglia begin her volunteer work with Babe Ruth Little League and later
expanded her philanthropic presence in the city as a Girl Scout leader; and
WHEREAS, Maureen Scaglia has been a member of the Lions Club, Friends of Wood Lake
Nature Center and the Richfield Historical Society; and
WHEREAS, Maureen Scaglia has worked to ensure Richfield residents in need are fed through
her contributions to Meals on Wheels, She’s been a driver, coordinator and Board of Director’s
member; and
WHEREAS, Maureen Scaglia, as a member of the Community Services Commission, lead the
efforts around the Parks Master Plan, and later served on the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, Maureen Scaglia is an active member of the Friends of the Richfield Bandshell
organization, she worked diligently within the community to secure funding for the project and
currently works to coordinate musical events; and
WHEREAS, Maureen Scaglia has believed in and supported Richfield’s youth over the
decades. She’s volunteered at Richfield High School as office support, was a member of Band
Boosters, acted as a parade chaperon, and helped as a classroom assistant in the Richfield
Middle School; and
WHEREAS, Maureen Scaglia is an indispensable member of the League of Women Voters.
Over the years, she served as a member on the Board of Directors, President, moderator of the
“Inside the Issues” TV program, coordinated the organization’s candidates forum, bulletin editor,
and arranged the League’s efforts around organized garbage collection in Richfield ; and
Now, THEREFORE, I Maria Regan Gonzales, Mayor of the City of Richfield and the
Richfield Council Members do hereby award you this Proclamation for your service
demonstrating your commitment to the core values of the City of Richfield.
PROCLAIMED this 14th day of December, 2021.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #5.A.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 177
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
12/14/2021
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Jennifer A nderson, S upport S ervices Manager
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice
12/8/2021
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
12/8/2021
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider to approve the renewal of the 2022 licenses for On-Sale Intoxicating/Club, Wine and 3.2 Malt
Liquor licenses.
On Sale Intoxicating/Club/Sunday License Holders
El Tejaban
Fireside Foundry
Frenchmans
Giordano's
Los Sanchez Taqueria
Lyndale Smokehouse
Pizza Luce
V.F.W.
On Sale W ine, On Sale 3.2 License Holders
Chipotle
Davanni's
Joy's Pattaya
MN Magicians @ Ice Arena
My Burger
Patrick's Cafe
Red Pepper
Sandy's Tavern
On Sale 3.2 License Holder
Vina
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Staff completed a staff report for each business at the time they originally applied for and received Council
approval to serve On Sale I ntoxicating/Club and Sunday, On Sale W ine, On-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor at
their businesses in the City of Richfield. This is simply a request to renew their annual license for 2022.
There is not a public hearing requirement for renewals for these types of licenses. The businesses named in
this report are presented for Council’s approval.
The Public Safety Director has reviewed the background information and attached documents for said
businesses and approves of its contents and sees no basis for denial.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion:
Approve the 2022 renewal of named business licenses for On Sale Intoxicating/Club and Sunday, On
Sale W ine and On-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor establishments doing business in Richfield.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
The listed businesses current licenses will expire on December 31, 2021.
All named businesses have paid the licensing fee(s).
All named businesses have liquor liability insurance.
All named businesses real estate taxes are paid and current.
All named businesses gave an accountant's statement.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed for all businesses. The results of the
investigations are summarized in an attachment to this report. The Public Safety Director has reviewed
the information in the background investigation reports. There is no information in the investigation that
shows any cause for recommending denial of the requested licenses.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
All businesses must annually request renewal of their On Sale I ntoxicating/Club and Sunday, On
Sale W ine, On-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses to the City Council.
Businesses must meet the requirements for renewal of their licenses.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
There are no additional critical timing issues.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
All license fees must be paid and application forms submitted in order to be considered for license
renewal.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
There are no additional legal issues.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
Deny the request for the renewal of 2022 licenses for On Sale I ntoxicating/Club and Sunday, On Sale W ine,
On-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor establishments doing business in Richfield. This would result in the
applicants not being able to conduct business within the City in 2022; however, there have been no issues with
any of these listed establishments and the Public Safety Department has found no reason to deny any of the
requested licenses.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
Businesses have been notified of the date of presentation to the City Council but are not required to attend.
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
B ackground S ummaries for 2022 A lcohol L icenses C over Memo
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #5.B.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 178
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
12/14/2021
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Jennifer A nderson, S upport S ervices Manager
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice
12/8/2021
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
12/8/2021
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider to approve the renewal of the 2022 licenses for On-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor, Off-Sale 3.2
Percent Malt Liquor, Secondhand Goods Dealer and taxi companies doing business in Richfield.
Licenses to Operate in Richfield Licenses to sell 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor
Gold Star Taxi - 1 vehicle La Vaquita Short Stop- Off-Sale
La Vaquita 2- Off-Sale
Secondhand Goods Dealers Portland Food Mart - Off-Sale
Gamestop Pump & Munch - Off-Sale
Wedding Day Jewelers Richfield Minnoco - Off Sale
Speedway #4186 - Off-Sale
Speedway #4188 - Off-Sale
Speedway #4191 - Off-Sale
Speedway #4615 - Off-Sale
Target Corporation - Off-Sale
Vina Restaurant - On-Sale
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Staff completed a staff report for each business at the time they originally applied for and received Council
approval to operate their Taxi business, buy Secondhand Goods, or sell On-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor and
Off-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor at their business in the City of Richfield. This is simply a request to renew
their annual license for 2022. There is not a public hearing requirement for renewals for these types of
licenses. The businesses named in this report are presented for Council’s approval.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion:
1. Approve the 2022 renewal of named business licenses for On-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor and
Off-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor establishments doing business in Richfield.
2. Approve the 2022 renewal of named business licenses for taxi companies doing business in
Richfield.
3. Approve the 2022 renewal of named business licenses for Secondhand Goods Dealer.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
The listed businesses current licenses will expire on December 31, 2021.
The businesses named below with the corresponding licenses are presented for Council’s
approval on this date.
Licenses to Operate in Richfield
Gold Star Taxi - 1 vehicle
Licenses to sell 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor
La Vaquita Short Stop- Off-Sale
La Vaquita 2- Off-Sale
Portland Food Mart - Off-Sale
Pump & Munch - Off-Sale
Richfield Minnoco - Off-Sale
Speedway #4186 - Off-Sale
Speedway #4188 - Off-Sale
Speedway #4191 - Off-Sale
Speedway #4615 - Off-Sale
Target Corporation - Off-Sale
Vina Restaurant - On-Sale
Licenses to hold a Secondhand Goods Dealer
Gamestop
Wedding Day Diamonds
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
All businesses must annually request renewal of their Secondhand Goods Dealer, 3.2 Percent
Malt Liquor and Taxi Company licenses to the City Council.
Businesses must meet the requirements for renewal of their licenses.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
There are no additional critical timing issues.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
All license fees must be paid and application forms submitted in order to be considered for license
renewal.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
There are no additional legal issues.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
Deny the request for the renewal of 2022 licenses for Secondhand Good Dealer, On-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt
Liquor, Off-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor and taxi company doing business in Richfield. This would result in
the applicants not being able to conduct business within the City in 2022; however, there have been no issues
with any of these listed establishments and the Public Safety Department has found no reason to deny any of
the requested licenses.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
Businesses have been notified of the date of presentation to the City Council but are not required to attend.
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #5.C.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 179
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
12/14/2021
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Ryan K rzos, P lanner
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: John S tark, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
12/8/2021
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: Mary Tietjen, C ity A ttorney S am K etchum, A ssistant C ity A ttorney
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
12/8/2021
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider approval of a third amendment to the Consent Decree in the State of Minnesota by City of
Minneapolis, et al. v. Metropolitan Airports Commission, et al., Hennepin County Case No. 27-C V-0S-
S474.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
I n 2005, the Cities of Minneapolis, Ric hfield, and Eagan, and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority
(MP HA), sued the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MA C) for violations of the Minnesota Environmental
Rights Ac t related to alleged inadequac ies in the MA C’s noise mitigation program at the Minneapolis-St. Paul
I nternational A irport (MS P ). I n 2007, the parties settled the litigation by entering into a Consent Decree. The
Consent Decree required the MA C to provide noise mitigation to certain eligible homes in Richfield.
I n May 2013, the parties approved a First Amendment to the Consent D ec ree, which c reated a refined noise
mitigation plan extending to the y ear 2024. I n November 2016, the parties approved a Second Amendment,
which phased out the I ntegrated Noise Modeling (I NM) software system and replac ed it with the Federal
Aviation Administration’s (FA A) Aviation Environmental Design Tool (A E D T). The Second Amendment also
revised the opt-out eligibility provisions of the MA C’s noise mitigation program.
As the refined noise mitigation plan approved in the First Amendment will c lose on December 31, 2024, the
parties negotiated the Third Amendment to extend the core provisions of the noise mitigation program.
The Third Amendment includes the following primary changes to the Consent Decree:
The extension of the noise mitigation program, whic h will commence on J anuary 1, 2022 and terminate
on December 31, 2032, based on the noise contours the MA C develops using A E D T and MA C’s
assessment of eligibility for noise mitigation.
Some single-family and multi-family homes that previously opted out of or did not participate in
previously established noise mitigation programs are now eligible to participate in the mitigation
program, with specified exceptions.
W hile the C ity of Richfield does not currently have any additional homes in the c urrent sound mitigation
program, the provisions of this proposed amendment secure possible future benefits for Richfield property
owners if the noise environment around MS P changes.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve the proposed Third Amendment to the Consent Decree.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
The Consent Decree was approved in 2007 and a First Amendment and Second Amendment
were subsequently approved by all parties in 2013 and 2017, respectively.
The current refined noise mitigation plan will close on December 31, 2024.
The MA C will assess eligibility for noise mitigation under the program annually based on noise
contours prepared for the previous calendar year.
A home must be in a noise contour for three consecutive years in order to receive noise
mitigation.
The extended noise mitigation program will commence on J anuary 1, 2022 and terminate on
December 31, 2032.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
The City of Richfield wants to continue to secure the benefits obtained for its residents under the
Consent Decree.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The MA C must produce a Noise Contour Report annually.
The MA C has asked that all the governing bodies to the Consent Decree consider the Third
Amendment for approval by the end of December 2021.
I f the Third Amendment is approved, the extended noise mitigation program will commence on
J anuary 1, 2022 and terminate on December 31, 2032.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
Approval of the amendment will not result in any additional costs to the City.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The City Attorney’s Office was involved in the negotiation of the Third Amendment and has
reviewed and approved its language.
The Third Amendment is contingent on approval of the other parties (the MA C, City of
Minneapolis, City of Eagan, and the MP HA).
T he amendment is contingent on FAA approval and approval by the Hennepin County
District Court.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
None.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
None.
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Third A mendment to C onsent D ecree and signatures
page for the C ity of Richfield C ontract/A greement
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
_________________________________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA BY THE
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 27-CV-OS-S474
v.
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION,
Defendant, and
NORTHWEST AIRLINES,
Defendant-Intervenor.
________________________________________
THIRD AMENDMENT TO CONSENT DECREE
WHEREAS, the City of Minneapolis, City of Richfield, City of Eagan, Minneapolis
Public Housing Authority (collectively, the “Cities”), and the Metropolitan Airports Commission
(the “MAC”), (hereafter, the “Parties”) are parties to a consent decree entered by this Court on
October 19, 2007, and amended by this Court on September 25, 2013, and on January 31, 2017
(the “Consent Decree”);
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2013, by agreement of the Parties, this Court adopted the
First Amendment to this Consent Decree, which created a refined noise mitigation plan described
in the final MSP 2020 Improvements Project Environmental Assessment/Environmental
Assessment Worksheet for existing homes that entered into the 60-62 DNL and 63-64 DNL for
exterior noise for three consecutive years with the first year beginning before 2020;
WHEREAS, the MAC and the Cities requested this Court adopt the Second Amendment
to this Consent Decree (the “Second Amendment”);
-2-
WHEREAS, on January 31, 2017, this Court adopted the Second Amendment, which (a)
refined the noise mitigation plan outlined in this Consent Decree by providing for the use of the
most recently released Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) noise modeling software, and (b)
revised the opt-out eligibility provisions of the MAC’s noise mitigation program;
WHEREAS, no more homes will become eligible for mitigation pursuant to the First
Amendment to the Decree since there were zero qualifying homes per the 2020 contour map as
prepared by MAC under section 8.1(d) of the Consent Decree, 2020 was the last year to begin
accruing eligibility, and the First Amendment program will close on December 31, 2024;
WHEREAS, the Cities continue to allege that failure to provide noise mitigation to
existing homes within the 60 DNL for exterior noise surrounding the Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport (“MSP”), whether or not the interior noise level in a residence is below 45
DNL, violates the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA), the Minnesota Environmental
Policy Act, and/or a local standard established by the Metropolitan Council;
WHEREAS, MAC continues to deny any legal violation has occurred as a result of its
failure to provide noise mitigation;
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to extend the core provisions of the noise mitigation
program established in the Consent Decree, as amended, in order to provide noise mitigation for
all future eligible homeowners and to avoid, to the extent possible, future claims related to noise
at MSP;
WHEREAS, Section 8.1(j) and Section 8.7 of the Consent Decree allow the Cities and
the MAC to modify the Consent Decree by mutual agreement and in writing;
-3-
WHEREAS, this amendment will be submitted to the FAA Office of Chief Counsel for a
legal determination regarding its consistency with federal requirements regarding the use of
airport revenue;
NOW THEREFORE, upon (a) receipt of a written determination by the FAA Office of
Chief Counsel that use of airport revenue to fund the programs contemplated by this Amendment
is permitted, and (b) approval of this Third Amendment (“Amendment”) by the Court, the
Consent Decree shall be amended as follows:
1. The Consent Decree is hereby modified to add the following language after
Section 9.9:
X. NOISE MITIGATION PROGRAM COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2022
10.1 Goal of the Program. The MAC’s goal in adopting the noise mitigation program in
Section X of this Consent Decree is to minimize the environmental impacts on residents in
communities adjacent to MSP, consistent with the unique noise characteristics associated with
air carrier aircraft operations. The Cities’ goal for participating in this program is to ensure that
mitigation is provided to impacted homes while continuing to advocate for noise prevention and
reduction.
10.2 Duration of the Program. The noise mitigation program in Section X of this Consent
Decree will commence on the latter of January 1, 2022, or the date this Amendment is approved
by both the Court and the FAA.” The program will terminate on December 31, 2032.
10.3 Noise Contours and Program Eligibility Assessment. The MAC will determine
eligibility for the program based upon noise contours the MAC develops under Section 8.1(d) of
this Consent Decree using the FAA’s Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) or the most
recently released version of any subsequent FAA modeling software system the FAA uses in
preparing environmental review documents. The MAC will assess eligibility for noise mitigation
-4-
under the program annually based upon the Section 8.1(d) contours prepared for the previous
calendar year. The first actual noise contour for this Amendment will be the 2021 noise contour
prepared by the MAC no later than March 1, 2022. The last noise contour for this Amendment
will be the 2030 noise contour prepared by the MAC no later than March 1, 2031.
10.4 Eligibility Criteria. The owner of a Single-Family or Multi-Family home, as those terms
are defined in Section 4.27 and Section 4.16, respectively, of this Consent Decree, will be
considered eligible for mitigation under the noise mitigation program in Section X of this
Consent Decree if the following criteria are met: (a) the community in which the home is
located—including but not limited to communities located within the City of Minneapolis, City
of Richfield, or City of Eagan— has adopted local land use controls and building performance
standards applicable to the home for which mitigation is sought that prohibit new
residential construction, unless the construction materials and practices are consistent with the
local land use controls and heightened building performance standards for homes within the
60 DNL Contour within the community in which the home is located, and (b) the home is
located, for a period of three consecutive years, with the first of the three years beginning no
later than calendar year 2028, (i) in the actual 60-64 DNL noise contour prepared by the MAC
under Section 8.1(d) of this Consent Decree, and (ii) within a higher noise impact mitigation area
when compared to the Single-Family home’s status under the noise mitigation programs for
Single-Family homes provided in Sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 9.5 of this Consent Decree or when
compared to the Multi-Family home’s status under the noise mitigation programs for Multi-
Family homes provided in Section 5.4, and 9.6 of this Consent Decree. The noise contour
boundary will continue to be based on the block intersect methodology stated in 4.9, 4.10, and
4.18 in this Consent Decree. There is no requirement that the interior noise level in any Single-
-5-
Family or Multi-Family home receiving mitigation under Section X of this Consent Decree be
above 45 DNL. The MAC will offer noise mitigation under Section X of this Consent Decree to
owners of eligible Single-Family homes and Multi-Family homes in the year following the
MAC’s determination that a Single-Family or Multi-Family home is eligible for noise mitigation
under this Section.
10.5 Single-Family Home Mitigation Package.
(a) If a Single-Family home is in the 63 or higher DNL annual noise contour prepared by
the MAC under Section 8.1(d) of this Consent Decree or its subsequent amendments for three
consecutive years, the Single-Family home will be eligible for the Five-Decibel Reduction
Package, as that term is defined in Section 4.11 of this Consent Decree.
(b) If a Single-Family home is in the 60-62 DNL annual noise contour prepared by the
MAC under Section 8.1(d) of this Consent Decree for three consecutive years, the Single-Family
home will be eligible for one of two mitigation options, to be selected by the owner of the home.
The two mitigation options are: (1) if no central air conditioning exists in the home as of January
1, 2022, the MAC will install central air conditioning and provide a total not to exceed $4,000 (in
2007 dollars) of noise mitigation products and services from the Mitigation Menu, as that term is
defined in Section 4.14 of this Consent Decree, including reasonable and customary installation
costs; or (2) if central air conditioning exists in the home as of January 1, 2022, or if central air
conditioning does not exist in the home as of January 1, 2022, but the homeowner chooses not to
receive central air conditioning, the MAC will provide a total not to exceed $14,000 (in 2007
dollars) of noise products and services from the mitigation services from the Mitigation Menu, as
that term is defined in Section 4.14 of this Consent Decree, including reasonable and customary
installation costs. Any reimbursement or mitigation improvements previously provided by the
-6-
MAC under this Consent Decree or under any other noise mitigation program will be deducted
from the above-listed options.
10.6 Multi-Family Home Mitigation Package. Multi-Family homes in the 60-64 DNL
annual noise contours prepared by the MAC under Section 8.1(d) of this Consent Decree that
meet the Eligibility Criteria of Section 10.4 will be eligible for the Multi-Family Home
Mitigation Package as defined in Section 4.17 of this Consent Decree.
10.7 Tolling of Three-Year Eligibility Period. If, as the result of any extraordinary event
arising from causes beyond the control of any Party hereto, including but not limited to a
pandemic, the total combined number of Airport Operations at MSP, as determined by the FAA,
are reduced on a calendar-year basis by thirty (30) percent or more compared to the calendar year
immediately preceding the calendar year during which the extraordinary event commenced (the
“Pre-Tolling Year”), the running of the three-continuous-year homeowner eligibility periods
described in Sections 10.4, 10.5(a) and 10.5(b) shall be tolled during the entirety of any calendar
year in which operations are so reduced and shall resume in the calendar next year in which
operations are not so reduced; provided, (a) the maximum duration for which any homeowner
eligibility period may be tolled under this Section 10.7 is two years, which must be consecutive
years, (b) a homeowner shall be limited to one tolling period of up to two years, and (c) this
Section 10.7 shall not apply to any home that has not already accrued at least one year of
homeowner eligibility under Section 10.4, 10.5(a) or 10.5(b), which must include the Pre-Tolling
Year. For purposes of this Section 10.7, “Airport Operations” means the number of arrivals and
departures from the MSP Airport.
10.8 Termination of Eligibility. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Consent
Decree or its Amendments, no Single-Family or Multi-Family home shall be eligible for the
-7-
noise mitigation program in Section X of this Consent Decree unless (a) for homes that gain full
eligibility on or before March 1, 2030, a homeowner has –executed a signed noise-mitigation
work agreement with the MAC prior to September 30, 2031, or (b) for homes that gain full
eligibility on March 1, 2031, a homeowner has executed a signed noise-mitigation work
agreement with the MAC prior to June 30, 2032; provided, the MAC may, for good cause
shown, extend the deadline for homeowners to execute a signed noise-mitigation work
agreement with the MAC..
10.9 Opt-Out Eligibility. Single-Family and Multi-Family homes that previously opted out of
or did not participate in noise mitigation programs previously established under this Consent
Decree or the First Amendment are not eligible to participate in the mitigation program provided
under this Section. Opting out, for the purposes of this section, does not include failing to
participate in the 2005 DNL 60-64 contour partial reimbursement program provided for in
Section 5.3 (e), (f) and (g). Further, notwithstanding any previous opt-out, Single-Family homes
that previously opted out of the partial mitigation program provided in Section 10.5(b), Section
9.5(b), or Section 5.2 may participate in the mitigation program provided in Section 10.5(a) if the
Single-Family home meets all of the requirements for participation set forth in Section 10.5(a).
10.10 Releases from Homeowners. The MAC may require owners of Single-Family and
Multi-Family homes receiving noise mitigation under Section X of this Consent Decree to sign a
release in the form substantially similar to the release used previously by the MAC in its Part 150
noise mitigation program.
10.11 Release and Waiver. The Cities and any other communities participating in the noise
mitigation program under Section X of this Consent Decree hereby waive any claims relating to
aircraft noise from MSP under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA) or any other
-8-
legal theory, subject to the exceptions stated in Section 8.1 of this Consent Decree. Nothing in
this Release and Waiver, or in this Consent Decree and any amendments thereto, diminishes the
Parties’ right to pursue claims against non-Parties. By adopting the noise mitigation program
under Section X of this Consent Decree, the MAC is not conceding that it has created an
environmental quality standard, limitation, rule, order, license, stipulation agreement or permit.
[SIGNATURE BLOCKS]
-9-
FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
By: ___________________________________
Maria Regan Gonzalez
Its: Mayor
Dated: ___________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Katie Rodriguez
Its: City Manager
Dated: ___________________________________
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #5.D.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 180
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
12/14/2021
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Jennifer A nderson, S upport S ervices Manager
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
12/8/2021
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider approval of a second amendment to the agreement with the City of Bloomington for the
provision of public health services for the City of Richfield for 2022.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
The City of Richfield has had a public health contract with the City of Bloomington to provide public health
services on Richfield's behalf for 44 years. The amendment to the public health contract requires City Council
approval and reflects a zero percent increase over the 2021 amendment amount.
Due to the influx of federal and state public health funding to combat the Covid-19 pandemic, there was no
increase in the shared services agreement with the City of Bloomington.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve the second amendment to the agreement with the City of Bloomington for the
provision of public health services for the City of Richfield for 2022.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
I n 1977, the State of Minnesota enacted the Community Health Services Act which transferred the
responsibility for the administration of public health programs to local jurisdictions. The State also
provided funds for the program and encouraged local jurisdictions to increase the efficiency of their
programs by grouping together whenever it made sense to do so. Richfield entered into a contractual
agreement with Bloomington at that time and the program has been administered under a contract with
them since. The Act was revised in 2003 and is now referred to as the Local Public Health Act.
The contract amount for providing public health services in 2022 reflects a 0% increase over the 2021
contract amount. The contract amount for 2022 is $262,000; with the 2021 contract amount having been
$262,000.
I n 2004, changes were made to the Public Health Act at the State level to make reporting,
accountability, and record keeping more efficient. Those changes also "regrouped" a large number of
funding sources into one, which gives more personalization of the funds for the best specific user of the
dollars within the community to be used in conjunction with subsidy guidelines. I t is now referred to as
the Local Public Health grant.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
Historically, the cost of the annual contract between Richfield and Bloomington for public health services
has been covered by the Local Public Health (LP H) grant and mandatory 75% local match for the
Richfield Community Health Board.
2017 is the first year that the cost of the agreement significantly exceeded the L P H grant plus the
mandated local match. As grant funding has not increased to match cost of living, insurance, and other
costs, it became necessary for Bloomington, Edina and Richfield to address this shortage.
There has never been a specific cost formula for how services were contracted. I n the past 5 years,
contract increases have ranged from 2-5%, however, the increases to the contracts with Bloomington
have not kept up with the increase in costs to Bloomington's Public Health Division.
These increased costs for Bloomington are due to several reasons:
Flat or reduced grant funding for long-term grants.
I ncreased staffing costs related to increased salaries, new part-time, staff benefits and health
insurance costs.
Loss of grants that have supported administrative time and costs.
I nternal charge increases (phones, copier, space and occupancy, mail room, building repairs,
computers, and professional liability insurance.
City Managers, along with public health staff of Bloomington, Edina and Richfield met in May 2019 to
come to an agreement on how shared services would be allocated to each city. Beginning in 2020, the
yearly cost for services will be based on current 2019 contracted fees adjusted for 2018 service levels.
For 2022, we would be using the 2021 contracted fees adjusted for 2020 service levels. The cities all
agreed to keep this framework in place for 3 years and review and update at that time. Exhibit F in the
2022 Public Health amendment outlines the agreed upon cost allocation strategy.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The City Attorney has reviewed the amendment and approves of its contents.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
The City Council could deny the amendment to the contract and public health services provided by
Bloomington Public Health Department would no longer be provided for the City of Richfield.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
2022 C HS A mendment to P ublic Health A greement C over Memo
Agreement ID: 2021-766
SECOND AMENDMENT TO LOCAL PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE MINNESOTA CITIES OF BLOOMINGTON AND RICHFIELD
THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is made on ___________________ by and between the CITY
OF BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota municipal corporation, acting through its Public
Health Division, located at 1800 West Old Shakopee Road, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431
(“Bloomington”), and the CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota municipal
corporation, located at 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (“Richfield”), each a
“Party” and collectively the “Parties.”
WHEREAS, Bloomington and Richfield are parties to an Agreement dated January 1, 2020
(Agreement ID 2019-650), as amended by a First Amendment dated December 29, 2020 (Agreement
ID 2020-518), pursuant to which Bloomington is responsible for providing Public Health Services
to the residents of Richfield (“Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the term of the Agreement ends December 31, 2021. The Parties desire to amend
the Agreement to extend the term until December 31, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement to include additional services for the
2022 contract year as set forth in Exhibit E, and updated pricing for the 2022 contract year as set
forth in Exhibit F; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement to increase the total amount of work
authorized, including reimbursable expenses, by $262,000 for a total contract not-to-exceed amount
of $783,000; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions expressed in this Second
Amendment, the Parties 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 Public Health Services as set
forth in Bloomington’s Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit E and any supplemental
letter agreements entered into between the Parties (“Services”). The Services referenced in
the attached Exhibit E 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.”
2. Paragraph 2 of the Agreement shall be amended to read: “Time for Completion. This
Agreement shall remain in force and effect commencing from Effective Date and continuing
until December 31, 2022, unless terminated by either party or amended pursuant to the
Agreement.”
3. Paragraph 3 of the Agreement shall be amended to read: “Consideration: The consideration,
which Richfield shall pay to Bloomington, shall not exceed $783,000.00, pursuant to the
terms of payment set forth in Exhibit F and incorporated into this Agreement.”
4. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement not modified by this Second Amendment
shall remain in full force and effect.
2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to the Agreement have caused this Second Amendment
to be executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA
DATED:___________________________ BY:________________________________
Its: Mayor
DATED:___________________________ BY:________________________________
Its: City Manager
Reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
__________________________________
Melissa J. Manderschied
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
DATED:___________________________ BY:________________________________
Its: Mayor
DATED:___________________________ BY:________________________________
Its: City Manager
Reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
__________________________________
3
EXHIBIT E TO LOCAL PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE MINNESOTA CITIES OF BLOOMINGTON AND RICHFIELD
SCOPE OF SERVICES
1. Bloomington agrees to provide residents of Richfield with Public Health Services, which
include activities designed to protect and promote the health of the general population within
a community health service area by emphasizing the prevention of disease, injury, disability,
and preventable death through the promotion of effective coordination and use of community
resources (Public Health Services), and by extending Public Health Services into the
community.
2. Bloomington agrees to provide Public Health Services to the residents of Richfield in a
manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised, and utilizing the same
quality and kind of personnel, equipment and facilities, as Public Health Services are
provided and rendered to residents of Bloomington.
3. Bloomington shall provide the Public Health Services pursuant hereto on a confidential basis,
using capable, trained professionals.
4. Bloomington shall require medical malpractice insurance coverage by its physicians and
other licensed professionals with whom Bloomington has a contract for professional services.
5. All Public Health Services to be rendered hereunder by Bloomington shall be rendered
pursuant to and subject to public health policies, rules, and procedures now or hereafter, from
time to time, adopted by the Bloomington City Council, and in full compliance with all
applicable state and federal laws.
6. It shall be Bloomington’s sole responsibility to determine the qualifications, functions,
training, and performance standards for all personnel rendering Public Health Services under
this Agreement.
7. Bloomington will communicate with Richfield relative to Public Health Services to be
performed hereunder, in the form of reports, conferences, or consultations, as Richfield shall
request. All reports relating to the provision of Public Health Services that are given by
Bloomington to the Bloomington City Council or to the Bloomington City Manager during
the term of this Agreement shall also be given to Richfield.
8. Bloomington also agrees to send to Richfield an annual report describing the Public Health
Services performed pursuant to this Agreement. Said report shall be in such detail and form
as Richfield may reasonably request. Also, at Richfield’s request, made not more than two
(2) times during the term of this Agreement, responsible administrative officers of
Bloomington's Division of Public Health shall attend meetings of the Richfield City Council,
or appropriate board or commission, to answer questions and give further information
relative to the activities performed and Public Health Services rendered under this
Agreement.
4
9. Bloomington will also provide services to Richfield for Title V Maternal Child Health
(MCH) and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) to qualifying women, infants,
children and adolescents. Richfield agrees to assign its rights to Minnesota Department of
Health (MDH) funding provided for the MCH and TANF programs for fiscal year 2022 to
Bloomington. Bloomington will complete all required services, reports and documentation
for these programs and will directly invoice MDH for the MCH and TANF services that
Bloomington provides to Richfield residents.
5
EXHIBIT F TO LOCAL PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE MINNESOTA CITIES OF BLOOMINGTON AND RICHFIELD
TERMS OF PAYMENT
1. 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.
2. Richfield shall pay Bloomington the total not-to-exceed amount of $783,000 for
Services during the term of this Agreement. This amount is based on the 2021 contracted
amount adjusted for the 2020 service levels as noted below.
Allocation
method
Description of Service Share of total cost
Bloomington Edina Richfield
Agreed-upon
percentage of
cost
(fixed)
Administration and
Planning & Health
Promotion
infrastructure
65% 17.5% 17.5%
Internal service
charges
80% 10% 10%
Accreditation 33% 33% 33%
SHIP 44% 30% 26%
By population
(as estimated by
the American
Community
Survey)
DP&C
Senior Health
Outbreak response
50% 29% 21%
By number of
clients in each
city
(changes annually)
Maternal Health
Clinical Services
Share of total cost will change each year based on # of clients
per city, according to the following formula:
(Clients served in Richfield)
------------------------------------------ = share of total cost
(Clients served in all three cities)
Direct expense All others cost of service provided
6
3. Bloomington will invoice Richfield for the Services according to the following terms:
Invoice Date Amount
April 15, 2022 $65,500
July 15, 2022 $65,500
October 15, 2022 $65,500
January 15, 2023 $65,500
4. Richfield shall make payment to Bloomington within fifteen (15) days of receipt after
Bloomington’s invoice.
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #5.E.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 181
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
12/14/2021
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: C hris S wanson, Management A nalyst
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
12/8/2021
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider a resolution to accept $1,923,436 in funds from the American Re scue Plan Act
(A R PA) grant and a second supple me ntal payment of $62,987.23 in additional funds.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
The A RPA grant provided federal funds to the State of Minnesota. The legislature and Governor then
distributed these funds to local governments throughout Minnesota to lessen the financial impacts of Covid-19.
The city of Richfield is entitled to $ $3,972,846.46 in ARPA grant funding, including a second,
supplemental amount of $125,974.46 in funds left unclaimed with State of Minnesota after eligible
local governments received their allocated AR PA funds.
This amount will be paid out in two lump sums. T he first installment came in June 2021. T he second
installment will be paid in June 2022. AR PA funds can be used to cover costs incurred between
March 3, 2021 and December 24, 2024. Per guidance from U S Treasury, acceptable uses of ARPA
funds by the local governments include:
Supporting public health expenditures
Address negative economic impacts caused by the public health emergency
Replace lost public sector revenue
Provide premium pay for essential workers
I nvest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure
The City is in the process of compiling eligible Covid-19 mitigation costs in the city. I t is expected that all grant
funds will be utilized. Staff is currently compiling a list of programs/expenditures other cities will support with
A RPA funds. Staff will review this list and bring funding recommendations to City Council at a future work
session. City Council will be able to weigh the merits of each project and make the final decision for the use
of the City’s A RPA funds.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By Motion: Adopt a resolution accepting $1,986,423.23 of ARPA grant funding,
including $62,987.23 in supple me ntal allocation funds.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
N/A.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires that every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal
property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution and adopted by two-thirds majority of
the City Council.
The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on November 9, 2004, requiring that all grants
and donations to departments be received by resolution and passed by more than two-thirds majority of
the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute 465.03.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
None.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
The total amount of A RPA grant funding Richfield is scheduled to received is $3,972,846.46. This will be
in two payments of 1,986,423.23, occurring in 2021 and 2022. Richfield has received the 2021
payment.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
None.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
None.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
N/A.
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Resolution to A ccept A merican Rescue P lan A ct F unds Resolution L etter
CITY OF RICHFIELD
HENNEIPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF THE AMERICAN
RESCUE PLAN ACT FUNDS
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue
Plan Act (ARPA) into law, providing $1.9 trillion in relief to respond to the novel
coronavirus (COVID-19), including disbursements to the State of Minnesota to be
allocated to local governments to address the impacts of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield (City) initially expected to receive a total of
$3,846,872.00 (Allocation) pursuant to ARPA, with the City receiving the first
distribution of $1,923,436 on July 28, 2021, and the remaining balance in 2022; and
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2021, the City received a second allocation of
$62,987.23 (Additional Allocation) as a result of the State of Minnesota distributing
unclaimed ARPA funds to local governments that received ARPA funds; and
WHEREAS, the Additional Allocation results in the City receiving $1,986,423.23
in 2021 and the City anticipates a second disbursement of the same amount in 2022,
resulting in the City’s estimated total Allocation being increased to $3,972,846.46; and
WHEREAS, the City, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, has had
expenditures and anticipates future expenditures consistent with ARPA and the
Department of Treasury adopt guidance regarding the use of ARPA funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
That the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby accepts its share of
ARPA funds, and authorizes the City to administer the funds in accordance with the
requirements of ARPA and the Department of Treasury’s guidance.
That the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby authorizes the Mayor
and City attorney to take any actions necessary to receive the City’s share of ARPA
funds from the State of Minnesota.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
December, 2021.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST
Kari Sinning, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #5.F.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 182
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
12/14/2021
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: C hris S wanson, Management A nalyst
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: A my Markle, Recreation S ervice D irector
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
12/6/2021
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider the adoption of a resolution authorizing the Richfield Recreation Services Department to
accept 2021 Round-up donations.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
The Round-up Program for Richfield Recreation helps raise support for City Recreation projects across the
community throughout the calendar year at the Richfield Municipal Liquor Stores. Customers can round their
purchase up to the whole dollar and donate each time they make a purchase. T he difference between the
original purchase price and the final amount is set aside to help fund a specific recreational project in
the community.
Past projects funded by Round-up donations include the inclusive playground equipment at Augsburg Park.
This equipment is not only used by Richfield residents, but has become a favorite of individuals from
surrounding communities. Additional funding for the playground equipment came from other bonding sources.
Othe r succe ssful Round-up projects include :
Snowshoes and cross country skis for the W ood Lake Nature Center
All-terrain wheel chairs for the Wood Lake Nature Center
Roosevelt Park dog park
Butterfly-pollinator garden (To be constructed spring of 2022)
Wood Lake Nature Center bus scholarships
T his resolution authorizes the acceptance of $8,863.40 for the Round-up program donations
collected through November 30, 2021.
Since the establishment of the Round-up program in 2019, a total of $41,573.56 has been
collected.
Aside from raising financial support, the program has been a great way to raise awareness about the needs
and programs in the Recreation Department.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Adopt a resolution authorizing the Richfield Recreation Services Department to accept
$8,863.40 in Round-up donations from private individuals for specific re cre ational proje ct in the
community.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
The Richfield Liquor Stores began a Round-up program in the Spring of 2019.
The Round-up donations fund specific recreational project in the community.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires that every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal
property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of the City Council adopted by
a two-thirds majority of its members.
Richfield's Administrative Services Department issued a memo on November 9, 2004, requiring
that all grants and restricted donations to departments be received by resolution and adopted by
two thirds majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute 465.03.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
Donations have been received and applied to the designated fund for the
specific recreational project in the community.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
The financial donations have been deposited in the designated program funds for the specific
recreational project.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property be
received by resolution and adopted by two-thirds majority of the City Council.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
Council could disapprove the acceptance of the Round-up donations which would have to be returned to the
issuing individual. This would be very challenging to administer.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Resolution A uthorizing the Richfield Recreation S ervices
D epartment to A ccept 2021 Round-up D onations Resolution L etter
CITY OF RICHFIELD
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RICHFIELD RECREATIONS SERVICES
DEPARTMENT TO ACCEPT 2021 ROUND-UP DONATIONS
WHEREAS, The Richfield Liquor Stores began a “Round-up” program in
2019; and
WHEREAS, The difference between the original purchase price and the final
Round-up payment is set aside to help fund a specific recreational project in the
community; and
WHEREAS, The Richfield Liquor Stores collected $8,863.40 in Round-up
donations through November 30, 2021; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of
real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of two-
thirds majority of the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the donated Round-up funds will be used to fund projects undertaken
by the Richfield Recreation Services Department; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Director of Richfield Recreation
Services Department accept the donations and place in the accounts as specified.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
December, 2021.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST
Kari Sinning, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #5.G.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 183
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
12/14/2021
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: B en Manibog, Transportation E ngineer
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: K ristin A sher, P ublic Works D irector
12/6/2021
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
12/8/2021
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider the approval of a resolution in support for Public W orks' Safe Routes to School grant
application to MnD O T for the installation of pedestrian improvements on 71st St near Richfield S TE M
Elementary and Dual Language Schools.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Grant Application
Public W orks and Richfield Public Schools (RP S) have decided to pursue a Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnD OT) Safe Routes to School (S RTS) grant for pedestrian improvements on 71st St. To
submit a grant application, a letter of support from the local agency is required to demonstrate that the project
has overall agency support.
S R T S Grant Background
MnD OT is seeking applicants for the 2021 solicitation of the S RTS I nfrastructure Grant Program. The
solicitation provides funds for the development and implementation of projects that enable students to walk and
bicycle to and from schools. There is $7.5 million in funding available to applicants. Funded projects must be
between $50,000 and $500,000.
School Area Background
Today, 60 percent and 75 percent of students are Black, I ndigenous, or People of Color at Richfield S TE M
Elementary and Dual Language Schools respectively. Approximately 35 percent and 28 percent of students
live less than one mile from school. By 5th grade, 39 percent and 29 percent of parents would allow their
children to walk or bike to school. An estimated 15 percent of students at both schools ask permission to walk
or bike to school from their parents. However, over half of RP S families report that unsafe crossings are a
major consideration for choosing not to let their children walk to school. A lack of safe connections compels
families to drive a short distance to school.
