Richfield City staff asked the City Council during a Dec. 9 work session for direction on where to locate a consolidated municipal storage facility, saying the current setup is fragmented and one existing yard lies within a wetland delineation that may force relocation.

Staff described the MillardWorks lot as a "postage stamp" and outlined a candidate site on MAC-owned property near 77th Street that the city currently occupies under a parking lease. "We haven't been told to leave, but we know we need to get out," Speaker 1 said, describing recent state contact and the city's intent to relocate rather than wait for enforcement.

The presentation listed other existing storage uses — a small onsite building for tools, a site used for trees and street sweeping, and an older TAF/TAPS location — and showed how a new fenced storage yard could function: not in daily use but used during storms, seasonal sweeping and other peak operations. Staff emphasized the proposed design would add perimeter fencing and screening to reduce neighborhood impacts.

On costs, staff said the capital improvement plan currently includes a high-level, ballpark line of $700,000 for a storage building. Speaker 1 cautioned that the figure is preliminary: "We haven't talked to anybody. We haven't really dug into this," and said additional stormwater work may be required, which could push costs higher. If project costs exceed certain thresholds, staff said they would consider alternative funding sources, including franchise funds.

Speakers described property and tenure issues at the candidate site: the parcel sits on MAC property and the city holds a parking lease on the highlighted red area used by Public Works. Staff also discussed developer interest in airport-area land and previous land swaps dating to the construction of a nearby bridge.

Neighborhood impacts drew questions from council and public commenters. Staff noted one adjacent neighbor had expanded informal uses onto city-held land (a garden added in 2021) and said the city would allow neighbors to remove items before site work begins. A resident (Speaker 3) urged a more attractive, opaque fence and the preservation of existing trees to reduce the site's visual impact: "I don't have a specific thing in mind, but it would be nice to have something that is both relatively opaque," Speaker 3 said.

No formal motions or votes were recorded in the transcript. Staff asked the council for guidance on whether to proceed with the MAC-site option and on the level of screening and site improvements desired. Next steps identified by staff included refining the site plan, clarifying stormwater requirements, conducting cost estimates with contractors and returning to the council with detailed budgets and recommended funding sources.

Meetings materials referenced in the presentation indicated community development had no objection to the basic plan set as presented and that staff had considered alternatives (including an old Motel 6 site) but found them constrained by size or long-term suitability.

The council work session closed with staff reiterating the need for direction so design and cost refinement can proceed.