11-14-2023 City Council Agenda(FINAL)R EG U LAR C IT Y C O U N C IL MEET IN G
R IC H F IE L D MU N IC IPAL C E N TE R, C O U N C IL C H AMB E R S
N O VEMB E R 14, 2023
7:00 P M
IN TR O D U C TO RY P R O C E E D IN G S
C all to order
P ledge of A llegiance
G U E S T P R ESEN TAT IO N
1.18th A nnual Great P umpkin Giveaway C oloring C ontest Winners.
Open forum
C all into the open forum by dialing 1-415-655-0001 U se webinar access code: 2632 589 0281 and password:
1234.
P lease refer to the C ouncil A genda & M inutes web page for additional ways to submit comments.
A pproval of the Minutes of the (1) C ity C ouncil Work S ession of October 24, 2023; (2) C ity C ouncil Meeting of October
24, 2023; and (3) S pecial C ouncil Work S ession of November 1, 2023.
AG E N D A APPR O VAL
2.A pproval of the A genda
P R E S E N TATIO N S
3.P roclamation C elebrating Native A merican Heritage Month
4.P roclamation C elebrating S mall B usiness S aturday
5.C ivil S ervice C ommission annual presentation given by P resident Jeffrey B ruzek.
6.Transportation C ommission annual presentation given by C hair Husniyah B radley.
7.C ommunity S ervices C ommission annual presentation given by C hair Tessa J ohanson.
8.Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one
motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended
actions have also been approved. No further Council action on these items is necessary. However, any
Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the
regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are
recommended for approval.
A .C onsider approval of the first reading of an ordinance rezoning property at 6613-6625 P ortland Avenue
S outh to MU-N "Mixed Use Neighborhood" and schedule a second reading for November 28, 2023.
S taff Report No. 144
B .C onsider approval of a first reading of an ordinance amendment to S ection 408.01, subdivision 6, clarifying
that escrows submitted under the P oint of S ale program can be subject to forfeiture if improvements are not
made, and to S ection 408.01, subdivision 4, correcting a code reference relating to the appeals process.
S taff Report No. 145
C .C onsider a resolution designating buildings formerly located at 7700 and 7730 P ortland Avenue S outh as
structurally substandard within the Richfield Redevelopment P roject A rea.
S taff Report No. 146
D .C onsider approval of the mutual termination rental agreement between the C ity of Richfield and the M N
Whitecaps P rofessional Women's hockey team.
S taff Report No. 147
E .C onsider the approval of a contract with Graymont (W I), L L C for the purchase of 1,400 tons of quick lime
for water treatment in the amount of $302,120.00.
S taff Report No. 148
F.C onsider adoption of resolutions of support for Richfield's applications for federal capital construction
funding for five projects through the Metropolitan C ouncil's Regional S olicitation.
S taff Report No. 149
G.C onsider authorizing the C ity Manager to sell Richfield F ire L adder Truck Unit #3789 to the C ity of Grand
Marais F ire D epartment for $65,000.
S taff Report No. 150
H.C onsider rescinding acceptance of the Midwest P layscapes proposals for the replacement of play
equipment at D onaldson P ark and the replacement of play equipment at F airwood P ark, reject all
proposals, and authorize the Interim Recreation S ervices D irector to issue new requests for proposals.
S taff Report No. 151
9.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
10.C onsider approval of a first reading of an ordinance amending S ection 1305 of the Richfield C ity C ode,
authorizing the C ity E ngineer to set speed limits on municipal roadways.
S taff Report No. 152
O T H E R B U S IN E S S
11.C onsider the appointment of a youth member to the Human Rights C ommission.
S taff Report No. 153
C IT Y MAN AG E R’S R E P O R T
12.C ity Manager's Report
C LAIMS AN D PAYR O L LS
13.C laims and P ayroll
C O U N C IL D ISC U SSIO N
14.Hats Off to Hometown Hits
15.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 612-861-9739.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
City Council Work Session
October 24, 2023
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Supple called the work session to order at 5:45 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room.
Council Members
Present:
Mary Supple, Mayor; Sean Hayford Oleary; Ben Whalen; Simon Trautmann;
and Sharon Christensen
Staff Present:
Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Dustin Leslie, City Clerk; Chris Swanson,
Management Analyst; Chad Donnelly, Assistant Utility Superintendent; Joe
Powers, City Engineer; Brad Drayna, Police Lieutenant; Matt Hardegger,
Transportation Engineer; Kristin Asher, Public Works Director.
ITEM #1
FINDINGS OF THE WATER SYSTEM INTERCONNECT EVALUATION.
City Manager Rodriguez introduced the topics to Council and introduced Assistant Utility
Superintendent Donnelly to Council.
Assistant Utility Superintendent Donnelly gave the presentation covering background of the
project, project purpose, goals, analysis of alternatives, interconnect locations, staff findings, and
recommended actions. He noted that the Minneapolis interconnection is the recommendation.
Council Member Hayford Oleary stated he was ok with the staff recommendation and spoke
about how Richfield could be affected by a disaster interrupting the city’s water supply. He asked staff
if the ground water used by Richfield were to run out, would they be able to get water from
Minneapolis? Assistant Utility Superintendent Donnelly stated the city would be able to draw water
from Minneapolis in that event.
Staff and Council spoke about eventually needing to replace the water treatment plant and
having a connection to Minneapolis could provide a new option or a temporary option if a new water
treatment plant was ever built.
Mayor Supple agreed that the Minneapolis option made the most sense. Staff stated they
wanted to make sure Council did not want to go with the Bloomington option. The council agreed with
staff about not wanting the Bloomington connection.
City Council Work Session Minutes
-2- October 24, 2023
ITEM #2
STAFF WILL PRESENT AN UPDATE ON THE ONGOING LOCAL SPEED LIMIT
STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A PROPOSED SIGNING
AND SPEED LIMIT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND A PUBLIC EDUCATION
CAMPAIGN.
Transportation Engineer Hardegger gave the presentation covering speed limit proposals,
methodology, 2022-2023 speed data, and data for 76th and 77th streets.
There was a general conversation between staff and council regarding speeds along the 77th
Street corridor as well as addressing inequities in changing the speed limits.
City Engineer Powers spoke about a possible grant opportunity the city applied for that would
help look at design changes to the 77th Street corridor. He also spoke about response changes if
speed limits were updated.
Mayor Supple spoke about the benefits of adding sidewalks and making them ADA accessible.
Council Member Hayford Oleary and Mayor Supple spoke about their preferences for speed
limits on certain streets within the city. Council Member Whalen asked the police department to
comment on enforcement. Lieutenant Drayna stated the police department enforces speed limits
throughout the city equally and spoke about crash data.
City staff finished the presentation by talking about ordinance language and resolution
language that would be presented at a future Council meeting.
Communications Strategist Scott Barshun gave a presentation about the Richfield Drives 25
communication campaign and how it would be advertised.
The Mayor and Council Members gave feedback regarding the campaign, including less use
of blurry images and more use of people.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Supple adjourned the work session at 6:55 pm.
Date Approved: November 14, 2023
Mary B. Supple
Mayor
Dustin Leslie Katie Rodriguez
City Clerk City Manager
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Supple at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Council Members Present:
Mary Supple, Mayor; Sharon Christensen; Simon Trautmann;
Sean Hayford Oleary; and Ben Whalen
Staff Present:
Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney;
Melissa Poehlman, Community Development Director; Chad
Donnelly, Assistant Utility Superintendent; Jennifer Anderson,
Support Services Manager; Chief; Chris Swanson,
Management Analyst; and Dustin Leslie, City Clerk
Others Present: Aric Bieganek and Larry Nelson, Arts Commission co-chairs;
Eddie Holmvig-Johnson, Planning Commission Chair
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Supple led the Pledge of Allegiance.
OPEN FORUM
Mayor Supple reviewed the options to participate:
Participate live by calling 1-415-655-0001 during the open forum portion
Call prior to meeting 612-861-9711
Email prior to meeting kwynn@richfieldmn.gov
There were no participants.
ITEM #1
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
M/Whalen, S/Trautmann to approve the minutes of the: (1) City Council Work Session of
October 10, 2023; (2) City Council and Meeting of October 10, 2023.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Regular Council Meeting
October 24, 2023
City Council Meeting Minutes -2- October 24, 2023
ARTS COMMISSION ANNU AL PRESENTATION GIVEN BY CO-CHAIRS ARIC
BIEGANEK AND LARRY NELSON
Co-Chairs Aric Bieganek and Larry Nelson presented the annual Art Commission report.
Mayor Supple thanked the Arts Commission for all they did for the community.
Council Member Whalen echoed Mayor Supple’s thanks to the entire Commission for growing
and maintaining the Arts Commission over the last 9 years.
Council Member Christensen thanked the Arts Commission and she appreciated being included
in their decisions and ideas as the Council liaison.
Council Member Trautmann echoed the other Council Members thoughts. He lifted up how the
Commission has approached the arts in Richfield.
ITEM #3
PLANNING COMMISSION ANNUAL PRESENTATION GIVEN BY CHAIR EDDIE
HOLMVIG-JOHNSON
Planning Commission Chair Eddie Holmvig-Johnson presented the annual Planning
Commission report.
Mayor Supple thanked them for all of their work and how everyone on the Commission took it
seriously with their earnest discussions about how to do things the right way.
Council Member Trautmann thanked the Commission and acknowledged their job was not
always easy or comfortable, but it was very important.
Council Member Whalen also expressed his thanks and indicated he appreciated all of the hard
work the Commissioners put in.
ITEM #4
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Manager Rodriguez presented the consent calendar.
A. Consider the first reading of proposed Franchise Ordinance and Agreement with
CenterPoint Energy Minnesota Gas (“CenterPoint Energy”) allowing and setting terms for
CenterPoint Energy’s use of the City right-of-way and setting the public hearing and second
reading for November 28, 2023. (Staff Report No. 141)
BILL NO. 2023-14
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING CENTERPOINT ENERGY RESOURCES CORP.
D/B/A CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNESOTA GAS (“CENTERPOINT ENERGY”), ITS
SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, A NONEXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT,
OPERATE, REPAIR AND MAINTAIN FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION, DISTRIBUTION, MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF GAS ENERGY
FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE USE AND TO USE THE PUBLIC WAYS AND GROUNDS
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, MINNESOTA, FOR SUCH
PURPOSE; AND, PRESCRIBING CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF
City Council Meeting Minutes -3- October 24, 2023
M/Whalen, S/Christensen to approve the consent calendar.
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #5
CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT
CALENDAR
None.
ITEM #6
CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF THE SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 9, SECTION 925 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE TO
INCLUDE MANAGED NATURAL LANDSCAPES, ORNAMENTAL PLANTS AND
RAIN GARDENS AS NEW DEFINITIONS, AS WELL AS AMENDING THE
MAINTENANCE STANDARD OF GRASS HEIGHT FROM 6” TO 8” (STAFF
REPORT NO. 142)
Council Member Trautmann presented Staff Report 142.
Council Member Hayford Oleary stated he believed this made a lot of sense for Richfield.
M/Trautmann, S/Whalen to approve an Ordinance Amending Subsection 925.06 of the Richfield
Code of Ordinances Relating to Public Nuisances and Lawn Maintenance and Allowing Managed
Natural Landscapes Pursuant to State Law
BILL NO. 2023-13
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION 925.06 OF THE RICHFIELD CODE OF
ORDINANCES RELATING TO PUBLIC NUISANCES AND LAWN MAINTENANCE AND
ALLOWING MANAGED NATURAL LANDSCAPES PURSUANT TO STATE LAW
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #7
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Rodriguez shared information regarding Kathleen Balaban’s suggestions at the
last meeting regarding putting pictures of the Commissioners on the Commission’s pages and in the
recruitment material. She stated that was already in the works and it is on the long list of things to do.
She stated they would be doing group photos, but they did need to get the Commissioner’s approval
to even put a group photo up.
ITEM #8
CLAIMS AND PAYROLL
M/Trautmann, S/Whalen that the following claims and payrolls be approved:
U.S. BANK 10/19/2023
City Council Meeting Minutes -4- October 24, 2023
A/P Checks: 324419-324775 $3,427,597.49
Payroll: 182682 – 182994; 43664 – 43666 $814,281.38
TOTAL $4,241,878.87
Motion carried: 5-0
ITEM #9
HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS
Council Member Whalen encouraged everyone to vote. Clerk Leslie summarized the expanded
voting hours for the final weeks.
Council Member Christensen gave hats off to Girl Scout Troop 18102 and also Penn Nutrition
who were collecting through the month of November clothing and household items for the Epilepsy
Foundation.
Council Member Hayford Oleary noted the new bike park was a well-used amenity and praised
how nice the opening of the bike park was.
Council Member Trautmann noted the Friends of Wood Lake fundraising dinner is November 3.
Mayor Supple thanked the Lakeshore Drive Condominiums Resident Association for their
hospitality. She noted it was a great discussion with questions and feedback given. She gave a shout
out to County Attorney Moriarty for hosting the suburban Mayors talk about different public safety
initiatives. She noted there were still commissioner openings.
ITEM #10
CLOSED SESSION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT
PRIVILEGE DISCUSSION PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. 13D.05, SUBD. 3(B) TO
DISCUSS THE CITY’S OPTIONS TO PARTICIPATE IN MULTI-DISTRICT
LAWSUIT AND RELATED CLASS SETTLEMENTS ENTITLED: IN RE:
AQUEOUS FILM FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION;
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA –
CHARLESTON DIVISION; MDL NO. 2:18-MN-2873-RMB; CASE NO. 2:23-CV-
03147-RMG, CASE NO. 2:23-CV-03230-RMG
M/Hayford Oleary, S/Christensen to move to a closed session in the backroom for the purposes
of discussing an attorney client privilege to discussion pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13D, Subd. 3(b) to discuss
the City’s options to participate in multi-district lawsuit and related class settlements entitled: In Re:
Aqueous film forming foams products liability litigation; Unite d States District Court, District of South
Carolina – Charleston Division; MDL No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMB; Case No. 2:23-CV-03147-RMG, Case
No. 2:23-CV-03230-RMG.
Motion carried: 5-0.
Mayor Supple reconvened the regular meeting and noted Council conducted a closed session
with respect to discussing an attorney client privilege to discussion pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13D, Subd.
3(b) to discuss the City’s options to participate in multi-district lawsuit and related class settlements
entitled: In Re: Aqueous film forming foams products liability litigation; Unites States District Court,
District of South Carolina – Charleston Division; MDL No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMB; Case No. 2:23-CV-
03147-RMG, Case No. 2:23-CV-03230-RMG.
City Council Meeting Minutes -5- October 24, 2023
ITEM #11
ADJOURNMENT
M/Whalen, S/Trautmann to adjourn the meeting at 8:04 p.m.
Motion carried: 5-0
Date Approved: November 14, 2023
Mary Supple
Mayor
Dustin Leslie Katie Rodriguez
City Clerk City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Special City Council Work Session
November 1, 2023
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Supple at 4:00 p.m. held at Richfield Community
Center.
Council Members Mary Supple, Mayor; Simon Trautmann; Sean Hayford Oleary; Ben Whalen;
Present: and Sharon Christensen
Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Sack Thongvanh, Assistant City Manager;
Melissa Poehlman, Community Development Director, Jay Henthorne,
Public Safety Director; Kristin Asher, Public Works Director; Karl Huemiller,
Interim Recreation Services Director; Mike Dobesh, Fire Chief; Kumud Verma,
Finance Director
Item #1
CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF TEAM BUILDING RETREAT
The City Council and staff met for their annual meeting regarding effective governance.
ADJOURNMENT
The work session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:00 p.m.
Date Approved: November 1, 2023
Mary B. Supple
Mayor
Kelly Wynn Katie Rodriguez
Administrative Assistant City Manager
Proclamation of the City of Richfield
WHEREAS, the Indigenous People of the Dakota Nation have lived upon the land of
modern-day Richfield since time immemorial; and
WHEREAS, the People of the Dakota Nation were subject to forced movement from their
native lands, coerced into inequitable contracts and treaties in order to deceive and steal land
and property from them, treaties that were broken by the other parties who continue to
violate those treaties today, forced assimilation into the colonizing culture, and the forced
removal and indoctrination of their children; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield strives to eliminate systemic racism and discrimination
towards Indigenous Peoples, to celebrate and honor their experiences and to hold in esteem
their roots, history, and contributions to our culture; and to dedicate to this effort a month of
intentional reflection; and
WHEREAS, November is recognized as National Native American Heritage month; and
WHEREAS, nearly 400 Richfield residents self-identify as Native American and continue
to contribute to the prosperity, well-being and culture of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield recognizes the month of November 2023 as Native
American Heritage Month to promote authentic appreciation, tolerance, reconciliation,
understanding, friendship, and continued partnerships among all of its people and the
Indigenous Peoples of this land.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, MARY SUPPLE, Mayor of the City of Richfield, on behalf of
the Richfield City Council, do hereby proclaim November 2023 as Native American
Heritage Month in the City of Richfield and call on the people of Richfield to observe
this month with appropriate programs, activities, and ceremonies, and continue to
honor the contributions of Indigenous Americans throughout the year.
PROCLAIMED this 14th day of November 2023.
Mary B. Supple, Mayor
Proclamation of the City of Richfield
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield celebrates our local small businesses and the
contributions they make to the local economy and community; and
WHEREAS, for many local residents the Thanksgiving holiday kicks off a season of
gathering, dining, and shopping, and consumers know that supporting small, independently
owned businesses has positive social, economic, and environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the Small Business Administration as well as other public and private
organizations have endorsed the Saturday after Thanksgiving as Small Business Saturday;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has partnered with Hennepin County to support Small
Business Saturday with the multijurisdictional Love Local campaign which encourages
residents to support local businesses that create jobs, boost the economy, and make our
community vibrant and livable.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Mary Supple, Mayor of the City of Richfield, on behalf of the
Richfield City Council, do hereby proclaim Saturday, November 25, 2023 as Small
Business Saturday in the City of Richfield and urge the residents of our community to
support small businesses and merchants on Small Business Saturday and throughout
the year.
PROCLAIMED this 14th day of November 2023.
Mary B. Supple, Mayor
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #8.A.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 144
CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING
11/14/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y:S am C rosby, P lanner II
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:Melissa P oehlman, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
10/31/2023
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
11/7/2023
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider approval of the first reading of an ordinance rezoning property at 6613-6625 Portland Avenue
South to MU-N "Mixed Use Neighborhood" and schedule a second reading for November 28, 2023.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Beacon I nterfaith Housing C ollaborative (Applic ant) has applied for land use approvals to construct a 3-story,
38-unit housing development on the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) owned parcels in the
southeast quadrant of 66th Street E ast and Portland Avenue S outh. The targeted c lientele is neuro-diverse
young adults. Half of the units would be available at 30% of Area Median I ncome (A MI ) and the other half of
the units would be available at 50% A MI . See applicant’s project narrative, attached.
One of the land use approvals for the project is a rezoning. The properties are currently zoned MR-2, “Multi-
Family Residential” and lie within the Veteran’s Park Area (V PA) overlay distric t. The Applicant is requesting
that the properties be rezoned to MU-N, “Mixed Use, Neighborhood”, as the dimensional standards therein
more closely align with the purpose and intent of the V PA Overlay Distric t (i.e.: discourage auto use and
promote increased use of transit). Also, the proposed zoning is c ompatible with the proposed High Density
Residential Comprehensive Plan designation.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the rezoning and proposed development on October 23rd.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of both the rezoning and the development
proposal. The first reading of a rezoning is an administrative requirement and does not obligate the C ounc il to
approve the ordinanc e upon sec ond reading; nor does it obligate the C ounc il to approve the specific
development plans. A second reading and final development plans will be considered by the Council on
November 28, 2023.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve a first r eading of an ordinance that amends the Richfield Zoning C ode Appendix I
to change the zoning designation of 6613-6625 Portland Avenue South, from MR -2, "Multi-Family
Residential” to MU-N “Mixed Use Neighborhood”.
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 property is made up of remnant parcels from the P ortland Avenue roundabout project. The HRA has
been seeking a viable development proposal for the site since 2009 (about 14 years).
The northernmost parcel, 6613, was rezoned to M R-2 in 2010. The rest of the parcels have been guided
Medium D ensity Residential since at least 2013 and were rezoned in 2021.
The P ortland and 66th S ub A rea S tudy was completed, and the V PA overlay di strict was adopted in June
of 2021.
On March 8, 2022, at a joi nt work session of the C ity C ouncil, H R A , and P lanning C ommission, the
A pplicant presented conceptual plans for the development of up to 40 units of supportive, affordable rental
housing.
On the evening of May 4, 2023, the A pplicant held a neighborhood meeting at the Ri chfi eld C ommunity
C enter. A pproximately 12 neighbors attended.
B .E QU ITAB L E OR S T R AT E GIC C ON S ID E R AT ION S OR IMPAC T S
C .P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
The rezoning is being requested to accommodate the density of the project. The M R-2 zoning district
allows a maximum of 25 units, regardless of lot size. The A pplicant has not requested a rezoning to M R-3
because both the MR-2 and MR-3 zoning districts are antiquated in their bulk and dimensional
requirements. In 1982, the sub-districts of MR-2 and MR-3 were created based on what was already
existing (projects built in the late 1970’s or earlier). They were updated in 1996, to add cluster homes, but
generally have not kept pace with the realities of constructing multi-family housing in today’s market.
In 2007, the C ity created three mixed use districts, one of which is the MU-N "Mixed Use Neighborhood"
district. In this district, commercial services are not required, and residential uses are emphasized at key
transportation nodes/corners. The projects are intended to be of smaller scale and oriented to the
neighborhood. The main differences between the M R-2 district and the MU-N district are building
coverage limits (30% vs. 75%), unit sizes (minimums vs. no minimums), open space requirements
(12,350 sq. ft. vs. 2,533 sq. ft.), rear and side setbacks (35 ft. vs. 5 ft.), building height (3 stories vs. 8
stories) and the number of studio units allowed (maximum 20% vs. no limit).
Rezoning to MU-N provides the opportunity for a project that fits within the community fabric - as the
building is not too dissimilar in height and bulk to other existing apartments in the immediate area - but
does not have the availability of land that previous generations enjoyed.
D .C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The 60-day clock started when the application was deemed complete on S eptember 8, 2023. B ecause
the overall request involves both a rezoning (which requires more than one reading before the C ity
C ouncil) and a C omprehensive P lan A mendment (which requires both adjacent and affected jurisdiction
review, and Met C ouncil approval), C ity staff already exercised the C ity’s right to a time extension for an
additional 60 days. The extended review period will end on – and therefore a decision is required by -
F riday, January 5, 2024.
A second reading of the rezoning is scheduled for November 28, 2023, alongside
consideration of other land use applications.
E .F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
T he required land use application fees have been paid.
F.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
A public hearing was held before the P lanning C ommission on October 23. Notice of this hearing was
mailed to properties within 500 feet of the proposed development and published in the S un C urrent
Newspaper on October 12, 2023.
The P lanning C ommission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning.
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C OMME N D AT ION(S):
None.
P R IN C IPAL PAR T IE S E X P E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
J im B arnes, S enior Housing P roject Manager for B eacon, and P aul Mellblom, P rincipal A rchitect MS R D esigns.
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Rezoning Ordinance Ordinance
L ocation and Zoning Map E xhibit
P lanned L and Use Map E xhibit
A pplicant's Narrative B ackup Material
S ite P lans B ackup Material
C olored E levations B ackup Material
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING;
AMENDING APPENDIX I OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE
BY REZONING 6613-6625 PORTLAND AVENUE SOUTH
FROM MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (MR-2) TO
MIXED USE - NEIGHBORHOOD (MU-N)
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Section 13, Paragraph 43 of Appendix I of the Richfield Zoning Code
(Multi-Family Residential – MR-2) is here amended as follows.
M-9 (E side of Portland Ave, S of 66th). Lots 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34
and the West ½ of Lot 26, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 340.
Sec. 2. Section 16, Appendix I of the Richfield Zoning Code (Mixed Use -
Neighborhood) is here amended to add a new Paragraph 6 to read as
follows:
(6) M-9 (E side of Portland Ave, S of 66th). Lots 31, 32, 33 and 34,
Auditor’s Subdivision No. 340.
Sec. 3. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the
Richfield City Charter.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of
November, 2023.
Mary B. Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Dustin Leslie, City Clerk
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
VETS MEMORIAL
PORTLAND AVE66TH ST E 66TH ST EPORTLANDAVE
OAKLAND AVE67TH ST E
66TH ST E66TH ST E 6 6 T H S T EPORTLANDAVE66TH S T E
5TH AVE SPORTLANDAVE±
Location and Zoning Map
0 150 30075ft
I:\GIS\Community Development\Case Maps\2023\Aster Commons.mxd
6613-6625 Portland Avenue South
Beacon Interfaith Housing - Aster Commons
SUBJECTSITE
Legend
Parks
R Low Density Residential
""""""""""""Veteran's Park Area Overlay
MR-2 Multi-Family
C-2 General Commerciall
MU-N Mixed Use-Neighborhood
Proposed
Rezoning
from MR-2
to MU-N
PROPOSEDl
66TH ST E
6 7 T H S T EPORTLAND AVEOAKLAND AVEPARK AVE66TH ST E 66TH ST EPORTLANDAVE
6 6 T H S T EPORTLANDAVE66TH S T E
5TH AVE SPORTLANDAVE±
2040 Comprehensive Plan Designations
I:\GIS\Community Development\Case Maps\2023\Aster Commons - PLU.mxd
6613-6625 Portland Avenue South
0 150 30075ft
Subject Site
Re-guide
from
MDR to
HDR
Beacon Interfaith Housing - Aster Commons
lLegend:
Community Commercial
High Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Park
Quasi-Public lPROPOSED(8-34 du/ac)
(35-100 du/ac)
VETERAN'S MEMORIAL PARK
PROJECT SUMMARY
Aster Commons
6613 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Aster Commons is a new, 3-story building of wood construction and slab on grade with a flat roof
housing solar panels, to be installed provided they are funded. When completed the building will
provide 38 studio apartments targeting neurodiverse young adults. The backyard will be extensively
landscaped (trees and shrubbery) with a 6’ high fence abutting the neighbor’s properties to provide a
safe space for these vulnerable young adults. Parking is provided by 11 onsite parking stalls at the south
end of the site. The building will have security cameras located in interior common spaces and around
the building perimeter to protect the residents’ safety. The building provides a variety of spaces to
support residents’ wellbeing including property management, case management, therapy and
counseling services, community rooms, a 3-season porch, meeting rooms, and quiet rooms. Residents
must comply with income limits of 30% of AMI for 50% of the apartments and 30%-50% AMI for the
other 50% of the apartments. The building is 28,079sf and is predicted to have 3-4 staff onsite
throughout the day.
MSR Design has discussed this proposal with city staff and believe the following items need to be
addressed in this application:
o Comp Plan Amendment to Reguide from MDR to HDR
o Rezoning from MR-2 to MU-N
o Variance for a 11-stall parking lot
o Variance for a 10’ setback for building location in the front yard
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
The project is requesting a Comprehensive Plan amendment as the current guiding only allows for 34
dwelling units per acre and Aster Commons would exceed that limit by 4 units.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-guide from MDR to HDR is justifiable because this
is a node within the city that has been identified to have a higher land use capacity than the surrounding
single-family neighborhood. The current MDR designation does not support the ambitions of the
Veterans Park Area Overlay (VPA) zoning district by its own definition in Section 541.25 Subd. 1: “…to
produce structures of consistent character and of appropriate scale that transition from single family
residential to higher density mixed use…” (italics added for emphasis).
This site is located along Portland Avenue, a primary north-south arterial in the city of Richfield that
contains many large commercial and institutional buildings along its spine between highway 62 and
interstate 494, including churches, schools, and the Richfield Municipal Complex one block south of this
site. This is an ideal site for a reguiding to HDR to allow this site to provide higher density housing and to
provide affordable housing that helps the City of Richfield meet the community’s Met Council affordable
housing goals.
The site is in close proximity to commercial offerings as well as located along the BRT and adjacent to
the 66th Street bus routes and protected bike path. The area is highly walkable and the nearby Veterans
Park is an ideal municipal amenity that should have density nearby as a natural support area for
residents.
This proposed use is a useful transition/buffer from the lower density single-family neighborhood
behind the property to Portland Avenue, continuing the densification along Portland Avenue. Thus we
believe the proposed reguiding to HDR is congruent with the intents of the VPA and the reality of this
property’s best and highest use along Portland Avenue.
REZONING REQUEST
Proposed to rezone from MR-2 to MU-N to enable this proposed project to conform with the MU-N
zoning designation with two minor variances needed. The current MR-2 zoning does not support the
ambitions of the Veterans Park Area Overlay (VPA) district, as written in the municipal zoning code
Section 541.25 Subd. 1: “…to produce structures of consistent character and of appropriate scale that
transition from single family residential to higher density mixed use…” (italics added for emphasis). By
definition, the MR-2 zone is a lower density zone that does not support the VPA’s intentions to create a
node of vitality at and adjacent to the Portland Avenue and 66th Street roundabout that seeks to
diversify housing options per municipal zoning code Section 541.25 Subd. 1: “…to expand the mix of
housing in the area such as row/townhouse, affordable units, courtyard apartments, courtyard cottages,
and live-work units.”
Additionally, Richfield has committed to supporting the Met Council’s goals of providing 121 units of
affordable dwelling units at or below 80% of the area median income by 2030. This project will help the
city meet its long-term commitment to build affordable housing for Richfield by adding 38 new
affordable units at or below 50% of the area median income.
VARIANCE REQUESTS
PARKING REDUCTION VARIANCE
Under the current zoning, only 20 units would be allowed and that would mean the project would need
25 parking stalls at 1.25 stalls per unit.
Proposed parking is 11 total parking stalls = 0.29 parking stalls per dwelling unit.
(a). Is there a practical difficulty present which denies a reasonable use of the property? (Explain):
Yes, the additional parking would result in a much smaller building to allow the zoning required parking
count to fit onsite and much of that parking would always sit empty. A parking study was conducted by
Beacon Interfaith Collaborative through the winter of 2022/2023 to measure total parking demand at
three similar buildings owned by Beacon. This was done at the suggestion of Richfield city staff when the
issue of excessive parking requirements for the target resident population was discussed at the Sketch
Plan review session in August 2022. The study found that at any time a maximum of 8, 6, and 7 parking
stalls were actually used at the three properties, each of which is larger than the proposed Aster
Commons and are targeted to more all-purpose young adult housing rather than Aster Commons’
targeted population of neurodiverse young adults. Thus we are convinced the demand at Aster
Commons will not exist for residents and staff to need more than the 10 car parking stalls provided
onsite.
An additional parking stall is being provided and will be signed for Metro Mobility and ride share
vehicles to pick up/discharge residents at the parking lot entry to the building. Four exterior bike parking
spots and an interior bike storage room accommodating 38 bicycles are in the proposed design,
including indoor space for 2 adaptive bikes with electric plug-ins (See Sheet A193 for layout and
dimensions). Residents at Beacon’s three other properties are very frequently users of these modes of
transit and we anticipate that to be true for this property. Metro Mobility, ride share, buses and bicycles
are predicted to be the primary means of transport for this population since this population has a higher
rate of physical impairments than the general population and their incomes restrict the funds required
to own/maintain an automobile. Thus having the parking stall count required by the code would create
a sea of parking lot on this property since underground parking is cost prohibitive. Additionally, many of
the residents will be unable to secure a driver’s license due to their neurodiverse medical conditions.
(b). Are there any unusual or unique circumstances relating to the property or building which are
beyond your control? (Explain):
Yes, the current site conditions of the new BRT station’s proximity to new roundabout reduce the lot
size and force the curb cut to be at the south end of the property. Both remove available site square
footage for parking and limit building placement.
The proposed use of Metro Mobility and the adjacent BRT station aligns with city goals for reducing
traffic and congestion. Thus the proposed reduced parking count aligns with overall city goals to reduce
automobile traffic. The location along the BRT line, public sidewalks, and bike lanes along Portland
Avenue and 66th Street are optimal for this population’s predicted needs for transportation.
We believe this parking reduction represents less site burden than other uses that would typically be
permitted by zoning that would allow at least 24 parking stalls. Thus granting this variance so this
project can go forward as proposed will actually reduce individual automobile traffic since residents will
be primarily utilizing public transportation, walking, and bicycle options for the most part.
(c). Is the variance consistent with the purpose and intent of the rule from which a variance is being
requested? (Explain):
Yes, the purpose of this zoning code section is to provide sufficient off-street parking for the sites
intended use; in this case that is residents, staff, and guests. Based on the parking study conducted by
Beacon Interfaith Collaborative (noted above) at the buildings they own and manage in Edina,
Minneapolis, and St Paul the parking demand will be less than or equal to the 10 parking stalls proposed.