71st St Improvements
The S RTS application aims to fill a 900-foot sidewalk gap and move an existing fence along 71st St between
Elliot Ave and 12th Ave. The gap is adjacent to Richfield S TE M Elementary and Dual Language Schools. I n
addition, the project would include widening an existing sidewalk on Elliot Ave from four to six feet wide, and
constructing a new crosswalk and improved pedestrian ramps at Elliot Ave and 71st St.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By Motion: Approve the resolution of support for Public W orks' Safe Routes to School grant
application to MnD O T for the installation of pedestrian improvements on 71st St near Richfield S TE M
Elementary and Dual Language Schools.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
I n 2018, 71st St was identified as a priority pedestrian route to construct in the Pedestrian Master Plan.
I t was named because it fills a gap in the existing pedestrian network adjacent to a school.
I n 2021, the City and RP S collaborated to conduct a S RTS engineering study for the area around the
Richfield S TE M Elementary and Dual Language Schools. All project elements in the funding application
were identified in the engineering study (potential project I Ds C3 and S1a).
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
71st St is identified as a priority pedestrian route to construct in the Pedestrian Master Plan.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The overall grant application is due J anuary 7, 2022. To submit a grant application, a letter of support
from the local agency is required to demonstrate that the project has overall agency support.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
I f the application is accepted and selected, MnD OT will award the City $150,000 for construction costs.
Remaining project costs for engineering and construction administration, estimated at $30,000, would
come from the franchise fees fund. Engineering staff has determined that the franchise fees fund has
capacity for these costs.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
None
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
None
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
None
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
S RTS Grant Resolution Resolution L etter
Map E xhibit
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC WORKS’
MNDOT SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and Richfield Public Schools have collaborated to
apply for Safe Routes to School (SRTS) funding provided by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT); and
WHEREAS, there is a sidewalk gap on 71st St adjacent to Richfield STEM
Elementary and Dual Language Schools; and
WHEREAS, the sidewalk gap and related infrastructu re were identified as a priority
in the 2018 Pedestrian Master Plan and analyzed in the 2 021 SRTS Engineering Study;
and
WHEREAS, 35 percent and 28 percent of students live less than one mile from
Richfield STEM Elementary and Dual Language School respectively; and
WHEREAS, 60 percent and 75 percent of students are Black, Indigenous, or
People of Color at Richfield STEM Elementary and Dual La nguage School respectively;
and
WHEREAS, closing the 71st St sidewalk gap, replacing pedestrian ramps, and
installing a crosswalk will increase safety and improve the experience of students tr aveling
to and from school; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield invests in infrastructure to best serve today’s and
tomorrow’s residents, businesses and visitors; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield ensures that City services are accessible to people
of all races, ethnicities, incomes, and abilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Richfield expresses its
support for Public Works’ grant application to MnDOT for SRTS improvements on 71st St.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
December, 2021.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kari Sinning, City Clerk
= Ped Ramps & Crosswalk = New/Improved Sidewalks
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #5.H.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 184
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
12/14/2021
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: B en Manibog, Transportation E ngineer
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: K ristin A sher, P ublic Works D irector
12/7/2021
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
12/8/2021
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider the approval of a resolution removing parking restrictions along 70th St from Penn Ave to
Lake Shore Dr.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
I n October 2021, the City's Traffic Control Committee (TC C) considered a request to review parking
restrictions on 70th St east of Penn Ave. Following discussion, the TC C recommended that parking
restrictions be removed on this segment.
The parking restrictions were added as a State Aid requirement in 1975. The street was removed from the
State Aid system in the 2010s, meaning the restrictions are no longer required.
70th St is 36 feet wide on this segment, which allows plenty of room for parking on both sides of the road.
This segment is not identified as a priority or concern in either the Pedestrian or Bicycle Master Plans.
Removing the parking restrictions requires a council resolution rescinding the previous resolution. The old
resolution lists another street segment that can be rescinded as well. 77th 1/2 St between Colfax Ave and
Lyndale Ave ceased to exist after the Shops at Lyndale was constructed in the 1990s.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By Motion: Approve the resolution removing parking restrictions along 70th St from Penn Ave to Lake
Shore Dr.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
See executive summary.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
State Aid design standards require parking prohibitions for projects that utilize any agency funding.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
None
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
None
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
None
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
None
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Resolution 5311 - to be rescinded E xhibit
Resolution removing parking restrictions Resolution L etter
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION REMOVING PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON 70TH ST
WHEREAS, in October 2021, the Traffic Control Committee (TCC) reviewed
parking restrictions on 70th St between Penn Ave and Lake Shore Dr; and
WHEREAS, because of the ample space on the road and no conflicts with future
plans, the TCC recommended removing parking restrictions on 70th St between Penn Ave
and Lake Shore Dr; and
WHEREAS, 70th St on this stretch was formerly on the Minnesota State Aid syste m
which required the parking restrictions and was later removed from the system; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 5311 governed parking restrictions on 70th St and 77th
1/2 St related to a Minnesota State Aid project in 1975; and
WHEREAS, 77th 1/2 St from Colfax Ave to Lyndale Ave was removed following the
construction of the Shops at Lyndale in the 1990s; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield invests in infrastructure to best serve today’s and
tomorrow’s residents, businesses and visitors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, that Resolution No. 5311 is hereby rescinded and parking restrictions
on 70th St between Penn Ave and Lake Shore Dr are hereby removed.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
December, 2021.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kari Sinning, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #5.I.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 185
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
12/14/2021
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: S cott K ulzer, A dministrative A ide/A nalyst
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: K ristin A sher, P ublic Works D irector
12/6/2021
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
12/7/2021
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider the approval of a re solution authorizing the "Pre paring for Eme rald Ash Bore r" grant
agree me nt with the Minnesota De partme nt of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry in
the amount of $99,840.00.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Grant Background
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources solicited applications from local units of government within
Minnesota for assistance in managing Ash trees for Emerald Ash Borer (E A B) on public lands. The program
made $1.6 million available to applicants to fund two-year projects. W hile there was no minimum dollar amount
applicants can request, the maximum amount that can be funded is $100,000.00. I n early August, Public
Works staff submitted a project proposal requesting $99,840.00 in grant funds to remove and replace Ash
trees in the public right-of-way and in Richfield parks. I n early September Public Works staff was made
aware that their project proposal was successful and would be funded in the requested amount of $99,840.00,
with a cash match from the City in the amount of $31,269.00 being required to unlock the funds.
Impact on Diverse Communities
The State of Minnesota "Policy on Rating Criteria for Competitive Grant Review" establishes the expectation
that grant programs intentionally identify how the grant serves diverse populations, especially populations
experiencing inequities, disparities, or both. To that end, staff tailored their project proposal to prioritize Ash
removal and replacement in east and southeast Richfield which are more diverse and less wealthy on average
than other areas of Richfield or surrounding communities. East and southeast Richfield is also home to some
of the City's highest concentrations of Ash trees, which will allow this project to have an outsized impact on
these neighborhoods.
Richfield's Grant Funded Project
With the grant funds, Public Works will remove and replace 294 Ash trees on City boulevards and in
parks. Public Works forestry crews will complete a majority of the removals in winter 2021/2022
using existing resources and we will hire a contractor for the stump removals. Following the
removals, we will use grant funds to procure and plant the replacement trees. T he tree planting will
be done by a qualified contractor and the costs will be paid using grant funds and the indicated City
match. T he timeline/goal is to complete the project by late spring 2022, however, completion could
be delayed if we experience a heavy 2021/2022 snowfall season as forestry crews will be pulled off
the project for winter plowing. Project schedule may also be impacted by the length of the spring
planting season.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By Motion: Approve the resolution authorizing the "Preparing for Emerald Ash Borer" grant
agreement with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry in the amount of
$99,840.00.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
The City of Richfield values its urban canopy and dense tree cover throughout the City. Since E A B was
first discovered in Richfield in 2016, it has continued to spread through the entire City. I n 2021 we have
seen the number of infected Ash trees increase exponentially, overwhelming our staff and resources.
W hile Richfield has spent the last decade diversifying our boulevard and park tree populations, many
mature Ash remain in the City and have been impacted by E A B. I n an effort to increase the resiliency of
our urban forest, this grant program will allow Richfield to ramp-up our Ash removal and replacement
efforts well beyond what we are able to handle with our current staff and resources.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
This grant funded project will further the following City Council Goals:
Core Services
Equity
Minnesota Statutes, section 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real
personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution by a two-thirds
majority of the City Council.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The grant agreement must be signed by all parties prior to work on the project starting.
Public works staff is ready to begin Ash removals and intends to do so as soon as the agreement
is in place.
Since the grant funded project must be completed by J une 30, 2023, it is important to start the
project as soon as possible.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
The grant agreement requires a cash match or in kind match from the City in order to unlock the
grant funds.
The City's identified cash match totals $31,269.00 and will come out of the Streets/Forestry
Division operating budget.
The City annually budgets around $50,000.00 for tree replacement and these funds which will be
used for the cash match.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The City Attorney has reviewed the grant agreement and will be available to answer questions.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
None
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
None
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Grant A greement C ontract/A greement
Resolution Resolution L etter
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018 1
STATE OF MINNESOTA
GRANT CONTRACT
This grant contract is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Natural Resources,
Division of Forestry, 500 Lafayette Rd., St. Paul, MN 55155 (“State”) and the City of Richfield, 6700 Portland
Ave., Richfield, MN 55423 (“Grantee”).
Recitals
1. Under Minn. Stat. §84.026, §84.085, Subd. 1, and Minnesota Session Law 2021, 1st Special Session,
Chapter 6, Article 1, Section 3, Subdivision 4(j), the State is empowered to enter into this grant.
2. The State is in need of Urban and Community Forestry Services.
3. The Grantee represents that it is duly qualified and agrees to perform all services described in this grant
contract to the satisfaction of the State. Pursuant to Minn.Stat.§16B.98, Subd. 1, the Grantee agrees to
minimize administrative costs as a condition of this grant.
Grant Contract
1 Term of Grant Contract
1.1 Effective date:
November 30, 2021, or the date the State obtains all required signatures under Minn. Stat.§16B.98,
Subd. 5, whichever is later. Per Minn.Stat.§16B.98 Subd. 7, no payments will be made to the Grantee
until this grant contract is fully executed.
1.2 Expiration date:
June 30, 2023, or until all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first.
1.3 Survival of Terms.
The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this grant contract: 8. Liability; 9. State
Audits; 10. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property; 12. Publicity and Endorsement; 13.
Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue; and 15 Data Disclosure.
2 Grantee’s Duties
The Grantee, who is not a state employee, will:
Comply with required grants management policies and procedures set forth through Minn.Stat.§16B.97,
Subd. 4 (a) (1).
Perform the duties specified in Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C, which are incorporated and made a part
of this agreement.
3 Time
The Grantee must comply with all the time requirements described in this grant contract. In the performance
of this grant contract, time is of the essence.
4 Consideration and Payment
4.1 Consideration.
The State will pay for all services performed by the Grantee under this grant contract as follows:
(a) Compensation
The Grantee will be paid compensation in an amount not to exceed $99,840.00 on a reimbursement
basis for qualifying purchases. The Grantee shall submit payment requests with required expenditure
documentation.
According to the breakdown of costs contained in Exhibit B, which is attached and incorporated into
this grant contract, the Grantee certifies that a minimum 25% matching requirement for the grant
will be met by the City of Richfield. The total project cost is $131,109.00. Grantee agrees to match
at least $31,269.00 of this project cost.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5BC81639-E07D-4A09-9765-4047D42596D4
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018 2
(b) Travel Expenses
Reimbursement for travel and subsistence expenses actually and necessarily incurred by the Grantee
as a result of this grant contract will not exceed $0.00; provided that the Grantee will be reimbursed
for travel and subsistence expenses in the same manner and in no greater amount than provided in
the current "Commissioner’s Plan” promulgated by the Commissioner of Minnesota Management
and Budget (MMB). The Grantee will not be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses
incurred outside Minnesota unless it has received the State’s prior written approval for out of state
travel. Minnesota will be considered the home state for determining whether travel is out of state.
(c) Total Obligation.
The total obligation of the State for all compensation and reimbursements to the Grantee under this
grant contract will not exceed $99,840.00
4.2 Payment
(a) Invoices
The State will promptly pay the Grantee after the Grantee presents an itemized invoice for the
services actually performed and the State's Authorized Representative accepts the invoiced services.
Invoices must be submitted timely and according to the following schedule:
1. 1. June 30, 2022
2. 2. December 30, 2022
3. 3. June 30, 2023
All project work must be completed and the final request for reimbursement (along with final
reports) must be submitted by June 30, 2023.
(b) Unexpended Funds
The Grantee must promptly return to the State any unexpended funds that have not been accounted
for annually in a financial report to the State due at grant closeout.
4.3 Subcontractors, Contracting, and Bidding Requirements
The Grantee agrees that if it subcontracts any portion of this project to another entity, the agreement
with the subcontractor will contain all applicable provisions of the agreement with the State.
Per Minnesota Statute 471.345, Municipalities as defined in Subd.1 must follow that Uniform
Municipal Contracting Law if contracting funds from this grant contract agreement for any supplies,
materials, equipment, or the rental thereof, or the construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of real
or personal property.
(a) Support documentation of the bidding process utilized to contract services must be included in the
grantee’s financial records, including support documentation justifying a single/sole source bid, if
applicable.
(b) For projects that include construction work of $25,000 or more, prevailing wage rules apply per
Minnesota Statue 177.41 through 177.44. Consequently, the bid request must state the project is
subject to prevailing wage. These rules require that the wages of laborers and workers should be
comparable to wages paid for similar work in the community as a whole. A prevailing wage form
should accompany these bid submittals.
5 Conditions of Payment
All services provided by the Grantee under this grant contract must be performed to the State’s satisfaction,
as determined at the sole discretion of the State’s Authorized Representative and in accordance with all
applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The Grantee will not receive
payment for work found by the State to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal, state, or local
law.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5BC81639-E07D-4A09-9765-4047D42596D4
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018 3
6 Authorized Representative
The State's Authorized Representative is Emma Schultz, Community Forest Project Specialist, 500 Lafayette
Rd., St. Paul, MN 55155, (651) 259-5274, emma.schultz@state.mn.us, or her successor, and has the
responsibility to monitor the Grantee’s performance and the authority to accept the services provided under
this grant contract. If the services are satisfactory, the State's Authorized Representative will certify
acceptance on each invoice submitted for payment.
The Grantee’s Authorized Representative is Chris Link, Operations Superintendent, 1901 E. 66th St.,
Richfield, MN 55423, clink@richfieldmn.gov, (612) 861-9174. If the Grantee’s Authorized Representative
changes at any time during this grant contract, the Grantee must immediately notify the State.
7 Assignment Amendments, Waiver, and Grant Contract Complete
7.1 Assignment
The Grantee shall neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this grant contract without
the prior written consent of the State, approved by the same parties who executed and approved this
grant contract, or their successors in office.
7.2 Amendments
Any amendments to this grant contract must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been
executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original grant contract, or
their successors in office.
7.3 Waiver
If the State fails to enforce any provision of this grant contract, that failure does not waive the provision
or the State’s right to enforce it.
7.4 Grant Contract Complete
This grant contract contains all negotiations and agreements between the State and the Grantee. No other
understanding regarding this grant contract, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party.
8 Liability
The Grantee must indemnify, save, and hold the State, its agents, and employees harmless from any claims
or causes of action, including attorney’s fees incurred by the State, arising from the performance of this
grant contract by the Grantee or the Grantee’s agents or employees. This clause will not be construed to bar
any legal remedies the Grantee may have for the State's failure to fulfill its obligations under this grant
contract.
9 State Audits
Under Minn. Stat. § 16B.98, Subd.8, the Grantee’s books, records, documents, and accounting procedures
and practices of the Grantee or other party relevant to this grant agreement or transaction are subject to
examination by the State and/or the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of
six years from the end of this grant agreement, receipt and approval of all final reports, or the required
period of time to satisfy all state and program retention requirements, whichever is later.
10 Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property Rights
10.1 Government Data Practices
The Grantee and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch.
13, as it applies to all data provided by the State under this grant contract, and as it applies to all data
created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Grantee under this grant
contract. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. §13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this
clause by either the Grantee or the State. If the Grantee receives a request to release the data referred to
in this Clause, the Grantee must immediately notify the State. The State will give the Grantee
instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is released. The
Grantee’s response to the request shall comply with applicable laws.
10.2 Intellectual Property Rights - Not Applicable
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5BC81639-E07D-4A09-9765-4047D42596D4
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018 4
11 Workers Compensation
The Grantee certifies that it is in compliance with Minn. Stat. §176.181, Subd. 2, pertaining to workers’
compensation insurance coverage. The Grantee’s employees and agents will not be considered State
employees. Any claims that may arise under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act on behalf of these
employees and any claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of
these employees are in no way the State’s obligation or responsibility.
12 Publicity and Endorsement
The Grantee will publicly post and promote project information and purpose as pertains to this grant
contract.
12.1 Publicity
Any publicity regarding the subject matter of this grant contract must identify the State as the sponsoring
agency and must not be released without prior written approval from the State’s Authorized
Representative. For purposes of this provision, publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets,
press releases, research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the Grantee
individually or jointly with others, or any subcontractors, with respect to the program, publications, or
services provided resulting from this grant contract. All projects primarily funded by state grant
appropriations must publicly credit the State of Minnesota, including on the grantee’s website when
practicable.
12.2 Endorsement
The Grantee must not claim that the State endorses its products or services.
13 Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue
Minnesota law, without regard to its choice-of-law provisions, governs this grant contract. Venue for all
legal proceedings out of this grant contract, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal court
with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
14 Termination
14.1 Termination by the State
The State may immediately terminate this grant contract with or without cause, upon 30 days’ written
notice to the Grantee. Upon termination, the Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro
rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed.
14.2 Termination for Cause
The State may immediately terminate this grant contract if the State finds that there has been a failure to
comply with the provisions of this grant contract, that reasonable progress has not been made or that the
purposes for which the funds were granted have not been or will not be fulfilled. The State may take
action to protect the interests of the State of Minnesota, including the refusal to disburse additional funds
and requiring the return of all or part of the funds already disbursed.
14.3 Termination for Insufficient Funding
The State may immediately terminate this grant contract if:
(a) It does not obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature.
(b) Or, if funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services
covered here. Termination must be by written or fax notice to the Grantee. The State is not obligated
to pay for any services that are provided after notice and effective date of termination. However, the
Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily
performed to the extent that funds are available. The State will not be assessed any penalty if the
contract is terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding source,
not to appropriate funds. The State must provide the Grantee notice of the lack of funding within a
reasonable time of the State’s receiving that notice.
14.4 Additional Alternate Termination Language
Additional alternate termination language may be negotiated on a case-by-case basis after the state
agency has consulted with their legal and finance teams.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5BC81639-E07D-4A09-9765-4047D42596D4
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018 5
15 Data Disclosure
Under Minn. Stat. § 270C.65, Subd. 3, and other applicable law, the Grantee consents to disclosure of its
social security number, federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax identification
number, already provided to the State, to federal and state tax agencies and state personnel involved in the
payment of state obligations. These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and
state tax laws which could result in action requiring the Grantee to file state tax returns and pay delinquent
state tax liabilities, if any.
16 Non-Discrimination Requirements
No person in the United States must, on the ground of race, color, national origin, handicap, age, religion, or
sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under, any
program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Including but not limited to:
a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.) and DOC implementing regulations
published at 15 C.F.R. Part 8 prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin
under programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance; Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.) prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex under
Federally assisted education programs or activities;
b) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. § 794), and DOC implementing
regulations published at 15 C.F.R. Part 8b prohibiting discrimination on the basis of handicap under
any program or activity receiving or benefiting from Federal assistance.
c) The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq.), and DOC implementing
regulations published at 15 C.F.R. Part 20 prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age in programs or
activities receiving Federal financial assistance;
d) Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 which prohibits discrimination against
qualified individuals with disabilities in services, programs, and activities of public entities.
1. STATE ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION
Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered as
required by Minn. Stat. '' 16A.15 and 16C.05
Signed:
Date: November 24, 2021
SWIFT Contract/PO No(s). 204004 / 3-201031
2. GRANTEE
The Grantee certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the grant
contract on behalf of the Grantee as required by applicable articles, bylaws,
resolutions, or ordinances.
By:
Title:
Date:
By:
Title:
Date:
3. STATE AGENCY
By:
(with delegated authority)
Title:
Date:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5BC81639-E07D-4A09-9765-4047D42596D4
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018 6
Exhibit A: Grant Project Deliverables
2021 Preparing for EAB Grants City of Richfield Deliverables
Grant Sum Total: $99,840.00
Grant Contact Deliverables
• Adopting an EAB management plan through this grant process if the community does not yet have one
in place
• Each ash tree removed must be replaced with a newly planted tree
• Grantee must be willing to participate in work by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and
University of Minnesota to evaluate project impacts
Regardless of requests for reimbursement, a written update must be submitted by each reporting deadline, to
ensure project is moving forward and on track to completion. Add written reports below corresponding to each
reporting date:
June 30, 2022 Update:
December 30, 2022 Update:
June 30, 2023 Update:
As work is completed, thoroughly address all applicable bullet points below. Add in the date of reporting (i.e.
6/30/22) and change the font color of your update to red, to show where information has been added.
Continually add to this document over the lifetime of your grant, making sure that all bullet points are
addressed by the time of the grant’s completion.
Work with DNR to fully execute and report on the impacts of the work plan by meeting the requirements as
submitted in the City of Richfield’s application:
Project Overview and Need
The City of Richfield values its urban canopy and dense tree cover throughout the City. Since EAB was first
discovered in Richfield in 2016, it has methodically spread through the entire City. In 2021 we have seen the
number of infected Ash trees increase exponentially, overwhelming our staff and resources. While Richfield has
spent the last decade diversifying our boulevard and park tree populations, many mature ash remain in the City
and have been impacted by EAB. In an effort to increase the resiliency of our urban forest, this grant program
would allow Richfield to ramp-up our Ash removal and replacement efforts well beyond what we are able to
handle with our City staff and funding levels. Without these grants fund Richfield will be much slower in
removing and replacing dead and dying Ash along blvds and in parks than would otherwise be desired. Leaving
these dead and dying blvd and park Ash trees standing poses an imminent safety and property risk to residents
and visitors as the trees become ever more brittle and begin to drop limbs or topple completely (imminent
public safety risk).
• Direct outcomes of this grant funded removal and replacement project would include a more diverse
and resilient urban forest that is safer for everyone living in or passing through the City.
By expediting our Ash removal and replacement with these grant funds, we would free up resources to better
manage what healthy Ash population we do have left in the City. Following completion of this project and as
the City gets a better handle on its Ash situation, more forestry resources can be dedicated to proactively
maintaining trees of all types and planting more trees in the City outside of our current 1:1 removal and
replacement program. This project would extend Citywide and be directed by our City Forester and Operations
Superintendent. To successfully implement this program, the City would use its resources for tree removal and
utilize a contractor(s) for stump grinding and planting with close City supervision.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5BC81639-E07D-4A09-9765-4047D42596D4
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018 7
Timeline
2021
• Notification of grant award: August 30, 2021
• Notice to proceed/agreements executed: November 15, 2021
• City Forester selects & marks trees to be removed and replaced: December 1 - 13, 2021
• Public Works submits species, locations, numbers, size and type to DNR for approval: December 20,
2021
2022
• Public Works crews remove marked trees: January 3-March 31, 2022.
• Public Works solicits competitive quotes for provision of trees from nurseries: January 3-21, 2022
• Public Works solicits competitive quotes for planting of trees from contractors/nurseries: January 3-21,
2022
• Public Works solicits competitive quotes for stump grinding from contractors: January 3-21, 2022
• Public Works scores and vets proposals from nurseries and contractors: January 24-February 4, 2022
• Public Works & DNR ensure proposals meet grant requirements: February 7-18, 2022
• Public Works notifies contractors, nursery, and stump grinding contractor of award: February 28, 2022
• Stump Grinding (contractor) and clean up/rehab (public works staff): April 2022 (approx 3-4 weeks)
• Planting of new trees: May 2022 (approx 3-4 weeks)
• Post-planting inspection of new plantings by City Forester or Staff: June 2022
• Required reports/data provided to the DNR, preliminary project close-out: August 2022
2023 & Beyond
• 1-year inspection, pruning, and warranty replacement (if necessary): Late May 2023
• Final reports and reimbursement request to DNR/project close-out: June 30, 2023
• 3-year inspection, pruning, trimming, and replacement (if necessary): Late May 2025
• 5-year inspection, pruning, trimming, and replacement (if necessary): Late May 2027
Project Budget Explanation
We are requesting a grant in the amount of $99,840, however, we would be willing to scale down our proposed
project as appropriate based on how the UCF wants to disburse funds.
• Our proposal is to remove and replace 294 Ash trees on City blvds and in parks. Public Works (PW)
forestry crews would complete a majority of the removals in winter 2021/2022 using existing resources.
• We have budgeted for 20 contractor removals for high-risk trees in precarious situations or in power
lines, part of our cash match would cover these expenses with the grant funding the others.
• Similarly, our proposal includes stump grinding for 294 units at the rate of $1.45 per inch based on the
assumption the average stump will amount to 30" per our experience. We are able to receive this rate
because PW crews work with the contractor by doing site cleanup and restoration/prep work following
grinding. Part of our cash match would cover these expenses too.
• As budgeted, we would use grant funds to procure the 1-2" caliper container stock trees (that meet
project requirements for diversity) for the replanting. The tree planting would be done by a qualified
contractor and the costs would be paid among grant funds and the indicated cash match by the City.
While we have elected to go with a cash match/cost share scenario for purposes of this grant application, we
believe it warrants highlighting that the City will be investing significantly more money through personnel
costs and equipment in this project than would otherwise be required. We believe that because our PW crews
will be removing a large majority of these trees and assisting in grinding cleanup and prep, that a $100,000
grant from the DNR for this project would go 4-5x further than a wholly contracted project. Without this
contribution (beyond the cash match from the City), a $100,000 grant from the DNR might only serve to
remove and replace ~50 trees if completely contracted out. The timeline/goal is to complete the project by late
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5BC81639-E07D-4A09-9765-4047D42596D4
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018 8
spring 2022, however, it could stretch to spring 2023 should our forestry crews spend much of the 2021-2022
winter plowing due to a heavy snowfall season.
Project Impacts on Priority Landscapes and Populations
By Minnesota standards, Richfield is an exceptionally diverse community, with over 39% of our population
identifying with a race or ethnicity other than White, non Latin-X. Richfield's median household income is
$66,900 and 24.1% of individuals have incomes below the federal poverty level. Richfield is predominantly a
single family home residential community, yet only 60.5% of residents own their own home or dwelling. Nearly
42% of renters and 20% of home owners experience housing cost burden, where their housing expenses exceed
30% of their gross income (All stats from U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census and American Community
Survey, via Met Council website). Southeast Richfield is one of the City's most diverse and impoverished areas
and as such is classified as one of Minnesota’s “ACP-50” areas (Area of Concentrated Poverty w/ greater than
50% people of color). Over half of Richfield's land mass is identified as an area of Environmental concern per
the MPCA.
• While EAB is widespread within our borders and is obviously indiscriminate of race, ethnicity, or
income, we believe that receipt of this grant will bring an outsized benefit to these diverse communities.
Forestry staff have been marking public blvd Ash for removal this summer throughout east and south
east Richfield, which is where our largest concentrations of non-white and low income residents reside.
• With grant funding, we would prioritize these removals and replacements which would benefit these
communities. Direct benefits would include an obvious safety improvement when the infested trees are
removed and an eventual boost in property values and quality of life improvement once the replacement
trees begin to mature. Once mature, these trees would provide air quality benefits, stormwater benefits,
privacy benefits, and heating and cooling benefits to the adjacent property owners.
• While the public safety benefits would be realized immediately, the secondary benefits that trees bring
would take some time to realize, unfortunately. Our communication and outreach strategies would be
tailored to these communities and offered in multiple languages to raise EAB awareness and explain the
project importance.
Communication
Our current outreach efforts related to EAB have been focused on raising awareness related to EAB as it
impacts private trees, in an attempt to compel more property owners to treat their ash trees or have them
inspected and removed if necessary. To that end, the City has distributed informational letters city wide alerting
the public to EAB, including distributing postcards and informational door hangers.
• Should we receive the grant, the City would distribute a bi-lingual letter reaffirming the concerns for
EAB on private property and highlighting the DNR funded grant project to remove and replace
boulevard and park Ash trees. This mailer would explain the City's strategy going forward for managing
and mitigating the EAB problem, which would allow us to head-off the public outcry that is expected
when we begin removing mature blvd Ash in preparation for replacement.
• The City would also use our very active social media channels to communicate with residents about the
initiative, and to spotlight the importance of a diverse urban forest throughout the project.
• In collaboration with our Media Coordinator, we would create a series of videos that provide
background information on EAB and the grant-funded project, as well as news articles for publication in
our local paper (Richfield-Bloomington Sun Current) that spotlight the project and also motivate private
property owners to think about what to do with their Ash trees.
• Throughout all of these mediums, we would also take the opportunity to alert the public to our special
assessment option that allows the costs associated with a private Ash removal to be spread over 5 years
with minimal interest on property taxes.
• Should we succeed in obtaining grant funds, we would also hold a City Council Work Session prior to
acceptance of the grant monies that would provide a comprehensive update on the state of EAB in
Richfield and a look forward to what the EAB battle holds over the next half decade.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5BC81639-E07D-4A09-9765-4047D42596D4
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018 9
We would approach all of these outreach efforts as a means to both promote the grant project and call property
owners to action to begin thinking about how they will treat or remove their private Ash trees to help in this
fight.
Personnel
• Joe Clarke, City Forester - ISA Certified Arborist (#MN-4083A).
• MN Certified Tree Inspectors on staff: Joe Clarke, City Forester; Chris Link, Operations Superintendent;
Mark Huiskes, Operations Supervisor; Dan Dalton, Streets/Forestry Public Works Worker; Riley
Struckman, Streets/Forestry Public Works Worker; Tyler Howard, Streets/Forestry Public Works
Worker; Christian Frost, Streets/Forestry Public Works Worker (currently pursuing).
• Contracted Work: High-Risk Removals, Stump Grinding, tree procurement, tree planting (req.'s
attached).
• In-house work: Marking for removal, removal, stump grinding cleanup and planting prep (we remove
150-200 trees annually as part of routine public forestry maintenance and replacement).
• Project Communications: Scott Kulzer, Administrative Aide/Analyst; Neil Ruhland, Communications
Coordinator.
Tree Planting
Grant funds will not fund the purchase of trees that are over-represented in your community. Any genera that
comprise 10% or more of the community forest make-up will not be funded. Numbers derived from the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2010 Rapid Assessment will be used unless an updated inventory
is provided. For Richfield this means grant funds cannot be spent on purchasing:
• Acer (maple): 30.5%
• Fraxinus (ash): 17.9%
• Picea (spruce): 10.6%
All trees planted with grant funds are expected to be maintained based on the City of Richfield’s Three Year
Tree Maintenance Plan submitted as Exhibit C. Trees that do not survive will need to be replaced prior to grant
close-out utilizing the warranty the city has with the nursery that stock was purchased from, or at the expense of
the City of Richfield.
Requesting Reimbursement
Accomplishment reports and maps of completed work will be submitted with all requests for reimbursement.
• Partial payment form along with invoices and proof of payment for grant-funded purchases, Cash Match
form along with proof of payment, and In-Kind Match form
• Partial payments may be submitted as needed and must include all up-to-date required documents and
accomplishment reports, including a relevant certification and/or declaration
• Accomplishment reports will include grant contract deliverables and their impacts
• Photo documentation of the project’s progress at appropriate phases, and illustrations, diagrams, charts,
graphs, and maps to show results
• Maps will:
o Identify the location of ash that have been removed
o Identify the location of ash stumps that have been ground
o Identify the location and species of trees that have been planted
• All trees removed, treated, and planted will be mapped and submitted as shapefiles, with the planted
trees identified by species, to obtain grand fund reimbursement. If your community does not have access
to shapefile-generating software, please notify your DNR Urban and Community Forestry Team
Member, and they will work to assist you.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5BC81639-E07D-4A09-9765-4047D42596D4
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018 10
Following the submission of invoices and accomplishment reports, a compliance check will be conducted by
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources staff. Staff will do a site evaluation ensuring that tree species
submitted on maps are correctly identified and planted in accordance with the standards set in the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources Pocket Guide to Planting Trees.
Staff will also ensure that the project adheres to the 20-10-5 guideline which means that following planting, a
community has no more than 20% of their trees within a single family, no more than 10% of their trees within a
single genus, and no more than 5% of their trees within a single species. Staff will confirm that planted tree
stock is 1-2” caliper bareroot or a container class size #20 or smaller.
Acknowledgment
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources needs to be acknowledged in publications, audiovisuals, and
electronic media developed as a result of this award.
• Including any publications or outreach materials related to this grant or agreement, a statement of
affiliation with Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, e.g., “This publication made possible
through a grant from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.” OR “This project was conducted
in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.”
• Logo is permitted for use and can be obtained by contacting an Urban and Community Forestry Team
Member.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5BC81639-E07D-4A09-9765-4047D42596D4
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018 11
Exhibit B: Project Budget
2021 Preparing for EAB Grants City of Richfield
Item State Grant
Funds
Cash
Match In-kind Match Total
Personnel and
Owned Equipment $0.00
Eligible Expenses $99,840.00 $31,269.00 $131,109.00
Totals $99,840.00 $31,269.00 $0.00 $131,109.00
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5BC81639-E07D-4A09-9765-4047D42596D4
3-Year Tree Maintenance Plan Template for Newly Planted Trees
LUG: Year and Season of Planting:
Project Coordinator:
Phone: Email:
# of Trees to be Planted: Size (caliper for deciduous, height for conifers):
Type of Stock to be Planted (Bare root, etc.):
Describe how the activities below will be completed.
1.Tree Maintenance Personnel
a.Describe who is responsible for maintenance.
b.Volunteers, homeowners, or inexperienced staff that will provide maintenance should receive basic
training and literature on proper maintenance techniques. Is training needed and how will you do it?
c.How will you inspect tree maintenance work periodically to make sure it is being done correctly?
2.Tree Watering Process
Describe in detail how trees will be watered, the time period and frequency of watering. Trees should be
watered weekly for the first 3 to 5 years when the ground is thawed, unless it has rained 1 inch in a week.
ǣ
Ͷͷ
City
of Richfield
Spring 2022City of Richfield
Chris Link
612-861-9174 clink@richfieldmn.gov
1"-2"294
Container
The trees to be planted with this grant will be on boulevards in City right-of-way and in the City's 22
parks. The City of Richfield Public Works Street/Forestry Division is responsible for all tree maintenance
for trees in theses areas (planting, trimming, removal, insecticide treatment, etc.).
Volunteers, homeowners, or inexperienced staff will not provide maintenance. Notification to property
owners will follow our current engagement process. A letter will be mailed notifying adjacent property
owners of the planting project. A follow-up informational letter will be delivered by staff at time of
planting notifying the property owner of their watering responsibilities for the following year and the
importance of the first year watering.
Planting will be provided by licensed/ISA Certified Arborists following standards set in "Pocket Guide to
Planting Trees". As part of contracting out the planting, we will require a one-year warranty on all trees
that are planted. All trees and planting practices will be inspected and verified as part of our annual
update to our GIS tree inventory which includes recording tree species, size, and date planted. All trees
planted as part of this project will be inspected and pruned, if necessary, at 3 years by the City Forester
or other forestry staff. All trees will be reinspected and receive a structural trim/prune after 5 years by
the City Forester or other forestry staff.
Trees will be watered at the time of planting and instructions will be given to the property owner/current
resident on watering needs of newly planted trees. During abnormally dry times or drought, City Staff will
water young trees with the Public Works water trucks. While not purchased as part of this grant funded
project, literature making adjacent property owners aware of watering devices like water bags will be included
in our outreach at the time of planting.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5BC81639-E07D-4A09-9765-4047D42596D4
3.Mulching Trees
Will you mulch your trees and if so, how will you maintain mulch?
4.Staking and Tying Trees
Explain if staking is necessary due to mowing, vandalism, or wind conditions, and describe plans for
inspection and removal.
5.Checking Tree Health
The grantee will check trees every 6 – 12 months to identify and address problems. Describe inspection
process and follow-up.
6.Tree Protection
Young trees in busy urban areas may be easily damaged by human activity, animals, and equipment.
Describe how planted trees will be protected.
7.Pruning
Newly planted trees should need little pruning, if they were properly cared for in the nursery. In the first
year after planting, remove only dead or broken branches. In later years, weakly attached limbs can be
removed, and corrective pruning can be done if needed. Describe your pruning maintenance cycle.
8.Tree Warranty
Tree planting should include a warranty from the nursery for replacement (due to poor condition or
mortality). The grantee should be prepared to fully replace all trees that are in poor condition or die
prior to inspection at the end of the project grant agreement, unless loss was due to natural disaster.
Describe your tree warranty or how trees will be replaced.
Trees will be mulched at the time of planting. After the initial mulching following planting, it will be left up to
the property owner to maintain the mulch or plant grass in the disturbed area.
Stakes will be installed if needed following post-planting inspection. City staff would install and remove
the stakes when needed.
Inspection of these trees will be done annually by City Staff. Residents will also be encouraged to help
the City and their new tree by keeping the City apprised of issues that they notice. Historically, if issues
arise City of Richfield residents are very important and resourceful in notifying City Staff. Once an issue
is identified a work order will be created and sent to staff to complete (usually in <5 days).
Trees will be planted at a minimum 6' from the curb on boulevards. We have not experienced issues with
tree protection in our many years of tree maintenance experience. This is the result of large right-of-way
in Richfield, 1/5 acre residential lots, and a lack of sidewalks in most SFH residential areas.
All trees will be inspected/pruned/trimmed in the first, third, and fifth years, and as-needed thereafter.
Pruning and trimming will be done in compliance with ANSI A300 Pruning Standards or any pruning
recommendations yet to be published that would supercede those. Pruning will be done by using
clippers/shears and trimming will be completed by using a hand saw.
We will require a one year warranty that requires the same type of tree be used as the original for
replacement. This is standard practice both on our road reconstruction projects that include plantings and
landscaping and our annual tree planting program. Outside of the warranty period the tree would be
removed or replaced as part of our annual planting program which includes planting of 175-200 trees per
year.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5BC81639-E07D-4A09-9765-4047D42596D4
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018 12
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Conflict of Interest:
A conflict of interest occurs when a person has actual or apparent duty or loyalty to more than one organization
and the competing duties or loyalties may result in actions which are adverse to one or both parties. A conflict
of interest exists even if no unethical, improper or illegal act results from it.
Actual Conflict of Interest:
An actual conflict of interest occurs when a person’s decision or action would compromise a duty to a party
without taking immediate appropriate action to eliminate the conflict. Examples include, but are not limited
to:
• One party uses his or her position to obtain special advantage, benefit, or access to the other party’s
time, services, facilities, equipment, supplies, badge, uniform, prestige, or influence.