The results of this study were sent to city staff by Beacon in January 2023.
Per current zoning allowed for the site, there could be 24 dwelling units built onsite. Parking could be
provided in underground and/or surface parking. If these were 3-bedroom apartments, there could
reasonably be 72 to 96 residents onsite (assuming families with 2 children). At the zoning code required
mandate this would result in only 30 parking stalls, which would likely mean additional parking on the
nearby side streets since parking is not allowed on Portland Avenue. Thus we believe our proposal is a
less intensive use of the site than if the building constructed were to be maximized per the current
zoning allowances. And that our proposed parking reduction will decrease neighborhood impact by
reducing the level of traffic on the site and entering/exiting the property.
FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE
Required property front setbacks are 15’ min to 25’ max per zoning code section 537.07 Bulk and
Dimensional Standards MU-N table 2.
Proposed front setbacks are from 10’ minimum to 25’ maximum.
Maintaining 15’ minimum front set back is doable except at the BRT station because that station
infringes on the efficient use of the site.
The original site consists of the following lots 31, 32, 33 and 34 for a total of 28,478 square feet or 0.654
acres. Front building setback responds to revised site conditions with the recent roundabout installation
and BRT station installed by Metro transit. The current site has been reduced to 25,266 SF. The building
follows the recommended 15’ setback for main front yard setback except at BRT bus shelter where we
are requesting a 10’ setback from the BRT station since the station sits within the 5’ area of the setback.
Side yard setbacks are 5’ on the north and east yards and a 15’ south setback has been created for the
parking lot as required for adjacency to residential property. The east rear yard setback has been
increased to 27’-4” to accommodate private resident features including rear patio space, walking paths,
private seating areas and landscape.(a). Is there a practical difficulty present which denies a reasonable
use of the property? (Explain):
Current site conditions with the new BRT station have resulted in the property being narrower at its
north end due to the BRT bus stop that steps back into the site by 5’. This step back has necessitated the
building being 10’ from the front property line, which sits at the rear edge of the 5’ indent for the bus
shelter, sign, and bench. If this step-back in the property line had not been present, the building position
would comply with zoning and this variance would not be necessary.
The project is also maintaining a min of 27’ for the rear yard area to maintain the min of 10% useable
area and to maintain more distance from the neighbors who front on the street to the east. The
building placement is aligned to avoid solar shading of neighbors per the zoning code.
(b). Are there any unusual or unique circumstances relating to the property or building which are
beyond your control? (Explain):
After talking with existing neighbors who live behind the property, we believe the best building location
is to push it to the west and as far from the rear property line as possible. The current site layout
accomplishes this by including a 27’ setback on the rear (east) side of the site to provide as much
separation as possible between the building and neighbors. This allows the project to include taller trees
to be planted between the new building and rear property line to help screening between the building
and the neighbors. If the site were to meet the requirements of the 15’ minimum setback at the north
end of the site, it would be a very convoluted building to maintain the 25’ maximum setback at the
south end of the site since the site is trapezoidal in shape. We believe this design layout better situates
the building on the site than strictly complying with the 15’ minimum setback rule.
The remainder of the proposed building adheres to the 15’ setback except at the entry area due to the
removal of original site sf for the BRT shelter, signage and bench.
(c). Is the variance consistent with the purpose and intent of the rule from which a variance is being
requested? (Explain):
The newly constructed BRT station sits within the prior, typical 15’ setback requirement for the
property. Had the original property line been maintained then the building placement would comply
with the 15’ minimum setback dimension. The 15’ minimum setback is maintained south of the bump
into the property for the BRT shelter, bench, and sign.
15’
PROPOSED BUILDING
5 MIN DELIVERYNO PARKING30’60’
6’ PERIMETER FENCE
SHADE STRUCTURE
TRANSFORMER WITH
SCREENING FENCE
SEAT WALL
PRIMARY ENTRANCE
VISITOR BIKE PARKING
RESIDENT PATIO
SIGN (ON BUILDING)
BACK ENTRANCE GATE
6’ PERIMETER FENCE
EXISTING METRO TRANSIT STOP
SITE PLAN
BIKE ROUTE
PROPERTY LINE
RAIN GARDEN WITH NATIVE
PLANTINGS
TREE, SHRUBS AND GROUND
COVER PLANTINGS
POLLINATOR LAWN EDGE
TREE, SHRUBS AND GROUND
COVER PLANTINGS
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN
PROPOSED TREE
STUDIOSTUDIO
BIKE
STORAGE
(QTY 36)
ZEN RM
ZEN RM
TREATMENT
RM
STUDIOSTUDIOSTUDIO STUDIO
MECHANICAL
PUBLIC SIDEWALK
SUMP PUMP
TOILET
STAIR
TRANSFORMER W/ SCREENING
GARAGE
0102040 FT
STUDIO
ELEV VB
ELEV
VEST
CONCRETE PATHWAY (ACCESSIBLE)
ARTIFICIAL TURF
6'-0" PRIVACY FENCE, FULL LENGTH OF
NORTH, EAST, AND SOUTH PROPERTY LINES,
4" OFF PROPERTY LINE
FENCE WITH GATE, EMERGENCY
RELEASE AND FOBBED ENTRY
EXISTING BUS STOP
ELECTRICAL
COVERED
PORCH
EMERGENCY EXIT DOOR
& CANOPY
NEIGHBOR'S
GARAGE
MOP SINK
MEETING
ROOM
VESTIBULE
TOILET
STAIR
COMMUNITY
RM
ZEN RM
ZEN RM
ZEN RM
STAFF BREAK
ROOM
EV CHARGING
POINT
FUTURE EV
CHARGING POINT
NEW CURB CUT
BIKE CURB CUT
EXISTING SITE
LIGHTING
SITE LIGHTING TO BE RELOCATED
RAINGARDEN
22"
28"
ROOF DRAINAGE DAYLIGHT TO RAIN
GARDEN
WATER SERVICE LOCATION
TRASH & RECYCLING PICKUP
4'-0" FENCE
SOLAR SHUT-OFF
CONCRETE STOOP
CONCRETE STOOP W/
IMPERMABLE PAVERS
6'-0" FENCE TO EDGE OF BUILDING,
TRANSITION TO 4'-0" WITH ACCESS
GATE
TRELLIS CANOPY, W/VINESPERENNIAL RAIN GARDEN
PLANTINGS, NO SOD
PERENNIAL RAIN GARDEN
PLANTINGS, NO SOD
FIRE CONNECTIONCONCRETE STOOP
NEIGHBOR'S TREES
CONCRETE APRON
220' - 0 7/8"
ADA
PARKING
BIKE RACKS
BOLLARDSSMOKER'S CANOPY6' TALL PRIVACY FENCE
EXISTING TRANSFORMER
EXISTING BUS PYLON
5 MINUTE DELIVERY
STORAGE
DATA5' - 0"4' - 6 3/8"4' - 6"5' - 0"(E) ELECTRICAL POLE
851.1' CIVIL ELEVATION
1' RETAINING WALL
849.86' CIVIL ELEVATION
100.0 ARCH ELEVATION
849.0' CIVIL ELEVATION
PRESERVE TREE
PRESERVE TREE
PRESERVE TREE
6" RIVER ROCK
ZERO CURB
6' TALL
PRIVACY FENCE
4' TALL
PRIVACY FENCE
TO STREET
PRESERVE TREE
PRESERVE TREE
DIGITAL SIGNBOARD
ELEC. SHUT-OFF
MANAGER
STAFF
5' - 2"
STUDIO
SNOW STORAGE
COMPRESSED GRANITE
ACCESSORY SHADE STRUCTURE
R 15' - 0"ADA
PARKING8' - 0"TRASH TRASH
RECYCLING
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
PERMEABLE PAVER
CONCRETE4' - 0"ADA TURNAROUNDADA TURNAROUND
PUBLIC SIDEWALK
EXISTING CONCRETE BUS STOP PAVING
5' - 0"5' - 0"15' - 0"15' - 0"15' - 0"6' - 3 1/4"123' - 0 5/8"25' - 0"104' - 3 7/8"220' - 0 5/8"
R
1
5
'
-
0
"
24' - 0"19' - 0"
15' - 0"
5' - 11 7/8"
59' - 0"8' - 4"TURN LANE 4' - 2 3/8"3' - 0"FIRE HYDRANT
9' - 6"R 23
'
-
0
"
R 2
3
'
-
0
"96' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0 1/32"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"9' - 0"ADA CURB CUT
24' - 0"19' - 0"14' - 0"14' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"RELOCATED BENCH
5' UTILITY EASEMENT AND
BUS SHELTER ACCESS
EXISTING
BIKE RACKS
EXISTING MEDIAN CURB
ALIGN
EMERGENY VEHICLE
FIRE TRUCK
MODIFY TAPER
MAINTAIN THIS FLAT FOR
ACCESS FOR SIDEWALK
5' - 0"9' - 8"2' - 1 3/4"
REMOVE LEANING BAR
5' - 5"
BENCH
SECONDARY SNOW STORAGE
ADA PATH
DOUBLE ARTICULATED BUS
43' - 0"
23' - 9"8' - 4"7' - 11"11' - 0"53' - 8 7/8"
24' - 0"
25' - 0"20' - 0"
15' - 11 5/8"
FIRE DEPARTMENT KEY BOX
FIRE DEPARTMENT
KEY BOX
3,121.18 SF
AREA REMOVED
FROM PROPERTY
28,457.49 SF
ORIGINAL
PROPERTY AREA
25,336.31 SF
NEW PROPERTY
AREA
Drawing 2022 Copyright Meyer, Scherer & Rockcastle, Ltd. Drawing 2022 Copyright Meyer, Scherer & Rockcastle, Ltd.
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Architect under the Laws of the State of Minnesota.
Architect Seal
Signature
Print Name
Date License No
ISSUE / REVISION
DateMark Description
510 Marquette Avenue South, Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55402 | 612.375.0336
9/11/2023 4:06:18 PMC:\Projects\2022018_R22_Central_ConnorMcManus.rvtA001
SITE PLAN
Design Development
Landscape Architecture
Confluence
BKBM
530 N 3rd St #120, Minneapolis, MN 55401 | 763.843.0420
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION530 N 3rd St #120, Minneapolis, MN 55401 | 612.333.3702
Civil and Structural Engineering
Project No: 20220182023.08.10 CITY REVIEW COMMENTSAsterCommons6613 Portland Avenue S.Richfield, MN 55423Architecture and Interiors
Mechanical, Electrical, & Plumbing
Emanuelson-Podus, Inc.
7705 Bush Lake Rd, Edina, MN 55439 | 952.930.0050
1" = 10'-0"A001
1PRES SITE PLAN
6' - 3 1/4"123' - 0 5/8"220' - 0 7/8"
R 15' -
0"
5' - 0"5' - 0"BUILDING SETBACK15' - 0"SETBACK
5' - 0"
SETBACK
15' - 0"SETBACK15' - 0"25' - 0"220' - 0 5/8"104' - 3 7/8"NEW PROPERTY LINE AT
EDGE OF BUS STOP SLAB
3,121.18 SF
AREA REMOVED
FROM PROPERTY
28,457.49 SF
ORIGINAL
PROPERTY AREA
25,336.31 SF
NEW PROPERTY
AREA
90.42°
89.58°
93.07°
90.42°
89.58°
87.38°
24' - 0"19' - 0"
TURN LANE
EM VEHICLEARTICULATED BUS
BIKE CURB CUT59' - 0"
6' - 0"10' - 0"96' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"NEW FIRE
HYDRANT
ORIGINAL
PROPERTY CORNER
PROPOSED NEW
PROPERTY CORNER
BACK OF CURB14' - 0"EXISTING LIGHT
POLE TO BE
RELOCATED
NEW FIRE Y
CONNECTION
ORIGINAL
PROPERTY CORNER
PROPOSED NEW
PROPERTY CORNER R 23
'
-
0
"BACK OF CURB14' - 0"BACK OF CURB14' - 0"176.78°
91.93°3' - 9 1/8"1' - 6 3/8"10'20'40'11' - 0"SETBACK5' - 0"5' - 0"EASEMENT5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"3' - 0"4' - 8 3/8"EXISTING MEDIAN CURB
FIRE TRUCK
EXISTING MEDIAN STRIPING
TO BE WIDENED AT THIS
POINT FOR TURN LANE
15' - 11 5/8"
53' - 8 7/8"21' - 0 1/8"24' - 0"25' - 0"20' - 0"9' - 8 1/2"MODIFY TAPER SETBACK15' - 0"SETBACK10' - 0"90.00°
90.00°
90' - 9 1/4"15' - 0"15' - 0"56' - 0 1/8"
20' - 3"16' - 9"
M gnSRiseD
1" = 20'-0"AP001
1SITE PLAN PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
ELEVATOR OVERRUN
BRICK AT GROUND FLOOR
NICHIHA LATURA V GROOVE
NICHIHA VINTAGEWOOD SPRUCE VERTICAL
PERFORATED METAL SCREENING FOR EQUIPMENT PELLA IMPERVIA FIBERGLASS WINDOWS U VALUE 0.24
INTEGRATED 6" VENTILATION LOUVER INTO SIDING, COLOR MATCHED
PERFORATED METAL SCREENING FOR EQUIPMENT
ROOF ACCESS HANDRAIL
35' TOP OF PARAPET
MSRignDes
Aster Commons
6613 Portland Avenue S.
Richfield, MN 55423
AP211
DATE:07/04/23
1/16" = 1'-0"AP211
1BUILDING WEST ELEVATION - SHADED
MATERIAL
BRICK
NICHIHA WHITE LATTURA V-GROOVE
NICHIHA SPRUCE VINTAGEWOOD
WINDOWS+ GLASS DOORS
METALS (TRIM, LOUVERS, PANELS, SCREENS)
SQUARE FOOTAGE
1321
1879
771
1289
160
5,419 sf
% of FACADE
24%
34%
14%
24%
3%BRICK - ENDICOTT
MANGANESE
IRONSPOT, VELOUR
FINISH, NORWEGIAN
SIZE
SIDING 1: NICHIHA
LATTURA V-GROOVE,
WHITE
SIDING 2: NICHIHA
VINTAGEWOOD,
SPRUCE
MECHANICAL
SCREENING:
CITYSCAPES
ENVISOR
PERFORATED PAN
PERFORATED METAL SCREEN CROSS SECTION
EQEQEQ
METAL MESH SCREENING
METAL HANDRAIL BALCONY
MSRignDes
Aster Commons
6613 Portland Avenue S.
Richfield, MN 55423
AP212
DATE:07/04/23
MATERIAL
BRICK
NICHIHA WHITE LATTURA V-GROOVE
NICHIHA SPRUCE VINTAGEWOOD
WINDOWS+ GLASS DOORS
METALS (TRIM, LOUVERS, PANELS, SCREENS)
SQUARE FOOTAGE
688
548
672
579
99
2,586 sf
% of FACADE
27%
21%
26%
22%
4%
BRICK - ENDICOTT
MANGANESE
IRONSPOT, VELOUR
FINISH, NORWEGIAN
SIZE
SIDING 1: NICHIHA
LATTURA V-GROOVE,
WHITE
SIDING 2: NICHIHA
VINTAGEWOOD,
SPRUCE
1/8" = 1'-0"AP212
1BUILDING NORTH ELEVATION - SHADED
MECHANICAL
SCREENING:
CITYSCAPES
ENVISOR
PERFORATED PAN
PERFORATED METAL SCREEN CROSS SECTION
BALCONY: MIDWEST IRON
METAL HANDRAIL
BALCONY
NOTE: SEE WEST ELEVATION FOR BUILDING HEIGHT
AND MATERIAL DESIGNATIONS
PERFORATED METAL SCREENING
METAL HANDRAIL BALCONY
MSRignDes
Aster Commons
6613 Portland Avenue S.
Richfield, MN 55423
AP213
DATE:07/04/23
1/16" = 1'-0"AP213
1BUILDING EAST ELEVATION - SHADED
MATERIAL
BRICK
NICHIHA WHITE LATTURA V-GROOVE
NICHIHA SPRUCE VINTAGEWOOD
WINDOWS+ GLASS DOORS
METALS (TRIM, LOUVERS, PANELS, SCREENS)
SQUARE FOOTAGE
370
1488
1921
1253
374
5,406 sf
% of FACADE
7%
22%
6%
23%
7%
BRICK - ENDICOTT
MANGANESE
IRONSPOT, VELOUR
FINISH, NORWEGIAN
SIZE
SIDING 1: NICHIHA
LATTURA V-GROOVE,
WHITE
SIDING 2: NICHIHA
VINTAGEWOOD,
SPRUCE
MECHANICAL
SCREENING:
CITYSCAPES
ENVISOR
PERFORATED PAN
BALCONY: MIDWEST IRON
METAL HANDRAIL
BALCONY
PERFORATED METAL SCREEN CROSS SECTION
NOTE: SEE WEST ELEVATION FOR BUILDING HEIGHT
AND MATERIAL DESIGNATIONS
PERFORATED METAL SCREENING
METAL HANDRAIL BALCONY
MSRignDes
Aster Commons
6613 Portland Avenue S.
Richfield, MN 55423
AP214
DATE:07/04/23
1/16" = 1'-0"AP214
1BUILDING SOUTH ELEVATION - SHADED
MATERIAL
BRICK
NICHIHA WHITE LATTURA V-GROOVE
NICHIHA SPRUCE VINTAGEWOOD
WINDOWS+ GLASS DOORS
METALS (TRIM, LOUVERS, PANELS, SCREENS)
SQUARE FOOTAGE
1321
1974
676
187
230
2,425 sf
% of FACADE
9%
39%
24%
8%
9%
BRICK - ENDICOTT
MANGANESE
IRONSPOT, VELOUR
FINISH, NORWEGIAN
SIZE
SIDING 1: NICHIHA
LATTURA V-GROOVE,
WHITE
SIDING 2: NICHIHA
VINTAGEWOOD,
SPRUCE
MECHANICAL
SCREENING:
CITYSCAPES
ENVISOR
PERFORATED PAN
PERFORATED METAL SCREEN CROSS SECTION
BALCONY: MIDWEST IRON
METAL HANDRAIL
BALCONY
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #8.B.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 145
CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING
11/14/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y:Julie Urban, A sst. C ommunity D evelopment D irector
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:Melissa P oehlman, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
11/2/2023
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
11/7/2023
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider approval of a first reading of an ordinance amendment to Section 408.01, subdivision 6,
clarifying that escrows submitted under the Point of Sale program can be subject to forfeiture if
improvements are not made, and to Section 408.01, subdivision 4, correcting a code reference relating
to the appeals process.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
The City's Point of Sale (P OS) Program requires all single-family and two-family structures, condominiums,
and townhomes to be inspected and receive a Certificate of Housing Maintenance Compliance before any
transfer of ownership. Any items identified for repair in the inspection must be completed prior to transfer. I n
the case of non-life safety items, the City may agree to allow the ownership transfer before all items are
completed if a cash escrow is submitted for the incomplete items. The Buyer is then responsible for completing
the work and receives the escrowed funds upon completion.
Occasionally, Buyers do not complete the work, and property ownership transfers again without escrow funds
being accessed. A review of the escrow account during the audit process identified several of these situations
where ownership changed and the escrow was never accessed. The City Attorney advised that the current
ordinance language does not specify what the City will do with these abandoned funds and recommends a
change to the ordinance and escrow agreement so that the City has the option of identifying these funds as
forfeited and capturing the funds for other purposes.
The proposed amendment of Section 408.01, Subdivision 6 would clarify that failure to make the improvements
is in violation of the code and the cash escrow amount can be forfeited to the City. The amendment also makes
a technical correction to the reference in Section 408.01, Subdivision 4, regarding where to find the appeals
process in the City Code.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve a first reading of an amendment to Section 408 of the ordinance code of the City
of Richfield relating to the Certification of Housing Maintenance Compliance.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A .H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
The P O S P rogram was created by the C ity in 1989 and requires that prior to the voluntary sale of any
owner-occupied housing in the C ity, the S eller must receive a C ertificate of Housing Maintenance
C ompliance from the C ity (C ertificate). A C ertificate is issued after an inspection and finding that the
property is free from housing code violations. Without the C ertificate, the B uyer may not occupy the
property, unless the B uyer provides an executed C ash E scrow A greement and accompanying escrow
deposit (E scrow D eposit). The E scrow D eposit is the greater of 25% of the cost to correct the housing
code violations or $1,000 with a maximum of $5,000.
A review of the C ity's escrow fund earlier this year revealed several escrows from many years ago. The
escrows have technically been forfeited, but the current ordinance doesn't make it clear that the C ity can
take over the funds.
B .E QU ITAB L E OR S T R AT E GIC C ON S ID E R AT ION S OR IMPAC T S
A mending the ordinance furthers the S trategic P riority of Operational E xcellence and works toward the
D esired Outcome of having the operational capability to deliver essential services and helps us meet the
target of making process improvements.
The potential equity impact of capturing forfeited funds could be that B uyers for whom E nglish isn't their
primary language are disproportionately impacted if they don't understand that funds are available to
make improvements. While the language of B uyers is unknown, it is a goal of the Housing Inspections
team to translate documents as capacity allows, which would help to ensure that all B uyers understand
their rights and responsibilities under the P O S P rogram.
C .P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
The current ordinance governing the P OS P rogram isn't clear what happens to escrowed funds when required
improvements aren't made.
D .C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
S taff would like to amend the Housing Maintenance C ode C ash E scrow A greement and be able to use it
moving forward in order to be able to capture any forfeited funds. The ordinance should be amended to
provide clear notice that forfeiture is a possible consequence of not complying with the escrow agreement.
The P O S P rogram is now operating under C itizenS erve, the new online permitting software system,
which will make it easier to identify escrows that haven't been accessed and send reminders to B uyers
who haven't completed the necessary repairs. W hile this may reduce the amount of forfeited funds, it's
unlikely to eliminate all of it, so an ordinance amendment is recommended.
E .F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
W ith the ordinance amendment, forfeited escrow funds could be transferred to the General F und. S taff does not
expect this to be a significant amount of money.
F.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
1. The proposed amendment was prepared by the C ity A ttorney and would apply to future C ash E scrow
A greements.
2. Once the review of old escrows is completed, staff will work with the C ity A ttorney to clean up forfeited
escrows collected under the current ordinance.
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C OMME N D AT ION(S):
D ecide not to amend the ordinance or recommend that the ordinance be approved with changes.
P R IN C IPAL PAR T IE S E X P E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
NA
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
P roposed Ordinance A mendment Ordinance
C ash E scrow A greement Revisions B ackup Material
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 408
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD RELATING TO THE CERTIFICATE OF HOUSING
MAINTENANCE COMPLIANCE
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Subsection 408 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled “Certificate
of Housing Maintenance Compliance for Single- and Two-Family Homes” is hereby
amended to correct a reference relating to appeals and to allow for forfeiture of escrow
funds in cases of non-compliance:
408.01
…
Subd. 4. Appeal. A determination that the structure is not in compliance with the
housing maintenance code may be appealed in the manner provided in Section 405.05,
subdivision 2(b) 320.11.
…
Subd. 6. Occupancy. A person may be granted permission to occupy a dwelling
prior to issuance of the certificate upon the approval of the director of community
development, or his/her designee. The approval may be based upon undue hardship or
other extraordinary or exceptional circumstances, provided that no such occupancy
constitutes an immediate hazard, as determined by the director or his/her designee.
Approval will not be given until the prospective owner or designated agent has filed on
forms supplied by the city, a statement of intent to comply with the housing maintenance
code and submitted the required escrow. Compliance dates in the statement of intent to
comply will be established by the director of community development, or his/her
designee. (Amended, Bill No. 2015-12)
The director may also approve occupancy prior to issuance of the certificate if a cash
escrow agreement is signed and submitted to the Building Official or designee. The
cash escrow agreement must be executed on a form provided by the City and
accompanied by the fee established in Appendix D of this code. Failure to make the
required corrections by the compliance dates in the statement of intent or within the
terms of the cash escrow agreement is a violation of this code and will (i) cause the
cash escrow amount to be forfeited to the City and (ii) render void any approval given
pursuant to this subdivision. If the City conducts any re-inspections beyond the initial
inspection and one (1) follow-up inspection, the applicant for a certificate will be
required to pay the re-inspection fee as established in Appendix D of this code.
(Amended, Bill No. 2005-15)
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this __ day of
_______________, 2023.
Mary B. Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Dustin Leslie, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Housing Maintenance Code Cash
Escrow Agreement
(Rev. 12/7/1811/--/23)
Policy: A cash escrow will be required in instances where a Certificate of Compliance is
sought, the Seller will not complete repairs by the time of closing, and the Buyer intends to
comply at a future time in cooperation with the Building OfficialCommunity Development
Director or designee.
CASH ESCROW REGULATIONS
1. A signed escrow agreement and funds must be provided to the Inspection
DivisionCommunity Development Department prior to closing.
2. The cash escrow amount will be determined as follows:
In order to reasonably determine the estimated cost of repairs, a written ITEMIZED
bid by a licensed contractor must be submitted to the Inspections DivisionCommunity
Development Department for approval.
A cash escrow equal to 25% of the itemized bid or $1,000, whichever is greater,
shall be required (except as below).
If any certifications are required, contractor must bid REPLACEMENT COST of the
item needing certification.
For non-certification-required work, a $5,000 escrow may be accepted in place of an
itemized bid, with the approval of the Community Development Director or designee.
3. If electrical or mechanical certifications are required, no one shall occupy premises
until certifications are completed and proper paperwork is submitted to and approved by
the City of Richfield Inspection DivisionCommunity Development Department.
4. By signing this agreement, Buyers are petitioning the City to allow the purchase and
occupancy of the property despite the existence of the violations set forth on the
attached list (unless occupancy is prohibited per regulation #3).
5. Correction orders must be made within 60 days of the date of closing, unless an
extension is granted by the Community Development Director or designee.
5.6. Unauthorized changes to this escrow form are not acceptable and will void this
agreement.
6.7. Cash escrow agreement is not valid unless signed by the Buyer and Building
OfficialCommunity Development Director or designee.
7.8. This agreement is non-transferable and remain attached to the property identified in
this agreement. . Buyers who fail to complete the Repairs (as defined in the escrow
agreement), fail to complete the Reinspection (as also defined in the escrow
agreement), or who transfer ownership prior to the correction of itemscompletion of
the Repairs identified in the attached list shall forfeit all escrow funds to the City.
Cash Escrow Agreement
Housing Maintenance Code
I/We , (Buyer) the Buyer of property located at
in Richfield, Minnesota, do hereby tender a cash escrow to the
City of Richfield in the amount of $ (the “Cash Escrow”) for the
attached Detailed List of Items Requiring Correction (the “Repairs”“list) and an additional
$50.00 non-refundable fee. This The Cash Eescrow amount represents 25% of the amount
that the parties (Buyer, City of Richfield) agree is required to complete the
improvementsRepairs.
The City of Richfield shall deposit the Ccash Eescrow in a non-interest bearing account; and
no interest shall be due and payable to the Buyer as a result.
In signing this cash escrow agreement the Buyer does hereby agree to consult with the
Housing Inspections Division and correct all violations and discrepancies described in the
attached listas the Repairs by the scheduled reinspection date noted below. .An inspection
of the property must be conducted by the Building OfficialCommunity Development Director’s
or designee to verify acceptable completion (the “Reinspection”).
Your Rreinspection is scheduled for: .
The City of Richfield will release the is cCash Eescrow upon acceptable completion of the
items listedRepairs. An inspection of the property will be conducted by the Building Official or
designee to verify acceptable completion. Upon verification of completion, the escrowed
amount will be released to THE BUYER - NO EXCEPTIONS - within ten (10) business days.
The Buyer understands that the failure to comply with the terms of this agreement,
including the failure to make the Repairs or participate in the Reinspection, can result in any
or all of the following:
Forfeiture of all or a portion of the Cash Escrow to the City;
Approval to occupy the premises may be revoked and occupants required to
vacate;
Failure to comply is a violation of the City Code and can be punished as a
misdemeanor, including fines and incarceration; and
Compliance may be compelled by order of the Court.
Any administrative costs involved with enforcing this agreement or any costs incurred by the
City of Richfield in excess of the Ccash Eescrow amount will be paid by the Buyer within 30
days following written notice of such costs.
DOB Date:
Property Buyer(s)
Daytime Phone Number for Buyer
Email for Buyer
Receipt of the cash escrow is acknowledged as intent to comply with the housing
maintenance code.
Date:
Community Development Director or Designee
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #8.C.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 146
CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING
11/14/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y:Melissa P oehlman, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:Melissa P oehlman, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
11/8/2023
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
11/8/2023
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider a resolution designating buildings formerly located at 7700 and 7730 Portland Avenue South
as structurally substandard within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn-D OT) recently purchased the properties at 7700 and 7730
Portland Avenue South to allow for the reconstruction of the I -494 and Portland Avenue intersection. Following
construction of the roadway improvements, remnant land is anticipated to be available for redevelopment.
Redevelopment of this land is expected to be very costly. I n addition to anticipated high acquisition costs, the
nature of the previous use would seem to indicate that environmental clean-up may also be required. To
preserve the City's authority to create a Redevelopment Tax I ncrement Finance (TI F) District in the future, an
inspection documenting the condition of the buildings was requested by the Executive Director of the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority (HRA).
Under Minnesota law, the City or the HRA is authorized to deem parcels as occupied by structurally
substandard buildings before the demolition or removal of the buildings, in order to create a Redevelopment TI F
District. The City has three years to create this District, following demolition of the substandard structures.
Several timing issues complicate the future creation of a Redevelopment TI F District and the City will need to
approach the State for special legislation related to the area. To begin, this phase of the I -494 project is
expected to last three years (through fall 2026). Remnant land is not expected to be available for redevelopment
until after final completion of the project. Current law gives the City only three years after demolition of the
substandard structures to create a Redevelopment TI F District. The City will need to seek special approval
from the legislature for an extension of the time limit. Second, due to timing issues with the scheduled
demolition by Mn-D OT, the finding before the Council tonight was unable to be made prior to demolition of the
structures. Given that the City will need to request special legislation related to the three-year time limit, staff
and the HRA Attorney determined that it would be worthwhile to adopt a resolution after-the-fact and include a
request for an exemption from this requirement as well.
T he architecture firm L H B, Inc. has conducted an extensive evaluation of the buildings and issued the
attached report which concludes that the site and the buildings it contains meet the requirements
necessary to qualify as a Redevelopment T IF District.
The attached resolution would make findings accepting the results of the L HB, I nc. report and designating the
buildings to be substandard, as defined in Minnesota State Statutes.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By Motion: Adopt a resolution designating the buildings formerly located at 7700 and 7730 Portland
Avenue South as structurally substandard within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area.
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
P roperty at the intersection of I-494 and P ortland Avenue is guided for Regional Mixed Use by the
Richfield C omprehensive P lan. Redevelopment in this area is expected to be exceptionally expensive
due to anticipated environmental clean-up.
The properties formerly addressed at 7700 and 7730 P ortland Avenue were acquired by MnD O T for the
expansion of the interchange with I-494. Remnant land is expected to be available for redevelopment
following completion of the project in fall 2026.
B .E QU ITAB L E OR S T R AT E GIC C ON S ID E R AT ION S OR IMPAC T S
Redevelopment of this property will be outside of the dates of the S trategic P lan; however, it will potentially
further the goal of increasing the tax base.
If and when a redevelopment proposal comes forward, the equity impacts of that proposal will be
evaluated.
C .P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
In order to establish a Redevelopment TIF D istrict, the property within the proposed D istrict boundaries must be
found to be blighted and structurally substandard under the requirements established by Minnesota S tate
S tatutes.
D .C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The HRA A ttorney recommends that we approve the resolution as soon as possible given that MnD OT has
removed the buildings.
E .F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None at this time.
F.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The HRA A ttorney prepared the attached resolution.
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C OMME N D AT ION(S):
D ecide not adopt the resolution certifying the buildings as substandard, thereby eliminating the possibility of creating
a Redevelopment TIF D istrict in the future.
P R IN C IPAL PAR T IE S E X P E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
N/A
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Resolution Resolution L etter
S ubstandard L etter of F inding E xhibit
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. _________
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING BUILDINGS AS STRUCTURALLY SUBSTANDARD WITHIN
THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, the Authority obtained blight studies for two parcels and may in the future
include one or more of the properties described in EXHIBIT A attached hereto (the “Property”),
in a redevelopment tax increment financing district as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.174, subdivision 10, within the Richfield Redevelopment Project; and
WHEREAS, the Authority plans to purchase two parcels from the Department of
Transportation after the Department of Transportation no longer needs the two parcels; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has determined that the parcels currently owned by the
Department of Transportation are blighted based on the long-term use of those parcels as a
mechanics garage; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Transportation demolished the buildings on the
Department of Transportation parcels on or about October 27, 2023; and
WHEREAS, if the Authority cannot purchase the Department of Transportation parcels
within three years of the date the Department of Transportation demolished the buildings on its
parcels, the Authority will seek special legislation in order to preserve the ability to create a
redevelopment tax increment district in the future; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota as follows:
1. Based on the report described below, the City finds that the buildings on the
Property were structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or
clearance, based upon the analysis of such buildings by LHB, Inc. in a report dated October 26,
2023, and on file in City Hall.
2. The buildings on the Property were demolished or removed on or about October
27, 2023; following preparation of the report by LHB, Inc. dated October 26, 2023.
3. The Authority intends to include the Property in a redevelopment tax increment
financing district, and to file the request for certification of such district with the
Auditor/Treasurer of Hennepin County, Minnesota, as the county auditor (the “County
2
Auditor/Treasurer”), within three (3) years after the date of demolition of the buildings on the
Property.
4. Upon filing the request for certification of the new tax increment financing district,
the Authority will notify the County Auditor/Treasurer that the original tax capacity of the
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).
5. 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
November, 2023.
Mary B. Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Dustin Leslie, City Clerk
A-1
EXHIBIT A
POTENTIAL PROPERTY ID NUMBERS
34-028-24-44-0006
34-028-24-44-0007
RC125-396 (JAE)
912622v2
October 26, 2023
Melissa Poehlman, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
TIF ANALYSIS FINDINGS FOR 7700 AND 7730 PORTLAND AVENUE SOUTH
LHB was hired to inspect two buildings on two parcels in Richfield, Minnesota, to determine if they meet the definition of
“Substandard” as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subdivision 10. The building parcels may potentially be
part of a future Redevelopment TIF District, so will need to be compliant with all the statutes pertaining to a Redevelopment
District.
The buildings are located at 7700 and 7730 Portland Avenue South (Buildings A and B in Diagram 1).
Diagram 1
TIF Analysis Findings for 7700 and 7730 Portland Avenue South Page: 2
City of Richfield
CONCLUSION
After evaluating the condition of the buildings on October 25, 2023,and applying current statutory criteria for a Redevelopment
District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, it is our professional opinion that the buildings qualify as
substandard.
The remainder of this letter and attachments describe our process and findings in detail.
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, clause (1).”
QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10 (a) (1) requires two tests for occupied parcels:
1. 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…”
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.”
The LHB team reviewed the following parcels:
Parcel A ID Number 053-340282440006
• The parcel is approximately 14,545 sf and is 100 percent covered by buildings, parking lots or other
improvements.
TIF Analysis Findings for 7700 and 7730 Portland Avenue South Page: 3
City of Richfield
Parcel B ID Number 053-340282440007
• The parcel is approximately 22,980 sf and is 100 percent covered by buildings, parking lots or other
improvements.
Findings
The parcels are covered by buildings, parking lots or other improvements, exceeding the 15 percent parcel requirement.
2. 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;”
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.”
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.
Findings
Two buildings exceed the criteria required to be determined a substandard building (see the attached Building Code,
Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Reports).
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 follows 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 based on 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 to the International Energy Conservation Code in this code mean the
Minnesota Energy Code…”
• Chapter 11 of the 2015 Minnesota Residential Code incorporates Minnesota Rules, Chapters, 1322 and 1323
Minnesota Energy Code.
TIF Analysis Findings for 7700 and 7730 Portland Avenue South Page: 4
City of Richfield
• 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. 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.
Findings
The buildings have code deficiencies exceeding the 15 percent building code deficiency criteria required to be determined
substandard (see the attached Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Reports).
TEAM CREDENTIALS
MICHAEL A. FISCHER, AIA, LEED AP - PROJECT PRINCIPAL/TIF ANALYST
Michael has 34 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 master’s degrees in City Planning
and Real Estate Development from MIT. He has served on more than 50 committees, boards, and community task forces,
including City Council President in Superior, Wisconsin, Chair of the Duluth/Superior Metropolitan Planning Organization, and
Chair of the Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission. Most recently, he served as a member of the Edina city council and
Secretary of the Edina HRA. 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.
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.
TIF Analysis Findings for 7700 and 7730 Portland Avenue South Page: 5
City of Richfield
ATTACHMENTS
We have attached a Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Report, Replacement Cost Report, Code
Deficiency Report, and thumbnail photo sheets for each substandard building.
Please contact me at (612) 752-6920 if you have any questions.
LHB, INC.
MICHAEL A. FISCHER, AIA, LEED AP
c: LHB Project No.230805
M:\23Proj\230805\300 Design\Reports\Final Report\230805 Richfield 7700 and 7730 Portland Ave South Letter of Finding.docx
APPENDIX A
Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Report
Replacement Cost Report
Code Deficiency Report
Photographs
Portland Ave South TIF District Page 1 of 3 Building Report
LHB Project No. 230805.00 Parcel A – 7700 Portland Ave So, Richfield, MN 55423
Portland Avenue South Redevelopment TIF District
Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Report
Parcel A Automotive Repair Garage
Address: 7700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Parcel ID: 053-3402824440006
Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): October 25, 2023, 11:25 am
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: $417,424
Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies: $160,040
Percentage of Replacement Cost for Building Code Deficiencies: 38.3%
DEFECTS IN STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
1. Steel lintels should be protected from rusting per code.
2. Exterior wall concrete block and mortar should be repaired/replaced to prevent water intrusion per code.
COMBINATION OF DEFICIENCIES
1. Essential Utilities and Facilities
a. There is no code required accessible parking.
b. There is no code required accessible route into the building.
c. The restroom is not code compliant for accessibility.
2. Light and Ventilation
a. Lighting does not comply with code.
b. The electrical wiring system does not comply with code.
c. The HVAC system does not comply with code.
3. Fire Protection/Adequate Egress
a. Thresholds do not comply with code for maximum height.
b. Door hardware does not comply with code.
c. There is no code required smoke detector system in the building.
d. There is no code required emergency exit signage in the building.
e. There is no code required emergency lighting system in the building.
f. There is no code required emergency notification system in the building.
Portland Ave South TIF District Page 2 of 3 Building Report
LHB Project No. 230805.00 Parcel A – 7700 Portland Ave So, Richfield, MN 55423
g. There is no code required building sprinkler system.
h. There is no code required fire caulking.
i. The flooring is damaged creating an impediment to emergency egress which is contrary to code.
4. Layout and Condition of Interior Partitions/Materials
a. The interior walls and ceilings should be repaired/repainted.
5. Exterior Construction
a. The roofing material is failing, allowing for water intrusion which is contrary to code.
b. Windows are failing, allowing for water intrusion which is contrary to code.
c. Exterior walls should be repaired and repainted.
DESCRIPTION OF CODE DEFICIENCIES
1. Steel lintels should be protected from rusting per code.
2. Concrete block should be repaired/replaced to prevent water intrusion per code.
3. Accessible parking should be created per code.
4. A code required accessible route into the building should be created.
5. The restroom does not comply with the accessibility code.
6. The lighting does not comply with code.
7. The electrical wiring system does not comply with code.
8. The HVAC system does not comply with code.
9. The damaged flooring should be repaired to create a code required unimpeded means for emergency egress.
10. Thresholds should be modified to comply with code.
11. Door hardware does not comply with code.
12. Code required fire caulking should be installed.
13. There is no code required smoke detector system.
14. There is no code required emergency exit signage system.
15. There is no code required emergency lighting system.
16. There is no code required emergency notification system.
17. There is no code required building sprinkler system.
18. Failed windows should be replaced to prevent water intrusion per code.
19. Failed roofing material should be replaced to prevent water intrusion per code.
OVERVIEW OF DEFICIENCIES
This building was most recently used as an automotive repair garage. There is no code required accessible parking or
accessible route into the building. The restroom does not comply with code. The electrical wiring and lighting systems do not
comply with code. Interior walls and ceiling should be repaired and repainted. A code required accessible route to all levels of
the building should be created. The HVAC system does not comply with code. There are no code required life safety systems
including smoke detectors, emergency lighting, notification and exiting, and building sprinklers. The exterior and interior block
and mortar are failing, allowing for water intrusion which is contrary to code. Exterior walls should be repainted. The roofing
material and windows are failing, allowing for water intrusion which is contrary to code.
Portland Ave South TIF District Page 3 of 3 Building Report
LHB Project No. 230805.00 Parcel A – 7700 Portland Ave So, Richfield, MN 55423
ENERGY CODE DEFICIENCIES
In addition to the building code deficiencies listed above, the existing building does not comply with the current energy code.
These deficiencies are not included in the estimated costs to correct code deficiencies and are not considered in determining
whether the building is substandard.
M:\23Proj\230805\300 Design\Reports\Building Reports\A - 7700 Portland Ave So Building Report Redevelopment District.docx
Square Foot Cost Estimate Report Date:10/25/2023
Estimate Name:7700 Portland Avenue South
Building Type:Garage, Repair with Cast in Place Concrete / Steel Joists
Location:RICHFIELD, MN
Story Count:1
Story Height (L.F.):14.00
Floor Area (S.F.):2200
Labor Type:OPN
Basement Included:No
Data Release:Year 2023 Quarter 4
Cost Per Square Foot:$189.74
Building Cost:$417,424.71
Quantity % of Total Cost Per S.F. Cost
A Substructure 17.42% $28.74 $63,228.42
A1010 Standard Foundations $16.79 $36,937.32
A10101051560 Foundation wall, CIP, 4' wall height, direct chute, .148 CY/LF, 7.2 PLF,
12" thick
220 $10.43 $22,949.96
A10101102700 Strip footing, concrete, reinforced, load 11.1 KLF, soil bearing capacity
6 KSF, 12" deep x 24" wide
242 $6.36 $13,987.36
A1030 Slab on Grade $11.55 $25,412.64
A10301204520 Slab on grade, 6" thick, light industrial, reinforced 2200 $11.55 $25,412.64
A2010 Basement Excavation $0.40 $878.46
A20101104560 Excavate and fill, 10,000 SF, 4' deep, sand, gravel, or common earth,
on site storage
2200 $0.40 $878.46
B Shell 40.38% $66.62 $146,563.99
B1020 Roof Construction $8.99 $19,787.92
B10201162500 Roof, steel joists, 1.5" 22 ga metal deck, on bearing walls, 40' bay,
25.5" deep, 40 PSF superimposed load, 61 PSF total load
2200 $8.99 $19,787.92
B2010 Exterior Walls $32.40 $71,284.01
B20101014000 Concrete wall, reinforced, 8' high, 8" thick, plain finish, 3000 PSI 2464 $32.40 $71,284.01
B2020 Exterior Windows $6.88 $15,131.48
B20201066650 Windows, aluminum, sliding, standard glass, 5' x 3'10.27 $6.88 $15,131.48
B2030 Exterior Doors $6.49 $14,272.88
B20302203450 Door, steel 18 gauge, hollow metal, 1 door with frame, no label, 3'‐0"
x 7'‐0" opening
0.66 $1.02 $2,234.43
B20302204450 Door, steel 24 gauge, overhead, sectional, manual operation, 12'‐0" x
12'‐0" opening
3.21 $5.47 $12,038.45
B3010 Roof Coverings $11.86 $26,087.70
B30101051400 Roofing, asphalt flood coat, gravel, base sheet, 3 plies 15# asphalt felt,
mopped
2200 $4.04 $8,888.40
B30103203090 Insulation, rigid, roof deck, composite with 2" EPS, 1" perlite 2200 $2.70 $5,934.65
B30104201400 Roof edges, aluminum, duranodic, .050" thick, 6" face 220 $3.96 $8,719.93
B30106305100 Gravel stop, aluminum, extruded, 4", mill finish, .050" thick 220 $1.16 $2,544.72
C Interiors 9.14% $15.08 $33,185.79
C1010 Partitions $5.32 $11,695.51
C10101022300 Lightweight block 4" thick 462 $1.87 $4,116.73
C10101046000 Concrete block (CMU) partition, light weight, hollow, 8" thick, no
finish
616 $3.44 $7,578.78
C1020 Interior Doors $0.38 $833.69
C10201022600 Door, single leaf, kd steel frame, hollow metal, commercial quality,
flush, 3'‐0" x 7'‐0" x 1‐3/8"
0.73 $0.38 $833.69
C1030 Fittings $1.17 $2,584.28
C10301100460 Toilet partitions, cubicles, ceiling hung, stainless steel 1 $1.17 $2,584.28
C3010 Wall Finishes $5.87 $12,905.16
C30102202000 2 coats paint on masonry with block filler 2464 $4.32 $9,509.07
C30102300320 Painting, masonry or concrete, latex, brushwork, primer & 2 coats 880 $0.85 $1,871.52
C30102300340 Painting, masonry or concrete, latex, brushwork, addition for block
filler
880 $0.69 $1,524.57
Portland Avenue South Redevelopment TIF District
Replacement Cost Report
Costs are derived from a building model with basic components.
Scope differences and market conditions can cause costs to vary significantly.
Portland Ave South TIF District
LHB Project No. 230805.00 Page 1 of 3
Replacement Cost Report
Parcel A - 7700 Portland Ave So, Roichfield, MN 55432
C3020 Floor Finishes $1.68 $3,693.71
C30204100940 Concrete topping, hardeners, metallic additive, minimum 1980 $1.46 $3,211.70
C30204101580 Vinyl, composition tile, minimum 220 $0.22 $482.01
C3030 Ceiling Finishes $0.67 $1,473.44
C30302105800 Acoustic ceilings, 5/8" fiberglass board, 24" x 48" tile, tee grid,
suspended support
220 $0.67 $1,473.44
D Services 33.06% $54.55 $119,999.81
D2010 Plumbing Fixtures $4.10 $9,027.75
D20101102080 Water closet, vitreous china, bowl only with flush valve, wall hung 0.75 $1.39 $3,056.25
D20102102000 Urinal, vitreous china, wall hung 0.37 $0.30 $655.16
D20103102080 Lavatory w/trim, wall hung, PE on CI, 19" x 17" 0.75 $0.72 $1,593.79
D20104404340 Service sink w/trim, PE on CI,wall hung w/rim guard, 24" x 20" 0.37 $1.22 $2,686.58
D20108201920 Water cooler, electric, wall hung, wheelchair type, 7.5 GPH 0.37 $0.47 $1,035.97
D2020 Domestic Water Distribution $0.88 $1,933.74
D20202202260 Gas fired water heater, residential, 100< F rise, 30 gal tank, 32 GPH 0.37 $0.88 $1,933.74
D2040 Rain Water Drainage $8.40 $18,490.33
D20402106200 Roof drain, steel galv sch 40 threaded, 4" diam piping, 10' high 1.12 $2.72 $5,979.98
D20402106240 Roof drain, steel galv sch 40 threaded, 4" diam piping, for each
additional foot add
102 $5.69 $12,510.35
D3050 Terminal & Package Units $11.32 $24,902.37
D30501503120 Rooftop, single zone, air conditioner, factories, 10,000 SF, 33.33 ton 2200 $11.32 $24,902.37
D3090 Other HVAC Systems/Equip $3.43 $7,544.05
D30903201040 Garage, single exhaust, 3" outlet, cars & light trucks, 1 bay 1 $3.43 $7,544.05
D4010 Sprinklers $6.35 $13,971.69
D40104101080 Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, ordinary hazard, 1 floor, 10,000 SF 2200 $6.35 $13,971.69
D4020 Standpipes $1.58 $3,467.12
D40203101540 Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe, 1
floor
0.22 $1.44 $3,168.40
D40203101560 Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe,
additional floors
0.09 $0.14 $298.72
D5010 Electrical Service/Distribution $2.72 $5,990.22
D50101200280 Overhead service installation, includes breakers, metering, 20' conduit
& wire, 3 phase, 4 wire, 120/208 V, 200 A
1 $1.69 $3,714.80
D50102300280 Feeder installation 600 V, including RGS conduit and XHHW wire, 200
A
30 $0.86 $1,902.12
D50102400200 Switchgear installation, incl switchboard, panels & circuit breaker,
120/208 V, 3 phase, 400 A
0.03 $0.17 $373.30
D5020 Lighting and Branch Wiring $11.61 $25,540.28
D50201100280 Receptacles incl plate, box, conduit, wire, 4 per 1000 SF, .5 watts per
SF
2200 $2.68 $5,904.05
D50201350280 Miscellaneous power, 1 watt 2200 $0.36 $801.26
D50201400240 Central air conditioning power, 3 watts 2200 $0.79 $1,738.33
D50202100520 Fluorescent fixtures recess mounted in ceiling, 1.6 watt per SF, 40 FC,
10 fixtures @32watt per 1000 SF
2200 $7.77 $17,096.64
D5030 Communications and Security $4.07 $8,962.96
D50309100452 Communication and alarm systems, fire detection, addressable, 25
detectors, includes outlets, boxes, conduit and wire
0.22 $2.42 $5,333.22
D50309100462 Fire alarm command center, addressable with voice, excl. wire &
conduit
0.22 $1.36 $2,992.83
D50309200104 Internet wiring, 4 data/voice outlets per 1000 S.F. 0.44 $0.29 $636.91
D5090 Other Electrical Systems $0.08 $169.30
D50902100280 Generator sets, w/battery, charger, muffler and transfer switch,
gas/gasoline operated, 3 phase, 4 wire, 277/480 V, 15 kW
0.22 $0.08 $169.30
E Equipment & Furnishings 0.00% $0.00 $0.00
E1090 Other Equipment $0.00 $0.00
Portland Ave South TIF District
LHB Project No. 230805.00 Page 2 of 3
Replacement Cost Report
Parcel A - 7700 Portland Ave So, Roichfield, MN 55432
F Special Construction 0.00% $0.00 $0.00
G Building Sitework 0.00% $0.00 $0.00
100% $164.99 $362,978.01
15.0% $24.75 $54,446.70
0.0% $0.00 $0.00
0.0% $0.00 $0.00
Total Building Cost $189.74 $417,424.71
Contractor Fees (General Conditions,Overhead,Profit)
Architectural Fees
SubTotal
User Fees
Portland Ave South TIF District
LHB Project No. 230805.00 Page 3 of 3
Replacement Cost Report
Parcel A - 7700 Portland Ave So, Roichfield, MN 55432
Code Deficiency Cost Report
Parcel A - 7700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Building Name or Type
Parcel ID 053-3402824440006 Automotive Repair Garage
Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units Unit Quantity Total
Accessibility Items
Accessible Parking
Create code required accessible parking 100.00$ EA 1 100.00$
Accessible Routes
Create a code required accessible route into the building 500.00$ Lump 1 500.00$
Restroom
Modify restroom to comply with code 3.58$ SF 2,200 7,876.00$
Structural Elements
Steel Lintels
Protect steel lintels from rusting per code 750.00$ Lump 1 750.00$
Concrete Masonry Units
Repair or replace damaged/missing concrete masonry units to prevent
water intrusion per code 9.95$ SF 2,200 21,890.00$
Exiting
Flooring
Repair/replace damaged flooring to create an unimpeded means for
emergency egress per code 1.68$ SF 2,200 3,696.00$
Thresholds
Modify thresholds to comply with code for maximum height 500.00$ Lump 1 500.00$
Door Hardware
Install code compliant door hardware 1,250.00$ Lump 1 1,250.00$
Emergency Exit Signs
Install code required emergency exit signs 1,250.00$ SF 3 3,750.00$
Emergency Notification System
Install a code required emergency notification systme 1.36$ SF 2,200 2,992.00$
Fire Protection
Fire Caulking
Install code required fire caulking 0.15$ SF 2,200 330.00$
Smoke Detectors
Install code required smoke detectors 2.42$ SF 2,200 5,324.00$
Building Sprinkler Systems
Install a code required building sprinkler system 7.93$ SF 2,200 17,446.00$
Portland Avenue South Redevelopment TIF District
Portland Ave South TIF District
LHB Project No. 230805.00 Page 1 of 2
Code Deficiency Cost Report
Parcel A - 7700 Portland Ave So, Richfield, MN 55423
Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units Unit Quantity Total
Exterior Construction
Windows
Replace failed windows to prevent water intrusion per code 6.88$ SF 2,200 15,136.00$
Roof Construction
Roofing Materials
Remove failed roofing material and replace to prevent water intrusion
per code 11.86$ SF 2,200 26,092.00$
Mechanical - Electrical
Mechanical
Install a code compliant HVAC system 11.32$ SF 2,200 24,904.00$
Electrical
Install a code compliant electrical wiring system 6.55$ SF 2,200 14,410.00$
Install a code compliant electrical lighting system 7.77$ SF 2,200 17,094.00$
Total Code Improvements 164,040$
Portland Ave South TIF District
LHB Project No. 230805.00 Page 2 of 2
Code Deficiency Cost Report
Parcel A - 7700 Portland Ave So, Richfield, MN 55423
20231025_111741.jpg
20231025_111758.jpg
20231025_111813.jpg
20231025_111831.jpg
20231025_111752.jpg
20231025_111802.jpg
20231025_111820.jpg
20231025_111837.jpg
20231025_111755.jpg
20231025_111807.jpg
20231025_111824.jpg
20231025_111844.jpg
Portland Avenue South Redevelopment TIF District | Parcel A
1
20231025_111858.jpg
20231025_111909.jpg
20231025_111941.jpg
20231025_112023.jpg
20231025_111900.jpg
20231025_111922.jpg
20231025_112001.jpg
20231025_112029.jpg
20231025_111907.jpg
20231025_111940.jpg
20231025_112019.jpg
20231025_112043.jpg
Portland Avenue South Redevelopment TIF District | Parcel A
2
20231025_113310.jpg
20231025_113331.jpg
20231025_113355.jpg
20231025_113423.jpg
20231025_113325.jpg
20231025_113340.jpg
20231025_113408.jpg
20231025_113425.jpg
20231025_113328.jpg
20231025_113345.jpg
20231025_113413.jpg
20231025_113435.jpg
Portland Avenue South Redevelopment TIF District | Parcel A
3
20231025_113441.jpg
20231025_113505.jpg
20231025_113528.jpg
20231025_113542.jpg
20231025_113451.jpg
20231025_113507.jpg
20231025_113538.jpg
20231025_113546.jpg
20231025_113458.jpg
20231025_113525.jpg
20231025_113540.jpg
20231025_113556.jpg
Portland Avenue South Redevelopment TIF District | Parcel A
4
20231025_113559.jpg
20231025_113655.jpg
20231025_113601.jpg
20231025_113724.jpg
20231025_113650.jpg
Portland Avenue South Redevelopment TIF District | Parcel A
5
Portland Ave South TIF District Page 1 of 3 Building Report
LHB Project No. 230805.00 Parcel B – 7730 Portland Ave So, Richfield, MN 55423
Portland Avenue South Redevelopment TIF District
Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Report
Parcel B Automotive Repair Garage
Address: 7730 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Parcel ID: 053-3402824440007
Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): October 25, 2023, 11:50 am
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: $863,626
Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies: $355,708
Percentage of Replacement Cost for Building Code Deficiencies: 41.2%
DEFECTS IN STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
1. Steel lintels should be protected from rusting per code.
2. Exterior wall concrete block and mortar should be repaired/replaced to prevent water intrusion per code.
COMBINATION OF DEFICIENCIES
1. Essential Utilities and Facilities
a. There is no code required accessible parking.
b. There is no code required accessible route into the building.
c. The restroom is not code compliant for accessibility.
2. Light and Ventilation
a. Lighting does not comply with code.
b. The electrical wiring system does not comply with code.
c. The HVAC system does not comply with code.
3. Fire Protection/Adequate Egress
a. Thresholds do not comply with code for maximum height.
b. The flooring is damaged creating an impediment to emergency egress which is contrary to code.
c. Door hardware does not comply with code.
d. There is no code required accessible route to all levels of the building
e. There is no code required smoke detector system in the building.
f. There is no code required emergency exit signage in the building.
Portland Ave South TIF District Page 2 of 3 Building Report
LHB Project No. 230805.00 Parcel B – 7730 Portland Ave So, Richfield, MN 55423
g. There is no code required emergency lighting system in the building.
h. There is no code required emergency notification system in the building.
i. There is no code required building sprinkler system.
j. There is no code required fire caulking at through wall and ceiling penetrations.
4. Layout and Condition of Interior Partitions/Materials
a. The interior walls and ceilings should be repaired/repainted.
5. Exterior Construction
a. The roofing material is failing, allowing for water intrusion which is contrary to code.
b. Windows are failing, allowing for water intrusion which is contrary to code.
c. Exterior walls should be repainted.
DESCRIPTION OF CODE DEFICIENCIES
1. Code required accessible parking should be created.
2. A code required accessible route into the building should be created.
3. There is no code compliant accessible route to all levels of the building.
4. The restroom does not comply with accessibility code.
5. The lighting does not comply with code.
6. The electrical wiring system does not comply with code.
7. The HVAC system does not comply with code.
8. Thresholds do not comply with code for maximum height.
9. Door hardware does not comply with code.
10. Flooring should be prepared to create an unimpeded means for emergency egress to comply with code.
11. There is no code required smoke detector system.
12. There is no code required emergency exit signage system.
13. There is no code required emergency lighting system.
14. There is no code required emergency notification system.
15. There is no code required building sprinkler system.
16. There is no code required fire caulking.
17. Steel lintels should be protected from rusting per code.
18. Exterior block and mortar should be repaired/replaced to prevent water intrusion per code.
19. Failed windows should be replaced to prevent water intrusion per code.
20. Failed roofing material should be replaced to prevent water intrusion per code.
Portland Ave South TIF District Page 3 of 3 Building Report
LHB Project No. 230805.00 Parcel B – 7730 Portland Ave So, Richfield, MN 55423
OVERVIEW OF DEFICIENCIES
This building was most recently used as an automotive repair garage. There is no code required accessible parking or
accessible route into the building. The restroom does not comply with code. The electrical wiring and lighting systems do not
comply with code. Interior walls and ceiling should be repaired and repainted. A code required accessible route to all levels of
the building should be created. The HVAC system does not comply with code. There are no code required life safety systems
including smoke detectors, emergency lighting, notification and exiting, and building sprinklers. The exterior block and mortar
are failing, allowing for water intrusion which is contrary to code. The roofing material and windows are failing, allowing for
water intrusion which is contrary to code. Exterior walls should be repainted.
ENERGY CODE DEFICIENCIES
In addition to the building code deficiencies listed above, the existing building does not comply with the current energy code.
These deficiencies are not included in the estimated costs to correct code deficiencies and are not considered in determining
whether the building is substandard.
M:\23Proj\230805\300 Design\Reports\Building Reports\B - 7730 Portland Ave So Building Report Redevelopment District.docx
Square Foot Cost Estimate Report Date:10/25/2023
Estimate Name:7730 Portland Avenue South
Building Type:Garage, Repair with Concrete Block / Steel Joists
Location:RICHFIELD, MN
Story Count:1
Story Height (L.F.):21
Floor Area (S.F.):5600
Labor Type:OPN
Basement Included:No
Data Release:Year 2023 Quarter 4
Cost Per Square Foot:$154.22
Building Cost:$863,626.41
Quantity % of Total Cost Per S.F. Cost
A Substructure 17.09% $22.92 $128,373.07
A1010 Standard Foundations $10.97 $61,450.27
A10101051560 Foundation wall, CIP, 4' wall height, direct chute, .148 CY/LF, 7.2 PLF,
12" thick
366 $6.82 $38,180.39
A10101102700 Strip footing, concrete, reinforced, load 11.1 KLF, soil bearing capacity
6 KSF, 12" deep x 24" wide
402.6 $4.16 $23,269.88
A1030 Slab on Grade $11.55 $64,686.72
A10301204520 Slab on grade, 6" thick, light industrial, reinforced 5600 $11.55 $64,686.72
A2010 Basement Excavation $0.40 $2,236.08
A20101104560 Excavate and fill, 10,000 SF, 4' deep, sand, gravel, or common earth,
on site storage
5600 $0.40 $2,236.08
B Shell 36.54% $49.00 $274,426.50
B1020 Roof Construction $8.99 $50,369.26
B10201162500 Roof, steel joists, 1.5" 22 ga metal deck, on bearing walls, 40' bay,
25.5" deep, 40 PSF superimposed load, 61 PSF total load
5600 $8.99 $50,369.26
B2010 Exterior Walls $16.80 $94,096.62
B20101116280 Concrete block (CMU) wall, regular weight, 75% solid, 8 x 8 x 16, 4500
PSI, reinforced, vertical #5@32", grouted
6148.8 $16.80 $94,096.62
B2020 Exterior Windows $6.74 $37,759.91
B20201066650 Windows, aluminum, sliding, standard glass, 5' x 3'25.62 $6.74 $37,759.91
B2030 Exterior Doors $6.38 $35,729.04
B20302203450 Door, steel 18 gauge, hollow metal, 1 door with frame, no label, 3'‐0"
x 7'‐0" opening
1.68 $1.02 $5,687.63
B20302204450 Door, steel 24 gauge, overhead, sectional, manual operation, 12'‐0" x
12'‐0" opening
8.01 $5.36 $30,041.41
B3010 Roof Coverings $10.08 $56,471.67
B30101051400 Roofing, asphalt flood coat, gravel, base sheet, 3 plies 15# asphalt felt,
mopped
5600 $4.04 $22,625.01
B30103203090 Insulation, rigid, roof deck, composite with 2" EPS, 1" perlite 5600 $2.70 $15,106.39
B30104201400 Roof edges, aluminum, duranodic, .050" thick, 6" face 366 $2.59 $14,506.79
B30106305100 Gravel stop, aluminum, extruded, 4", mill finish, .050" thick 366 $0.76 $4,233.48
C Interiors 10.65% $14.29 $80,003.58
C1010 Partitions $5.32 $29,770.37
C10101022300 Lightweight block 4" thick 1176 $1.87 $10,478.94
C10101046000 Concrete block (CMU) partition, light weight, hollow, 8" thick, no
finish
1568 $3.44 $19,291.43
C1020 Interior Doors $0.38 $2,122.13
C10201022600 Door, single leaf, kd steel frame, hollow metal, commercial quality,
flush, 3'‐0" x 7'‐0" x 1‐3/8"
1.87 $0.38 $2,122.13
C1030 Fittings $0.46 $2,584.28
C10301100460 Toilet partitions, cubicles, ceiling hung, stainless steel 1 $0.46 $2,584.28
C3010 Wall Finishes $5.78 $32,374.06
C30102202000 2 coats paint on masonry with block filler 6148.8 $4.24 $23,729.45
C30102300320 Painting, masonry or concrete, latex, brushwork, primer & 2 coats 2240 $0.85 $4,763.88
C30102300340 Painting, masonry or concrete, latex, brushwork, addition for block
filler
2240 $0.69 $3,880.73
Portland Avenue South Redevelopment TIF District
Replacement Cost Report
Costs are derived from a building model with basic components.
Scope differences and market conditions can cause costs to vary significantly.