• One party receives or accepts money (or anything else of value) from another party or has equity or a
financial interest in or partial or whole ownership of the other party’s organization.
• One party is an employee, board member or family member of the other party.
Potential Conflict of Interest:
A potential conflict of interest may exist if a person has a relationship, affiliation, or other interest that
could create an inappropriate influence if the person is called on to make a decision or recommendation
that would affect one or more of those relationships, affiliations, or interests.
Organizational Conflict of Interest:
A conflict of interest can also occur with an organization that is a grant applicant in a competitive grant
process or grantee of a state agency. Organizational conflicts of interest occur when:
• A grantee’s objectivity in carrying out the grant is impaired or compromised due to competing duties
or loyalties
• A grantee, potential grantee or grant applicant has an unfair competitive advantage through being
furnished unauthorized proprietary information or source selection information that is not available to
all competitors
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5BC81639-E07D-4A09-9765-4047D42596D4
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018 13
This section to be completed by Grantee’s Authorized Representative (AR):
I certify that we will maintain an adequate Conflict of Interest Policy, and throughout the term of our
agreement, we will monitor and report any actual, potential, individual, or organizational conflicts of interest to
the State’s Authorized Representative.
I also certify that I have read and understand the description of conflict of interest above and as of this date
(check one of the two boxes below):
I do not have any conflicts of interest relating to this project.
I have an actual, potential, individual, or organizational (indicate below) conflict of interest. The nature of
the conflict is as follows:
If at any time during the grant project I discover a conflict of interest, I will disclose that conflict immediately to
the State’s Authorized Representative.
Grantee AR’s Printed Name: Date:
Grantee AR’s Signature:
Organization Name: _____________________________________________________________
Project Name: __________________________________________________________________
Legal Citation: ML______, Chapter ______, Article ___, Section ___, Subdivision ____
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State AR’s Printed Name: ________________________________ Date:
State AR’s Signature: ____________________________________
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5BC81639-E07D-4A09-9765-4047D42596D4
Chris Link
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
TO ENTER INTO A GRANT AGREEMENT AND ACCEPT
GRANT FUNDS FROM MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF FORESTRY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield is the official governing body
of the City of Richfield, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, in August 2021, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(MnDNR) Division of Forestry solicited applications in from local units of government
within Minnesota for assistance in managing Ash trees for Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) on
public lands; and
WHEREAS, the grant program made $1.6 million available to applicants to fund
eligible two-year projects; and
WHEREAS, Public Works staff submitted a project proposal requesting
$99,840.00 in grant funds to remove and replace Ash trees in the public right-of-way
and in Richfield parks; and
WHEREAS, in September Public Works staff was made aware that their project
proposal was successful and would be funded in the requested amount of $99,840.00,
with a cash match from the City in the amount of $31,269.00 being required to unlock
the funds; and
WHEREAS, with the grant funds, Public Works will remove and replace 294 Ash
trees on City boulevards and in parks, which will lead to a more resilient urban forest in
Richfield; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or
devise of real personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by
resolution by a two-thirds majority of the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to enter
into the grant agreement with the MnDNR Division of Forestry and to accept the grant
funds for and on behalf of the City or Richfield.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
December, 2021.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kari Sinning, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #5.J.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 186
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
12/14/2021
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: S cott K ulzer, A dministrative A ide/A nalyst
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: K ristin A sher, P ublic Works D irector
12/8/2021
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
12/8/2021
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider a resolution authorizing condemnation of property for the reconstruction of 65th Street.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
The 65th Street Reconstruction Project requires the purchase of permanent and temporary easements on
four parcels. These easements will allow for project construction and for installation of new infrastructure
which includes but is not limited to sidewalks, driveways, landscaping, and street lighting.
Two of four parcels are not included in this resolution (900 Rae Drive and 800 65th St W).
Easement purchases for these properties are being pursued in order to construct street lights on the
private property, allowing for lighting to be moved out of the paved trail. If easements are not
obtained, the City will place street lights at the edge of the paved trail.
T he two parcels included in this resolution are 6501 Lyndale Avenue S. and 6500 Lyndale Avenue
S., or L A Fitness and Wendy's, respectively. T hese easements are necessary for the project due to
the size of the new roundabout that will be constructed at the intersection of 65th Street and Lyndale
Avenue.
Offers were presented to the included parcel owners (6501 Lyndale Avenue S. and 6500 Lyndale Avenue S.)
either in person or by mail on October 14. As of December 6, the needed easements have not been secured
voluntarily on these parcels, although staff believes agreements will be reached shortly. I n order for the project
to stay on schedule, all right-of-way acquisition needs to be completed before construction. This timeline
requires that the condemnation process begin as soon as possible should easement agreements not be
agreed to voluntarily.
T he voluntary easement acquisition process will continue concurrently with the condemnation
process in the hope that condemnation can be avoided entirely. In discussions with the property
owners, staff strongly believes that voluntary easement agreements can be reached.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By Motion: Adopt the resolution authorizing condemnation of property for the reconstruction of 65th
Street.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
The City Council approved the preliminary design layout for the 65th Street Reconstruction
Project on J uly 28, 2020.
Staff and the engineering consultant are working through final design engineering with the intent to
let the project in early 2022.
The project construction is anticipated to take two years (2022-2023).
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
T he City has the legal authority to acquire private property by eminent domain for a public
purpose.
T he subject properties have been identified as requiring permanent and temporary
easement purchase for the 65th Street Reconstruction Project.
Right-of-way acquisition procedures set forth by Minnesota Department of Transportation
and the Federal Highway Administration are being followed.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
Condemnation proceedings must begin soon to ensure the right-of-way acquisitions are complete in time
for a early 2022 project letting and 2022 construction.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
Funding for the purchase of the required easements will be paid by the City with project funds.
I nitial offers for the permanent and temporary easements were as follows:
6501 Lyndale Ave S: $2,800.00
6500 Lyndale Ave S: $15,900.00
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The City Attorney has reviewed the resolution and will be present at the meeting to answer questions.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
None.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
None
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
6500 Lyndale E xhibit E xhibit
6501 Lyndale E xhibit E xhibit
Resolution Resolution L etter
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION BY
EMINENT DOMAIN AND APPROVAL OF
APPRAISED VALUES OF EASEMENTS FOR
65TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized the project titled 65th Street
Improvements Project (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project area includes a 0.7-mile segment of 65th Street and Rae
Drive between Nicollet Avenue and 66th Street; and
WHEREAS, the Project scope includes Improvements and streetscape
improvements that will improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and mobility, mitigate
localized flooding issues between Nicollet and Lyndale Avenues, and replace
infrastructure that has reached the end of its useful life; and
WHEREAS, the Project is scheduled to be constructed in 2022 and 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is necessary to acquire certain
permanent easements and temporary construction easements (collectively, the
“Easements”), legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto, in order to install and
maintain the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City has engaged a qualified independent consultant to provide
an opinion of damages caused by the Easement acquisitions from each impacted
property; and
WHEREAS, the City has made offers of compensation to the landowners fo r the
Easements consistent with the independent opinions of damages; and
WHEREAS, the City’s consultant has been diligently working with the
landowners of the impacted properties to reach agreements to voluntarily convey the
Easements; and
WHEREAS, despite these efforts, conveyance documents for the Easements
from owners and/or lenders of the following parcels are still needed to ensure the City’s
ability to construct the Project:
Parcel 1 (6501 Lyndale Avenue South) – Lyndale Station, LLC
Parcel 2 (6500 Lyndale Avenue South) – 256 Holdings, LLC
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it reasonably necessary, proper and
convenient, and in the interest of the general welfare that the City acquire by eminent
domain title to and possession of the Easements in furtherance of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the construction schedule for the Project
makes it necessary to acquire title to and possession of the Easements prior to the filing
of the final report of the condemnation commissioners t o be appointed by the district
court; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that appraisers opinions of damages caused
by the acquisition of the Easements, as indicated below, reflect fair market value:
Parcel 1 $2,800.00
Parcel 2 $15,900.00
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, that:
1. The acquisition of the Easements is necessary and for a public purpose in
furtherance of the Project; and
2. The law firm of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, is authorized a nd directed to
take all steps necessary on behalf of the City to acquire through eminent
domain the Easements that are not acquired by voluntary negotiation,
including filing an action in eminent domain and using the quick take
procedure under Minn. Stat. § 117.042; and
3. The appraised values for the Easements reflect the fair market values thereof
and are hereby approved for the purposes of Minn. Stat. § 117.042; and
4. City staff and Kennedy & Graven are authorized to modify the legal
descriptions of the Easements for the purpose of accurately describing the
necessary property as depicted on the plans for the Project.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember ______________ and
seconded by Councilmember _______________.
The following voted in the affirmative:
_________________________________________
The following voted against:
________________________________________________
Councilmember ________________________________ was absent.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 14th day of
December 2021.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kari Sinning, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
Legal descriptions of easements
[attached]
PARCEL 1
A perpetual easement lying over, under and across all that part of the following described
property:
Lot 1, Block 1, LYNDALE STATION, according to the recorded plat thereof Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Said perpetual easement is described as lying northwesterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the west Quarter corner of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, said Hennepin
County; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 28 minutes 00 seconds East, along
the south line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 27, a distance of
475.78 feet; thence North 20 degrees 24 minutes 54 seconds East, a distance of 378.78 feet;
thence northeasterly, a distance of 164.88 feet, along a tangential curve, concave to the west,
having a radius of 359.40 feet and a central angle of 26 degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds, to the
point of beginning; thence North 18 degrees 29 minutes 15 seconds East, not tangent to said
curve, a distance of 101.11 feet; thence northeasterly, a distance of 18.60 feet, along a tangential
curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of 19.00 feet and a central angle of 56 degrees
05 minutes 07 seconds; thence North 74 degrees 34 minutes 22 seconds East, a distance of 7.21
feet, to the north line of said Lot 1 and there terminating.
A temporary easement lying over, under and across all that part of the following described
property:
Lot 1, Block 1, LYNDALE STATION, according to the recorded plat thereof Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Said temporary easement is described as lying southeasterly of the following described Line A
and northwesterly of and a line parallel with and 4.5 feet southeasterly of said Line A and its
northeasterly extension:
Line A: Commencing at the west Quarter corner of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, said
Hennepin County; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 28 minutes 00 seconds
East, along the south line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 27,
a distance of 475.78 feet; thence North 20 degrees 24 minutes 54 seconds East, a distance of
378.78 feet; thence northeasterly, a distance of 164.88 feet, along a tangential curve, concave to
the west, having a radius of 359.40 feet and a central angle of 26 degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds,
to the point of beginning; thence North 18 degrees 29 minutes 15 seconds East, not tangent to
said curve, a distance of 101.11 feet; thence northeasterly, a distance of 18.60 feet, along a
tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of 19.00 feet and a central angle of 56
degrees 05 minutes 07 seconds; thence North 74 degrees 34 minutes 22 seconds East, a distance
of 7.21 feet, to the north line of said Lot 1 and there terminating.
Said temporary easement to begin April 1, 2022, and expire June 30, 2023.
PARCEL 2
A perpetual easement lying over, under and across all that part of the following described
property:
Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1318, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Together with:
That part of Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1318 Hennepin County, Minnesota,
lying Easterly and Northerly of the following described line: Beginning at the Southwest
corner of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1318; thence Southerly along the
Southerly extension of the Westerly line of Tract A, at a distance of 8.62 feet; thence
Easterly deflecting to the left 82 degrees 13 minutes 28 seconds to the Easterly line of
said Tract B and there terminating.
Said perpetual easement is described as lying southeasterly of the northwesterly 30.00 feet of the
above described property, lying westerly of the easterly 20.00 feet of the above-described
property and lying northeasterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the west Quarter corner of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, said Hennepin
County; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 28 minutes 00 seconds East, along
the south line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 27, a distance of
475.78 feet; thence North 20 degrees 24 minutes 54 seconds East, a distance of 378.78 feet;
thence northeasterly, a distance of 231.70 feet, along a tangential curve, concave to the west,
having a radius of 359.40 feet and a central angle of 36 degrees 56 minutes 16 seconds; thence
South 73 degrees 28 minutes 38 seconds West, not tangent to said curve, a distance of 46.78 feet;
thence North 18 degrees 40 minutes 16 seconds West, a distance of 10.00 feet, to the point of
beginning; thence northwesterly, a distance of 27.82 feet, along a tangential curve, concave to
the southwest, having a radius of 22.50 feet and a central angle of 70 degrees 50 minutes 49
seconds; thence westerly, a distance of 16.10 feet, along a compound curve, concave to the
south, having a radius of 62.50 feet and a central angle of 14 degrees 45 minutes 20 seconds to
the south line of said northwesterly 30.00 feet and there terminating.
Except that part thereof lying within the westerly 10.00 feet of the easterly 30.00 feet of the
southerly 10.00 feet of the northwesterly 40.00 feet of the above-described property.
A perpetual easement lying over, under and across all that part of the following described
property:
Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1318, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Together with: That part of Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1318 Hennepin County,
Minnesota, lying Easterly and Northerly of the following described line: Beginning at the
Southwest corner of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1318; thence Southerly along the
Southerly extension of the Westerly line of Tract A, at a distance of 8.62 feet; thence Easterly
deflecting to the left 82 degrees 13 minutes 28 seconds to the Easterly line of said Tract B and
there terminating.
Said perpetual easement is described as lying southeasterly of the northwesterly 30.00 feet of the
above described property, lying westerly of the easterly line of the above-described property and
lying northeasterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the west Quarter corner of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, said Hennepin
County; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 28 minutes 00 seconds East, along
the south line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 27, a distance of
475.78 feet; thence North 20 degrees 24 minutes 54 seconds East, a distance of 378.78 feet;
thence northeasterly, a distance of 244.45 feet, along a tangential curve, concave to the west,
having a radius of 359.40 feet and a central angle of 38 degrees 58 minutes 12 seconds; thence
South 71 degrees 26 minutes 42 seconds West, not tangent to said curve, a distance of 33.00 feet
to said easterly line of the above-described property and the point of beginning; thence 11.89
feet, along a non-tangential curve concave to the southwest, having a radius of 150.00 feet, a
central angle of 04 degrees 32 minutes 28 seconds West and a chord bearing North 37 degrees 02
minutes 25 seconds West; thence 24.03 feet along a compound curve, having a radius of 35.00
feet and a central angle of 39 degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds to the south line of said
northwesterly 30.00 feet.
A temporary easement lying over, under and across all that part of the following described
property:
Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1318, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Said temporary easement is described as lying southeasterly of the northwesterly 30.00 feet of
said Tract A, lying westerly of the easterly 20.00 feet said Tract A, lying 2 feet southwesterly of
and parallel with the following described Line A:
Line A: Commencing at the west Quarter corner of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, said
Hennepin County; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 28 minutes 00 seconds
East, along the south line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 27,
a distance of 475.78 feet; thence North 20 degrees 24 minutes 54 seconds East, a distance of
378.78 feet; thence northeasterly, a distance of 231.70 feet, along a tangential curve, concave to
the west, having a radius of 359.40 feet and a central angle of 36 degrees 56 minutes 16 seconds;
thence South 73 degrees 28 minutes 38 seconds West, not tangent to said curve, a distance of
46.78 feet; thence North 18 degrees 40 minutes 16 seconds West, a distance of 10.00 feet, to the
point of beginning; thence northwesterly, a distance of 27.82 feet, along a tangential curve,
concave to the southwest, having a radius of 22.50 feet and a central angle of 70 degrees 50
minutes 49 seconds; thence westerly, a distance of 16.10 feet, along a compound curve, concave
to the south, having a radius of 62.50 feet and a central angle of 14 degrees 45 minutes 20
seconds to the south line of said northwesterly 30.00 feet and there terminating.
And
lying northwesterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the intersection the westerly line of said Tract A and the southerly line of said
northwesterly 30.00 feet of said Tract A, thence South 07 degrees 34 minutes 18 seconds East,
6.79 feet; to the point of beginning; thence North 77 degrees 22 minutes 23 seconds East, 16.35
feet; thence South 30 degrees 43 minutes 56 seconds East, 14.79 feet; thence North 58 degrees
44 minutes 04 seconds East, 38.99 feet; thence North 29 degrees 43 minutes 20 seconds West,
23.90 feet; thence North 58 degrees 40 minutes 52 seconds East, 85.06 feet to its intersection
with a line 2 feet southerly of and parallel with said line A.
Except that part thereof lying within the westerly 10.00 feet of the easterly 30.00 feet of the
southerly 10.00 feet of the northwesterly 40.00 feet of the above-described property.
Said temporary easement to begin April 1, 2022, and expire June 30, 2023.
A temporary easement lying over, under and across all that part of the following described
property:
Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1318, Hennepin County, Minnesota except the
easterly 20 feet thereof.
Said temporary easement is described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Tract A, thence South 07 degrees 34 minutes 18
seconds East, assumed bearing along the west line of said Tract A, 57.20 feet; thence North 60
degrees 01 minutes 11 seconds East, 166.26 feet to the westerly line of said easterly 20 feet and
the point of beginning; thence South 60 degrees 01 minutes 11 seconds West, 6.85 feet; thence
South 29 degrees 58 minutes 49 seconds East, 28.08 feet to the westerly line of said easterly
20.00 feet Tract A thence northerly along said westerly line of said easterly 20 feet to the point
of beginning.
Said temporary easement to begin April 1, 2022, and expire June 30, 2023.
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #5.K.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 187
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
12/14/2021
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: S cott K ulzer, A dministrative A ide/A nalyst
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: K ristin A sher, P ublic Works D irector
12/7/2021
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
12/8/2021
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider the approval of a work order amendment from Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., for additional
design engineering services for the 65th Street Improvements Project.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
The work order amendment up for consideration is for additional design engineering services required to
complete the final design of the 65th Street I mprovements Project. During the final design of the project, the
City of Richfield requested that Kimley-Horn complete work outside of the scope of the original contract.
The primary area of additional scope is related to the design of the large concrete box culvert which will be
installed from Richfield Lake to Pillsbury Avenue. The complexity of the culvert design created the need to
reconstruct many of the existing City sanitary sewer and watermain utilities adjacent to the culvert, reroute
private utilities, and acquire a railroad permit. The original final design contract assumed another consultant
was designing the concrete box culvert, however final design of the culvert was transitioned to Kimley Horn to
leverage the efficiencies of a single design firm.
I n addition, other items arose during design that required additional effort including project limits extending
south on Lyndale Avenue to the intersection at 66th Street, the need to redesign the watermain on Nicollet
Avenue, and additional geotechnical and survey information required to complete the out-of-scope design
work.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By Motion: Approve the work order amendment from Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., for additional
design engineering services for the 65th Street Improvements Project.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
The City Council approved the preliminary design layout for the 65th Street I mprovements Project
and entered into a contract with Kimley-Horn for final design engineering at the J uly 28, 2020 City
Council meeting.
Staff and the engineering consultant are working through final design engineering with the intent to
let the project in early 2022.
The project construction is anticipated to take two years (2022-2023).
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
W hen the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment, services, or construction exceeds $175,000,
authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
Approval of the work order amendment at this meeting will allow for project design to progress without
any delays.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
The work order amendment increases the final design contract by $150,766.00.
The original work order for final design was $439,804.00, which means that this work order
amendment increases the final design contract by 34.3% to $590,570.00.
Approximately $110,000 of additional design costs have been anticipated and were reflected in the
project sources and uses presented to Council in October 2021. Approximately $20,000 is
available in unused funds from the original contract with Barr Engineering for the stormwater
culvert design. The remaining approximately $20,000 in design costs will be covered by the
existing contingency in the project sources and uses.
The project sources and uses summary is attached. The summary includes an updated cost
estimate and reduces the contingency to 15%, which is typical for a 90% design estimate.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The City Attorney will be available to answer questions.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
None
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
None
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Work Order A mendment E xhibit
D etailed F ee S cope E xhibit
65th S t S ources and Uses Tracking B ackup Material
December 7, 2021
Mr. Joe Powers, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Richfield
1901 E 66th Street
Richfield, MN 55423
Re: W 65th Street Improvements – 66th Street to Nicollet Avenue
Final Design Amendment
Dear Joe,
This proposal is for the additional services required to complete the final design
of the 65th Street Improvements Project. During the final design of the project,
Kimley-Horn was requested by the City of Richfield to complete work outside of
the scope of the original contract. Approximately $2.3 million of additional
infrastructure was added to the project, expanding the construction costs by 30
percent. The primary area of additional scope was the design of the large
concrete box culvert located from Richfield Lake to Pillsbury Avenue. The
addition of this culvert to the scope created the need to reconstruct many of the
existing City sanitary sewer and watermain utilities adjacent to the culvert,
reroute private utilities, and acquire a railroad permit. The original contract
assumed another consultant was designing the concrete box culvert.
In addition, other items arose during design that required additional effort to
complete the design including project limits extending south on Lyndale Avenue
to the intersection at 66th Street, the need to redesign the watermain on Nicollet,
and additional geotechnical and survey information required to complete the out-
of-scope design work. The out-of-scope work included the following tasks:
Task 2: Data Collection
Task 5: Preliminary Design
Task 7: Final Design
Task numbering used matches the initial contract and includes only tasks where
additional services are needed.
Scope of Services
The following is a summary of our proposed Scope of Services for the
amendment. Only tasks and subtasks that contain out of scope work are included
in the amendment.
◼
Suite 100
767 Eustis Street
St. Paul, Minnesota
55114
◼
TEL 651 645 4197
FAX 651 645 5116
Pg. 2
Task 2 – Data Collection
2.1 Topographic Survey
Additional topographic survey is needed to complete the design of the
culvert, sanitary sewer, watermain, and to extend the project limits south
to Lyndale Avenue from the south side of 65th Street.
Task 5 – Preliminary Design
5.2 Preliminary Roadway Design
Kimley-Horn developed alternatives for Lyndale Avenue to extend
construction south in order to replace worn pavement and sidewalk
between the 66th Street project extents and this project. We also looked at
alternatives to connect the cycle-track to the bike lanes/shoulders of
Lyndale Avenue north of the roundabout at 66th Street/ Lyndale Avenue.
Kimley-Horn developed geometric and pavement design alternatives,
and a preferred geometric design alternative to include in the final
construction plans.
5.3 Preliminary Public Utility Design
5.3.1 Preliminary Watermain Design
Watermain on Nicollet was redesigned between 60 and 90
percent plans due to Centurylink installing new fiber lines where
our preferred alignment was located The new information
required a new preliminary design process to develop three
options and a preferred alternative to construct.
The original contract called for watermain to be relocated on 65th
Street between Pillsbury Ave. to Nicollet Ave. to get the
watermain off the HUB property. Approximately 1500 LF of
additional new watermain had to be designed due to the location
of the box culvert under 65th Street. This work included
developing alternatives, coordination with private utility
companies and City of Richfield staff to select a preferred
option.
5.3.2 Preliminary Hydraulic Design
Kimley-Horn developed four different box culvert preliminary
design alternatives to cross the railroad and to minimize impacts
to sanitary sewer and watermain. Kimley-Horn coordinated with
Barr Engineering to have hydraulic models run for each scenario.
We also examined stormwater connections to the box culvert to
test feasibility of the alignment and developed separate dual-
storm sewer pipe options.
Pg. 3
5.3.3 Preliminary Sanitary Sewer Design
The original contract included only a sanitary casing pipe under
the Lyndale Avenue roundabout. The design of the box culvert
required the relocation of approximately 2000 LF of sanitary
sewer to be relocated due to pipe conflicts with the box culvert.
Furthermore, it required the design of a sanitary sewer lift station
for a property whose service was cut off from access to the
existing gravity line due to the box culvert location. This task
includes developing the options and the preferred alternative.
5.5 Private Utility Coordination
Kimley-Horn provided additional utility coordination for the project to
help private utility companies find locations for their utilities due to the
installation of the box culvert and relocation of the watermain and
sanitary sewer. This included multiple meetings, phone calls, and emails
with each utility company within the project limits.
The design of the box culvert triggered the need to acquire a railroad
permit and coordinate the crossing of the railroad with all City utilities.
The coordination required four meetings, multiple emails, and phone
correspondence. This task includes the coordination of the utility
crossings. The permit application effort and associated fees are included
in Task 7.
Deliverables: Conceptual Alternative Layouts, Public Utility Concepts,
Pedestrian Improvements Concepts, Preliminary Public Utility Layout.
Task 7 – Final Design
7.1 Final Plans
The original contract scope did not include final design, construction
plans, and specifications for the following items that were added during
the design process:
• Sanitary Sewer Plan (2000 LF of pipe)
• Watermain Plan (additional 1500 LF of pipe)
• Box Culvert Plan and Details for 2000 LF of culvert
• Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Plan
7.4 Permit Applications
A stormwater analysis will be performed to determine the necessary measures
required by MnDOT State Aid. The report will also include hydraulic
calculations necessary for State Aid approval. The inclusion of the box culvert
into the design required additional hydraulic calculations that was not part of the
original scope.
Deliverables: Final Plans, Project Manual, Permit Applications
Pg. 4
Estimated Costs/Fee
KHA will provide the Scope of Services identified above on an hourly labor fee
plus expense basis. We have broken down the fee estimate between preliminary
and final design tasks per the request of the City. The following is a summary of
our estimated fees and expenses.
TASK 2 – DATA COLLECTION $11,920
TASK 5 – PRELIMINARY DESIGN $26,758
TASK 7 – FINAL DESIGN $99,088
EXPENSES $13,000
TOTAL $150,766
Labor fee will be billed according to our current standard hourly rate schedule.
Reimbursable expenses (copy/printing charges, plotting, mileage, delivery
charges, etc.) will be charged as an office expense at 6% of the labor fee. An
expense of $5,000 for the railroad permit fee is added into the expenses.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to
working with you on this project. Please feel free to contact us if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
William C. Klingbeil, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
Copy: Project File
Project ManagerTask LeadGraduate EngineerCAD/Graphics DesignerAdminSub-Consultant (Survey/Geotech)Total
Hours Estimated Fees
TASK 2
2.1 Topographic Survey 4 8 87 99 $10,504
2.2 Geotechnical 4 4 2 10 $1,416
Subtotal 0 8 4 10 0 $8,700 109 $11,920
TASK 5
5.2 Preliminary Roadway Design 2 4 8 4 18 $2,602
5.3 Preliminary Public Utility Design
5.3.1 Preliminary Watermain Design 2 12 20 4 38 $5,342
5.3.2 Preliminary Hydraulic Design 2 16 24 8 50 $7,054
5.3.3 Preliminary Sanitary Sewer Design 4 16 24 8 52 $7,444
5.5 Private Utility Coordination 4 8 16 2 30 $4,316
Subtotal 14 56 92 26 0 188 $26,758
TASK 7
7.1 Final Plans (assumes 55 sheets)40 120 250 200 610 $87,250
7.2 Project Manual 2 4 8 4 18 $2,410
7.4 Permit Applications 4 16 24 16 8 68 $9,428
Subtotal 46 140 282 216 12 696 $99,088
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES 13,000$
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST (FEES AND EXPENSES)$150,766
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DESIGN AMENDMENT #1
CITY OF RICHFIELD
65TH STREET RECONSTRUCTION
DATA COLLECTION
FINAL DESIGN
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
65th St Reconstruction/Lyndale Avenue Pedestrian ImprovementsRichfield Project No. 41017SAP Nos. 157‐104‐004157‐105‐005Sources and Uses Tracking ‐ updated 12/6/2021157‐363‐033Council ActionCouncil Action2019 CIP 2020 CIP30% Engineer's Estimate and Project Approval (Updated 7/20/2020)4/23/21 CIP Estimate4/23/21 CIP Estimate (updated soures for Council Worksession 7/23/21)60% Engineer's Estimate (Updated 10/5/2021)90% Engineer's Estimate (Updated 12/6/2021)Final Engineer's Estimate and Project BidContract AwardPlanned Construction Year:2020 2020&20212022 2022 2022 2022‐2023 2022‐2023 2022‐2023 2022‐2023Estimated Uses:Design $600,000$704,000$842,000$950,000$950,000$950,000.00$970,000.0065th St Reconstruction$5,500,000$6,100,000$3,362,700$3,750,000$3,750,000$3,930,000.00$4,240,000.00Lyndale Ave Improvments$52,000$670,000$670,000$280,000.00$360,000.00Stormwater Improvements $2,500,000$2,100,000$2,100,000$3,100,000.00$3,200,000.00Change OrdersRight of Way$50,000$60,000$60,000$60,000$60,000$60,000$60,000Legal $90,000$100,000$100,000$100,000$100,000$100,000.00$100,000.00Constrcution Admin/Engineering$550,000$610,000$591,470$600,000$600,000$600,000.00$600,000.00Staff$90,000$100,000$100,000$100,000$100,000$100,000.00$100,000.00Contingency$1,100,000$1,220,000$1,182,940$1,304,000$1,304,000$1,462,000.00$1,170,000.00Bond Issuance Costs$200,000.00$200,000.0020% Contingency20% Contingency20% Contingency 20% Contigency 20% Contigency 20% Contigency15% Contingency10% Contingency2% ContingencyTotal Uses $7,980,000 $8,894,000 $8,791,110 $9,634,000 $9,634,000 $10,782,000 $11,000,000 TDB TDBSources:Street Reconstruction Bonds$7,800,000$7,800,000$8,600,000$6,100,000$6,500,000$6,500,000Utility Bonds$1,200,000$1,200,000$1,200,000$3,700,000$4,500,000$4,500,000Water Utility FundTotal Sources $8,000,000 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 $9,800,000 $9,800,000 $11,000,000 $11,000,000 TDB TDBDifference $20,000$106,000$208,890$166,000$166,000$218,000$0TDB TDBNotes Anticipated Debt Issuance (updated 09/2021):Low RiskStreet Reconstruction Bonds2022 Medium RiskUtility Bonds2022 High Risk$8,000,000Included above Included above
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #5.L.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 188
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
12/14/2021
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Joe P owers, C ity E ngineer
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: K ristin A sher, P ublic Works D irector
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
12/8/2021
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider the approval of a cost share agreement between the City and Hope Presbyterian Church for
the construction of public storm sewer across the church's private parking lot and authorize City staff
to execute and record the dedication of a drainage and utility easement over the public storm sewer.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
As part of the ongoing building expansion project at Hope Presbyterian Church (Church), new public storm
sewer is being installed to convey public stormwater runoff from the 5th Avenue right-of-way, through the
Church's private parking lot, and to existing storm sewer within the 4th Avenue right-of-way. Currently
stormwater runoff from 5th Avenue flows overland across the Church's parking lot. Over many years, this has
resulted in degradation of the Church's parking lot surface and will continue to do so unless appropriate storm
sewer infrastructure is constructed.
City staff has determined that the construction of public storm sewer through the Church's parking lot is an
appropriate solution to rectify the issue and prevent future damage to the Church's property caused by public
stormwater runoff. This agreement outlines the shared responsibilities of the Church and the City. The
Church will design and construct the new storm sewer and dedicate a drainage and utility easement over the
storm sewer in favor of the City. The Church will pay the costs for design, project management, and
resurfacing of the parking lot, as well as the storm sewer cost for infrastructure serving solely the Church
property. The City will reimburse the Church for the cost of the storm sewer serving public property.
After construction is finalized, the Church will dedicate a drainage and utility easement in favor of the City
over the public storm sewer located on the Church's private property.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By Motion: Approve the cost share agreement between the City and Hope Presbyterian Church for the
construction of public storm sewer across the church's private parking lot and authorize City staff to
execute and record the dedication of a drainage and utility easement over the public storm sewer.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
W hen the Hope Presbyterian Church property was developed, the site was graded to drain storm sewer
from the public right-of-way on 5th Avenue across private property. As a result, the Church has
experienced accelerated deterioration of their parking lot over the past decades due to the public runoff,
resulting in the need to resurface the parking lot multiple times at a greater frequency than would typically
be expected.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
None
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
Approval of this agreement will allow the City to make timely reimbursement of the construction costs to
the Church as well as record the drainage and utility easement with Hennepin County.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
The estimated cost of construction for the public storm sewer is $38,091.26 The City will reimburse the
Church for the cost of the actual construction, based on certified payment receipts from the Church to
the contractor.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The City Attorney had reviewed the cost share agreement and will be available to answer any questions.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
None
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
None
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
C ost S hare A greement C ontract/A greement
1
COST-SHARE AGREEMENT
THIS COST-SHARE AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”), is entered into on this ___
day of _______________, 2021 (the “Effective Date”), by and between the City of Richfield, a
Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”) and Hope Presbyterian Church of Richfield, a
Minnesota non-profit corporation (the “Church”)(Collectively referred to herein as the
“Parties” or each a “Party”)
Recitals
WHEREAS, the Church is the fee owner of that certain real property located at 7132
Portland Ave S. Richfield, Minnesota and as legally described on the attached Exhibit A (the
“Property”); and
WHEREAS, various improvements located on the Property have deteriorated over time
due to stormwater runoff from the adjacent Fifth Avenue right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, to remedy the issue, the Church desires to construct and install a new
stormwater sewer system traveling from the Fifth Avenue right-of-way, under the Property, and
connecting into existing public stormwater sewer improvements on the south side of the Property
(the “Project”);
WHEREAS, the City has agreed to contribute to the costs of the Project under the terms
and conditions contained herein.
Terms of the Agreement
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements and covenants
contained herein, and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged by the Parties, it is mutually agreed and covenanted by and between the
Parties to this Agreement as follows:
1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals shall be and are hereby incorporated into and
made a part of this Agreement.
2. Plans and Specification Preparation. The Project shall be constructed in
2
accordance with all applicable city codes and regulations, including the plans and specifications
attached hereto as Exhibit B (the “Plans”). The Church shall design and prepare all plans and
specifications for the Project to ensure the improvements constructed are in compliance with city
code and meet the City’s standards, including but not limited to, those stormwater improvements
listed on the attached Exhibit C (the “Stormwater Improvements”). The Church will pay the
design costs.
3. Responsibility of the Project. The Church will cause the Stormwater
Improvements to be constructed and complete the Project all in accordance with the Plans no
later than September 30, 2022 (the “Completion Date”). All change orders and modifications to
the Plans must be approved in writing by the City. The Church will bid and award the contract
for the Project and shall supervise and administer the construction of the Project. The Church
will hire a professional engineer as part of the Project who will supervise the work of the
contractor to ensure all work is performed in accordance with the Plans. However, the Church
shall allow the City to observe, review, and inspect the Stormwater Improvements and the
Project until it is completed and accepted pursuant to this Agreement. The Church will perform
all necessary investigations of site contamination and secure all necessary local, state, or federal
permits required for the Project and will not proceed with the Project until any required
environmental review and remediation of site contamination is completed or a plan for
remediation is approved by appropriate regulatory agencies.
4. Estimated Construction Costs. Construction costs shall include the items
specifically listed in the attached Exhibit D needed to physically construct all of the
improvements within the Project including the Stormwater Improvements (the “Construction
Costs”). The City shall reimburse the Church for all its actual Construction Costs pursuant to
Section 5 herein incurred as part of this Agreement and the Project.
The costs and expenses attributable to the Parties herein are merely estimated costs and a final
reconciliation of costs as set forth in Section 5 below shall be completed prior to beginning the
Project.
5. Payment and Reimbursement of the Project Costs.
a. After the Church has awarded the construction contract, the City shall update
Exhibit D to conform the Exhibit to the approved items and amounts in the
awarded construction contract. The Church shall be solely responsible for
timely making all payments to the selected contractor under the terms of the
contract executed by the Church for the Project. All work performed by the
Church under this Agreement will be performed to the satisfaction of the City,
and in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, codes, and
regulations. The City will only reimburse the Church for those items
expressly listed and provided for within Exhibit D. The amount of which shall
be recalculated at the end of the Project to account for the Church’s actual
expenses pursuant to this Section. The Church hereby acknowledges and
agrees that any costs and expenses for items not expressly listed on Exhibit D
shall be the sole and absolute responsibility of the Church and therefore not
3
reimbursable by the City as part of this Agreement.
b. Upon the Completion Date and prior to payment of the Construction Costs to
the Church by the City under this Section, the Church shall provide to the City
all finalized pay estimates detailing the final costs of items, materials and
labor specifically identified in this Agreement under Exhibit D; fully executed
lien waivers from the Project contractors certifying that they have been paid
for their work on the Project; and the necessary warranty bonds as described
in Section 10 herein (collectively referred to herein as the “Payment Request
Documents”).
c. Upon receipt of the Payment Request Documents, the City shall review and
either approve all or a portion of the expenses included in the Payment
Request Documents. The City will approve any such reimbursement by
Council resolution. The City will only review, approve, and remit payment to
the Church for the Construction Costs upon first receiving all Payment
Request Documents satisfactory to the City in its sole and absolute discretion
and thereinafter approving and accepting the Stormwater Improvements by
Council resolution. The City shall not be responsible for reimbursement of the
Church’s construction costs until the Project is complete and the Stormwater
Improvements have been accepted by the City by formal resolution.
6. Change Orders and Modifications to the Plans. Any modifications or additions to
the final project Plans must be given written approval by the City’s designated project
manager, and the Church shall be responsible for the cost for such changes. The City’s
approval of such modification, addition or change orders may be withheld or denied
under its absolute and sole discretion.
7. Ownership of Improvements and Maintenance. Upon completion of the Project,
the City will perform its final inspections and if satisfactory to the City, the City will, by
Council resolution, approve the reimbursements as governed under Section 5 and accept
the improvements. Upon completion of the Project, the City will assume ownership and
maintenance responsibility of the Stormwater Improvements which shall be deemed a
public stormwater sewer system upon the recording of said acceptance resolution. The
Church shall dedicate a Drainage and Utility Easement over the public stormwater sewer
system as illustrated in Exhibit E (the “Drainage and Utility Easement”).
8. Indemnification. The Church agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its officials, officers, agents and employees from any liability, claims, causes of
action, judgments, damages, losses, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney’s
fees, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of the Church, its
contractors or subcontractors or anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, or
anyone for whose acts or omissions they may be liable in the performance of the
activities related to the Project and against all loss by reason of the failure of the Church
to perform fully, in any respect, all obligations under this Agreement. The Church will
4
require that the contractor defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City and the
Church, their agents, officers, and employees, from all claims or actions arising from
negligent acts, errors or omissions of the contractor.
9. Insurance. The Church agrees to, during the term of this Agreement, and beyond
such term when so required, to have in force, and to cause all contractors and
subcontractors to do likewise, the following insurance coverages in an amount reasonably
acceptable for the Project: commercial general liability, automobile liability; workers’
compensation and employer’s liability; and, professional liability (errors and omissions),
as necessary. The Church will require the contractor to name the City as an additional
insured on the commercial general and automobile liability policies and require the City
to be given the same notification of cancellation or non-renewal as is given to the Church.
Certificates of insurance, or other proof of insurance, acceptable to the City, must be
submitted prior to any work being commenced under this Agreement.