Portland Ave South TIF District
LHB Project No. 230805.00 Page 1 of 2
Replacement Cost Report
Parcel B - 7730 Portland Ave So, Richfield, MN 55423
C3020 Floor Finishes $1.68 $9,402.17
C30204100940 Concrete topping, hardeners, metallic additive, minimum 5040 $1.46 $8,175.23
C30204101580 Vinyl, composition tile, minimum 560 $0.22 $1,226.94
C3030 Ceiling Finishes $0.67 $3,750.57
C30302105800 Acoustic ceilings, 5/8" fiberglass board, 24" x 48" tile, tee grid,
suspended support
560 $0.67 $3,750.57
D Services 35.71% $47.89 $268,176.34
D2010 Plumbing Fixtures $4.10 $22,979.70
D20101102080 Water closet, vitreous china, bowl only with flush valve, wall hung 1.9 $1.39 $7,779.54
D20102102000 Urinal, vitreous china, wall hung 0.95 $0.30 $1,667.67
D20103102080 Lavatory w/trim, wall hung, PE on CI, 19" x 17" 1.9 $0.72 $4,056.92
D20104404340 Service sink w/trim, PE on CI,wall hung w/rim guard, 24" x 20" 0.95 $1.22 $6,838.57
D20108201920 Water cooler, electric, wall hung, wheelchair type, 7.5 GPH 0.95 $0.47 $2,637.00
D2020 Domestic Water Distribution $0.88 $4,922.25
D20202202260 Gas fired water heater, residential, 100< F rise, 30 gal tank, 32 GPH 0.95 $0.88 $4,922.25
D2040 Rain Water Drainage $4.95 $27,732.12
D20402106200 Roof drain, steel galv sch 40 threaded, 4" diam piping, 10' high 2.86 $2.72 $15,221.77
D20402106240 Roof drain, steel galv sch 40 threaded, 4" diam piping, for each
additional foot add
102 $2.23 $12,510.35
D3050 Terminal & Package Units $11.32 $63,387.86
D30501503120 Rooftop, single zone, air conditioner, factories, 10,000 SF, 33.33 ton 5600 $11.32 $63,387.86
D3090 Other HVAC Systems/Equip $1.96 $10,948.05
D30903201040 Garage, single exhaust, 3" outlet, cars & light trucks, 1 bay 1 $1.35 $7,544.05
D30903201060 Garage, single exhaust, 3" outlet, additional bays up to seven bays 2 $0.61 $3,404.00
D4010 Sprinklers $6.35 $35,564.31
D40104101080 Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, ordinary hazard, 1 floor, 10,000 SF 5600 $6.35 $35,564.31
D4020 Standpipes $1.58 $8,825.41
D40203101540 Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe, 1
floor
0.56 $1.44 $8,065.02
D40203101560 Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe,
additional floors
0.22 $0.14 $760.39
D5010 Electrical Service/Distribution $1.07 $5,990.22
D50101200280 Overhead service installation, includes breakers, metering, 20' conduit
& wire, 3 phase, 4 wire, 120/208 V, 200 A
1 $0.66 $3,714.80
D50102300280 Feeder installation 600 V, including RGS conduit and XHHW wire, 200
A
30 $0.34 $1,902.12
D50102400200 Switchgear installation, incl switchboard, panels & circuit breaker,
120/208 V, 3 phase, 400 A
0.03 $0.07 $373.30
D5020 Lighting and Branch Wiring $11.61 $65,011.64
D50201100280 Receptacles incl plate, box, conduit, wire, 4 per 1000 SF, .5 watts per
SF
5600 $2.68 $15,028.50
D50201350280 Miscellaneous power, 1 watt 5600 $0.36 $2,039.58
D50201400240 Central air conditioning power, 3 watts 5600 $0.79 $4,424.84
D50202100520 Fluorescent fixtures recess mounted in ceiling, 1.6 watt per SF, 40 FC,
10 fixtures @32watt per 1000 SF
5600 $7.77 $43,518.72
D5030 Communications and Security $4.07 $22,814.78
D50309100452 Communication and alarm systems, fire detection, addressable, 25
detectors, includes outlets, boxes, conduit and wire
0.56 $2.42 $13,575.46
D50309100462 Fire alarm command center, addressable with voice, excl. wire &
conduit
0.56 $1.36 $7,618.10
D50309200104 Internet wiring, 4 data/voice outlets per 1000 S.F. 1.12 $0.29 $1,621.22
E Equipment & Furnishings 0.00% $0.00 $0.00
E1090 Other Equipment $0.00 $0.00
F Special Construction 0.00% $0.00 $0.00
G Building Sitework 0.00% $0.00 $0.00
100% $134.10 $750,979.49
15.0% $20.12 $112,646.92
0.0% $0.00 $0.00
0.0% $0.00 $0.00
Total Building Cost $154.22 $863,626.41
Contractor Fees (General Conditions,Overhead,Profit)
Architectural Fees
SubTotal
User Fees
Portland Ave South TIF District
LHB Project No. 230805.00 Page 2 of 2
Replacement Cost Report
Parcel B - 7730 Portland Ave So, Richfield, MN 55423
Code Deficiency Cost Report
Parcel B - 7730 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Building Name or Type
Parcel ID 053-3402824440007 Automotive Repair Garage
Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units Unit Quantity Total
Accessibility Items
Accessible Parking
Create code required accessible parking 100.00$ EA 1 100.00$
Accessible Routes
Create a code required accessible route into the building 500.00$ Lump 1 500.00$
Create a code required accessible route to all levels of the building 2,500.00$ Lump 1 2,500.00$
Restroom
Modify restroom to comply with code 3.58$ SF 5,600 20,048.00$
Structural Elements
Steel Lintels
Protect steel lintels from rusting per code 1,250.00$ Lump 1 1,250.00$
Concrete Masonry Units
Repair or replace damaged/missing concrete masonry units to prevent
water intrusion per code 3.25$ SF 5,600 18,200.00$
Exiting
Flooring
Repair/replace damaged flooring to create an unimpeded means for
emergency egress per code 1.68$ SF 5,600 9,408.00$
Thresholds
Modify thresholds to comply with code for maximum height 1,000.00$ Lump 1 1,000.00$
Door Hardware
Install code compliant door hardware 1,500.00$ Lump 1 1,500.00$
Emergency Exit Signs
Install code required emergency exit signs 1,250.00$ EA 5 6,250.00$
Emergency Notification System
Install a code required emergency notification systme 1.36$ SF 5,600 7,616.00$
Fire Protection
Fire Caulking
Install code required fire caulking 0.15$ SF 5,600 840.00$
Smoke Detectors
Install code required smoke detectors 2.42$ SF 5,600 13,552.00$
Building Sprinkler Systems
Install a code required building sprinkler system 7.93$ SF 5,600 44,408.00$
Portland Avenue South Redevelopment TIF District
Portland Ave South TIF District
LHB Project No. 230805.00 Page 1 of 2
Code Deficiency Cost Report
Parcel B - 7730 Portland Ave So, Richfield, MN 55423
Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units Unit Quantity Total
Exterior Construction
Windows
Replace failed windows to prevent water intrusion per code 6.74$ SF 5,600 37,744.00$
Roof Construction
Roofing Materials
Remove failed roofing material and replace to prevent water intrusion
per code 10.08$ SF 5,600 56,448.00$
Mechanical - Electrical
Mechanical
Install a code compliant HVAC system 11.32$ SF 5,600 63,392.00$
Electrical
Install a code compliant electrical wiring system 4.90$ SF 5,600 27,440.00$
Install a code compliant electrical lighting system 7.77$ SF 5,600 43,512.00$
Total Code Improvements 355,708$
Portland Ave South TIF District
LHB Project No. 230805.00 Page 2 of 2
Code Deficiency Cost Report
Parcel B - 7730 Portland Ave So, Richfield, MN 55423
20231025_112059.jpg
20231025_112135.jpg
20231025_112208.jpg
20231025_112232.jpg
20231025_112122.jpg
20231025_112139.jpg
20231025_112219.jpg
20231025_112243.jpg
20231025_112128.jpg
20231025_112154.jpg
20231025_112230.jpg
20231025_112245.jpg
Portland Avenue South Redevelopment TIF District | Parcel B
1
20231025_112256.jpg
20231025_112312.jpg
20231025_112329.jpg
20231025_112406.jpg
20231025_112305.jpg
20231025_112314.jpg
20231025_112335.jpg
20231025_112420.jpg
20231025_112308.jpg
20231025_112324.jpg
20231025_112338.jpg
20231025_112422.jpg
Portland Avenue South Redevelopment TIF District | Parcel B
2
20231025_114009.jpg
20231025_114020.jpg
20231025_114033.jpg
20231025_114059.jpg
20231025_114013.jpg
20231025_114023.jpg
20231025_114045.jpg
20231025_114107.jpg
20231025_114018.jpg
20231025_114031.jpg
20231025_114048.jpg
20231025_114120.jpg
Portland Avenue South Redevelopment TIF District | Parcel B
3
20231025_114125.jpg
20231025_114138.jpg
20231025_114200.jpg
20231025_114218.jpg
20231025_114134.jpg
20231025_114148.jpg
20231025_114209.jpg
20231025_114219.jpg
20231025_114136.jpg
20231025_114158.jpg
20231025_114217.jpg
20231025_114238.jpg
Portland Avenue South Redevelopment TIF District | Parcel B
4
20231025_114244.jpg
20231025_114323.jpg
20231025_114335.jpg
20231025_114502.jpg
20231025_114250.jpg
20231025_114325.jpg
20231025_114410.jpg
20231025_114540.jpg
20231025_114312.jpg
20231025_114330.jpg
20231025_114458.jpg
20231025_114655.jpg
Portland Avenue South Redevelopment TIF District | Parcel B
5
20231025_114733.jpg 20231025_114736.jpg
Portland Avenue South Redevelopment TIF District | Parcel B
6
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #8.D.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 147
CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING
11/14/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y:K arl Huemiller, Interim Recreation S ervices D irector
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:K arl Huemiller
11/6/2023
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
11/7/2023
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider approval of the mutual termination rental agreement between the City of Richfield and the
MN W hitecaps Professional Women's hockey team.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
We were able to come to agreement to terminate the current rental agreement between the City of Richfield
and the Minnesota W hitecaps. Highlights of the attached mutual termination rental agreement:
W hitecaps organization will pay two years worth of rent to exit the agreement totaling $99,984
Current rental agreement will terminate effective November 15th, 2023
W hitecaps will no longer have any ice rental, advertising, and alcohol sales rights.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By Motion: Approve the mutual termination rental agreement between the City of Richfield and the MN
W hitecaps.
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
About the Minnesota Whitecaps
The Minnesota W hitecaps were a professional women’s ice hockey team based in Minneapolis, Minnesota and
competing in the P remier Hockey F ederation (formerly the National Women’s Hockey L eague). The Whitecaps
were the P HF ’s first expansion team, joining the league in the 2018-19 season after operating as an
independent team since 2004. Minnesota won the league championship, the Isobel C up, in their first season in
the P HF.
About the Premier Hockey Federation
The P HF was a women's professional ice hockey league in the United S tates and C anada that operated from
until J une 2023.. E stablished in 2015 as the National Women’s Hockey L eague, the NW HL rebranded to
become the P HF in 2021 and maintains the mission to provide strong role models and fuel the continued growth
of the sport. The league was made up of the B oston P ride, B uffalo B eauts, C onnecticut Whale, Metropolitan
Riveters, Minnesota Whitecaps, and the Toronto S ix, who all competed annually for the Isobel C up.
The P rofessional Women's Hockey P layers A ssociation and P remier Hockey F ederation are merging to form a
single league. The P W HL is fully funded by D odgers co-owner Mark Walter and his wife, K imbra. The Mark
Walter Group purchased assets of the P remier Hockey F ederation (P HF ) in June to effectively dissolve that
league in order to launch the P rofessional Women's Hockey L eague (P W HL ) as the only pro women's hockey
league in North A merica.
The P HF ceased operations on J une 29, 2023. On A ugust 29, 2023, the organization announced the creation of
the P W HL .
B .E QU ITAB L E OR S T R AT E GIC C ON S ID E R AT ION S OR IMPAC T S
Richfield supports programs to make hockey and skating inclusive for underrepresented communities like
hosting the Whitecaps. It is unfortunate for Richfield that changes at the league level resulted in the team playing
in a bigger venue but a positive development for the region. We continue to support inclusive programs like the
C ity’s partnership with Mosaic Hockey C ollective which has had participation double in the past two years and
the L ittle S partans Hockey program, partnering with F ortis A cademy to provide affordable opportunities for
Richfield youth to play hockey.
C .P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
C ontracts require C ouncil approval.
D .C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The Minnesota W hitecaps are no longer operating a business and the city will need to find a new lessee for the
locker room space.
E .F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
The locker room project was funded by an internal loan in the amount of $600,000 and is being paid back by
rental payments received by the L ease owners starting with the Minnesota Magicians and, more recently, the
Minnesota Whitecaps. There's currently four years remaining on the internal loan and this will agreement will
cover two of them.
F.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The C ity A ttorney has reviewed and prepared the agreement.
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C OMME N D AT ION(S):
D elay or reject approval of the mutual termination rental agreement, which could impact the city's ability to sell the ice
time.
P R IN C IPAL PAR T IE S E X P E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
W hitecaps agreement C ontract/A greement
Mutual Termination A greement C over Memo
600457v2RC160-7 1
AMENDED RENTAL AGREEMENT
This amended rental agreement is made this ___ day of May, 2022, by and between
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ("Landlord") and NLTT Hockey Ventures, LLC operating as the
Minnesota Whitecaps ("Tenant").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant desire to enter into a Rental Agreement for ice
facilities; and
Landlord and Tenant, intending to be legally bound, hereby covenant and agree as
follow:
ARTICLE I.
Rented Premises
1.1 Landlord does hereby rent demise, and let unto Tenant, and Tenant does hereby
hire and take from Landlord, upon the terms and conditions set forth herein (the Rental
Agreement), the premises shown cross-hatched on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein, consisting of 2,000 square feet of locker room space (Rented Premises), located on the
level of the Richfield Ice Arena Building located at 636 East 66th Street situated in the City of
Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "Building").
ARTICLE II.
Term
2.1. The term of the Rental Agreement shall commence on May ____, 2022 (the
Commencement Date), and shall consist of three (3) five-year intervals and shall terminate on
April 30, 2038. Either party may terminate the Agreement at the end of each five -year interval
upon giving a written 90-day notice to the other party. Unless notice to terminate is given, the
Agreement will automatically extend for the next five-year interval.
2.2. If, at the termination of this Rental Agreement for reasons other than default or
breach by Tenant, Landlord decides to rent the Rented Premises to a third party, Tenant shall
have the right, for a period of one year after the termination date, to match or exceed any
proposed and/or actual Rental Agreement for the Rented Premises which is acceptable to the
Landlord, and if the Tenant elects in writing within 15 days of the date of receipt of the
proposed and/or actual Rental Agreement, then the parties hereto shall execute such a rental
agreement.
ARTICLE III.
Rent
3.1 Tenant shall pay to Landlord as the "Base Rent" monthly rent in the amount of
$4,166.00 per month. Said Base Rent shall be payable in advance, on or before the first (1st)
day of each and every month, commencing on the Commencement Date, and continuing
during the Term.
ARTICLE IV.
Nonpayment
4.1 Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, Tenant covenants and agrees
600457v2RC160-7 2
that if at any time it fails to pay any amount required by the Rental Agreement, or to obtain, pay
for, maintain, or deliver any of the insurance policies herein provided for, or fails to make any
other payment or perform any other act required to be made or performed by the Rental
Agreement, then Landlord, without notice to or demand upon Tenant, without waiving or
releasing Tenant from any obligation of Tenant contained in the Rental Agreement, and
without any obligation to do so, may effect any such insu rance coverage and pay premiums
therefor and may make any other payment or perform any other act on the part of Tenant to be
made and performed as provided in the Rental Agreement, in such manner and to such extent
as Landlord may deem reasonably desirable, and in exercising such right to pay necessary
and incidental costs and expenses. All sums so paid by Landlord and all necessary and any
such act by Landlord, together with interest thereon at the maximum rate permitted by law,
whichever is less, from the date of making of such expenditure by Landlord, shall be payable
to Landlord as Additional Rent, and except as otherwise provided for in the Rental Agreement,
shall be payable on demand or at the option of Landlord may be added to any monthly rental
then due or thereafter becoming due under the Rental Agreement. Tenant covenants to pay
any such sum or sums with interest as aforesaid and Landlord shall have (in addition to any
right or remedy of Landlord) the same rights and remedies in the event of nonpa yment by
Tenant as in the case of default by Tenant in payment of rent.
ARTICLE V.
Ice Rental, Concessions, and Alcohol Sales
5.1 As part of this agreement, Landlord will provide Tenant free ice time for games
each year between October 1st and May 15th (20 weekend games a year, Saturday nights at
7:00PM and Sunday mid-afternoons between the start time of Noon-2:00PM. Game warm-up
ice will need to be ready 40 minutes before game time. Landlord reserves the right to
exclusively operate the concessions out of the existing concession facility during all games.
The ice time in this section applies only to the Minnesota Whitecaps of the Premier Hockey
Federation.
5.2 Landlord will provide free practice ice time for Tenant each year between
September 1 and May 15th during non-prime hours and for up to three (3) 75 minute slots
during prime time hours as defined in section 5.3 . The Tenant will also need a few morning
sessions each week during the season. The ice time in this section applies only to Minnesota
Whitecaps of the Premier Hockey Federation.
5.3 The Landlord will hold sole concession rights in the lobby concession stand . The
Tenant MN Whitecaps will have the rights to bring in food/pizza to set up areas in
the seating arena for group seating events/party decks.
5.4 The Tenant will hold sole alcohol rights in Rink One during Whitecap games in
accordance with State Statutes.
ARTICLE VI.
Utilities and Maintenance Expense
6.1. Tenant shall pay its pro rata share of all charges for electricity, light, air
conditioning and power with the rented premises and the charges thereof shall be deemed
additional rent. Because the Rented premises are not metered separately, the prorated share
shall be $1,600 per year, subject to a 2% increase per year beginning January 1, 2023, and
600457v2RC160-7 3
payable in two annual payments on August 1 and February 1.
ARTICLE VII.
Repairs, Cleaning, Maintenance and Alterations
7.1 Tenant shall perform regular cleaning duties to the Rented Premises. Tenant,
during the Term and at Tenant's expense, will keep the Rented Premises and appurtenances
and every part thereof in good order, condition, cleanliness, and repair, including, without
limitation, the maintenance, repair, and replacement, if necessary, of all interior walls,
partitions, doors, and windows, including the regular painting thereof. Tenant shall promptly
notify Landlord of any necessary maintenance, repairs, or replacements. Landlord will arrange
repairs that are covered under construction warranty of the Rented Premises. When used in
this provision, the term repairs shall include replacements or renewals when necessary, and all
such repairs made by the Tenant shall be equal in quality and class to the original work. If
Tenant does not keep and maintain the Rented Premises as herein provided, Landlord may,
but need not, make such repairs and replacements, and Tenant shall pay Landlord, as
Additional Rent, the cost thereof forthwith, plus interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the
date of making such expenditure by Landlord, upon being billed for the same. All damage or
injury to the Rented Premises and to its fixtures, appurtenances, and equipment caused by
Tenant moving property in or out of the Rented Premises or by installation, removal of
furniture, fixtures, equipment, or other property by Tenant, its agents, contractors, servants, or
employees, or resulting from any other cause of any other kind or nature whatsoever due t o
carelessness, omission, neglect, improper conduct, or other causes of Tenant, its servants,
employees, agents, visitors, or licensees, shall be repaired, restored, or replaced promptly by
Tenant at its sole cost and expense to the satisfaction of Landlord. If Tenant fails to make
such repairs, restorations, or replacements, the same may be made by Landlord and the same
shall be at the expense of Tenant and collectible as Additional Rent or otherwise, and shall be
paid by Tenant to Landlord within five (5) days after rendition of a bill or statement therefor.
7.2 A list of initial improvements by Tenant includes signage replacement, cleaning,
painting, floor update and other equipment installation as needed in the locker room . Except as
otherwise provided herein, no additional improvements, alterations, or replacements shall be
made to the Rented Premises or any portion thereof without the prior written consent of
Landlord. Such written consent will indicate the owner of such improvements, alterations and
replacements if removed from the rented premises or building after termination of the rental
agreement.
7.3 Notwithstanding any other provision contained herein to the contrary, Landlord
shall repair, at its expense, the structural portions of the Building; provided, however, where
structural repairs are required to be made by reason of the acts of Tenant, the costs thereof
shall be borne by Tenant and payable by Tenant to Landlord upon demand.
7.4 Landlord covenants to Tenant that it will continue to reasonably provide for the
removal of snow from the parking lot and sidewalks and for the maintenance and repair work
on the building exterior all for the benefit of users of the building, including Tenant.
ARTICLE VIII.
Insurance
8.1 Landlord shall at all times during the Term keep the Building insured against loss
or damage by fire and against those perils included from time to time in the standard form of
600457v2RC160-7 4
extended coverage insurance endorsement, including but without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, wind storm, hail, explosion, vandalism, riot and civil commotion, damage from
vehicles, and smoke damage, and such other coverage as may be deemed necessary by
Landlord.
8.2 Tenant shall insure the contents of the Rented Premises owned by Tenant, for
the benefit of Tenant, against loss or damage by fire, windstorm, or other casualty for such
amount as Tenant may desire.
8.3 Mutual Waiver of Subrogation. Landlord and Lessee hereby waive any and all
rights of recovery against each other for any loss or damage to the Rented Premises and/or
the Building or the contents contained therein on account of fire or other casualty or for injuries
sustained on the Rented Premises and/or the Building, provided such loss or damage is
insured under a policy carried by Lessor or Lessee at the time of such loss or damage. The
aforesaid policies of insurance shall contain appropriate provisions recognizing this mutual
release and waiving all rights of subrogation on behalf of the respective insurance carriers.
8.4. Tenant shall also, as Additional Rent hereunder and at Tenant's sole cost and
expense, but for the mutual benefit of Landlord and Tenant, as named insureds, maintain
during the Term (a) general public liability insurance against claims for personal injury, death,
or property damage occurring upon, in, or about the Rented Premises, and on, in, or about the
adjoining lands, such insurance to afford protection to the limit of not less than Five Hundred
Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($500,000.00) in respect to injury or death to a single person,
and to the limit of not less than one Million and no/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) in respect to
any one (1) accident and to the limit of not less than Three Hundred Thousand and no/100
Dollars ($300,000.00) in respect to any property damage; and (b) steam boiler insurance on all
steam boilers, pressure boilers, or other such apparatus as Landlord may deem necessary to
be covered by such insurance and in such amount or amounts as Landlord may from time to
time reasonably require.
8.5 All policies of insurance required to be maintained by Tenant shall be written in
companies satisfactory to Landlord, and shall be written in such form and shall be distributed in
such companies as shall be reasonably acceptable to Landlord. Such policies shall be
delivered to Landlord endorsed "premium paid" by the company or agency issuing the same or
accompanied by another evidence satisfactory to Landlord that the premiums thereon have
been paid, not less than (10) days prior to the expiration of any then current policy.
ARTICLE IX.
Quiet Enjoyment
9.1 Landlord represents and warrants that it is the lawful owner of the Rented
Premises; that it has the full right and power to make the Rental Agreement; that if and so long
as Tenant shall not be in default hereunder, Tenant shall quietly hold, occupy, and enjoy the
Rented Premises during all of the Term.
ARTICLE X.
Destruction By Fire
10.1 If the Building or any portion thereof is damaged or destroyed by fire or other
casualty, however or by whomever caused, Landlord shall repair, rebuild, and restore the
same with due diligence and dispatch (subject to the approval of the holders of any mortg ages
600457v2RC160-7 5
on the Building) so that the Building will be restored to at least the same good order and
condition as existed prior to damage or destruction. If more than twenty five percent (25%) of
the Rented Premises is damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty, Landlord shall have
the option, in its sole discretion, to decline to rebuild. If Landlord so declines, this Rental
Agreement shall terminate as of the date of such damage or destruction. If Landlord elects to
repair the Building, and if such damage in the reasonable opinion of the Landlord renders the
entire Rented Premises unfit for Tenant's normal business purposes, and Tenant by reason
thereof discontinues business in the Rented Premises, Base Rent and Additional Rent shall be
abated for a period during which no part of the Rented Premises is fit for such business
purposes and during which time Tenant discontinues business. If such damage renders only
part of the Rented Premises unfit for Tenant's normal business purposes, Base Rent shall be
apportioned on a square foot of Rented Premises area basis and the proportion thereof
applicable to each part of the Rented Premises upon which Tenant discontinues its business
operations shall be abated for the period during which such part is not fit for T enant's normal
business purposes and during which Tenant discontinues such business operations.
10.2 Tenant will repair and replace all improvements and betterments placed upon the
Rented Premises by it, and such repair and replacement shall be made at its own expense and
not at the expense of Landlord.
ARTICLE XI.
Assignment and Subletting
11.1 Tenant shall not assign or sublease any of its rights under the Rental Agreement
of any part of the Rented Premises without prior written consent from Landlord, which consent
shall not be unreasonably withheld by Landlord. No such assignment or subleasing shall in
any event relieve Tenant from any of its obligations contained in the Rental Agreement, nor
shall any assignment or transfer of the Rental Agreement be effective unless the assignee or
transferee shall, at the time of such assignment or transfer, assume in writing all the terms,
covenants, and conditions of the Rental Agreement to be performed thereafter by Tenant and
shall agree in writing to be bound thereby. Tenant agrees to pay on behalf of Landlord any
and all costs of Landlord, including reasonable attorneys' fees occasioned by such assignment
or transfer.
ARTICLE XII.
Defaults of Tenant
12.1 If during the Term Tenant shall default in fulfilling any of the covenants of the
Rental Agreement (other than the covenants for the payment of Base Rent or Additional Rent),
Landlord shall give Tenant notice of any default or of the happening of any contingency
referred to in this paragraph, and if at the expiration of twenty (20) days after the service of
such notice the default or contingency upon which said notice was based shall continue to
exist, or in the case of a default or contingency which cannot with due diligence be cured within
a period of twenty (20) days, if Tenant fails to proceed promptly after the service of such notice
and with all due diligence to cure the same and thereafter to prosecute the curing of such
default with all due diligence, Landlord, at its option, may terminate the Rental Agreement, and
upon such termination, Tenant will quit and surrender the Rented Premises to Landlord, but
Tenant shall remain liable as hereinafter provided.
12.2 If Tenant shall default in the payment of the Base Rent or Additional Rent
expressly reserved hereunder, or any part of the same, and such default shall continue for ten
600457v2RC160-7 6
(10) days after notice thereof by Landlord, or if the Rental Agreement shall expire as provided
in Paragraph 12.1 of this Article, Landlord or Landlord's agents and servants may immediately
or at any time thereafter re-enter the Rented Premises and remove all persons and any or all
property therefrom, either by summary dispossession proceedings or by any suitable action or
proceedings at law or by force or otherwise and repossess and enjoy said Rented Premises,
together with all additions, alterations and improvements, without reentry and repossession
working forfeiture or waiver of the rents to be paid and the covenants to be performed by
Tenant during the Term hereof. Upon the expiration of the Term of the Rental Agreement by
reason of any of the events described in Paragraph 12.1, or in the event of termination of the
Rental Agreement by summary dispossession proceedings or under any provision of law now
or hereafter in force by reason of or based upon or arising out of a default under or a breach of
the Rental Agreement on the part of Tenant (except where such breach or default is
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be justified because of Landlord's acts or
omissions), or upon Landlord recovering possession of the Rented Premises in the manner or
in any of the circumstances whatsoever, whether with or withou t legal proceedings, by reason
of or based upon or arising out of a default under or a breach of the Rental Agreement on the
part of Tenant, Landlord may, at its option, at any time and from time to time, relet the Rented
Premises, or any part thereof, for the account of Tenant or otherwise, and receive and collect
the rents therefor, applying the same first to the payment of such expenses as Landlord may
have incurred in recovering possession of the Rented Premises, including legal expenses and
attorneys, fees, and for putting the same into good order or condition or preparing or altering
the same for re-rental and all other expenses, commissions, and charges paid, assumed, or
incurred by Landlord in reletting the Rented Premises and then to the fulfillment of the
covenants of Tenant hereunder. Any such reletting herein provided for may be for the
remainder of the Term of the Rental Agreement as originally granted or for a longer or shorter
period. In any such case or whether or not the Rented Premises, or any part thereof, is relet,
Tenant shall pay to Landlord the Base Rent and the Additional Rent required to be paid by
Tenant up to the time of such termination of the Rental Agreement, as the case may be, and
thereafter, Tenant covenants and agrees, if required by Landlord, to pay to Landlord until the
end of the Term of the Rental Agreement the equivalent of the amount of all the Base Rent
and Additional Rent reserved herein less the net proceeds of reletting, if any. Landlord shall
have the election, in place and stead of holding Tenant so liable, forthwith to recover against
Tenant, as damages for loss of the bargain and not as penalty, an aggregate sum which at the
time of such termination of the Rental Agreement for such recovery of possession of the
Rented Premises by Landlord, as the case may be, represents the then present worth of the
excess, if any, of the aggregate of the Base Rent and Additional Rent payable by Tenant
hereunder that would have accrued for the balance of the Term, over the aggregate rental
value of the Rented Premises for the balance of such Term.
12.3 The specified remedies to which Landlord may resort under the terms of the
Rental Agreement are cumulative and are not intended to be exclusive of any other remedies
or means of redress to which Landlord may be lawfully entitled in case of any breach or
threatened breach by Tenant of any provision of the Rental Agreement. The failure of
Landlord to insist in any one or more cases upon the strict performance of any of the
covenants of the Rental Agreement or to exercise any option herein contained shall not be
construed as a waiver or a relinquishment for the future of such covenant or option. A receipt
by Landlord of Base Rent or Additional Rent, with knowledge of breach of any co venant hereof
(other than the payment of Base Rent or Additional Rent) shall not be deemed a waiver of
such breach, and no waiver by Landlord of any provision of this Rental Agreement shall be
600457v2RC160-7 7
deemed to have been made unless expressed in writing and signed by Landlord. In addition to
other remedies provided in this Rental Agreement, Landlord shall be entitled to the restraint by
injunction for the violation or attempted or threatened violation of the covenants, conditions, or
provisions of the Rental Agreement.
ARTICLE XIII.
Attorneys' Fees
13.1 If it is necessary for Landlord to retain the services of an attorney at law to
enforce any of the terms, covenants, or provisions hereof, or to collect any sums due
hereunder, Tenant shall pay to Landlord upon demand, as Additional Rent hereunder, the
reasonable cost of such services.
ARTICLE XV.
Condition of Rented Premises at Termination
15.1 At the termination of the Rental Agreement by lapse of time or otherwise, Tenant
shall return the Rented Premises in as good a condition as when Tenant took possession,
excepting only ordinary wear and tear, damage, or destruction as described in Article 10
herein.
ARTICLE XVI.
Holding Over
16.1 In the absence of any written agreement to the contrary, if Tenant should
continue to occupy the Rented Premises following the expiration of the Term of the Rental
Agreement, Tenant shall so remain as a tenant from month to month and all provisions of the
Rental Agreement applicable to such tenancy shall remain in full force and effect. During such
tenancy, the same Base Rent and the same terms and conditions as prevailed during the last
month of the Term demised shall prevail. In any such event, Tenant shall be liable to Landlord
for damages which Landlord may incur as a result of such holding over, including but not
limited to damages incurred because of loss of a prospective successor tenant. If Tenant is a
holdover tenant and if Tenant continues to ' occupy the Rented Premises following the
termination of such holdover (by a proper notice as to such month to month tenancy), then the
foregoing provisions of this Article shall apply in the same manner as when Tenant continued
in occupancy following the expiration of the Term of the Rental Agreement.
ARTICLE XVII.
Use of Rented Premises
17.1 The Rented Premises shall be used only for the operation of the Minnesota
Whitecaps. Tenant shall not use or occupy the Rented Premises or knowingly permit the
Rented Premises to be used or occupied contrary to any statute, rule, order, ordinance,
requirement, or regulation applicable thereto or in any manner which would violate any
certificate of occupancy affecting the same, or which would cause structural injury to the
Rented Premises or cause the value or usefulness of the Rented Premises or any part thereof
to substantially diminish (reasonable wear and tear excepted) or which would constitute a
public or private nuisance or waste. Tenant shall promptly upon discovery of any such use,
take all necessary steps to compel the discontinuance of such use.
ARTICLE XVIII.
Permits
18.1 Tenant shall maintain in force and effect all permits, licenses, and similar
600457v2RC160-7 8
authorizations to use the Rented Premises for the aforesaid purposes required by any
governmental authority having jurisdiction over the use thereof. Tenant's failure to maintain
such permits, licenses, and similar authorizations shall not relieve Tenant from the
performance of its obligations and covenants hereunder (except obligations and covenants as
may be prohibited by law), nor from the obligations to pay Base Rent or Additional Rent, as set
forth herein. Tenant shall, at Landlord's request, in its capacity as Tenant, and not in its
capacity as owner of the land underlying the Building, join with Landlord in executing,
acknowledging, and delivering any and all petitions, consents, subordinations, plats, or
easement deeds that may be required for the installation of any utilities, public improvements,
roads, water lines, sewer lines, storm drainage facilities, subdivision, rezoning, special use,
platting, or other similar development of the Rented Premises, which do not affect Tenant's use
of the Rented Premises during the Term of the Rental Agreement.
ARTICLE XIX.
Compliance with Law
19.1 Tenant, at its sole expense, shall promptly comply with all laws, ordinances, and
requirements of federal, state, county, and municipal authorities relating to Tenant's use and
occupation of the Rented Premises, and with any lawful order or direction of any public officer
relating to Tenant's use and occupation of the Rented Premises during the Term of the Rental
Agreement. Nothing herein contained, however, shall prohibit Tenant from appealing from or
contesting the validity or legality of such laws, ordinances, requirements, orders, or directions
and, notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Article, Tenant shall not be deemed to be
in default hereunder so long as Tenant diligently prosecutes such appeal or contest.
ARTICLE XX.