10. Warranty Bond. On or before the Completion Date, the Church agrees to require
its contractor to provide to the City a warranty bond for the Stormwater Improvements,
with the bond to cover defects in labor and materials for a period of two years from the
date of their acceptance by the City. During such period, the Church agrees to repair or
replace any Stormwater Improvements, or portion or element thereof, which shows signs
of failure, normal wear and tear excepted. A decision regarding whether a Stormwater
Improvement shows signs of failure shall be made by the City in the reasonable exercise
of its judgment. If the Church fails to repair or replace a defective Stormwater
Improvement during the warranty period after prior written notice to the Church and
opportunity to cure as provided by such notice, the City may repair or replace the
defective portion and may submit an invoice to the Church to be fully reimbursed for
such expenses. Such reimbursement must be made within thirty (30) days of the date
upon which the City notifies the Church of the cost due under this Section. If the Church
fails to make required payments to the City, the Church hereby consents to the City
levying special assessments for any unreimbursed amount associated with such costs
against the Property. The Church, on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns,
acknowledges the benefit to the Property of the repair or replacement of the Stormwater
Improvements and hereby consents to such assessment and waives the right to a hearing
or notice of hearing or any appeal thereon under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429.
11. Default. In the event of default by the Church as to completion of the Project prior
to the Completion Date, the construction of the Stormwater Improvements to the satisfaction
of the City, or any other work or undertaking required by this Agreement, and such default
continues for 30 days after the City provides notice to the Church of the nature of the
default, or if such default cannot be cured within 30 days, after such time period as may be
reasonably required to cure the default provided that the Church is making a good faith
effort to cure said default, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Church shall
promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City. This Agreement is a
license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek an order from any
court for permission to enter the Property for such purposes. If the City does any such work,
the City may, in addition to its other remedies, levy special assessments against the Property
5
to recover the costs thereof owed to the City by the Church. For this purpose, the Church
for itself and its successors and assigns, expressly waives any and all procedural and
substantive objections to the special assessments, including but not limited to, hearing
requirements and any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the land so assessed.
The Church, for itself and its successors and assigns, also waives any appeal rights
otherwise available pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 429.081.
12. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including the attached exhibits (all of which
are incorporated in and made part of this Agreement), constitute the entire agreement
between the Parties regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. Any amendments to
this Agreement must be in writing and executed by the Parties.
13. Agreement Runs with the Land. This Agreement shall run with the Property and
shall be recorded against the title thereto and shall bind and inure to the benefit of the
City and the Church and their successors and assigns. The Church’s successors in title
may be responsible for certain obligations under this Agreement as required by the City.
Upon request by the Church or its successors or assigns, the City will issue a certificate in
recordable form which certifies the extent to which the Church is in compliance with the
terms of this Agreement, and if the Church has fully complied with and completed all
terms of this Agreement, releasing the Church from this Agreement.
14. Assignment. The Church may not assign this Agreement without the prior written
permission of the City.
15. Notices. Any notice or correspondence to be given under this Agreement shall be
deemed to be given if delivered personally or sent by United States certified or registered
mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested:
as to Church: ________________________
with a copy to:
as to City: City of Richfield
Attn: City Engineer
1901 E. 66th Street
Richfield, MN 55423
with a copy to: Kennedy & Graven
Attn: Richfield City Attorney
6
Fifth Street Towers
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
or at such other address as either Party may from time to time notify the other in writing
in accordance with this section. The Church shall notify the City if there is any change in
its name or address.
16. Severability. In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall be held
invalid, illegal or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding
shall pertain only to such section and shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any
other section or provision of this Agreement.
17. Non-waiver. Each right, power or remedy conferred upon the City by this
Agreement is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express
or implied, now or hereafter arising, or available to the City at law or in equity, or under
any other agreement. Each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or
otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as
may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at
any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. If either Party waives in writing
any default or nonperformance by the other Party, such waiver shall be deemed to apply
only to such event and shall not waive any other prior or subsequent default.
18. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by Minnesota law.
19. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall be an original and shall constitute one and the same
Agreement.
{Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank; Signature Pages to Follow}
7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed
upon the Effective Date, by their duly authorized representatives, intending to be bound thereby.
HOPE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF RICHFIELD
By: __________________________________
Its: __________________________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ____________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ____________,
2021, by ___________________________, the ____________________________, of Hope
Presbyterian Church of Richfield, a Minnesota non-profit corporation, on behalf of the Church.
____________________________________
Notary Public
8
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By: __________________________________
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
By: __________________________________
Katie Rodriguez, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ____________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ________________,
2021, by Maria Regan Gonzalez and Katie Rodriguez, the Mayor and City Manager, respectively,
of the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the City.
____________________________________
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
Fifth Street Towers
150 South Fifth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
A-1
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of the Property
Parcel 1:
That part of Lot 1, Block 1, Hope Presbyterian Church Addition, lying South of the North line of the South
1/2 of the South 1/2 of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section
34, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(Torrens Property - Certificate #732722).
AND
Parcel 2:
That part of Lot 1, Block 1, Hope Presbyterian Church Addition, lying North of the North line of the South
1/2 of the South 1/2 of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section
34, Township 28, Range 24.
(Abstract property)
B-1
EXHIBIT B
List of the Plans
Plans prepared by Vanman Architects and Builders, including Civil Plans prepared by Rehder &
Associates, dated June 18, 2021.
Specifications prepared by Vanman Architects and Builders, dated June 18, 2021.
C-1
EXHIBIT C
The Stormwater Improvements
D-1
Exhibit D
The Construction Costs
Estimated Construction Costs
for
5th Avenue Storm Sewer
12/7/2021
STORM SEWER
DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 12" R.C.P. Class V L.F. 391 $48.66 $19,026.06
2 Catch Basin - Manholes, 48" with Steps (one w/sump) Each 3 $3,537.00 $10,611.00
3 Catch Basin - 24" x 36" Structure Each 1 $2,905.00 $2,905.00
4 Break into existing Manhole or CB Each 1 $1,897.00 $1,897.00
TOTAL $34,439.06
BITUMINOUS AND CONCRETE PAVING
DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
5 B612 Curb and Gutter L.F. 60 $23.35 $1,401.00
TOTAL $1,401.00
DEMOLITION ITEMS & SPECIAL ITEMS
DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
6 Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter L.F. 60 $7.52 $451.20
7 Raise Electrical Conduit Hr. 2 $900.00 $1,800.00
TOTAL $2,251.20
TOTALS:
STORM SEWER $34,439.06
BITUMINOUS AND CONCRETE PAVING $1,401.00
DEMOLITION ITEMS $2,251.20
GRAND TOTAL $38,091.26
Rehder & Associates, Inc.Page 1 of 1
E-1
Exhibit E
The Drainage and Utility Easement
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT
A 10 foot easement for drainage and utility purposes over, under and across Lot 1,
Block 1, HOPE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH ADDITION, according to the recorded plat
thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, the centerline of said easement is described as
follows:
Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence North 0 degrees 03
minutes 33 seconds West, along the west line of said Lot 1, a distance of 349.19
feet to the beginning of the centerline to be described; thence North 58 degrees
35 minutes 29 seconds East a distance of 11.72 feet; thence North 0 degrees 25
minutes 52 seconds East a distance of 169.77 feet; thence North 70 degrees 59
minutes 20 seconds East a distance of 124.68 feet; thence North 27 degrees 20
minutes 08 seconds East a distance of 138.27 feet; thence North 74 degrees 10
minutes 04 seconds East a distance of 81.16 feet to an east line of said Lot 1,
also being the west line of vacated 5th Avenue South and there said centerline
terminates.
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #5.M.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 189
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
12/14/2021
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: A my Markle, Recreation S ervices D irector
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: A my Markle, Recreation S ervices D irector
12/8/2021
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
12/8/2021
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider the approval of a revised agreement between the City of Richfield and the Woodlawn
Terrace Cooperative for the use of a 4,690 square-foot strip of land along the edge of Lincoln Field.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
The residents of Woodlawn Terrace, the manufactured home park located at 7421 Lyndale Avenue, have
formed a Cooperative and are working to purchase the park from Tom Price, the current owner of the
property. Mr. Price has paid the City of Richfield for the use of the northern ten feet of the Lincoln Athletic
Complex for many years for purposes of accommodating five larger units. The City arranges for use of the
land through a use and indemnification agreement (Agreement) that has been renewed every two years
since 1997. Minnesota Housing is preparing to issue a loan to the Cooperative to purchase the property. I n
the course of the underwriting process, Minnesota Housing has identified some concerns with the current
Agreement and is requesting that the Agreement be converted to a Lease.
The terms of the proposed Lease would be similar to the existing Agreement. The one substantive change
being requested by Minnesota Housing is that the Lease include a termination for cause provision. Under
the current Agreement, the City can terminate the Agreement without cause on 180 days’ notice. The
proposed change would require the City to show cause for termination in the event that the Cooperative
breaches a material provision in the Lease, provide a written notice of any breach, and offer 90 days to cure
the breach.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By Motion: Approve a ten-year Lease between the City of Richfield and Woodlawn Terrace
Cooperative for the rental of a 4,690 square-foot strip of land along the edge of Lincoln Field, with
final language subject to the City Attorney’s approval.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
The City has leased this land to Mr. Price since 1997. The land is of limited use to the Athletic
Complex.
The Cooperative requires a mortgage in order to purchase the property, and the lender requires
the current Agreement be converted to a lease with a just cause termination provision.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
By policy, The City Council reviews, considers, and executes all City contracts including leases.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The cooperative is under a deadline to close on the property in 2021. Resolving this issue to the
satisfaction of Minnesota Housing, the lender, will help the closing to proceed.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
Mr. Price currently pays the City for the use of the property. The Cooperative will assume those
payments following purchase.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The Lease was reviewed by the City Attorney.
The substantial difference between the Agreement and the Lease is the addition of a requirement
that the lease can only be terminated for cause with notice and the opportunity to cure. All other
terms remain essentially the same.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
Do not approve the conversion of the Agreement to a Lease.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
A representative of the cooperative.
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Woodlawn Terrace C ooperative L ease A greement C over Memo
1 of 4
LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
AND WOODLAWN TERRACE COOPERATIVE
This LEASE AGREEMENT is entered into this 14th day of December, 2021 (the “Effective Date”),
between the City of Richfield, a municipal corporation located at 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield,
Minnesota 55423 (the “City”) and Woodlawn Terrace Cooperative, a Minnesota non-profit corporation
with an address of 7421 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423 (“Woodlawn”).
RECITALS
A.Woodlawn is the owner of a tract of land described as follows:
Property ID No. 34 028 24 32 0015
ADN Unplatted 34 028 24
THE S 5 ACRES OF THE N 10 ACRES OF NW ¼ OF SW ¼ AND THE N 4 FT THAT PART OF THE NW ¼
OF SW ¼ LYING S OF THE N 10 ACRES THEREOF EX R R R&W AND THE ROAD (“Woodlawn
Property”).
B.The City is the owner of a tract of land described as follows:
Property ID No. 34 028 2 32 0025
ADN Unplatted 34 028 24
W 468 68/100 FT OF E 493 68/100 FT OF THAT PART OF THE S 20 ACRES OF N 30 ACRES OF NW
¼ OF SW ¼ LYING S OF THE N 4 FEET THEREOF (“City Property”).
C.Woodlawn wishes to lease the northern ten feet of the City Property from the east to west
boundaries, approximately 4,690 square feet (the “Leased Premises”) pursuant to the terms and
conditions of this Lease Agreement.
D.The City is willing to lease the Leased Premises to Woodlawn pursuant to the terms and
conditions of this Lease Agreement.
AGREEMENT
1.Term and Rent. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Lease Agreement, and in
consideration of the covenants contained herein, the City and Woodlawn agree that Woodlawn may
lease the Leased Premises commencing on the Effective Date and terminating on July 31, 2031 (the
“Term”), with rent and tax to be paid as follows (collectively, the “Rent”). As of the Effective Date, the
City acknowledges and agrees that Rent has been paid through July 31, 2022, pursuant to that certain
Use and Indemnification Agreement Between the City of Richfield and Thomas Price dated July 23, 2019,
as amended July 13, 2021, and assigned to Woodlawn by Thomas Price effective December 14, 2021
(the “Use and Indemnification Agreement”).
DATE DUE USE FEE TAX TOTAL DUE
2 of 4
8/1/2022 $ 4,916.19 $ 369.94 $ 5,286.13
8/1/2023 $ 5,063.68 $ 381.04 $ 5,444.72
8/1/2024 $ 5,215.59 $ 392.47 $ 5,608.06
8/1/2025 $ 5,372.05 $ 404.25 $ 5,776.30
8/1/2026 $ 5,533.22 $ 416.37 $ 5,949.59
8/1/2027 $ 5,699.21 $ 428.87 $ 6,128.08
8/1/2028 $ 5,870.19 $ 441.73 $ 6,311.92
8/1/2029 $ 6,046.29 $ 454.98 $ 6,501.28
8/1/2030 $ 6,227.68 $ 468.63 $ 6,696.32
8/1/2031 $ 6,414.51 $ 482.69 $ 6,897.20
2.Maintenance and Repair. In addition to the Rent obligations hereunder, Woodlawn
shall, at its own cost and expense, maintain and repair the Leased Premises and shall at all times comply
with the regulations of the City. The City shall have no responsibility for the maintenance or repair of the
Leased Premises for the duration of the Term and all extensions thereof.
3.Indemnification and Insurance.
a.Woodlawn shall at all times defend, protect, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its
agents, officers, servants, and employees from any and all claims for damages and other
remedy, including but not limited to costs and attorney fees, arising from or by reason of the
maintenance, use and repair of the Leased Premises. Nothing in this Lease Agreement shall
be construed as a waiver by the City of any immunities, defenses, or other limitations on
liability to which the City is entitled by law, including but not limited to the maximum
monetary limits on liability established by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466.
b.Woodlawn, at its sole cost and expense, shall maintain in full force and effect during the
Term of this Lease Agreement and any extensions thereof, general liability insurance in the
minimum amounts of $1,000,000 bodily injury, including death, per person; $1,000,000
bodily injury, including death, per occurrence; and $500,000 property damage per
occurrence. A certificate of insurance evidencing compliance with this Lease Agreement
shall be provided to the City by Woodlawn upon the City’s request. The City shall be named
as an additional insured on the insurance policy described herein, and such policy shall
contain a stipulation that Woodlawn’s insurer will provide thirty (30) days prior written
notice of cancellation of such insurance to the City. The insurance shall be carried by solvent
and responsible insurance companies licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota.
4.Right of Renewal. As long as Woodlawn remains in good standing under the terms of
this Lease Agreement, Woodlawn shall be entitled to renew this Lease Agreement for up to two (2)
3 of 4
successive five (5) year terms. This Right of Renewal shall be exercisable by written notice delivered to
the City by Woodlawn not later than sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the Term.
5.Termination. The City may terminate this Lease Agreement for cause by written notice
to Woodlawn if Woodlawn breaches a material provision of the Lease Agreement. In the event of
material breach by Woodlawn, the City must give ninety (90) days’ written notice to Woodlawn of said
material breach and an opportunity to cure, if such material breach is capable of cure. If Woodlawn
cures said material breach prior to the end of the 90-day period, the City shall not be entitled to
terminate this Lease Agreement.
6.Termination of Use and Indemnification Agreement. As of the Effective Date, the Use
and Indemnification Agreement is terminated and shall be of no further force and effect.
7.Miscellaneous.
a.Any titles of the several paragraphs of the Lease Agreement are inserted for convenience of
reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions.
b.Any notice, demand, or other communication under this Lease Agreement by either party to
the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified
mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally to the addresses
indicated below, or at such other address with respect to either such party as that party
may, from time to time, designate in writing and forward to the other as provided herein:
Woodlawn: 7421 Lyndale Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Attn: President
City: Richfield Community Center
7000 Nicollet Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Attn: Recreation Services Director
c.This Lease Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall
constitute one and the same instrument.
d.This Lease Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between Woodlawn and the City
with respect to the Leased Premises and supersedes any other written or oral agreements
between the parties on that subject. This Lease Agreement can be modified only in a writing
signed by the parties.
e.On or before the expiration date or the effective date of termination of this Lease
Agreement, Woodlawn shall remove all structures from the Leased Premises and restore the
Leased Premises with fully established sod.
4 of 4
f.Except as specifically set forth herein, nothing in this Lease Agreement shall be construed to
exempt Woodlawn from or waive the application of any federal, state, or local law, rule, or
regulations.
g.Nothing in this Lease Agreement shall be construed as abandonment of any part of the City
Property, including the Leased Premises, by the City, or as any relinquishment of any right
the City may have with regard to the City Property. Woodlawn specifically acknowledges and
agrees that its construction on and maintenance of the Leased Premises is at the sufferance
of the City and subject to the City’s right to terminate such use in accordance with the
provisions in paragraph 5 hereof.
h.In the event that the use of the Leased Premises under this Lease Agreement renders the
City Property taxable, Woodlawn agrees to pay, before penalty attaches, all ad valorem
property taxes or other similar taxes levied against the Leased Premises.
i.This Lease Agreement may be extended by the parties from time-to-time and upon such
terms as they shall mutually agree to, subject to Woodlawn’s Right of Renewal in paragraph
4 hereof.
j.No new structure shall be erected on the Leased Premises without the prior written
consent of the City; and Woodlawn shall not use the Leased Premises for any purpose other
than in connection with the mobile home park without the prior written consent of the City.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Woodlawn and the City have entered into this Lease Agreement as of the
Effective Date hereof.
CITY OF RICHFIELD: WOODLAWN TERRACE COOPERATIVE
__________________________ __________________________
By: Maria Regan Gonzalez By: Beverly L. Adrian
Its: Mayor Its: President
__________________________ __________________________
By: Katie Rodriguez By: Jacqueline M. Soucek
Its: City Manager Its: Treasurer
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM # 5.N.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
12/14/2021
REPORT PREPARED BY: Jay Henthorne, Director of Public Safety/Chief of Police
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Jay Henthorne, Director of Public Safety/Chief of Police
12/9/2021
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager
12/9/2021
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consider approval of a Resolution for the City of Richfield to opt-into the national opioid settlement.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City of Richfield has been affected by opioid overdoses since approximately January, 2003. Our City
Attorney submitted a claim to the United States Bankruptcy Court on July 30, 2020 in an attempt to recover
estimated funds for the following categories: Child Welfare and Adolescent Service, Drug Treatment
Programs, Education and Prevention Programs, Health Care, and Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice,
and Lost Tax Revenue.
RECOM MENDED ACTION:
By motion: Approve a resolution for the City of Richfield to opt-into the national opioid
settlement.
BASIS OF RECOM MENDATION:
A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT
According to the medical examiners office the total number of opioid deaths in Hennepin County are:
2008: 79
2009: 73
2010: 69
2011: 75
2012: 93
2013: 99
2014: 92
2015: 101
2016: 146
2017: 149
Purdue Pharma, the maker of the opioid Oxycontin, was initially one of the defendants in the Opioid
Multi-District Litigation. However, on September 15, 2019, Purdue filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. As
part of the bankruptcy process, any outstanding claims against Purdue had to be filed with the
Bankruptcy Court by July 30, 2020 at 4 PM Central.
B.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
C.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
City Council must approve a resolution opting-into the National Opioid settlement by January 2, 2022.
D.FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The potential is for Richfield to receive as much as $5,777,873, including $2,402,482 for damages
from 2003 - June, 2020 and $3,375,391 for future damages and abatement costs over the next 20
years. The model bases its estimated claim on costs from: Child Welfare & Adolescent Services,
Drug Treatment Programs, Education & Prevention Programs, Health Care, Law Enforcement and
Criminal Justice, and Lost Tax Revenue.
E.LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
The City Attorney has been involved and has submitted documentation on our behalf of the City of
Richfield for damages and abatement costs.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
Council could disapprove the City of Richfield to opt-into the national opioid settlement and any funding
allocated to the City of Richfield would not be accepted.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Resolution
Minnesota Opioids State-Subdivision Memorandum of
Agreement
Resolution Letter
Backup Material
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA)
BETWEEN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND
AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENTS
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, Minnesota counties and cities, and their people,
have been harmed by misconduct committed by certain entities that engage in the manufacture,
marketing, promotion, distribution, or dispensing of opioids; and
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota and numerous Minnesota cities and counties joined
with thousands of local governments across the country to file lawsuits against opioid
manufacturer and pharmaceutical distribution companies and hold those companies accountable
for their misconduct; and
WHEREAS, representatives of local Minnesota governments, the League of Minnesota
Cities, the Association of Minnesota Counties, the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, the
State of Minnesota, and the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office have negotiated and prepared a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to provide for the equitable distribution of proceeds to the
State of Minnesota and to individual local governments from recent settlements in the national
opioid litigation; and
WHEREAS, by signing onto the MOA, the state and local governments maximize
Minnesota’s share of opioid settlement funds, demonstrate solidarity in response to the opioid
epidemic, and ensure needed resources reach the most impacted communities; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the State of Minnesota and the residents of the
City of Richfield, and the County of Hennepin that the City participate in the national opioid
litigation settlements.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota:
1.Participation in the opioid litigation settlements promotes the public health,
safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of Richfield.
2.The City of Richfield supports and opts-in to the national opioid litigation
settlements with the Distributors McKesson, Cardinal Health, and Amerisource
Bergen, and with the Manufacturer Johnson & Johnson.
3.The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the State of Minnesota and
Local Governments relating to the distribution of settlement funds is hereby
approved by the City of Richfield.
4.City Staff is hereby authorized to take such measures as necessary to sign the
MOA and otherwise participate in the national opioid settlements, including
executing the Participation Agreement and accompanying Release.
Adopted by the City Council December 14, 2021
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
1
MINNESOTA OPIOIDS STATE-SUBDIVISION MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, Minnesota counties and cities, and their people have been
harmed by misconduct committed by certain entities that engage in or have engaged in the
manufacture, marketing, promotion, distribution, or dispensing of an opioid analgesic;
WHEREAS, certain Minnesota counties and cities, through their counsel, and the State, through
its Attorney General, are separately engaged in ongoing investigations, litigation, and settlement
discussions seeking to hold opioid manufacturers and distributors accountable for the damage
caused by their misconduct;
WHEREAS, the State and Local Governments share a common desire to abate and alleviate the
impacts of the misconduct described above throughout Minnesota;
WHEREAS, while the State and Local Governments recognize the sums which may be available
from the aforementioned litigation will likely be insufficient to fully abate the public health crisis
caused by the opioid epidemic, they share a common interest in dedicating the most resources
possible to the abatement effort;
WHEREAS, the investigations and litigation with Johnson & Johnson, AmerisourceBergen,
Cardinal Health, and McKesson have resulted in National Settlement Agreements with those
companies, which the State has already committed to join;
WHEREAS, Minnesota’s share of settlement funds from the National Settlement Agreements will
be maximized only if all Minnesota counties, and cities of a certain size, participate in the
settlements;
WHEREAS, the National Settlement Agreements will set a default allocation between each state
and its political subdivisions unless they enter into a state-specific agreement regarding the
distribution and use of settlement amounts;
WHEREAS, this Memorandum of Agreement is intended to facilitate compliance by the State
and by the Local Governments with the terms of the National Settlement Agreements and is
intended to serve as a State-Subdivision Agreement under the National Settlement Agreements;
WHEREAS, this Memorandum of Agreement is also intended to serve as a State-Subdivision
Agreement under resolutions of claims concerning alleged misconduct in the manufacture,
marketing, promotion, distribution, or dispensing of an opioid analgesic entered in bankruptcy
court that provide for payments (including payments through a trust) to both the State and
Minnesota counties and cities and allow for the allocation between a state and its political
subdivisions to be set through a state-specific agreement; and
WHEREAS, specifically, this Memorandum of Agreement is intended to serve under the
Bankruptcy Resolutions concerning Purdue Pharma and Mallinckrodt as a qualifying Statewide
Abatement Agreement.
2
I. Definitions
As used in this MOA (including the preamble above):
“Approved Uses” shall mean forward-looking strategies, programming, and services to
abate the opioid epidemic that fall within the list of uses on Exhibit A. Consistent with
the terms of the National Settlement Agreements and Bankruptcy Resolutions, “Approved
Uses” shall include the reasonable administrative expenses associated with overseeing and
administering Opioid Settlement Funds. Reimbursement by the State or Local
Governments for past expenses are not Approved Uses.
“Backstop Fund” is defined in Section VI.B below.
“Bankruptcy Defendants” mean Purdue Pharma L.P. and Mallinckrodt plc.
“Bankruptcy Resolution(s)” means resolutions of claims concerning alleged misconduct in
manufacture, marketing, promotion, distribution, or dispensing of an opioid analgesic by
the Bankruptcy Defendants entered in bankruptcy court that provide for payments
(including payments through a trust) to both the State and Minnesota counties and
municipalities and allow for the allocation between the state and its political subdivisions
to be set through a state-specific agreement.
“Counsel” is defined in Section VI.B below.
“County Area” shall mean a county in the State of Minnesota plus the Local Governments,
or portion of any Local Government, within that county.
“Governing Body” means (1) for a county, the county commissioners of the county, and
(2) for a municipality, the elected city council or the equivalent legislative body for the
municipality.
“Legislative Modification” is defined in Section II.C below.
“Litigating Local Governments” mean a Local Government that filed an opioid lawsuit(s)
on or before December 3, 2021, as defined in Section VI.B below.
“Local Abatement Funds” are defined in Section II.B below.
“Local Government” means all counties and cities within the geographic boundaries of the
state of Minnesota.
“MDL Matter” means the matter captioned In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation,
MDL 2804, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
“Memorandum of Agreement” or “MOA” mean this agreement, the Minnesota Opioids
State-Subdivision Memorandum of Agreement.
3
“National Settlement Agreements” means the national opioid settlement agreements with
the Parties and one or all of the Settling Defendants concerning alleged misconduct in
manufacture, marketing, promotion, distribution, or dispensing of an opioid analgesic.
“Opioid Settlement Funds” shall mean all funds allocated by the National Settlement
Agreements and any Bankruptcy Resolutions to the State and Local Governments for
purposes of opioid remediation activities or restitution, as well as any repayment of those
funds and any interest or investment earnings that may accrue as those funds are
temporarily held before being expended on opioid remediation strategies.
“Opioid Supply Chain Participants” means entities that engage in or have engaged in the
manufacture, marketing, promotion, distribution, or dispensing of an opioid analgesic,
including their officers, directors, employees, or agents, acting in their capacity as such.
“Parties” means the State and the Participating Local Governments.
“Participating Local Government” means a county or city within the geographic boundaries
of the State of Minnesota that has signed this Memorandum of Agreement and has executed
a release of claims with the Settling Defendants by signing on to the National Settlement
Agreements. For the avoidance of doubt, a Local Government must sign this MOA to
become a “Participating Local Government.”
“Region” is defined in Section II.H below.
“Settling Defendants” means Johnson & Johnson, AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health,
and McKesson, as well as their subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, and directors named in a
National Settlement Agreement.
“State” means the State of Minnesota by and through its Attorney General, Keith Ellison.
“State Abatement Fund” is defined in Section II.B below.
II. Allocation of Settlement Proceeds
A. Method of distribution. Pursuant to the National Settlement Agreements and any
Bankruptcy Resolutions, Opioid Settlement Funds shall be distributed directly to the State
and directly to Participating Local Governments in such proportions and for such uses as
set forth in this MOA, provided Opioid Settlement Funds shall not be considered funds of
the State or any Participating Local Government unless and until such time as each annual
distribution is made.
B. Overall allocation of funds. Opioid Settlement Funds will be initially allocated as follows:
(i) 25% directly to the State (“State Abatement Fund”), and (ii) 75% directly to abatement
funds established by Participating Local Governments (“Local Abatement Funds”). This
initial allocation is subject to modification by Sections II.F, II.G, and II.H, below.
4
C. Statutory change.
1. The Parties agree to work together in good faith to propose and lobby for legislation
in the 2022 Minnesota legislative session to modify the distribution of the State’s
Opiate Epidemic Response Fund under Minnesota Statutes section 256.043,
subd. 3(d), so that “50 percent of the remaining amount” is no longer appropriated
to county social services, as related to Opioid Settlement Funds that are ultimately
placed into the Minnesota Opiate Epidemic Response Fund (“Legislative
Modification”).1 Such efforts include, but are not limited to, providing testimony
and letters in support of the Legislative Modification.
2. It is the intent of the Parties that the Legislative Modification would affect only the
county share under section 256.043, subd. 3(d), and would not impact the provision
of funds to tribal social service agencies. Further, it is the intent of the Parties that
the Legislative Modification would relate only to disposition of Opioid Settlement
Funds and is not predicated on a change to the distribution of the Board of
Pharmacy fee revenue that is deposited into the Opiate Epidemic Response Fund.
D. Bill Drafting Workgroup. The Parties will work together to convene a Bill Drafting
Workgroup to recommend draft legislation to achieve this Legislative Modification. The
Workgroup will meet as often as practicable in December 2021 and January 2022 until
recommended language is completed. Invitations to participate in the group shall be
extended to the League of Minnesota Cities, the Association of Minnesota Counties, the
Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, state agencies, the Governor’s Office, the Attorney
General’s Office, the Opioid Epidemic Response Advisory Council, the Revisor’s Office,
and Minnesota tribal representatives. The Workgroup will host meetings with Members of
the Minnesota House of Representatives and Minnesota Senate who have been involved in
this matter to assist in crafting a bill draft.
E. No payments until August 1, 2022. The Parties agree to take all steps necessary to ensure
that any Opioid Settlement Funds ready for distribution directly to the State and
Participating Local Governments under the National Settlement Agreements or
Bankruptcy Resolutions are not actually distributed to the Parties until on or after August
1, 2022, in order to allow the Parties to pursue legislative change that would take effect
before the Opioid Settlement Funds are received by the Parties. Such steps may include,
but are not limited to, the Attorney General’s Office delaying its filing of Consent
Judgments in Minnesota state court memorializing the National Settlement Agreements.
This provision will cease to apply upon the effective date of the Legislative Modification
described above, if that date is prior to August 1, 2022.
1 It is the intent of the Parties that counties will continue to fund child protection services for
children and families who are affected by addiction, in compliance with the Approved Uses in
Exhibit A.
5
F. Effect of no statutory change by August 1, 2022. If the Legislative Modification described
above does not take effect by August 1, 2022, the allocation between the Parties set forth
in Section II.B shall be modified as follows: (i) 40% directly to the State Abatement Fund,
and (ii) 60% to Local Abatement Funds. The Parties further agree to discuss potential
amendment of this MOA if such legislation does not timely go into effect in accordance
with this paragraph.
G. Effect of later statutory change. If the Legislative Modification described above takes
effect after August 1, 2022, the allocation between the Parties will be modified as follows:
(i) 25% directly to the State Abatement Fund, and (ii) 75% to Local Abatement Funds.
H. Effect of partial statutory change. If any legislative action otherwise modifies or
diminishes the direct allocation of Opioid Settlement Funds to Participating Local
Governments so that as a result the Participating Local Governments would receive less
than 75 percent of the Opioid Settlement Funds (inclusive of amounts received by counties
per statutory appropriation through the Minnesota Opiate Epidemic Response Fund), then
the allocation set forth in Section II.B will be modified to ensure Participating Local
Governments receive 75% of the Opioid Settlement Funds.
I. Participating Local Governments receiving payments. The proportions set forth in
Exhibit B provide for payments directly to: (i) all Minnesota counties; and (ii) all
Minnesota cities that (a) have a population of more than 30,000, based on the United States
Census Bureau’s Vintage 2019 population totals, (b) have funded or otherwise managed
an established health care or treatment infrastructure (e.g., health department or similar
agency), or (c) have initiated litigation against the Settling Defendants as of December 3,
2021.
J. Allocation of funds between Participating Local Governments. The Local Abatement
Funds shall be allocated to Participating Local Governments in such proportions as set
forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which is based
upon the MDL Matter’s Opioid Negotiation Class Model.2 The proportions shall not
change based on population changes during the term of the MOA. However, to the extent
required by the terms of the National Settlement Agreements, the proportions set forth in
Exhibit B must be adjusted: (i) to provide no payment from the National Settlement
Agreements to any listed county or municipality that does not participate in the National
Settlement Agreements; and (ii) to provide a reduced payment from the National
Settlement Agreements to any listed county or city that signs on to the National Settlement
Agreements after the Initial Participation Date.
K. Redistribution in certain situations. In the event a Participating Local Government merges,
dissolves, or ceases to exist, the allocation percentage for that Participating Local
2 More specifically, the proportions in Exhibit B were created based on Exhibit G to the National
Settlement Agreements, which in turn was based on the MDL Matter’s allocation criteria. Cities
under 30,000 in population that had shares under the Exhibit G default allocation were removed
and their shares were proportionally reallocated amongst the remaining subdivisions.
6
Government shall be redistributed equitably based on the composition of the successor
Local Government. In the event an allocation to a Local Government cannot be paid to the
Local Government, such unpaid allocations will be allocated to Local Abatement Funds
and be distributed in such proportions as set forth in Exhibit B.
L. City may direct payments to county. Any city allocated a share may elect to have its full
share or a portion of its full share of current or future annual distributions of settlement
funds instead directed to the county or counties in which it is located, so long as that county
or counties are Participating Local Governments[s]. Such an election must be made by
January 1 each year to apply to the following fiscal year. If a city is located in more than
one county, the city’s funds will be directed based on the MDL Matter’s Opioid
Negotiation Class Model.
III. Special Revenue Fund
A. Creation of special revenue fund. Every Participating Local Government receiving Opioid
Settlement Funds through direct distribution shall create a separate special revenue fund,
as described below, that is designated for the receipt and expenditure of Opioid Settlement
Funds.
B. Procedures for special revenue fund. Funds in this special revenue fund shall not be
commingled with any other money or funds of the Participating Local Government. The
funds in the special revenue fund shall not be used for any loans or pledge of assets, unless
the loan or pledge is for an Approved Use. Participating Local Governments may not
assign to another entity their rights to receive payments of Opioid Settlement Funds or their
responsibilities for funding decisions, except as provided in Section II.L.
C. Process for drawing from special revenue funds.
1. Opioid Settlement Funds can be used for a purpose when the Governing Body
includes in its budget or passes a separate resolution authorizing the expenditure of
a stated amount of Opioid Settlement Funds for that purpose or those purposes
during a specified period of time.
2. The budget or resolution must (i) indicate that it is an authorization for expenditures
of opioid settlement funds; (ii) state the specific strategy or strategies the county or
city intends to fund, using the item letter and/or number in Exhibit A to identify
each funded strategy, if applicable; and (iii) state the amount dedicated to each
strategy for a stated period of time.
D. Local government grantmaking. Participating Local Governments may make contracts
with or grants to a nonprofit, charity, or other entity with Opioid Settlement Funds.
E. Interest earned on special revenue fund. The funds in the special revenue fund may be
invested, consistent with the investment limitations for local governments, and may be
7
placed in an interest-bearing bank account. Any interest earned on the special revenue
funds must be used in a way that is consistent with this MOA.
IV. Opioid Remediation Activities
A. Limitation on use of funds. This MOA requires that Opioid Settlement Funds be utilized
only for future opioid remediation activities, and Parties shall expend Opioid Settlement
Funds only for Approved Uses and for expenditures incurred after the effective date of this
MOA, unless execution of the National Settlement Agreements requires a later date.
Opioid Settlement Funds cannot be used to pay litigation costs, expenses, or attorney fees
arising from the enforcement of legal claims related to the opioid epidemic, except for the
portion of Opioid Settlement Funds that comprise the Backstop Fund described in Section
VI. For the avoidance of doubt, counsel for Litigating Local Governments may recover
litigation costs, expenses, or attorney fees from the common benefit, contingency fee, and
cost funds established in the National Settlement Agreements, as well as the Backstop Fund
described in Section VI.
B. Public health departments as Chief Strategists. For Participating Local Governments that
have public health departments, the public health departments shall serve as the lead
agency and Chief Strategist to identify, collaborate, and respond to local issues as Local
Governments decide how to leverage and disburse Opioid Settlement Funds. In their role
as Chief Strategist, public health departments will convene multi-sector meetings and lead
efforts that build upon local efforts like Community Health Assessments and Community
Health Improvement Plans, while fostering community focused and collaborative
evidence-informed approaches that prevent and address addiction across the areas of public
health, human services, and public safety. Chief Strategists should consult with
municipalities located within their county in the development of any Community Health
Assessment, and are encouraged to collaborate with law enforcement agencies in the
county where appropriate.
C. Administrative expenses. Reasonable administrative costs for the State or Local
Government to administer its allocation of the Opioid Settlement Funds shall not exceed
actual costs, 10% of the relevant allocation of the Opioid Settlement Funds, or any
administrative expense limitation imposed by the National Settlement Agreements or
Bankruptcy Resolution, whichever is less.
D. Regions. Two or more Participating Local Governments may at their discretion form a
new group or utilize an existing group (“Region”) to pool their respective shares of
settlement funds and make joint spending decisions. Participating Local Governments may
choose to create a Region or utilize an existing Region under a joint exercise of powers
under Minn. Stat. § 471.59.
E. Consultation and partnerships.
1. Each county receiving Opioid Settlement Funds must consult annually with the
municipalities in the county regarding future use of the settlement funds in the
8
county, including by holding an annual meeting with all municipalities in the
county in order to receive input as to proposed uses of the Opioid Settlement Funds
and to encourage collaboration between Local Governments both within and
beyond the county. These meetings shall be open to the public.
2. Participating Local Governments within the same County Area have a duty to
regularly consult with each other to coordinate spending priorities.
3. Participating Local Governments can form partnerships at the local level whereby
Participating Local Governments dedicate a portion of their Opioid Settlement
Funds to support city- or community-based work with local stakeholders and
partners within the Approved Uses.
F. Collaboration. The State and Participating Local Governments must collaborate to
promote effective use of Opioid Settlement Funds, including through the sharing of
expertise, training, and technical assistance. They will also coordinate with trusted
partners, including community stakeholders, to collect and share information about
successful regional and other high-impact strategies and opioid treatment programs.
V. Reporting and Compliance
A. Construction of reporting and compliance provisions. Reporting and compliance
requirements will be developed and mutually agreed upon by the Parties, utilizing the
recommendations provided by the Advisory Panel to the Attorney General on Distribution
and Allocation of Opioid Settlement Funds.
B. Reporting Workgroup. The Parties will work together to establish a Reporting Workgroup
that includes representatives of the Attorney General’s Office, state stakeholders, and city
and county representatives, who will meet on a regular basis to develop reporting and
compliance recommendations. The Reporting Workgroup must produce a set of reporting
and compliance measures by June 1, 2022. Such reporting and compliance measures will
be effective once approved by representatives of the Attorney General’s Office, the
Governor’s Office, the Association of Minnesota Counties, and the League of Minnesota
Cities that are on the Workgroup.
VI. Backstop Fund
A. National Attorney Fee Fund. The National Settlement Agreements provide for the payment
of all or a portion of the attorney fees and costs owed by Litigating Local Governments to
private attorneys specifically retained to file suit in the opioid litigation (“National
Attorney Fee Fund”). The Parties acknowledge that the National Settlement Agreements
may provide for a portion of the attorney fees of Litigating Local Governments.
B. Backstop Fund and Waiver of Contingency Fee. The Parties agree that the Participating
Local Governments will create a supplemental attorney fees fund (the “Backstop Fund”)
to be used to compensate private attorneys (“Counsel”) for Local Governments that filed
opioid lawsuits on or before December 3, 2021 (“Litigating Local Governments”). By
9
order 3 dated August 6, 2021, Judge Polster capped all applicable contingent fee agreements
at 15%. Judge Polster’s 15% cap does not limit fees from the National Attorney Fee Fund
or from any state backstop fund for attorney fees, but private attorneys for local
governments must waive their contingent fee agreements to receive payment from the
National Attorney Fee Fund. Judge Polster recognized that a state backstop fund can be
designed to incentivize private attorneys to waive their right to enforce contingent fee
agreements and instead apply to the National Attorney Fee Fund, with the goals of
achieving greater subdivision participation and higher ultimate payouts to both states and
local governments. Accordingly, in order to seek payment from the Backstop Fund,
Counsel must agree to waive their contingency fee agreements relating to these National
Settlement Agreements and first apply to the National Attorney Fee Fund.
C. Backstop Fund Source. The Backstop Fund will be funded by seven percent (7%) of the
share of each payment made to the Local Abatement Funds from the National Settlement
Agreements (annual or otherwise), based upon the initial allocation of 25% directly to the
State Abatement Fund and 75% directly to Local Abatement Funds, and will not include
payments resulting from the Purdue or Mallinckrodt Bankruptcies. In the event that the
initial allocation is modified pursuant to Section II.F. above, then the Backstop Fund will
be funded by 8.75% of the share of each payment made to the Local Abatement Funds
from the National Settlement Agreements (annual or otherwise), based upon the modified
allocation of 40% directly to the State Abatement Fund and 60% directly to the Local
Abatement Funds, and will not include payments resulting from the Purdue or Mallinckrodt
Bankruptcies. In the event that the allocation is modified pursuant to Section II.G. or
Section II.H. above, back to an allocation of 25% directly to the State Abatement Fund and
75% directly to Local Abatement Funds, then the Backstop Fund will be funded by 7% of
the share of each payment made to the Local Abatement Funds from the National
Settlement Agreements (annual or otherwise), and will not include payments resulting from
the Purdue or Mallinckrodt Bankruptcies.
D. Backstop Fund Payment Cap. Any attorney fees paid from the Backstop Fund, together
with any compensation received from the National Settlement Agreements’ Contingency
Fee Fund, shall not exceed 15% of the total gross recovery of the Litigating Local
Governments’ share of funds from the National Settlement Agreements. To avoid doubt,
in no instance will Counsel receive more than 15% of the amount paid to their respective
Litigating Local Government client(s) when taking into account what private attorneys
receive from both the Backstop Fund and any fees received from the National Settlement
Agreements’ Contingency Fee Fund.
E. Requirements to Seek Payment from Backstop Fund. A private attorney may seek payment
from the Backstop Fund in the event that funds received by Counsel from the National
Settlement Agreements’ Contingency Fee Fund are insufficient to cover the amount that
would be due to Counsel under any contingency fee agreement with a Litigating Local
Government based on any recovery Litigating Local Governments receive from the
National Settlement Agreements. Before seeking any payment from the Backstop Fund,
3 Order, In re: Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig., Case No. 17-MD-02804, Doc. No. 3814 (N.D. Ohio
August 6, 2021).
10
private attorneys must certify that they first sought fees from the National Settlement
Agreements’ Contingency Fee Fund, and must certify that they agreed to accept the
maximum fees payments awarded to them. Nothing in this Section, or in the terms of this
Agreement, shall be construed as a waiver of fees, contractual or otherwise, with respect
to fees that may be recovered under a contingency fee agreement or otherwise from other
past or future settlements, verdicts, or recoveries related to the opioid litigation.
F. Special Master. A special master will administer the Backstop Fund, including overseeing
any distribution, evaluating the requests of Counsel for payment, and determining the
appropriate amount of any payment from the Backstop Fund. The special master will be
selected jointly by the Minnesota Attorney General and the Hennepin County Attorney,
and will be one of the following individuals: Hon. Jeffrey Keyes, Hon. David Lillehaug;
or Hon. Jack Van de North. The special master will be compensated from the Backstop
Fund. In the event that a successor special master is needed, the Minnesota Attorney
General and the Hennepin County Attorney will jointly select the successor special master
from the above-listed individuals. If none of the above-listed individuals is available to
serve as the successor special master, then the Minnesota Attorney General and the
Hennepin County Attorney will jointly select a successor special master from a list of
individuals that is agreed upon between the Minnesota Attorney General, the Hennepin
County Attorney, and Counsel.
G. Special Master Determinations. The special master will determine the amount and timing
of any payment to Counsel from the Backstop Fund. The special master shall make one
determination regarding payment of attorney fees to Counsel, which will apply through the
term of the recovery from the National Settlement Agreements. In making such
determinations, the special master shall consider the amounts that have been or will be
received by the private attorney’s firm from the National Settlement Agreements’
Contingency Fee Fund relating to Litigating Local Governments; the contingency fee
contracts; the dollar amount of recovery for Counsel’s respective clients who are Litigating
Local Governments; the Backstop Fund Payment Cap above; the complexity of the legal
issues involved in the opioid litigation; work done to directly benefit the Local
Governments within the State of Minnesota; and the principles set forth in the Minnesota
Rules of Professional Conduct, including the reasonable and contingency fee principles of
Rule 1.5. In the interest of transparency, Counsel shall provide information in their initial
fee application about the total amount of fees that Counsel have received or will receive
from the National Attorney Fee Fund related to the Litigating Local Governments.
H. Special Master Proceedings. Counsel seeking payment from the Backstop Fund may also
provide written submissions to the special master, which may include declarations from
counsel, summaries relating to the factors described above, and/or attestation regarding
total payments awarded or anticipated from the National Settlement Agreements’
Contingency Fee Fund. Private attorneys shall not be required to disclose work product,
proprietary or confidential information, including but not limited to detailed billing or
lodestar records. To the extent that counsel rely upon written submissions to support their
application to the special master, the special master will incorporate said submission or
summary into the record. Any proceedings before the special master and documents filed
with the special master shall be public, and the special master’s determinations regarding
11
any payment from the Backstop Funds shall be transparent, public, final, and not
appealable.
I. Distribution of Any Excess Funds. To the extent the special master determines that the
Backstop Fund exceeds the amount necessary for payment to Counsel, the special master
shall distribute any excess amount to Participating Local Governments according to the
percentages set forth in Exhibit B.
J. Term. The Backstop Fund will be administered for (a) the length of the National Litigation
Settlement payments; or (b) until all Counsel for Litigating Local Governments have either
(i) received payments equal to the Backstop Fund Payment Cap above or (ii) received the
full amount determined by the special master; whichever occurs first.
K. No State Funds Toward Attorney Fees. For the avoidance of doubt, no portion of the State
Abatement Fund will be used to fund the Backstop Fund or in any other way to fund any
Litigating Local Government’s attorney fees and expenses. Any funds that the State
receives from the National Settlement Agreements as attorney fees and costs or in lieu of
attorney fees and costs, including the Additional Restitution Amounts, will be treated as
State Abatement Funds.
VII. General Terms
A. Scope of agreement. This MOA applies to all settlements under the National Settlement
Agreements with Settling Defendants and the Bankruptcy Resolutions with Bankruptcy
Defendants.4 The Parties agree to discuss the use, as the Parties may deem appropriate in
the future, of the settlement terms set out herein (after any necessary amendments) for
resolutions with Opioid Supply Chain Participants not covered by the National Settlement
Agreements or a Bankruptcy Resolution. The Parties acknowledge that this MOA does
not excuse any requirements placed upon them by the terms of the National Settlement
Agreements or any Bankruptcy Resolution, except to the extent those terms allow for a
State-Subdivision Agreement to do so.
B. When MOA takes effect.
1. This MOA shall become effective at the time a sufficient number of Local
Governments have joined the MOA to qualify this MOA as a State-Subdivision
Agreement under the National Settlement Agreements or as a Statewide Abatement
Agreement under any Bankruptcy Resolution. If this MOA does not thereby
qualify as a State-Subdivision Agreement or Statewide Abatement Agreement, this
MOA will have no effect.
2. The Parties may conditionally agree to sign on to the MOA through a letter of intent,
resolution, or similar written statement, declaration, or pronouncement declaring
4 For the avoidance of doubt, this includes settlements reached with AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal
Health, and McKesson, and Janssen, and Bankruptcy Resolutions involving Purdue Pharma L.P.,
and Mallinckrodt plc.
12
their intent to sign on to the MOA if the threshold for Party participation in a
specific Settlement is achieved.
C. Dispute resolution.
1. If any Party believes another Party has violated the terms of this MOA, the alleging
Party may seek to enforce the terms of this MOA in Ramsey County District Court,
provided the alleging Party first provides notice to the alleged offending Party of
the alleged violation and a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged violation.
2. If a Party believes another Party, Region, or individual involved in the receipt,
distribution, or administration of Opioid Settlement Funds has violated any
applicable ethics codes or rules, a complaint shall be lodged with the appropriate
forum for handling such matters.
3. If a Party believes another Party, Region, or individual involved in the receipt,
distribution, or administration of Opioid Settlement Funds violated any Minnesota
criminal law, such conduct shall be reported to the appropriate criminal authorities.
D. Amendments. The Parties agree to make such amendments as necessary to implement the
intent of this MOA.
E. Applicable law and venue. Unless otherwise required by the National Settlement
Agreements or a Bankruptcy Resolution, this MOA, including any issues related to
interpretation or enforcement, is governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. Any
action related to the provisions of this MOA must be adjudicated by the Ramsey County
District Court. If any provision of this MOA is held invalid by any court of competent
jurisdiction, this invalidity does not affect any other provision which can be given effect
without the invalid provision.
F. Relationship of this MOA to other agreements and resolutions. All Parties acknowledge
and agree that the National Settlement Agreements will require a Participating Local
Government to release all its claims against the Settling Defendants to receive direct
allocation of Opioid Settlement Funds. All Parties further acknowledge and agree that
based on the terms of the National Settlement Agreements, a Participating Local
Government may receive funds through this MOA only after complying with all
requirements set forth in the National Settlement Agreements to release its claims. This
MOA is not a promise from any Party that any National Settlement Agreements or
Bankruptcy Resolution will be finalized or executed.
G. When MOA is no longer in effect. This MOA is effective until one year after the last date
on which any Opioid Settlement Funds are being spent by the Parties pursuant to the
National Settlement Agreements and any Bankruptcy Resolution.
H. No waiver for failure to exercise. The failure of a Party to exercise any rights under this
MOA will not be deemed to be a waiver of any right or any future rights.
13
I. No effect on authority of Parties. Nothing in this MOA should be construed to limit the
power or authority of the State of Minnesota, the Attorney General, or the Local
Governments, except as expressly set forth herein.
J. Signing and execution. This MOA may be executed in counterparts, each of which
constitutes an original, and all of which constitute one and the same agreement. This MOA
may be executed by facsimile or electronic copy in any image format. Each Party
represents that all procedures necessary to authorize such Party’s execution of this MOA
have been performed and that the person signing for such Party has been authorized to
execute the MOA in an official capacity that binds the Party.
14
This Minnesota Opioids State-Subdivision Memorandum of Agreement is signed
this ___day of ____________, ______ by:
____________________________________________
Name and Title: _______________________________
On behalf of: _________________________________
1
EXHIBIT A
List of Opioid Remediation Uses
Settlement fund recipients shall choose from among abatement strategies, including but not
limited to those listed in this Exhibit. The programs and strategies listed in this Exhibit are not
exclusive, and fund recipients shall have flexibility to modify their abatement approach as
needed and as new uses are discovered.
PART ONE: TREATMENT
A. TREAT OPIOID USE DISORDER (OUD)
Support treatment of Opioid Use Disorder (“OUD”) and any co-occurring Substance Use
Disorder or Mental Health (“SUD/MH”) conditions through evidence-based or evidence-
informed programs 5 or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, those that:6
1. Expand availability of treatment for OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions, including all forms of Medication for Opioid Use Disorder
(“MOUD”)7 approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
2. Support and reimburse evidence-based services that adhere to the American
Society of Addiction Medicine (“ASAM”) continuum of care for OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions.
3. Expand telehealth to increase access to treatment for OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, including MOUD, as well as counseling, psychiatric
support, and other treatment and recovery support services.
4. Improve oversight of Opioid Treatment Programs (“OTPs”) to assure evidence-
based or evidence-informed practices such as adequate methadone dosing and low
threshold approaches to treatment.
5 Use of the terms “evidence-based,” “evidence-informed,” or “best practices” shall not limit the
ability of recipients to fund innovative services or those built on culturally specific needs. Rather,
recipients are encouraged to support culturally appropriate services and programs for persons with
OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.
6 As used in this Exhibit, words like “expand,” “fund,” “provide” or the like shall not indicate a
preference for new or existing programs.
7 Historically, pharmacological treatment for opioid use disorder was referred to as “Medication-
Assisted Treatment” (“MAT”). It has recently been determined that the better term is “Medication
for Opioid Use Disorder” (“MOUD”). This Exhibit will use “MOUD” going forward. Use of the
term MOUD is not intended to and shall in no way limit abatement programs or strategies now or
into the future as new strategies and terminology evolve.
2
5. Support mobile intervention, treatment, and recovery services, offered by
qualified professionals and service providers, such as peer recovery coaches, for
persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions and for persons
who have experienced an opioid overdose.
6. Provide treatment of trauma for individuals with OUD (e.g., violence, sexual
assault, human trafficking, or adverse childhood experiences) and family
members (e.g., surviving family members after an overdose or overdose fatality),
and training of health care personnel to identify and address such trauma.
7. Support detoxification (detox) and withdrawal management services for people
with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, including but not limited to
medical detox, referral to treatment, or connections to other services or supports.
8. Provide training on MOUD for health care providers, first responders, students, or
other supporting professionals, such as peer recovery coaches or recovery
outreach specialists, including telementoring to assist community-based providers
in rural or underserved areas.
9. Support workforce development for addiction professionals who work with
persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH or mental health conditions.
10. Offer fellowships for addiction medicine specialists for direct patient care,
instructors, and clinical research for treatments.
11. Offer scholarships and supports for certified addiction counselors, licensed
alcohol and drug counselors, licensed clinical social workers, licensed mental
health counselors, and other mental and behavioral health practitioners or
workers, including peer recovery coaches, peer recovery supports, and treatment
coordinators, involved in addressing OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH or
mental health conditions, including, but not limited to, training, scholarships,
fellowships, loan repayment programs, continuing education, licensing fees, or
other incentives for providers to work in rural or underserved areas.
12. Provide funding and training for clinicians to obtain a waiver under the federal
Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (“DATA 2000”) to prescribe MOUD for
OUD, and provide technical assistance and professional support to clinicians who
have obtained a DATA 2000 waiver.
13. Dissemination of web-based training curricula, such as the American Academy of
Addiction Psychiatry’s Provider Clinical Support Service–Opioids web-based
training curriculum and motivational interviewing.
14. Develop and disseminate new curricula, such as the American Academy of
Addiction Psychiatry’s Provider Clinical Support Service for Medication–
Assisted Treatment.
3
B. SUPPORT PEOPLE IN TREATMENT AND RECOVERY
Support people in recovery from OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions
through evidence-based or evidence-informed programs or strategies that may include,
but are not limited to, the programs or strategies that:
1. Provide comprehensive wrap-around services to individuals with OUD and any
co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, including housing, transportation, education,
job placement, job training, or childcare.
2. Provide the full continuum of care of treatment and recovery services for OUD
and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, including supportive housing, peer
support services and counseling, community navigators, case management, and
connections to community-based services.
3. Provide counseling, peer-support, recovery case management and residential
treatment with access to medications for those who need it to persons with OUD
and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.
4. Provide access to housing for people with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions, including supportive housing, recovery housing, housing assistance
programs, training for housing providers, or recovery housing programs that allow
or integrate FDA-approved medication with other support services.
5. Provide community support services, including social and legal services, to assist
in deinstitutionalizing persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions.
6. Support or expand peer-recovery centers, which may include support groups,
social events, computer access, or other services for persons with OUD and any
co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.
7. Provide or support transportation to treatment or recovery programs or services
for persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.
8. Provide employment training or educational services for persons in treatment for
or recovery from OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.
9. Identify successful recovery programs such as physician, pilot, and college
recovery programs, and provide support and technical assistance to increase the
number and capacity of high-quality programs to help those in recovery.
10. Engage non-profits, faith-based communities, and community coalitions to
support people in treatment and recovery and to support family members in their
efforts to support the person with OUD in the family.
4
11. Provide training and development of procedures for government staff to
appropriately interact and provide social and other services to individuals with or
in recovery from OUD, including reducing stigma.
12. Support stigma reduction efforts regarding treatment and support for persons with
OUD, including reducing the stigma on effective treatment.
13. Create or support culturally appropriate services and programs for persons with
OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, including but not limited to new
Americans, African Americans, and American Indians.
14. Create and/or support recovery high schools.
15. Hire or train behavioral health workers to provide or expand any of the services or
supports listed above.
C. CONNECT PEOPLE WHO NEED HELP TO THE HELP THEY NEED
(CONNECTIONS TO CARE)
Provide connections to care for people who have—or are at risk of developing—OUD
and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions through evidence-based or evidence-informed
programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, those that:
1. Ensure that health care providers are screening for OUD and other risk factors and
know how to appropriately counsel and treat (or refer if necessary) a patient for
OUD treatment.
2. Fund Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (“SBIRT”)
programs to reduce the transition from use to disorders, including SBIRT services
to pregnant women who are uninsured or not eligible for Medicaid.
3. Provide training and long-term implementation of SBIRT in key systems (health,
schools, colleges, criminal justice, and probation), with a focus on youth and
young adults when transition from misuse to opioid disorder is common.
4. Purchase automated versions of SBIRT and support ongoing costs of the
technology.
5. Expand services such as navigators and on-call teams to begin MOUD in hospital
emergency departments.
6. Provide training for emergency room personnel treating opioid overdose patients
on post-discharge planning, including community referrals for MOUD, recovery
case management or support services.
7. Support hospital programs that transition persons with OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, or persons who have experienced an opioid overdose, into
clinically appropriate follow-up care through a bridge clinic or similar approach.
5
8. Support crisis stabilization centers that serve as an alternative to hospital
emergency departments for persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions or persons that have experienced an opioid overdose.
9. Support the work of Emergency Medical Systems, including peer support
specialists, to connect individuals to treatment or other appropriate services
following an opioid overdose or other opioid-related adverse event.
10. Provide funding for peer support specialists or recovery coaches in emergency
departments, detox facilities, recovery centers, recovery housing, or similar
settings; offer services, supports, or connections to care to persons with OUD and
any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions or to persons who have experienced an
opioid overdose.
11. Expand warm hand-off services to transition to recovery services.
12. Create or support school-based contacts that parents can engage with to seek
immediate treatment services for their child; and support prevention, intervention,
treatment, and recovery programs focused on young people.
13. Develop and support best practices on addressing OUD in the workplace.
14. Support assistance programs for health care providers with OUD.
15. Engage non-profits and the faith community as a system to support outreach for
treatment.
16. Support centralized call centers that provide information and connections to
appropriate services and supports for persons with OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions.
D. ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE-INVOLVED PERSONS
Address the needs of persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions who
are involved in, are at risk of becoming involved in, or are transitioning out of the
criminal justice system through evidence-based or evidence-informed programs or
strategies that may include, but are not limited to, those that:
1. Support pre-arrest or pre-arraignment diversion and deflection strategies for
persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, including
established strategies such as:
1. Self-referral strategies such as the Angel Programs or the Police Assisted
Addiction Recovery Initiative (“PAARI”);
2. Active outreach strategies such as the Drug Abuse Response Team
(“DART”) model;
6
3. “Naloxone Plus” strategies, which work to ensure that individuals who
have received naloxone to reverse the effects of an overdose are then
linked to treatment programs or other appropriate services;
4. Officer prevention strategies, such as the Law Enforcement Assisted
Diversion (“LEAD”) model;
5. Officer intervention strategies such as the Leon County, Florida Adult
Civil Citation Network or the Chicago Westside Narcotics Diversion to
Treatment Initiative; or
6. Co-responder and/or alternative responder models to address OUD-related
911 calls with greater SUD expertise.
2. Support pre-trial services that connect individuals with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions to evidence-informed treatment, including
MOUD, and related services.
3. Support treatment and recovery courts that provide evidence-based options for
persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.
4. Provide evidence-informed treatment, including MOUD, recovery support, harm
reduction, or other appropriate services to individuals with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions who are incarcerated in jail or prison.
5. Provide evidence-informed treatment, including MOUD, recovery support, harm
reduction, or other appropriate services to individuals with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions who are leaving jail or prison or have recently left
jail or prison, are on probation or parole, are under community corrections
supervision, or are in re-entry programs or facilities.
6. Support critical time interventions (“CTI”), particularly for individuals living with
dual-diagnosis OUD/serious mental illness, and services for individuals who face
immediate risks and service needs and risks upon release from correctional
settings.
7. Provide training on best practices for addressing the needs of criminal justice-
involved persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions to law
enforcement, correctional, or judicial personnel or to providers of treatment,
recovery, harm reduction, case management, or other services offered in
connection with any of the strategies described in this section.
E. ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF THE PERINATAL POPULATION, CAREGIVERS,
AND FAMILIES, INCLUDING BABIES WITH NEONATAL OPIOID
WITHDRAWAL SYNDROME.
Address the needs of the perinatal population and caregivers with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions, and the needs of their families, including babies with
7
neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (“NOWS”), through evidence-based or evidence-
informed programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, those that:
1. Support evidence-based or evidence-informed treatment, including MOUD,
recovery services and supports, and prevention services for the perinatal
population—or individuals who could become pregnant—who have OUD and
any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, and other measures to educate and provide
support to caregivers and families affected by Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal
Syndrome.
2. Expand comprehensive evidence-based treatment and recovery services, including
MOUD, for uninsured individuals with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions for up to 12 months postpartum.
3. Provide training for obstetricians or other healthcare personnel who work with the
perinatal population and their families regarding treatment of OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions.
4. Expand comprehensive evidence-based treatment and recovery support for
NOWS babies; expand services for better continuum of care with infant-caregiver
dyad; and expand long-term treatment and services for medical monitoring of
NOWS babies and their caregivers and families.
5. Provide training to health care providers who work with the perinatal population
and caregivers on best practices for compliance with federal requirements that
children born with NOWS get referred to appropriate services and receive a plan
of safe care.
6. Provide child and family supports for caregivers with OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, emphasizing the desire to keep families together.
7. Provide enhanced support for children and family members suffering trauma as a
result of addiction in the family; and offer trauma-informed behavioral health
treatment for adverse childhood events.
8. Offer home-based wrap-around services to persons with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions, including, but not limited to, parent skills
training.
9. Provide support for Children’s Services—Fund additional positions and services,
including supportive housing and other residential services, relating to children
being removed from the home and/or placed in foster care due to custodial opioid
use.
8
PART TWO: PREVENTION
F. PREVENT OVER-PRESCRIBING AND ENSURE APPROPRIATE
PRESCRIBING AND DISPENSING OF OPIOIDS
Support efforts to prevent over-prescribing and ensure appropriate prescribing and
dispensing of opioids through evidence-based or evidence-informed programs or
strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Funding medical provider education and outreach regarding best prescribing
practices for opioids consistent with the Guidelines for Prescribing Opioids for
Chronic Pain from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including
providers at hospitals (academic detailing).
2. Training for health care providers regarding safe and responsible opioid
prescribing, dosing, and tapering patients off opioids.
3. Continuing Medical Education (CME) on appropriate prescribing of opioids.
4. Providing Support for non-opioid pain treatment alternatives, including training
providers to offer or refer to multi-modal, evidence-informed treatment of pain.
5. Supporting enhancements or improvements to Prescription Drug Monitoring
Programs (“PDMPs”), including, but not limited to, improvements that:
1. Increase the number of prescribers using PDMPs;
2. Improve point-of-care decision-making by increasing the quantity, quality,
or format of data available to prescribers using PDMPs, by improving the
interface that prescribers use to access PDMP data, or both; or
3. Enable states to use PDMP data in support of surveillance or intervention
strategies, including MOUD referrals and follow-up for individuals
identified within PDMP data as likely to experience OUD in a manner that
complies with all relevant privacy and security laws and rules.
6. Ensuring PDMPs incorporate available overdose/naloxone deployment data,
including the United States Department of Transportation’s Emergency Medical
Technician overdose database in a manner that complies with all relevant privacy
and security laws and rules.
7. Increasing electronic prescribing to prevent diversion or forgery.
8. Educating dispensers on appropriate opioid dispensing.
9
G. PREVENT MISUSE OF OPIOIDS
Support efforts to discourage or prevent misuse of opioids through evidence-based or
evidence-informed programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the
following:
1. Funding media campaigns to prevent opioid misuse, including but not limited to
focusing on risk factors and early interventions.
2. Corrective advertising or affirmative public education campaigns based on
evidence.
3. Public education relating to drug disposal.
4. Drug take-back disposal or destruction programs.
5. Funding community anti-drug coalitions that engage in drug prevention efforts.
6. Supporting community coalitions in implementing evidence-informed prevention,
such as reduced social access and physical access, stigma reduction—including
staffing, educational campaigns, support for people in treatment or recovery, or
training of coalitions in evidence-informed implementation, including the
Strategic Prevention Framework developed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (“SAMHSA”).
7. Engaging non-profits and faith-based communities as systems to support
prevention.
8. Funding evidence-based prevention programs in schools or evidence-informed
school and community education programs and campaigns for students, families,
school employees, school athletic programs, parent-teacher and student
associations, and others.
9. School-based or youth-focused programs or strategies that have demonstrated
effectiveness in preventing drug misuse and seem likely to be effective in
preventing the uptake and use of opioids.
10. Create or support community-based education or intervention services for
families, youth, and adolescents at risk for OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions.
11. Support evidence-informed programs or curricula to address mental health needs
of young people who may be at risk of misusing opioids or other drugs, including
emotional modulation and resilience skills.
12. Support greater access to mental health services and supports for young people,
including services and supports provided by school nurses, behavioral health
10
workers or other school staff, to address mental health needs in young people that
(when not properly addressed) increase the risk of opioid or another drug misuse.
H. PREVENT OVERDOSE DEATHS AND OTHER HARMS (HARM REDUCTION)
Support efforts to prevent or reduce overdose deaths or other opioid-related harms
through evidence-based or evidence-informed programs or strategies that may include,
but are not limited to, the following:
1. Increased availability and distribution of naloxone and other drugs that treat
overdoses for first responders, overdose patients, individuals with OUD and their
friends and family members, schools, community navigators and outreach
workers, persons being released from jail or prison, or other members of the
general public.
2. Public health entities providing free naloxone to anyone in the community.
3. Training and education regarding naloxone and other drugs that treat overdoses
for first responders, overdose patients, patients taking opioids, families, schools,
community support groups, and other members of the general public.
4. Enabling school nurses and other school staff to respond to opioid overdoses, and
provide them with naloxone, training, and support.
5. Expanding, improving, or developing data tracking software and applications for
overdoses/naloxone revivals.
6. Public education relating to emergency responses to overdoses.
7. Public education relating to immunity and Good Samaritan laws.
8. Educating first responders regarding the existence and operation of immunity and
Good Samaritan laws.
9. Syringe service programs and other evidence-informed programs to reduce harms
associated with intravenous drug use, including supplies, staffing, space, peer
support services, referrals to treatment, fentanyl checking, connections to care,
and the full range of harm reduction and treatment services provided by these
programs.
10. Expanding access to testing and treatment for infectious diseases such as HIV and
Hepatitis C resulting from intravenous opioid use.
11. Supporting mobile units that offer or provide referrals to harm reduction services,
treatment, recovery supports, health care, or other appropriate services to persons
that use opioids or persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions.
11
12. Providing training in harm reduction strategies to health care providers, students,
peer recovery coaches, recovery outreach specialists, or other professionals that
provide care to persons who use opioids or persons with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions.
13. Supporting screening for fentanyl in routine clinical toxicology testing.
PART THREE: OTHER STRATEGIES
I. FIRST RESPONDERS
In addition to items in section C, D and H relating to first responders, support the
following:
1. Law enforcement expenditures related to the opioid epidemic.
2. Education of law enforcement or other first responders regarding appropriate
practices and precautions when dealing with fentanyl or other drugs.
3. Provision of wellness and support services for first responders and others who
experience secondary trauma associated with opioid-related emergency events.
J. LEADERSHIP, PLANNING AND COORDINATION
Support efforts to provide leadership, planning, coordination, facilitations, training and
technical assistance to abate the opioid epidemic through activities, programs, or
strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Statewide, regional, local or community regional planning to identify root causes
of addiction and overdose, goals for reducing harms related to the opioid
epidemic, and areas and populations with the greatest needs for treatment
intervention services, and to support training and technical assistance and other
strategies to abate the opioid epidemic described in this opioid abatement strategy
list.
2. A dashboard to (a) share reports, recommendations, or plans to spend opioid
settlement funds; (b) to show how opioid settlement funds have been spent; (c) to
report program or strategy outcomes; or (d) to track, share or visualize key opioid-
or health-related indicators and supports as identified through collaborative
statewide, regional, local or community processes.
3. Invest in infrastructure or staffing at government or not-for-profit agencies to
support collaborative, cross-system coordination with the purpose of preventing
overprescribing, opioid misuse, or opioid overdoses, treating those with OUD and
any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, supporting them in treatment or recovery,
connecting them to care, or implementing other strategies to abate the opioid
epidemic described in this opioid abatement strategy list.
12
4. Provide resources to staff government oversight and management of opioid
abatement programs.
5. Support multidisciplinary collaborative approaches consisting of, but not limited
to, public health, public safety, behavioral health, harm reduction, and others at
the state, regional, local, nonprofit, and community level to maximize collective
impact.
K. TRAINING
In addition to the training referred to throughout this document, support training to abate
the opioid epidemic through activities, programs, or strategies that may include, but are
not limited to, those that:
1. Provide funding for staff training or networking programs and services to improve
the capability of government, community, and not-for-profit entities to abate the
opioid crisis.
2. Support infrastructure and staffing for collaborative cross-system coordination to
prevent opioid misuse, prevent overdoses, and treat those with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions, or implement other strategies to abate the opioid
epidemic described in this opioid abatement strategy list (e.g., health care,
primary care, pharmacies, PDMPs, etc.).
L. RESEARCH
Support opioid abatement research that may include, but is not limited to, the following:
1. Monitoring, surveillance, data collection and evaluation of programs and
strategies described in this opioid abatement strategy list.
2. Research non-opioid treatment of chronic pain.
3. Research on improved service delivery for modalities such as SBIRT that
demonstrate promising but mixed results in populations vulnerable to
opioid use disorders.
4. Research on novel harm reduction and prevention efforts such as the
provision of fentanyl test strips.
5. Research on innovative supply-side enforcement efforts such as improved
detection of mail-based delivery of synthetic opioids.
6. Expanded research on swift/certain/fair models to reduce and deter opioid
misuse within criminal justice populations that build upon promising
approaches used to address other substances (e.g., Hawaii HOPE and
Dakota 24/7).
13
7. Epidemiological surveillance of OUD-related behaviors in critical
populations, including individuals entering the criminal justice system,
including, but not limited to approaches modeled on the Arrestee Drug
Abuse Monitoring (“ADAM”) system.
8. Qualitative and quantitative research regarding public health risks and
harm reduction opportunities within illicit drug markets, including surveys
of market participants who sell or distribute illicit opioids.
9. Geospatial analysis of access barriers to MOUD and their association with
treatment engagement and treatment outcomes.
M. POST-MORTEM
1. Toxicology tests for the range of opioids, including synthetic opioids, seen in
overdose deaths as well as newly evolving synthetic opioids infiltrating the drug
supply.
2. Toxicology method development and method validation for the range of synthetic
opioids observed now and in the future, including the cost of installation,
maintenance, repairs and training of capital equipment.
3. Autopsies in cases of overdose deaths resulting from opioids and synthetic
opioids.
4. Additional storage space/facilities for bodies directly related to opioid or synthetic
opioid related deaths.
5. Comprehensive death investigations for individuals where a death is caused by or
suspected to have been caused by an opioid or synthetic opioid overdose, whether
intentional or accidental (overdose fatality reviews).
6. Indigent burial for unclaimed remains resulting from overdose deaths.
7. Navigation-to-care services for individuals with opioid use disorder who are
encountered by the medical examiner’s office as either family and/or social
network members of decedents dying of opioid overdose.
8. Epidemiologic data management and reporting to public health and public safety
stakeholders regarding opioid overdose fatalities.
1
EXHIBIT B
Local Abatement Funds Allocation
Subdivision Allocation Percentage
AITKIN COUNTY 0.5760578506020%
Andover city 0.1364919450741%
ANOKA COUNTY 5.0386504680954%
Apple Valley city 0.2990817344560%
BECKER COUNTY 0.6619330684437%
BELTRAMI COUNTY 0.7640787092763%
BENTON COUNTY 0.6440948102319%
BIG STONE COUNTY 0.1194868774775%
Blaine city 0.4249516912759%
Bloomington city 0.4900195550092%
BLUE EARTH COUNTY 0.6635420704652%
Brooklyn Center city 0.1413853902225%
Brooklyn Park city 0.2804136234778%
BROWN COUNTY 0.3325325415732%
Burnsville city 0.5135361296508%
CARLTON COUNTY 0.9839591749060%
CARVER COUNTY 1.1452829659572%
CASS COUNTY 0.8895681513437%
CHIPPEWA COUNTY 0.2092611794436%
CHISAGO COUNTY 0.9950193750117%
CLAY COUNTY 0.9428475281726%
CLEARWATER COUNTY 0.1858592042741%
COOK COUNTY 0.1074594959729%
Coon Rapids city 0.5772642444915%
Cottage Grove city 0.2810994719143%
COTTONWOOD COUNTY 0.1739065270025%
CROW WING COUNTY 1.1394859174804%
DAKOTA COUNTY 4.4207140602835%
DODGE COUNTY 0.2213963257778%
DOUGLAS COUNTY 0.6021779472345%
Duluth city 1.1502115379896%
Eagan city 0.3657951576014%
Eden Prairie city 0.2552171572659%
Edina city 0.1973054822135%
FARIBAULT COUNTY 0.2169409335358%
FILLMORE COUNTY 0.2329591105316%
FREEBORN COUNTY 0.3507169823793%
GOODHUE COUNTY 0.5616542387089%
2
Subdivision Allocation Percentage
GRANT COUNTY 0.0764556498477%
HENNEPIN COUNTY 19.0624622261821%
HOUSTON COUNTY 0.3099019273452%
HUBBARD COUNTY 0.4582368775192%
Inver Grove Heights city 0.2193400520297%
ISANTI COUNTY 0.7712992707537%
ITASCA COUNTY 1.1406408131328%
JACKSON COUNTY 0.1408950443531%
KANABEC COUNTY 0.3078966749987%
KANDIYOHI COUNTY 0.1581167542252%
KITTSON COUNTY 0.0812834506382%
KOOCHICHING COUNTY 0.2612581865885%
LAC QUI PARLE COUNTY 0.0985665133485%
LAKE COUNTY 0.1827750320696%
LAKE OF THE WOODS COUNTY 0.1123105027592%
Lakeville city 0.2822249627090%
LE SUEUR COUNTY 0.3225703347466%
LINCOLN COUNTY 0.1091919983965%
LYON COUNTY 0.2935118186364%
MAHNOMEN COUNTY 0.1416417687922%
Mankato city 0.3698584320930%
Maple Grove city 0.1814019046900%
Maplewood city 0.1875101678223%
MARSHALL COUNTY 0.1296352091057%
MARTIN COUNTY 0.2543064014046%
MCLEOD COUNTY 0.1247104517575%
MEEKER COUNTY 0.3744031515243%
MILLE LACS COUNTY 0.9301506695846%
Minneapolis city 4.8777618689374%
Minnetonka city 0.1967231070869%
Moorhead city 0.4337377037965%
MORRISON COUNTY 0.7178981419196%
MOWER COUNTY 0.5801769148506%
MURRAY COUNTY 0.1348775389165%
NICOLLET COUNTY 0.1572381052896%
NOBLES COUNTY 0.1562005111775%
NORMAN COUNTY 0.1087596675165%
North St. Paul city 0.0575844069340%
OLMSTED COUNTY 1.9236715094724%
OTTER TAIL COUNTY 0.8336175418789%
PENNINGTON COUNTY 0.3082576394945%
PINE COUNTY 0.5671222706703%
3
Subdivision Allocation Percentage
PIPESTONE COUNTY 0.1535154503112%
Plymouth city 0.1762541472591%
POLK COUNTY 0.8654291473909%
POPE COUNTY 0.1870129873102%
Proctor city 0.0214374127881%
RAMSEY COUNTY 7.1081424150498%
RED LAKE COUNTY 0.0532649128178%
REDWOOD COUNTY 0.2809842366614%
RENVILLE COUNTY 0.2706888807449%
RICE COUNTY 0.2674764397830%
Richfield city 0.2534018444052%
Rochester city 0.7363082848763%
ROCK COUNTY 0.2043437335735%
ROSEAU COUNTY 0.2517872793025%
Roseville city 0.1721905548771%
Savage city 0.1883576635033%
SCOTT COUNTY 1.3274301645797%
Shakopee city 0.2879873611373%
SHERBURNE COUNTY 1.2543449471994%
SIBLEY COUNTY 0.2393480708456%
ST LOUIS COUNTY 4.7407767169807%
St. Cloud city 0.7330089009029%
St. Louis Park city 0.1476314588229%
St. Paul city 3.7475206797569%
STEARNS COUNTY 2.4158085321227%
STEELE COUNTY 0.3969975262520%
STEVENS COUNTY 0.1439474275223%
SWIFT COUNTY 0.1344167568499%
TODD COUNTY 0.4180909816781%
TRAVERSE COUNTY 0.0903964133868%
WABASHA COUNTY 0.3103038996965%
WADENA COUNTY 0.2644094336575%
WASECA COUNTY 0.2857912156338%
WASHINGTON COUNTY 3.0852862512586%
WATONWAN COUNTY 0.1475626355615%
WILKIN COUNTY 0.0937962507119%
WINONA COUNTY 0.7755267356126%
Woodbury city 0.4677270171716%
WRIGHT COUNTY 1.6985269385427%
YELLOW MEDICINE COUNTY 0.1742264836427%
AGENDA SECTION:PROPOSED
ORDINANCES
AGENDA ITEM #7.
STAFF REPORT NO. 190
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
12/14/2021
REPORT PREPARED BY: Jennifer Anderson, Support Services Manager
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Jay Henthorne, Director of Public Safety/Chief of Police
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager
12/8/2021
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consider approval of the second reading of an ordinance amending Section 1202.07 of the Richfield
City Code relating to license eligibility of intoxicating liquor, wine and beer establishments.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Chapter 12 (Sale and Consumption of Intoxicating Liquor, Wine and Beer) of the Richfield City Code does
not allow a current holder of a liquor license to be issued a second license for a different establishment
located in the city. This ordinance amendment would eliminate that prohibition.
The first reading of this ordinance amendment was heard by the City Council on November 23, 2021.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the second reading of an ordinance amending Section 1202.07 of the Richfield City
Code, by eliminating paragraph (g) relating to license eligibility.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Business Licensing staff recently received an intoxicating liquor license application for a new
establishment. The applicants currently own an existing establishment in the city and hold a liquor license
for that establishment. Per current city code, they would not be eligible for a second liquor license for
their new concept.