Lessor's Access to Premises
20.1 Tenant shall permit Landlord and the authorized representatives of Landlord to
enter the Rented Premises at all times during usual business hours for the purpose of
inspecting the same and making any necessary repairs to comply with any laws, ordinances
rules, regulations, or requirements of any public authority. Nothing herein shall imply any duty
upon the part of Landlord to do any such work which, under any provision of the Rental
Agreement, Tenant may be required to perform, and the performance thereof by Landlord shall
not constitute a waiver of Tenant's default in failing to perform the same. Landlord may, during
the progress of any work in the Rented Premises, reasonably keep and store upon the Rented
Premises all necessary materials, tools, and equipment. Landlord shall not in any event be
liable for inconvenience, annoyance, disturbance, lo ss of business, or other damage to Tenant
by reason of making repairs or the performance of any work in the Rented Premises, or on
account of bringing materials, supplies, and equipment onto or through the Rented Premises
during the course thereof, and the obligations of Tenant under the Rental Agreement shall not
hereby be affected in any manner whatsoever. Landlord shall, however, in connection with the
doing of any such work cause as little inconvenience, annoyance, disturbance, loss of
business, or other damage to Tenant as may reasonably be possible in the circumstances.
ARTICLE XXI.
Indemnity
21.1 Tenant shall indemnify and save harmless Landlord against and from any and all
claims by or on behalf of any person or persons, firm or firms, corporation or corporations,
arising from the conduct or management of or from any work or thing whatsoever done by
Tenant, or any of its agents, contractors, employees, or licensees in, on or about the Rented
600457v2RC160-7 9
Premises, and will further indemnify and save Landlord harmless against and from any and all
claims arising during the Term of the Rental Agreement from any condition of the Rented
Premises arising from any breach or default on the part of Tenant in the performance of any
covenant or agreement on the part of Tenant to be performed, pursuant to the terms of the
Rental Agreement, or arising from any act of negligence of Tenant, or any of its agents,
contractors, employees, or licensees, or arising from any accident, injury, or damage
whatsoever caused to any person, firm, or corporation occurring during the Term of the Rental
Agreement, in the Rented Premises, and from and against all costs, reasonable attorneys,
fees, expenses, and liabilities incurred in or about any such claim or action or proceeding
brought thereon; and in case any action or proceeding is brought against Landlord by reason
of any such claim, Tenant, upon notice from Landlord, shall resist or defend such action or
proceeding by counsel reasonably satisfactory to Landlord. However, nothing in this Rental
Agreement shall require the Tenant to indemnify and save harmless Landlord from any claim
caused by or occasioned by actions of the Landlord, its agents, contractors, employees or
licensees.
ARTICLE XXII.
Estoppel Certificate
22.1 Tenant shall, at any time and from time to time, upon not less than twenty (20)
days' prior notice by Landlord, execute, acknowledge, and deliver to Landlord a statement in
writing certifying that the Rental Agreement is unmodified and in full force and effect (or if there
shall have been modifications that the Rental Agreement is in full force and effect as modified
and stating the modifications) and the dates to which the Base Rent and Additional Rent have
been paid in advance, if any, and stating whether or not (to the best knowledge of Tenant)
Landlord is in default in the performance of any covenant, agreement, or condition contained in
the Rental Agreement and, if so, specifying each such default of which Tenant may have
knowledge, it being intended that any such statement delivered pursuant to this Article shall be
in a form approved by and may be relied upon by any prospective assignee of Landlord's
interest in the Rental Agreement or any mortgagee of the Rented Premises or any assignee of
any mortgage upon the Rented Premises.
ARTICLE XXIII.
Subordination
23.1 The Rental Agreement shall, at Landlord's election, be subject and subordinate
to the terms and conditions of all mortgages which may now or hereafter en cumber the Rented
Premises and to all renewals, modifications, consolidations, replacements, and extensions of
such mortgages. In confirmation of such subordination, Tenant shall promptly execute any
certificate of subordination or other such documents which Landlord or its mortgagees may
request.
ARTICLE XXIV.
Landlord’s Use of Rented Premises
24.1 Tenant shall grant Landlord the use of the Rented Premises between June 1st
and September 30th to accommodate skate related events for up to 20 days per year.
Tenant’s Base Rent shall be prorated on a daily basis to account for Landlord’s use of the
Rented Premises during this period.
ARTICLE XXV.
Entire agreement
600457v2RC160-7 10
25.1 The Rental Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties, and
there are no other terms, obligations, covenants, representations, statements, or conditions,
oral or otherwise, of any kind whatsoever. Any agreement hereafter made shall be ineffective
to change, modify, discharge, or effect an abandonment of the Rental Agreement in whole or
in part unless such agreement is in writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement
of the change, modification, discharge, or abandonment is sought.
ARTICLE XXVI.
Release of Lessor
26.1 If Landlord sells or otherwise transfers all of its interest in the Rented Premises,
Landlord shall, without further action by any party, be released and discharged from any
further obligation or duty under the Rental Agreement, and no claim or demand upon Landlord
shall thereafter be made by Tenant arising out of any such prospective obligation or duty of
Landlord hereunder. Upon request by Landlord, Tenant shall execute an attornment
agreement with Landlord's transferee in form satisfactory to such transferee.
ARTICLE XXVII.
Severability
27.1 If any term, condition, or provision of the Rental Agreement or the application
thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be held to be invalid or
unenforceable, the remainder thereof and the application of such terms, provisions, and
conditions to persons or circumstances other than those as to whom it shall be held invalid or
unenforceable shall not be affected thereby, and the Rental Agreement and all the terms,
provisions, and conditions hereof shall, in all other respects, continue to be effective and to be
complied with to the full extent permitted by law.
ARTICLE XXVIII.
Short Form Rental Agreement
28.1 At the request of either party hereto, a short form Rental Agreement shall be
prepared in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to each of the parties and shall be
executed by each of the parties in duplicate, such Rental Agreement to be filed for record in
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
ARTICLE XXIX.
Notices
29.1 Any notice or election herein requested or permitted to be given or served by
either party hereto upon the other, shall be deemed given or served in accordance with the
provisions of the Rental Agreement if delivered to either party hereto and receipt is obtained
therefor, or if mailed in a sealed wrapper by United states registered or certified mail, postage
prepaid, properly addressed to such other party at the address hereinafter specified. Unless
and until changed by notice as herein provided, notices and communications shall be
addressed as follows:
If to Landlord: City of Richfield, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423
If to Tenant: NLTT Hockey Ventures, LLC/Minnesota Whitecaps, 20888 Ashley Way,
Saratoga, CA 95070
600457v2RC160-7 11
Each such mailed notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given to, or served
upon the party to which addressed, on the date the same is deposited in the United States
registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, properly addressed in the manner above
provided. Each such delivered notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given
to, or served upon, the party to whom delivered, upon delivery thereof in the m anner above
provided. Either party may change the address to which mailed notice is to be sent to it by
giving to the other party hereto not less than thirty (30) days, advance written notice thereof.
All payments of Base Rent or Additional Rent hereunde r shall be made to Landlord at the
address above designated, or as may be hereafter designated.
ARTICLE XXX.
Headings
30.1 The headings incorporated in the Rental Agreement are for convenience in
reference only and are not a part of the Rental Agreement and do not in any way limit or add to
the terms and provisions hereof.
ARTICLE XXXI.
Binding Effect
31.1 All of the covenants, conditions, and agreements herein contained shall extend
to, be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs,
successors, and assigns.
ARTICLE XXXII.
Advertising Rights
32.1 Tenant will hold sole advertising rights in Rink 1 and Rink 2 that includes dasher
boards, player benches, seating sections, nets, Zamboni, scoreboard, etc., and also includes
Rink One bathrooms. Tenant will give advertising revenue percentage of 14% of sponsorship
revenue. Minnesota Whitecaps will be able to place Home of Minnesota Whitecaps over front
doors of arena. Landlord will hold sole advertising rights in the Arena lobby.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Rental Agreement the day and year
first above written.
LESSOR/LANDLORD:
CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation
By: ___________________________________
Its Mayor, Maria Regan Gonzalez
And By: ________________________________________
Its City Manager, Katie Rodriguez
LESSEE/TENANT:
NLTT Hockey Ventures, LLC operating as the Minnesota Whitecaps , a Delaware limited
liability corporation
600457v2RC160-7 12
By: ________________________________________
________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Its Owners
This instrument was drafted by:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
612-337-9300
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #8.E.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 148
CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING
11/14/2023
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
11/6/2023
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
11/7/2023
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 contract with Graymont (W I), LL C for the purchase of 1,400 tons of quick
lime for water treatment in the amount of $302,120.00.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Quick lime is a chemical used in the water treatment process to lower hardness in water.
Approximately 1,400 tons of quick lime is required each year to produce softened water.
On October 5, 2023, bids were solicited for the provision of quick lime for calendar year 2024.
On October 26, 2023, a bid opening was held and one bid was submitted.
Graymont (W I ), LLC was the bidder and it has been determined they are a qualified supplier that meets
all specifications and requirements.
Graymont (W I ), LLC has been the supplier of Richfield's quick lime since calendar year 2009.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve the contract with Graymont (W I), L LC for the purchase of 1,400 tons of quick lime
for water treatment in the amount of $302,120.00.
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
S ee executive summary.
B .E QU ITAB L E OR S T R AT E GIC C ON S ID E R AT ION S OR IMPAC T S
P urchase of quick lime ensures the water treatment plant is able to continue providing high-quality lime-softened
water to all Richfield water customers.
C .P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
F or C ity contracts or purchases estimated to exceed $175,000, sealed bids shall be solicited by public notice in
the manner and subject to the law governing contracts or purchases by the C ity of Richfield.
D .C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
Quick lime is a necessary chemical required in the water softening process. The current contract expires on
D ecember 31, 2023.
E .F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
A recent history of prices for this product is:
Years B ase P rice E st. A nnual C ost Vendor
2007 $95.20/Ton $133,280.00 C utler Magner
2008 $99.65/Ton $139,510.00 C utler Magner
2009 $112.00/Ton $156,800.00 Graymont
2010 $120.00/Ton $168,000.00 Graymont
2011 $120.00/Ton $168,000.00 Graymont
2012 $124.45/Ton $174,230.00 Graymont
2013 $143.00/Ton $200,200.00 Graymont
2014 $154.85/Ton $216,790.00 Graymont
2015 $160.95/Ton $225,330.00 Graymont
2016 $166.58/Ton $233,212.00 Graymont
2017 $166.58/ton $233,212.00 Graymont
2018 $171.75/ton $240,450.00 Graymont
2019 $175.50/ton $245,700.00 Graymont
2020 $179.35/ton $251,090.00 Graymont
2021 $183.00/ton $256,200.00 Graymont
2022 $187.00/ton $261,800.00 Graymont
2023 $191.00/ton $267,400.00 Graymont
2024 $215.80/ton $302,120.00 Graymont
F unding for the purchase of quick lime is annually included in the Water D epartment B udget, line item 51000-
6413 (C hemicals).
F.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
F or C ity contracts or purchases estimated to exceed $175,000, sealed bids shall be solicited by public
notice in the manner and subject to the law governing contracts or purchases by the C ity of Richfield.
The bid opening was held on October 26, 2023 and was in accordance with legal requirements.
The C ity A ttorney assisted in drafting the contract and will be available for questions.
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C OMME N D AT ION(S):
None
P R IN C IPAL PAR T IE S E X P E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
None
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Quick L ime B id Tab E xhibit
Quick L ime C ontract C ontract/A greement
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening October 26, 2023 1:30 p.m. Quick Lime Project Bid No. 23-03
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015 and the City Code, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by City Clerk Dustin Leslie who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive; open and read aloud bids for the Quick Lime Project, as advertised in the official newspaper on October 5, 2023.
Present: Dustin Leslie, City Clerk Kelly Wynn, Executive Department Russ Lupkes, Utility Superintendent
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Bidder’s Name Bond Non-Collusion Intent to Comply
Responsible Contractor Certificate
Total Base Bid (1,400 Ton)
Graymont, LLC Yes Yes Yes Yes $302,120.00*
*Base bid (per ton): $215.80
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the November 14, 2023 City Council Meeting.
_______________________Dustin Leslie, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
SERVICE CONTRACT
This contract (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into this 14th day of November 2023,
between the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”), and
Graymont (WI), LLC (the “Contractor”), (collectively, the “Parties”).
1. Scope of Services. The Contractor agrees to perform the following services: to furnish all
materials (except such as are specified to be furnished by the City, if any), all necessary tools and
equipment, and to do and perform all the necessary work and labor for the full completion of city
projects as follows:
Purchase and delivery of an estimated 1,400 tons of quick lime per year for the year 202 4 for the
Water Treatment Plant at 6221 Portland Avenue South, as shown in the approved plans and
according to the terms of the bid specifications, for the price and compensation set forth herein, all
in accordance with the plans, specifications and special provisions therefor on file in the office of
the Assistant Utility Superintendent at the Water Plant, City of Richfield, which are hereby made
a part of this Agreement.
Contractor agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws and ordinances applicable to the
services to be performed under this Agreement, including all safety standards. The Contractor
shall be solely and completely responsible for conditions of the job site, including the safety of all
persons and property during the performance of the services. The Contractor represents and
warrants that it has the requisite training, skills, and experience necessary to provide the services
and is appropriately licensed by all applicable agencies and governmental entities.
The Contractor agrees that the work shall be done and performed in the best and most workmanlike
manner; that all materials and labor shall be in strict conformity in every respect with the plans,
specifications and special provisions for the work, shall be subject to inspection and approval of
the City Assistant Utility Superintendent located at the Water Plant, and in case any material or
labor supplied shall be rejected by the City as defective or unsuitable, then such rejected material
shall be removed and replaced with approved material and the rejected labor shall be done anew
to the satisfaction and approval of the City and at the cost and expense of the Contractor.
It is agreed also that delays caused by the elements or by strikes or other combined action of
workmen employed in the construction or in the transportation of materials, but in no part caused
or resulting from default or collusion on the part of the Contractor, shall be excused to the extent
which the City may find and determine such conditions to have delayed completion within the
time limit. The judgment of the City in fixing such amount shall be final and conclusive upon the
parties hereto.
It is distinctly understood and agreed that no claims for extra work done or materials furnished by
the Contractor will be allowed by the City except as provided herein, nor shall the Contractor do
any work or furnish any materials not covered by the plans, specifications, special provisions and
this Agreement unless such work is first ordered in writing as provided in the specifications.
Any such work or materials which may be done or furnished by the Contractor without such written
order first being given shall be at its own risk, cost and expense, and it hereby agrees that without
such written order it will make no claim for compensation for work or materials so done or
furnished.
2. Compensation. The City agrees to pay the Contractor as follows: the unit price for the services
provided hereunder is $215.80 per ton in calendar year 2024.
Contractor shall submit payment invoices to the City after such services have been completed.
The City shall pay Contractor within two (2) weeks after the invoice has been approved for
payment by the Director of Public Works.
The City shall not withhold monies for the payment of any federal or state income taxes, social
security benefits, or other taxes.
If the City objects to all or any portion of any invoice, the City shall notify the Contractor of the
dispute with ten (10) days from the date of receipt and shall pay that portion of the invoice not in
dispute. Any dispute shall be settled in accordance with Paragraph 7 of this Agreement.
3. Term. The contract is for the period beginning January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024.
The City shall have the option to terminate this Agreement at any time. Termination shall be
effective upon ten (10) days written notice to the Contractor.
If the Contractor refuses or fails to complete the tasks described in Paragraph 1, or to complete the
services in a manner satisfactory to the City, the City may, by written notice to the Contractor,
give notice of its intention to terminate this Agreement. After such notice, the Contractor shall
have ten (10) days to cure, to the satisfaction of the City. If the Contractor fails to cure, the City
shall send the Contractor a written termination letter which shall be effective upon deposit in the
United States mail to the Contractor’s address as stated in Paragraph 8F.
In the event of termination, the City shall only be responsible to pay for all services satisfactorily
performed by the Contractor to the effective date of termination, as described in the final invoice
to the City.
4. Independent Contractor Relationship. It is expressly understood that the Contractor is an
“independent contractor” and not an employee of the City. The Contractor shall have control over
the manner in which the services are performed under this Agreement. The Contractor shall
supply, at its own expense, all materials, supplies, equipment and tools required to accomplish the
work contemplated by this Agreement. The Contractor shall not be entitled to any benefits from
the City, including, without limitation, insurance benefits, sick and vacation leave, workers’
compensation benefits, unemployment compensation, disability, severance pay, or retirement
benefits.
5. Insurance Requirements. (Note: Liability insurance requirements may be modified or waived
depending on the nature of the contract.)
A. Liability. The Contractor agrees to maintain commercial general liability insurance in a
minimum amount of $1,500,000 per occurrence; $2,000,000 annual aggregate. The policy
shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, products-completed operations,
personal injury, advertising injury, and contractually assumed liability. The City shall be
named as an additional insured.
B. Automobile Liability. If the Contractor operates a motor vehicle in performing the services
under this Agreement, the Contractor shall maintain commercial automobile liability
insurance, including owned, hired, and non-owned automobiles, with a minimum liability
limit of $1,000,000, combined single limit.
C. Workers’ Compensation. The Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable workers’
compensation laws in Minnesota.
D. Certificate of Insurance. The Contractor shall, prior to commencing services, deliver to
the City a Certificate of Insurance as evidence that the above coverages are in full force
and effect.
6. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Contractor agrees to defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the City, and its employees, officials, volunteers and agents from and
against all claims, actions, damages, losses and expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of
the Contractor’s negligence or the Contractor’s performance or failure to perform its obligations
under this Agreement. The Contractor’s indemnification obligation shall apply to the Contractor’s
subcontractor(s), or anyone directly or indirectly employed or hired by the Contractor, or anyone
for whose acts the Contractor may be liable. The Contractor agrees this indemnity obligation shall
survive the completion or termination of this Agreement.
7. Dispute Resolution. The Parties shall cooperate and use their best efforts to ensure that the
various provisions of the Agreement are fulfilled. The Parties agree to act in good faith to
undertake resolution of disputes, in an equitable and timely manner and in accordance with the
provisions of this Agreement.
8. General Provisions.
A. Entire Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any prior or contemporaneous
representations or agreements, whether written or oral, between the Parties and contains
the entire agreement.
B. Assignment. The Contractor may not assign this Agreement to any other person unless
written consent is obtained from the City.
C. Amendments. Any modification or amendment to this Agreement shall require a written
agreement signed by both Parties.
D. Nondiscrimination. In the hiring of employees to perform work under this Agreement, the
Contractor shall not discriminate against any person by reason of any characteristic
protected by state or federal law.
E. Force Majeure. Except for payment of sums due, neither party shall be liable to the other
or deemed in default under this Agreement, if and to the extent that such party’s
performance is prevented by reason of Force Majeure, as determined by the City.
F. Notices. All notices and other communications under this Agreement must be in writing
and must be given by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, or delivered by hand at
the addresses set forth below:
Notice to City: City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Attn: City Manager
With a copy to: Richfield City Attorney
Kennedy and Graven
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Notice to Contractor: Graymont (WI), LLC
800 Hill Avenue
Superior, WI 54880
Attn: Manager
G. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with
the laws of the State of Minnesota. All proceedings related to this Agreement shall be
venued in the State of Minnesota.
H. Waivers. The waiver by either party of any breach or failure to comply with any provision
of this Agreement by the other party shall not be construed as, or constitute a continuing
waiver of such provision or a waiver of any other breach of or failure to comply with any
other provision of this Agreement.
I. Ownership of Documents. All reports, plans, specifications, data, maps, and other
documents produced by the Contractor in the performance of services under this
Agreement shall be the property of the City.
J. Government Data. The Contractor agrees to maintain all data received from the City in the
same manner as the City as required under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act,
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.
K. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original, and which taken together shall be deemed to be one and the same
document.
L. Savings Clause. If any court finds any portion of this Agreement to be contrary to law,
invalid, or unenforceable, the remainder of the Agreement will remain in full force and
effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be approved on the date
above.
City of Richfield Graymont (WI), LLC
By: _____________________________ By: __________________________
Mary Supple
Its Mayor Its: __________________________
And: ____________________________
Katie Rodriguez By: __________________________
Its City Manager
Its: __________________________
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #8.F.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 149
CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING
11/14/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y:Matt Hardegger, Transportation E ngineer
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:K ristin A sher, P ublic Works D irector
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
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider adoption of resolutions of support for Richfield's applications for federal capital construction
funding for five projects through the Metropolitan Council's Regional Solicitation.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Public W orks is preparing grant applications for federal capital funding for five projects currently identified in
forward-looking infrastructure improvement planning documents:
76th Street Reconstruction (Xerxes to Sheridan Aves) - Capital I mprovement Program
73rd Street Multiuse Bridge and Trail Connections - Capital I mprovement Program
76th Street & Knox Avenue I ntersection I mprovements - Capital I mprovement Program
73rd Street Sidewalk Gap (Portland to Bloomington Aves) - Pedestrian Master Plan
64th Street Sidewalk (Lyndale to Portland Aves) - Pedestrian Master Plan
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By Motion: Adopt resolutions of support for Richfield's applications for federal capital construction
funding for five projects through the Metropolitan Council's Regional Solicitation.
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
D etails of the proposed project elements are included in the respective project resolution of support.
B .E QU ITAB L E OR S T R AT E GIC C ON S ID E R AT ION S OR IMPAC T S
Strategic Considerations or Impacts
Leveraging external funding sources for these projects allows the city to use other financial
resources for ongoing maintenance and construction needs, advancing the goal of sustai nable
infrastructure financing. Completing projects identified in planning documents such as the CIP
and Pedestrian Master Plan ensures that City infrastructure supports servi ce needs.
Equity Considerations or Impacts
76th Street Reconstruction: Staff is assuming a 4 lane to 3 lane conversion would be the
outcome of the public engagement process as part of this project. Conversion of the roadway
from a 4 lane section to a 3 lane section would shorten pedestrian crossing distances and allow
for a pedestrian facility with better separation from the roadway. A 4 to 3 conversion has been
demonstrated to reduce vehicle speeds and crashes in other applications. T his would benefit the
large number of renters in an area of the city with approximately 40% of residents who are
BIPOC. Lowering roadway capacity does come with the risk of increased roadway congestion
resulting in drivers having to spend more time in vehicles, which has negative health effects for
both drivers and adjacent residents.
73rd S treet B ridge and Trail C onnections: The current bridge is not an A D A -accessible facility. Modernizing the
facility and making it A D A -accessible would enhance access for people with disabilities as well as bicycles and
pedestrians. This bridge would connect two census tracts where around 10% of households do not have a
vehicle, enhancing their transportation options across I-35W.
76th & K nox Intersection: A conversion from a signal to a roundabout at this location would increase pedestrian
and driver safety by reducing speed through the intersection and reducing right angle crashes. This would benefit
transit riders trying to get to the Orange L ine station on K nox Avenue as well as renters trying to cross 76th
S treet. P otential unintended consequences of a roundabout here could be an increase in minor/non-injury vehicle
crashes that could disproportionately affect a local population that has a high percentage of residents below 60%
of A rea Median Income and may not be able to afford vehicle repairs.
73rd S treet sidewalk extension: A dding this sidewalk extension would create improved pedestrian safety
conditions in the quadrant of the city that that has the highest percentage of B IP OC residents.
64th S treet sidewalk extension: A dding this sidewalk extension would create improved pedestrian safety
conditions in the area of the city that that has the highest percentage of residents with a disability and create
accessible facilities to get to and from several parks.
C .P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
Metropolitan C ouncil policies require a resolution of support from the governing body of the jurisdiction applying
for funding.
D .C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
A pplications are due to the Metropolitan C ouncil by D ecember 15th, 2023.
E .F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
A ll federal awards through the Regional S olicitation are on an 80%/20% federal/non-federal matching basis (i.e.
an $800,000 award would require a $200,000 non-federal match). F unds are paid to the local agency on a
reimbursable basis in the program year.
A ll categories of the Regional S olicitation have a maximum federal award. When the total project cost exceeds
the maximum award, the local agency is responsible for finding funding for the remaining project costs. F unding
is eligible for capital costs only, engineering and construction administration costs are not eligible.
A nticipated awards and non-federal matching needs:
76th S treet Reconstruction: $4M award, $1M local match
73rd S treet B ridge: $5.5M award, $4.25M local match
76th and K nox intersection: $2M award, $400,000 local match
73rd S treet S idewalk: $800,000 award, $200,000 local match
64th S treet S idewalk: $800,000 award, $200,000 local match
F.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
None at this time.
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C OMME N D AT ION(S):
None
P R IN C IPAL PAR T IE S E X P E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
None
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
76th S t Recon ROS Resolution L etter
73rd S t B ridge ROS Resolution L etter
K nox Ave S idewalk RO S Resolution L etter
73rd S t S idewalk RO S Resolution L etter
64th S t S idewalk RO S Resolution L etter
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR W 76TH ST MODERNIZATION REGIONAL
SOLICITATION APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council’s regional solicitation is a competitive federal
funding allocation process available to local governments in the Twin Cities region ; and
WHEREAS, the regional solicitation’s Roadway Reconstruction/Modernization
category’s purpose is to fund roadway preservation projects that improve infrastructure
condition, reduce crashes, and enhance multimodal travel options; and
WHEREAS, W 76th St from Xerxes Ave to Sheridan Ave i s a four lane undivided
road; and
WHEREAS, converting four lane undivided roads to three lanes reduces rear-end,
right angle, and head-on crashes; and
WHEREAS, W 76th St connects low, medium, and high density housing with the
Centennial Lakes commercial area, Best Buy headquarters, and public transit; and
WHEREAS, a 20% local government match funding is required if the project is
selected; and
WHEREAS, if the above project is selected, construction is tentatively scheduled for
2028; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield supports the inclusion of W 76th St between
York Ave and Xerxes Ave within the City of Edina in the application, contingent on
approval by the City of Edina; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield invests in infrastructure to best serve today’s and
tomorrow’s residents, businesses, and visitors; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield ensures that City services are accessible to people
of all races, ethnicities, incomes, and abilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Richfield supports Public Works’ 2023 regional solicitation application for the W 76th St
modernization project.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of November,
2023.
Mary B. Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Dustin Leslie, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR 73RD ST TRAIL AND BRIDGE REGIONAL
SOLICITATION APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council’s regional solicitation is a competitive federal
funding allocation process available to local governments in the Twin Cities region ; and
WHEREAS, the regional solicitation’s Multiuse Trails and Bicycle Facilities category’s
purpose is to fund projects that increase the availability and attractiveness of bicycling,
walking, or rolling by improving safety, reducing or eliminating user barriers, and improving
the Regional Bicycle Transportation Network; and
WHEREAS, the existing pedestrian bridge on 73rd St over I-35W does not have
ramps and is not ADA accessible; and
WHEREAS, there is a pedestrian and bicycle gap on 73rd St from I-35W to Lyndale
Ave; and
WHEREAS, Richfield Middle School and Richfield High school are both within a half
mile of the project corridor; and
WHEREAS, the bridge’s lack of accessibility was identified in the 2009 Safe Routes
to School Comprehensive Plan in collaboration with Richfield Public Schools; and
WHEREAS, the gap on 73rd St was identified in the 2012 Bicycle Master Plan and
the 2018 Pedestrian Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, 10% and 12% of students from the Middle and High Schools respectively
are within the walk zone of their school but are separated by I -35W; and
WHEREAS, an average of 13% and 14% of students from the Middle and High
Schools respectively walk or bike to school; and
WHEREAS, closing the 73rd St pedestrian and bicycle gap and improving the
bridge’s accessibility will increase the safety and improve the experience of students
traveling to and from schools and community members traveling in their neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, a 20% local government match funding is required if the project is
selected; and
WHEREAS, if the above project is selected, construction is tentatively scheduled for
2029; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield invests in infrastructure to best serve today’s and
tomorrow’s residents, businesses, and visitors; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield ensures that City services are accessible to people
of all races, ethnicities, incomes, and abilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richfield
supports Public Works’ 2023 regional solicitation application for the 73rd St trail and bridge
project.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of November,
2023.
Mary Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Dustin Leslie, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR W 76TH ST AND KNOX AVE INTERSECTION
REGIONAL SOLICITATION APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council’s regional solicitation is a competitive federal
funding allocation process available to local governments in the Twin Cities region ; and
WHEREAS, the regional solicitation’s Spot Mobility category’s purpose is to fund
lower-cost, at-grade intersection projects that reduce delay and crashes; and
WHEREAS, W 76th St and Knox Ave is currently a four-leg signalized intersection;
and
WHEREAS, the existing signal system is reaching the end of its useful life and has
been identified for replacement in 2028; and
WHEREAS, converting signalized intersections to roundabouts reduces fatal and
serious crashes; and
WHEREAS, W 76th St connects low, medium, and high density housing with the
Centennial Lakes commercial area, Best Buy headquarters, and public transit; and
WHEREAS, the intersection is used by Metro Transit’s Orange Line Bus Rapid
Transit route; and
WHEREAS, there is currently no trail facility connecting the Nine Mile Creek
Regional Trail to the Orange Line underpass underneath I-494; and
WHEREAS, a 20% local government match funding is required if the project is
selected; and
WHEREAS, if the above project is selected, construction is tentatively scheduled for
2029; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield invests in infrastructure to best serve today’s and
tomorrow’s residents, businesses, and visitors; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield ensures that City services are accessible to people
of all races, ethnicities, incomes, and abilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Richfield supports Public Works’ 2023 regional solicitation application for W 76th St and
Knox Ave intersection project.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of November,
2023.
Mary Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Dustin Leslie, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR 73rd STREET SIDEWALK EXTENSION REGIONAL
SOLICITATION APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council’s regional solicitation is a competitive federal
funding allocation process available to local governments in the Twin Cities region ; and
WHEREAS, the regional solicitation’s Pedestrian Facilities category’s purpose is to
fund pedestrian facility projects that focus on increasing the availability and attractiveness
of walking or rolling by improving safety and removing gaps in the system ; and
WHEREAS, there is currently a gap in the city’s sidewalk system on 73 rd St between
Portland Ave and Cedar Ave; and
WHEREAS, the sidewalk gap was identified as a Priority Pedestrian Route in the
2018 Pedestrian Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the sidewalk gap is within a half mile of Centennial, STEM, and RDLS
elementary schools; and
WHEREAS , approximately 13% of Centennial students, 5% of STEM students, and
8% of RDLS students walk or bike to school; and
WHEREAS, closing the 73rd St pedestrian gap and improving pedestrian crossings
will increase safety and improve the experience of the e ntire community, including students
traveling to and from school; and
WHEREAS, a 20% local government match funding is required if the project is
selected; and
WHEREAS, if the above project is selected, construction is tentatively scheduled for
2028; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield invests in infrastructure to best serve today’s and
tomorrow’s residents, businesses, and visitors; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield ensures that City services are accessible to people
of all races, ethnicities, incomes, and abilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richfield
supports Public Works’ 2023 regional solicitation application for the 73rd Street Sidewalk
Extension project between Portland Ave and Cedar Ave.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of November,
2023.
Mary Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Dustin Leslie, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR 64th STREET SIDEWALK EXTENSION REGIONAL
SOLICITATION APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council’s regional solicitation is a competitive federal
funding allocation process available to local governments in the Twin Cities region ; and
WHEREAS, the regional solicitation’s Pedestrian Facilities category’s purpose is to
fund pedestrian facility projects that focus on increasing the availability and attractiveness
of walking or rolling by improving safety and removing gaps in the system ; and
WHEREAS, there is currently a gap in the city’s sidewalk system on 64th St between
Lyndale Ave and Portland Ave; and
WHEREAS, the sidewalk gap was identified as a Priority Pedestrian Route in the
2018 Pedestrian Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, closing the 64th St sidewalk gap would provide a new location for
pedestrians to safely cross the railroad between E Pleasant Ave and W Pleasant Ave ; and
WHEREAS, closing the 64th St sidewalk gap would create a pedestrian connection
between Veterans, Nicollet, Garfield, and Richfield Lake Parks; and
WHEREAS, closing the 64th St sidewalk gap and improving pedestrian crossings will
increase safety and improve the experience of the entire community; and
WHEREAS, a 20% local government match funding is required if the project is
selected; and
WHEREAS, if the above project is selected, construction is tentatively scheduled for
2028; 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 acc essible to people
of all races, ethnicities, incomes, and abilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richfield
supports Public Works’ 2023 regional solicitation application for the 64th Street Sidewalk
Extension project between Lyndale Ave and Portland Ave.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of November,
2023.
Mary Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Dustin Leslie, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #8.G.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 150
CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING
11/14/2023
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
11/7/2023
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
11/7/2023
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider authorizing the City Manager to sell Richfield Fire Ladder Truck Unit #3789 to the City of
Grand Marais Fire Department for $65,000.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Richfield Fire Ladder Truck Unit #3789 was purchased new by the City in 2004 and has reached the
end of its useful life for Richfield.