After significant research conducted by the City Clerk and Public Safety staff, it was not clear why this
particular clause was included in code. We do know it has been present in the code since the early
2000's.
The restaurant industry has evolved and nowadays its not unusual to have a group of individuals investing
in a food/liquor establishment and opening multiple concepts reflecting their food/dining vision. This
would be the first time Richfield has experienced this situation in recent history.
B.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
The Intoxicating Liquor, Wine and Beer ordinance sets requirements for application and licensure as
well as certain conditions to be met.
C.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
Without amending subsection 1202.07 by eliminating paragraph (g), the applicant mentioned above
would be ineligible to receive a second liquor license, and therefore unable to serve liquor in the new
establishment.
D.FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
E.LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
The City Attorney has reviewed the ordinance and approves of its contents.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
The City Council may decide to not approve the amendment and direct staff how to proceed.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Liquor proposed changes Cover Memo
BILL NO. _________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1202 OF THE RICHFIELD
CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO LIQUOR LICENSE
ELIGIBILITY
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subsection 1202.07 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows:
1202.07. – License Eligibility.
Subdivision 1. Ineligible person. No license may be granted to or held by:
(a)Any person who is ineligible for a license under State law;
(b)Any person who is under the age of 21 years of age;
(c)Any person who is not of good moral character and repute;
(d)Any person who has had an intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor license
revoked within five (5) years of the license application, or to any person who at
the time of the violation owns any interest, whether as a holder of more than
five (5) percent of the capital stock of a corporation licensee, as a partner or
otherwise, in the premises or in the business conducted thereon, or to a
corporation, partnership, association, enterprise, business, or firm in which any
such person is in any manner interested;
(e)Any person who, within five (5) years of the license application, has been
convicted of a felony or any willful violation of a Federal or State law or local
ordinance, governing the manufacture, sale, distribution, or poss ession for sale
or distribution of an alcoholic beverage, or whose liquor license has been
revoked for any willful violation of any such laws or ordinances;
(f)Any person who has a direct or indirect interest in a manufacturer, brewer or
wholesaler;
(g)Any person who is directly or indirectly interested in any other establishment in
the City to which a license has been issued under this chapter; the term
"interested" as used in this paragraph means and includes any pecuniary
interest in the ownership, operat ion, management or profits of such an
establishment;
(h)(g) Any person who is the spouse of a person ineligible for a license under this
section; and
(i)(h) Any person who, in the judgment of the City Council, is not the real party
in interest or beneficial owner of the business operated, or to be operated,
under the license.
Section 2. This Ordinance will be effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the
City Charter.
Adopted this 14th day of December, 2021.
By: ___________________________
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Kari Sinning, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:PUBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA ITEM #8.
STAFF REPORT NO. 191
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
12/14/2021
REPORT PREPARED BY: Jennifer Anderson, Support Services Manager
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Jay Henthorne, Director of Public Safety/Chief of Police
12/8/2021
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager
12/8/2021
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and consider to approve the renewal of 2022 Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods
Dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue South.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On November 9, 2021, the City received the application materials for the renewal of Pawnbroker and
Secondhand Goods Dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue South. All required
information and documents have been provided. All licensing fees have been received.
The Public Safety Director has reviewed the background information and attached documents and approves
of its contents and sees no basis for denial.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of 2022 Pawnbroker and
Secondhand Goods Dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue South.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT
On November 9, 2021, the City received the application and other required documents for Pawnbroker
and Secondhand Goods Dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc.
The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for issuance of a license:
The required license fees have been paid.
Real estate taxes are paid and current.
The $5,000 bond has been submitted.
Environmental Health staff has received no complaints regarding Metro Pawn & Gun in the
previous year.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed. The results of the investigation are
summarized in an attachment to this report. The Public Safety Director has reviewed the information in
the background investigation report. There is no information in the investigation that shows any cause for
recommending denial of the requested licenses.
The Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods Dealer licenses will expire on December 31, 2021.
B.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Richfield City Code Sections 1186 and 1187 require owners of Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods
Dealer establishments to comply with all of the provisions of both City Code and State Statutes.
C.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
There are no additional critical timing issues.
D.FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The required licensing fees have been received.
E.LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
There are no additional legal issues.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
The Council could decide to deny the requested licenses, which would mean the current applicants
would not be able to obtain Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods Dealer licenses.
Schedule the hearing for another date; however, this may delay the licensing process.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc. representative.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Summary of background - Metro Pawn & Gun Cover Memo
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT
FOR METRO PAWN & GUN, INC.
Officers:
Mark Nichols- Owner
Elizabeth Nichols- Owner
Criminal History:
The following criminal histories reflect the previous and current year.
Mark Nichols has no known criminal record. Elizabeth Nichols has no known
criminal record. John Kunst, who serves as the General Manager, has no known
criminal record.
Premises:
Lynrich Properties, LLC is the owner of the property. All payments are current.
Record of Service Calls:
There were 12 Public Safety/Police contacts with Metro Pawn & Gun, In c. from
October 2020 through September 2021. This compares with 8 contacts for the
previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report.
Routine Information:
The owner of the business continues to act in a cooperative manner with the
Public Safety Department on the recovery of stolen articles.
The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on
December 2, 2021.
Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc.
Directors and Officers
Mark Nichols Owner
Elizabeth Nichols Owner
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
October 2020 through September 2021
Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc.
2020 2021
TOTAL CONTACTS 8 12
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 3 5
Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (2)(3)
Alarm (1)(2)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 5 7
Assists (3)(7)
Traffic (1)(0)
Inspections/Licensing (0)(0)
Medical/Fire (0)(0)
Miscellaneous (1) (0)
The criminal contacts from October 2020 through September 2021 were: one
disturbance, one terroristic threat, one theft, and two commercial alarms.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
AGENDA SECTION:PUBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA ITEM #9.
STAFF REPORT NO. 192
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
12/14/2021
REPORT PREPARED BY: Jennifer Anderson, Support Services Manager
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Jay Henthorne, Director of Public Safety/Chief of Police
12/8/2021
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: N/A
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager
12/8/2021
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and consider the approval of a new On Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses
for Dagobah, LLC d/b/a Protagonist Kitchen and Bar located at 6601 Penn Avenue South.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On October 26, 2021, the City received the application materials for a new On Sale Intoxicating and Sunday
Liquor licenses for Dagobah, LLC d/b/a Protagonist Kitchen and Bar located at 6601 Penn Avenue South.
All required information and documents have been received. All licensing fees have been paid.
The owners for Protagonist Kitchen and Bar are also the owners of Sandy's Tavern.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed. A "refresher" was only done due to the
owner's having a full background done for Sandy's Tavern in March of 2021. The results of the investigation
are summarized in an attachment to this report. The Public Safety Director has reviewed the background
investigation report. There is nothing in the report that would cause the Public Safety Director to recommend
denial of the requested licenses.
RECOM MENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the issuance of new On Sale
Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses for Dagobah, LLC d/b/a Protagonist Kitchen and Bar located
at 6601 Penn Avenue South.
BASIS OF RECO MMEND ATION:
A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for issuance of licenses:
The required license fees have been paid.
Real estate taxes are current.
Proof of commercial and liquor liability insurance have been received showing Midwest
Insurance Company and Society Insurance as affording coverage.
As a result of this being a new request for On Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses, there
is no need for an accountant's statement regarding food/alcohol ratio.
As stated in the Executive Summary, the Public Safety Director has reviewed the background
information and sees no basis for denial.
On Sale I ntoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to
comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines the discipline they can expect if any ongoing
problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment.
There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance of On Sale I ntoxicating
and Sunday Liquor licenses.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Richfield City Code Section 1202 requires owners of On Sale I ntoxicating and Sunday Liquor licensed
establishments to comply with all the provisions of both City Code and State Statutes.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
There are no critical timing issues.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
Licensing fees have been received.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met which outlines the discipline they can
expect if any on-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owners of
the establishment.
The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on December 2, 2021.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
The Council could deny the requested licenses, which would mean the current applicants would not be
able to serve On Sale I ntoxicating liquor; however, Public Safety has found no basis to deny the
license.
Schedule the hearing for another date; however, this will delay the licensing process.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
J ahn Brink/Pejmon Nadimi - Owner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
B ackground S ummary for P rotagonist K itchen and B ar C over Memo
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION FOR
DOGOBAH, LLC D/B/A PROTAGONIST KITCHEN AND BAR
Officers:
Pejmon Nadimi- Owner
Jahn Brink- Owner
Criminal Histories:
Criminal history checks were conducted on the applicants. Pejmon Nadimi has one
conviction, from 2008, for driving while intoxicated. Jahn Brink has no convictions
outside traffic offenses. Both applicants will be serving as the On-Premise
Managers.
Premises:
The applicant has provided a copy of the rental agreement showing Woodlake
Centre MOB, LLC as holding financial interest as lessor of the property.
Record of Service Calls:
Being this is a new business, there are no records of service calls.
Violations:
Being this is a new business, there are no violations for sale of alcohol to underage
youth.
Routine Information:
On Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses require owners of these
establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines the discipline
they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been
given to the owners of the establishment.
There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal
of On Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses.
The notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on
December 2, 2021.
AGENDA SECTION:PUBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA ITEM #10.
STAFF REPORT NO. 193
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
12/14/2021
REPORT PREPARED BY: Julie Urban, Housing & Redevelopment Manager
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: John Stark, Community Development Director
12/7/2021
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager
12/8/2021
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing to approve host designation for the City of Bethel to issue housing bonds to finance an
affordable housing development to be constructed by MWF Properties at 7700 Pillsbury Avenue South.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
MWF Properties (Developer) is proposing to develop 55 units of affordable apartments on property owned by
the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), located at 7700 Pillsbury Avenue South. The proposed
project includes a mix of bedroom sizes, two units for people with disabilities and affordable at 30 percent of
the Area Median Income (AMI), with the remainder affordable at 60 percent of the AMI. Some of the units
may also be made affordable at 50 percent of the AMI with the use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF). The
Developer is proposing to finance the project with tax exempt revenue bonds issued through Minnesota
Management and Budget (MMB) and paired with four percent tax credits, TIF, and a land write-down.
The Developer is asking that the City of Richfield provide host approval so that the City of Bethel can issue
bonds for the MWF project. Given current staffing constraints at the City, the City prefers not to issue bonds
for the project at this time. The City of Bethel has agreed to issue the bonds to finance the project. Approval
of the attached Cooperative Agreement (Agreement) is necessary to formalize this arrangement.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve a resolution providing host approval to
and consenting to the issuance, sale, and delivery by the City of Bethel of its revenue bonds and
approving and authorizing the execution of a Cooperative Agreement.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT
In 2019, the Developer submitted an application for nine percent tax credits for the project
but was not awarded funding.
On October 18, 2022, a work session was held with policymakers to review the proposed project.
Due to the shortage of staff in the City's Finance Division, a host city was sought to issue the
bonds.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Section 147(f) of the I nternal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, requires that the City Council
must consent to the issuance of the bonds.
Prior to the issuance of the bonds, the City must conduct a public hearing as required by
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C and Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The Developer plans to submit an application for bonds in J anuary 2022. A decision regarding the
award is expected in February. I f funds are not awarded, the Developer has the option of applying
to the Unified Pool in J uly for any leftover bonds.
The HRA will consider a Development Agreement with the Developer on December 20, 2021.
I f the Project is awarded bonds and tax credits, land use entitlements and a request to create a
TI F district would come before the HRA and City Council in March or April.
I f the Project is awarded housing allocation from Minnesota Management and Budget, the
Developer has 180 days to close on the bonds.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
The Developer will be requesting up to $10,000,000 in taxable or tax-exempt bonds.
There is no financial impact to the City of Richfield. The principal and interest on the bonds will be
paid by the project and does not constitute a debt of either city.
As the host city, the City of Bethel will receive the fee for hosting the bond issuance.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
Kennedy & Graven will serve as the bond counsel for the issuance.
Because the project is located within the Richfield City limits, the City needs to conduct the public
hearing on the bond issuance and grant host city approval for another municipality to issue the
bonds.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
Decide not to consent to the issuance, sale and delivery of revenue bonds by the City of Bethel for the
proposed project.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
Gina Fiorini, Kennedy & Graven, and Ryan Schwickert, MW F Properties
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Resolution Resolution L etter
C ooperative A greement C ontract/A greement
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. _________
RESOLUTION PROVIDING HOST APPROVAL TO AND
CONSENTING TO THE ISSUANCE, SALE, AND DELIVERY BY
THE CITY OF BETHEL OR ANOTHER MUNICIPALITY OF THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA OF ITS REVENUE BONDS;
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT; AND TAKING OTHER ACTIONS
WITH RESPECT THERETO
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the “City Council”) of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota (the “City”), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. Pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, particularly
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended, a municipality is authorized to issue revenue
bonds to finance multifamily housing developments.
1.02. Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.656, as amended, authorizes a municipality to
issue obligations to finance the acquisition or improvement of property located outside of the
corporate boundaries of such municipality if the obligations are issued under a joint powers
agreement between the municipality issuing the obligations and the municipality in which the
property to be acquired or improved is located. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
471.59, as amended, by the terms of a joint powers agreement entered into through action of
their governing bodies, two or more municipalities may jointly or cooperatively exercise any
power common to the contracting parties or any similar powers, including those which are the
same except for the territorial limits within which they may be exercised and the joint powers
agreement may provide for the exercise of such powers by one or more of the participating
governmental units on behalf of the other participating units.
1.03. MWF Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, or an affiliate or
assign (collectively, the “Borrower”), has proposed that the City approve the issuance by the
City of Bethel, Minnesota or another municipality of the State of Minnesota (collectively, the
“Issuer”) of one or more series of taxable or tax-exempt revenue bonds (the “Bonds”) in an
estimated principal amount not to exceed $10,000,000. The Borrower intends to apply the
proceeds of the Bonds to acquire, construct, and equip an approximately 55-unit multifamily
housing development, including a number of units of housing for people with disabilities,
accompanied by supportive services, and facilities functionally related and subordinate thereto
located at 7700 Pillsbury Avenue South in the City (the “Project”). The Borrower will own the
Project.
1.04. Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”),
and regulations promulgated thereunder require that, prior to the issuance of the Bonds, the
City Council must consent to the issuance of the Bonds by the Issuer after conducting a pub lic
hearing thereon preceded by publication of a notice of public hearing (in the form required by
2
Section 147(f) of the Code and applicable regulations) in a newspaper of general circulation
within the City at least seven (7) days prior to the public hearing date.
1.05. A notice of public hearing (the “Public Notice”) was published at least seven (7)
days before the regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council on the date hereof in the Sun
Current, the official newspaper of and a newspaper of general circulation in the City, with
respect to the required public hearing under Section 147(f) of the Code.
1.06. On the date hereof, the City Council conducted a public hearing at which a
reasonable opportunity was provided for interested individuals to express their views, both orally
and in writing, on providing consent to the issuance of the Bonds by the Issuer pursuant to the
requirements of Section 147(f) of the Code and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
1.07. The City and the Issuer are proposing to enter into a Cooperative Agreement
(the “Cooperative Agreement”) pursuant to which the City will consent to the issuance of the
Bonds by the Issuer to finance the acquisition, construction, and equipping of the Project, and
the Issuer will agree to issue the Bonds to finance the acquisition, construction, and equipping
of the Project.
1.08. The Borrower has represented to the City that the principal of, premium (if any),
and interest on the Bonds: (i) shall be payable solely from the revenue pledged therefor;
(ii)shall not constitute a debt of the City or the Issuer within the meaning of any constitutional or
statutory limitation; (iii) shall not constitute nor give rise to a pecuniary liability of the City or the
Issuer or a charge against its general credit or taxing powers; and (iv) shall not constitute a
charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City or the Issuer
other than the interest of the Issuer as set forth in one or more loan agreements to be entered
into between the Issuer and the Borrower.
Section 2. Approvals.
2.01. The City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City to approve the
issuance of the Bonds by the Issuer to finance, in part, the acquisition, construction, and
equipping of the Project and hereby consents to the issuance of the Bonds by the Issuer for the
purposes set forth above.
2.02. The Bonds shall be special, limited obligations of the Issuer payable solely from
the revenues and security provided by the Borrower to the Issuer and pledged to the payment
of the Bonds.
2.03. The Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute
and deliver the Cooperative Agreement and any other documents deemed necessary to fulfill
the intentions of this resolution. All of the provisions of the Cooperative Agreement, when
executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution as
fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and
effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Cooperative Agreement shall be
substantially in the form on file with the City which is hereby approved, with such omissions and
insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor and the City
Manager, in their discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor and the
City Manager shall be conclusive evidence of such determination.
3
2.04. The Mayor and the City Manager and other officers, employees, and agents of
the City are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to bond counsel, the trustee,
and the original purchaser of the Bonds certified copies of all proceedings and records of the
City relating to the approval of the issuance of the Bonds, including a certification of this
resolution.
2.05. The Borrower shall pay to the City any and all costs paid or incurred by the City
in connection with this resolution, the Cooperative Agreement, the Bonds or the financing
contemplated herein, whether or not the financing is carried to completion, and whether or not
the Bonds or operative instruments are executed and delivered.
2.06. The electronic signature of the Mayor, the City Manager, and/or the City Clerk to
this resolution, the Cooperative Agreement, and any certificate authorized to be executed
hereunder shall be as valid as an original signature of such party and shall be effective to bind
the City thereto. For purposes hereof, (i) “electronic signature” means a manually signed
original signature that is then transmitted by electronic means; and (ii) “transmitted by electronic
means” means sent in the form of a facsimile or sent via the internet as a portable document
format (“pdf”) or other replicating image attached to an electronic mail or internet message.
Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and
after its passage.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
December, 2021.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kari Sinning, City Clerk
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
THIS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT, dated as of ____________ 1, 2022 (the “Cooperative
Agreement”), is made and entered into between the CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA (the “Host
City”), and the CITY OF BETHEL, MINNESOTA (the “Issuer”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, MWF Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, or an affiliate or
assign (collectively, the “Borrower”), has proposed to finance the acquisition, construction, and
equipping of an approximately 55-unit multifamily housing development, including a number of units of
housing for people with disabilities, accompanied by supportive services, and facilities functionally
related and subordinate thereto located at 7700 Pillsbury Avenue South in the Host City (the “Project”);
and
WHEREAS, the Host City and the Issuer are authorized by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 462C, as amended (the “Act”), to issue revenue obligations to finance multifamily housing
developments; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.656, as amended, municipalities may
issue obligations to finance the acquisition or improvement of property located outside of the corporate
boundaries of such municipality if the obligations are issued under a joint powers agreement in which one
or more of the parties to the joint powers agreement issue such obligations and the property is located
entirely within the boundaries of one or more of the parties to the joint powers agreement; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, as amended, by the terms of a joint
powers agreement entered into through action of their governing bodies, two or more municipalities may
jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting parties or any similar powers,
including those which are the same except for the territorial limits within which they may be exercised,
and the joint powers agreement may provide for the exercise of such powers by one or more of the
participating municipalities on behalf of the other participating municipalities; and
WHEREAS, the revenue obligation proposed to be issued by the Issuer for the benefit of the
Borrower will not constitute a general or moral obligation of or a pledge of the full faith and credit or
taxing powers of the Host City, the Issuer, the State of Minnesota, or any other agency or political
subdivision thereof, but will be payable solely from the revenues pledged and assigned thereto pursuant
to a revenue agreement between the Issuer and the Borrower; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the Host City and the City Council of the Issuer have authorized
the execution and delivery of this Cooperative Agreement; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the Host City and the Issuer agree as follows:
1. In order to finance the acquisition, construction, and equipping of the Project, the Issuer
shall issue one or more series of taxable or tax-exempt revenue obligations (the “Bonds”) in the estimated
principal amount not to exceed $10,000,000.
Error! Unknown document property name. 2
2.The Host City and the Issuer have each conducted a public hearing with respect to the
issuance of the Bonds and the Project.
3.The Host City and the Issuer have each adopted a resolution approving this Cooperative
Agreement and authorizing its execution and delivery.
4.The Host City hereby consents to and approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Issuer
for the purposes stated herein.
5.Except to the extent specifically provided herein, the Host City and the Issuer shall not
incur any obligations or liabilities to each other as a result of the issuance of the Bonds. The Bonds shall
be special, limited obligations of the Issuer payable solely from proceeds, revenues, and other amounts
specifically pledged to the payment of the Bonds. The Bonds and the interest thereon shall not constitute
or give rise to a pecuniary liability, general or moral obligation, or a pledge of the full faith and credit or
taxing powers of the Host City, the Issuer, the State of Minnesota, or any political subdivision of the
above, within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory provisions.
6.All costs incurred by the Host City and the Issuer in the authorization, execution,
delivery, and performance of this Cooperative Agreement and all related transactions shall be paid by the
Borrower.
7.This Cooperative Agreement may not be terminated by any party so long as any of the
Bonds are outstanding.
8.This Cooperative Agreement may be amended by the Host City or the Issuer at any time.
No amendment may impair the rights of the Borrower or the holders of the Bonds.
9.This Cooperative Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which
shall be regarded as an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same agreement.
10.This Cooperative Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Error! Unknown document property name. S-1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, duly authorized officers of the Host City and the Issuer have executed
this Cooperative Agreement as of the date and year first written above.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA,
as Host City
By
Its Mayor
By
Its City Manager
Error! Unknown document property name. S-2
Execution page of the Issuer to the Cooperative Agreement, dated as of the date and year first written
above.
CITY OF BETHEL, MINNESOTA,
as the Issuer
By
Its Mayor
By
Its City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:PUBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA ITEM #11.
STAFF REPORT NO. 194
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
12/14/2021
REPORT PREPARED BY: Julie Urban, Housing & Redevelopment Manager
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: John Stark, Community Development Director
12/8/2021
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager
12/8/2021
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing to approve host designation for the City of Bethel to issue tax exempt Bonds to finance
capital improvements at Partnership Academy.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In 2018, Partnership Academy requested that the City of Richfield issue Bonds for the charter school located
at 6500 Nicollet Avenue South, but the City was unable to assist as the City was planning to issue their own
Bonds at the time. Instead, the City of Bethel agreed to issue the Bonds, and we provided host approval, as
required by state and federal law.
Partnership Academy is preparing to issue additional debt for its facility and would like the City of Bethel to
issue additional conduit charter school lease revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $5,000,000 (the
"Bonds") under the documents executed in 2018. The Bonds are for a proposed 7,540 square-foot expansion
to its existing building, the details of which would require additional City approvals. The request at this time is
to approve host approval only. The City of Richfield is required to hold a public hearing and approve a
resolution granting host approval to the City of Bethel to issue the Bonds.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve a resolution providing host approval to
and consenting to the issuance, sale, and delivery by the City of Bethel of its revenue Bonds.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT
In 2018, Partnership Academy constructed a new school building for its charter school. At that
time, the City was unable to issue Bonds for the project so granted host approval to the City of
Bethel to issue Bonds on the school's behalf.
B.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, requires that the City Council
must consent to the issuance of the Bonds.
Prior to the issuance of the Bonds, the City must conduct a public hearing as required by
Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
Partnership Academy has requested that the City Council hold a public hearing on December
14 in order to stay on their current timeline to close on the Bonds in early 2022.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
Partnership Academy is seeking up to $5,000,000 in taxable or tax-exempt charter school lease
revenue Bonds.
There is no financial impact to the City of Richfield. The principal and interest on the Bonds will
be paid by the project and does not constitute a debt of either city.
As the issuer, the City of Bethel will receive the fee for the Bond issuance.
I t is more efficient for the City of Bethel to issue the 2022 Bonds because it was the conduit
issuer for the 2018 Bonds and the 2022 Bonds will be issued on a parity basis under the same
documents.
The Bonds are conduit revenue Bonds. They will not constitute a general obligation of the City
and will not be subject to any debt limitation imposed on the City and the issuance of the Bonds
will not have any adverse impact on the credit rating of the City, even in the event that the
borrower or the school encounters financial difficulties with respect to the project.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
Kennedy & Graven will serve as the Bond counsel for the issuance.
Because the project is located within the Richfield City limits, the City needs to conduct the public
hearing on the Bond issuance and grant host city approval for another municipality to issue the
Bonds.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
Decide not to consent to the issuance, sale and delivery of revenue Bonds by the City of Bethel for the
proposed project.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
Gina Fiorini, Kennedy & Graven, and representatives from Partnership Academy, J ake Kizewski and Lisa
Hendricks
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Resolution Resolution L etter
BE250\25\758061.v1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO AND APPROVING THE
ISSUANCE BY THE CITY OF BETHEL OF ITS CHARTER
SCHOOL LEASE REVENUE OBLIGATIONS AND TAKING
OTHER ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the “City”) is a home rule charter city and political
subdivision duly organized and existing under its Charter and the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.1655, as amended
(the “Act”), the City is authorized to carry out the public purposes described in the Act by providing for
the issuance of revenue bonds to provide funds to finance revenue producing enterprises, whether or not
operated for profit; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.656, as amended, authorizes a municipality to issue
obligations to finance the acquisition or improvement of property located outside of the corporate
boundaries of such municipality if the governing body of the city in which the property is located
consents by resolution to the issuance of such obligations; and
WHEREAS, Partnership Academy Association, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation and an
organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
“Company”), has requested that the City of Bethel, Minnesota (the “City of Bethel”) issue its revenue
bonds, in one or more series, as taxable or tax-exempt obligations (the “Bonds”), in a principal amount
not to exceed $5,000,000, and loan the proceeds thereof to the Company for the purpose of (i) financing
the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of a 7,540 square foot expansion to its existing
approximately 40,022 square foot public charter school facility (the “Original Facility”) located at 6500
South Nicollet Avenue in the City (the “Project”) for use as a public charter school for students in pre -
kindergarten through eighth grade; (ii) financing capitalized interest during the construction of the
Project, if necessary; (iii) funding any required reserves; and (iv) paying costs of issuance of the Bonds;
and
WHEREAS, the Project will be owned by the Company and leased to and operated by
Partnership Academy, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation and public charter school (the “School”),
pursuant to a lease agreement; and
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), and
regulations promulgated thereunder require that prior to the issuance of the Bonds, the City Council of the
City (the “City Council”) consent to the issuance of the Bonds by the City of Bethel after conducting a
public hearing thereon preceded by publication of a notice of public hearing (in the form required by
Section 147(f) of the Code and applicable regulations) in a newspaper of general circulation within the
City at least seven (7) days prior to the public hearing date; and
WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was published at least seven (7) days before the regularly
scheduled meeting of the City Council on the date hereof in the Sun Current, the official newspaper of
and a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and a supplemental notice of public hearing was
posted on the public notice section of the City’s website at least seven (7) days before the regularly
BE250\25\758061.v1 2
scheduled meeting of the City Council on the date hereof, with respect to the required public hearing
under Section 147(f) of the Code; and
WHEREAS, on the date hereof, the City Council conducted a public hearing at which a
reasonable opportunity was provided for interested individuals to express their vie ws, both orally and in
writing, on the following: (i) consent to the issuance of the Bonds by the City of Bethel pursuant to the
requirements of Section 147(f) of the Code and the regulations promulgated thereunder; and (ii) approval
of the issuance of the Bonds by the City of Bethel to finance the Project; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
1.The City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City to approve the issuance of
the Bonds by the City of Bethel to finance the Project and hereby consents to the issuance of the Bonds
by the City of Bethel for the purposes set forth above in an amount not to exceed $5,000,000.
2.The Bonds are to be issued by the City of Bethel pursuant to the Act. The Bonds will
constitute special, limited obligations of the City of Bethel secured solely by revenues derived from the
operation of the Project and other security provided by the Company and the School, including but not
limited to a mortgage on the land and buildings comprising the Project. The Bonds will not constitute a
general or moral obligation of the City or the City of Bethel and will not be secured by any taxing powers of
the City or the City of Bethel.
3.The Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver
any documents deemed necessary to fulfill the intentions of this resolution.
4.The Mayor and City Manager and other officers, employees, and agents of the City are
hereby authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to bond counsel and the original purchaser of the
Bonds certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the approval of the issuance
of the Bonds, including a certification of this resolution.
5.The Company will, upon demand, reimburse the City for costs paid or incurred by the
City in connection with this resolution.
6.This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of December,
2021.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:RESOLUTIONS
AGENDA ITEM #12.
STAFF REPORT NO. 195
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
12/14/2021
REPORT PREPARED BY: Jodi Bursheim, Interim Finance Direcor
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager
12/8/2021
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consider resolutions approving the 2021 Revised/2022 Proposed budget and tax levy and related
resolutions.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On September 14, 2021, the City Council approved and certified a preliminary tax levy of $25,127,419 which
included a levy for general fund operations of $20,067,061, a debt service levy of $3,668,535, an equipment
and technology levy of $835,000, and an Economic Development Agency levy of $556,823. Accordingly, the
2022 preliminary gross levy represents a 4.98% increase from the 2021 gross levy.
The final tax levy of $25,127,419 must now be considered and approved by the City Council. Taxpayers have
received individual parcel specific tax notices in anticipation of the truth-in-taxation hearing.
The City of Richfield has conducted and closed its 2021 truth-in-taxation hearing on November 30, 2021.
During the course of the public hearing, there was an opportunity for testimony from the general public.
Information was also presented by staff regarding the proposed levy and budget. No official City Council
action to act on the levy was permissible on the day of the public hearing.
Included for your consideration are salary increases for non-represented employee pay plans. The proposed
increases are 3.00% increase for the Management and General Services, and the Specialized pay plans.
The increases are effective the first full pay period of January 2022.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the resolutions approving the 2021 Revised/2022 Proposed budget and tax levy and
related resolutions.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT
N/A.
B.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
A revised 2021 budget and final 2022 budget and tax levy must be adopted on or before December 28,
2021.
Cities have five working days after December 20 or no later than December 28 to prepare all the
documentation necessary to certify a final levy to the County Auditor and State Department of Revenue.
A proposed 2022 tax levy has been submitted to the City Council for consideration.
Several related resolutions included within the total budget document need to be considered. These
related resolutions are itemized in the attachment section of this staff report.
C.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
N/A.
D.FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The proposed gross tax levy for 2022 is $25,127,419, which includes levies for general fund operations,
debt service, the Richfield EDA, equipment and technology and a tax abatement levy.
The gross tax levy for 2022 reflects a 4.98% increase from the previous year’s gross levy.
The City’s tax capacity rate is anticipated to increase from 54.079% in 2021 to 54.605% in 2022.
3.00% wage increase for Management, General Services, and Specialized pay plan employees effective
January 2022.
E.LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
A truth-in-taxation public hearing for the 2022 proposed budget and tax levy was conducted on November
30, 2021.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
The City Council could adopt a final 2022 budget and tax levy in any amount, which does not exceed the levy
of $25,127,419.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Resolution Adopting 2022 Budget and Tax Levy Resolution Letter
Resolution Budget Revisions Resolution Letter
Resolution revision of 2021 Budget of Various Depts Resolution Letter
Resolution 2022 Mileage Reimbursement Rate Resolution Letter
Resolution Adopting 2022 CIB Resolution Letter
Resolution Adopting 2023-2026 CIP Resolution Letter
Resolution Establishing Utility Rates and Charges for
2022 Resolution Letter
Resolution Public Works On-Call Compensation Resolution Letter
Resolution Approving Car Allowance Reimbursement
Policy Resolution Letter
Resolution General Services Pay Plan 2022 Resolution Letter
Resolution Management Pay Plan 2022 Resolution Letter
Resolution Specialized Pay Plan 2022 Resolution Letter
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A BUDGET AND TAX LEVY
FOR THE YEAR 2022
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Truth in Taxation law provides for a proposed tax levy
to be certified to the County Auditor by September 30, 2022 and then recertified before
December 28, 2021.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1.The budget for the City of Richfield for the year 2022 is hereby approved and
adopted with appropriations for each of the departments to be as follows:
General Fund
Legislative/Executive $ 1,113,300
Administrative Services 973,080
Finance 769,760
Public Safety 10,926,920
Fire Services 5,130,730
Community Development 1,802,120
Public Works 4,751,100
Recreation Services 2,151,320
Transfers Out 250,000
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $27,868,330
2.The estimated gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources,
including general ad valorem tax levies as hereinafter set forth for the year
2022 which are more fully detailed in the City Manager’s official copy of the
2022 budget, are hereby found and determined to be as follows:
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $27,868,330
3.There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a
direct ad valorem tax in the year 2021, payable in 2022 for the following
purposes and in the following amounts:
PURPOSE AMOUNT
General Fund1 $20,067,061
Equipment 835,000
Economic Development Authority 556,823
Debt Service 3,668,535
1 Provision has been made in the General Fund for the payment of the City’s
contributory share to Public Employees’ Retirement Association.
2 General Fund Levy includes all fiscal disparities distribution amounts.
4.The debt service tax levy is included as established in the bond documents
for each of the bonds.
5.The budget for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield for the
year 2022 is hereby ratified and approved. There is hereby levied upon all
taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year
2021, payable in 2022 for the following purposes:
PURPOSE AMOUNT
Housing and Redevelopment Authority $649,960
6.A certified copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the County Auditor.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
December 2021.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kari Sinning, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BUDGET REVISIONS
WHEREAS, the City Charter and Minnesota Statutes provide for a process for adopting
an annual budget and tax levy; and
WHEREAS, the City Charter provides certain authority for the City Manager and/o r City
Council to revise the annual budget; and
WHEREAS, it would be beneficial to restate such authority with the adoption of the
budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota as follows:
1.The City Manager may increase the budget by City Council action provided that
unbudgeted receipts will be available to equal or exceed the increased expenditures.
2.The City Manager may authorize transfers between divisions within a department
providing the transfers do not increase or decrease the department or total budget.
3.The City Manager may transfer budgeted amounts between departments only with the
approval of the City Council.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
December, 2021.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kari Sinning, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 2021 BUDGET OF VARIOUS
DEPARTMENTS
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 11685 appropriated funds for personal services, other
expenses and capital outlays for each department of the City for the year of 20 21; and
WHEREAS, The City Charter, Chapter 7, Section 7.09, gives the Council authority
to transfer unencumbered appropriation balances from one department to another within
the same fund at the request of the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, The City Manager has requested a revision of the 2021 budget
appropriations in accordance with Charter provisions and as detailed in the Proposed 20 22
budget document.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota as follows:
1.That the 2021 appropriations for each department of the General Fund be
amended to establish the following totals:
General Fund
Legislative/Executive $ 1,008,250
Administrative Services 836,330
Finance 755,000
Public Safety 10,484,860
Fire Services 4,995,320
Community Development 1,800,220
Public Works 4,713,500
Recreation Services 2,069,940
Transfer Out 230,000
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $26,893,420
INCREASE $ 158,750
2.Estimated 2021 gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, as the
same are more fully detailed in the City Manager’s official copy of the proposed
2022 budget, are hereby revised as follows:
INCREASE $158,750
3.That the City Manager bring into effect the provisions of this resolution.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
December 2021.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Kari Sinning, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADJUSTMENT TO CITY’S MILEAGE
REIMBURSEMENT RATE TO CONFORM TO INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
STATUTORY MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE
WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service periodically adjusts the
business mileage reimbursement rate; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield’s present mileage reimbursement is in
conformance with the Internal Revenue Service business mileage reimbursement rate;
and
NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota:
1. That the City Manager of Richfield is hereby authorized and directed to adjust the
City’s mileage reimbursement rate to be in conformance with Internal Revenue
Service guidelines.
2. That the City’s mileage reimbursement rate is not to exceed the Internal Revenue
Service guidelines.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
December, 2021.
________________________
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Kari Sinning, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET
WHEREAS, a proposed Capital Improvement Budget for 20 22 has been
prepared and submitted for review by the City Council in accordance with charter
requirements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendations and benefit of
review of these proposed documents by the Planning Commission and has itself
reviewed these proposals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2022 Capital Improvement
Budget in the sum total of $26,575,000 is hereby approved as amended and adopted
with full recognition of the fact that the cost estimates are approximate and are subject
to final cost estimates and that all awards of contracts for these projects are subject to
necessary hearings and must be approved by the City Council in accordance with
established laws and practices governing such action, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and
directed to initiate the procedures which will lead to more formal and de tailed
consideration of these projects in accordance with the aforementioned laws and
practices.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
December, 2021.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kari Sinning, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2023-2026 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, a proposed Capital Improvement Program 20 23-2026 has been
prepared for review by the Planning Commission in accordance with charter requirements;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendations and benefit of
review of these proposed documents by the Planning Commission and has itself reviewed
these proposals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2023-2026 Capital Improvement
Program is hereby approved and adopted subject to annual review and revision;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and
directed to initiate the procedures which will lead to more formal and detailed
consideration of these projects in accordance with the aforementioned laws and practices.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
December, 2021.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kari Sinning, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WASTEWATER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES,
WATER RATES AND CHARGES, SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES, STORM
SEWER RATES AND CHARGES, STREET LIGHT RATES AND CHARGES, AND 6.5%
PENALTY ON PAST DUE ACCOUNTS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES FOR 2022
1.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 705.0 of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield, the rates and charges for use and service of the sanitary sewer system are
hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution
which rescinds Resolution No. 11805
2.Where the rate is not based upon the metered use of water, the following quarterly flat
charges are established effective January 1, 2022 for each billing district as defined in
paragraph 3 of this resolution.
A)Residential per unit
2022
$123.46
B)Commercial -
For the equivalent of 10 or less persons
More than 10, less than 15
More than 15, less than 20
More than 20, less than 26
$123.46
$224.87
$314.99
$420.34
C)Institutional -
For each public or private school the quarterly flat charge shall
be charged whether the school is in session or not (rates being
charged upon average yearly use); shall be based upon the
number of students enrolled at the beginning of the quarterly
billing period or the preceding period if school is not then in
session; and shall be as follows:
For each 100 grade school students or fraction
in excess thereof
For each 100 junior high school students or high
School students or fraction thereof
2022
$129.27
$189.93
D)In addition to the above flat rates there shall be a customer
Charge on each invoice as determined in paragraph 4 of this
resolution and a certification charge as determined in Section
705.0 of the City Ordinance Code.
3.Where the rate for sanitary sewer service is based upon the metered use of water on the
premises, such rates shall be as follows:
A)For all residential premises the rate shall be based on
The actual use, or less of water for the preceding
winter quarter, per thousand gallons with a minimum
of 7,000 gallons, effective January 1, 2022, for each
customer billing district and shall be as follows:
2022
$ 6.15
For the purpose of this paragraph A), the winter
quarter shall be the winter quarter as specified in
Subdivision 3 of said section 705.0.
B)For all commercial, institutional, industrial, and other
premises, the rate per thousand gallons of water
effective January 1, 2022, shall be as follows:$ 6.15
C)A customer charge shall be made for each invoice
rendered effective January 1, 2022 as follows:
If the invoice is for water service, as well as sanitary
sewer service, the customer charge, when collected,
shall be allocated proportionally between the City’s
water fund, sewer fund, and its storm sewer fund
based on the user fees billed for by each fund.
$ 10.00
D)Where the metered use of water on the premises for the
preceding winter quarter was not normal, the rate may be
adjusted as provided in Subdivision 3 of said Section 705.0.
4.The foregoing rates and charges are in addition to, and not in lieu of, other rates and
charges established by ordinance or resolution.
5.The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) will be charged a sanitary sewer rate
based on the Met Council Environmental Services (MCES) rate plus 15% for
Inflow/Infiltration and $1,000.00 per quarter for administration costs.
WATER RATES AND CHARGES FOR 2022
1.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 715.0 of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield, the rates and charges for City water and water service are hereby established
to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution:
The charges due and payable to the City by each water customer of the City, during any
quarter shall be based upon the Conservation Rate Structure.
Water-Tier 1: The first tier rate is ($4.39 per thousand) charged for
consumption of the first 15,000 gallons.
Water-Tier 2: The second tier rate is ($5.27 per thousand) charged for
consumption of 15,001 gallons but less or equal to 25,000
gallons.
Water-Tier 3: The third tier rate is ($6.34 per thousand) charged for
consumption in excess of 25,001 gallons.
Irrigation accounts: All consumption will be charged at the ($6.34 per thousand)
water-tier 3 rate.
The Conservation Rate Structure applies to multi-unit and residential premises.
Commercial, institutional or industrial will only be subject to the Water-tier 1 rates for
domestic use, irrigation accounts will be subject to the Water-tier 3 rate.
Water charges shall be payable quarterly, and all bills issued after January 1, 2022 shall be
at this rate.
SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES FOR 2022
1.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 715.0 of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield, the rates and charges for special customer services are hereby established to
be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution:
2.The charge for establishing a new customer account shall be $15.00 per account.
3.The charge for installation of meters shall be $50.00 per installation.
4.The charge to flush and maintain fire hydrants located on privately owned property within
the City shall be $50.00 per hydrant per year plus any required parts.
5.The charge to thaw and service water pipes on customer property shall be actual cost to
the City plus thirty percent.
6.The charge for any other services not covered by the above shall be based on actual
hourly cost to the City plus thirty percent.
7.The MN lab fee will is $9.72.
STORM SEWER RATES AND CHARGES FOR 2022
1.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 720.0 of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield, the rates and charges for City storm sewer service are hereby established to
be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution:
2.The rates and charges for the use and availability of the system are determined throu gh
the use of a “Residential Equivalent Factor” (REF). One REF is defined as the ratio of
the average volume of surface runoff coming from one acre of land and subjected to a
particular use, to the average volume of runoff coming from one acre of land subj ected to
typical single-family residential use within the City during a standard one year rainfall
event. The REF’s for the following land uses within the City and the billing classifications
for such land uses are as follows:
LAND USES REF CLASSIFICATION
Cemeteries .25 1
Parks and railroads .75 2
Two-family residential 1.00 3
Single-family residential 1.00 4
Public and private schools
and institutional uses 1.25 5
Multiple-family residential
uses and churches 3.00 6
Commercial, industrial, and
Warehouse uses 5.00 7
3.The basic system quarterly rate for storm sewer service is $109.00 per acre of land.
$21.80 is the quarterly rate for a single-family residence, which is considered to have an
acreage of one-fifth acre. The charge made against each parcel of land is then
determined by multiplying the REF for the parcel’s land use classification times the
parcel’s acreage times the basic system rate.
STREET LIGHT RATES AND CHARGES FOR 2022
1.Pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota State Statutes, Section 429.101and Section 825
of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for City street light
service are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this
resolution:
2.The street light fee for residential single family property is $5.77 per quarter.
3.Rates for other land uses will be determined by land use types based on the following
table:
STREET LIGHT LAND USES:
COM All commercial properties, to include multifamily residents (apartments) and
industrial parcels.
RES All residentially coded parcels.
PUB Public buildings, i.e. City Hall, City Garage, and Fire Stations
CHURCH All Churches also to include cemeteries and activity buildings associated with
a Church
SCH All schools, to include private and public schools.
PRK All parks owned by the City of Richfield, also to include Nature Centers and all
“properties” located within city park parcels
DPLX Addresses that split a residential lot, to include townhomes, 3 -plexes, and 4-
plexes.
LAND USE CODE MULTIPLIER To Bill FACTOR
COM (acres>0.2)
if acres≤0.2
5*
----
(5 x ACREAGE)
1
RES ---- 1
PUB (acres>0.2)
if acres ≤0.2
5
----
(5 x ACREAGE)
1
CHURCH (acres>0.2)
if acres ≤0.8
if acres ≤0.2
1.25**
----
----
(1.25 x ACREAGE)
1
1
SCH (acres>0.2)
if acres ≤0.8
if acres ≤0.2
1.25
----
----
(1.25 x ACREAGE)
1
1
PRK 1.25 (1.25 x ACREAGE)
DPLX ---- 0.5
4.The multiplier of “5” is based on the definition that a residential lot is 1/5 of an acre;
hence multiplying acreage by 5 produces the equivalent number of residential lots.
5.The multiplier of “1.25” is based on the definition that a residential lot is 1/5 of an acre
and multiplying acreage by 5 produces the equivalent number of residential lots.
However, the total area of each parcel is not proportional to the number of street lights in
an equivalent residential area so the factor of 5 is reduced by 75%, producing 1.25.
6.5% PENALTY ON PAST DUE ACCOUNTS
1.Customers will have twenty eight (28) days to pay their water, sanitary sewer, storm
sewer, and street light quarterly bills from the date of the mailing by the City. Any unpaid
amount will be added to the next quarterly bill along with a 6.5% penalty on the
delinquent amount.
2.The penalty charge when billed on past due accou nts shall be allocated proportionally
between the City’s water fund, sewer fund, and storm sewer fund based on the user fees
billed for each fund.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day
of December, 2021.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kari Sinning, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PUBLIC WORKS ON-CALL COMPENSATION
RATES FOR 2022
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to provide Public Works
Superintendent/Managers/Supervisors compensation for being on -call for possible
Public Works emergencies; and
WHEREAS, the good judgment of a Public Works Superintendent/Managers/
Supervisors is needed to provide quality response to Public Works emergencies such
as water main breaks, street light knock downs, and sewer main backups; and
WHEREAS, the City Council found it necessary to establish a policy to
provide such employees with on-call compensation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Richfield hereby adopts the following On-call Compensation Rates:
Public Works Superintendents/Managers/Supervisors who remain on -call by
carrying the emergency cell phone (or similar device) for a period of one week will be
compensated at a rate of $120 a month in 2022.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day
of December, 2021.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kari Sinning, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CAR ALLOWANCE REIMBURSEMENT POLICY
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined not to provide certain positions with a City
vehicle for the performance of the employee’s official City duties; and
WHEREAS, said employees are required to use their own personal vehicle in the
performance of their official duties; and
WHEREAS, such employees are responsible for the fuel, maintenance, insurance and all
other expenses required for the upkeep of their personal vehicles; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to establish a policy to provide such
employees with a car allowance reimbursement; and
WHEREAS, the car allowance is an estimated amount intended to reimburse such
employees for the reasonable expenses that they will incur in the performance of their official
duties; and
WHEREAS, the car allowance reimbursement represents the City’s full obligation and
responsibility regarding the provision of automobile transportation to such employees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield
hereby adopts the following car allowance reimbursement schedule at the amount of $225 per
month:
Public Works Director
Liquor Operations Director
Superintendents
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of December 2021.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kari Sinning, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2021 GENERAL SERVICES
SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the compensation personnel policy of the City of Richfield provides
for the adoption of a pay plan for General Services employees from time -to-time, and
WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2022 pay plan for position
classifications for General Services employees. The City Manager is authorized to add
or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each pay grade are
attached.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby
does establish for the year 2021 the following pay plan, which is to be effective the first
full pay period of January 2021, and subject to all applicable provisions of the personnel
policy and City Code:
Effective the first full pay period of January 2022
STEP 2 3 4 5 6
RANGE
GS1 YR 46,508.80 49,067.20 52,000.00 53,539.20
MO 3,875.73 4,088.93 4,333.33 4,461.60
BW 1,788.80 1,887.20 2,000.00 2,059.20
HR 22.36 23.59 25.00 25.74
GS2 YR 50,523.20 53,040.00 55,764.80 58,572.80
MO 4,210.27 4,420.00 4,647.07 4,881.07
BW 1,943.20 2,040.00 2,144.80 2,252.80
HR 24.29 25.50 26.81 28.16
GS3 YR 53,643.20 56,534.40 59,321.60 62,337.60 65,894.40
MO 4,470.27 4,711.20 4,943.47 5,194.80 5,491.20
BW 2,063.20 2,174.40 2,281.60 2,397.60 2,534.40
HR 25.79 27.18 28.52 29.97 31.68
GS4 YR 58,572.80 61,568.00 64,688.00 67,870.40 71,448.00
MO 4,881.07 5,130.67 5,390.67 5,655.87 5,954.00
BW 2,252.80 2,368.00 2,488.00 2,610.40 2,748.00
HR 28.16 29.60 31.10 32.63 34.35
GS5 YR 64,688.00 67,870.40 71,448.00 74,984.00 78,769.60
MO 5,390.67 5,655.87 5,954.00 6,248.67 6,564.13
BW 2,488.00 2,610.40 2,748.00 2,884.00 3,029.60
(Revised 12/2021)
HR 31.10 32.63 34.35 36.05 37.87
GS5E YR 69,472.00 72,924.80 76,627.20 80,475.20 88,420.80
MO 5,789.33 6,077.07 6,385.60 6,706.27 7,368.40
BW 2,672.00 2,804.80 2,947.20 3,095.20 3,400.80
HR 33.40 35.06 36.84 38.69 42.51
GS6 YR 71,448.00 74,984.00 78,769.60 82,804.80 91,270.40
MO 5,954.00 6,248.67 6,564.13 6,900.40 7,605.87
BW 2,748.00 2,884.00 3,029.60 3,184.80 3,510.40
HR 34.35 36.05 37.87 39.81 43.88
GS6E YR 76,627.20 80,496.00 84,572.80 88,836.80 98,113.60
MO 6,385.60 6,708.00 7,047.73 7,403.07 8,176.13
BW 2,947.20 3,096.00 3,252.80 3,416.80 3,773.60
HR 36.84 38.70 40.66 42.71 47.17
a.Step 2 - Start
b.Step 3 - One year from anniversary date.
If an employee successfully passes probationary period.
c.Step 4 - One year since last increase.
If an employee is rated Below Expectations, the employee may not advance to
Step 4 until performance is rated Meets Expectations or higher.
d.Step 5 - One year since last increase.
An employee must achieve a Meets Expectations rating or better in all areas of
responsibility before advancing to Step 5.
e.Step 6 - One year since last increase.
An employee must achieve a Meets Expectations rating or better in all areas of
responsibility before advancing to Step 6.
Employees whose competency level and/or performance are rated Below Expectations
may not advance to the next step until their performance improves.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
December 2021.
Maria Regan Gonzalez Mayor
ATTEST:
Kari Sinning City Clerk
(Revised 12/2021)
GENERAL SERVICES POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE
GRADE POSITION TITLES CLASS
1 Office Assistant Non-Exempt
Customer Service Representative Non-Exempt
2 Community Development Technician Non-Exempt
Community Service Officer Non-Exempt
Custodian Non-Exempt
Liquor Operations Shift Leader Non-Exempt
Licensing Clerk- Motor Vehicles/ Business Non-Exempt
Police Cadet Non-Exempt
Senior Office Assistant Non-Exempt
3 Accounting Clerk Non-Exempt
Assistant Planner Non-Exempt
Environmental Health Specialist Non-Exempt
Housing Inspections Clerk Non-Exempt
Lead Licensing Clerk Non-Exempt
Utility Billing Clerk Non-Exempt
4 Administrative Assistant Non-Exempt
Deputy City Clerk Non-Exempt
Engineering Assistant Non-Exempt
Forester Non-Exempt
Project Sustainability Specialist Non-Exempt
Records Technician Non-Exempt
Water Resources/GIS Specialist Non-Exempt
5 Code Compliance Officer Non-Exempt
Housing Specialist Part-time Non-Exempt
Information Technologies Technician/Help Desk Non-Exempt
Recreation Specialist Non-Exempt
Recreation Supervisor, Part-Time Non-Exempt
Communications Specialist, Part-Time Non-Exempt
Police Media and Data Specialist Non-Exempt
Engineering Technician Non-Exempt
Human Resources Specialist Non-Exempt
5E Management Analyst Exempt
Crime Prevention Specialist Exempt
Executive Analyst Exempt
Naturalist Exempt
Payroll Accountant Exempt
Records Supervisor Exempt
Recreation Supervisor Exempt
Planner Exempt
Motor Vehicle Licensing Supervisor Exempt
6 Civil Engineer Non-Exempt
Water Resources Engineer Non-Exempt
GIS Coordinator Non-Exempt
Information Technologies Technician Non-Exempt
Trade/Building Inspector or Trade/Electrical Inspector Non-Exempt
6E Accountant Exempt
(Revised 12/2021)
Community Development Accountant Exempt
Multifamily Housing Program Administrator Exempt
Equity Administrator Exempt
City Clerk Exempt
Senior Building Inspector Exempt
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2021 MANAGEMENT
SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the compensation personnel policy of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for Management employees
from time-to-time; and
WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2022 pay plan for position classifications for Management employees.
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that adjustments to the pay plan may be necessary at times to address inequities or other issues
due to external and internal factors,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to make adjustments to the pay plan to: add or reclassify
positions as necessary; make equity adjustments to individual positions when warranted; and, resolve other issues that may arise to aid in the fair
and equitable implementation of the pay plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 2022 the following pay plan, which
is to be effective the first full pay period of January 2022, and subject to all applicable provisions of the personnel policy and City Code:
MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION PLAN
PAY GRADE MINIMUM MID-RANGE MAXIMUM
M-L YR 71,843.20 82,035.20 92,144.00
MO 5,986.93 6,836.27 7,678.67
BW 2,763.20 3,155.20 3,544.00
HR 34.54 39.44 44.30
M-1 YR 82,908.80 94,827.20 106,620.80
MO 6,909.07 7,902.27 8,885.07
BW 3,188.80 3,647.20 4,100.80
HR 39.86 45.59 51.26
M-2 YR 93,475.20 106,849.60 120,203.20
MO 7,789.60 8,904.13 10,016.93
BW 3,595.20 4,109.60 4,623.20
HR 44.94 51.37 57.79
M-3 YR 101,899.20 116,459.20 130,956.80
MO 8,491.60 9,704.93 10,913.07
BW 3,919.20 4,479.20 5,036.80
HR 48.99 55.99 62.96
M-4L YR 107,494.40 122,865.60 138,153.60
MO 8,957.87 10,238.80 11,512.80
BW 4,134.40 4,725.60 5,313.60
HR 51.68 59.07 66.42
M-4 YR 114,504.00 128,294.40 144,352.00
MO 9,542.00 10,691.20 12,029.33
BW 4,404.00 4,934.40 5,552.00
HR 55.05 61.68 69.40
M-5A YR 121,326.40 137,883.20 154,960.00
MO 10,110.53 11,490.27 12,913.33
BW 4,666.40 5,303.20 5,960.00
HR 58.33 66.29 74.50
M-5B YR 125,528.00 143,395.20 161,366.40
MO 10,460.67 11,949.60 13,447.20
BW 4,828.00 5,515.20 6,206.40
HR 60.35 68.94 77.58
Normal Progression Through Management Compensation Plan
The Range Adjustment shall be applied to Management employees who have achieved at least a Meets Expectations performance
evaluation during the preceding year. Employees who have received a Below Expectations performance evaluation are eligible for ½ of
the following year’s range adjustment. The Range Adjustment is effective January 1, 2022. Individual Merit adjustments will normally
be made effective on an employee’s anniversary date and will vary in size, depending on the individual’s performance ratin g and
current position in the salary range in line with the following criteria.
PERFORMANCE POSITION IN SALARY RANGE
RATING UNDER 95% MIDPOINT 95-105% OF MIDPOINT OVER 105% OF MIDPOINT
Outstanding 3.5 to 5% 1.6 to 4% 1 to 2%
Above Average 1.6 to 3.5% .5 to 1.5% .5 to 1%
Satisfactory .5 to 1.5% No Merit Increase No Merit Increase
Needs Improvement No Merit Increase. Requires mandatory 6-month evaluation.
Not Satisfactory No future increases until performance improves to at least Satisfactory. Performance and
employee status subject to mandatory review every 3 months.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of December 2021.
Maria Regan Gonzalez Mayor
ATTEST:
Kari Sinning City Clerk
MANAGEMENT POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE
GRADE POSITION TITLES CLASS
M-L Liquor Store Manager Exempt
M-1 Assistant IT Manager/ Business Analyst Exempt
Facility/Program Manager Exempt
Operations Supervisor Exempt
Project Engineer Exempt
Support Services Supervisor Exempt
Utilities Supervisor Exempt
M-2 Assistant City Engineer Exempt
Assistant Utilities Superintendent Exempt
Chief Building Official Exempt
Operations Manager (Parks/Fleet) Exempt
Transportation Engineer Exempt
Communications Manager Exempt
Battalion Chief Exempt
Housing Manager Exempt
M-3 Assistant Fire Chief Exempt
Human Resources Manager Exempt
Information Technologies Manager Exempt
Operations Superintendent Exempt
Planning & Redevelopment Manager/Asst.
CD Director
Exempt
Utilities Superintendent Exempt
Government Buildings Superintendent Exempt
City Engineer Exempt
M-4L Liquor Operations Director Exempt
M-4 Deputy Public Safety Director Exempt
M-5A Assistant City Manager Exempt
Finance Director Exempt
Fire Services Director/Fire Chief Exempt
Recreation Services Director Exempt
M-5B Community Development Director Exempt
Public Safety Director/Police Chief Exempt
Public Works Director Exempt
(Rev. 11/2021)
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2021 SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN
WHEREAS, the compensation personnel policy of the City of Richfield provides
that the pay grades, the number of steps or range of each pay grade, the compensation
rates in each pay grade and the method of normal progression through the pay grade
be established by Council resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2022 pay plan for the
positions for which there are no essentially similar position classification in other regular
pay plans. The City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary.
Examples of positions in each pay grade are attached.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does
establish for the year 2022 the following pay plan which is to be effective the first full
pay period of January 2022 and subject to the provisions of the personnel policy and
City Code:
EFFECTIVE THE FIRST FULL PAY PERIOD OF
JAN 2022 SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN INTERMITTENT AND
SEASONAL
Pay Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
SP1-E/NE HR LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
SP2-E/NE HR LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
SP3-E/NE HR 11.29 11.92 12.47
SP4-E/NE HR 11.66 12.28 12.85 13.49
SP5-E/NE HR 12.54 13.24 13.84 14.57
SP6-E/NE HR 13.60 14.30 14.98 15.76
SP7-E/NE HR 14.67 15.42 16.17 16.97
SP8-E/NE HR 15.85 16.66 17.47 18.33
SP9-E/NE HR 17.12 18.00 18.86 19.81
SP10-
E/NE HR 18.53 19.43 20.44 21.48
Normal Progression Through the Specialized Pay Plan
Individual employees will be eligible to received increases to the next higher -grade step
based on individual performance and the following progression:
Step 1 - Start
Step 2 – Minimum 500 hours worked per year from anniversary start date or two
years from anniversary date
Step 3 – Minimum 500 hours worked per year from anniversary date or two years
from last increase.
Step 4 – Minimum 500 hours worked per year from anniversary date or two years
from last increase
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
December 2022.
Maria Regan Gonzalez Mayor
ATTEST:
Kari Sinning City Clerk
SP11-
E/NE HR 19.93 20.99 22.02 23.10
SP12-
E/NE HR 21.61 22.62 23.73 25.01
SP13-
E/NE HR 23.13 24.37 25.61 26.96
1
2
3 E Cashier/Concession
E Winter Sports Attendant
4 NE Arena Event Attendant
NE Dance Coordinator
NE Skate Coordinator
5 NE Adaptive Leader/Specialist
NE Inclusion Facilitator
NE Intern
E Lead Concession
E Lifeguard
E Outdoor Skating/Winter Sports
Supervisor
E Playground Leader
NE Teen Leader
6 NE Building Attendant
NE Sports Event Attendant
NE Liquor Sales Associate
NE Receptionist
7 NE Accounting Clerk – Int. & Sub.
NE
NE
Housing Intern
Ice Resurfacer Operator
NE Maintenance Worker
NE Naturalist I
NE Head Lifeguard
8 NE Adaptive Coordinator
NE Farmers Market Coordinator
NE Office Assistant - Int. & Sub.
E Playground Coordinator
E Summer Food Program Coord.
NE Teen Coordinator
E Tennis Coordinator
9 NE Administrative Services Clerk
NE Code Enforcement Tech
E Pool Supervisor
NE Video Production Assistant
10 NE Engineering Aide/Intern
11 NE Motor Vehicle Licensing Clerk
12 E Pool Coordinator
13 NE Utility Billing Assistant
NE Videographer
Instructors
NE Building Inspector
NE Figure Skating
NE Hockey (Arena)
NE Sports Official
NE Substitute Naturalist
NE Dance
E Cross Country Ski
E Hockey (outside)
E Tennis
E WSI
OTHER
Instructor’s Range: $5.75 - $50
Election Judge $10.00
Election Co-Chair $12.00
Election Chairperson $13.00
NE=Non-Exempt, may work up to 40 hours per week without overtime pay.
E-Exempt may work up to 48 hours per week without overtime pay.
All Pool positions are exempt from overtime, even Concessions.
All Playground and Outdoor Rink positions are exempt.
All Community Center, Wood Lake Nature Center, Ice Arena and Maintenance positions are non-exempt.
(Revised 11/21)
AGENDA SECTION:RESOLUTIONS
AGENDA ITEM #13.
STAFF REPORT NO. 196
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
12/14/2021
REPORT PREPARED BY: Julie Urban, Housing & Redevelopment Manager
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: John Stark, Community Development Director
12/7/2021
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager
12/7/2021
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consider a resolution designating buildings located at 6501-13 Penn Avenue South as structurally
substandard within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and authorizing their demolition.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) owns the property located at 6501-13 Penn Avenue South.
Two buildings are located on the property, and one of the two buildings was recently determined to be unsafe
by the City's Building Official.
The HRA has been working with a development team to redevelop the property with multi-family housing. The
project is currently waiting to hear if it has been awarded tax credit financing. If the project receives funding,
construction could begin at the end of 2022. Ideally, demolition would be undertaken by the developer in
conjunction with the beginning of construction; however, given the safety issues at the site and the length of
time before construction would begin, demolition should take place now.
The current development proposal will also require local public financing through the form of tax increment.
While a Housing Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District is the mostly likely tool for providing financial
assistance, a Redevelopment TIF is a possible option. In order for the site to qualify as a Redevelopment
TIF District, the property within the proposed District boundaries must be found to be blighted and
structurally substandard under the requirements established by Minnesota State Statutes. The
architecture firm LHB, Inc. has conducted an extensive evaluation of the site and issued the
attached report which concludes that the site and the buildings it contains meet the requirements
necessary to qualify as a Redevelopment TIF District.
The attached resolution would make findings accepting the results of the LHB, Inc. report and designating the
buildings to be substandard, as defined in Minnesota State Statutes. The resolution would also approve the
demolition of the structures within the proposed TIF District boundaries in advance of the creation of the TIF
District. The HRA would fund the cost of the demolition.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt a resolution designating the buildings located at 6501-13 Penn Avenue South as
structurally substandard within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and authorizing their
demolition.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The HRA purchased the property in 2018 and signed a pre-development agreement with Boisclair
Corporation and NHH Properties in 2020 to redevelop the site with multi-family housing. If tax
credit financing is secured, construction on the property could begin at the end of 2022.
Maintaining the property has been challenging given the configuration of the buildings and the fact
that many entrances and site areas are not visible from the street. The buildings have been broken
into multiple times, items have been illegally dumped on the site, and graffiti and other vandalism
has occurred.
B.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
In order to establish a Redevelopment TIF District, the property within the proposed District boundaries
must be found to be blighted and structurally substandard under the requirements established by
Minnesota State Statutes.
C.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
Adoption of this resolution will allow staff to begin the process of procuring bids for the demolition and
conducting the demolition as quickly as possible.
D.FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The HRA will pay for the cost of the demolition. Sufficient funding exists in the HRA's Housing and
Redevelopment Fund to cover the costs. If a Redevelopment TIF District is created, the HRA also would
have the option of reimbursing itself with future tax increment.
E.LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
The HRA's Attorney has prepared the attached resolution.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
Decide not to authorize demolition at this time.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
NA
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Resolution Resolution Letter
Substandard Evaluation Backup Material
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. _________
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING BUILDINGS AS
STRUCTURALLY SUBSTANDARD WITHIN THE RICHFIELD
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the “City Council”) of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota (the “City”), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subdivision 10(d), the City or the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the
“Authority”) is authorized to deem parcels as occupied by structurally substandard buildings
before the demolition or removal of the buildings, subject to certain terms and conditions as
described in this resolution.
1.02. The City or the Authority intends to cause demolition of the buildings located on
the property described in EXHIBIT A attached hereto (the “Designated Property”), and may in
the future include the Designated Property in a redevelopment tax increment financing district
as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174, subdivision 10, within the Richfield
Redevelopment Project.
Section 2. Approvals.
2.01. The City finds that the buildings on the Designated Property are structurally
substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance, based upon the analysis
of such buildings by LHB, Inc., dated November 30, 2018 and on file in City Hall. In addition,
the buildings located at 6501 and 6513 Penn Avenue South have been declared unsafe
buildings by the City’s Chief Building Official pursuant to Minn. Stat. Rule 1300-0180 for unsafe
electrical wiring and unsafe fence/guardrail at the upper parking lot. 6513 Penn Avenue is also
structurally unsafe because of deteriorated concrete masonry bearing walls and water damage
to the precast concrete ceiling..
2.02. After the date of approval of this resolution, the buildings on the Designated
Property may be demolished or removed by the Authority, or such demolition or removal may
be financed by the Authority, or may be undertaken by a developer under a development
agreement with the Authority.
2.03. The Authority intends to include the Designated Property in a redevelopment tax
increment financing district, and to file the request for certification of such district with the
Taxpayer Services Division Manager of Hennepin County, Minnesota, as the county auditor (the
“County Auditor”), within three (3) years after the date of demolition of the buildings on the
Designated Property.
Error! Unknown document property name. 2
2.04. Upon filing the request for certification of the new tax increment financing district,
the Authority will notify the County Auditor that the original tax capacity of the Designated
Property must be adjusted to reflect the greater of (a) the current net tax capacity of the parcel,
or (b) the estimated market value of the parcel for the year in which the buildings were
demolished or removed, but applying class rates for the current year, all in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subdivision 10(d).
2.05. City staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry
out the intent of this resolution.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
December, 2021.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kari Sinning, City Clerk
Error! Unknown document property name. A-1
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF DESIGNATED PROPERTY
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 the Village of Richfield, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
Report of Inspection Procedures and Results for
Determining Qualifications of a
Tax Increment Financing District as a Redevelopment District
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
Richfield, Minnesota
November 30, 2018
Prepared For the
City of Richfield
Prepared by:
LHB, Inc.
701 Washington Avenue North, Suite 200
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
LHB Project No. 180891
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 180891 Page 1 of 11 Final Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................ 2
Purpose of Evaluation ................................................................................ 2
Scope of Work ........................................................................................... 2
Conclusion ................................................................................................. 3
PART 2 – MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174, SUBDIVISION 10 REQUIREMENTS ....... 3
A. Coverage Test ...................................................................................... 3
B. Condition of Buildings Test ................................................................... 4
C. Distribution of Substandard Buildings ................................................... 5
PART 3 – PROCEDURES FOLLOWED ......................................................................... 6
PART 4 – FINDINGS ...................................................................................................... 6
A. Coverage Test ...................................................................................... 6
B. Condition of Building Test ..................................................................... 7
1. Building Inspection .................................................................... 7
2. Replacement Cost ..................................................................... 7
3. Code Deficiencies ..................................................................... 8
4. System Condition Deficiencies .................................................. 9
C. Distribution of Substandard Structures ................................................. 9
PART 5 - TEAM CREDENTIALS .................................................................................. 11
APPENDIX A Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet
APPENDIX B Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Reports
APPENDIX C Building Replacement Cost Reports
Code Deficiency Cost Reports
Photographs
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 180891 Page 2 of 11 Final Report
PART 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE OF EVALUATION
LHB was hired by the City of Richfield to inspect and evaluate the properties within a Tax Increment
Financing Redevelopment District (“TIF District”) proposed to be established by the City. The
proposed TIF District is located at the southeast corner of West 65th Street and Penn Avenue South
(Diagram 1). The purpose of LHB’s work is to determine whether the proposed TIF District meets
the statutory requirements for coverage, and whether two (2) buildings on one (1) parcel, located
within the proposed TIF District, meet the qualifications required for a Redevelopment District.
Diagram 1 – Proposed TIF District
SCOPE OF WORK
The proposed TIF District consists of one (1) parcel with two (2) buildings. Two (2) buildings were
inspected on November 9, 2018. Building Code and Condition Deficiency Reports for the buildings
that were inspected are located in Appendix B.
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 180891 Page 3 of 11 Final Report
CONCLUSION
After inspecting and evaluating the properties within the proposed TIF District and applying current
statutory criteria for a Redevelopment District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10,
it is our professional opinion that the proposed TIF District qualifies as a Redevelopment District
because:
• The proposed TIF District has a coverage calculation of 100 percent which is above the 70
percent requirement.
• 100 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard which is above the 50 percent
requirement.
• The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed.
The remainder of this report describes our process and findings in detail.
PART 2 – MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174, SUBDIVISION 10
REQUIREMENTS
The properties were inspected in accordance with the following requirements under Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), which states:
INTERIOR INSPECTION
“The municipality may not make such determination [that the building is structurally substandard]
without an interior inspection of the property...”
EXTERIOR INSPECTION AND OTHER MEANS
“An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipality finds that
(1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best efforts
to obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and
(2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally
substandard.”
DOCUMENTATION
“Written documentation of the findings and reasons why an interior inspection was not conducted
must be made and retained under section 469.175, subdivision 3(1).”
QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10 (a) (1) requires three tests for occupied parcels:
A. COVERAGE TEST
…“parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings, streets,
utilities, or paved or gravel parking lots…”
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 180891 Page 4 of 11 Final Report
The coverage required by the parcel to be considered occupied is defined under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(e), which states: “For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel
is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar
structures unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved
or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures.”
B. CONDITION OF BUILDINGS TEST
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(a) states, “…and more than 50 percent of the
buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring
substantial renovation or clearance;”
1. Structurally substandard is defined under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b),
which states: “For purposes of this subdivision, ‘structurally substandard’ shall mean
containing defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential
utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout
and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of
sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance.”
a. We do not count energy code deficiencies toward the thresholds required by Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b) defined as “structurally substandard”, due to
concerns expressed by the State of Minnesota Court of Appeals in the Walser Auto
Sales, Inc. vs. City of Richfield case filed November 13, 2001.
2. Buildings are not eligible to be considered structurally substandard unless they meet certain
additional criteria, as set forth in Subdivision 10(c) which states:
“A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code
applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of
less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage
and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as
structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available
evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing,
electrical, or structural repairs, or other similar reliable evidence.”
“Items of evidence that support such a conclusion [that the building is not disqualified]
include recent fire or police inspections, on-site property tax appraisals or housing
inspections, exterior evidence of deterioration, or other similar reliable evidence.”
LHB counts energy code deficiencies toward the 15 percent code threshold required by
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c)) for the following reasons:
• The Minnesota energy code is one of ten building code areas highlighted by the
Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry website where minimum
construction standards are required by law.
• Chapter 13 of the 2015 Minnesota Building Code states, “Buildings shall be designed
and constructed in accordance with the International Energy Conservation Code.”
Furthermore, Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1305.0021 Subpart 9 states, “References
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 180891 Page 5 of 11 Final Report
to the International Energy Conservation Code in this code mean the Minnesota Energy
Code…”
• The Senior Building Code Representative for the Construction Codes and
Licensing Division of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry
confirmed that the Minnesota Energy Code is being enforced throughout the State
of Minnesota.
• In a January 2002 report to the Minnesota Legislature, the Management Analysis
Division of the Minnesota Department of Administration confirmed that the
construction cost of new buildings complying with the Minnesota Energy Code is
higher than buildings built prior to the enactment of the code.
• Proper TIF analysis requires a comparison between the replacement value of a
new building built under current code standards with the repairs that would be
necessary to bring the existing building up to current code standards. In order for
an equal comparison to be made, all applicable code chapters should be applied to
both scenarios. Since current construction estimating software automatically
applies the construction cost of complying with the Minnesota Energy Code,
energy code deficiencies should also be identified in the existing structures.
C. DISTRIBUTION OF SUBSTANDARD BUILDINGS
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, defines a Redevelopment District and requires
one or more of the following conditions, “reasonably distributed throughout the district.”
(1) “Parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings,
streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures and more than
50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a
degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance;
(2) the property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently
used rail yards, rail storage facilities, or excessive or vacated railroad rights-of-way;
(3) tank facilities, or property whose immediately previous use was for tank facilities…”
Our interpretation of the distribution requirement is that the substandard buildings must be
reasonably distributed throughout the district as compared to the location of all buildings in
the district. For example, if all of the buildings in a district are located on one half of the
area of the district, with the other half occupied by parking lots (meeting the required 70
percent coverage for the district), we would evaluate the distribution of the substandard
buildings compared with only the half of the district where the buildings are located. If all of
the buildings in a district are located evenly throughout the entire area of the district, the
substandard buildings must be reasonably distributed throughout the entire area of the
district. We believe this is consistent with the opinion expressed by the State of Minnesota
Court of Appeals in the Walser Auto Sales, Inc. vs. City of Richfield case filed November 13,
2001.
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 180891 Page 6 of 11 Final Report
PART 3 – PROCEDURES FOLLOWED
LHB inspected two (2) of the two (2) buildings during the day of November 9, 2018.
PART 4 – FINDINGS
A. COVERAGE TEST
1. The total square foot area of the parcel in the proposed TIF District was obtained from City
records, GIS mapping and site verification.
2. The total square foot area of buildings and site improvements on the parcels in the
proposed TIF District was obtained from City records, GIS mapping and site verification.
3. The percentage of coverage for each parcel in the proposed TIF District was computed to
determine if the 15 percent minimum requirement was met. The total square footage of
parcels meeting the 15 percent requirement was divided into the total square footage of the
entire district to determine if the 70 percent requirement was met.
FINDING:
The proposed TIF District met the coverage test under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision
10(e), which resulted in parcels consisting of 100 percent of the area of the proposed TIF District
being occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures
(Diagram 2). This exceeds the 70 percent area coverage requirement for the proposed TIF District
under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision (a) (1).
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 180891 Page 7 of 11 Final Report
Diagram 2 – Coverage Diagram
Shaded area depicts a parcel more than 15 percent occupied by buildings, streets, utilities,
paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures
B. CONDITION OF BUILDING TEST
1. BUILDING INSPECTION
The first step in the evaluation process is the building inspection. After an initial walk-
thru, the inspector makes a judgment whether or not a building “appears” to have enough
defects or deficiencies of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or
clearance. If it does, the inspector documents with notes and photographs code and non-
code deficiencies in the building.
2. REPLACEMENT COST
The second step in evaluating a building to determine if it is substandard to a degree
requiring substantial renovation or clearance is to determine its replacement cost. This is
the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on site.
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 180891 Page 8 of 11 Final Report
Replacement costs were researched using R.S. Means Cost Works square foot models for
2018.
A replacement cost was calculated by first establishing building use (office, retail, residential,
etc.), building construction type (wood, concrete, masonry, etc.), and building size to obtain
the appropriate median replacement cost, which factors in the costs of construction in
Richfield, Minnesota.
Replacement cost includes labor, materials, and the contractor’s overhead and profit.
Replacement costs do not include architectural fees, legal fees or other “soft” costs not
directly related to construction activities. Replacement cost for each building is tabulated
in Appendix A.
3. CODE DEFICIENCIES
The next step in evaluating a building is to determine what code deficiencies exist with
respect to such building. Code deficiencies are those conditions for a building which are
not in compliance with current building codes applicable to new buildings in the State of
Minnesota.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), specifically provides that a building
cannot be considered structurally substandard if its code deficiencies are not at least 15
percent of the replacement cost of the building. As a result, it was necessary to determine
the extent of code deficiencies for each building in the proposed TIF District.
The evaluation was made by reviewing all available information with respect to such
buildings contained in City Building Inspection records and making interior and exterior
inspections of the buildings. LHB utilizes the current Minnesota State Building Code as
the official code for our evaluations. The Minnesota State Building Code is actually a series
of provisional codes written specifically for Minnesota only requirements, adoption of
several international codes, and amendments to the adopted international codes.
After identifying the code deficiencies in each building, we used R.S. Means Cost Works
2018; Unit and Assembly Costs to determine the cost of correcting the identified
deficiencies. We were then able to compare the correction costs with the replacement cost
of each building to determine if the costs for correcting code deficiencies meet the required
15 percent threshold.
FINDING:
Two (2) out of two (2) buildings (100 percent) in the proposed TIF District contained code
deficiencies exceeding the 15 percent threshold required by Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, Subdivision 10(c). Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis
reports for the buildings in the proposed TIF District can be found in Appendix B of this
report.
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 180891 Page 9 of 11 Final Report
4. SYSTEM CONDITION DEFICIENCIES
If a building meets the minimum code deficiency threshold under Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, Subdivision 10(c), then in order for such building to be “structurally substandard”
under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b), the building’s defects or
deficiencies should be of sufficient total significance to justify “substantial renovation or
clearance.” Based on this definition, LHB re-evaluated each of the buildings that met the
code deficiency threshold under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), to
determine if the total deficiencies warranted “substantial renovation or clearance” based on
the criteria we outlined above.
System condition deficiencies are a measurement of defects or substantial deterioration in
site elements, structure, exterior envelope, mechanical and electrical components, fire
protection and emergency systems, interior partitions, ceilings, floors and doors.
The evaluation of system condition deficiencies was made by reviewing all available
information contained in City records, and making interior and exterior inspections of the
buildings. LHB only identified system condition deficiencies that were visible upon our
inspection of the building or contained in City records. We did not consider the amount
of “service life” used up for a particular component unless it was an obvious part of that
component’s deficiencies.
After identifying the system condition deficiencies in each building, we used our
professional judgment to determine if the list of defects or deficiencies is of sufficient total
significance to justify “substantial renovation or clearance.”
FINDING:
In our professional opinion, two (2) out of two (2) buildings (100 percent) in the proposed
TIF District are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or
clearance, because of defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in
essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate
egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors which defects or
deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance.
This exceeds the 50 percent requirement of Subdivision 10a(1).
C. DISTRIBUTION OF SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURES
Much of this report has focused on the condition of individual buildings as they relate to
requirements identified by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10. It is also
important to look at the distribution of substandard buildings throughout the geographic
area of the proposed TIF District (Diagram 3).
FINDING:
The parcels with substandard buildings are reasonably distributed compared to all parcels
that contain buildings.
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 180891 Page 10 of 11 Final Report
Diagram 3 – Substandard Buildings
Shaded green area depicts parcels with buildings.
Shaded orange area depicts substandard buildings.
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 180891 Page 11 of 11 Final Report
PART 5 - TEAM CREDENTIALS
Michael A. Fischer, AIA, LEED AP - Project Principal/TIF Analyst
Michael has 30 years of experience as project principal, project manager, project designer and project
architect on planning, urban design, educational, commercial and governmental projects. He has
become an expert on Tax Increment Finance District analysis assisting over 100 cities with strategic
planning for TIF Districts. He is an Architectural Principal at LHB and currently leads the
Minneapolis office.
Michael completed a two-year Bush Fellowship, studying at MIT and Harvard in 1999, earning Masters
degrees in City Planning and Real Estate Development from MIT. He has served on more than 50
committees, boards and community task forces, including a term as a City Council President and as
Chair of a Metropolitan Planning Organization. Most recently, he served as Chair of the Edina,
Minnesota planning commission and is currently a member of the Edina city council. Michael has
also managed and designed several award-winning architectural projects, and was one of four
architects in the Country to receive the AIA Young Architects Citation in 1997.
Philip Waugh – Project Manager/TIF Analyst
Philip is a project manager with 13 years of experience in historic preservation, building investigations,
material research, and construction methods. He previously worked as a historic preservationist and
also served as the preservation specialist at the St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission. Currently,
Phil sits on the Board of Directors for the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota. His current
responsibilities include project management of historic preservation projects, performing building
condition surveys and analysis, TIF analysis, writing preservation specifications, historic design
reviews, writing Historic Preservation Tax Credit applications, preservation planning, and grant
writing.
Phil Fisher – Inspector
For 35 years, Phil Fisher worked in the field of Building Operations in Minnesota including White Bear
Lake Area Schools. At the University of Minnesota he earned his Bachelor of Science in Industrial
Technology. He is a Certified Playground Safety Inspector, Certified Plant Engineer, and is trained in
Minnesota Enterprise Real Properties (MERP) Facility Condition Assessment (FCA). His FCA training
was recently applied to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Facilities Condition
Assessment project involving over 2,000 buildings.
O:\18Proj\180891\400 Design\406 Reports\Final Report\180891 Richfield Penn Ave Redevelopment TIF Report.docx
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet
APPENDIX B Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports
APPENDIX C Building Replacement Cost Reports
Code Deficiency Cost Reports
Photographs
APPENDIX A
Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF DistrictRichfield, MinnesotaProperty Condition Assessment Summary SheetTIF Map No.PID #Property Address / Building NameImproved or VacantSurvey Method UsedSite Area(S.F.)Coverage Area of Improvements(S.F.)Coverage Percent of ImprovementsCoverageQuantity(S.F.)No. of BuildingsBuildingReplacementCost15% of Replacement CostBuilding Code DeficienciesNo. of Buildings Exceeding 15% CriteriaNo. of buildings determined substandardA2802824230023 6501 Penn Avenue Improved 24,675 24,675 100.0% 24,675 2B1 Bumper to Bumper Auto Parts Interior/Exterior$518,502 $77,775 $95,902 1 1B2 Garage Interior/Exterior$240,320 $36,048 $112,002 1 1TOTALS 24,675 24,675 2 2 2100.0% 100.0%O:\18Proj\180891\400 Design\406 Reports\Final Report\[180891 Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF Summary Spreadsheet.xlsx]Property Info100.0%Total Coverage Percent:Percent of buildings exceeding 15 percent code deficiency threshold: Percent of buildings determined substandard: Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF DistrictLHB Project Number 180891Page 1 of 1Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet
APPENDIX B
Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Reports
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District Page 1 of 2 Building Report
LHB Project No. 180891 Parcel A Building 1, Bumper to Bumper Auto Parts
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Report
Parcel No. & Building Name: Parcel A Building 1: Bumper to Bumper Auto Parts
Address: 6501 Penn Ave S Richfield, MN 55423
Parcel ID: 28-028-24-23-0023
Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): November 9, 2018 12:30 PM
Inspection Type: Interior and Exterior
Summary of Deficiencies: It is our professional opinion that this building is Substandard
because:
- Substantial renovation is required to correct Conditions found.
- Building Code deficiencies total more than 15% of
replacement cost, NOT including energy code deficiencies.
Estimated Replacement Cost: $518,502
Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies: $95,902
Percentage of Replacement Cost for Building Code Deficiencies: 18.5%
Defects in Structural Elements
1. None observed.
Combination of Deficiencies
1. Essential Utilities and Facilities
a. There is no code-required accessible route into the building.
b. There is no code-required accessible restroom in the building.
c. There is no code-required drinking fountain in the building.
d. Door hardware does not comply with code.
e. Thresholds are not code-compliant for maximum height.
2. Light and Ventilation
a. HVAC system is not code-compliant.
b. Lighting in the basement does not comply with code.
3. Fire Protection/Adequate Egress
a. Sidewalks are cracked/damaged creating an impediment for emergency egress, contrary to
code.
b. Glass doors do not have code-required 10-inch kick plates.
c. Vinyl composition floor tile is damaged, creating an impediment for emergency egress,
which is contrary to code.
d. There is no code-required fire notification system in the building.
e. There is no code-required emergency lighting in the building.
f. There are no code-required smoke detectors in the building.
g. There is no code-required building sprinkler system in the building.
h. Basement stairway does not comply with code.
i. Exposed wood joists do not have code-required fire proofing material installed.
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District Page 2 of 2 Building Report
LHB Project No. 180891 Parcel A Building 1, Bumper to Bumper Auto Parts
j. Electrical circuit panels do not have code-required 36-inch clear space in front of them.
k. There is a confined space hazardous material waste trap that is not code-compliant.
4. Layout and Condition of Interior Partitions/Materials
a. Interior walls should be repainted.
b. Ceiling tiles are water stained from roof leaks and should be replaced.
c. The air compressor is not guarded and therefore not code-compliant.
d. The ceiling in the repair shop is damaged and should be repaired.
5. Exterior Construction
a. Stucco is missing and should be replaced.
b. Stucco had graffiti painted over and the entire exterior stucco should be repainted to match.
c. Windows are failing, allowing for water intrusion, contrary to code.
d. Wood fascia is rotting and should be replaced.
e. Roofing materials are failing, allowing for water intrusion, contrary to code.
Description of Code Deficiencies
1. A code-required accessible route into the building should be created.
2. A code-required accessible restroom should be installed.
3. A code-required drinking fountain should be installed.
4. Code-compliant door hardware should be installed.
5. Thresholds should be modified to comply with code for maximum height.
6. The HVAC system does not comply with code and should be replaced.
7. Basement lighting should be improved to comply with code.
8. Sidewalks should be repaired to comply with code for unimpeded emergency egress.
9. Glass doors should have code-required 10-inch kick plates installed.
10. Vinyl composition floor tile should be repaired replaced to comply with code for unimpeded
emergency egress.
11. Code-required smoke detectors should be installed.
12. A code-required emergency notification system should be installed.
13. Code-required emergency lighting should be installed.
14. Code-required building sprinkler system should be installed.
15. Basement stairway should have code-required second handrailing installed.
16. Exposed wood joists should have code-required fire proofing applied.
17. A code-required 36-inch clear space should be created in front of all circuit panels.
18. The confined space hazardous material waste trap should be properly identified and an entry
permitting process should be created to comply with code.
19. The air compressor pully system should be guarded per code.
20. Failing windows should be replaced to prevent water intrusion per code.
21. Failed roofing material should be removed and replaced to prevent water intrusion per code.
Overview of Deficiencies
This retail building needs exterior stucco repairs and repainting. The building is not code-compliant for
accessibility. The interior should be repainted, and stained ceiling tiles replaced. Damaged floor tiles should
be replaced. Code-required emergency systems are not present in the building. Windows and roofing
material are failing allowing for water intrusion which is contrary to code. Fire proofing on exposed wood
joists should be applied to comply with code. Basement lighting does not comply with code. The HVAC
system does not comply with code.
O:\18Proj\180891\400 Design\406 Reports\Building Reports\6501 Penn Ave South Building 1\6501 Penn Ave South Building 1 Building
Report.docx
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District Page 1 of 2 Building Report
LHB Project No. 180891 Parcel A Building 2, Garage
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Report
Parcel No. & Building Name: Parcel A Building 2 Garage
Address: 6501 Penn Ave S Richfield, MN 55423
Parcel ID: 28-028-24-23-0023
Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): November 9, 2018 12:50 PM
Inspection Type: Interior and Exterior
Summary of Deficiencies: It is our professional opinion that this building is Substandard
because:
- Substantial renovation is required to correct Conditions found.
- Building Code deficiencies total more than 15% of
replacement cost, NOT including energy code deficiencies.
Estimated Replacement Cost: $240,320
Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies: $112,002
Percentage of Replacement Cost for Building Code Deficiencies: 46.61%
Defects in Structural Elements
1. Steel lintels over glass block windows have failed and should be replaced.
2. Concrete block walls are failing and should be replaced.
Combination of Deficiencies
1. Essential Utilities and Facilities
a. There is no code-required accessible route into the building.
b. There is no code-required accessible restroom in the building.
c. There is no code-required drinking fountain in the building.
d. Door hardware does not comply with code.
e. Thresholds are not code-compliant for maximum height.
2. Light and Ventilation
a. The HVAC system is not code-compliant.
b. Lighting is not code-compliant
3. Fire Protection/Adequate Egress
a. There is no code-required fire notification system in the building.
b. There is no code-required emergency lighting in the building.
c. There are no code-required smoke detectors in the building.
d. There is no code-required building sprinkler system in the building.
e. Electrical junction boxes are not protected per code.
4. Layout and Condition of Interior Partitions/Materials
a. The air compressor is not guarded and therefore not code-compliant.
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District Page 2 of 2 Building Report
LHB Project No. 180891 Parcel A Building 2, Garage
5. Exterior Construction
a. Retaining wall is failing and should be repaired.
b. Roof material has failed, allowing for water intrusion, contrary to code.
c. Exterior block walls are failing, allowing for water intrusion, contrary to code.
d. Exterior walls should be repainted.
e. Steel lintels have failed, and are rusting, and should be protected/replaced per code.
f. Overhead garage doors are damaged and should be repaired/replaced.
g. Glass block windows are damaged, allowing for water intrusion, contrary to code.
Description of Code Deficiencies
1. A code-required accessible route should be created to enter the building.
2. A code-required restroom should be installed.
3. A code-required drinking fountain should be installed.
4. Code-compliant door hardware should be installed.
5. Thresholds should be modified to comply with code for maximum height.
6. A code-compliant HVAC system should be installed.
7. Code-compliant lighting should be installed.
8. Code-required smoke detectors should be installed.
9. A code-required emergency notification system should be installed.
10. Code-required emergency lighting should be installed.
11. Code-required building sprinkler system should be installed.
12. Electrical junction boxes should be properly protected per code.
13. The air compressor pully system should be guarded per code.
14. Remove/replace failed roofing material to prevent water intrusion per code.
15. Repair block walls to prevent water intrusion per code.
16. Replace failed steel lintels and protect rusting lintels per code.
17. Replace damaged glass block windows to prevent water intrusion per code.
Overview of Deficiencies
This service garage is no longer functional and has not been used for several years. There is no code-
compliant accessible route into the building. There is no code-required accessible restroom. There is no
code-required drinking fountain. Failed exterior block work should be replaced per code to prevent water
intrusion. The exterior and interior walls should be repainted. The roof is leaking, causing water intrusion,
contrary to code. There are no code-required life safety systems in the building. Glass block windows have
been vandalized and should be replaced to prevent water intrusion, per code.
O:\18Proj\180891\400 Design\406 Reports\Building Reports\6501 Penn Ave South Building 2\6501 Penn Ave South Building 2 Building
Report.docx
APPENDIX C
Building Replacement Cost Reports
Code Deficiency Cost Reports
Photographs
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
Replacement Cost Report
Square Foot Cost Estimate Report Date:11/9/2018
Parcel A Building 1: Bumper to Bumper Auto
Parts
6501 Penn Ave South , Richfield , Minnesota ,
55423
Building Type:Store, Retail with Stucco / Reinforced Concrete
Location:RICHFIELD, MN
Story Count:1
Story Height (L.F.):14
Floor Area (S.F.):1900
Labor Type:OPN
Basement Included:Yes
Data Release:Year 2018 Quarter 2
Cost Per Square Foot:$272.90
Building Cost:$518,502.49
% of Total Cost Per S.F. Cost
17.18% 42.62 80,995.69
A1010 Standard Foundations 7.65 14,537.94
4.06 7,718.14
3.59 6,819.80
A1030 Slab on Grade 5.79 11,005.16
5.79 11,005.16
A2010 Basement Excavation 3.89 7,395.47
3.89 7,395.47
A2020 Basement Walls 25.29 48,057.12
25.29 48,057.12
52.34% 129.87 246,734.73
B1010 Floor Construction 81.14 154,158.24
8.15 15,483.25
6.29 11,945.86
35.33 67,132.92
14.37 27,301.86
17.00 32,294.34
B2010 Exterior Walls 31.29 59,446.11
31.29 59,446.11
Cast‐in‐place concrete column, 12" square, tied, 200K load, 12' story height,
142 lbs/LF, 4000PSI
Estimate Name:
Costs are derived from a building model with basic components.
Scope differences and market conditions can cause costs to vary significantly.
A Substructure
Strip footing, concrete, reinforced, load 11.1 KLF, soil bearing capacity 6
KSF, 12" deep x 24" wide
Spread footings, 3000 PSI concrete, load 100K, soil bearing capacity 6 KSF,
4' ‐ 6" square x 15" deep
Slab on grade, 4" thick, non industrial, reinforced
Excavate and fill, 10,000 SF, 8' deep, sand, gravel, or common earth, on site
storage
Foundation wall, CIP, 12' wall height, pumped, .444 CY/LF, 21.59 PLF, 12"
thick
B Shell
Cast‐in‐place concrete column, 12", square, tied, minimum reinforcing,
150K load, 10'‐14' story height, 135 lbs/LF, 4000PSI
Concrete I beam, precast, 18" x 36", 790 PLF, 25' span, 6.44 KLF
superimposed load
Flat slab, concrete, with drop panels, 6" slab/2.5" panel, 12" column,
15'x15' bay, 75 PSF superimposed load, 153 PSF total load
Precast concrete double T beam, 2" topping, 24" deep x 8' wide, 50' span,
75 PSF superimposed load, 165 PSF total load
Stucco, 3 coat, self furring metal lath 3.4 Lb/SY, on regular CMU, 12" x 8" x
16"
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 180891 Page 1 of 3
Replacement Cost Report
Parcel A Building 1, Bumper to Bumper Auto Parts
B2020 Exterior Windows 5.05 9,589.52
0.38 729.24
4.66 8,860.28
B2030 Exterior Doors 1.73 3,283.89
1.37 2,593.71
0.36 690.18
B3010 Roof Coverings 10.03 19,058.22
1.73 3,283.54
4.36 8,282.73
2.76 5,239.95
1.19 2,251.99
B3020 Roof Openings 0.63 1,198.75
0.63 1,198.75
7.01% 17.40 33,033.81
C1010 Partitions 2.72 5,161.00
0.76 1,438.79
1.19 2,257.70
0.77 1,464.51
C1020 Interior Doors 2.09 3,970.62
2.09 3,970.62
C1030 Fittings 0.20 379.97
0.20 379.97
C3010 Wall Finishes 1.59 3,012.09
0.27 516.02
1.04 1,982.24
0.27 513.82
C3020 Floor Finishes 3.12 5,926.77
3.12 5,926.77
C3030 Ceiling Finishes 7.68 14,583.36
7.68 14,583.36
23.46% 58.20 110,601.67
D2010 Plumbing Fixtures 2.67 5,080.57
0.37 697.49
0.72 1,372.16
0.32 615.27
0.95 1,801.02
0.31 594.64
D2020 Domestic Water Distribution 14.81 28,148.35
14.81 28,148.35
Roof edges, aluminum, duranodic, .050" thick, 6" face
intermediate horizontals
Glazing panel, insulating, 1/2" thick, 2 lites 1/8" float glass, clear
Door, aluminum & glass, without transom, bronze finish, hardware, 3'‐0" x
7'‐0" opening
Door, steel 18 gauge, hollow metal, 1 door with frame, no label, 3'‐0" x 7'‐
0" opening
Roofing, single ply membrane, EPDM, 60 mils, loosely laid, stone ballast
Insulation, rigid, roof deck, extruded polystyrene, 40 PSI compressive
strength, 4" thick, R20
Vinyl, composition tile, maximum
Gravel stop, aluminum, extruded, 4", mill finish, .050" thick
Roof hatch, with curb, 1" fiberglass insulation, 2'‐6" x 3'‐0", galvanized
steel, 165 lbs
C Interiors
Metal partition, 5/8"fire rated gypsum board face, no base,3 ‐5/8" @ 24"
OC framing, same opposite face, no insulation
Gypsum board, 1 face only, exterior sheathing, fire resistant, 5/8"
Add for the following: taping and finishing
Door, single leaf, kd steel frame, hollow metal, commercial quality, flush, 3'‐
0" x 7'‐0" x 1‐3/8"
Toilet partitions, cubicles, ceiling hung, stainless steel
Painting, interior on plaster and drywall, walls & ceilings, roller work,
primer & 2 coats
Painting, interior on plaster and drywall, walls & ceilings, roller work,
primer & 2 coats
Ceramic tile, thin set, 4‐1/4" x 4‐1/4"
Acoustic ceilings, 3/4"mineral fiber, 12" x 12" tile, concealed 2" bar &
channel grid, suspended support
D Services
Water closet, vitreous china, tank type, 2 piece close coupled
Urinal, vitreous china, wall hung
Lavatory w/trim, vanity top, PE on CI, 20" x 18"
Service sink w/trim, PE on CI,wall hung w/rim guard, 24" x 20"
Water cooler, electric, wall hung, dual height, 14.3 GPH
Gas fired water heater, commercial, 100< F rise, 500 MBH input, 480 GPH
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 180891 Page 2 of 3
Replacement Cost Report
Parcel A Building 1, Bumper to Bumper Auto Parts
D2040 Rain Water Drainage 1.59 3,024.01
1.44 2,735.64
0.15 288.37
D3050 Terminal & Package Units 8.48 16,103.13
8.48 16,103.13
D4010 Sprinklers 4.62 8,785.03
4.62 8,785.03
D4020 Standpipes 1.15 2,181.62
1.15 2,181.62
D5010 Electrical Service/Distribution 12.15 23,082.90
3.11 5,905.68
2.53 4,809.13
6.51 12,368.10
D5020 Lighting and Branch Wiring 10.95 20,814.02
2.85 5,410.84
0.40 759.22
0.81 1,542.34
6.90 13,101.62
D5030 Communications and Security 1.78 3,382.04
0.97 1,849.35
0.81 1,532.69
0% 0 0
E1090 Other Equipment 0 0
0% 0 0
0% 0 0
100% $248.09 $471,365.90
10.00% $24.81 $47,136.59
0.00% $0.00 $0.00
0.00% $0.00 $0.00
$272.90 $518,502.49
Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, ordinary hazard, 1 floor, 10,000 SF
Roof drain, CI, soil,single hub, 4" diam, 10' high
Roof drain, CI, soil,single hub, 4" diam, for each additional foot add
Rooftop, single zone, air conditioner, department stores, 10,000 SF, 29.17
ton
F Special Construction
Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe, 1 floor
Overhead service installation, includes breakers, metering, 20' conduit &
wire, 3 phase, 4 wire, 120/208 V, 400 A
Feeder installation 600 V, including RGS conduit and XHHW wire, 400 A
Switchgear installation, incl switchboard, panels & circuit breaker, 120/208
V, 3 phase, 400 A
Receptacles incl plate, box, conduit, wire, 8 per 1000 SF, .9 watts per SF
Miscellaneous power, 1.5 watts
Central air conditioning power, 4 watts
Fluorescent fixtures recess mounted in ceiling, 1.6 watt per SF, 40 FC, 10
fixtures @32watt per 1000 SF
Communication and alarm systems, fire detection, addressable, 25
detectors, includes outlets, boxes, conduit and wire
Fire alarm command center, addressable without voice, excl. wire &
conduit
E Equipment & Furnishings
Total Building Cost
G Building Sitework
SubTotal
Contractor Fees (General Conditions,Overhead,Profit)
Architectural Fees
User Fees
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 180891 Page 3 of 3
Replacement Cost Report
Parcel A Building 1, Bumper to Bumper Auto Parts
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
Code Deficiency Cost Report
Parcel A - 6501 Penn Ave South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 - PID 28-028-24-23-0023
Building 1: Bumper to Bumper Auto Parts
Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units
Unit
Quantity Total
Accessibility Items
Accessible Route
Create a code required accessible route into building 3,500.00$ Lump 1 3,500.00$
Restroom
Create a code required accessible restroom 2.36$ SF 1900 4,484.00$
Drinking Fountain
Install a code required accessible drinking fountain 0.31$ SF 1900 589.00$
Door Hardware
Install code compliant door hardware 250.00$ EA 7 1,750.00$
Structural Elements
-$
Exiting
Sidewalks
Repair/replace damaged sidewalks to create a code required
unimpeded means of egress 2,500.00$ Lump 1 2,500.00$
Glass Doors
Install code required 10-inch kick plates on glass doors 100.00$ EA 4 400.00$
Vinyl Composition Tile
Repair/replace damaged floor tile to create a code required
unimpeded means of egress 3.12$ SF 1900 5,928.00$
Basement Stairway
Install code required second stair railing 250.00$ EA 1 250.00$
Thresholds
Modify thresholds to comply with code for maximum height 250.00$ EA 5 1,250.00$
Fire Protection
Smoke Detectors
Install code required smoke detectors 0.97$ SF 1900 1,843.00$
Emergency Lighting
Install code required emergency lighting 1.10$ SF 1900 2,090.00$
Emergency Notification System
Install code required emergency notification system 0.81$ SF 1900 1,539.00$
Building Sprinkler System
Install code required building sprinkler system 5.77$ SF 1900 10,963.00$
Fire Proofing
Apply code required fire proofing to exposed wood joists 2.25$ SF 1900 4,275.00$
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 180891 Page 1 of 2
Code Deficiency Cost Report
Parcel A Building 1, Bumper to Bumper Auto Parts
Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units
Unit
Quantity Total
Electrical Circuit Panels
Establish code required 36-inch clear space in front of circuit
panels 50.00$ Lump 1 50.00$
Hazardous Waste Trap
Inspect, certify, and create code required management plan for
confined space hazardous waste trap 500.00$ Lump 1 500.00$
Exterior Construction
Windows
Install code compliant windows to prevent water intrusion 5.05$ SF 1900 9,595.00$
Roof Construction
Roofing Material
Remove failed roofing material 0.75$ SF 1900 1,425.00$
Install new roofing material to prevent water intrusion per code 10.66$ SF 1900 20,254.00$
Mechanical- Electrical
Mechanical
Install code compliant HVAC system 8.48$ SF 1900 16,112.00$
Install code required guard around exposed pully on air
compressor 50.00$ Lump 1 50.00$
Electrical
Install code compliant lighting in basement 6.90$ SF 950 6,555.00$
Total Code Improvements 95,902$
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 180891 Page 2 of 2
Code Deficiency Cost Report
Parcel A Building 1, Bumper to Bumper Auto Parts
Richfi eld Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
Photos: Parcel A Building 1 - 6501 Penn Avenue South - Bumper to Bumper Auto Parts
Page 1 of 5
20181109_122128.jpg 20181109_122132.jpg 20181109_122147.jpg
20181109_122152.jpg 20181109_122202.jpg 20181109_122206(0).jpg
20181109_122206.jpg 20181109_122212.jpg 20181109_122230.jpg
20181109_122236.jpg 20181109_122246.jpg 20181109_122251.jpg
Richfi eld Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
Photos: Parcel A Building 1 - 6501 Penn Avenue South - Bumper to Bumper Auto Parts
Page 2 of 5
20181109_122258.jpg 20181109_122311.jpg 20181109_122312.jpg
20181109_122317.jpg 20181109_122348.jpg 20181109_122400.jpg
20181109_122405.jpg 20181109_122420.jpg 20181109_122429.jpg
20181109_122439.jpg 20181109_122514.jpg 20181109_122519.jpg
Richfi eld Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
Photos: Parcel A Building 1 - 6501 Penn Avenue South - Bumper to Bumper Auto Parts
Page 3 of 5
20181109_122524.jpg 20181109_122539.jpg 20181109_122543.jpg
20181109_122857.jpg 20181109_122901.jpg 20181109_122906.jpg
20181109_122909.jpg 20181109_122913.jpg 20181109_122927.jpg
20181109_122935.jpg 20181109_122948.jpg 20181109_123000.jpg
Richfi eld Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
Photos: Parcel A Building 1 - 6501 Penn Avenue South - Bumper to Bumper Auto Parts
Page 4 of 5
20181109_123009.jpg 20181109_123016.jpg 20181109_123022.jpg
20181109_123044.jpg 20181109_123050.jpg 20181109_123053.jpg
20181109_123120.jpg 20181109_123122.jpg 20181109_123130.jpg
20181109_123218.jpg 20181109_123309.jpg 20181109_123316.jpg
Richfi eld Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
Photos: Parcel A Building 1 - 6501 Penn Avenue South - Bumper to Bumper Auto Parts
Page 5 of 5
20181109_123320.jpg 20181109_123332.jpg 20181109_123337.jpg
20181109_123339.jpg 20181109_123417.jpg 20181109_123427.jpg
20181109_123429.jpg
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
Replacement Cost Report
Square Foot Cost Estimate Report Date:11/9/2018
Parcel A Building 2, Garage
City of Richfield
6501 Penn Ave South , Richfield , Minnesota ,
55423
Building Type:
Garage, Repair with Concrete Block / Steel
Joists
Location:RICHFIELD, MN
Story Count:1
Story Height (L.F.):10
Floor Area (S.F.):2100
Labor Type:OPN
Basement Included:No
Data Release:Year 2018 Quarter 2
Cost Per Square Foot:$114.43
Building Cost:$240,320.67
% of Total Cost Per S.F. Cost
20.65% 21.57 45,301.15
A1010 Standard Foundations 13.03 27,365.85
8.42 17,676.23
4.61 9,689.62
A1030 Slab on Grade 8.22 17,256.16
8.22 17,256.16
A2010 Basement Excavation 0.32 679.14
0.32 679.14
30.82% 32.19 67,595.84
B2010 Exterior Walls 11.54 24,232.91
11.54 24,232.91
B2030 Exterior Doors 3.54 7,431.93
0.87 1,830.78
2.67 5,601.15
B3010 Roof Coverings 17.11 35,931.00
17.11 35,931.00
11.55% 12.07 25,338.78
C1010 Partitions 4.96 10,418.70
1.76 3,698.18
3.20 6,720.52
Concrete block (CMU) wall, regular weight, 75% solid, 8 x 8 x 16, 4500 PSI,
reinforced, vertical #5@32", grouted
Estimate Name:
Costs are derived from a building model with basic components.
Scope differences and market conditions can cause costs to vary significantly.
A Substructure
Foundation wall, CIP, 4' wall height, direct chute, .148 CY/LF, 7.2 PLF, 12"
thick
Strip footing, concrete, reinforced, load 11.1 KLF, soil bearing capacity 6 KSF,
12" deep x 24" wide
Slab on grade, 6" thick, light industrial, reinforced
Excavate and fill, 10,000 SF, 4' deep, sand, gravel, or common earth, on site
storage
B Shell
Door, steel 18 gauge, hollow metal, 1 door with frame, no label, 3'‐0" x 7'‐0"
opening
Door, steel 24 gauge, overhead, sectional, manual operation, 12'‐0" x 12'‐0"
opening
C Interiors
Lightweight block 4" thick
Concrete block (CMU) partition, light weight, hollow, 8" thick, no finish
Precast concrete plank, 2" topping, 12" total thickness, 35' span, 40 PSF
superimposed load, 135 PSF total load
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 180891 Page 1 of 3
Replacement Cost Report
Parcel A Building 2, Garage
C1020 Interior Doors 0.42 877.72
0.42 877.72
C1030 Fittings 0.76 1,599.88
0.76 1,599.88
C3010 Wall Finishes 4.20 8,813.20
2.80 5,875.46
0.79 1,655.98
0.61 1,281.76
C3020 Floor Finishes 1.29 2,699.67
1.04 2,177.19
0.25 522.48
C3030 Ceiling Finishes 0.44 929.61
0.44 929.61
36.98% 38.20 80,237.57
D2010 Plumbing Fixtures 2.93 6,179.03
1.14 2,397.83
0.23 489.86
0.59 1,242.16
0.64 1,353.61
0.33 695.57
D2020 Domestic Water Distribution 0.69 1,449.72
0.69 1,449.72
D2040 Rain Water Drainage 4.59 9,635.51
1.71 3,596.45
2.88 6,039.06
D3050 Terminal & Package Units 9.68 20,318.84
9.68 20,318.84
D4010 Sprinklers 4.62 9,709.77
4.62 9,709.77
D4020 Standpipes 1.00 2,104.18
0.92 1,929.01
0.08 175.17
D5010 Electrical Service/Distribution 2.25 4,728.08
1.41 2,967.40
0.69 1,451.48
0.15 309.20
D5020 Lighting and Branch Wiring 8.62 18,104.13
2.21 4,631.78
0.30 623.24
0.60 1,264.52
5.52 11,584.59
Vinyl, composition tile, minimum
Door, single leaf, kd steel frame, hollow metal, commercial quality, flush, 3'‐
0" x 7'‐0" x 1‐3/8"
Toilet partitions, cubicles, ceiling hung, stainless steel
2 coats paint on masonry with block filler
Painting, masonry or concrete, latex, brushwork, primer & 2 coats
Painting, masonry or concrete, latex, brushwork, addition for block filler
Concrete topping, hardeners, metallic additive, minimum
Rooftop, single zone, air conditioner, factories, 10,000 SF, 33.33 ton
Acoustic ceilings, 5/8" fiberglass board, 24" x 48" tile, tee grid, suspended
support
D Services
Water closet, vitreous china, bowl only with flush valve, wall hung
Urinal, vitreous china, wall hung
Lavatory w/trim, wall hung, PE on CI, 19" x 17"
Service sink w/trim, PE on CI,wall hung w/rim guard, 24" x 20"
Water cooler, electric, wall hung, wheelchair type, 7.5 GPH
Gas fired water heater, residential, 100< F rise, 30 gal tank, 32 GPH
Roof drain, steel galv sch 40 threaded, 4" diam piping, 10' high
Roof drain, steel galv sch 40 threaded, 4" diam piping, for each additional
foot add
Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, ordinary hazard, 1 floor, 10,000 SF
Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe, 1 floor
Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe, additional
floors
Overhead service installation, includes breakers, metering, 20' conduit &
wire, 3 phase, 4 wire, 120/208 V, 200 A
Feeder installation 600 V, including RGS conduit and XHHW wire, 200 A
Switchgear installation, incl switchboard, panels & circuit breaker, 120/208
V, 3 phase, 400 A
Receptacles incl plate, box, conduit, wire, 4 per 1000 SF, .5 watts per SF
Miscellaneous power, 1 watt
Central air conditioning power, 3 watts
Fluorescent fixtures recess mounted in ceiling, 1.6 watt per SF, 40 FC, 10
fixtures @32watt per 1000 SF
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 180891 Page 2 of 3
Replacement Cost Report
Parcel A Building 2, Garage
D5030 Communications and Security 3.72 7,802.49
2.16 4,542.27
1.30 2,735.36
0.25 524.86
D5090 Other Electrical Systems 0.10 205.82
0.10 205.82
0% 0 0
E1090 Other Equipment 0 0
0% 0 0
0% 0 0
100% $104.03 $218,473.34
10.00% $10.40 $21,847.33
0.00% $0.00 $0.00
0.00% $0.00 $0.00
$114.43 $240,320.67
Fire alarm command center, addressable with voice, excl. wire & conduit
Communication and alarm systems, fire detection, addressable, 25 detectors,
includes outlets, boxes, conduit and wire
Internet wiring, 4 data/voice outlets per 1000 S.F.
Generator sets, w/battery, charger, muffler and transfer switch, gas/gasoline
operated, 3 phase, 4 wire, 277/480 V, 15 kW
E Equipment & Furnishings
F Special Construction
G Building Sitework
SubTotal
Contractor Fees (General Conditions,Overhead,Profit)
Architectural Fees
User Fees
Total Building Cost
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 180891 Page 3 of 3
Replacement Cost Report
Parcel A Building 2, Garage
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
Code Deficiency Cost Report
Parcel A - 6501 Penn Ave South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 - PID 28-028-24-23-0023
Building 2: Garage
Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units
Unit
Quantity Total
Accessibility Items
Accessible Route
A code required accessible route into the building should be
created 1,500.00$ Lump 1 1,500.00$
Restroom
A code required accessible restroom should be installed 2.60$ SF 2100 5,460.00$
Drinking Fountain
A code required drinking fountain should be installed 0.33$ SF 2100 693.00$
Door Hardware
Code compliant door hardware should be installed 250.00$ EA 5 1,250.00$
Structural Elements
Block Walls
Repair/replace damaged block walls to prevent water intrusion
per code 5.00$ SF 2100 10,500.00$
Steel Lintels
Replace/Protect failed steel lintel per code 750.00$ EA 1 750.00$
Protect rusting steel lintels per code 100.00$ EA 3 300.00$
Exiting
Thresholds
Thresholds should be modified to comply with code for maximum
height 250.00$ EA 3 750.00$
Fire Protection
Smoke Detectors
Install code required smoke detectors 2.16$ SF 2100 4,536.00$
Emergency Notification System
Install code required emergency notification system 1.30$ SF 2100 2,730.00$
Emergency Lighting
Install code required emergency lighting system 0.81$ SF 2100 1,701.00$
Building Sprinkler System
Install code required building sprinkler system 5.62$ SF 2100 11,802.00$
Exterior Construction
Glass Block Windows
Replace vandalized glass block windows to prevent water
intrusion per code 1,500.00$ Lump 1 1,500.00$
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 180891 Page 1 of 2
Code Deficiency Cost Report
Parcel A Building 2, Garage
Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units
Unit
Quantity Total
Roof Construction
Roofing Material
Remove failed roofing material 3.00$ SF 2100 6,300.00$
Install new roofing material to prevent water intrusion per code 17.11$ SF 2100 35,931.00$
Mechanical- Electrical
Mechanical
The HVAC system should be replaced to comply with code 9.68$ SF 2100 20,328.00$
The air compressor should have a code required guard around
the pully 50.00$ EA 1 50.00$
Electrical
Code compliant lighting should be installed 2.76$ SF 2100 5,796.00$
Electrical junction boxes should be protected per code 125.00$ EA 1 125.00$
Total Code Improvements 112,002$
Richfield Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 180891 Page 2 of 2
Code Deficiency Cost Report
Parcel A Building 2, Garage
Richfi eld Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
Photos: Parcel A Building 2 - 6501 Penn Avenue South - Garage
Page 1 of 4
20181109_123527.jpg 20181109_123533.jpg 20181109_123541.jpg
20181109_123549.jpg 20181109_123551.jpg 20181109_123555.jpg
20181109_123604.jpg 20181109_123610.jpg 20181109_123619.jpg
20181109_123623.jpg 20181109_123627.jpg 20181109_123631.jpg
Richfi eld Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
Photos: Parcel A Building 2 - 6501 Penn Avenue South - Garage
Page 2 of 4
20181109_123635.jpg 20181109_123643.jpg 20181109_123649.jpg
20181109_123654.jpg 20181109_123659.jpg 20181109_123710.jpg
20181109_123716.jpg 20181109_123816.jpg 20181109_123820.jpg
20181109_123830.jpg 20181109_123839.jpg 20181109_123846.jpg
Richfi eld Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
Photos: Parcel A Building 2 - 6501 Penn Avenue South - Garage
Page 3 of 4
20181109_123848.jpg 20181109_123857.jpg 20181109_123903.jpg
20181109_123907.jpg 20181109_123909.jpg 20181109_123923.jpg
20181109_123932.jpg 20181109_123935.jpg 20181109_123946.jpg
20181109_123951.jpg 20181109_123953.jpg 20181109_123959.jpg
Richfi eld Penn Avenue Redevelopment TIF District
Photos: Parcel A Building 2 - 6501 Penn Avenue South - Garage
Page 4 of 4
20181109_124001.jpg 20181109_124137.jpg 20181109_124211.jpg
20181109_124236.jpg 20181109_124237.jpg
AGENDA SECTION:RESOLUTIONS
AGENDA ITEM #14.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 197
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
12/14/2021
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice
12/8/2021
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
12/8/2021
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider the adoption of a resolution authorizing Richfield Public Safety/Police Department to accept
donations from the listed agencies, businesses and private individuals for designated uses.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Throughout the year, donations are received from various agencies, businesses and private individuals to be
used for special events or programs sponsored by the Police Department. The donations are for community
engagement events and are solicited by the Department. This resolution authorizes the acceptance of
$10,639.00 in donations.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Adopt a resolution authorizing Richfield Public Safety/Police Department to accept
donations from the listed agencies, businesses and private individuals for designated uses.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
The Department of Public Safety/Police holds several annual events that require outside funding to
occur. Staff members solicit donations from business and/or individuals to support these programs.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires that every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal
property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of the City Council adopted by
a two-thirds majority of its members.
The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on November 9, 2004, requiring that all
grants and restricted donations to departments be received by resolution and adopted by two-
thirds majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute 465.03.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
Donations have been received and applied to the designated areas as indicated by the donors.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
Financial donations have been deposited in the funds supporting the designated programs.
All of the donations listed below were given without obligation to provide any additional matching
funds:
Community Engage me nt:
D O N O R AMO U N T
Richfield Pump and Munch Lyndale (2020)$500.00
John and Nancy Schuneman $50.00
David and Theresa Carroll $350.00
Joseph and Susan Menning $834.00
Family of Bill Williams $100.00
American Legion Post #435 $100.00
Target Corporate $1,000.00
Target Richfield Store $105.00
Unity in the Community:
D O N O R AMO U N T
Richfield Tourism Promotion Board Inc.$2,500.00
Lynne and Scott Clarke $100.00
K9 Program:
D O N O R AMO U N T
Minnco Credit Union $5,000.00
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property be
received by resolution and adopted by two-thirds majority of the City Council.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
Council could disapprove the acceptance of the donations for the events and the monetary donations would
have to be returned to the issuing agency/business/individual.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
None
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Resolution Resolution L etter
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE DEPARTMENT
TO ACCEPT DONATIONS FROM THE LISTED AGENCIES, BUSINESSES AND
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS FOR DESIGNATED USES
WHEREAS, the Department of Public Safety/Police Division, through its Director,
received checks from the following for Community Engagement
Community Engagement:
DONOR AMOUNT
Richfield Pump and Munch Lyndale
(2020)
$500.00
John and Nancy Schuneman $50.00
David and Theresa Carroll $350.00
Joseph and Susan Menning $834.00
Family of Bill Williams $100.00
American Legion Post #435 $100.00
Target Corporate $1,000.00
Target Richfield Store $105.00
Unity in the Community:
DONOR AMOUNT
Richfield Tourism Promotion Board
Inc.
$2,500.00
Lynne and Scott Clarke $100.00
K9 Program:
DONOR AMOUNT
Minnco Credit Union $5,000.00
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of
real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of
more than two-thirds majority of the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the donated funds will be used towards the designated events
sponsored by Richfield Police.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Director of Public Safety/Chief
of Police will accept the donations to be placed in the accounts as specified.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
December, 2021.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kari Sinning, City Clerk