Unit #3789 has completed its depreciation schedule and has been in service to the City for 19 years (3
years beyond the original replacement interval).
Unit #3789 replacement is scheduled for delivery in 2024.
The trade-in market for 20-year old fire trucks is non-existent.
Richfield Fire Department has come to a mutually beneficial agreement with the City of Grand Marais
Fire Department for the sale of Unit #3789.
Grand Marais Fire Department will purchase Unit #3789 for $65,000 and rehabilitate/repair it where
needed and return it to service in their department.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By Motion: Authorize the City Manager to sell Richfield Fire Ladder Truck Unit #3789 to the City of
Grand Marais Fire Department for $65,000.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A .H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
S ee executive summary.
B .E QU ITAB L E OR S T R AT E GIC C ON S ID E R AT ION S OR IMPAC T S
S ale of the Unit #3789 will provide a good financial return which helps ensure Richfield's operational
capability to deliver essential services.
S ale and repurposing of the fire truck to another Minnesota municipality will ensure our fellow Minnesotans
receive adequate fire and emergency services.
C .P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
None
D .C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
A uthorization at this meeting will allow the completion of the sale and Grand Marais to take possession of the
equipment.
E .F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
The proceeds from the sale of the fire truck will go towards the costs associated with purchase of the new fire
truck.
F.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The C ity A ttorney has reviewed the sale and will be available to answer questions.
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C OMME N D AT ION(S):
None
P R IN C IPAL PAR T IE S E X P E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
None
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
P ierce L adder Truck B ill of S ale C ontract/A greement
Page 1 of 3
MINNESOTA MOTOR VEHICLE BILL OF SALE
Date of Sale: _________________ (mm/dd/yyyy)
1.BUYER
Name: ___________________________ (hereinafter the “Buyer”)
Address: __________________________________________________________________________
Phone #: _______________________________ Email: ____________________________________
2.SELLER
Name: ___________________________ (hereinafter the “Seller”)
Address: __________________________________________________________________________
Phone #: _______________________________ Email: ____________________________________
3.VEHICLE INFO
Make: __________________________ Model: __________________________ Year: ____________
Style/Body Type: __________ Color: ________________ Odometer (miles): ___________________
VIN: ______________________________________________________
4.PAYMENT (Check One)
☐PAYMENT. The Buyer agrees to pay the Seller the following in exchange for the Vehicle:
Purchase price: $_____________________ (Taxes included? ☐ Yes | ☐ No)
Paid for via the following payment method : (check one)
☐Cash | ☐ Check | ☐ Credit / Debit Card | ☐ Other: ___________________________.
☐- GIFT. The Seller gifted the Vehicle to the Buyer. The Vehicle holds a value of $____________.
☐- TRADE. The Seller traded the Vehicle with the Buyer. The Buyer agrees to pay
$____________ to the Seller and the trade-in Vehicle is valued at: $____________.
The following information describes the details of the traded -in Vehicle:
Make: _________________________________ Model: _________________________________
Year: _________________ Style/Body Type: __________________ Color: _________________
Odometer (miles): ___________________ VIN: _______________________________________
2004
80,656 7,390 Hrs.
City of Grand Marais, MN
15 North Broadway, Grand Marais, MN 55604
218-387-1848 cityhall@grandmarais.city
11/14/2023
City of Richfield, MN
6700 Portland Ave S, Richfield MN 55423
612-861-9170 pwoperations@richfieldmn.gov
Pierce Aerial 75' Ladder Truck
Fire Ladder Truck Red
4P1CE01A74A004320
65,000
4
4
4
Page 2 of 3
5.ADDITIONAL TERMS (OPTIONAL)
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________.
6.SIGNATURES
Buyer Signature: _____________________________________ Date: ____________________
Buyer Printed Name: _______________________________
Seller Signature: _____________________________________ Date: ____________________
Seller Printed Name: _______________________________
Seller agrees to include all loose equipment with the truck. It is understood that this Bill of Sale implies no warranties from the Seller.
The truck and loose equipment being sold under this Bill of Sale is on an “AS-IS” basis, and any known or unknown defects shall
be the sole liability of the Buyer. Buyer acknowledges this liability with its signature below.
Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
(The section below is to be completed by a Notary Public ONLY.)
STATE OF _____________________
COUNTY OF ___________________
On the ______ day of ____________________, 20____, before me
_______________________________ (Name of Notary), personally appeared
_______________________________ (Seller) and _______________________________ (Buyer), who
proved to me through government issued photo identification to be the above -named person(s), in
my presence executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the
same as his/her/their free act and deed.
___________________________________________
Notary Public Signature
My commission expires: ______________________
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #8.H.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 151
CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING
11/14/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y:K arl Huemiller, Interim Recreation S ervices D irector
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:K arl Huemiller
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
11/7/2023
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider rescinding acceptance of the Midwest Playscapes proposals for the replacement of play
equipment at Donaldson Park and the replacement of play equipment at Fairwood Park, reject all
proposals, and authorize the Interim Recreation Services Director to issue new requests for
proposals.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Midwest Playscapes had submitted the proposal that was presented to the City council before an addendum to
the request for proposals was issued. That proposal does not include a project element required by the revised
RFP. Also, Midwest Playscapes claims that it submitted a new proposal in response to the revised RF P on
August 11, the last day for submissions. The City has no record of receiving that new proposal and it was
never scored or presented to council. Staff recommends that council rescind the award to Midwest Playscapes
because it was based on an obsolete proposal. This RFP was issued under the best value contracting law and
those rules do not give us discretion to solve the issue by renegotiating the contract. Accordingly, staff
recommends rejecting all proposals and re-issuing RFPs to start with a clean slate.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By Motion: Rescind acceptance of the Midwest Playscapes proposals for the replacement of play
equipment at Donaldson Park and the replacement of play equipment at Fairwood Park, reject all
proposals, and authorize the Interim Recreation Services Director to issue new requests for
proposals.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A .H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
The C ity of Richfield C apital Improvement P lan includes replacement of the play equipment that is oldest or most
in need of replacement each year, taking into consideration any updates in safety, design, and play experiences
since the existing equipment was installed. The life span of play equipment is typically about 25 years.
On J une 2, a request for proposal was released to solicit proposals for the replacement of the outdated play
equipment at F airwood and D onaldson P arks. The project is part of the approved 2023 C apital Improvement
B udget and allocates $220,000 total for the two parks.
The F airwood play equipment will be installed in the same container as the existing equipment, located at the
north end of the park. The existing container at D onaldson is located immediately west of the existing building;
this area will be cleared to make space for a new D onaldson park building and the new play equipment will be
located just south and east of the existing building, closer to the parking lot.
A n updated RF P for the project with an addendum containing clarification regarding the extent of work needing
to be done was issued on J uly 24, 2023.
Open houses and surveys were conducted to solicit input from residents living near each of these parks. In the
survey, residents were asked to indicate which types of play features, color schemes, themes, and play activities
they preferred for their neighborhood park; these preferences informed many of the specifications within the
request for proposal. The deadline for play equipment vendors to submit their proposals was F riday, A ugust 11.
Three proposals were received: Midwest P layscapes, Northland Recreation, and F lagship Recreation.
On Thursday, A ugust 17, the three proposals were scored based on the criteria outlined in the RF P, including the
neighborhood preferences for play features and other factors like inclusiveness, safety, appeal to all ages, and
overall design. Members of the C ommunity S ervices C ommission were invited to score the proposals; C S C
Member J enna Hanson participated, along with five Recreation S ervices staff members.
The highest-scoring proposal was from Midwest P layscapes. Our understanding at the time was that the
proposal we scored met all requirements and they were a trusted vendor/installer with whom the C ity had worked
in the past.
The C ity accepted the quotations from Midwest P layscapes for $143,830 for the replacement of play equipment
at D onaldson P ark and $76,170 for the replacement of play equipment at F airwood P ark and authorized the
Recreation S ervices D irector to proceed with the project on A ugust 30, 2023.
W hile signing and executing the contracts, Midwest P layscapes claimed to have submitted a revised proposal
on A ugust 11, 2023, based on the updated J uly 24, 2023 RF P. The C ity has no record of receiving that proposal.
The proposal that had been scored and accepted by the C ity was different from the play structure Midwest
P layscapes intended to install based on the revised proposal. Most notably it is missing a large net climbing
feature at D onaldson P ark. With the RF P being issued under the best value contracting law, the C ity does not
have the discretion to renegotiate the contract.
B .E QU ITAB L E OR S T R AT E GIC C ON S ID E R AT ION S OR IMPAC T S
It is important that the C ity follow all relevant laws and procedures regarding project bidding to ensure that the
process is equitable for all contractors submitting bids. It is also important to ensure the C ity is providing the
best available amenities that fit the preferences and needs of all our residents and visitors.
C .P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
Municipalities may award a contract for construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance work to
the vendor or contractor offering the best value under a request for proposals, and in state
statutes section 16C.28, subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clause (2), and paragraph (c).
D .C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
P rices for play equipment traditionally increase year to year. A delay issuing the updated RF P s could impact the
cost of the project.
E .F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
F unding for the new play equipment is included in the approved 2023 C apital Improvement B udget in the amount
of $220,000.
F.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
This RF P was issued under the best value contracting law and those rules do not give us discretion to solve the
issue by renegotiating the contract.
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C OMME N D AT ION(S):
D o not rebuild the D onaldson P ark and F airwood P ark play areas.
P R IN C IPAL PAR T IE S E X P E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
F airwood and D onaldson RF P 2023 E xhibit
Midwest P layscapes Quote - D onaldson P ark E xhibit
Midwest P layscapes S ite P lan - D onaldson E xhibit
Midwest P layscapes Revised Quote - D onaldson P ark E xhibit
Midwest P layscapes Revised S ite P lan - D onaldson E xhibit
RICHFIELD RECREATION SERVICES | 7000 NICOLLET AVE | RICHFIELD, MN 55423
Page 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
DESIGN, SUPPLY & INSTALLATION OF
PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AT FAIRWOOD AND DONALDSON PARKS
RFP Release: Friday, June 2, 2023 (revised 7/24/23)
Deadline for Submittal: Friday, August 11, 4:00 pm
DATE OF ALL WORK FOR FAIRWOOD PARK MUST BE BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 1, 2023, AND JUNE 1, 2024.
DATE OF ALL WORK FOR DONALDSON PARK MUST BE BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 1, 2024, AND JUNE 1, 2025.
ADDENDUM (7/24/23): At Donaldson Park, restoration of original playground container is required,
including filling in the old footings and removal of concrete.
I. GENERAL GUIDELINES
A. Requests For Competitive Proposals
The City of Richfield is seeking competitive proposals from interested and qualified companies for the design,
supply and installation of playground equipment at Fairwood Park (6700 Logan Avenue), and Donaldson Park
(7434 Humboldt Ave), Richfield, MN 55423.
B. Owner and Submission Information
Interested companies should submit FOUR COPIES of their competitive proposals to:
RICHFIELD RECREATION
7000 NICOLLET AVE
RICHFIELD, MN 55423
RE: FAIRWOOD & DONALDSON PARK EQUIPMENT PROPOSAL
Competitive proposals shall include all the items set forth in Section II below. Any questions regarding this
Request for Proposals should be directed to Recreation Services Director Amy Markle at 612-861-9394 or
amarkle@richfieldmn.gov
All proposals must be sealed and submitted to the Richfield Community Center at the above address by 10:00
a.m. on Thursday, July 6, 2023. Late submissions will not be considered. All proposals must be
accompanied by a certified check, cash deposit, or proposal bond equal to at least 5% of the amount of the
total bid, made payable to the City of Richfield, Minnesota.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE
A. General Project Scope
The City of Richfield Recreation Services Department is seeking competitive proposals for the design, supply,
and installation of playground equipment for one existing play equipment replacement at Fairwood and
Donaldson Parks as defined in Section II, B and C. The proposer would also be responsible for removal and
disposal of the existing play equipment at both parks.
B. Budget
Design, supply and installation of new play equipment, concrete border with compacted base aggregate, wood
fiber, fabric, drain tile (in container and to storm sewer), sand base, excavation & grading, finish sod, export
unwanted sand & fill, freight, delivery, and applicable sales tax shall not exceed the budget of $220,000 for
both parks combined.
C. Design and Cost Proposals
Proposers must only submit one design for each park. For Fairwood Park, the Proposer shall provide a play
equipment design suitable for the existing play container. If Proposer deems modifications are necessary to the
proposed container, these modifications should be clearly indicated on proposer’s plans and the cost of these
RICHFIELD RECREATION SERVICES | 7000 NICOLLET AVE | RICHFIELD, MN 55423
Page 2
modifications must be within the total project budget. For Donaldson Park, the submitted design shall include
the excavation of a new container with concrete border, at least 100’x100’ in size. If Proposer deems
modifications are necessary to the proposed container, these modifications should be clearly indicated on
Proposer’s plans and must be included as part of the total project cost.
The Proposer should provide materials and installation of new play equipment, concrete border with
compacted base aggregate, wood fiber, fabric, drain tile (in container and to storm sewer), excavation &
grading, finish sod, export unwanted sand & fill, sand base (can use existing sand in container), as part of one
base bid. Resilient surface shall be wood fiber to conform to all CPSC and ASTM guidelines. The City will
dispose of excess concrete, sand, or woodchips.
Equipment must meet the following guidelines:
1. Proposer must visit the site and take measurements of existing container to ensure CPSC distance
guidelines;
2. Conform to all CPSC and ASTM guidelines for the equipment itself;
3. Conform to all proposed ADA requirements and IPEMA Certified.
4. Support posts must be powder-coated aluminum or steel, no metal slide surfaces or enclosed tunnels will
be accepted, plastic components must be graffiti-resistant and have UV protection, other component
features will be judged based on the design submitted;
5. Design for each park should include the following items and must include features for all play ages (2-12) in
a single structure:
BOTH PARK DESIGNS TO INCLUDE:
− Rubber transfer surfacing and ramps for full access to play features
− Spiral slides
− Wobbly and balance bridges
− Rock climbing experience
− Musical/sound panels and features
− Deck roofs
− Swings with wear pads, including an inclusive (ADA) swing with rubber surface leading to it and a variety of
other swings (tire, multi-person, standard)
− 2-3 benches in the container
− Do not include roller slides or any enclosed slides/tubes
DIFFERENT PREFERENCES FOR EACH PARK:
FAIRWOOD PARK
− Color Scheme: Natural (green and brown)
− Spinners (multi-person seated and single)
− Spring riders (animal theme)
DONALDSON PARK
− Color Scheme: Bright (neon)
− Net climber (tall)
− Multi-person spinner(s)
− Spring riders (vehicle or animal theme)
6. The shape and size of the existing areas will dictate the usability of some components. Visit each site and
take your own measurements.
7. The vendor is responsible for the receipt of delivery of the equipment including with unloading and storage
until installation. Storage on-site is permissible.
8. The successful Proposer must provide a performance bond and payment bond in an amount equal to the
full amount of the contract.
9. Each competitive proposal submitted should reflect, by line item, the cost for the design, purchase and
installation of play equipment components, including all applicable sales taxes, freight, and other costs
associated with each piece of equipment. Costs should be broken down into logical categories to aid the
City in evaluation and include:
• All soft costs; including design, overhead, insurance, as well as all applicable sales taxes.
RICHFIELD RECREATION SERVICES | 7000 NICOLLET AVE | RICHFIELD, MN 55423
Page 3
• All hard costs; including all work and materials related to the installation of play equipment, drain tile,
concrete curb and resilient surfacing. Please itemize installation costs.
Each Proposer must submit the following with bid:
• Written assurance that the safety surfacing and play area components meet all applicable U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission Guidelines, ASTM standards, proposed ADA requirements, IPEMA Certification
and other applicable state and federal requirements will be required from each Proposer prior to contract
initiation.
• Plan layout of design and catalogue(s) with proposed equipment and safety surfacing identified for review
by staff.
• Current warranty, insurance, and product specification information on all products and materials included in
your proposal.
• Written estimate of delivery and installation time frame.
• Link to videos that show kids playing on components the vendor would like to highlight.
A. Site Review
Each Proposer must visit the site to become familiar with the play container.
B. References
Each Proposer shall provide a list of five municipal references. Each reference must include the name and
address of the jurisdiction where the Proposer has installed equipment similar to the equipment proposed for
this request, and the name and daytime telephone number of an individual, who still works for the jurisdiction,
that the City can contact. Municipalities should be within the metropolitan area and the installation should not
be more than five years old.
C. Specifications
Each proposal submitted shall clearly reflect post diameters and other specifications describing the type of
materials provide in the proposal.
III. EVALUATION AND SELECTION
A. Design Considerations
The design proposed will be a key factor in the selection process. The City encourages innovative, interesting
and exciting designs that will distinguish Richfield parks. Available color selections will be made following the
manufacturer’s standard color chart.
B. Evaluation Criteria
The Selection Committee will evaluate and rank each proposal using the following criteria:
1. Overall Design
2. Appeal to All Ages
3. Fitness Value
4. Price
5. Degree of Inclusiveness
6. Delivery (including written verification of unloading/storage responsibility) and installation timeframe.
7. Warranty Provisions
8. Review/Inspection of previous installations and/or references.
C. Contract and Insurance Requirements
The selected vendor will be required to enter into a contract with the City, provide the City with a performance
bond and payment bond in an amount equal to the full amount of the contract to assure the timely performance
and payment for the work proposed, and assure their availability to have the Project begin and be completed in
each park’s given date parameter: Fairwood-perform work between September 1, 2023, and June 1, 2024.
Donaldson-perform work between September 1, 2024, and June 1, 2025. The City will not be responsible to
RICHFIELD RECREATION SERVICES | 7000 NICOLLET AVE | RICHFIELD, MN 55423
Page 4
store or secure play equipment materials prior to and including installation. Minnesota Statute 471.425 requires
that each contract between the government entity and a prime contractor to require the prime contractor to pay
subcontractors within 10 days of receipt of payment from the government entity.
Insurance requirements include:
1. Worker’s Compensation Insurance: The Contractor shall take out and maintain, during the life of the
contract, Worker’s Compensation Insurance with a company that is lawfully authorized to do business in the
State of Minnesota. Such insurance shall protect the Contractor, or Subcontractor or anyone directly or
indirectly employed by any of them from claims under worker’s compensation, disability benefit and other
similar employee benefit acts.
2. Commercial/Comprehensive General Liability Insurance: The Contractor shall take out and maintain
during the life of this contract Public Liability Insurance, Property Damage Liability, and Personal Injury
Insurance with a company that is lawfully authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota. Such insurance
shall protect the Contractor, Subcontractor, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by the Contractor or
Subcontractor performing work covered by this contract from claims arising out of public liability, property
damage, or personal injury including death, as well as claims for property damage which may arise out of work.
The Contractor’s policy shall list the City as an additional insured on a primary or non-contributory basis. The
recommended minimum limits of insurance per project are:
• General Aggregate $500,000
• Product-Completed Operations Aggregate $500,000
• Personal and Advertising Injury $500,000
• Per Occurrence (Bodily Injury & Property Damage) $500,000
3. Fire Insurance: The Contractor is responsible for insuring for fire, and extended coverage including
vandalism and malicious coverage on the work included in the contract from the beginning of the work until
final acceptance of the completed project. The policies shall cover all work incorporated in the project and all
material in place or stored at the site for installation against loss by fire and wind. This provision does not
exclude material partially paid for by the Owner. This insurance shall be for the full insurable value of the
material and shall be kept in full force until final acceptance of the work by the Owner.
4. Automobile Insurance: The Contractor shall take out and maintain during the life of the contract
Automobile Insurance with a company that is lawfully authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota. The
recommended minimum limits of insurance are $1,000,000 combined single limit (B1 & PD).
All insurance referenced in paragraphs 1 through 4 shall be placed with companies acceptable to and
approved by the City prior to the commencement of the work. The Contractor shall submit copies of the
certificate with the City prior to commencement of the work. Certificates of insurance will not be canceled or
allowed to expire until at least 30 days prior written notice has been given to the City. The City shall be shown
on the General Liability coverage as an “additional insured.”
Any proposals received with limits lower than those referenced above may still be considered for this project.
D. Reservations and Other Considerations.
1. The City of Richfield reserves the right to reject any or all proposals for reasons of safety, quality, quantity,
design or other issues deemed important to the successful completion of the project. Any proposals
exceeding the maximum funding or footprint on the site will be excluded. Proposal amounts will need to be
effective for 45 days after the above deadline.
2. The City reserves the right to accept proposals based upon the evaluation criteria.
3. The City will not be responsible for any costs incurred by those submitting or preparing competitive
proposals. At the request of the Proposer, proposals will be returned after the selection process has been
completed and a vendor selected.
4. The City reserves the right to revise the scope of the project based on budget limitations and other relevant
RICHFIELD RECREATION SERVICES | 7000 NICOLLET AVE | RICHFIELD, MN 55423
Page 5
considerations.
5. Each Proposer must meet the City of Richfield contract requirements. The City reserves the right to reject
proposals that do not meet contract requirements. ###
Fairwood Park
Richfield, MN 00063023-01
PLAYSCAPES
C·eei.. Oroe. Savage MN 55378
Fairwood Park
Richfield, MN
direct: 952.895.8888
fax.952.895.8889
toll free; 800. 7 4 7 1452
;:;::;.:.,..1c... -, ,"',, H 'u ',i2.;.".1; "1.:
D0063023-01 �ORLD
the wor1d need• PM
Fairwood Park
Richfield, MN
8958888 direct: 952.
8889fax:952·8: o 747.1452 toll free:
@earth Ii n k.net playscapes
0D063023-01
I!!!! MIDWEST -• PLAYSCAPES
8632 E,:1gle C.·ees-Circ;e, Savage MN 55378 www.MIOWESTPLAYSCAPES.com
Fairwood Park
Richfield, MN
direct: 952.895.8888
fax:952.895.8889
toll free: 800.747.1452
playscapes@earthlink.net
OD063023-01 �ORL'D
The wor1a need• p1ay
Fairwood Park
Richfield, MN
�28958888 d. ect" 9::> · ir . 8889 fax:952.895.
71452 toll free: 800.74
@earthlink.net playscapes
DD063023-01
Fairwood Park
Richfield, MN
DD063023-0l
Decks
Brown
_MIDWEST •PLAYSCAPES
eek Clrc1e, SaYage. Ml'; 55378
Plastics
Forest Green, Brownstone,
Forest green-Sand
direct 952.895.8888
fax:952.895.8889
toll free: 800.747.1452
Posts and Components ■
Beige, Green
ORLD
The IH>tl<:I needs p1ay
-------------------------------54'-3" -------------------------------
COZ'fCOCOON
*PLAYGROUND SUPERVISION REQUIRED
i5 :,
6' BENCH
,,o,f(
�1s"'i-�-S<' s\.1o'c.
44 Sq Ft PIP
ROCKBLOCKS
60" (1,53M)
END WALL
ROCKBLOCKS
60" (1,53M)
END WALL
?l�..i,l "'-'o�
-i,11�\;.\.� (61#!,,l'(I
0"�1,1.u � 1.-€>- ? ;,cP..-..Je'rl-G'c.'?-
ROCKBLOCKS
90"WALL (84" to 60")
(2, 13M to 1,53M)
BELT SWINGS
TOT SEAT
VIBES
DUCK SPRING MA TE
-
---------11'-8" -----
PL ORLD'
MIDWEST PLAYSCAPES, INC.
8632 Eagle Creek Circle
Savage, MN 55378
EQUIPMENT SIZE:
SeeDWG
USE ZONE: SeeDWG
AREA: PERIMETER:
3,220 SqFt. 234 Ft.
FALL HEIGHT:
6 Ft.
USER CAPACITY: AGE GROUP: 55 2-12
rw Total Elevated Play Activities: 7
Total Ground-Level Play Activities: 3 w
Accessible Accessible Accessible
Elevated Ground-Level Ground-Level
Activities Activities Play Types <(
Required 4 2 2
Provided 7 3 2
@
PROJECT NO: I SCALE:
DD063023-01 NTS
DRAWN BY: I Paper Size M lokowich B DATE: I 07-05-263
s...
-c0 "O 0 '.§
s... ·-
MIDWEST PLAYSCAPES
agle Creek Circle, savage. MN 55378
Donaldson Park
Richfield, MN
direct 952.895.8888
fax:952.895.8889
toll free: 800.747.1452
00063023-02 '-!..pLAywORLD
The worta need> play.
■ M ID W ES T-• PLAYSCAPES
8632 Eagle C:·eeK Circ,e. Savage, MN 55378 www.MIDWESTPLAYSCAPES.com
Donaldson Park
Richfield, MN
direct: 952.895.8888
fax:952.895.8889
toll free: 800.747.1452
playscapes@earthlink.net
D0063023-02 �PLAYWORL'D
....., fh• wor1d needs p1ay
PLAYSC��s�3�
• I Savage, m le Creek Circe, YSCAPES.c:o EagWESTPLA w.MIO
Donaldson Park
Richfield, MN D0063023-02 PLAyworld!!!2
Thewo
•--■ PLAYSCAPES
8632 Eagle C•ee,.. Circ,e. Savage, MN 55378 www.MIDWESTPLAYSCAPES.com
Donaldson Park
Richfield, MN
direct: 952.895.8888
fax:952.895.8889
toll free: 800.747.1452
playscapes@earthlink.net
00063023-02 ---t PLAYWORLD
The-worto needs pray.
Donaldson Park
Richfield, MN
DD063023-02
I!!!!! MIDWEST -• PLAYSCAPES
8632 Eagle Creek Circie, Savage. MN 55378 www.MIDWESTPLAYSCAPES.com
Plastics
direc�: 952.895.8888
fax:952.895.8889
toll free: 800.747.1452
Posts and Components
�PLAywORLD
Thi> wond needs pla'f.
525(!R PIP
, -
a:;: a
1305qFt PIP
@
SPIN CUP
6 BENC ..
*PLAYGROUND SUP RV-ISIG Q""Uff'IR.eEc1a1D----
ACCESSIBLE WHIRL
C)
S65qFt "'
i
100'
6'8EOCH
1t
SIDEWNDER CYCLE
@
SF'INCUF'
MOONROCK
UNITY BASKET SWING
l SqFt PIP
··-ill
100'
� P'-"YWORLD�
MIDWEST PLAYSCAPES, INC.
8632 Eagle Creek Circle
Savage, MN 55378
EQUIPMENT SIZE:
See DWG
USE ZONE: SeeDWG
AREA: PERIMETER:
10,000 Sq Ft. 400 Ft.
FALL HEIGHT:
8 Ft.
USER CAPACITY: AGE GROUP:
93 2-12
,..w Total Elevated Play Activities: 8
C Total Ground-level Play Activities: 4 w
Accessible Accessible Accessible
<( Elevated Ground-Level Ground-Level C Activities Activities <(
Required 4 3
Provided 5 3
ASTM F1487-17
CPSC#325
PROJECT NO:
DD063023-02
DRAWN BY:
Mlokowich
DATE:
07-05-23
Play Types
3 -
3
®
SCALE:
NTS
Paper Size B
ca
C: zo!en -c -0::ca
90'
80'TRANSFERSTATIONW/ STEP36"0,92M60"1,53M72"1,83M96"2,44MGEOCLIMBERZIG-ZAGSLIDEPOSTMOUNTDRUMVERTICLIMBERMIGHTYDESCENTSLIDETWISTEDCLIMBERCONVERGECLIMBERHORIZONTALLOOP LADDERW/ ACCESSLADDERLEGLIFTANYWHERESEAT(under slide)RIBBONCLIMBERPOSTMOUNTWHEELADASTAIRSADASTAIRS52 Sq Ft
PIP
56 Sq Ft
PIP
100 Sq Ft
PIP
130 Sq Ft
PIP
SIDEWINDER CYCLE
SPIN CUP
SPIN CUP
ACCESSIBLE WHIRL
UNITY BASKET SWING
VIBES
6' BENCH
6' BENCH
6' BENCH
MOONROCK
SPINAMI
Total Elevated Play Activities:
Total Ground-Level Play Activities:
Accessible
Elevated
Activities
Accessible
Ground-Level
Activities
Accessible
Ground-Level
Play Types
Required
Provided ADA SCHEDULE8
4
5
4
3
3
3
3
B
Paper Size
USER CAPACITY:AGE GROUP:
AREA:PERIMETER:
EQUIPMENT SIZE:
USE ZONE:
DATE:
SCALE:PROJECT NO:
FALL HEIGHT:
*PLAYGROUND SUPERVISION REQUIRED
DRAWN BY:
ASTM F1487-
CPSC #325 Donaldson Park Richfield, MNDD080923-01 NTS
M Lokowich
08-09-23
See DWG
See DWG
7,200 SqFt.340 Ft.
8 Ft.
93 2-12
17
MIDWEST PLAYSCAPES, INC.
8632 Eagle Creek Circle
Savage, MN 55378
Posts and Components Donaldson Park
DD080923-01
Richfi eld, MN
Plastics Decks
Donaldson Park
DD080923-01Richfi eld, MN
Donaldson Park
DD080923-01Richfi eld, MN
Donaldson Park
DD080923-01Richfi eld, MN
Posts
ZZCH0028 213.5in OD x 136in STEEL POST W/ RIVETED CAP
ZZCH0049 423.5in OD x 160in STEEL POST W/O CAP
ZZCH0068 233.5in OD x 184in STEEL POST POST W/RIVETED CAP
ZZCH0069 443.5in OD x 184in STEEL POST W/O CAP
ZZCH0258 453.5in OD x 224in STEEL POST W/CAP
ZZCH0891 1696in DECK STEEL FILLER POST (CH)
Decks & Kick Plates
ZZCH0616 37SQUARE COATED DECK ASSEMBLY
ZZCH0617 18TRIANGULAR COATED DECK ASSEMBLY
ADA Items
ZZCH2007 19TRANSFER STATION w/TALL GUARDRAILS (36in DECK)
ZZUN2019 110APPROACH STEP FOR TRANSFER STATION
Slides
ZZCH3236 111ZIGZAG SLIDE (60in DECK)
ZZCH4696 112MIGHTY DESCENT
Activity Panels
ZZCH4290 113POST MOUNTED STEERING WHEEL
ZZCH4578 114ANYWHERE SEAT
Climbers
ZZCH4704 115VERTICLIMBER 72in
ZZCH4707 116CONVERGE
ZZCH6757 1175ft GEO CLIMBER
ZZCH7160 1186ft TWISTED CLIMBER
ZZCH8289 119RIBBON CLIMBER (36in DECK)
Overhead Events
ZZCH5770 120LEG LIFT
ZZCH5780 1216ft HORIZONTAL LOOP LADDER
ZZCH5970 122OVERHEAD EVENT ACCESS LADDER (36in DECK)
Audible Activities
ZZCH4649 123POST MOUNT DRUM
Roofs & Arches
ZZCH9846 224CABANA ROOF
Stairs and Ladders
ZZCH9170 12524in ACCESS STEPPED PLATFORM (DECK TO DECK)
ZZCH9177 12636in ACCESS STEPPED PLATFORM (DECK TO DECK)
Part No.Description
Design Number: DD080923-01 - Bill Of Material
Donaldson Park
Ref.
No.Quantity
Wednesday, August 09, 2023 Page of1 1 Playworld.com
N/AZZSG303P16ft BENCH W/ BACK - PERFORATED -
IN-GROUND
3 1,220
CertifiedZZXX00652SPIN CUP 2 114.42 602 2 4.00 0.24 2
CertifiedZZXX01483MOON ROCK 1 242.30 1,073 8 4.00 0.18 1
CertifiedZZXX01514SPINAMI 1 342.66 1,908 7 6.00 0.33 1
CertifiedZZXX01985UNITY SWING FRAME 1 270.40 1,221 0 3.00 0.52 0
CertifiedZZXX02046BASKET SWING 1 83.40 1,049 4 0.50 0.00 1
CertifiedZZXX02607BELT SEAT W/SILVER SHIELD CHAIN FOR 8ft
TOP RAIL
2 17.60 108 2 0.50 0.00 2
CertifiedZZXX02658INFANT SEAT W/SILVER SHIELD FOR 8ft
TOP RAIL
1 11.31 90 1 0.25 0.00 1
CertifiedZZXX05849SPRING RIDER SIDEWINDER CYCLE W/
SIDECAR
1 130.04 674 2 2.00 1
CertifiedZZXX066610CONCERTO VIBES 1 134.82 3,188 1 2.00 0.26 1
N/AZZXX0818118ft SINGLE POST SWING ASSEMBLY 1 257.68 159 0 2.00 0.24 0
N/AZZXX0819128ft SINGLE POST SWING ADD-A-BAY1 169.58 109 0 2.00 0.12 0
CertifiedZZXX089213ACCESSIBLE SWING SEAT- 8ft TOP RAIL1 51.90 639 1 0.50 0.00 1
CertifiedZZXX115814ACCESSIBLE WHIRL 1 968.30 5,686 9 6.50 0.47 1
CertifiedZZCH0028153.5in OD x 136in STEEL POST W/ RIVETED
CAP
2 87.02 117 0 2.00 0.25 0
CertifiedZZCH0049163.5in OD x 160in STEEL POST W/O CAP4 199.64 254 0 4.00 0.50 0
CertifiedZZCH0068173.5in OD x 184in STEEL POST POST
W/RIVETED CAP
2 114.22 155 0 2.00 0.25 0
CertifiedZZCH0069183.5in OD x 184in STEEL POST W/O CAP4 226.84 292 0 4.00 0.50 0
CertifiedZZCH0258193.5in OD x 224in STEEL POST W/CAP4 262.04 374 0 4.00 0.52 0
CertifiedZZCH08912096in DECK STEEL FILLER POST (CH)1 44.50 13 0 0.75 0.13 0
CertifiedZZCH061621SQUARE COATED DECK ASSEMBLY 3 164.58 521 9 3.00 0.00 0
CertifiedZZCH061722TRIANGULAR COATED DECK ASSEMBLY1 29.90 120 2 1.00 0.00 0
CertifiedZZCH200723TRANSFER STATION w/TALL GUARDRAILS
(36in DECK)
1 144.90 310 0 2.00 0.09 0
Description
Concrete
(Yds3)
Total
Weight
(lbs)Users
Design Number: DD080923-01 - Compliance and Technical Data
Donaldson Park
Pre-
Consumer
Recycled Content
(lbs)
CO2e
Footprint
(kgs)
Install
Hours
Ref.
No.
Reference Document: ASTM F1487
Unit
ASTM
Status
Active
Play
Events
Post-
Part No.Qty.
Wednesday, August 09, 2023 Page of1 3 Playworld.com
CertifiedZZUN201924APPROACH STEP FOR TRANSFER STATION1 35.83 72 1 1.00 0.04 0
CertifiedZZCH323625ZIGZAG SLIDE (60in DECK) 1 153.73 679 2 2.00 0.03 1
CertifiedZZCH469626MIGHTY DESCENT 1 748.80 1,285 8 7.00 0.18 1
CertifiedZZCH429027POST MOUNTED STEERING WHEEL 1 7.83 44 1 0.25 0.00 1
CertifiedZZCH457828ANYWHERE SEAT 1 31.10 90 1 0.25 0.00 1
CertifiedZZCH470429VERTICLIMBER 72in 1 126.40 91 2 1.50 0.13 1
CertifiedZZCH470730CONVERGE 1 714.90 1,443 10 9.00 0.38 1
CertifiedZZCH6757315ft GEO CLIMBER 1 120.46 535 2 2.00 0.09 1
CertifiedZZCH7160326ft TWISTED CLIMBER 1 117.65 241 2 2.00 0.60 1
CertifiedZZCH828933RIBBON CLIMBER (36in DECK)1 35.02 101 2 1.50 0.06 1
CertifiedZZCH577034LEG LIFT 1 6.76 30 1 0.50 0.00 1
CertifiedZZCH5780356ft HORIZONTAL LOOP LADDER 1 55.72 124 4 1.00 0.00 1
CertifiedZZCH597036OVERHEAD EVENT ACCESS LADDER (36in
DECK)
1 25.12 71 1 1.50 0.06 0
CertifiedZZCH464937POST MOUNT DRUM 1 12.78 167 1 0.50 0.00 1
CertifiedZZCH984638CABANA ROOF 2 152.10 779 0 1.00 0.00 0
CertifiedZZCH91703924in ACCESS STEPPED PLATFORM (DECK TO
DECK)
1 135.24 296 1 2.00 0.00 0
CertifiedZZCH91774036in ACCESS STEPPED PLATFORM (DECK TO
DECK)
1 217.24 550 2 1.50 0.00 0
Description
Concrete
(Yds3)
Total
Weight
(lbs)Users
Design Number: DD080923-01 - Compliance and Technical Data
Donaldson Park
Pre-
Consumer
Recycled Content
(lbs)
CO2e
Footprint
(kgs)
Install
Hours
Ref.
No.
Reference Document: ASTM F1487
Unit
ASTM
Status
Active
Play
Events
Post-
Part No.Qty.
983 2,158 26,481 89 90.50 6.176,764.73 24Totals:
26 Metric Tons971Kg442Kg3,044.13 Kg 4.69 m3
Wednesday, August 09, 2023 Page of2 3 Playworld.com
Description
Concrete
(Yds3)
Total
Weight
(lbs)Users
Design Number: DD080923-01 - Compliance and Technical Data
Donaldson Park
Pre-
Consumer
Recycled Content
(lbs)
CO2e
Footprint
(kgs)
Install
Hours
Ref.
No.
Reference Document: ASTM F1487
Unit
ASTM
Status
Active
Play
Events
Post-
Part No.Qty.
The lay-out for this custom playscape, design number DD080923-01, has been configured to meet the requirements of the ASTM F1487 standard. In
addition, each of the above components listed as "Certified" have been tested and are IPEMA certified. Components listed as "Not Applicable" do not fall
within the scope of the ASTM F1487 standard and have not been tested. IPEMA certification can be verified on the IPEMA website, www.ipema.org. In the
interest of playground safety, IPEMA provides a Third Party Certification Service which validates compliance.
The CO2e (carbon footprint given in Kilograms and Metric Tons) listed above is a measure of the environmental impact this play structure represents from
harvesting raw materials to the time it leaves our shipping dock. Playworld Systems nurtures a total corporate culture that is focused on eliminating carbon
producing processes and products, reducing our use of precious raw materials, reusing materials whenever possible and recycling materials at every
opportunity. Playworld Systems elected to adopt the Publicly Available Specification; PAS 2050 as published by the British Standards Institute and
sponsored by Defra and the Carbon Trust. The PAS 2050 has gained international acceptance as a specification that measures the greenhouse gas
emissions in services and goods throughout their entire life cycle.
The lay-out was also designed to meet the 2010 Standards published 15-Sep-2010, by the Department of Justice when installed over a properly maintained
surfacing material that is in compliance with ASTM F1951 "Accessibility of Surface Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment" as well as
ASTM F1292, "Impact Attenuation of Surfacing Materials Within the Use Zone of Playground Equipment", appropriate for the fall height of the structure.
Installation times are based on one experienced installer. A crew of three experienced individuals can perform the installation within the given time, each
member working 1/3 of the given hours. [Eg. Installation Time = 30 hours. For a crew of three, each member will work 10 hours on the installation for a
total of 30 hours on the project.]
A measurement, in pounds, that qualifies the amount of material that was captured as waste and diverted from landfill during an initial manufacturing
process and is being redirected to a separate manufacturing process to become a different product. E.g. 100% of our Aluminum Tubing is made from
captured waste material during the manufacturing process of extruded Aluminum products such as rods, flat bars and H-channels.
A measurement, in pounds, that qualifies the amount of material that was once another product that has completed its lifecycle and has been diverted from
a landfill as a solid waste through recycling and is now being used in a Playworld Systems' product. E.g. **20% to 40% of the steel in our steel tubing and
sheet steel have been diverted from landfills. Automobiles are scrapped and recyclable steel is purchased by the steel mill that produces our raw product.
** The amount of Post-Consumer recycled steel fluctuates daily based on the availability of the recycled steel.
ASTM F1487
2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design
Installation Times
Carbon Footprint
Pre-Consumer Recycle Content
Post-Consumer Recycle Content
Wednesday, August 09, 2023 Page of3 3 Playworld.com
AGENDA SECTION:PROPOSED
ORDINANCES
AGENDA ITEM #10.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 152
CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING
11/14/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y:Matt Hardegger, Transportation E ngineer
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:K ristin A sher, P ublic Works D irector
11/7/2023
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
11/8/2023
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider approval of a first reading of an ordinance amending Section 1305 of the Richfield City Code,
authorizing the City Engineer to set speed limits on municipal roadways.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Staff were directed by Council to explore reductions in municipal speed limits under Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 169.14. I n order for changes to take effect, the City Council must legislate the responsibility for setting
the speed limits. Other local cities, including Edina and St. Louis Park, have legislated this responsibility with
an ordinance which states that the City Engineer shall set speed limits for local streets in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes.
The first reading provides an opportunity for Council and the public to review the proposed ordinance before
final approval at a second reading and vote. Approval of the first reading does not preclude potential changes at
the second reading. The proposed ordinance would authorize the City Engineer to implement the proposed
city-wide speed limit changes developed over the course of 3 work sessions (October 11, 2022/May 9,
2023/October 24, 2023), and summarized in the staff presentation from the October 24, 2023 work session.
The staff presentations and minutes from these meetings are attached to this report. There is not Council
consensus on the staff recommended speed limit on 76th and 77th Streets, so staff will present an alternate
option specific to 76th and 77th for Council consideration at the second reading on December 12th. To conform
with State statute, the alternate option will need to be passed by resolution, while the City Engineer would set
the speed limit on all other streets per the ordinance. Staff will also present a resolution to rescind the urban
district designation on Lyndale Avenue so that the Lyndale Avenue speed limit can also be established by the
City Engineer according to the proposed ordinance.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By Motion: Approve the first reading of an ordinance amending Section 1305 of the Richfield City Code
and schedule a second reading for December 12th, 2023.
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
In 2019, the Minnesota legislature passed legislation that allows cities to set their own speed limits without the
Minnesota C ommissioner of Transportation conducting an investigation. This statutory text is contained in
Minnesota S tatutes C hapter 169.14, S ubdivision 5h.
S ince then, several cities around Richfield have exercised this authority by authorizing their C ity E ngineer to set
speed limits within the city according to the requirements laid out in 169.14.
S taff were directed by C ity C ouncil to explore reductions in speed limits on local streets, from which procedures
were developed to set local speed limits in accordance with the statutory requirements over the course of 3 work
sessions in 2022 and 2023.
B .E QU ITAB L E OR S T R AT E GIC C ON S ID E R AT ION S OR IMPAC T S
S trategic considerations: None
E quity considerations: P roviding the C ity E ngineer the authority to set non-statutory speed limits allows for the
opportunity to set speed limits below the statutory limits. This has the potential to create improved safety
conditions for all street users, especially pedestrians, bicyclists, children, and those with disabilities.
A further discussion on equity considerations with the specific speed limit proposals will be included in the staff
report for the 2nd reading of this ordinance.
C .P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
Minnesota S tatutes, C hapter 169.14 gives cities the authority to set their own speed limits if certain criteria are
followed.
D .C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
F inal adoption of an ordinance is preferred by city staff prior to the end of 2023 to begin material procurement,
sign production, and signal timing changes for implementation in 2024.
E .F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
No financial impact results from the first reading of this ordinance. A total of $200,000 in F ranchise F ee revenue
is included in the 2024 C apital Improvement B udget to implement enacted changes.
F.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The C ity A ttorney reviewed the proposed ordinance and will be available to answer questions.
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C OMME N D AT ION(S):
None
P R IN C IPAL PAR T IE S E X P E C T E D AT ME E T IN G:
None
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
S peed L imit Ordinance Ordinance
E xisting S peed L imits E xhibit
P roposed S peed L imits E xhibit
Old Work S ession Reports Minutes and P resentations E xhibit
BILL NO. 2023-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER XIII OF THE
RICHFIELD CODE OF ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO
PARKING AND TRAFFIC
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Chapter XIII, Section 1305 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is
amended to add Subsection 1305.41 as follows:
1305.41 – Regulation of Speed.
Speed limit on city streets. The city engineer may establish speed limits for city
streets under the city’s jurisdiction as authorized in Minnesota Statutes, Section 169.14.
A comprehensive listing and the procedures relied upon to establish speed limits under
this section shall be kept on file by the city engineer and will be made readily available for
public inspection.
Section 2. This ordinance will be effective in accordance with Se ction 3.09 of the City
Charter.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th Day of December,
2023.
Mary Supple, Mayor
ATTEST:
Dustin Leslie, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: Work Session Items
AGENDA ITEM # 2.
STAFF REPORT NO. 24
WORK SESSION
10/11/2022
REPORT PREPARED BY: Ben Manibog, Transportation Engineer
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Kristin Asher, Public Works Director
10/5/2022
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager
10/6/2022
ITEM FOR WORK SESSION:
Overview of local speed limits, staff's ongoing speed limit study, possible options the city can proceed
with, and a staff recommendation for discussion.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Public Works staff seek to use this work session to provide a general update to the City Council and
Transportation Commission on the status of local speed limits, possible options the city can proceed with, and
staff's proposed recommendation for discussion.
Staff recommend a default speed limit of 25 mph with exceptions for select 30 mph roads and one 35 mph
road. Alleys would remain at 10 mph. Making an official speed limit change will require a subsequent council
meeting with corresponding resolutions and ordinances.
DIRECTION NEEDED:
Staff is seeking direction from City Council and the Transportation Commission on the following
questions:
Should Public Works continue to evaluate local speed limits?
What additional information do Council members or Commission members need to make
decisions?
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT
In 2019, the Minnesota Legislature gave cities increased authority to set local speed limits. This
legislation does not include county, state, airport, or private roads.
All Minnesota cities that set local speed limits must:
Do it in a "consistent and understandable manner"
Do it "based on the city's safety, engineering, and traffic analysis"
Provide "appropriate signage"
Consider "methods to effectively communicate the change to the public"
Since then, some cities in the metro have evaluated their speed limits and made changes. Richfield staff
Staff Report from prior meeting - For reference only
was directed to evaluate our current traffic landscape and make a recommendation on whether our
speed limits should change.
From 1998 to 2001, the City of Richfield (as a part of our legislative priorities) supported legislation for a
25 mph urban speed zone.
In 2018, the city's pedestrian plan included a measure to "Pursue legislative policy changes to allow for
reduced speed limits on residential streets".
Under current state statute, the default speed limit for any local road is 30 mph and for any alley is 10
mph.
Historically, speed limits have been set based on the 85th percentile speed, the speed where 15% of
people travel faster. In the past ten years, there has been building evidence this method is outdated. A
study by the National Transportation Safety Board found that there was no evidence equating to lower
crash involvement when setting with the 85th percentile. The current recommended changes to the
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) state that the 85th percentile should apply only on
freeways, expressways, or rural highways. The MUTCD still awaits an update after public comments
were taken in 2020 and 2021.
The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) released guidance on setting local
speed limits in 2020. As a part of their guidance and recommendations, the maximum speed limit for
urban areas is 35 mph. This maximum limit is for roads with low activity AND low conflict density.
B.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Changing speed limits requires an ordinance clarifying the city code as well as other housekeeping
resolutions.
C.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
None
D.FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Speed limit changes are included in the 2023 CIB and 2024 CIP for an overall total cost of $200,000.
The costs include new signs, traffic signal re-timing and modifications, and a public education campaign.
E.LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
Changing speed limits requires an ordinance clarifying the city code as well as other housekeeping
resolutions.
ALTERNATIVE(S):
None
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Existing speed limits Exhibit
Road jurisdiction map Exhibit
Recommended speed limits 10/11/22 Exhibit
Staff presentation Presentation
Staff Report from prior meeting - For reference only
66TH 66TH
LYNDALEPORTLANDPORTLANDPENN66TH 66TH
75TH NICOLLETNICOLLET63RD
77TH 77TH 77THPENN76TH CEDARRICHFIELDExisting speed limits 2022
Existing speed limit
25 mph
30 mph
35 mph
40 mph
Highway, private, or other community
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
66TH66TH
PORTLANDPENNXERXESNICOLLET66TH
19THLONGFELLOWPENNRoad ownership 2022
Agency
City road
County road
State road
Private road
Airport road
0 10.5 Miles
66TH
PENN66TH
PORTLAND12THXERXES64TH
DIAGONALRAE75TH NICOLLET66TH
63RD
77TH
76TH
73RD
70TH
67TH
65TH
69TH
70TH
65TH
63RD
64TH
UPTON18THLA
K
E
S
H
O
R
E RICHFIELDVINCENTHUMBOLDTBLOOMINGTONLOGANCEDARSHERIDANNEWTONLYNDALERecommended speed limits 10/11/22
25 mph
30 mph
35 mph
County, state, or private road 0 10.5 Miles
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Joint City Council and Transportation
Commission Work Session
October 11, 2022
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Regan Gonzalez called the work session to order at 5:48 p.m. in the Bartholomew
Room.
Council Members
Present:
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor; Simon Trautmann; Mary Supple; Ben Whalen
and Sean Hayford Oleary
Transportation
Commission
Members Present:
Husniyah Bradley, Chair; David Gepner, Jim Mahoney, Kyle Schmidt; Dan
Edgerton
Transportation
Commission
Members Absent:
Mollie O’Howard, Jeffrey Walz, Louis Dzierzak
Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Kristin Asher, Public Works Director; Chris
Link, Deputy Public Works Director; Joe Powers, City Engineer; Ben
Manibog, Transportation Engineer; Scott Kulzer, Administrative Aide/Analyst;
Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director/Police Chief; and Chris Swanson,
Management Analyst.
Others Present: Jan Matheus, Bike Advocates Liaison; Kevin Wendt, Community Services
Commission Liaison
ITEM #1
OVERVIEW OF THE EMERALD ASH BORER (EAB) REMOVAL ASSISTANCE
ARPA PROGRAM AND SEEK DIRECTION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL ON
CERTAIN PROGRAM DETAILS
City Manager Rodriguez introduced the topic and turned over the presentation to Public Works
Director Asher. Director Asher introduced the topic and asked for guidance from the City Council on
the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Removal Assistance program funded by American Rescue Plan Act
(ARPA) funds.
Director Asher turned the presentation over to Deputy Public Works Director Link and
Administrative Aide/Analyst Kulzer. Analyst Kulzer provided an overview on the proposed EAB
program including who would qualify for the funding and stated that staff is looking final input for
council on a few parts of the EAB program.
Analyst Kulzer provided a summary on EAB in Richfield and highlighted the main questions
staff had for City Council. These included staff capacity, the number of residents served, various cost
share scenarios, and if there be a cap on how much the city provides to resident. Additionally, Analyst
Joint City Council and Transportation Commission
Work Session Minutes -2-October 11, 2022
Kulzer asked if Council believes we should open funding retroactively to assist the homeowners who
had trees removed this year and if the city should require replacement trees to qualify for EAB
funding. Analyst Kulzer then turned over the presentation to Deputy Public Works Director Link for
additional comments on the proposed EAB program. Deputy Director Link went over pricing
mechanisms for trees and detailed how the cost of removal can escalate quickly depending on the
number of trees removed.
Council Member Hayford Oleary asked how many residents would have been eligible to
receive funding if this EAB grant was offered in 2022. Deputy Director Link stated he was not sure
how many would have met this requirement, as we don’t know the income of the household who did
have trees removed this year. Council Member Hayford Oleary recognized there are residents who
have already paid for having trees removed. He was supportive of their decision, but does not feel
that retroactively allowing these folks to apply for this new funding would further the city’s goals of
addressing EAB in Richfield.
Council Member Trautmann stated he had similar concerns as those mentioned by Council
Member Hayford Oleary. He also shared concerns about placing a cap on payments and noted that
many families already shoulder the burden disproportionately as their finances are capped by their
income. He supported the staff recommendation to allow residents to retroactively apply for the new
EAB funding.
Council Member Supple wondered what would happen if there were more applications then
funding available. Deputy Director Link stated this program is first come first serve, but would also
target specific areas of our communities identified in our equity toolkit. Analyst Kulzer mentioned city
wide promotions along with targeted mailing to areas identified in the equity toolkit.
Council Member W halen said he is worried about not having a cap because he doesn’t want
all the funds used by a small number of projects. That said, he also recognized that removing multiple
trees from one property increases the costs but providing funding to community members in that case
is ultimately is a good use of these EAB funds. Council Member W halen had a question on requiring
replacement trees. He initially wanted to require replacement trees, but recognizes the additional staff
time this would require. He would be interested in looking for ways the city can nudge residents to
purchase replacement trees. Deputy Director Link stated we’re limited by what we can purchase with
an assessment. As it stands, state law on tree assessments only allow the city to cover the cost for a
removal of a diseased trees. State law does not allow an assessment to cover the cost for a
replacement tree. Council Member Whalen asked if, by structuring the EAB program as we have, we
could support residents in at least assisting with the cost for the removal of the tree, and that, by
providing that funding, the city is functionally providing the resident some money that could be used to
purchase a tree. Deputy Director Link stated this is correct and the assessment process allows
residents a full year to pay before the charge is placed on property taxes. He noted that just because
a family participates in the program the tree abatement charge may not be assessed. Council Member
Whalen thanked staff for the clarification statements and said he would be comfortable with staff
proposals included in the report.
Council Member Supple agreed with the recommendations but would like staff to work to
identify way to encourage residents to plant a wide variety of replacement trees.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez stated she is comfortable with most of the items proposed. She did
still have a larger question on if the funds should retroactively be available to residents who had trees
removed this year. She would like to hear more from council on this matter.
Council Member Hayford Oleary said he agrees with the Mayor and does not support allowing
residents to retroactively apply for these funds.
Council Member Whalen felt that by allowing residents to retroactively apply for these funds,
we would be not helping the most proactive people. He shared concerns about what would happen if
not enough people apply and the city has remaining funds.
Joint City Council and Transportation Commission
Work Session Minutes -3- October 11, 2022
Council Member Supple supports allowing residents to apply for this funding retroactively as
long as they follow the income requirements proposed by staff.
Council Member Hayford Oleary felt this may water down the impact the ARPA funds may
have as few residents will be incentivized to remove more diseased Ash trees. Deputy Director Link
stated this was the same discussion they had in their office. He said that staff ultimately decided they
should allow residents to retroactively apply for funding as this is the most equitable approach.
Council Member Trautmann said he really doesn’t have any strong thoughts on the matter.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez said she really could go either way on this question.
Council Member Hayford Oleary said Deputy Director Link’s summary of their thought process
on this matter makes sense and would support the staff recommendations.
Deputy Director Link thanked council for their input and provided a summary of the council’s
direction on the EAB funding program.
ITEM #2
OVERVIEW OF LOCAL SPEED LIMITS, STAFF'S ONGOING SPEED LIMIT STUDY,
POSSIBLE OPTIONS THE CITY CAN PROCEED WITH, AND A STAFF
RECOMMENDATION FOR DISCUSSION
Mayor Regan Gonzalez introduced the topic for discussion for the work session and turned it
over to Public Works Director Asher who passed the work session to Transportation Engineer
Manibog. Engineer Manibog introduced the topic of discussion and went over the current speed limit
environment in the state which outlined the state statute that dictates speed limits and the current
limits in Richfield. Engineer Manibog went over what methods a number of other cities have in place
for setting speed limits within their borders and the historical data on motor vehicle crashes in our city.
Council Member Supple asked if we can assume the reductions in crashes seen in recent
years are from less driving during the pandemic or other factors like intentional traffic slowing design.
Engineer Manibog said we cannot specifically identify what is causing this decrease but that we
already saw this trend occurring before the pandemic. He stated we expect to continue to see these
traffic statistics trend in the right direction in the future.
Engineer Manibog went over current speed data for the city collected by Public Works and
Public Safety; the data shows that most drivers are driving below the speed limit. Engineer Manibog
showed a map of where speed studies have been performed in our city. He noted these studies
tended to trend to our white neighborhoods. Historically, speed studies have been performed at the
request of the community.
Council Member Trautmann talked about how it’s troubling to see the high number of serious
injuries from traffic accidents we're experiencing in our city. He asked if staff had any thoughts on why
we were seeing higher injuries from traffic accidents in Richfield. Engineer Manibog said many of
these crashes are happening on county roads where there are higher allowed speeds.
Transportation Commission Chair Bradley said it would be good to know where these serious
crashes are happening so we can work to reduce the trend. Engineer Manibog said he can get that
data and will bring to the next meeting.
Council Member Whalen stated he suspects the majority of dangerous crashes are individuals
not traveling the speed limit. He said he would like to talk at a later date about how we can do more to
discourage individuals from speeding in the first place. He said he would like to know what additional
actions we can take to get people to follow the posted speed limits. Engineer Manibog thanked
council for those comments. He noted that speed limits are just one part of our toolbox we can use to
Joint City Council and Transportation Commission
Work Session Minutes -4-October 11, 2022
reduce these serious accidents. He also noted that cities have only been allowed to make these city
specific speed changes since 2019.
Transportation Commissioner Gepner asked if this was an exercise in futility and asked for the
thoughts of Police Chief Henthorne. Chief Henthorne responded that although we’re still seeing
speeders in Richfield it’s not as many as there were a few years ago. He mentioned the Richfield
Police Department receives complaints on speeding in neighborhoods, but the trend is mostly on the
larger county roads.
Engineer Manibog went through the staff recommendations. The recommendations include a
default 25 speed limit across the city, with higher speed limits on specific roads. Engineer Manibog
noted that, with the staff recommendations, we still end up with higher speeds in more tradiationally
diverse neighborhoods, but we can continue to look at traffic calming items for areas in the future. He
also went over how we are able to build flexibility built into these recommendations.
Transportation Commissioner Mahoney said he was interested in where serious crashes were
happening. He wondered if the Council and Commission could get more information on these
accidents. He was not sure if speed was the main issue with these incidents and was wondering if
other calming measures may reduce the number of accidents in the city.
Council Member Hayford Oleary thanked staff for the presentation and said he feels the speed
currently proposed by staff, 25 mph, is too high. He worried about the safety on roads that may be
approved for higher speeds; look at what speeds are appropriate for the community and not what
speeds residents are currently driving. Council Member Hayford Oleary showed a “20 is plenty” sign
from Minneapolis and discussed how these slower speeds are much less dangerous to pedestrians.
He asked staff for their reasoning behind the proposed 25 mph speed limit. Engineer Manibog talked
about how our streets are generally wider and how there is a lot less on-street parking compared to
other cities. Council Member Hayford Oleary agreed with these points, but shared that it’s important to
set a goal and that 77th Street should be set at the same speed as other main through roads.
Council Member Whalen acknowledged the difference between 20 and 25 mph and would
push for a lower speed across the city. He stated that there are accessible roads people can use if
they want to go faster. He shared a few specific areas he would like to adjust the standard speeds
based on his own use of the roads and what he has heard from residents.
Commissioner Gepner wondered about adding more stop signs in residential areas to slow
speeds.
Council Member Trautmann went over some specific areas that have a high concentration of
pedesterians that are seniors and/or individuals with disabilities and shared that the lower speed limit
is good for teenagers who are just learning to drive. Council Member Trautmann asked Chief
Henthorne about the proposed speeds and if this change would overwhelm the police force. Chief
Henthorne shared that Saint Louis Park did see some increase in enforcement and education when
the speeds were dropped and that the Richfield Police Department would need to prepare for this
additional work if these changes were adopted.
Transportation Commissioner Edgerton said some of the proposed speeds still seemed fast.
He discussed how the time saved driving through the city in one of these faster speed zones is less
than a minute, yet the mortality is significantly raised if there is a crash.
Council Member Supple agreed the city shouldn’t not set limits based on the speeds
community members are currently driving and the limits should be set to what speed we want people
to be driving on these roads. She also agreed that even the proposed higher speed limits should be
reduced as they would be safer.
Chair Bradley asked if there’s data on who was stopped for speeding, what speed where they
going, where were they located. She wanted to know if there were any disparities in enforcement in
the data. She also asked if there were any traffic calming mechanisms projects pending and if there is
Joint City Council and Transportation Commission
Work Session Minutes -5-October 11, 2022
funding currently budgeted for this work. Engineer Manibog said the disparity information is not
collected at the state level and that there is some funding already in the CIP.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez spoke about her support for exploring a 20 mph limit. She thanked
staff for including the racial equity overlay in the presentations and encouraged all departments to
include this information in future presentations. She said she would like to get more info on serious
crashes and what other factors may be involved and to see mitigations plans, including traffic calming
items, for areas that have a high number of these crashes.
Council Member Hayford Oleary thanked the other council members and commissioners for
supporting lowering the default speed to 20 mph, but he would also support the limit for larger roads
being 25 mph. He asked if Council Member Whalen would be comfortable with this proposed change.
Council Member Whalen said he wasn’t comfortable with going to 25 mph as people tend to drive
around the speed limit, that could mean individuals driving upwards of 25 mph. He also stated that if
we were to look at more enforcement, we should be not creating a more inequitable environment.
Council Member Trautmann noted that 77th Street is not a county road so we can control the
speed limit on this road.
Commissioner Mahoney discussed that 25 mph is the average as half are driving slower but
half are driving higher and that many drive slower as that is what they feel the roads are designed for.
Engineer Manibog provided a brief summary of next steps. From his notes, those present are
generally interested in lowering the default speed to 20 mph for the city and evaluate if the higher
proposed speeds are necessary. The attendees would like to see more data on what may be causing
the elevated number of crashes which result in serious injury and there were also a number of street
specific comments that staff will review.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Regan Gonzalez adjourned the work session at 6:56 p.m.
Date Approved: October 25, 2022
Maria Regan Gonzalez
Mayor
Chris Swanson Katie Rodriguez
Management Analyst City Manager
2. Speed limit study overview
Joint city council meeting Ben Manibog (he/him)
October 11, 2022 Transportation engineer
Purpose
• Inform on speed limit law and current
policy
• Create understanding for future options
• Gather feedback and staff direction
Staff recommendation
• Default speed limit of 25 mph
• Exception streets for 30 and 35 mph
• Alleys remain at 10 mph
Potential approaches
1.No changes
2. Default speed limits
3. Create “slow zones”
4. Set by corridor
*Methods can be
combined*
Source: City Limits by NACTO
Current speed limits
•Alley speed limit remains 10 mph
Default speed limit - all
• Where all local roads are the same speed
Default speed limit - categories
• Criteria for each default speed limit
– Ex. Major, minor, and exception streets
Slow zones
• Ex. Neighborhood, district, school zone
Bellevue, WA Alexandria, VA
By corridor
Rochester, MN
Shoreline, WA
Overall crashes
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021# of non-freeway crashes Richfield
Bloomington
Edina
St. Louis Park
Golden Valley
• Crashes have decreased
Source: MnCMAT2 2017 - 2021
Road system
• In Richfield, crashes occur increasingly on
county roads
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021% of overall non-freeway crashes County
City state aid
City other
Source: MnCMAT2 2017 - 2021
Pedestrian/Bicyclist
• In Richfield, pedestrian and bicyclist
crashes have decreased
7
11 11
8 7
15
5
8
4 6
0
5
10
15
20
25
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021# of crashes Bicyclist
Pedestrian
Source: MnCMAT2 2017 - 2021
Fatal crashes
• Richfield meets regional goals for fatal
crashes. However, fatal crashes still occur.
0.37
0.72
0.00
0.28
0.00
1.28
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Crash rate per 100M VMT Fatal crash rate
Met Council TIP
MnDOT 5-yr avg
VMT = vehicle
miles traveled
Source: MnCMAT2 2017 – 2021, Metropolitan Council, MnDOT
Serious injury crashes by use
• Richfield has more serious injury crashes
than our peers
5.61
1.84 1.58 3.45 2.60
10.45
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Crash rate per 100M VMT Serious injury crash rate
Met Council TIP
MnDOT 5-yr average
VMT = vehicle
miles traveled
Source: MnCMAT2 2017 – 2021, Metropolitan Council, MnDOT
Traffic counts
Driver speeds
Local roads Median speed [mph]
Roads with < 1,000 veh/day 24.2 mph
Roads with > 1,000 veh/day 28.3 mph
Roads with > 2,000 veh/day* 29.2 mph
• Most people travel under 25 mph on quiet
roads AND under 30 mph on others
*Excludes 77th St
Source: Richfield local speed counts
Race equity
Source: City of Richfield, Metropolitan Council, Mapping Prejudice
Race equity (2)
• More data was available in Whiter
neighborhoods
• Counts were done by request through
public works or public safety
Proposed speed limits - 25
• Default 25 mph for any local road
– Ex. Elliot Ave at 74th St
Proposed speed limits - 30
At least:
• A half-mile segment
• More than 1,000 veh/day
• Median speed of 30 mph
Ex. 76th St at Bryant Ave
Proposed speed limits - 35
• Criteria for 30 mph AND arterial road
Ex. 77th St at Pillsbury Ave
Proposed speed limits
Proposed speed limits (2)
Proposed speed limits (3)
• People drive faster in our more diverse
neighborhoods
• New speed limits could be paired with
targeted traffic calming or projects
Flexibility for revisions
• Road construction
• Neighborhood- or corridor-level traffic
calming
• Demonstrated lower driver speeds
AGENDA SECTION: Work Session Items
AGENDA ITEM # 2.
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT NO. 17
WORK SESSION
5/9/2023
REPORT PREPARED BY: Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Kristin Asher, Public Works Director
5/2/2023
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager
5/2/2023
ITEM FOR WORK SESSION:
Refresher on local speed limits, staff's ongoing speed limit study, and an updated staff
recommendation for discussion.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Public Works staff seeks to use this work session to provide a refresher and update to the City Council on the
status of local speed limits after the initial October 2022 work session, including staff's updated proposed
recommendation for discussion.
Staff recommend a default speed limit of 25 mph City-wide with exceptions for one 30 mph road and one 35
mph road. Alleys would remain at 10 mph. Making an official speed limit change will require a subsequent
council meeting with corresponding resolutions and ordinances.
DIRECTION NEEDED:
Staff is seeking direction from City Council on the updated recommendation.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT
In 2019, the Minnesota Legislature gave cities increased authority to set local speed limits. This
legislation does not include County, State, airport, or private roads.
All Minnesota cities that set local speed limits must:
Do it in a "consistent and understandable manner"
Do it "based on the city's safety, engineering, and traffic analysis"
Provide "appropriate signage"
Consider "methods to effectively communicate the change to the public"
Since then, some cities in the metro have evaluated their speed limits and made changes. Richfield staff
was directed to evaluate our current traffic landscape and make a recommendation on whether our
speed limits should change.
From 1998 to 2001, the City of Richfield (as a part of our legislative priorities) supported legislation for a
Staff Report from prior meeting - For reference only
25 mph urban speed zone. In 2018, the City's pedestrian plan included a measure to "Pursue
legislative policy changes to allow for reduced speed limits on residential streets". Under current
State statute, the default speed limit for any local road is 30 mph and for any alley is 10 mph.
Historically, speed limits have been set based on the 85th percentile speed, the speed where 15% of
people travel faster. In the past ten years, there has been building evidence this method is outdated. A
study by the National Transportation Safety Board found that there was no evidence equating to lower
crash involvement when setting speed limits using the 85th percentile. The current recommended
changes to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) state that the 85th percentile should
apply only on freeways, expressways, or rural highways. The MUTCD still awaits an update after public
comments were taken in 2020 and 2021.
The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) released guidance on setting local
speed limits in 2020. As a part of their guidance and recommendations, most urban streets are
recommended to have a speed limit of 20 mph or 25 mph depending on several factors. The maximum
recommended speed limit for urban areas is 35 mph, for roads with low activity AND low conflict
density.
B.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Changing speed limits requires an ordinance clarifying the Richfield Municipal Code as well as other
housekeeping resolutions.
C.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
None
D.FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Speed limit changes are included in the 2023 CIB and 2024 CIP for an overall total cost of $200,000.
The costs include new signs, traffic signal re-timing and modifications, and a public education
campaign.
E.LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
Changing speed limits requires an ordinance clarifying the Richfield Municipal Code as well as other
housekeeping resolutions.
ALTERNATIVE(S):
None
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Existing Speed Limits Map Backup Material
Staff Recommendation Speed Limits Map Backup Material
Staff Report from prior meeting - For reference only
Existing Speed Limits -May 2023
U11
,64TH
66TH
69TH
•70TH
a..
'65TH
66TH
-" ,�
�
�
18 I�
76TH
./
-State/County/Private Road -40 MPH N -25MPH Lakes 1 -30 MPH Parks
-35MPH Schools
63RD)
64TH ,,,
m
66TH �
68TH
70TH ·:S co ' a..
73RD
_77TH
1 � ..:-
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
City Council Work Session
May 9, 2023
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Supple called the work session to order at 5:18 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room.
Council Members
Present:
Mary Supple, Sharon Christensen, Simon Trautmann, Sean Hayford Oleary,
Ben Whalen
Staff Present:
Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Kristin Asher, Public Works Director; Joe
Powers, City Engineer; Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer; Jay
Henthorne, Police Chief; Chris Link, Deputy Public Works Director; Rachel
Lindholm, Sustainability Specialist; and Chris Swanson, Management
Analyst
ITEM #1
STAFF IS SEEKING DIRECTION ON A PROPOSED INCREASE TO ELECTRIC
AND GAS FRANCHISE FEES AND THE STREETLIGHT USER FEE TO HELP
FUND RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS, SUSTAINABILITY PROJECTS, AND TO
COVER ELECTRICITY COSTS FOR THE STREETLIGHTING SYSTEM.
Deputy Director Link provided a summary of the items for discussion. He talked about the
city’s current fee structure and outlined the rising cost in utilities in recent years. Deputy Director Link
reviewed the proposed increase in fees, including what projects would be supported along with the
$50,000 earmarked for sustainability projects.
Council Member Hayford Oleary asked if staff could provide an outline of how the fees are
structured. Deputy Director Link provided a summary of the current fee structure, specifically
highlighting the difference between the electric and gas franchise fees and the streetlight user fee.
Council Member Hayford Oleary noted that other cities are using these fees for dedicated bike ped
funding and would be in support of increasing the amount to $250,000 a year for this work. Director
Asher said some of this funding is already included in the franchise fee but would be willing to explore
additional options.
Council Member Whalen asked if there was a way to do a sliding scale for the fee. Specifically,
he was wondering if there was a way to require higher energy users to pay a larger portion. He talked
about how the City of Portland is using a model with a sliding scale and that this has raised a
significant amount of funds. Director Asher said staff will do some more research.
Council Member Whalen asked staff why we haven't done a standard 3-5% annual increase
each year to reflect that pricing has continued to increase. Deputy Director Link stated that state
statute restricts when the fees can be increased.
City Council Work Session Minutes
-2- May 9, 2023
Mayor Supple asked how multi units are billed. Deputy Director Link detailed the way these
units are billed. Mayor Supple asked if the recent increase in utility costs was because of an unfunded
mandate from the state. Deputy Director Link said that is not the major driver but there are additional
costs from state decisions.
Council Member Hayford Oleary asked what projects have been funded so far from these
franchise fees as he would like to see these funds spent on projects that benefit the whole community.
Director Asher said that the funds cover rejuvenation work done on the street. Council Member
Hayford Oleary said he understood but wanted to be transparent that multi units are paying a bigger
portion of the bill.
Staff outlined the next steps with the implementation of these new fees. Staff expects this new
rate to go into effect January 1, 2024.
ITEM #2
REFRESHER ON LOCAL SPEED LIMITS, STAFF'S ONGOING SPEED LIMIT
STUDY, AND AN UPDATED STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR DISCUSSION.
Transportation Engineer Hardegger provided a summary of previous discussions, including the
history of speed limits in the city and what can be regulated per state statute. He provided a broad
summary of what other cities are doing around lowering speed limits along with a refresher of the
work session held in September of 2022.
Staff provided the council with their recommendation that the speed limit in the city should be
25 mph. He went through the methodology for how staff came to this conclusion. Staff noted the entire
city is residential and having a standard speed limit in Richfield would not create "high speed zones"
in racially diverse areas. Engineer Hardegger provided information on why staff is not recommending
20 mph as the adopted limit. He noted the proposed speed will create an opportunity for more
voluntary compliance. He also talked about one of the long-term goals of the city is to support active
transportation. He asked how the council would define success for this project.
Council Member Trautmann talked about his goals for this work. Specifically, he wanted to see
increased safety. He asked about the benefit of a 25-mph speed limit if folks were already driving this
speed. Staff noted this reduction helps push down the median speed of everyone. Council Member
Trautmann asked if there would be any impact on the top 5% of speeders. Staff said there is mixed
data around this question as the speed reductions are new. Staff did note that other cities found the
median speeds stayed the same but the odds that someone was speeding decreased when speeds
were reduced. Council Member Christensen noted she hears a lot of speeding around the STEM
school. She asked if staff had an education and enforcement plan in place. Staff said they do not have
a plan yet but would come up with a robust education campaign. Staff did say they would work with
other cities that have done this work to come up with best practices. Chief Henthorne noted that with a
reduction in most speeds they can better focus on the small number of habitual speeders.
Council Member Hayford Oleary confirmed with staff that the recommendation was a lowered
speed. He asked staff on looking at setting a 20-mph limit, particularly in some areas where we
already see reduced speeds, in the future. Engineer Hardegger agreed there were some
neighborhoods where folks already drive slower. He said that having a neighborhood-by-
neighborhood speed limit would be challenging from a messaging and enforcement aspect. He did
discuss some of the work that can be done in the interim to continue to reduce speeds. Council
Member Hayford Oleary thanked staff for the response, he did say he would prefer 20-mph, but would
be willing to support a 25-mph standard. He also asked staff to look at how stop signs are placed to
see if this can impact speeds. He felt strongly that 77th Street should not be over 30-mph. He noted
that there are many lower income families living on this strip of road and that they should also receive
City Council Work Session Minutes
-3- May 9, 2023
the benefit of the reduced speed limits. Staff said they would investigate this in the future. Engineer
Hardegger said a speed study would be done sometime later this year in that area and that one of the
challenges that has been found with this discussion is there is not good data on speeds across the
city.
Council Member Whalen thought the city should also focus time on making pedestrian
crossings safer. He specifically spoke of the crossing at Chicago as an area of focus. He did agree
that he would like to see 20-mph across the city but recognized that lowering the speed limit does not
make people decrease their speed. He also wondered how much it would cost to re-sign the city. Staff
said that this cost would be minimal as most of the work is done in house.
Council Member Trautmann spotlighted 77th Street on the map. He noted that 20% of
residents live along this corridor, next to the highway. He wanted to advocate for decreasing the
speed on 77th to make it safer for kids and the families in this corridor. City Engineer Powers noted
the Chicago Ave crossing statement may be improved in the upcoming 494 project. Staff reiterated
that this would be an area of particular focus. Director Asher mentioned the play between finding the
right speed for a road while not creating additional traffic. Council Member Trautmann said he really
felt strongly about decreasing 77th to 30-mph and, for the sake of safety, the council should do what
they can to make it happen regardless of the pain. Council Member Hayford Oleary was supportive.
Mayor Supple said she was pleased about the updated proposal. She felt the multi-tier system
presented at the last work session would have been confusing to residents and challenging to
enforce. She talked broadly about wanting to keep the speeds down across the entire city, specifically
looking at roads like 77th.
Council Member Whalen asked about earlier comments regarding designing roads to be
driven slower. He asked if there were options to continue to decrease traffic speeds without
reconstructing roads. Staff said there are ways to add additional items to the road to help with this.
Mayor Supple said her main goal was safety. Council Member Christensen agreed; she talked
about what she had seen on other streets that may help slow down drivers. Staff were willing to look
at other options to reduce speeds in the future. Staff noted there is always a balance in terms of what
can be done and the cost of the upgrades. Council Member Whalen noted this was also climate action
as slower drivers create less emission and the city should incentivize walking, biking, or public transit.
He talked about how slower speed limits may encourage other forms of transportation. Council
Member Hayford Oleary asked about how the city could lower speed limits on county roads. Staff said
they would investigate. Council Member Whalen asked that we include county roads in future maps.
Mayor Supple asked if roundabouts will still be 15-mph. Staff said the recommended speed
limit for a roundabout is still 15-mph.
Council Member Hayford Oleary congratulated staff for their work on this item.
Staff provided a final summary of the discussion and a timeline for the next steps. Staff
planned to start looking at an education strategy sooner rather than later. Implementation will be in the
fall of 2023-spring of 2024.
Director Asher asked if there needed to be more public discussion on this or if the council was
comfortable moving forward with this program. Council Member Christensen asked if this timeline
worked with the speed limit discussions with the county. Director Asher said the city can start that
conversation immediately and this work can move forward.
Mayor Supple asked if plans to talk with MnDOT about their current construction schedule and
the impact this will have on their work. Staff said they have thought about this item and believe the
impact will be minimal, as the MnDOT projects do not redirect any traffic to city roads so there should
be little impact. Staff will reach out to make sure MnDOT is aware of the work.
City Council Work Session Minutes
-4-May 9, 2023
Council Member Whalen asked about the current traffic count maps and the locations of the
speed surveys. Staff said the surveys are based on complaints or state aid programs. Engineer
Hardegger noted that staff plans to provide more random sampling moving forward.
Mayor Supple and City Manager Rodriguez summarized the conversation and spoke about
next steps.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Supple adjourned the work session at 6:47 pm
Date Approved: May 23, 2023
Mary B. Supple
Mayor
Chris Swanson Katie Rodriguez
Management Analyst City Manager
Speed Limit DiscussionCity Council Work Session Matt Hardegger (he/him)May 9, 2023Transportation Engineer
Agenda• Local Context• Staff Recommendation• Goals & Evaluation Discussion• Gather feedback and staff direction
Legal Authority•2022 MN Statutes, Sec. 169.14, Subd. 5h. Speed limits on city streets.–Passed in 2019–“A city may establish speed limits for city streets under the city's jurisdiction other than the limits provided in subdivision 2 without conducting an engineering and traffic investigation. This subdivision does not apply to town roads, county highways, or trunk highways in the city. A city that establishes speed limits pursuant to this section must implement speed limit changes in a consistent and understandable manner. The city must erect appropriate signs to display the speed limit. A city that uses the authority under this subdivision must develop procedures to set speed limits based on the city's safety, engineering, and traffic analysis. At a minimum, the safety, engineering, and traffic analysis must consider national urban speed limit guidance and studies, local traffic crashes, and methods to effectively communicate the change to the public.”• Includes: 76th, 77th, Lyndale, 70th, 73rd/Diagonal, Cedar, Bloomington, 12th• DoesNOTinclude: 66th, Penn, Nicollet, Portland, Highway 62, Highway 77, 35W, 494
Current Speed Limits in Hennepin County
Existing Speed Limits
Initial Methodology• Baseline: Median Speeds– Data taken since 2010• Values rounded to nearest 5 mph• Additional Criteria required to have speed limit >25 mph• 30 mph: >1000 ADT, ½ mile long, 30 mph median speed • 35 mph: Criteria for 30 + arterial road
Revised Methodology• Baseline: Median Speeds– Data taken since 2010• Values rounded to nearest 5 mph• Additional Criteria required to have speed limit >25 mph• Arterial route* with at least 4 lanes for more than 1/2 mile• Higher speeds considered based on pedestrian facility location, driveway accesses, & roadway geometry*Defined by Metropolitan Council
Why 25 mph citywide?• Every road in Richfield is residential• Simple and consistent expectations• NACTO City Limits recommends 25 MPH or below for a default citywide speed limit– 25 mph when there is a lack of differentiation between low/high volume road characteristics• Does not create “high speed zones” in more racially diverse areas
Why not 20 mph?Target SpeedDesign SpeedOperating Speed(The speed we want people to drive)(The speed the road is considered safe to drive by designers)(The speed people actually drive)Speed Limit(The speed people are legally allowed to drive)
Citywide Speed DataMedian speed [mph]Local roads24.2 mphRoads with < 1,000 veh/day28.3 mphRoads with > 1,000 veh/day29.2 mphRoads with > 2,000 veh/day*• Most people travel under 25 mph on quiet roads AND under 30 mph on others*Excludes 77th St
Why not 20 mph?• Adverse roadway widths (Design Speed)– Most roads designed to State Aid Standards (30 mph minimum design speed)– Typical streets range from 32-36 feet wide with minimal street parking usage• Citywide median speeds (Operating Speed)– Tiered approach similar to October 2022 map• Requires significant extra investment– Short term: Education and Enforcement– Long term: Infrastructure with lower target speed• Active Transportation Action Plan
Discussion• Thoughts on staff recommendation?• How does City Council define success with this policy?– What are the goals we are trying to achieve?
Identified Goals• Reduced Vehicle Speeds• Lower annual vehicle crash totals• Fewer fatal/serious injury crashes– Goal to eliminate• Fewer crashes with pedestrians/bicycles– Goal to eliminate• Fewer vehicles traveling >40 MPH
Next Steps• PW finalizes Recommendation and Supporting Documentation (Summer 2023)• Council Action (Summer 2023)• Implementation (Fall 2023-Spring 2024)– Learn from Other Cities– Develop Education & Enforcement Strategies– Develop Signing Strategy & roll out plan• Monitor! (2024-2026)– Annual Crash Analysis– Annual Speed Counting Program• Revise if needed (2026)
Results in Other Communities
Reducing Vehicle Speeds• Changing the limit is just one tool• Ultimately people drive the speed they feel comfortable driving–Design– Enforcement– Education
Reducing Vehicle Speeds• National Examples– Mean & Median Speeds Stayed Similar Overall in Boston[2]and Portland[3]• Lower odds of exceeding higher speeds• Portland found a correlation between wider pavement width and higher speed– Decreases in Seattle[1]• Local Examples– Minneapolis, St. Paul, St. Louis Park, Edina have not completed post-assessments– U of MN CTS study on St. Louis Park is forthcoming this spring[1] SDOT Speed Limit Case Studies, July 2020[2] Hu W, Cicchino JB. Inj Prev 2020;26:99–102.[3] Anderson, Jason C, Christopher Monsere, and Sirisha Kothuri. 2022. “Effect of Residential Street Speed Limit Reduction on Driving Speeds in Portland, Oregon.” Findings, January. https://doi.org/10.32866/001c.31956.
Reduce Crashes & Crash Severity• National/International Examples– Lower speeds reduced injury & fatal crashes in Seattle[1], Toronto (CA)[2],and Bristol (UK)[3].• Local Crash Data Comparison– Cities that reduced speed limits• Minneapolis, St. Paul, Edina, St. Louis Park, St. Anthony– Rest of Hennepin/Ramsey Counties[1] SDOT Speed Limit Case Studies, July 2020[2] Hu W, Cicchino JB. Inj Prev 2020;26:99–102.[3] Bornioli A, Bray I, Pilkington P, et al.Effects of city‐wide 20 mph (30km/hour) speed limits on road injuries in Bristol, UK. Injury Prevention2020;26:85‐88.
Local Crash Data Comparison•Total Crashes down32% and 30% from 2015‐2019 average in 2021 and 2022 •Rest of Hennepin & Ramsey Counties down19% and 4% in 2021 and 2022
Local Crash Data Comparison•Fatal & Serious Injury Crashes up10% and 23% from 2015‐2019 average in 2021 and 2022•Rest of Hennepin & Ramsey Counties down11% in 2021 and up5% in 2022
Local Crash Data Comparison•Total crashes down45% and 30% from 2015‐2019 average in 2021 and 2022 •Rest of Hennepin & Ramsey Counties down20% and down18% in 2021 and 2022
Local Crash Data Comparison•Fatal & Serious Injury Crashes down10% and up2% from 2015‐2019 average in 2021 and 2022•Rest of Hennepin & Ramsey Counties up13% in 2021 and up37% in 2022
Follow Up from Oct 2022 WS
Where do crashes occur in Richfield?• 729 total crashes in 2022– 228 on County Roads– 204 on Local Roads– 297 on other facilities (MnDOT Highways & ramps)• 41 Serious Injury or Fatal crashes from 2018-2022– 14 on County Roads– 15 on Local Roads• 2 on Cedar• 2 on 78th• 3 on 73rd/Diagonal• 3 on 76th/77th• 5 elsewhere• 8 of 15 in area bounded by 494/Cedar/Nicollet/73rd/Diagonal– 2 on other facilities (MnDOT Highway & ramps)
Appendix (Additional Data)
Speed Limit History in MN• 1911: First “Reasonable and Proper” Statutory Speed Limit– 10 mph in “built up” areas– 25 mph on rural highways• 1937/1939: 30 mph appears– 30 mph in any municipality– 60 mph daytime/50 mph nighttime on rural highways• 1974: National 55 mph Speed Limit• 1975: Can establish School Zones up to 20 mph below normal speed limit, but not lower than 15 mph• 1976: Minimum 25 mph limit on streets with bike lanes• 1980: Municipalities can override Commissioner in “Urban Districts”• 1984: 10 mph in alleys• 1994: 25 mph by ordinance on residential roadways– Must be signed at beginning and end of zone– Less than ¼ mile in length• 1995: Repeal of 55 mph Speed Limit• 2009: “Urban district” expanded to include full length of street, not just sections– Lyndale Ave 30 mph speed limit uses this law• 2019: Pathway for cities to set local speed limitsSource: https://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnspeedlimitvision/speed‐history/
Citywide Speed Data85th Percentile speed [mph]Average speed [mph]Median speed [mph]Local roads28.8 mph22.9 mph24.2 mphRoads with < 1,000 veh/day33.1 mph28.1 mph28.3 mphRoads with > 1,000 veh/day33.3 mph28.5 mph29.2 mphRoads with > 2,000 veh/day**Excludes 77th St
Street Widths
Basic type• Many serious crashes involve pedestrians82551550123456789Pedestrian Bike Single vehiclerun off roadRear end Left turn Angle OtherReported pedestrian crashes 2017‐2021Source: MnCMAT2 2017 – 2021
Severe crashes – physical condition4410805101520253035404550Normal Alcohol or medicalissueUnknownSource: MnCMAT2 2017 – 2021
Severe crashes - intersection1714024681012141618Intersection Non‐intersection112130246810124‐way T Roundabout OtherSource: MnCMAT2 2017 – 2021
Severe crashes - age4149471284024681012141610‐19 20‐29 30‐39 40‐49 50‐59 60‐69 70+ No valueSource: MnCMAT2 2017 – 2021
Pedestrian - light• Over a quarter of pedestrian crashes occur at night with streetlightsSource: MnCMAT2 2017 – 2021
Pedestrian - age• Younger and older pedestrians are overrepresented in crashes19%19%23%25%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%Under 18 years60 years and older% of city population% of pedestrian crashesSource: MnCMAT2 2017 – 2021, ACS 2020 5‐year estimate
Bicyclist - age• A majority of bike crashes involve young people19%53%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%Under 18 years% of city population% of bicyclist crashesSource: MnCMAT2 2017 – 2021, ACS 2020 5‐year estimate
AGENDA SECTION: Work Session Items
AGENDA ITEM # 1.
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT NO. 36
WORK SESSION
10/24/2023
REPORT PREPARED BY: Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Kristin Asher, Public Works Director
10/17/2023
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager
10/18/2023
ITEM FOR WORK SESSION:
Staff will present an update on the ongoing local speed limit study and recommendations for a
proposed signing and speed limit implementation plan and a public education campaign.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Public Works staff will provide a refresher and update to the City Council on the status of local speed limits
after the May 2023 work session, including staff's proposed recommendation for discussion. In addition,
Scott Barsuhn will present an overview of a preliminary outreach campaign for the city-wide 25 mph speed
limits.
In May, staff recommended a default speed limit of 25 mph City-wide with two exceptions; 30 mph on 76th
Street West of Penn Ave and 35 mph the remainder of 76th/77th Street. Alleys would remain at 10 mph. Staff
were directed to collect additional data along 76th and 77th Streets to determine if a lower speed limit could be
posted. Data was collected in July and August of 2023, and based on the data collected, staff's
recommendation remains the same as in May 2023. Making an official speed limit change will require a
subsequent council meeting with corresponding resolutions and ordinances.
Staff are currently working with Hennepin County to request lowered speed limits on county
roadways in Richfield.
DIRECTION NEEDED:
Staff is seeking direction from City Council on the speed limit recommendation, signage
recommendation, implementation timeline, and public education campaign.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT
In 2019, the Minnesota Legislature gave cities increased authority to set local speed limits. This legislation
does not include County, State, airport, or private roads.
All Minnesota cities that set local speed limits must:
Do it in a "consistent and understandable manner"
Staff Report from prior meeting - For reference only
Do it "based on the city's safety, engineering, and traffic analysis"
Provide "appropriate signage"
Consider "methods to effectively communicate the change to the public"
Since then, some cities in the metro have evaluated their speed limits and made changes. Richfield staff was
directed to evaluate our current traffic landscape and make a recommendation on whether our speed limits
should change.
From 1998 to 2001, the City of Richfield (as a part of our legislative priorities) supported legislation for a 25
mph urban speed zone. In 2018, the City's pedestrian plan included a measure to "Pursue legislative policy
changes to allow for reduced speed limits on residential streets". Under current State statute, the default speed
limit for any local road is 30 mph and for any alley is 10 mph.
Historically, speed limits have been set based on the 85th percentile speed, the speed where 15% of people
travel faster. In the past ten years, there has been building evidence this method is outdated. A study by the
National Transportation Safety Board found that there was no evidence equating to lower crash involvement
when setting speed limits using the 85th percentile. The current recommended changes to the Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) state that the 85th percentile should apply only on freeways,
expressways, or rural highways. The MUTCD still awaits an update after public comments were taken in 2020
and 2021.
The National Association of City Transportation Officials released guidance on setting local speed limits in
2020. As a part of their guidance and recommendations, most urban streets are recommended to have a
speed limit of 20 mph or 25 mph depending on several factors. The maximum recommended speed limit for
urban areas is 35 mph, for roads with low activity AND low conflict density.
B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS
N/A
C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
Ordinance changes will be forthcoming if there is consensus to change speed limits in the City.
D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
Staff would like to have the final ordinance passed by the end of 2023 in order to begin procuring and
producing signage and public education materials for a spring 2024 implementation. The ordinance will require
two public readings.
E.FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Speed limit changes are included in the 2023 CIB and 2024 CIP for an overall total cost of $200,000. The
costs include new signs, traffic signal re-timing and modifications, and a public education campaign.
F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE(S):
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
Scott Barsuhn, Barsuhn Consulting
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Existing Speed Limits Map - October 2023 Exhibit
Staff Recommendation Speed Limits Map - October 2023 Exhibit
Staff Report from prior meeting - For reference only
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
City Council Work Session
October 24, 2023
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Supple called the work session to order at 5:45 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room.
Council Members
Present:
Mary Supple, Mayor; Sean Hayford Oleary; Ben Whalen; Simon Trautmann;
and Sharon Christensen
Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Dustin Leslie, City Clerk; Chris Swanson,
Management Analyst; Chad Donnelly, Assistant Utility Superintendent; Joe
Powers, City Engineer; Brad Drayna, Police Lieutenant; Matt Hardegger,
Transportation Engineer; Kristin Asher, Public Works Director.
ITEM #1 FINDINGS OF THE WATER SYSTEM INTERCONNECT EVALUATION.
City Manager Rodriguez introduced the topics to Council and introduced Assistant Utility
Superintendent Donnelly to Council.
Assistant Utility Superintendent Donnelly gave the presentation covering background of the
project, project purpose, goals, analysis of alternatives, interconnect locations, staff findings, and
recommended actions. He noted that the Minneapolis interconnection is the recommendation.
Council Member Hayford Oleary stated he was ok with the staff recommendation and spoke
about how Richfield could be affected by a disaster interrupting the city’s water supply. He asked staff
if the ground water used by Richfield were to run out, would they be able to get water from
Minneapolis? Assistant Utility Superintendent Donnelly stated the city would be able to draw water
from Minneapolis in that event.
Staff and Council spoke about eventually needing to replace the water treatment plant and
having a connection to Minneapolis could provide a new option or a temporary option if a new water
treatment plant was ever built.
Mayor Supple agreed that the Minneapolis option made the most sense. Staff stated they
wanted to make sure Council did not want to go with the Bloomington option. The council agreed with
staff about not wanting the Bloomington connection.
City Council Work Session Minutes
-2-October 24, 2023
ITEM #2
STAFF WILL PRESENT AN UPDATE ON THE ONGOING LOCAL SPEED LIMIT
STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A PROPOSED SIGNING
AND SPEED LIMIT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND A PUBLIC EDUCATION
CAMPAIGN.
Transportation Engineer Hardegger gave the presentation covering speed limit proposals,
methodology, 2022-2023 speed data, and data for 76th and 77th streets.
There was a general conversation between staff and council regarding speeds along the 77th
Street corridor as well as addressing inequities in changing the speed limits.
City Engineer Powers spoke about a possible grant opportunity the city applied for that would
help look at design changes to the 77th Street corridor. He also spoke about response changes if
speed limits were updated.
Mayor Supple spoke about the benefits of adding sidewalks and making them ADA accessible.
Council Member Hayford Oleary and Mayor Supple spoke about their preferences for speed
limits on certain streets within the city. Council Member Whalen asked the police department to
comment on enforcement. Lieutenant Drayna stated the police department enforces speed limits
throughout the city equally and spoke about crash data.
City staff finished the presentation by talking about ordinance language and resolution
language that would be presented at a future Council meeting.
Communications Strategist Scott Barshun gave a presentation about the Richfield Drives 25
communication campaign and how it would be advertised.
The Mayor and Council Members gave feedback regarding the campaign, including asking for
more crisp images and more use of people.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Supple adjourned the work session at 6:55 pm.
Date Approved: November 14, 2023
Mary B. Supple
Mayor
Dustin Leslie Katie Rodriguez
City Clerk City Manager
Speed Limit DiscussionCity Council Work Session Matt Hardegger (he/him)October 24th, 2023Transportation Engineer
Agenda• Refresher • 2023 Data Updates• Staff Recommendation• Education Campaign Introduction
Methodology• Considerations:– Existing 50thPercentile Speeds– Number of Lanes– Pedestrian Facility Type/Location– Bicycle Facility Type/Location• Maximum 25 mph speed on all:– Two Lane Roads (divided and undivided)– Roads without sidewalks– Roads with marked and designated on-street bike lanes• If at least one of above criteria met:– Set speed limit within 5 mph of 50thPercentile Speed with maximum of 25 mph• If none of above criteria met:– Set speed limit within 5 mph of 50thPercentile Speed– Minimum ½ mile zones• In all cases:– Evaluate for consistency with land use, adjacent street speed limits, and remainder of corridor speed limits*Defined by Metropolitan Council
2022-23 Speed Data (76th/77th)77th E of Bloomington77th E of 12th77th W of 12th77th E of Nicollet77th E of Lyndale77th W of Lyndale76th E of XerxesLocation7/23‐7/26/237/23‐7/26/237/16‐7/19/237/26‐7/28/237/24‐7/26/237/31‐8/1/237/31‐8/1/23Dates:40404040403530Current Speed Limit37373735323536Median Speed38383836333637Average Speed4343434139404185th Percentile Speed32.1%30.2%30.7%22.1%10.4%54.2%94.7%% > Speed LimitWestEast
76th& 77thStreets• Results of different Speed Limit Setting Methods:– Current MUTCD: 40-45• +/- 5 mph of 85% speed– Proposed MUTCD: 35-40• +/- 5 mph of 50% speed– USLIMITS2: 35-40• FHWA “Expert System”– NACTO City Limits: 35• Low Conflict Density, Low Activity Corridor
Draft Ordinance Language•The city engineer may establish speed limits for citystreets under the city’s jurisdiction in accordance withthe provisions set forth at Minnesota Statutes Section169.14. A comprehensive listing and the proceduresrelied upon to establish speed limits under thissection shall be kept on file by the city engineer andwill be made readily available for public inspection.• Matches language used by Edina and St. Louis Park• Similar language to Minneapolis and St. Paul
Schedule• November 14th: Ordinance Reading #1• November 28th: Ordinance Vote• Winter 2023/24: Sign Production• Spring 2024: Education Campaign Roll Out• June 1st, 2024: Changes Effective– Sign phasing & implementation plan to bediscussed with PD– Requires vote on rescinding resolution creatingLyndale urban district (30 mph speed limit)– Signal Timing Changes
AGENDA SECTION:OTHER BUSINESS
AGENDA ITEM #11.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 153
CIT Y COUNCIL MEET ING
11/14/2023
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y:K elly Wynn, A dministrative A ssistant
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W:
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W:
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
11/7/2023
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider the appointment of a youth member to the Human Rights Commission.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
City advisory commission terms for youth members are for one year and expire August 31 of each year. The
City Manager ’s office conducts recruitment seeking applicants to fill the youth vacancies each year. This
recruitment includes information on the City’s website, Facebook page, and communication with the local high
schools.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
Approve the appointment of Beatriz Hernandez Guerrero to the Human Rights Commission as a youth
commissioner.
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
This information is contained in the E xecutive S ummary.
B .E QU ITAB L E OR S T R AT E GIC C ON S ID E R AT ION S OR IMPAC T S
A ppointing a youth commissioner who represents a large proportion of Richfield's population promotes inclusivity
in our community and will make for more community-representative conversations and decision making. A n
unintended consequence may be relying on the youth commissioners to voice concerns for all youth, or all
underrepresented youth, and the commission can mitigate this by being mindful about how they include the youth
commissioners in commission proceedings.
This also contributes to the S trategic P lan outcome that staff, boards, and commissions reflect the diversity of the
community.
C .P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
C ity advisory commissions were established by C ity ordinance or resolution.
D .C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
E .F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None
F.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
None
ALT E R N AT IV E R E C OMME N D AT ION(S):
P ostpone appointment of youth commissioners to a future C ity C ouncil Meeting.
P R IN C IPAL PAR T IE S E X P E C T E D AT ME E T IN G: