The URL can be used to link to this page

10-08-2024 City Council AgendaREGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, COUNCIL CHAMBERS OCTOBER 8, 2024 7:00 PM INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Pledge of Allegiance Open forum Call into the open forum by dialing 1-415-655-0001 Use webinar access code: 2862 762 4013 and password: 1234. Please refer to the Council Agenda & Minutes web page for additional ways to submit comments. Approval of the Minutes of the (1) City Council Work Session of September 24, 2024; and (2) City Council Meeting of September 24, 2024. PRESENTATIONS 1.Proclamation celebrating Indigenous Peoples' Day AGENDA APPROVAL 2.Approval of the Agenda 3.Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action on these items is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A.Consider the first reading of an ordinance amending City Code Section 427—Wetland Protection—to add new buffer requirements compliant with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Wetland Protection Rule and clarify the decision-making and appeals process for Wetland Conservation Act decisions. Staff Report No. 134 B.Consider approval for a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for the Blessed Trinity Catholic School, located at St. Richard's Catholic Church, 7540 Penn Avenue South, for their Annual Gala taking place December 7, 2024. Staff Report No. 135 C.Consider the first reading of an ordinance amending City Code sections 428, 429 and 620 pertaining to erosion and sedimentation control, water resource management and well drilling. Staff Report No. 136 D.Consider the adoption of a resolution authorizing acceptance of Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) funds for an extension on an original four-year grant to fully fund an officer dedicated to DWI enforcement in Richfield. Staff Report No. 137 E.Consider the adoption of a resolution to accept a grant of $5,509.36 from the Office of Justice Programs for bullet proof vests. Staff Report No. 138 F.Consider adoption of a resolution accepting grant funds from the State of Minnesota to prepare a federal grant application and execute Agreement No. 1057886 with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for fund dispersal. Staff Report No. 139 G.Consider a first reading of an ordinance amendment establishing zoning regulations for cannabis businesses. Staff Report No. 140 H.Consider approval of a bid tabulation and award a contract to Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. for the 2024 Citywide Concrete Project in the amount of $107,780, and authorize the City Manager to approve contract changes under $175,000 without further City Council consideration. Staff Report No. 141 I.Consider approval of an amendment to the contract with HGA Architects for the Wood Lake Nature Center Building Project in the amount of $181,500 to provide additional professional services, clarify basic architectural service details and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the amendment. Staff Report No. 142 4.Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.Public hearing and consider a resolution adopting the proposed assessment for unpaid garbage collection services from private property within the residential organized collection system from July 1, 2023 to June 31, 2024. Staff Report No. 143 6.Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Adopt a resolution for special assessments for removal of diseased trees from private property for work ordered from January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023. Staff Report No. 144 7.Hold a public hearing and consider: 1. A resolution adopting the assessment on the ILN Project Area for $81,615.59 in costs incurred to maintain the area for 2023. 2. A resolution ordering the undertaking of the current service project within the ILN Project Area for 2025. Staff Report No. 145 8.Public hearing and consider a resolution adopting the proposed assessments of delinquent utility accounts, false alarm charges, public health or safety hazards charges, weed eradication charges, and vacant property registration fees to be certified to property taxes. Staff Report No. 146 RESOLUTIONS 9.Consider adoption of a resolution supporting the County State Aid Highway 52 (Nicollet Avenue) Preferred Concept from 77th Street to 66th Street, as recommended by the Transportation Commission. Staff Report No. 147 CITY MANAGER’S REPORT 10.City Manager's Report CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 11.Claims and Payroll COUNCIL DISCUSSION 12.Hats Off to Hometown Hits 13.Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9739. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota City Council Work Session September 24, 2024 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Supple called the work session to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room. Council Members Present: Mary Supple, Mayor; Sharon Christensen; Sean Hayford Oleary; Ben Whalen; Simon Trautmann arrived at 6:05 p.m. Staff Present: Planning Commissioners: Guests: City Manager Katie Rodriguez, Public Works Director Kristin Asher, City Engineer Joe Powers, City Transportation Engineer Matt Hardegger, City Project Engineer Olivia Wycklendt, Public Works Senior Analyst Scott Kulzer, Community Development Director Melissa Poehlman, and City Clerk Michelle Friedrich. Brett Stursa, Cole Hooey, Brendan Kennealy, Stephanie Kowalkowski, Ben Surma, and Matt Taraldsen. David Gebers, Market Plaza Owner; Stephanie Meyer, Local Starbucks Representative. ITEM #1 STAFF WILL PROVIDE AN UPDATE TO COUNCIL ON THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN PROCESS FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY’S NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT—INCLUDING THE PREFERRED CONCEPT RECOMMENDED BY THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS—IN ADVANCE OF COUNCIL CONSIDERATIONS OF THE CONCEPT City Manager Rodriguez provided a summary on the agenda and turned the first item over to Engineer Hardegger. Engineer Hardegger provided a brief overview of the Nicollet Avenue project. He discussed the different engagement phases that they went through in the process. He described the planned design features. The road will have one-way separate bike paths and compact roundabouts. Another feature he highlighted is the raised pedestrian crosswalks. Council Member Christensen asked how the medians will affect driveway access on Nicollet Avenue. Engineer Hardegger noted that the engineers are doing their best to minimize the effects on those homes and the medians will affect nine total driveways. He also noted that emergency services do not see any problems with the design plans. He provided a summary of the budget considerations and listed the City-only costs as well as the costs split between the County and City. He noted that in this case, roundabouts are cheaper than signal installation. City Council Work Session Minutes -2- September 24, 2024 Mayor Supple asked where they are planning on making up the extra $4.1 million. City Manager Rodriguez commented on possible areas of cost savings that could make up that money. Engineer Powers explained that they presented to the Council the budget numbers that they have just received and are asking them for feedback on where they may need to cut numbers. Council Member Hayford Oleary stated that they may want to cut back on the RRFB’s. He explained that they may not be as necessary as other design features. Council Member Christensen asked if there is a timeline for when the project starts and stops. She also asked if there will be cost jumps over the two years of production. Engineer Powers shared that there is a certain order that they will need to follow. They will typically do all underground work first then build the roadway on top. He noted that there is a 25% contingency added to the budget number to account for possible cost increases. Council Member Whalen felt there was no way they will be able to cut the budget down to $10 million without leaving out certain things residents have asked for. He asked where the nine signals were located, noting some places where the signals may not be as necessary. Engineer Hardegger discussed additional items brought up by Council. Council Member Hayford Oleary discussed the need for slip ramps at side street intersections on Nicollet Avenue. Council Member Whalen shared his general support for this item. He asked if it could be designed in a way where cars would not park directly on the path. Engineer Powers asked if Council has a general consensus to look on the utility side for cost savings, or if there were any other roadway items they would like to look for cost savings in. Council Member Hayford Oleary discussed the 7600 block parking item. He noted that though this would be nice to have, he is not sure if it is worth it for an extra $100,000. Council Member Whalen agreed that this item should be let go. City Manager Rodriguez reported that she heard consensus that Council is comfortable with the current preferred concept with the addition of the slip ramp. They will also continue to look for cuts on the utilities. ITEM #2 DISCUSS A PROPOSAL REGARDING A SMALL COFFEE SHOP WITH DRIVE-THRU SERVICE AT MARKET PLAZA Community Development Director Poehlman provided a brief summary of the next agenda item. She turned the discussion over to David Gebers, owner of Market Plaza. Mr. Gebers gave a summary of the different spaces at the Market Plaza. He noted that after speaking to staff regarding this item, they have adjusted the design to better fit the building. He provided a description of the building details and design and displayed photos of the proposed plan and building examples. City Council Work Session Minutes -3- September 24, 2024 Stephanie Meyer gave greater detail regarding the indoor plan of the proposed building. Council Member Trautmann asked if there was a walk-up window or just a drive-thru. Gebers noted that this plan does not have a walk-up window, just an indoor and drive-thru. Council Member Hayford Oleary shared his concern about adding a building with a drive-thru so close to other businesses with a drive-thru. He noted that he would not support this plan with the drive-thru but would like to see a plan proposed without the drive-thru. Mr. Gebers explained that there is no disrespect intended for the City of Richfield, they are just here to obtain feedback from Council. He noted that he has been in discussion with Starbucks to have a building plan with no drive-thru and has been unsuccessful. Commissioner Stursa noted that she is excited about this idea but is not in support of the drive-thru and feels that it would disrespect the area. Commissioner Kennealy asked what it would be like for residents to walk to this location. Mr. Gebers provided a description of how residents would enter and displayed an aerial view of the site. Council Member Christensen shared her concern for the disruption that a drive-thru would cause in this area. She noted that without the drive-thru, this would be a great plan. Commissioner Hollman noted that with the drive-thru, she does not see this getting approved. Council Member Trautmann noted that multi-tenancy may be the only way he sees this being approved. Council Member Hayford Oleary discussed that when they allow one business to have a drive-thru, others try to follow. He noted that he would like to restrict drive-thrus in the downtown area. Mayor Supple shared agreement that a drive-thru is not what is needed in this area. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Supple adjourned the work session at 6:53 pm. Date Approved: October 8, 2024 Mary B. Supple Mayor Michelle Friedrich Katie Rodriguez City Clerk City Manager 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; and Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk. Others Present: Mara Glubka, Human Rights Commissioner 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 Heidi Gabor, 6915 Wentworth, brought up concerns regarding the lack of maintenance of the park systems in the City. She also discussed the lack of maintenance of City buildings. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Christensen, S/Trautmann to approve the minutes of the: (1) Special City Council Work Session of August 28, 2024; (2) City Council Work Session of September 10, 2024; and (3) City Council Meeting of September 10, 2024. Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #1 APPROVAL OF AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Regular Council Meeting September 24, 2024 CALL TO ORDER City Council Meeting Minutes -2- September 24, 2024 M/Whalen, S/Christensen to approve the agenda. Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #2 RICHFIELD BEACONS YOUTH RESEARCHERS Richfield Beacons Youth Researchers’ representatives introduced themselves to the Council. They presented details on who they are and what they are doing and explained they would like to create a positive change for youth in Richfield. They discussed barriers that youth face when trying to get involved in the community. Mayor Supple asked for more details on the letters in the park idea. The youth representative shared that the idea is to put letters and bracelets of encouragement throughout the park for others to find. Council Member Hayford Oleary asked what was meant by needing sign improvement. The youth representative noted that in some parks, there are signs that suggest the park is only for young children, and they would like to see signs that show the park can be for all ages. Council Member Trautmann thanked and applauded the group for their hard work and research. Council Member Whalen asked if they have an ongoing conversation with the Parks and Rec Department to follow through on some of these things. The youth representative noted that at first, it was an ongoing thing, but they would like to continue to meet with them to discuss other problems in the community. Council Member Whalen asked how interested they would be in helping plan some of the bigger events in the City. The youth representatives shared that they would love to be involved in the planning processes. ITEM #3 PROCLAMATION LGBTQ+ HISTORY MONTH Mayor Supple read aloud the proclamation and invited Commissioner Glubka to accept it. Commissioner Glubka thanked Mayor Supple for the proclamation and discussed some history on the topic. Council Member Whalen encouraged people to get out and vote. ITEM #4 CONSENT CALENDAR City Manager Rodriguez presented the consent calendar. City Council Meeting Minutes -3- September 24, 2024 A. Consider a resolution supporting the Richfield Economic Development Authority's application to the Hennepin County Business District Initiative Program. (Staff Report No. 126) RESOLUTION NO. 12245 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE RICHFIELD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY’S APPLICATION FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY BUSINESS DISTRICT INITIATIVE PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS B. Consider the approval of an agreement with the City of Bloomington for the provision of food, pools, lodging, therapeutic massage and body art establishment inspection services for the City of Richfield for 2025. (Staff Report No. 127) C. Consider approval of the 2024-2025 Emergency Preparedness agreement with the City of Bloomington, using public health emergency preparedness grant funds distributed by a federal grant from the Centers for Disease Control, to provide services in the area of public health emergency preparedness/bio-terrorism and the development of a response system. (Staff Report No. 128) D. Consider a resolution endorsing the constitutional amendment to reauthorize the dedication of state lottery proceeds to the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund (ENRTF). (Staff Report No. 129) RESOLUTION NO. 12246 RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REAUTHORIZE THE DEDICATION OF STATE LOTTERY PROCEEDS TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES TRUST FUND E. Consider a resolution accepting a grant from Great River Greening in the amount of $105,100 to provide habitat restoration services at Wood Lake Nature Center. (Staff Report No. 130) RESOLUTION NO. 12247 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A GRANT FROM GREAT RIVER GREENING FOR WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER, IN THE AMOUNT OF $105,100, FOR HABITAT RESTORATION WORK AT WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER F. Consider a resolution appointing election judges for the General Election on November 5, 2024. (Staff Report No. 131) RESOLUTION NO. 12248 RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES AND AN ABSENTEE BALLOT BOARD FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION BEING HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2024 M/Whalen, S/Hayford Oleary to approve the consent calendar. Council Member Hayford Oleary shared his excitement for the grant they are pursuing as a part of item one. Mayor Supple thanked everyone who has volunteered to be an election judge. Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #5 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR City Council Meeting Minutes -4- September 24, 2024 None. ITEM #6 CONSIDER THE SECOND READING AND HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE APPENDIX (FEE SCHEDULE) RELATED TO BUILDING, PLANNING, AND ZONING FEES. (STAFF REPORT NO. 132) Council Member Whalen presented Staff Report 132 and opened the public hearing. M/Whalen, S/Trautmann to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 5-0 M/Whalen, S/Hayford Oleary to approve the second reading of an ordinance amendment to the Richfield City code appendix (fee schedule) related to building, planning, and zoning fees and approve a resolution authorizing summary publication of said ordinance. BILL NO. 2024-09 TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 19-40 Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #7 CITY MANAGER’S REPORT City Manager Rodriguez shared information regarding the residents that discussed issues as a part of public comment during the previous meeting. She mentioned that early voting has started. ITEM #8 CLAIMS AND PAYROLL M/Trautmann, S/Whalen that the following claims and payrolls be approved: U.S. BANK 09/19/2024 A/P Checks: 331371 - 331654 $1,558,045.38 Payroll: 190861 – 191244 44024 – 44028 $999,312.76 TOTAL $2,557,358.14 Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #9 HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS Council Member Trautmann gave a hats off to the high schoolers that are involved in the Beacons Youth Researchers. He thanked all of those who were involved with Penn Fest. He also gave hats off to the many election judges. Council Member Hayford Oleary thanked all of those involved in Penn Fest City Council Meeting Minutes -5- September 24, 2024 Council Member Christensen reminded residents that the Richfield Farmers Market is still in session every Saturday. Council Member Whalen mentioned early voting. He thanked everyone who attended Penn Fest and all of those who helped. Mayor Supple gave hats off to the Richfield League of Women Voters who have been providing more education on the election and answering resident questions. ITEM #10 ADJOURNMENT M/Trautmann, S/Whalen to adjourn the meeting at 7:44 p.m. Motion carried: 5-0 Date Approved: October 8, 2024 Mary B. Supple Mayor Michelle Friedrich Katie Rodriguez City Clerk City Manager Proclamation of the City of Richfield WHEREAS, Indigenous Peoples’ Day is a celebration of the cultures, lands and languages of Indigenous Peoples throughout the land in which the United States is built on; and WHEREAS, The Dakota and Anishinaabe People have lived on the ancestral lands of Minnesota for thousands of years, including the land of the city of Richfield; and WHEREAS, Indigenous Peoples have served courageously throughout our history in all aspects of our society and deserve to be recognized and respected for all their contributions; and WHEREAS, Minnesota is home to countless Indigenous leaders including Winona LaDuke, Louise Erdrich and Clyde Bellecourt; and WHEREAS, Mary Kunesh is the first Indigenous Minnesota State Senator; and WHEREAS, the state of Minnesota is honored to have Peggy Flanagan serve as our Lieutenant Governor, representing White Earth Nation; and WHEREAS, the city of Richfield confirms its commitment to supporting, uplifting and honoring Indigenous Peoples to ensure a better future for all members of our community. Now, THEREFORE, I, Mary Supple, mayor of Richfield, on behalf of the Richfield City Council, do hereby proclaim October 14th, 2024 as Indigenous Peoples’ Day in Richfield, and call on the people of Richfield to observe this period with appropriate programs, activities and ceremonies, and continue to honor the contributions of Indigenous Native Americans throughout the year. PROCLAIMED this 8th day of October, 2024. Mary B. Supple, Mayor AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #3.A. STAFF REPORT NO. 134 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/8/2024 REPORT PREPARED BY:Mattias Oddsson, Water Resources Engineer DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Kristin Asher, Public Works Director 9/30/2024 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 10/2/2024 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider the first reading of an ordinance amending City Code Section 427—Wetland Protection—to add new buffer requirements compliant with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCW D) Wetland Protection Rule and clarify the decision-making and appeals process for Wetland Conservation Act decisions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In April of 2024, the MCWD adopted new rules applicable to wetland protection. The proposed revisions align City ordinances with new District wetland buffer requirements. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the first reading of an ordinance amending City Code Section 427—Wetland Protection—to add new buffer requirements compliant with the MCWD Wetland Protection Rule and clarify the decision-making and appeals process for Wetland Conservation Act decisions. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT Per a 2009 Memorandum of Understanding, Richfield is responsible for enforcing erosion control, floodplain alteration, wetland protection, and stormwater management rules within its jurisdiction, and required to maintain municipal ordinances at least as protective as MCWD rules. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Establishing clearer written procedures for administering the Wetland Conservation Act contributes to operational excellence by ensuring a smooth permitting process. Ensuring compliance with all relevant federal, state, and local wetland regulations helps preserve Richfield's natural resources, supporting climate resilience and sustainable management of stormwater infrastructure. A clear procedure for appealing decisions at the local level will ensure equitable outcomes for all applicants. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): The City Charter requires a first and second reading of ordinances. A public hearing is not required unless a separate statute, charter provision or ordinance requires it. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: Approval of the first reading of the ordinance at this meeting will ensure that the ordinance is on track to become effective within the timeframe required by the MCWD. A second reading and summary publication of the ordinance has been tentatively scheduled for October 22, 2024. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: None F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The proposed ordinance has been reviewed by the City Attorney. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): None PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Wetland Protection Ordinance Ordinance BILL NO. 2024- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER IV OF THE RICHFIELD CODE OF ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO WETLAND PROTECTION THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Chapter IV, Section 427 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is amended as follows: 427.01. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to achieve the policies described in the City's surface water management plan relating to wetland management and full compliance with federal, state, and local wetlands laws. 427.023. Administration. The City will act as the Local Government Unit (LGU) for administration of the Wetland Conservation Act, Minnesota Statutes, sections 103G.221 through 103G.2372 (WCA), except for those areas of the City under the jurisdiction of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (NMCWD), where the NMCWD is the LGU. The City Council hereby delegates decision-making authority for exemption, no- loss, wetland boundary and type, replacement plan, and wetland banking determinations to the Water Resources Engineer, pursuant to Minn. R. 8420.0200, subp. 2(B) & (C). The procedure for appeals and public hearings at the local level is as described in subsection 427.0806. 427.035. Buffer. Watershed District Requirements. Subdivision 1. Persons draining, filling or dredging wetlands within the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District are required to meet the additional requirements set forth in the Wetland Protection Rule of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Within the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, no activity requiring a permit under the WCA or the Wetland Protection Rule of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will be permitted without providing for a buffer meeting the requirements of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Rules or City Code, Subsection 429.06. (Amended, Bill No. 2011-26) Subdivision 2. Within the boundaries of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, buffers shall conform to the requirements of the NMCWD Rules. 427.046. Wetland Buffer Requirements Subdivision 1. (a) Within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, required buffer width shall be based on the management class of the wetland established by the District’s Functional Assessment of Wetlands, as most recently updated. Alternatively, an applicant may determine management class by applying the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (current version). A Base Width is established and may be reduced on the basis of favorable slope or soil condition, but not below the Base Width Minimum, each as follows: Management Class Base Width Base Width Minimum Preserve 75 feet 67 feet Manage 1 40 feet 34 feet Manage 2 30 feet 24 feet Manage 3 20 feet 16 feet (b) An applicant is not obligated to acquire property or right-of-way to meet the applicable buffer width under this rule. (c) Buffer width at any point may be reduced to no less than 50 percent of Base Width, provided total buffer area is maintained and the applicant demonstrates that the buffer will provide wetland and habitat protection at least equivalent to a buffer of uniform Base Width. In calculating total buffer area, buffer wider than 200 percent of Base Width is not considered. (d) The City may accept a shortfall in total buffer area if the applicant demonstrates that proposed buffer conditions will provide function and value equal to or greater than that which a buffer of required area would provide. The demonstration is to be made using the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (current version) or other method approved by the District. (e) The buffer width for New Principal Residential Structures is 25 percent of the distance between the proposed structure at the point that it is nearest to the wetland and the wetland, or 25 feet, whichever is greater. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the required buffer will not exceed the Base Width or render a property unbuildable. 427.057. Wetland filling, draining and dredging regulations. The Wetland Conservation Act, as amended, and the rules implementing the Wetland Conservation Act as set forth in Minnesota Rules, chapter 8420, as amended, are incorporated as part of these regulations and shall govern draining, filling, and dredging in wetlands with the following additional requirements: Subdivision 1. Persons draining, filling or dredging wetlands within the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District are required to meet the additional requirements set fourth in the Wetland Protection Rule of the Minnehaha Watershed District. (Amended, Bill No. 2011-26) Subd. 2. (Repealed, Bill No. 2011-26) Subd. 3. (Repealed, Bill No. 2011-26) Subd. 4. (Repealed, Bill No. 2011-26) 427.068. Appeal Process Subdivision 1. A WCA determination issued by the City is final unless appealed in writing within 30 days of the postmarked date of the mailing of a notice of decision. Subdivision 2. The parties eligible to appeal are the landowner, any of those required to receive notice of the decision, or 100 residents of the City. Subdivision 3. Appeals shall be submitted in writing to the Water Resources Engineer. Upon receipt of an appeal, a public hearing shall be held within 30 days. The City Council shall vote at the hearing to determine whether to accept the appeal or uphold the initial determination. Determinations made by the City Council are final unless appealed within 30 days after the postmarked date of the mailing or date of sending by electronic transmission to the Board of Water and Soil Resources, per Minn. Stat. § 103G.2242, subd. 9; Minn. R. 8420.0905, subp. 3. Sec. 2. This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield on this 22nd day of October, 2024. Mary B. Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #3.B. STAFF REPORT NO. 135 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/8/2024 REPORT PREPARED BY:Jennifer Anderson, Support Services Manager DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Jay Henthorne, Director of Public Safety/Chief of Police 9/26/2024 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 10/2/2024 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider approval for a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for the Blessed Trinity Catholic School, located at St. Richard's Catholic Church, 7540 Penn Avenue South, for their Annual Gala taking place December 7, 2024. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On September 16, 2024, the City received application materials for a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for the Blessed Trinity Catholic School, located at St. Richard's Catholic Church, 7540 Penn Avenue South, for their Annual Gala taking place December 7, 2024. They will serve intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturday, December 7, 2024, only. They will provide a dinner. The Blessed Trinity Catholic School has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure proper food handling practices are followed. The Director of Public Safety has reviewed all required information and documents and has found no basis for denial. The City Council has previously granted this license in conjunction with this event. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve issuance of a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for the Blessed Trinity Catholic School, located at St. Richard's Catholic Church, 7540 Penn Avenue South for their Annual Gala taking place December 7, 2024. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for the issuance of this license: The required licensing fee has been paid. Proof of liquor liability insurance has been provided showing the Catholic Mutual Relief Society of America affording the coverage. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS This is routine licensing business for the City. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): Richfield City Code Section 1202.05 requires all applicants to comply with all of the provisions of this code, as well as the provisions of Minnesota Statute Chapter 340A. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: There are no timing issues. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: The required licensing fees have been received. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: There are no legal considerations. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): The Council could deny the approval of the Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for the Blessed Trinity Catholic School. This would mean the applicant would not be able to serve intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 percent malt liquor; however, Public Safety has not found any basis for denial. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: Blessed Trinity Catholic staff has been notified of the date of this meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Blessed Trinity Temp Liquor - Dec 7, 2024 Cover Memo AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #3.C. STAFF REPORT NO. 136 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/8/2024 REPORT PREPARED BY:Mattias Oddsson, Water Resources Engineer DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Kristin Asher, Public Works Director 10/1/2024 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 10/2/2024 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider the first reading of an ordinance amending City Code sections 428, 429 and 620 pertaining to erosion and sedimentation control, water resource management and well drilling. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff have conducted a review of several water resource related ordinances to evaluate the need for updates. The proposed changes include updating external references, allowing the City Engineer and Public Works Director to delegate administration of sections 428 and 429, removing a redundant section in 429.07, incorporating the provisions of the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) permit, and replacing section 620 in its entirety with a reference to the appropriate state regulations. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the first reading of an ordinance amending City Code sections 428, 429 and 620 pertaining to erosion and sedimentation control, water resource management and well drilling. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT The erosion control and water resource management ordinances were last updated in 2015. Since that time there have been numerous changes in the regulatory landscape, including new MS4 and Construction Stormwater general permits. While other components of Richfield's regulatory mechanism have been updated to comply with state requirements, ordinance updates will improve this alignment. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Strategic Outcome: The proposed ordinance revisions contribute to operational excellence by providing clearer administrative procedures, improving alignment with state regulations, and removing obsolete processes. Equity: n/a C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): The City Charter requires a first and second reading of ordinances. A public hearing is not required unless a separate statute, charter provision or ordinance requires it. The revised section 620 includes a corrected reference to the appropriate state statutes and rules governing wells - Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103I, and Minnesota Administrative Rules Chapter 4725. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: A second reading and summary publication of the ordinance has been tentatively scheduled for October 22, 2024. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: None F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The proposed ordinance amendments have been reviewed by the City Attorney and they will be available to answer questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): None PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Ordinance Ordinance BILL NO. 2024- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS IV - VI OF THE RICHFIELD CODE OF ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL, WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND WELL DRILLING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Chapter IV, sub-section 428.03 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is amended as follows: 428.03. - Administration. The City Council hereby designates the City Engineer or their designee as the Administrator of this Section. Erosion control plans shall be reviewed and approved under the existing building permit process. Applications for a permit shall include information required by this Code. Applications for a permit shall also meet the requirements of the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization (RBWMO), and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) or the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (NMCWD), as applicable. A fee in addition to the building permit fee is required for erosion control plan review and inspections as provided in Appendix D—License, Permit and Miscellaneous Fees. Section 2. Chapter IV, Sub-section 428.05 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is re-numbered and amended as follows: 428.045. - Performance standards for erosion and sedimentation control. The design, testing, installation, and maintenance of erosion and sediment control operations and facilities shall adhere to the standards and specifications contained in the latest version of the Minnesota Stormwater Manual, dated 2014, as may be amended. Erosion control plans shall also adhere to the City's Engineering Design Standards for erosion and sediment control. Section 3. Chapter IV, sub-section 428.09 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is amended to remove an apparent typographical error or extraneous language “(;lt;)” as follows: 428.09. General Exemptions. Subdivision 1. The following land disturbing activities that meet all of the requirements of this subdivision are exempt from this Section. The disturbed or fill area is less than (;lt;) 5,000 square feet in area; and: a. The volume of soil or earth material stored or moved is 50 cubic yards or less; and b. Impervious surface of less than 10,000 square feet is created; and c. No drainageway is blocked or has its stormwater carrying capacities or characteristics modified; and d. The activity does not take place within 100 feet by horizontal measurement from the top of the bank of the watercourse, the ordinary high water mark of the water body, or the ordinary high water mark of a wetland associated with a watercourse or water body. Subd. 2. Agricultural lands, including gardens, used mainly for the production of food, general farming, nurseries, etc. are exempt from this regulation. Section 4. Chapter IV, sub-section 429.02 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is amended as follows: 429.02. Incorporation by reference. The City's Engineering Design Standards are incorporated into this Section by reference. The standards shall serve as the official guide for stormwater principles, methods, and practices for proposed development activities. The City's Engineering Design Standards are incorporated into this Section by reference. The City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Phase II General Permit (MS4 General Permit) is incorporated into this sub-section by reference. Nothing in this section or this code shall be interpreted as to limit or abrogate the provisions of the City’s MS4 General Permit or other applicable federal or state regulation. Section 5. Chapter IV, sub-section 429.03 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is amended as follows: 429.03. - Definitions. Subdivision 1. For purposes of this Section, the following terms have the meanings set forth below. Subd. 2. (a) Best Management Practices (BMPs). The BMPs identified in the SWPPP and this permit must be selected, installed, and maintained in an appropriate and functional manner that is in accordance with relevant manufacturer specifications and accepted engineering practices. means practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of bodies of water, including schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, and other management practices, and also includes treatment requirements, operating procedures, and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge, or waste disposal or drainage from raw material storage. (b) Storm Events (e.g. one-,two-,ten-, and 100-year) refers to the Atlas 14 precipitation frequency estimates described by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Section 6. Chapter IV, sub-section 429.05 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is amended as follows: 429.05. - Stormwater Management for Land Altering Activities. Subdivision 1. Administration. The City Council hereby designates the Director of Public Works or their designee as the administrator of this Section. Subd. 2. Application. Stormwater management plans shall be reviewed and approved under the existing building permit review process. The applicant must include the requirements of this Section in the plans submitted as part of the building permit review. Subd. 3. Stormwater Management Regulations. Residential development projects with land disturbing activities of one acre or greater, or any commercial, industrial, institutional or mixed-use development with land disturbing activities of ½ acre or greater shall submit a stormwater management plan that meets the criteria of the City's Engineering Design Standards to the City prior to construction. (a) For projects that exceed these thresholds, stormwater Stormwater runoff discharge rates may not exceed the existing conditions for the one-, two-, ten-, and 100-year storm events. If the increase in imperviousness is 50 percent or greater, the discharge rate requirements must be based on pre- development conditions. (b) Stormwater runoff to a landlocked area that cannot handle the increased runoff must maintain runoff volumes to the existing conditions. (c) Stormwater ponds must have a ten-foot, 10:1 bench, two (2) feet of freeboard, and must be designed to remove floatables floating debris from a one-year event. (d) For projects with total land disturbance less than one acre, sidewalks Sidewalks and trails that do not exceed ten (10) feet in width and are bordered by a pervious buffer of at least five (5) feet on each side are not included in may be excluded from calculations for net increase in impervious surface with the approval of the City Engineer. (e) For projects with total land disturbance less than one acre, water Water quality and quantity provision requirements may be waived by the administrator if a downstream facility is in place or will be constructed and the facility is designed to accommodate the stormwater runoff from the project. Projects with total land disturbance greater than one acre must adhere to the off-site treatment sequencing described in the MS4 General permit, wherein onsite treatment must be considered first. (f) For projects with total land disturbance less than one acre, the The requirements of this Section may be waived by the administrator or the City Engineer if it is determined that meeting the requirements of this Subsection on site is not feasible. Subd. 4. Performance criteria for stormwater management. Unless determined by the City to be exempt or granted a waiver, all site designs shall establish Stormwater Management Practices to control the peak flow rates and pollutants of stormwater discharge associated with specified design storms and runoff volumes, as detailed in the City's Engineering Design Standards. Subd. 5. Stormwater Management Regulations in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ("MCWD"). In the area of the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, no one may create new or replace existing pervious surface or change the contours of a parcel of land in a way that affects the direction, peak rate, volume, or water quality of runoff flows from the parcel or subdivide a parcel of one (1) acre or more in size into three (3) or more lots without first submitting a stormwater management plan to the City Director of Public Works and securing a permit from the City approving the plan. (a) New development, redevelopment, subdivision of land and linear transportation projects must comply with applicable requirements of the MCWD Stormwater Management Rule. (b) Activities that are exempt from the MCWD Stormwater Management Rule are exempt from this Section. (c) An applicant must meet the requirements of, and provide a stormwater management plan that includes all information required by, the MCWD Stormwater Management Rule unless otherwise directed by the Director of Public Works. Subd. 6. Financial assurance. The City may require a performance bond, letter of credit or other financial assurance for any project that requires installation of stormwater best management practices. The financial assurance shall be maintained until the stormwater best management practice has been constructed and stabilized. Subd. 7. Compliance with plan and maintenance of facilities. (a) Projects shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the approved stormwater management plan, the City's Engineering Design Standards and any conditions imposed by the City. (b) All stormwater management structures and facilities must be designed for maintenance access and properly maintained in perpetuity to assure that they continue to function as designed. (c) The Responsible Party shall enter into a Maintenance Agreement with the City that documents all responsibilities for operation and maintenance of all permanent storm water management facilities. Such responsibility shall be documented in a maintenance plan and executed through a Maintenance Agreement. The Maintenance Agreement shall be executed and recorded against the parcel. The stormwater Maintenance Agreement shall be in a form approved by the City and shall describe the inspection and maintenance obligations of this Section and shall, at a minimum: (1) Designate the Responsible Party who is permanently responsible for maintenance of the structural and nonstructural measures. (2) Pass responsibilities for such maintenance to successors in title. (3) Allow the City and its representatives the right-of-entry for the purposes of inspecting all permanent storm water management facilities. (4) Allow the City the right to maintain the facility if necessary maintenance is not performed within 60 calendar days after a written notice has been sent to the responsible party of the permanent storm water management facility. (5) Include a maintenance plan that contains, but is not limited to the following: (a) Identification of all structural permanent storm water facilities. (b) A schedule for regular inspection, monitoring, and maintenance of each practice. Monitoring shall verify whether the practice is functioning as designed and may include, but is not limited to quality, temperature, and quantity of runoff. (c) Identification of the Responsible Party for conducting the inspection, monitoring and maintenance for each practice. (d) Include a schedule and format for reporting compliance with the maintenance agreement to the City. (d) The issuance of a permit constitutes a right-of-entry for the City or its contractor to enter upon the construction site. The applicant shall allow the City and its authorized representatives, upon presentation of credentials, to: (1) Enter upon the permitted site for the purpose of obtaining information, examination of records, conducting investigations or surveys. (2) Bring such equipment upon the permitted development as is necessary to conduct such surveys and investigations. (3) Examine and copy any books, papers, records, or memoranda pertaining to activities or records required to be kept under the terms and conditions of the permit. (4) Inspect the stormwater pollution control measures. (5) Sample and monitor any items or activities pertaining to stormwater pollution control measures. (6) Correct deficiencies in stormwater and erosion and sediment control measures. Subd. 8. Inspection of Storm Water Management Facilities. (a) Inspection programs shall be established on any reasonable basis, including but not limited to: routine inspections; random inspections; inspections based upon complaints or other notice of possible violations; inspection of drainage basins or areas identified as higher than typical sources of sediment or other contaminants or pollutants; inspections of businesses or industries of a type associated with higher than usual discharges of contaminants or pollutants or with discharges of a type which are more likely than the typical discharge to cause violations of state or federal water or sediment quality standards or the NPDES permit; and joint inspections with other agencies inspecting under environmental or safety laws. Inspections may include, but are not limited to, reviewing maintenance and repair records; sampling discharges, surface water, groundwater, and material or water in drainage control facilities; and evaluating the condition of drainage control facilities and other storm water management practices. (1) When any new storm water management facility is installed on private property, or when any new connection is made between private property and a public drainage control system, sanitary sewer, or combined sewer; the property owner shall grant to the City the right to enter the property at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner for the purpose of inspection. This includes the right to enter a property when the City has a reasonable basis to believe that a violation of this Section is occurring or has occurred, and to enter when necessary for abatement of a public nuisance or correction of a violation. (2) The Director of Public Works, or designated representative, shall inspect all storm water management facilities during construction, during the first year of operation, and at least once every five years thereafter or require inspections of structural stormwater BMPs (excluding stormwater ponds) once each calendar year unless either of the following conditions apply: complaints received or patterns of maintenance indicate a greater frequency is necessary, or maintenance or sediment removal is not required after completion of the first two calendar year inspections; in which case the frequency of inspections may be reduced to once every two (2) calendar years. Stormwater ponds shall be inspected at least once every five years, prior to the expiration of the most current MS4 general permit. The inspection records will be kept on file at the public works department for a period of 6 years. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain any necessary easements or other property interests to allow access to the storm water management facilities for inspection and maintenance purposes. (b) Records of Installation and Maintenance Activities. The Responsible Party shall make records of the installation and of all maintenance and repairs of the storm water management facilities, and shall retain the records for at least three (3) years. These records shall be made available to the City during inspection of the storm water management facilities and at other reasonable times upon request. (c) Failure to Maintain Practices. If a Responsible Party fails or refuses to meet the requirements of the Maintenance Agreement, the City, after reasonable notice, may correct a violation of the design standards or maintenance needs by performing all necessary work to place the storm water management facility in proper working condition. In the event that the storm water management facility becomes a danger to public safety or public health, the City shall notify the Responsible Party in writing. Upon receipt of that notice, the Responsible Party shall have thirty days to perform maintenance and repair of the facility in an approved manner. After proper notice, the City may specially assess the owner(s) of the storm water management facility for the cost to maintain the practice and any penalties; and the cost of the work shall be assessed against the property and collected along with ordinary taxes by the county. Subd. 9. Construction standards. The design and construction criteria for stormwater management plans outlined in the City's surface water management plan, the City's Engineering Design Standards, and the Minnesota Stormwater Manual, as amended, shall be utilized as the construction standards for these regulations. These criteria are on file in the City engineering office. Section 7. Chapter IV, sub-section 429.06 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is amended as follows: 429.06. - Penalties for Violation. Subdivision 1. Violation of the provisions of these regulations or failure to comply with any of its requirements shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by law. Subd. 2. Notice of Violation. When the City determines that an activity is not being carried out in accordance with the requirements of this Section, it shall issue a written notice of violation to the owner of the property. The notice of violation shall contain: (a) The name and address of the owner or Applicant, (b) The address when available or a description of the land upon which the violation is occurring, (c) A statement specifying the nature of the violation, (d) A description of the remedial measures necessary to bring the development activity into compliance with this Section and a time schedule for the completion of such remedial action, (e) At statement of the penalty or penalties that shall or may be assessed against the person to whom the notice of violation is directed, and (f) A statement that the determination of violation may be appealed to the City Engineer by filing a written notice of appeal within 15 days of services notice of violation. Subd. 3. Stop Work Order. Persons receiving a stop work order will be required to halt all construction activities immediately. This Stop Work Order will be in effect until the City confirms that the Land Disturbance Activity is in compliance and the violation has been satisfactorily addressed. Failure to address a notice of violation in a timely manner may result in civil, criminal, or monetary penalties in accordance with the enforcement measures authorized in this Section. Subd. 4. Civil or Criminal Penalties. In addition to or as an alternative to any penalty provided herein or by law, any person who violates the provisions of this Section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to prosecution. Such person shall be guilty of a separate offense for each day during which the violation occurs or continues. Subd. 5. Restoration of Lands and Water Bodies. Any violator may be required to restore land or water bodies damaged or degraded by noncompliance to its undisturbed condition. In the event that restoration is not undertaken within a reasonable time after notice, the City may take necessary corrective action, the cost of which may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, be specially assessed against the property and collected along with the ordinary taxes by the county. Subd. 6. Appeals. Any person aggrieved by the action of any official charged with the enforcement of this Section, as the result of the disapproval of a properly filed application for approval, issuance of a written notice of violation, or an alleged failure to properly enforce this Section in regard to a specific application, shall have the right to appeal the action to the City Engineer. (a) The Applicant shall submit the appeal in writing and include supporting documentation. (b) City staff shall make a decision on the appeal within 15 business days of receipt of a complete appeal application. (c) The Applicant may appeal the decision of city staff to the City Manager This appeal must be filed with the City Manager within 30 days of City staff's decision. Section 8. Chapter IV, sub-section 429.07 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 9. Chapter VI, Section 620 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances is repealed in its entirety and replaced with the following: 620.01. Regulation and maintenance of wells. Subdivision 1. License and regulation. No person may drill or seal a well or engage in the business of well drilling or sealing in the City without first obtaining a well contractor’s license or other applicable license from the Minnesota Department of Health and complying with the requirements of this section. 620.02. Application of State law. All well drilling and any use of water, either surface or underground in the City shall be subject to the regulation of the use of water by the State contained in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103I, Minnesota Administrative Rules Chapter 4725 and other applicable state law. Nothing contained in this section, or this code shall be interpreted as to limit or abrogate the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103I or other applicable law. Section 10. This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd Day of October, 2024. Mary B. Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #3.D. STAFF REPORT NO. 137 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/8/2024 REPORT PREPARED BY:Jay Henthorne, Director of Public Safety/Chief of Police DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Jay Henthorne, Director of Public Safety/Chief of Police 9/26/2024 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 10/2/2024 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider the adoption of a resolution authorizing acceptance of Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) funds for an extension on an original four-year grant to fully fund an officer dedicated to DW I enforcement in Richfield. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is providing federal funding to the OTS to implement a program to support one full time officer solely for DWI enforcement. Eight counties, including Hennepin, were chosen to receive grant funding. The grant is administered through the OTS. The grant was guaranteed for four years (2015-2019). However, the grant has been written for an additional federal fiscal year at a time for 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and now 2025. The City of Richfield has received an additional extension and has been awarded $141,643.10 for 2025. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Adopt a resolution allowing the Richfield Department of Public Safety to accept a grant from the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) for an extension on an original four-year grant to fully fund an officer dedicated for DWI enforcement in Richfield. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT The average number of DWI arrests per year in Richfield is 176. The goal is to increase that to 200 DWI arrests per year. In 2016, Richfield had 26 alcohol related crashes. In 2017, Richfield had 30 alcohol related crashes. In 2018, Richfield had 35 alcohol related crashes. In 2019, Richfield had 37 alcohol related crashes. In 2020, Richfield had 32 alcohol related crashes. In 2021, Richfield had 42 alcohol related crashes. In 2022, Richfield had 40 alcohol related crashes. In 2023, Richfield had 32 alcohol related crashes. From 01/01/2024-09/23/2024 Richfield had 35 alcohol related crashes Minnesota Motor Vehicle Crash Facts data show that the hours between 5:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. as having the highest concentration of alcohol related crashes. The DWI officer's work shift will be from 5:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. with a minimum of two Fridays and two Saturdays per month to be a required part of the DWI officer's schedule. Statistics will be checked daily, including but not limited to: speed tickets, seat belt tickets, texting tickets, "Not a Drop" tickets and warnings associated with these statistics. Proactive criminal interdiction patrol would also be implemented. The City of Richfield has been approved to receive $127,644.26 from the DWI Officer grant for 2024. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): Public Safety does not accept financial support unless it is designated for a specific program that will affect the department as a whole. The grant money will be used by Public Safety to pay for one full-time police officer salary; including overtime and/or training. Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires that every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the City Council. The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on November 9, 2004, requiring that all grants and restricted donations to departments be received by resolution and by a two-thirds majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute 465.03. This is a routine request with no strategic outcome considerations. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The total length of the grant was for four years, however, grants will be written for one federal fiscal year at a time and the City of Richfield has received an extension on an original four-year grant to fully fund an officer. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: Federal guidelines require this money be spent on projects designed to reduce DWI incidents. Both the officer and majority of the equipment funded by the grant can only be used for the enforcement of laws prohibiting driving while impaired. If the DWI officer responds to, or is called to an incident for something other than an alcohol- related driving offense, the time spent on non-DWI related enforcement exceeding 15 successive minutes must be paid for by the agency. The vehicle will be assigned to and driven solely by the DWI officer. The Richfield Department of Public Safety has developed a work plan and budget that have been approved by the OTS. The grant will cover one full-time sworn officer, and fringe benefits are covered by the grant. The Richfield Department of Public Safety has funds budgeted for items not covered by the grant. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: There are no legal considerations. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): Council could not approve the acceptance of the grant but the Richfield Department of Public Safety would then not be able to dedicate an officer to DWI enforcement. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Certification Regarding Lobbying Backup Material Agreement Contract/Agreement Resolution Resolution Letter CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING (For State of Minnesota Contracts and Grants over $100,000) The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief that: (1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. (2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, A Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities”, in accordance with its instructions. (3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all sub-awards at all tiers (including subcontracts, sub-grants, and contracts under grants, loans and cooperative agreements) and that all sub-recipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31 U.S.Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. __________________________________________ Organization Name __________________________________________ Name and Title of Official Signing for Organization By:_______________________________________ Signature of Official _____________________________________ Date Grant Contract Agreement Page 1 of 3 DPS Grant Contract Agreement Non-State (rev. September 2022) Minnesota Department of Public Safety (“State”) Office of Traffic Safety 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1620 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Grant Program: 2025 NHTSA: DWI / Traffic Safety Officer Grant Contract Agreement No.: A-OFFICR25-2025-RICHFPD-011 Grantee: Richfield Police Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423-2560 Grant Contract Agreement Term: Effective Date: 10/01/2024 Expiration Date: 09/30/2025 Grantee’s Authorized Representative: Sergeant Matthew Steen 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423-2560 (612)861-9800 msteen@richfieldmn.gov Grant Contract Agreement Amount: Original Agreement $141,643.10 Matching Requirement $ 0.00 State’s Authorized Representative: Duane Siedschlag, Impaired Driving Program Coordinator 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1620 Saint Paul, MN 55101 (651)221-7078 Duane.siedschlag@state.mn.us Federal Funding: CFDA/ALN: 20.608 & 20.608 & 20.600 FAIN: 69A37523300001640MNA & 69A37523300001640MNA & 69A37523300004020MNO State Funding: N/A Special Conditions: None Under Minn. Stat. § 299A.01, Subd 2 (4) the State is empowered to enter into this grant contract agreement. Term: The creation and validity of this grant contract agreement conforms with Minn. Stat. § 16B.98 Subdivision 5. Effective date is the date shown above or the date the State obtains all required signatures under Minn. Stat. § 16B.98, Subdivision 7, whichever is later. Once this grant contract agreement is fully executed, the Grantee may claim reimbursement for expenditures incurred pursuant to the Payment clause of this grant contract agreement. Reimbursements will only be made for those expenditures made according to the terms of this grant contract agreement. Expiration date is the date shown above or until all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. The Grantee, who is not a state employee, will: Perform and accomplish such purposes and activities as specified herein and in the Grantee’s approved 2025 NHTSA: DWI / Traffic Safety Officer Application [“Application”] which is incorporated by reference into this grant contract agreement and on file with the State at 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 620, Saint Paul, MN 55101. The Grantee shall also comply with all requirements referenced in the 2025 NHTSA: DWI / Traffic Safety Officer Guidelines and Application which includes the Terms and Conditions and Grant Program Guidelines (https://app.dps.mn.gov/EGrants), which are incorporated by reference into this grant contract agreement. Budget Revisions: The breakdown of costs of the Grantee’s Budget is contained in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated into this grant contract agreement. As stated in the Grantee’s Application and Grant Program Guidelines, the Grantee will submit a written change request for any substitution of budget items or any deviation and in accordance with the Grant Program Guidelines. Requests must be approved prior to any expenditure by the Grantee. Grant Contract Agreement Page 2 of 3 DPS Grant Contract Agreement Non-State (rev. September 2022) Matching Requirements: (If applicable.) As stated in the Grantee’s Application, the Grantee certifies that the matching requirement will be met by the Grantee. Payment: As stated in the Grantee’s Application and Grant Program Guidance, the State will promptly pay the Grantee after the Grantee presents an invoice for the services actually performed and the State's Authorized Representative accepts the invoiced services and in accordance with the Grant Program Guidelines. Payment will not be made if the Grantee has not satisfied reporting requirements. Certification Regarding Lobbying: (If applicable.) Grantees receiving federal funds over $100,000.00 must complete and return the Certification Regarding Lobbying form provided by the State to the Grantee. 1. ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION 3. STATE AGENCY Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered as required by Minn. Stat. § 16A.15. Signed: _____________________________________________ (with delegated authority) Signed: _____________________________________________ Title: ______________________________________________ Date: _______________________________________________ Date: ______________________________________________ Grant Contract Agreement No./ P.O. No. A-OFFICR25-2025-RICHFPD-011/ 3000098181 Project No.25-03-03 2. GRANTEE The Grantee certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the grant contract agreement on behalf of the Grantee as required by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions, or ordinances. Signed: _____________________________________________ Print Name: __________________________________________ Title: _______________________________________________ Date: _______________________________________________ Signed: ______________________________________________ Print Name: __________________________________________ Title: ________________________________________________ Date: ________________________________________________ Signed: ______________________________________________ Print Name: __________________________________________ Distribution: DPS/FAS Title: ________________________________________________ Grantee State’s Authorized Representative Date: ________________________________________________ Grant Contract Agreement Page 3 of 3 DPS Grant Contract Agreement Non-State (rev. September 2022) 2025 DWI / Traffic Safety Officer Revised - EXHIBIT A Organization: Richfield Police Department A-OFFICR25-2025-RICHFPD-011 Budget Summary Budget Budget Category State Reimbursement Local Match DWI TSO Salary & Fringe Salary and fringe $141,643.10 $0.00 Total $141,643.10 $0.00 Operating Expense operating expense vehicle mileage $0.00 $0.00 Total $0.00 $0.00 TZD Conference Tzd conference $0.00 $0.00 Total $0.00 $0.00 Total $141,643.10 $0.00 Page 1 of 109/23/2024 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE TO ACCEPT GRANT MONIES FROM THE OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY IN THE AMOUNT OF $141,643.10 OR A LESSER AMOUNT, AS AWARDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, TO FUND A POLICE OFFICER DEDICATED TO DWI ENFORCEMENT. WHEREAS, Richfield Police Department has been approved by the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) to receive funds made available to eight Counties in the State of Minnesota through federal funding provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); and WHEREAS, Richfield is scheduled to be awarded $141,643.10 or a lesser amount as awarded by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety to be used as designated by the grant agreement which mandates that the funds be used to support one full time officer dedicated to DWI enforcement for an extension of the original term of four years; and, WHEREAS, Richfield has agreed that the Minnesota Department of Public Safety will serve as the fiscal agent; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with the agreement, squad operating costs per mile, maintenance, uniforms, weapons and time spent in excess of 15 minutes on non-DWI related calls will be covered by the Richfield Police Department; and, WHEREAS, Richfield Police has established an approved budget with the OTS for $127,644.26 or a lessor amount for the DWI enforcement program; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield, Public Safety Department enter into a grant agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, for traffic safety enforcement projects during the period from October 1, 2024 to September 30, 2025. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of October, 2024. Mary Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #3.E. STAFF REPORT NO. 138 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/8/2024 REPORT PREPARED BY:Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director/Chief of Police DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Jay Henthorne, Director of Public Safety/Chief of Police 9/30/2024 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 10/2/2024 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider the adoption of a resolution to accept a grant of $5,509.36 from the Office of Justice Programs for bullet proof vests. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The U.S Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, through their Bulletproof Vest Partnership/Body Armor Safety Initiative (BVP), created by the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998, is designed to provide a critical resource to state and local law enforcement. The Richfield Department of Public Safety has participated in this grant since 2003. This grant allows the department to continually replace bulletproof vests that are out of warranty coverage. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Adopt a resolution accepting the grant of $5,509.36 from the Office of Justice Programs for bullet proof vests. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT Since 1999, the BVP program has awarded more than 13,000 jurisdictions a total of $573 million for the purchase of over 1.5 million vests. BVP funds cover 50% of the cost of an individual vest. Since FY 2015, body armor vests were directly attributable to saving the lives of at least 305 law enforcement and corrections officers (based on data collected by OJP). Forty-three of those body armor vests were purchased, in part, with BVP funds. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires that every acceptance of a grant of devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the City Council. The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on November 9, 2004, requiring that all grants and restricted donations to departments be received by resolution and passed by more than two-thirds majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute 465.03. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The Bulletproof Vest Partnership requires that the vests are ordered on or after April 1, 2024. The deadline to request payments from the FY 2024 award funds is August 31, 2026, or until all available FY 2024 funds have been exhausted. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: The amount of the grant is $5,509.36. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: There are no legal considerations. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): Council could deny the resolution to accept the grant from the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs; however, the contributions would help defray the costs of replacing the bulletproof vests for the Department of Public Safety. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Resolution Resolution Letter RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GRANT WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS AND RICHFIELD POLICE FOR BULLETPROOF VESTS Since FY 2015, body armor vests were directly attributable to saving the lives of at least 305 law enforcement and corrections officers (based on data collected by OJP). Forty- three of those body armor vests were purchased, in part, with BVP funds. WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Justice is committed to improving officer safety and has undertaken research to review and analyze violent encounters and law enforcement officer deaths and injuries; and, WHEREAS, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) was created by the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998 and is a unique U.S. Department of Justice initiative designed to provide a critical resource to state and local law enforcement; and, WHEREAS, the Richfield Department of Public Safety has been informed that a grant has been awarded to the department by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs under their Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) program, for $5,509.36 for the purchase of ballistic vests; and, WHEREAS, the BVP grant is under the Fiscal Year 2024 BVP awards, allowing purchases beginning on or after April 1, 2024 until August 31, 2026, or until all available 2024 award funds have been requested. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that the Public Safety Department and the Deputy Director of Public Safety will enter into an agreement to receive grant money for Richfield’s bulletproof vest expenditures as outlined in the agreement. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of October 2024. ________________________ Mary Supple, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #3.F. STAFF REPORT NO. 139 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/8/2024 REPORT PREPARED BY:Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Kristin Asher, Public Works Director 10/1/2024 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 10/2/2024 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider adoption of a resolution accepting grant funds from the State of Minnesota to prepare a federal grant application and execute Agreement No. 1057886 with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for fund dispersal. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City of Richfield is seeking to utilize state funds earmarked for local government units to assist with the application process for grant programs funding by the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). This agreement with MnDOT would allow the City to access up to $30,000 in state funds to prepare a grant application for a capital project through the Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) grant program. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution accepting grant funds from the State of Minnesota to prepare a federal grant application and execute Agreement No. 1057886 with MnDOT for fund dispersal. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT In 2021, Congress passed the IIJA, committing approximately $1.2 Trillion to infrastructure programs through Fiscal Year 2026. One of the programs re-authorized as part of this legislation was the RAISE grant program. This program was granted $1.5 Billion annually, on top of already appropriated funds, to disperse via a competitive discretionary grant program. Staff evaluated three potential projects for application: 1. Reconstruction of 77th Street from Portland Ave to east of Bloomington Ave; 2. Reconstruction of Penn Avenue from 75th Street to Highway 62 (in coordination with Hennepin County); and 3. Reconstruction of the 73rd Street Pedestrian Bridge over I-35W. These projects were evaluated based on criteria of previous years' RAISE grant programs, which are expected to be largely similar in 2024, and determined that the 77th Street project had the highest likelihood of a successful application. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Strategic Considerations: A reconstruction project on 77th Street from Portland Ave to east of Bloomington Ave offers the City opportunities to create infrastructure that supports service needs while prioritizing climate resilience. Equity Considerations: The RAISE program scoring criteria prioritize projects that provide a benefit to communities that are transportation disadvantaged by the federal government's criteria. Applying for grant funds to complete a project in a historically disadvantaged part of the City provides an opportunity to lift up these communities. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): The concept submitted for consideration through the RAISE grant program will adhere to the City's Complete Streets Policy and Guiding Principles for Transportation Projects. The concept will also strive to realize goals laid out in the Bicycle Master Plan, Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, and Active Transportation Action Plan. Minnesota Statutes, section 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution by a two-thirds majority of the City Council. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The state has issued funding and encumbrance letters to the City, so work can begin and be eligible for reimbursement from the fund. However, the grant agreement must be executed prior to any funds being disbursed by the state. The application for RAISE is expected to open in late 2024, with a deadline in the first quarter of 2025. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: Total cost of the grant application is $41,850. The maximum allowable state grant award is $30,000 so the City share of the application cost will be $11,850, and the City will be responsible for any additional costs due to contract amendments with the consultant. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City Attorney has reviewed the grant agreement and will be available to answer any questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): None PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type MnDOT Agreement 1057886 Contract/Agreement Resolution for Agreement No 1057886 Resolution Letter MnDOT Agreement No. 1057886 SAP No. 157-589-001 1 CM State Aid Federal Transportation Grants Technical Assistance or IIJA Discretionary Grant Match Grant Agreement (Rev. Feb 2024) STATE OF MINNESOTA FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION GRANTS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND IIJA DISCRETIONARY MATCH GRANT AGREEMENT This agreement is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Transportation ("State"), and ("Grantee"): Public Entity (Grantee) name, address and contact person: City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave S Richfield, MN 55423 Contact: Joe Powers, City Engineer (612-861-9791, jpowers@richfieldmn.gov) RECITALS 1. General Funds were appropriated to provide grants for technical assistance to a requesting local unit of government or Tribal government that seeks to submit an application for a federal discretionary grant for a transportation-related purpose in Minnesota Laws 2023, Chapter 68, Article 1, Section 2, Subdivision 5(a). 2. General funds were appropriated to make state funded grants to a federal grant recipient in Minnesota Laws 2023, Chapter 68, Article 1, Section 2, Subdivision 5(a). 3. Grantee has been awarded Federal Transportation Grants Technical Assistance or IIJA Discretionary Grant Match funds in session law as noted above. 4. Grantee represents that it is duly qualified and agrees to perform all services described in this agreement to the satisfaction of the State. Pursuant to Minn.Stat.§16B.98, Subd.1, Grantee agrees to minimize administrative costs as a condition of this agreement. AGREEMENT TERMS 1 Term of Agreement, Survival of Terms, and Incorporation of Exhibits Effective Date. This agreement will be effective on the date the State obtains all required signatures under Minn. Stat.§16B.98, Subd. 5. As required by Minn.Stat.§16B.98 Subd. 7, no payments will be made to Grantee until this agreement is fully executed. Grantee must not begin work under this agreement until this agreement is fully executed and Grantee has been notified by the State’s Authorized Representative to begin the work. Expiration Date. This agreement will expire on December 31, 2027 or when all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. Survival of Terms. All clauses which impose obligations continuing in their nature and which must survive in order to give effect to their meaning will survive the expiration or termination of this agreement, including, without limitation, the following clauses: 8. Liability; 9. State Audits; 10. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property; 11. Workers Compensation; 12. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue; and 14. Data Disclosure. Exhibits. Exhibit A: Sources and Uses of Funds Schedule; Exhibit B: Grant Application; and Exhibit C: Grantee Resolution Approving Grant Agreement are attached and incorporated into this agreement. 2 Grantee’s Duties Grantee will conduct activities in accordance with its grant application, or in the case of legislatively selected projects, in accordance with the enabling session law, which is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit B. Grantee will comply with all required grants management policies and procedures set forth through Minn.Stat.§16B.97, Subd. 4 (a) (1). Asset Monitoring. If Grantee uses funds obtained by this agreement to acquire a capital asset, the Grantee is required to use that asset for a public purpose for the normal useful life of the asset. Grantee may not sell or change the purpose of use for the capital asset(s) obtained with grant funds under this agreement without the prior written consent of the State and an agreement executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved this agreement, or their successors in office. MnDOT Agreement No. 1057886 SAP No. 157-589-001 2 CM State Aid Federal Transportation Grants Technical Assistance or IIJA Discretionary Grant Match Grant Agreement (Rev. Feb 2024) 3 Time Grantee must comply with all the time requirements described in this agreement. In the performance of this grant agreement, time is of the essence. 4 Consideration and Payment Consideration. The State will pay for all services performed by Grantee under this agreement as follows: 4.1.1 Compensation. Grantee will be reimbursed for actual, incurred costs that are eligible under in Minnesota Laws 2023, Chapter 68, Article 1, Section 2, Subdivision 5(a). Grantee shall use this grant solely to reimburse itself for expenditures it has already made to pay for the costs of one or more of the activities listed under section 2.1. 4.1.2 Sources and Uses of Funds. Grantee represents to State that the Sources and Uses of Funds Schedule attached as Exhibit A accurately shows the total cost of the project and all of the funds that are available for the completion of the project. Grantee agrees that it will pay for any costs that are ineligible for reimbursement and for any amount by which the costs exceed State’s total obligation in section 4.1.3. Grantee will return to State any amount appropriated but not required. 4.1.3 Total Obligation. The total obligation of the State for all compensation and reimbursements to Grantee under this agreement will not exceed $30,000.00. Payment 4.2.1 Invoices. Grantee will submit state aid pay requests for reimbursements requested under this grant agreement. The State will promptly pay Grantee after Grantee presents an itemized invoice for the services actually performed and the State's Authorized Representative accepts the invoiced services. 4.2.2 All Invoices Subject to Audit. All invoices are subject to audit, at State’s discretion. 4.2.3 State’s Payment Requirements. State will promptly pay all valid obligations under this agreement as required by Minnesota Statutes §16A.124. State will make undisputed payments no later than 30 days after receiving Grantee’s invoices and progress reports for services performed. If an invoice is incorrect, defective or otherwise improper, State will notify Grantee within ten days of discovering the error. After State receives the corrected invoice, State will pay Grantee within 30 days of receipt of such invoice. 4.2.4 Grant Monitoring Visit and Financial Reconciliation. During the period of performance, the State will make at least annual monitoring visits and conduct annual financial reconciliations of Grantee’s expenditures. 4.2.4.1 The State’s Authorized Representative will notify Grantee’s Authorized Representative where and when any monitoring visit and financial reconciliation will take place, which State employees and/or contractors will participate, and which Grantee staff members should be present. Grantee will be provided with at least seven calendar days of notice prior to any monitoring visit or financial reconciliation. 4.2.4.2 Following a monitoring visit or financial reconciliation, Grantee will take timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies identified by State. 4.2.4.3 At least one monitoring visit and one financial reconciliation must be completed prior to final payment being made to Grantee. 4.2.5 Unexpended Funds. The Grantee must promptly return to the State at grant closeout any unexpended funds that have not been accounted for in a financial report submitted to the State. 4.2.6 Closeout. The State will determine, at its sole discretion, whether a closeout audit is required prior to final payment approval. If a closeout audit is required, final payment will be held until the audit has been completed. Monitoring of any capital assets acquired with grant funds will continue following grant closeout. Contracting and Bidding Requirements. If Grantee is a municipality as defined by Minn. Stat. § 471.345, subdivision 1, then Grantee shall comply with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 471.345 for all procurement under this Agreement. 5 Conditions of Payment All services provided by Grantee under this agreement must be performed to the State’s satisfaction, as determined at the sole discretion of the State’s Authorized Representative and in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The Grantee will not receive payment for work found by the State to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal, state, or local law. MnDOT Agreement No. 1057886 SAP No. 157-589-001 3 CM State Aid Federal Transportation Grants Technical Assistance or IIJA Discretionary Grant Match Grant Agreement (Rev. Feb 2024) 6 Authorized Representatives The State's Authorized Representative is: Marc Briese, Programs Engineer, MnDOT State Aid Office 395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 500 St. Paul, MN 55155 Office: 651-366-3802 marc.briese@state.mn.us or his/her successor. State’s Authorized Representative has the responsibility to monitor Grantee’s performance and the authority to accept the services provided under this agreement. If the services are satisfactory, the State's Authorized Representative will certify acceptance on each invoice submitted for payment. Grantee’s Authorized Representative is: Joe Powers City Engineer 1901 E 66th Street Richfield, MN 55423 Office: 612-861-9791 jpowers@richfieldmn.gov If Grantee’s Authorized Representative changes at any time during this agreement, Grantee will immediately notify the State. 7 Assignment Amendments, Waiver, and Grant Agreement Complete Assignment. The Grantee may neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this agreement without the prior written consent of the State and a fully executed Assignment Agreement, executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved this agreement, or their successors in office. Amendments. Any amendments to this agreement must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original agreement, or their successors in office. Waiver. If the State fails to enforce any provision of this agreement, that failure does not waive the provision or the State’s right to subsequently enforce it. Grant Agreement Complete. This grant agreement contains all negotiations and agreements between the State and Grantee. No other understanding regarding this agreement, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party. 7.5 Electronic Records and Signatures. The parties agree to contract by electronic means. This includes using electronic signatures and converting original documents to electronic records. 7.6 Certification. By signing this Agreement, the Grantee certifies that it is not suspended or debarred from receiving federal or state awards. 8 Liability Grantee and State agree that each will be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law, and neither shall be responsible for the acts of the other party and the results thereof. The liability of State is governed by the provisions of Minn. Stat. Sec. 3.736. If Grantee is a “municipality” as that term is used in Minn. Stat. Chapter 466, then the liability of Grantee is governed by the provisions of Chapter 466. Grantee’s liability hereunder shall not be limited to the extent of insurance carried by or provided by Grantee, or subject to any exclusion from coverage in any insurance policy. 9 State Audits Under Minn. Stat. § 16B.98, Subd.8, the Grantee’s books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of Grantee, or other party relevant to this grant agreement or transaction, are subject to examination by the State and/or MnDOT Agreement No. 1057886 SAP No. 157-589-001 4 CM State Aid Federal Transportation Grants Technical Assistance or IIJA Discretionary Grant Match Grant Agreement (Rev. Feb 2024) the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of this agreement, receipt and approval of all final reports, or the required period of time to satisfy all state and program retention requirements, whichever is later. Grantee will take timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies identified by an audit. 10 Government Date Practices and Intellectual Property Rights Government Data Practices. Grantee and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data provided by the State under this grant agreement, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Grantee under this agreement. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. §13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either Grantee or the State. 11 Workers Compensation The Grantee certifies that it is in compliance with Minn. Stat. §176.181, Subd. 2, pertaining to workers’ compensation insurance coverage. The Grantee’s employees and agents will not be considered State employees. Any claims that may arise under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act on behalf of these employees and any claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of these employees are in no way the State’s obligation or responsibility. 12 Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue Minnesota law, without regard to its choice-of-law provisions, governs this agreement. Venue for all legal proceedings out of this agreement, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 13 Termination; Suspension Termination. The State or Commissioner of Administration may unilaterally terminate this agreement at any time with or without cause, upon written notice to the Grantee. Upon termination, the Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed. Termination for Cause. The State may immediately terminate this grant agreement if the State finds that there has been a failure to comply with the provisions of this agreement, that reasonable progress has not been made, that fraudulent or wasteful activity has occurred, that Grantee has been convicted of a criminal offense relating to a state grant agreement, or that the purposes for which the funds were granted have not been or will not be fulfilled. The State may take action to protect the interests of the State of Minnesota, including the refusal to disburse additional funds and requiring the return of all or part of the funds already disbursed. Termination for Insufficient Funding. The State may immediately terminate this agreement if: 13.3.1 It does not obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature; or 13.3.2 If funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services covered here. Termination must be by written notice to the Grantee. The State is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after notice and effective date of termination. However, the Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed to the extent that funds are available. The State will not be assessed any penalty if the agreement is terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding source, not to appropriate funds. The State will provide the Grantee notice of the lack of funding within a reasonable time of the State’s receiving that notice. Suspension. The State may immediately suspend this agreement in the event of a total or partial government shutdown due to the failure to have an approved budget by the legal deadline. Work performed by the Grantee during a period of suspension will be deemed unauthorized and undertaken at risk of non-payment. 14 Data Disclosure Under Minn. Stat. § 270C.65, Subd. 3, and other applicable law, Grantee consents to disclosure of its social security number, federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax identification number, already provided to the State, to federal and state tax agencies and state personnel involved in the payment of state obligations. These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and state tax laws which could result in action requiring the Grantee to file state tax returns and pay delinquent state tax liabilities, if any. MnDOT Agreement No. 1057886 SAP No. 157-589-001 5 CM State Aid Federal Transportation Grants Technical Assistance or IIJA Discretionary Grant Match Grant Agreement (Rev. Feb 2024) 15 Fund Use Prohibited. The Grantee will not utilize any funds received pursuant to this Agreement to compensate, either directly or indirectly, any contractor, corporation, partnership, or business, however organized, which is disqualified or debarred from entering into or receiving a State contract. This restriction applies regardless of whether the disqualified or debarred party acts in the capacity of a general contractor, a subcontractor, or as an equipment or material supplier. This restriction does not prevent the Grantee from utilizing these funds to pay any party who might be disqualified or debarred after the Grantee’s contract award on this Project. 16 Discrimination Prohibited by Minnesota Statutes §181.59. Grantee will comply with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes §181.59 which requires that every contract for or on behalf of the State of Minnesota, or any county, city, town, township, school, school district or any other district in the state, for materials, supplies or construction will contain provisions by which Contractor agrees: 1) That, in the hiring of common or skilled labor for the performance of any work under any contract, or any subcontract, no Contractor, material supplier or vendor, will, by reason of race, creed or color, discriminate against the person or persons who are citizens of the United States or resident aliens who are qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates; 2) That no Contractor, material supplier, or vendor, will, in any manner, discriminate against, or intimidate, or prevent the employment of any person or persons identified in clause 1 of this section, or on being hired, prevent or conspire to prevent, the person or persons from the performance of work under any contract on account of race, creed or color; 3) That a violation of this section is a misdemeanor; and 4) That this contract may be canceled or terminated by the state of Minnesota, or any county, city, town, township, school, school district or any other person authorized to grant contracts for employment, and all money due, or to become due under the contract, may be forfeited for a second or any subsequent violation of the terms or conditions of this Agreement. 17 Limitation. Under this Agreement, the State is only responsible for receiving and disbursing funds. Nothing in this Agreement will be construed to make the State a principal, co-principal, partner, or joint venturer with respect to the Project(s) covered herein. The State may provide technical advice and assistance as requested by the Grantee, however, the Grantee will remain responsible for providing direction to its contractors and consultants and for administering its contracts with such entities. The Grantee’s consultants and contractors are not intended to be third party beneficiaries of this Agreement. 18 Additional Provisions Prevailing Wages. Grantee agrees to comply with all of the applicable provisions contained in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 177, and specifically those provisions contained in Minn. Stat.§. 177.41 through 177.435 as they may be amended or replaced from time to time with respect to the project. By agreeing to this provision, Grantee is not acknowledging or agreeing that the cited provisions apply to the project. E-Verification. Grantee agrees and acknowledges that it is aware of Minn. Stat. § 16C.075 regarding e-verification of employment of all newly hired employees to confirm that such employees are legally entitled to work in the United States, and that it will, if and when applicable, fully comply with such order. Telecommunications Certification. If federal funds are included in Exhibit A, by signing this agreement Grantee certifies that, consistent with Section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, Pub. L. 115-232 (Aug. 13, 2018), Grantee does not and will not use any equipment, system, or service that uses “covered telecommunications equipment or services” (as that term is defined in Section 889 of the Act) as a substantial or essential component of any system or as critical technology as part of any system. Grantee will include this certification as a flow down clause in any contract related to this agreement. Title VI/Non-discrimination Assurances. Grantee agrees to comply with all applicable US DOT Standard Title VI/Non-Discrimination Assurances contained in DOT Order No. 1050.2A, and in particular Appendices A and E, which can be found at: https://edocs-public.dot.state.mn.us/edocs_public/DMResultSet/download?docId=11149035. If federal funds are included in Exhibit A, Grantee will ensure the appendices and solicitation language within the assurances are inserted into contracts as required. State may conduct a review of the Grantee’s compliance with this provision. The Grantee must cooperate with State throughout the review process by supplying all requested information and MnDOT Agreement No. 1057886 SAP No. 157-589-001 6 CM State Aid Federal Transportation Grants Technical Assistance or IIJA Discretionary Grant Match Grant Agreement (Rev. Feb 2024) documentation to State, making Grantee staff and officials available for meetings as requested, and correcting any areas of non-compliance as determined by State. Use, Maintenance, Repair and Alterations. The Grantee shall not, without the written consent of the State and the Commissioner, (i) permit or allow the use of any of the property improved with these grants funds (the Real Property) for any purpose other than in conjunction with or for the operation of a county highway, county state-aid highway, town road, or city street and for other uses customarily associated therewith, such as trails and utility corridors , (ii) substantially alter any of the Real Property except such alterations as may be required by laws, ordinances or regulations, or such other alterations as may improve the Real Property by increasing its value or which improve its ability to be used for the purposes set forth in section (i), (iii) take any action which would unduly impair or depreciate the value of the Real Property, (iv) abandon the Real Property, or (v) commit or permit any act to be done in or on the Real Property in violation of any law, ordinance or regulation. If the Grantee fails to maintain the Real Property in accordance with this Section, the State may perform whatever acts and expend whatever funds necessary to so maintain the Real Property, and the Grantee irrevocably authorizes the State to enter upon the Real Property to perform such acts as may be necessary to so maintain the Real Property. Any actions taken or funds expended by the State shall be at its sole discretion, and nothing contained herein shall require the State to take any action or incur any expense and the State shall not be responsible, or liable to the Grantee or any other entity, for any such acts that are performed in good faith and not in a negligent manner. Any funds expended by the State pursuant to this Section shall be due and payable on demand by the State and will bear interest from the date of payment by the State at a rate equal to the lesser of the maximum interest rate allowed by law or 18% per year based upon a 365-day year. [The remainder of this page has intentionally been left blank.] MnDOT Agreement No. 1057886 SAP No. 157-589-001 7 CM State Aid Federal Transportation Grants Technical Assistance or IIJA Discretionary Grant Match Grant Agreement (Rev. Feb 2024) GRANTEE The Grantee certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the grant agreement on behalf of the Grantee as required by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions, or ordinances. By: Title: Mayor Date: By: Title: City Manager Date: By: Title: Date: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Approval and Certifying Encumbrance By: (with delegated authority) Title: State Aid Programs Manager Date: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACT MANAGEMENT By: Date: MnDOT Agreement No. 1057886 SAP No. 157-589-001 8 CM State Aid Federal Transportation Grants Technical Assistance or IIJA Discretionary Grant Match Grant Agreement (Rev. Feb 2024) EXHIBIT A SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS SCHEDULE SOURCES OF FUNDS USES OF FUNDS Entity Supplying Funds Amount Expenses Amount State Funds: Items Paid for with General Fund Grant 2023 IIJA Technical Assistance General Fund Grant (SAAS Acct 413) $30,000.00 Funds: Other: Engineering $30,000.00 ________________ $___________ ________________ $___________ ________________ $___________ ________________ $___________ ________________ $___________ ________________ $___________ Subtotal $30,000.00 Subtotal $30,000.00 Public Entity Funds: Items paid for with Non- Matching Funds $11,850.00 General Fund Grant Funds: Other: IIJA Technical Assistance (RAISE)_______ $11,850.00 ________________ $___________ $___________ ________________ $___________ ________________ $___________ ________________ $___________ Subtotal $11,850.00 Subtotal $11,850.00 TOTAL FUNDS $41,850.00 = TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $41,850.00 MnDOT Agreement No. 1057886 SAP No. 157-589-001 9 CM State Aid Federal Transportation Grants Technical Assistance or IIJA Discretionary Grant Match Grant Agreement (Rev. Feb 2024) EXHIBIT B GRANT APPLICATION Attach the grant application for the project MnDOT Agreement No. 1057886 SAP No. 157-589-001 10 CM State Aid Federal Transportation Grants Technical Assistance or IIJA Discretionary Grant Match Grant Agreement (Rev. Feb 2024) EXHIBIT C GRANTEE RESOLUTION APPROVING GRANT AGREEMENT MnDOT Agreement No. 1057886 SAP No. 157-589-001 11 CM State Aid Federal Transportation Grants Technical Assistance or IIJA Discretionary Grant Match Grant Agreement (Rev. Feb 2024) RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF MNDOT AGREEMENT #1057886 SETTING GRANT TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE DISBURSEMENT OF STATE IIJA TECHINCAL ASSISTANCE FUNDING FOR SAP 157-589-001 WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has applied to the Commissioner of Transportation for a grant from the State Program for IIJA Assistance; and WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Transportation has given notice that funding for this project is available; and WHEREAS, the amount of the grant has been determined to be $30,000.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Richfield does hereby agree to the terms and conditions of the grant consistent with Minnesota Laws 2023, Chapter 68, Article 1, Section 2, Subdivision 5(a), and will pay any additional amount by which the cost exceeds the estimate, and will return any amount appropriated for the project but not required. The proper city officers are authorized to execute a grant agreement and any amendments thereto with the Commissioner of Transportation concerning the above-referenced grant. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of October, 2024. Mary Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF MNDOT AGREEMENT #1057886 SETTING GRANT TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE DISBURSEMENT OF STATE IIJA TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FUNDING FOR SAP 157-589-001 WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has applied to the Commissioner of Transportation for a grant from the State Program for IIJA Assistance; and WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Transportation has given notice that funding for this project is available; and WHEREAS, the amount of the grant has been determined to be $30,000.00; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Richfield does hereby agree to the terms and conditions of the grant consistent with Minnesota Laws 2023, Chapter 68, Article 1, Section 2, Subdivision 5(a), and will pay any additional amount by which the cost exceeds the estimate, and will return any amount appropriated for the project but not required. The proper city officers are authorized to execute a grant agreement and any amendments thereto with the Commissioner of Transportation concerning the above-referenced grant. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of October, 2024. Mary Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #3.G. STAFF REPORT NO. 140 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/8/2024 REPORT PREPARED BY:Sam Crosby, Planner II DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Melissa Poehlman, Community Development Director 9/26/2024 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 10/2/2024 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider a first reading of an ordinance amendment establishing zoning regulations for cannabis businesses. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Last year, the state legislature legalized adult-use cannabis, established the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM), and laid the groundwork for what will be a highly regulated new industry. Local authorities have until the end of this year to establish local regulations governing cannabis businesses. The City of Richfield’s regulations will be adopted in two separate ordinances – zoning regulations and registration regulations. The proposed zoning ordinance generally divides the new types of cannabis businesses into two main categories - retail businesses and non-retail businesses. Retail businesses (including medical marijuana sales) would be allowed in certain commercial districts as permitted uses, subject to distance separations from schools, parks, treatment facilities, and each other. The non-retail businesses would be allowed as conditional uses in the I (Industrial) district. The remaining cannabis business types that do not neatly fit into either of these categories are addressed as follows: Cannabis Delivery Business – Allowed as an accessory to a cannabis retail business. Cannabis Event Organizer – Allowed as an office use. Cannabis Transporter – Not included due to the City not allowing any other transportation or distribution business in the City. Cannabis regulations further address home occupations, and signage. The proposed ordinance also includes a few minor modifications regarding micro production facilities. Issues such as registration fees, the maximum number of retail locations, hours of operation, and low potency hemp edibles will be addressed by the registration ordinance. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 23rd. No one commented on the item. The Commission recommended approval of the ordinance as presented. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve a first reading of an ordinance amendment establishing zoning regulations for cannabis businesses. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT Medical marijuana dispensaries have been allowed since 2015 as conditional uses in the C-2 zoning district only. Currently, they must be at least 1,000 feet from a public or private school, 1,000 feet from another medical marijuana dispensary, and 250 feet from residential property. As such, there are few available locations within the City. The City Council held a preliminary work session focused on edibles in September of 2022. The Minnesota Legislature legalized adult use cannabis in 2023 and made modifications to the law in 2024. It is likely that, like liquor laws, there will be semi-frequent changes to the laws related to cannabis in future legislative sessions. The OCM is currently in the process of drafting administrative rules; therefore, some details may change slightly after this ordinance is adopted, and ordinance updates may be required as the industry becomes established and matures. The City Council held another, broader, cannabis work session in July of 2023. The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint work session, focused on zoning and licensing, on July 9, 2024. In August, the proposed distance separation requirements were shared with the Richfield Public School District and their leadership appreciated the strong buffers between school sites and retailers, and encouraged a similar rigorous perspective in relation to business hours. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS For retail uses, the proposed ordinance includes distance separation requirements from schools, residential treatment facilities, and attractions within a public park regularly used by minors. These setbacks help to protect impressionable youth and vulnerable populations. The ordinance as proposed also includes distance separation requirements between retail locations. This provision helps to disperse sales throughout the community so as to not disproportionately impact one area more than another. As the industry continues to evolve, the City will need to be intentional about any unintended consequences that could arise. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): New definitions for “school” and “residential treatment facility” were added. The definition for school intentionally precludes at-home schooling. The existing references to marijuana will be deleted, but the terminology will be added to the cannabis definitions so they will be subject to the same regulations as cannabis. Cannabis retail businesses would be allowed in the C-2 (General Business), MU-C (Mixed Use Community), MU-R (Mixed Use Regional) and PUD (PC-2 & PMU) districts, subject to the following locational restrictions: a) Along arterial streets only; b) At least 500 feet from any school; c) At least 250 feet from any residential treatment facility; d) At least 250 feet from an attraction within a public park that is regularly used by minors, which are depicted on the “Attractions within Public Park Buffers” map on file with the Community Development Department; e) At least 1,000 feet from each other; See attached “Possible Cannabis Retail Locations” map. Non-retail businesses are allowed as conditional uses in the I (Industrial) district. There are not currently any parcels in the City that are zoned or guided industrial. Consequently, it would take a comprehensive plan amendment, a rezoning, and a conditional use permit to locate a non-retail cannabis businesses within the City of Richfield. Cannabis event organizers, as an office use only, would be allowed in the S-O (Service Office) and C-1 (Neighborhood Business), in addition to all the same districts as allowed for cannabis retail businesses, listed above (without the locational restrictions). All cannabis businesses are precluded from being home occupations. During work sessions, the Council and Planning Commission had discussed allowing a cannabis event organizer as a home occupation, as it is considered an office use. However, the first round of administrative rules indicates that the OCM will be prohibiting all cannabis businesses from operating out of a dwelling. Therefore, the proposed ordinance was drafted accordingly, and can be revised if rules change. All cannabis business are all principal uses, except for cannabis delivery services, which are classified as accessory uses only when subordinate to, under common ownership of, and collocated with, a retail cannabis business. Delivery vehicles cannot occupy required customer parking. All cultivation must be indoors, and transporters are not included. Cannabis businesses cannot be prohibited, however, if the use type (such as outdoor agriculture) is not allowed for any other industry, then it need not be allowed for the cannabis industry. Richfield does not currently allow outdoor agriculture, or any transportation industries, such as shipping facilities, and the proposed ordinance was drafted accordingly. Related to breweries, modifications to production facilities include: consistent with other related definitions, a brewer produces product, a micro-brewery must include a taproom or brewpub, and a micro-distillery must include a cocktail room. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: An ordinance must be adopted by the end of the year, as the OCM currently expects to issues license pre- approvals in 2024 and licenses in 2025. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact related to zoning decisions for cannabis. Public Safety/Support Services will collect registration and renewal fees, as well as a 10% tax from the state. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City Attorney has been involved in City work sessions and staff conversations to date and will continue to counsel the City accordingly. There is a City-wide moratorium in place on the operation of cannabis businesses until January 1, 2025 or until the City's receipt of an application from the OCM, whichever occurs first. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper on September 12, 2024. The Planning Commission recommended approval on September 23, 2024. Second reading and summary publication are currently scheduled for the October 22 City Council meeting. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): Recommend revisions of the ordinance amendment as proposed. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Cannabis zoning ordinance update Ordinance Possible Cannabis Retail Locations Map 9-13-24 Exhibit Attractions within Public Parks Buffer Map Sept. 24 Exhibit BILL NO. _____ AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MODIFYING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE IN RELATION TO BREWERIES AND CANNABIS THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1 Subsection 507.07 of the Richfield Zoning Code (Definitions) is amended as follows, with all following subdivisions renumbered accordingly: Subd. 11 “Brewer.” A person who manufactures produces malt liquor for sale. (Added, Bill No. 2015-15, Amended Bill No. 2024-__) Subd.17. “Cannabis Business.” Holds the same definition as Minnesota Statutes, section 342.01. Subd. 18 “Cannabis Retail Business.” The retail operations of the following cannabis businesses: cannabis retailer, cannabis microbusiness, cannabis mezzobusiness, cannabis medical combination business, marijuana (medical) dispensaries, and marijuana (recreational) sales outlets, all of which have obtained the corresponding license or endorsement from the Office of Cannabis Management and registration from the City to sell authorized products to the public as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 342. Subd. 19 “Cannabis Non-Retail Business.” The operations, excluding the retail operations as defined in Cannabis Retail Business, of the following cannabis businesses: cannabis microbusiness, cannabis mezzobusiness, cannabis cultivator, cannabis manufacturer, cannabis wholesaler, cannabis testing facility, lower-potency hemp edible manufacturer, medical cannabis combination business, and marijuana production/processing all of which have obtained the corresponding license or endorsement from the Office of Cannabis Management, as provided in MN Statutes Chapter 342. Subd. 20 “Cannabis Event Organizer.” A cannabis business that has obtained a Cannabis Event Organizer license from the OCM to perform the activities of a Cannabis Event Organizer as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 342. Subd. 21 “Cannabis Delivery Service.” A cannabis business that has obtained a Cannabis Delivery Service license from the OCM to perform the activities of a Cannabis Delivery Service as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 342. (Added Bill No. 2024-__) Subd. 66. "Light manufacturing." A use engaged in the manufacturing of finished products or parts, predominantly from previously prepared materials. Cannabis manufacturers are not considered light manufacturing. Lower-potency hemp edible manufacturers are not considered light manufacturing unless collocated with a taproom, cocktail room or brewpub. (Amended Bill No. 2024- __) Subd.83. “Micro-brewery.” A facility that produces for sale, distribution, and consumption beer, ale, malt liquor, or other beverages made from malt by fermentation and containing not less than one-half of one percent alcohol by volume, and which possesses the appropriate Federal, State, and Municipal licenses and which produces not more than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor in a calendar year. A micro-brewery may must include a taproom or brewpub. (Added, Bill No. 2015-15, Amended Bill No. 2024-__) Subd. 84. “Micro-distillery.” A facility that produces Ethyl Alcohol, hydrated oxide or ethyl, spirits of wine, rum, brandy, gin, or other distilled spirits, including all dilutions and mixtures thereof, for non-industrial use in total quantity not to exceed 40,000 gallons in a calendar year. A distillery may must include a cocktail room. (Added, Bill No. 2015-15, Amended Bill No. 2024-__) Subd. 103 “Residential Treatment Facility”. As defined under MN Statutes, Section 245.462. Subd. 23 Subd. 112 “School”. A public school, as defined in State Statutes section 120A.05, subdivisions 9, 11, 13, and 17, or a nonpublic school, church or religious organization, in which a child is provided instruction in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 120A.22 and Minnesota Statutes, section 120A.24. “School” does not include a home school. Section 2 Subsection 509.21 of the Richfield Zoning Code (Home Occupations), Subd.5 is amended, to read as follows: Subd. 5. Activities. A home occupation must be conducted in such a manner that activities connected with it are not noticeable from adjacent streets or residential lots, and except as permitted in Subd. 6 below, do not draw attention to the home occupation. All activities related to a home occupation must be conducted within a fully enclosed building. The growing of food or ornamental crops, to be sold or donated off-site, shall be exempt from this provision provided that plants and related materials are maintained in a clean and orderly manner and that waste is disposed of appropriately. Food or ornamental crops may only be made available for on-site pick-up, provided that they are grown on-site, if they are distributed through a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) model. For purposes of this subdivision, the cannabis plant and hemp plant, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 342.01 are not a food or ornamental crop. (Amended Bill No. 2024-__) Section 3 Subsection 509.21, subd. 11 of the Richfield Zoning Code, relating to home occupations, is amended as follows: Subd. 11. Specific activities prohibited. The following activities shall not be allowed as home occupations: a) thru g) no change h) Tattoo businesses; and i) Sale of honey produced by hives located within the city regulated under section 906 of the City Code.; and j) Cannabis Businesses. (Amended Bill No. 2024-__) Section 4 Subsection 512.07 of the Richfield Zoning Code (Uses in Commercial Districts) is amended to read as follows (entire table not included): 512.07. - Permitted, Conditional, Accessory and Prohibited Uses in Commercial Districts. The following table summarizes which land uses are classified as permitted, accessory, conditional or prohibited in the Commercial Districts. Refer to Sections 529 through 534 for complete regulations. (Amended, Bill No. 2011- 19 and 2024-__) P: Permitted A: Accessory C: Conditional N: Null or not Permitted Land Use S-O C-1 C-2 Cannabis Delivery Service, when subordinate to, under common ownership of, and collocated with a Cannabis Retail Business. N N A Cannabis Event Organizer (office only) P P P Cannabis Retail Business N N P Marijuana (medical) dispensaries N N C Marijuana (recreational) sales outlets N N N Taxi or limousine service N N P Section 5 Subsection 512.09 of the Richfield Zoning Code (Uses in Mixed Use Districts) is amended as follows (entire table not included): 512.09. - Permitted, Conditional, Accessory and Prohibited Uses in Mixed-Use Districts. The following table summarizes which land uses are classified as permitted, accessory, conditional or prohibited in the Mixed-Use Districts. Refer to Section 537 for complete regulations. P: Permitted A: Accessory C: Conditional N: Null or not Permitted Land Use MU-N MU-C MU-R Commercial, Institutional and Public Cannabis Delivery Service when subordinate to, under common ownership of, and collocated with a Cannabis Retail Business. N A A Cannabis Event Organizer (office only) N P P Cannabis Retail Business N P P Marijuana (medical) dispensaries N N N Marijuana (recreational) sales outlets N N N (Amended Bill No. 2024-__) Section 6 Subsection 512.11 of the Richfield Zoning Code (Uses in Industrial Districts) is amended as follows (entire table not included): 512.11. - Permitted, Conditional, Accessory and Prohibited Uses in the Industrial District. The following table summarizes which land uses are classified as permitted, accessory, conditional or prohibited in the Industrial District. Refer to Section for complete regulations. P: Permitted A: Accessory C: Conditional N: Null or Not Permitted Land Use Cannabis Non-Retail Businesses C Marijuana production/processing N (Amended Bill No. 2024-__) Section 7 Subsection 529.03 is amended to add the following new subdivision related to permitted uses in the S-O (Service Office) district: Subd. 9 See also 512.07 Section 8 Subsection 532.03 is amended to add the following new subdivision related to permitted uses in the C-1 (Neighborhood Business) district: Subd. 9 See also 517. 07 Section 9 Subsection 534.03 is amended to add the following new subdivisions related to permitted uses in the C-2 (General Business) district: Subd.10 Cannabis Retail Businesses, subject to the following locational restrictions: a) Along arterial streets only; b) At least 500 feet from any school; c) At least 250 feet from any residential treatment facility; d) At least 250 feet from an attraction within a public park that is regularly used by minors, which are depicted on the “Attractions within Public Park Buffers” map on file with the Community Development Department; e) At least 1,000 feet from each other. Subd. 11. Whether the distance requirements in Subdivision 10 have been met will be established when the City issues a certification, pursuant to City Code, section _____. A Cannabis Retail Business subject to subdivision 10 will not be prohibited from continuing to operate at the same site if subsequently a school, residential treatment facility, or attraction within a public park regularly used by minors is established with the identified distances, subject to 509.25, “Nonconformities”. Subd.12. See also Section 512.07. (Amended Bill No. 2024-__) Section 10 Subsection 534.05, (Accessory Uses) of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended to add the following new subdivision, related to accessory uses in the C-2 (General Business): Subd.8. A Cannabis Delivery Service as an accessory use to a Cannabis Retail Business, provided that one stall per delivery vehicle is added to the parking requirement or that delivery vehicles do not occupy parking required to meet code. (Amended Bill No. 2024-__) Section 11 Subsection 534.07, (Conditional Uses) of the Richfield Zoning Code, Subd.26, is deleted in its entirety, with all following subdivisions renumbered accordingly: Subd. 26. Medical marijuana dispensaries, provided the following conditions are met: a) The business operator shall secure all applicable licenses and approvals from the City, County, State or other applicable jurisdictions before the conditional use permit shall become effective; b) Such uses shall not be located within 1,000 feet of a public or private school; c) Such uses shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another medical marijuana dispensary; and d) Such uses shall not be located within 250 feet of residential property. (Added, Bill No. 2015-5) Section 12 Subsection 537.03 of the Richfield Zoning Code (Mixed Use Districts) is amended as follows (entire table not included): P= permitted use A= accessory use C= conditionally permitted N= not permitted Use MU-N MU-C MU-R Commercial, Institutional and Public Cannabis Delivery Service, subordinate to a Cannabis Retail Business, provided that delivery vehicles do not occupy parking required to meet code. N A A Cannabis Event Organizer N P P Cannabis Retail Business N P P Marijuana (medial) dispensaries N N N Marijuana (recreational) sales outlets N N N (Amended Bill No. 2024-__) Section 13 Subsection 539.07(Conditional Uses) of the Richfield Zoning Code, is amended as follows to correct a typographical error in Subd. 3, and to add a new Subd.5 listing certain Cannabis business as conditional uses in the I (Industrial) district: Subd. 3 Those uses outlined in Section 534.07, Subdivisions 4 through 239 26 of this Code, subject to the same conditions. Subd. 5 Cannabis Non-Retail Businesses, except transporters, provided the following conditions are met: a) Business operations must be completely interior to a building, b) Cannabis cultivators and manufacturers abutting or adjacent to existing residential properties shall meet odor control requirements and not cause an odiferous nuisance. c) The approved security plan is provided to the Police Department. d) The site shall meet the standards set in Section 544.09, including exterior lighting, unless superseded by state statute. e) The business shall comply with the water, energy, and solid waste standards set by the Office of Cannabis Management rules. (Amended Bill No. 2024-__) Section 14 Subsection 549.23 (Permitted Signs by District) of the Richfield Zoning Code, Subd. 2 is amended as follows: Subd. 2. Commercial, Mixed-Use Neighborhood, Mixed-Use Community, Mixed-Use Regional, and Industrial Districts. a) Within commercial, planned mixed use, mixed-use neighborhood, mixed- use community, mixed-use regional, and industrial zoning districts, one (1) freestanding sign per site is permitted as follows1 : District Maximum sign area of single sign Maximum height Total area of all freestanding signs SO, C-1, MU-N 60 square feet per surface 15 feet 1 square feet foot per linear foot of lot frontage C-2, MU-C, PMU Sites <1 acre 100 square feet per surface 20 feet 2 1 square feet foot per linear foot of lot frontage C-2, MU-C, PMU Sites 1-2 acres 150 square feet per surface 20 feet 2 1 square feet foot per linear foot of lot frontage C-2, MU-C, PMU Sites >2 acres 200 square feet per surface 20 feet 2 1 square feet foot per linear foot of lot frontage I, MU-R 250 square feet per surface 27 feet 1 square feet foot per linear foot of lot frontage 1 Additional freestanding signs on a site shall not exceed 8 feet in height and 50 square feet in area. Planned Unit Development sites greater than 2 acres may request additional signs exceeding 8 feet in height and 50 square feet in area. 2 On properties abutting an interstate or state highway or the adjacent frontage road, one freestanding sign with a maximum height of 27 feet may be located within 100 feet of the lot line abutting the highway or frontage road. b) thru e) no change f) Cannabis businesses shall also comply with applicable advertisement limitations imposed by Minnesota Statutes, section 342.64, as amended (Amended Bill No. 2024-__) Section 15 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 __th day of October 2024. Mary B. Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #3.H. STAFF REPORT NO. 141 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/8/2024 REPORT PREPARED BY:Jake Whipple, Civil Engineer DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Kristin Asher, Public Works Director 9/30/2024 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 10/2/2024 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider approval of a bid tabulation and award a contract to Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. for the 2024 Citywide Concrete Project in the amount of $107,780, and authorize the City Manager to approve contract changes under $175,000 without further City Council consideration. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In 2023 Public Works completed a citywide ADA assessment of all pedestrian ramps and sidewalks. The 2024 Citywide Concrete Project is the first phase of a multi-year project to repair non-compliant sidewalks and pedestrian ramps. The project includes replacement of non-compliant sidewalk, curb, gutter, and other concrete, as necessary. All catch basins and manhole structures in the area are also inspected and, if necessary, repaired as part of this project. A map of the locations for the 2024 work is attached. Bids for the concrete repair project were opened on October 3rd, 2024. Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the amount of $107,780. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the bid tabulation and award a contract to Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. for the 2024 Citywide Concrete Project in the amount of $107,780. and authorize the City Manager to approve contract changes under $175,000 without further City Council consideration. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT In 2023 the City completed a citywide ADA assessment on all sidewalks and pedestrian ramps in the city. As part of the City’s street maintenance program, cracked and heaved sidewalk, curb, gutter, and other concrete work is completed each year. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS The 2023 ADA Assessment identified all non-compliant sidewalks and pedestrian ramps in accordance with ADA standards. The assessment utilized a priority scale based on various factors, including proximity to schools, economic diversity, and accessibility to key areas of interest. Public Works intends to address the highest-priority locations first, with the long-term objective of repairing or replacing all non-compliant sidewalks and pedestrian ramps within Richfield. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): Per the City's American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan, sidewalks, trails, and crossings are brought into compliance with the current ADA requirements. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: Fall concrete work is scheduled to begin October 14th, 2024 and be completed by November 8th, 2024, weather permitting. Any other concrete work should be completed by July 11th, 2025. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: NUMBER bids were received for the concrete repairs. Bids for the project ranged from a low of $107,780.00 to a high bid of $308,454.10. The total cost is within the project budget and is funded by existing franchise fees. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: When the amount of purchase is 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 City of Richfield. The advertisement for bid for the project was published in the Richfield Sun-Current on September 19th, 2024, and on the Questcdn.com website on September 19th, 2024. Bid opening was held on October 3rd, 2024. A copy of the bid tabulation is attached. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): None PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Fall Concrete Work Map Exhibit 2025 Concrete Work Map Exhibit Bid tabulation Backup Material I I f I 62 L. l "'.,., 11 I "' " E E I- .62,-.;l S\ieel Wes1 r-- I I II fS I C 61st Streer l1lo est Ii ., Mad190n Park I ALOI t---+--t---+--t--si��-S�+t,'·;te_+-W,., ,is;--+-+- " Sidewalk:ri---l_t----1 ... -t---+---ll----'---lr--+---,tl,l-Remove 315 SF ; j r II I � Taft Lake ' Remove and Replace:1tt<··l-f.:'::;i-.,·. =ett-""· tt----t-�----=--=1 65th and 16th Ave:30 SF 4" Concrete Walk •� 1 1 Clear and Grub 1 TreeFu1rv1ew Souihdale 1-bspoal .. -R,chfleld ----+--'Ft----,IJ Bituminous i..,, ..... _,a/!-,-E; :.s.____;.....-i 64 SF 6" Driveway Panel 1--1--+---+-+---t'--tt+-1•1 Remove 90 SF of asphalt's ,, Lake Park ' l / Replace with 145 SF 4",' ... v--�------.-, pavement /l • , -i' Concrete Walk :� • • Legion Lake ': , , tl � Install 230 SF 6" Concretelr.:/3�1�-...L--+ _ _,,..L./"',"'.ree-l,J;Jle·,;;h1--t---'i!-'-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--4'-c.ruv.1 Ri�:�:1d ./ •• -�---·• _....,'1'-1 -t---'E-'-i.-�-+-i Install 170 SF 4" Concrete Galleria Macy's Furniture Gallery "O "0 !'-�aoM I( ; -t -'--......_ ~--·-/)·':... ' �" ---"1 ' ,' •,, 'Walk c;. o '� -"' Sidewalk:W ;;z_ (/) � -... .. :"". " ' "Fl �=�·;e,· =tt---rs-t--t-'-Si,..._�"'=f==t=r=t=�===l===l==l===l=:::h:d�:::!==�\:-!;;::::;;-�c:�¼:::=ll==r�::::::::,"::::7�·J· � �-:;:::::-·),!:==11;b'56ti_f?!rt.i'e�et· lr!;alE�, '!i'l. =::{i=i-�==�=t-t-i-t7-1r-r1:::=jr-::i----t.E�Jr:_··_1··L-�_j-.L" IL_�-j-r_r;:;;'l-=-1------i---�j'�t7' :...; 7�t�N�T=�if:--�-�r-�__. � !!! .. SoShuthdale ... ___ _._!c __ __.____;.._........,' �� ' Curb -Replace 15 LF �Monro.. ,.; fj / .f �Rici fi Remove and Replace 30 '� f----i opp1n1 j < P.:irk '[_ a: -� Center 2821 W 70th St , ,.1',-l ----,f.--.---...-,...--, .... \---./_. '! � Community Center:�a SF 6" Concrete Walk ' Remove and Replace: ,,. � ,-.....;;�,l!lF,,---!;1-fe -;et-'f"I;;. �-f-tt.:;�:--t-;--;---J --1•1 Gallen.:1 Concrete Stairs ( ~30SF) ' .. -.,.., �� J , ci li wood Lake / � Remove and replace: = _ 1 , ,1 ·i , ... _ , � 38 LF Curb 5 1D i ' / 210 SF 611 Concrete 11--+-t--+--id+�-+--+-t--S"fl+t�,e+-l�,-:+-C.h;:.s:;a,-n -f---+--f---1 .> Wood Lake , 130 SF 4" Concrete � '� ,' -Nature ·c � � ·-_ ,B Target '2:":f �' ',-"' � �:dewalk:'; '"""' {\,:1--.·+---_,•:b-; _:; : ��••� �•• -;: .... ·t-__ .. _--t:==;�-.... �=�=t=-::.t.-:..-:..''t.l-::..-..... +_-_-.,+-1 -+_.n. "'-,-t,;i,·.,..-_'*�c,;;-.-t1-----+',__�-�_:---;+-'. __ _.�; J 31 York:lO\\'O Park: I United H?brew Cemetery B'Na, Emel @�· (� Remove and Replace :; --_ -ri_.-'. ,· __ Augsburg Park:521 .� i I a/-,l � Cemetery � -' ;i __ _ LT -:J .A l6' !J � c j .._/�l-+--��-��-4----11,.-195 SF 4" Concrete �lk � '.'. i ·-·-. • , Remove and replace:,, - -•. -I /' -.3Adam -5 � ,l � e 12' Curb ; P ,; J Y\ ;' ,'! 1:;: H,11 Park '--t--+---t--+---tf-i'��-St,j-'·le+-\l,l,ht-t--l---+--1---+----J )---t---i:-�--�Ff=el-¥'\l,t,' -s+-+---t-+.-t:&5-l--+--lf-+-t 125 SF 611 Concrete Walk � � ') -'l L.,.... i;' -.. ,-�,__�/ ,i, l'5 ��-=F.-1�-+----n'itffi-&.,;...+-E!t;;!f---+--r,,--r� 1--�-+---+---1 l 73rdStreetEast Centennial Lnkes Park • f1j ft "' • ; <I ·p -=-.,,...---.---,-----,---,-----,---1-, !!!' j ''. = :� ,B L_ � , = � -,•:c: :: • , � � ·1 , . " 'v ·= Donald>0n � 1---1,li--',P..� -+--4-,,-lr--+--.'.I?-� -H!ltt,�¼f,-,l,·4-', ;N,·-s15-,1--.:r__<_, -b--1---+--+--+-+--+,,-+--+-+--+--J;-,�--J;--,-+-+--+-�,''!l+l-iS!r.l, .. eH=_-'£¥.,5.+-+--+---C-\ ,"'l-+-.g-�-+--+--< n : Whole Food& Park J f, •: i�,, ; :i :; ';:;; '1---.:i';...;--t';,...: ��.-1[:1-�--,1---'1-'-1---+--1---f1"-3�!�:-E�7-7-t�h-S-t��-��..,,.,_, ___ :*::-+�-+--+-+---'f._=-.f',!_-l:l';--+--+----t La-Z Boy .c. s 0 (/) !!! C ., >" t. I> Ra1nt:ow Foods TCF .c. American Boulevard West� i\ ......__ _ 77th Railroad Crossing :" ,� ...-+-+---+---t--+--tcfflft--t,tfe -·-�--'r;'i;;;--tt--1-+'-1 Remove and replace: -- --=---., �ii L Remove and replace:RRf, 75 SF 4" Concrete Walk , 1/) � � � �• ashington � � 650 SF 8" Concrete Park r ��il�poxyDowels _-� 1 I.• •••• '""�"'� 0� ---- 11th Street Eas1 :.,., �•"•- � u 'K.CO• 'D�• �, ��, c,;: •"=• Center vi'O� American Boulevard Eas\ II. Parkino TJ f.,.bxx '%. .; American Bouleva1di!'/fJ of R1chf1eld Gl/5), (il,)1f&fei§lalKIDtla, Three Rivers Park District, Esri Canada, Esn, HERE, Garmin, h1n, INCREMENT P, USGS, MET1llXnrfl.l�$�,at\J.Gf., �A. USDA rn 80 th Street� I IKEA a° q'q ! � f7;;' l,..a I I_ --, ' � I I f � -!1 « .,-/1 1.:. -_j I 1:._ [ I =JI -: l Legend • Disclaimer: Department of Public Works # � -• Fall 2024 Concrete Work Map Concrete Work in Specific Location Bigger Concrete Work Areas All graphic data supplied are constantly undergoing change and is not warranted for the content or accuracy. Any implied warranties, including warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, shall be expressly excluded. The City of Richfield can not be held liable for errors or omissions in the data. The recipient's use and reliance upon such data is at the recipient's risk. By using this data, the recipient agrees to protect, hold harmless and indemnify the City of Richfield and its employees and officers. This indemnity covers reasonable attorney fees and all court costs associated with the defense of the city arising out of this disclaimer. .. �}�,�-'- 62nd 63rd 64th 65th 66th 67th 68th 69th 70th 70th 1/2 71st 71st 1/2 74th 75th 76th 77th 78th 1-494 Cf)wX0::wX z0::::::lcoICf)� fzw0z> ....... z �n_::::l �::;;0I f-z<{ 0 a::wICf)_J_JwCf)Cf)::::l 0:: zww::::l a zzwn_0::w>::::; 0 I II z �wz ..... . .... z<{(90::02 z <{ (9 0 _J X0z,c'.Cf) (9w z� � --, _J f-0_J0co::;;::::lI 00::c2 <3 f- z Z O fO Cf) z20:: 0ww n_0:: ::;; ::::l U.. W 0 f\- i _J0 0 fz �0:: co I0a::0_J<{ 1---+---!:,,= '--+--+-+----1---1 w_J<{0 z � 0_J w u::0::<{(9 fwa::0::<{I 0zc2 (9 fz<{Cf)<{w_Jn_�::::lcoCf)_J_Ja: I ti'. 0 s fz w s _J_Jw0 Cf) '.5co fw_J_J 0 � ;;; Cf)zw> w "O f-C: Cf) N z �z ::::; .c: 0 � 0z'.5ti'. 0n_0z<{_J,c'. <{0 Cf)::::l 0co (92 <{3 �0 I 0 0 fQ_J_Jw .c: .c: .c: 0 "' 1'5 �u111H1T-t-H--!-H-+nr+-it-::J::__=±:�_1-_++-+-+---+----i--4--i--1-W--L-LI-LDII "C�::=/��;:;;;;;::-� l, l�CL\��-�tJ1L�Lo�-:::=�:'lii-'"��F=�=.E=:::;J1fltz:�::=:_��'F' ='::��t�:�=k=c=1 l=J=�': .. ��=l-�==-�=d::::::;�,,,�,"'=1"""=;;:;;;;::�==:k·· �j.........___�1:1��-#l�/Uj IA = 0 0 ;;; Cf)wX0::wX 0 0 0 "' z0::::::lcoICf)� 0 0 (J) N fzw0z> 0 0 00 N z �n_::::l 0 0 r-N Cf)<{::;;0If-0 0 <D N z<{ 0 a::wICf)0 0 L() N _J_JwCf)Cf)::::l 0:: 0 0 0 0 � � z zw zw w::::l n_a 0 0 N N 0::w>::::; 0 0 0 N z �w z 0 0 0 N z<{(90::0::;;0 0 (J) z<{(90 _J 0 0 0 0 00 r--X Cf)0 wz ::;;,c'. <{--, 0 O 0 0 O 0 CD LO -st f-00 0::_J <{0 0::� <3 ::::lI 0 0 "' fz0::;;w0::lJ.. 0 0 � 0 z f-0 zCf)00:: n_ w ::::l 2 0 w 0 0 0 i _J0 0 0 0 0 0 (J) 00 fz�0:: co I0a::0_J<{0 0 0 0 r--<D w_J <{ 0_J w 0 lJ.. z 0:: � t5 0 0 L() fw a::0::<{I 0 0 0 0 0 0 -st M N 0zc2 (9 fz<{Cf) i1i _Jn_>-0::::::lcoCf)_J_Ja: 0 0 0 0 0 L() 0 0 0 If-0::0 _J_Jw0 Cf) tu 1n �z w s <{_J co _J_J 0 �z " 0 N 0 N Cf)zw> w f(/) "O C: N 0 0 "' " "' "N "' z �z::::;0 0 0 L() 0 0 0 0 N 0 <D <D r--0 0 �z z 0::'.5 '.5 'if: f-�� c3n_ 0 N r--Cf)::::lco::;;::::l _J 0 0 0 0 00 0 � I0 0 0 (J) f-0::::;_Jw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 "' .c: 1'5 0 0 " .c: .c:� U1 z0f(9 z �00_Jco 0 0 <D .c:io 0 0 O 0 0 O r--00 (J) .c: r'.:'. .c: 0:: o5 <{ � 0w0 74th 75th 76th 77th 78th Legend Disclaimer: Department of Public Works - e Sidewalk Replacement Spring 2025 Concrete Project •Pedestrian Ramp Replacement N All graphic data supplied are constantly undergoing change and is not warranted for the content or accuracy. Any implied warranties, including warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, shall be expressly excluded. The City of Richfield can not be held liable for errors or omissions in the data. The recipie�t'_s use and reliance upon such data is at the recipient's risk. By using this data,�he rec1p1ent agrees to protect, hold harmless and indemnify the City of Richfield and its employees and officers. This indemnity covers reasonable attorney fees and all court costs associated with the defense of the city arising out of this disclaimer. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening October 3rd, 2024 2024 Concrete Project Bid No. 24-03 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015 and the City Code, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by City Clerk Michelle Friedrich who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive; open and read aloud bids for the 2024 Concrete Project, as advertised in the official newspaper on September 19th, 2024. Present: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk Jake Whipple, Civil Engineer Olivia Wycklendt, Project Engineer The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Bidder’s Name Bond Non- Collusion Intent to Comply Responsible Contractor Certificate Total Base Bid Ron Kassa Construction Provided Provided Provided Provided $107,780.00 Concreate Ideas Inc. Provided Provided Provided Provided $147,230.00 Ti-Zack Concrete Provided Provided Provided Provided $187,059.76 JL Thies Concrete Provided Provided Provided Provided $242,887.00 Q3 Contracting Provided Provided Provided Provided $308,454.10 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the October 8th, 2024, City Council Meeting. _______________________ Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM #3.I. STAFF REPORT NO. 142 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/8/2024 REPORT PREPARED BY:Karl Huemilller, Recreation Services Director DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Karl Huemiller, Recreation Services Director 10/2/2024 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 10/3/2024 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider approval of an amendment to the contract with HGA Architects for the Wood Lake Nature Center Building Project in the amount of $181,500 to provide additional professional services, clarify basic architectural service details and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the amendment. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: HGA Architects have been working with City staff on the Wood Lake Nature Center Building Project. The design and construction administration agreement with HGA was approved at the Council meeting on December 12, 2023. HGA has submitted an amendment to the agreement in the amount of $181,500 for additional services. These services consist of: specialty signage specialty exhibit lighting furniture, fixtures, and equipment selection services audiovisual, security and structured data cabling design commissioning services The amendment also clarifies that furniture, fixtures, and equipment selection services are not included in basic architectural services. Staff anticipated adding these services to the contract after the original proposal and contract since the costs cannot be accurately determined until the preliminary design stage. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to finalize and execute the amendment to the agreement with HGA Architects, in the amount of $181,500, for additional professional services on the Wood Lake Nature Center Building Project and clarifying the services included in basic architectural services. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT City staff has been working with HGA since the award of contract in December of 2023 on design plans and construction administration for the Wood Lake Nature Center Building Project. As part of the design process additional professional services are needed beyond the items identified as basic architectural services in the initial contract. These services include: specialty signage specialty exhibit lighting furniture, fixtures, and equipment selection services audiovisual, security and structured data cabling design commissioning services These services were not included as basic architectural services in the initial contract because it is difficult to accurately quote these services without a building design. By excluding these services from the initial contract the cost of these services could be reduced from the initial budgeted allowance of $466,250 to $181,500. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Equity: The public engagement process during the design phase of the project will have a focus on connecting with disadvantaged communities that are currently underrepresented in the users of Wood Lake Nature Center. Design also includes the goals of including feedback from a variety of community stakeholders, including the disability community, the Latine community, low-income residents, residents who live close to Wood Lake, visitors to Richfield, students who visit, and many more groups. Overall, the new building will provide increased accessibility to more groups and current ADA guidelines will be met which currently are not. Community engagement and a focus on designing a space welcoming to all were key factors in the selection of an architectural firm. HGA was the only firm to have an equity coordinator as a core member of the design and engineering team present at their interview. Strategic Plan: This project best aligns with the strategic plan priority of Sustainable Infrastructure addressing all sub-initiatives of asset management, comprehensive funding, and sustainability efforts. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The project is on schedule to identify a guaranteed maximum price in early February of 2025 which is immediately followed by bid solicitation. Approval of this contract amendment will ensure adherence to this tight project timeline. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: The initial budget for these additional professional services was $466,250. The proposed amendment of $181,500, provides savings from the initial budgeted amount allowing for the funds to be shifted to other aspects of the project. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): Reject the contract amendment and possibly delay or alter the progress of the Wood Lake Nature Center Building Project. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Wood Lake Nature Center Additional Professional Services Contract/Agreement AIA® Document G802TM – 2017 Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement AIA Document G802™ – 2017. Copyright © 2000, 2007 and 2017 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA® Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This draft was produced by AIA software at 12:42:12 ET on 11/20/2018 under Order No. 3517656487 which expires on 06/06/2019, and is not for resale. User Notes: (3B9ADA52) 1 PROJECT: (name and address) AGREEMENT INFORMATION: AMENDMENT INFORMATION: Wood Lake Nature Center Date: December 6, 2023 Amendment Number: 001 Date: September 23, 2024 HGA Commission No.: 0969-005-00 OWNER: (name and address) ARCHITECT: (name and address) CITY OF RICHFIELD 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 HAMMEL, GREEN, AND ABRAHAMSON, INC. 420 North 5th Street, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 The Owner and Architect amend the Agreement as follows: 1. Provide services for specialty signage, specialty exhibit lighting, Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment (FF&E), Audio Visual (AV), security and structured data cabling design, as well as commissioning services as more thoroughly described in the proposal revised September 12, 2024, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference. 2. The attached proposal, Exhibit A, is only incorporated into this agreement by reference to set forth the scope of services. The terms and conditions of the Prime Agreement remain in full force and effect. 3. The Parties agree to remove the Architect's obligations to provide Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment (FF&E) under Section 4.1.1.27 in the Prime Agreement. FF&E will be provided in accordance with the scope detailed in Exhibit A. The Architect’s compensation and schedule shall be adjusted as follows: Compensation Adjustment: On a Stipulated Sum in the amount of $181,500.00, plus Reimbursable Expenses. See Exhibit A for fee breakdown per Phase. Schedule Adjustment: See Exhibit A. SIGNATURES: HAMMEL, GREEN, AND ABRAHAMSON, INC. CITY OF RICHFIELD ARCHITECT (Firm name) OWNER (Firm name) SIGNATURE SIGNATURE Nancy Blankfard Vice President PRINTED NAME AND TITLE PRINTED NAME AND TITLE DATE DATE EXHIBIT A AGENDA SECTION:PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM #5. STAFF REPORT NO. 143 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/8/2024 REPORT PREPARED BY:Rachel Lindholm, Sustainability Coordinator DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Karl Huemiller, Recreation Services Director 10/2/2024 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 10/2/2024 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and consider a resolution adopting the proposed assessment for unpaid garbage collection services from private property within the residential organized collection system from July 1, 2023 to June 31, 2024. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Garbage, recycling, organics, and yard waste services for most residential properties in the City is provided through the City's organized collection program, established in 2021. The City requires service to be provided by the haulers, even if a resident has not paid their service bills, as not having waste picked up is a public health concern. As a result of this requirement, the City agreed to take on the assessment process to resolve unpaid balances. As of October 1, 2024, City staff has determined the actual assessment costs of unpaid garbage collection services to be $162,892.52. This amount will continue to be adjusted as assessments are paid by owners or residents before being sent to the County. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Adopt a resolution adopting the assessment for costs incurred for unpaid garbage collection services between July 1, 2023 and June 30, 2024. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT Richfield organized residential curbside garbage, recycling, organics, yard waste, and bulky item collection services for 1-3 unit homes in 2021. The 3 existing residential haulers each got a number of Richfield households to serve equal to their market share, and in the same area to coordinate collection more easily. This program has reduced the number of garbage trucks traveling on roads in Richfield, reduced air, noise, and other forms of pollution, and saved many households money while providing more service options. Haulers send out periodic notice (at least once per quarter) of non-payment and late fees, if applicable. This communication helps inform tenants and/or owners of the current situation regarding collection services at a specific property, and how to pay balances or who to contact with concerns. Over the past few months, city staff have worked to verify accounts being assessed and have worked with the haulers and residents/owners to resolve miscommunications or pay balances. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Equity consideration: All residents are required to have solid waste collection services. Trash collection is structured as a "pay as you throw" system to incentivize waste reduction and equitable charges. Strategic plan considerations: By taking on the assessment process and having haulers continue to provide hauling services, the City ensures essential services are delivered. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): Minnesota State Statute requires the County be notified of all special assessments. The unpaid charges for garbage collection services must be assessed for certification to the County Auditor as stated in City Code 601.37. The proposed assessment was properly filed with the City Clerk. Notices of the assessment hearing were mailed to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll on September 9, 2024. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The unpaid charges for garbage collection services must be assessed for certification to the County Auditor as stated in City Code 601.37. Each year the City shall list the total unpaid charges for current services. This list is available at the offices of the City Clerk and Public Works. The assessment roll is submitted to the County Auditor and is due to Hennepin County by the end of November annually. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: After the City received the assessment lists from the haulers and worked to verify the charges, four- hundred and eighty-seven (487) properties were moved into the assessment process for unpaid garbage collection services totaling $192,315.46. Since then, ninety-two (92) properties have paid their past-due garbage collection service balance in full or below the minimum balance required and they will not be assessed. The total amount to be assessed currently stands at $162,892.52 across three-hundred and ninety-five (395) properties. This number is anticipated to decrease through the conclusion of the payment period in mid-November before the official assessment roll is submitted to Hennepin County. The property owner may pay the original principal amount without interest within 30 days from the date the Council adopts the assessment. The unpaid balance will be paid over one (1) assessment period with a five percent (5%) interest rate. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City Attorney will be available to answer any questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): None PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: Property owners on the assessment roll. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Solid Waste Assessment Roll Backup Material Solid Waste Resolution Resolution Letter Report Name: SA_Master Printed: 10/1/2024 Page: 1Special Assessment Master Report S/A Number: 25078 City of Richfield Payment Number: 0 Of: 1 S/A Number:25078 Assessment Total: $192,315.46 Interest Rate: 5.0000 1st Yr. Int. Months: 14 1st Yr. Payable: 2025 Description: 2024 GARBAGE Opened Date: 1st Hearing: 2nd Hearing: Levied: Amortization Type: S County Admin Fee: $0.00 Status: Pending Project Nbr: Fund: Contract Nbr: Fin Acct Nbr: Resolution Number: Continue Calculating Deferred: Yes Int Acct Nbr: Sub Status: Street Name Closed DescTotal Assessment Payoff AmtProperty ID House UnitSt Orig Assessment $416.5725-028-24-33-0060 6813 Cedar Ave S $416.57A$416.57 $364.7026-028-24-11-0011 6221 Bloomington Ave S $364.70A$364.70 $220.7126-028-24-11-0021 6338 16th Ave S $220.71A$220.71 $424.7026-028-24-11-0025 6345 Bloomington Ave S $424.70A$424.70 $0.0026-028-24-11-0028 6317 Bloomington Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$469.56 $566.0826-028-24-12-0001 6214 13th Ave S $566.08A$566.08 $108.5326-028-24-12-0002 6220 13th Ave S $108.53A$108.53 $0.0026-028-24-12-0027 6333 12th Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$546.71 $424.7026-028-24-12-0035 1421 62nd St E $424.70A$424.70 $424.7026-028-24-12-0081 6324 15th Ave S $424.70A$424.70 $629.6226-028-24-12-0083 6332 15th Ave S $629.62A$629.62 $285.3026-028-24-12-0084 6336 15th Ave S $285.30A$285.30 $232.5726-028-24-12-0102 6318 Bloomington Ave S $232.57A$232.57 $378.8626-028-24-12-0114 6325 15th Ave S $378.86A$378.86 $424.7026-028-24-12-0120 6200 14th Ave S $424.70A$424.70 $121.1226-028-24-12-0131 6227 13th Ave S $121.12A$121.12 $300.2026-028-24-12-0132 6221 13th Ave S $300.20A$300.20 $232.5726-028-24-12-0139 6320 14th Ave S $232.57A$232.57 $378.8626-028-24-13-0038 6434 Bloomington Ave S $378.86A$378.86 $129.9826-028-24-13-0059 6432 15th Ave S $129.98A$429.98 $424.7026-028-24-13-0061 6438 15th Ave S $424.70A$424.70 $0.0026-028-24-13-0073 6405 14th Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$110.56 $128.8626-028-24-13-0076 6504 15th Ave S $128.86A$128.86 $424.7026-028-24-13-0093 6505 14th Ave S $424.70A$424.70 $386.2726-028-24-13-0098 6512 Bloomington Ave S $386.27A$386.27 $0.0026-028-24-13-0101 6536 Bloomington Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$102.15 Report Name: SA_Master Printed: 10/1/2024 Page: 2Special Assessment Master Report S/A Number: 25078 City of Richfield Street Name Closed DescTotal Assessment Payoff AmtProperty ID House UnitSt Orig Assessment $0.0026-028-24-13-0121 6430 14th Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$423.35 $816.2926-028-24-13-0132 6500 14th Ave S $816.29A$816.29 $332.8026-028-24-13-0145 6515 13th Ave S $332.80A$332.80 $224.7426-028-24-14-0081 6428 16th Ave S $224.74A$224.74 $332.8026-028-24-14-0086 6445 Bloomington Ave S $332.80A$332.80 $350.8426-028-24-14-0090 6429 Bloomington Ave S $350.84A$350.84 $119.2826-028-24-14-0091 6425 Bloomington Ave S $119.28A$119.28 $689.0226-028-24-14-0099 6508 16th Ave S $689.02A$689.02 $0.0026-028-24-14-0100 6512 16th Ave S $0.00 ClosedA$211.60 $424.7026-028-24-14-0109 1528 66th St E $424.70A$424.70 $424.7026-028-24-14-0127 6412 16th Ave S $424.70A$424.70 $500.8426-028-24-21-0001 6210 11th Ave S $500.84A$500.84 $424.7026-028-24-21-0005 6232 11th Ave S $424.70A$424.70 $0.0026-028-24-21-0006 6238 11th Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$197.46 $0.0026-028-24-21-0014 6238 12th Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$288.16 $110.5626-028-24-21-0024 6215 11th Ave S $110.56A$110.56 $424.7026-028-24-21-0030 6301 11th Ave S $424.70A$424.70 $403.3126-028-24-24-0012 6415 11th Ave S $403.31A$503.31 $0.0026-028-24-31-0004 6620 12th Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$197.46 $424.7026-028-24-31-0014 6625 11th Ave S $424.70A$424.70 $424.7026-028-24-31-0015 6621 11th Ave S $424.70A$424.70 $378.8626-028-24-31-0021 6632 11th Ave S $378.86A$378.86 $500.8426-028-24-31-0026 6633 10th Ave S $500.84A$500.84 $0.0026-028-24-31-0056 6621 Chicago Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$221.12 $0.0026-028-24-31-0067 6739 Chicago Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$220.71 $546.7126-028-24-31-0086 6721 Elliot Ave S $546.71A$546.71 $513.1426-028-24-31-0100 6733 10th Ave S $513.14A$513.14 $274.7026-028-24-32-0038 6628 Oakland Ave S $274.70A$274.70 $0.0026-028-24-32-0063 6720 Columbus Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$208.88 $0.0026-028-24-32-0071 6620 Chicago Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$232.57 $444.9226-028-24-32-0085 619 67th St E $444.92A$444.92 $0.0026-028-24-32-0104 6737 Columbus Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$304.05 $0.0026-028-24-32-0120 6721 Oakland Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$424.70 $172.3226-028-24-32-0125 626 68th St E $172.32A$172.32 $208.8826-028-24-32-0129 6734 Oakland Ave S $208.88A$208.88 $186.7526-028-24-32-0132 600 68th St E $186.75A$186.75 $343.3726-028-24-33-0024 6929 Park Ave $343.37A$343.37 $503.7526-028-24-33-0029 6933 Columbus Ave S $503.75A$503.75 $266.0326-028-24-33-0057 6909 Oakland Ave S $266.03A$346.03 $175.1326-028-24-33-0081 6824 Columbus Ave S $175.13A$275.13 Report Name: SA_Master Printed: 10/1/2024 Page: 3Special Assessment Master Report S/A Number: 25078 City of Richfield Street Name Closed DescTotal Assessment Payoff AmtProperty ID House UnitSt Orig Assessment $0.0026-028-24-33-0113 6859 Portland Ave $0.00 PrepaidA$177.76 $0.0026-028-24-34-0003 6801 11th Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$343.37 $428.0326-028-24-34-0017 6839 11th Ave S $428.03A$428.03 $154.6926-028-24-34-0031 6938 12th Ave S $154.69A$154.69 $226.6826-028-24-34-0064 6825 10th Ave S $226.68A$226.68 $548.7326-028-24-34-0069 6815 10th Ave S $548.73A$548.73 $604.5526-028-24-34-0079 6811 Elliot Ave S $604.55A$604.55 $416.5726-028-24-34-0088 6829 Elliot Ave S $416.57A$416.57 $522.6326-028-24-34-0092 6844 10th Ave S $522.63A$522.63 $551.7026-028-24-41-0017 6621 16th Ave S $551.70A$551.70 $608.8826-028-24-41-0025 6726 17th Ave S $608.88A$608.88 $0.0026-028-24-42-0005 6632 Bloomington Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$343.37 $266.6226-028-24-42-0024 6727 15th Ave S $266.62A$266.62 $548.7326-028-24-42-0033 6632 13th Ave S $548.73A$548.73 $356.0826-028-24-42-0061 6635 13th Ave S $356.08A$356.08 $326.9226-028-24-42-0067 6616 15th Ave S $326.92A$326.92 $291.4626-028-24-42-0069 6612 15th Ave S $291.46A$291.46 $416.5726-028-24-42-0084 6713 13th Ave S $416.57A$416.57 $0.0026-028-24-42-0097 6745 13th Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$126.68 $435.0126-028-24-42-0115 6741 14th Ave S $435.01A$435.01 $502.7326-028-24-43-0004 6901 14th Ave S $502.73A$502.73 $254.3626-028-24-43-0105 6812 14th Ave S $254.36A$254.36 $604.5526-028-24-44-0037 6826 17th Ave S $604.55A$604.55 $211.4426-028-24-44-0054 6832 16th Ave S $211.44A$211.44 $414.4126-028-24-44-0056 6844 16th Ave S $414.41A$414.41 $371.6126-028-24-44-0065 6900 Cedar Ave S $371.61A$371.61 $0.0026-028-24-44-0076 6927 18th Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$343.37 $377.1826-028-24-44-0079 6909 18th Ave S $377.18A$377.18 $115.8726-028-24-44-0087 6938 18th Ave S $115.87A$240.87 $418.4526-028-24-44-0092 6927 17th Ave S $418.45A$418.45 $381.2626-028-24-44-0116 6920 16th Ave S $381.26A$381.26 $0.0027-028-24-11-0025 6233 5th Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$469.56 $232.5727-028-24-11-0029 6226 5th Ave S $232.57A$232.57 $0.0027-028-24-11-0040 6344 5th Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$232.57 $0.0027-028-24-11-0043 6220 4th Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$444.92 $319.4427-028-24-11-0066 6308 4th Ave S $319.44A$319.44 $0.0027-028-24-11-0067 6314 4th Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$118.97 $0.0027-028-24-11-0104 6315 3rd Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$155.04 $0.0027-028-24-12-0004 6226 3rd Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$410.14 $319.4427-028-24-12-0005 6228 3rd Ave S $319.44A$319.44 Report Name: SA_Master Printed: 10/1/2024 Page: 4Special Assessment Master Report S/A Number: 25078 City of Richfield Street Name Closed DescTotal Assessment Payoff AmtProperty ID House UnitSt Orig Assessment $500.8427-028-24-12-0007 6238 3rd Ave S $500.84A$500.84 $232.5727-028-24-12-0013 6320 3rd Ave S $232.57A$232.57 $792.6427-028-24-12-0020 6331 Nicollet Ave S $792.64A$792.64 $351.1527-028-24-12-0022 6343 Nicollet Ave S $351.15A$351.15 $378.8627-028-24-12-0031 6339 1st Ave S $378.86A$378.86 $288.1627-028-24-12-0062 6338 2nd Ave S $288.16A$288.16 $634.4627-028-24-12-0073 6220 2nd Ave S $634.46A$634.46 $221.1227-028-24-12-0075 6221 2nd Ave S $221.12A$221.12 $220.7127-028-24-12-0076 6227 2nd Ave S $220.71A$220.71 $0.0027-028-24-12-0077 6233 2nd Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$232.57 $546.7127-028-24-12-0078 6239 2nd Ave S $546.71A$546.71 $220.7127-028-24-12-0082 6315 2nd Ave S $220.71A$220.71 $296.6027-028-24-13-0013 6438 3rd Ave S $296.60A$546.60 $319.4427-028-24-13-0045 6438 Stevens Ave S $319.44A$319.44 $176.4727-028-24-13-0070 6509 1st Ave S $176.47A$176.47 $818.0427-028-24-14-0002 6412 Portland Ave $818.04A$818.04 $221.1227-028-24-14-0005 6430 Portland Ave $221.12A$221.12 $500.8427-028-24-14-0028 6500 Portland Ave $500.84A$500.84 $232.5727-028-24-14-0052 360 Apple Ln $232.57A$232.57 $546.7127-028-24-14-0053 356 Apple Ln $546.71A$546.71 $269.3927-028-24-14-0062 320 Apple Ln $269.39A$269.39 $424.7027-028-24-14-0063 6401 Clinton Ave S $424.70A$424.70 $378.8627-028-24-14-0088 6539 3rd Ave S $378.86A$378.86 $0.0027-028-24-21-0028 6235 Wentworth Ave $0.00 PrepaidA$110.56 $424.7027-028-24-21-0030 6235 Pillsbury Ave $424.70A$424.70 $424.7027-028-24-21-0031 6234 Pillsbury Ave $424.70A$424.70 $0.0027-028-24-21-0071 6330 Nicollet Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$104.84 $0.0027-028-24-21-0075 6337 Blaisdell Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$689.02 $0.0027-028-24-21-0086 6345 Pillsbury Ave $0.00 PrepaidA$110.56 $500.8427-028-24-21-0089 6332 Pillsbury Ave $500.84A$500.84 $0.0027-028-24-22-0010 6240 Pleasant Ave $0.00 PrepaidA$239.03 $370.1227-028-24-22-0016 6245 Harriet Ave $370.12A$370.12 $592.5027-028-24-22-0057 6237 Grand Ave $592.50A$592.50 $424.7027-028-24-22-0061 6236 Grand Ave $424.70A$424.70 $546.7127-028-24-22-0063 6229 Harriet Ave $546.71A$546.71 $0.0027-028-24-22-0067 6229 Garfield Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$424.70 $228.3327-028-24-22-0068 6226 Garfield Ave S $228.33A$228.33 $0.0027-028-24-22-0072 300 64th St W $0.00 ClosedA$232.57 $424.7027-028-24-22-0075 400 64th St W $424.70A$424.70 $246.9727-028-24-22-0076 412 64th St W $246.97A$246.97 Report Name: SA_Master Printed: 10/1/2024 Page: 5Special Assessment Master Report S/A Number: 25078 City of Richfield Street Name Closed DescTotal Assessment Payoff AmtProperty ID House UnitSt Orig Assessment $0.0027-028-24-24-0021 6414 Wentworth Ave $0.00 PrepaidA$118.22 $0.0027-028-24-24-0039 6400 Nicollet Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$424.70 $0.0027-028-24-31-0009 6741 Wentworth Ave $0.00 ClosedA$458.75 $416.5727-028-24-31-0020 6725 Pillsbury Ave $416.57A$416.57 $377.1827-028-24-31-0024 6742 Pillsbury Ave $377.18A$377.18 $299.9127-028-24-33-0027 6944 Pleasant Ave $299.91A$299.91 $0.0027-028-24-33-0089 6829 Harriet Ave $0.00 PrepaidA$404.55 $122.5727-028-24-34-0009 6808 Blaisdell Ave S $122.57A$122.57 $522.6327-028-24-34-0034 6908 Blaisdell Ave S $522.63A$522.63 $0.0027-028-24-34-0077 6839 Pillsbury Ave $0.00 PrepaidA$222.78 $0.0027-028-24-34-0084 6844 Pillsbury Ave $0.00 PrepaidA$467.34 $548.7327-028-24-34-0085 320 69th St W $548.73A$548.73 $416.5727-028-24-41-0010 6630 Portland Ave $416.57A$416.57 $0.0027-028-24-41-0024 6604 5th Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$122.78 $295.8927-028-24-41-0028 6620 5th Ave S $295.89A$295.89 $211.4427-028-24-41-0038 6625 4th Ave S $211.44A$211.44 $674.8727-028-24-41-0059 6633 Clinton Ave S $674.87A$674.87 $0.0027-028-24-41-0126 6719 3rd Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$251.53 $165.8927-028-24-42-0058 6608 3rd Ave S $165.89A$165.89 $222.7827-028-24-42-0060 6617 2nd Ave S $222.78A$222.78 $467.3427-028-24-42-0074 6617 1st Ave S $467.34A$467.34 $418.1527-028-24-42-0087 6645 2nd Ave S $418.15A$618.15 $300.2827-028-24-42-0104 10 67th St E $300.28A$300.28 $548.7327-028-24-42-0108 6633 Nicollet Ave S $548.73A$548.73 $489.4227-028-24-42-0126 6706 2nd Ave S $489.42A$489.42 $211.4427-028-24-43-0010 128 70th St E $211.44A$211.44 $351.8227-028-24-43-0012 6957 1st Ave S $351.82A$351.82 $503.7527-028-24-43-0034 6838 3rd Ave S $503.75A$503.75 $319.1827-028-24-43-0060 6920 Stevens Ave S $319.18A$319.18 $312.8427-028-24-43-0072 6927 Nicollet Ave S $312.84A$312.84 $203.9527-028-24-43-0098 6812 2nd Ave S $203.95A$203.95 $0.0027-028-24-43-0100 6800 2nd Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$394.32 $211.4427-028-24-43-0110 21 68th St E $211.44A$211.44 $196.1227-028-24-43-0113 6803 Nicollet Ave S $196.12A$196.12 $566.4127-028-24-44-0017 6815 5th Ave S $566.41A$566.41 $361.5427-028-24-44-0064 6821 4th Ave S $361.54A$361.54 $326.7327-028-24-44-0086 6938 Portland Ave $326.73A$326.73 $371.6127-028-24-44-0115 6901 Clinton Ave S $371.61A$371.61 $110.5628-028-24-11-0032 6238 Colfax Ave S $110.56A$110.56 $0.0028-028-24-11-0034 6245 Dupont Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$197.46 Report Name: SA_Master Printed: 10/1/2024 Page: 6Special Assessment Master Report S/A Number: 25078 City of Richfield Street Name Closed DescTotal Assessment Payoff AmtProperty ID House UnitSt Orig Assessment $424.7028-028-24-11-0041 6300 Aldrich Ave S $424.70A$424.70 $0.0028-028-24-11-0050 6305 Bryant Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$232.57 $0.0028-028-24-11-0055 900 Mildred Dr $0.00 PrepaidA$424.70 $424.7028-028-24-11-0066 1008 Mildred Dr $424.70A$424.70 $0.0028-028-24-11-0083 6315 Bryant Ave S $0.00 ClosedA$178.59 $424.7028-028-24-11-0086 6305 Dupont Ave S $424.70A$424.70 $221.1228-028-24-12-0007 6226 Girard Ave S $221.12A$221.12 $424.7028-028-24-12-0022 6331 Girard Ave S $424.70A$424.70 $0.0028-028-24-12-0028 6301 Girard Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$199.50 $0.0028-028-24-12-0043 6331 Humboldt Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$220.71 $0.0028-028-24-13-0016 6416 Girard Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$375.28 $0.0028-028-24-13-0021 6405 Humboldt Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$269.26 $232.5728-028-24-13-0024 6423 Humboldt Ave S $232.57A$232.57 $378.8628-028-24-13-0061 6436 Emerson Ave S $378.86A$378.86 $500.8428-028-24-21-0023 6244 Humboldt Ave S $500.84A$500.84 $444.9228-028-24-21-0029 6215 Irving Ave S $444.92A$444.92 $237.1828-028-24-21-0035 6244 Irving Ave S $237.18A$461.30 $299.9828-028-24-21-0087 6301 James Ave S $299.98A$299.98 $195.7528-028-24-21-0113 6331 Logan Ave S $195.75A$295.75 $561.9628-028-24-21-0123 6215 James Ave S $561.96A$561.96 $0.0028-028-24-22-0049 6211 Morgan Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$110.56 $0.0028-028-24-22-0051 6221 Morgan Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$220.71 $134.8528-028-24-22-0053 6229 Morgan Ave S $134.85A$134.85 $0.0028-028-24-22-0064 6238 Morgan Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$222.25 $110.5628-028-24-22-0069 6316 Logan Ave S $110.56A$110.56 $236.6228-028-24-22-0081 6301 Morgan Ave S $236.62A$286.62 $546.7128-028-24-22-0087 6324 Morgan Ave S $546.71A$546.71 $228.2828-028-24-22-0107 6326 Newton Ave S $228.28A$228.28 $0.0028-028-24-22-0110 6337 Oliver Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$208.88 $0.0028-028-24-22-0119 6308 Oliver Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$246.77 $0.0028-028-24-22-0139 6210 Morgan Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$110.56 $232.5728-028-24-23-0013 6512 Oliver Ave S $232.57A$232.57 $103.5428-028-24-23-0025 6404 Logan Ave S $103.54A$103.54 $220.7128-028-24-23-0048 6420 Morgan Ave S $220.71A$220.71 $424.7028-028-24-23-0062 6405 Newton Ave S $424.70A$424.70 $0.0028-028-24-23-0064 6400 Newton Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$375.28 $111.8228-028-24-23-0065 6408 Newton Ave S $111.82A$111.82 $319.4428-028-24-23-0068 6424 Newton Ave S $319.44A$319.44 $391.9428-028-24-23-0078 6421 Oliver Ave S $391.94A$391.94 $0.0028-028-24-23-0090 6544 Newton Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$110.56 Report Name: SA_Master Printed: 10/1/2024 Page: 7Special Assessment Master Report S/A Number: 25078 City of Richfield Street Name Closed DescTotal Assessment Payoff AmtProperty ID House UnitSt Orig Assessment $0.0028-028-24-23-0110 6529 Newton Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$665.15 $424.7028-028-24-23-0115 6505 Newton Ave S $424.70A$424.70 $203.4228-028-24-24-0016 6421 Irving Ave S $203.42A$203.42 $0.0028-028-24-24-0026 6424 Irving Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$319.44 $0.0028-028-24-24-0038 6411 James Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$232.57 $424.7028-028-24-24-0060 6400 Knox Ave S $424.70A$424.70 $208.8828-028-24-24-0064 6420 Knox Ave S $208.88A$208.88 $652.8228-028-24-24-0103 1706 66th St W $652.82A$652.82 $0.0028-028-24-24-0115 6514 Irving Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$129.72 $444.9228-028-24-24-0137 1500 66th St W $444.92A$444.92 $424.7028-028-24-24-0141 1520 66th St W $424.70A$424.70 $480.4528-028-24-31-0084 6630 Humboldt Ave S $480.45A$480.45 $566.2528-028-24-32-0039 6620 Newton Ave S $566.25A$566.25 $350.6328-028-24-32-0044 6645 Oliver Ave S $350.63A$350.63 $222.7828-028-24-32-0057 6608 Oliver Ave S $222.78A$222.78 $467.3428-028-24-33-0115 6939 Morgan Ave S $467.34A$467.34 $211.4428-028-24-33-0188 6929 Oliver Ave S $211.44A$211.44 $211.4428-028-24-34-0019 6837 James Ave S $211.44A$211.44 $132.4628-028-24-34-0059 6945 Logan Ave S $132.46A$232.46 $684.0828-028-24-34-0079 6917 Knox Ave S $684.08A$684.08 $429.5328-028-24-34-0084 6946 Irving Ave S $429.53A$429.53 $503.7528-028-24-34-0111 6816 James Ave S $503.75A$503.75 $416.5728-028-24-34-0138 6940 Irving Ave S $416.57A$416.57 $416.5728-028-24-34-0144 6912 Humboldt Ave S $416.57A$416.57 $370.5628-028-24-34-0160 6926 James Ave S $370.56A$370.56 $597.2228-028-24-41-0020 917 66th St W $597.22A$597.22 $424.7028-028-24-41-0028 6617 Lynwood Blvd $424.70A$424.70 $187.8628-028-24-42-0010 1324 68th St W $187.86A$487.86 $245.8228-028-24-42-0014 6739 Humboldt Ave S $245.82A$245.82 $319.1828-028-24-42-0033 6612 Girard Ave S $319.18A$319.18 $0.0028-028-24-42-0065 6735 Lynwood Blvd $0.00 PrepaidA$151.03 $197.4628-028-24-42-0079 6626 Emerson Ave S $197.46A$197.46 $0.0028-028-24-42-0082 6644 Emerson Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$131.33 $548.7328-028-24-43-0004 6839 Humboldt Ave S $548.73A$548.73 $548.7328-028-24-43-0005 6845 Humboldt Ave S $548.73A$548.73 $208.8829-028-24-11-0034 6228 Sheridan Ave S $208.88A$208.88 $124.9129-028-24-11-0064 6329 Russell Ave S $124.91A$124.91 $220.7129-028-24-11-0077 6300 Russell Ave S $220.71A$220.71 $288.1629-028-24-11-0080 6314 Russell Ave S $288.16A$288.16 $233.5829-028-24-11-0107 6210 Russell Ave S $233.58A$319.44 Report Name: SA_Master Printed: 10/1/2024 Page: 8Special Assessment Master Report S/A Number: 25078 City of Richfield Street Name Closed DescTotal Assessment Payoff AmtProperty ID House UnitSt Orig Assessment $314.4029-028-24-12-0013 6320 Thomas Ave S $314.40A$314.40 $0.0029-028-24-12-0023 6315 Upton Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$232.57 $424.7029-028-24-12-0036 6210 Upton Ave S $424.70A$424.70 $0.0029-028-24-12-0053 6339 Vincent Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$173.74 $386.4929-028-24-12-0071 6214 Vincent Ave S $386.49A$386.49 $0.0029-028-24-12-0081 6320 Vincent Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$440.05 $382.7229-028-24-12-0087 6215 Washburn Ave S $382.72A$382.72 $500.8429-028-24-12-0110 6304 Washburn Ave S $500.84A$500.84 $500.9829-028-24-12-0112 6314 Washburn Ave S $500.98A$500.98 $208.8829-028-24-12-0115 6323 Xerxes Ave S $208.88A$208.88 $0.0029-028-24-12-0121 6245 Xerxes Ave S $0.00 ClosedA$217.43 $611.3029-028-24-12-0122 6239 Xerxes Ave S $611.30A$611.30 $305.1229-028-24-13-0002 6532 Thomas Ave S $305.12A$305.12 $424.7029-028-24-13-0006 6408 Thomas Ave S $424.70A$424.70 $546.7129-028-24-13-0023 6435 Xerxes Ave S $546.71A$546.71 $221.1229-028-24-13-0025 6423 Xerxes Ave S $221.12A$221.12 $0.0029-028-24-13-0029 6401 Xerxes Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$522.70 $0.0029-028-24-13-0035 6420 Upton Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$232.57 $500.8429-028-24-13-0068 6408 Vincent Ave S $500.84A$500.84 $0.0029-028-24-14-0035 6401 Russell Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$220.71 $424.7029-028-24-14-0040 6429 Russell Ave S $424.70A$424.70 $444.9229-028-24-41-0032 6616 Russell Ave S $444.92A$444.92 $222.4629-028-24-41-0048 6613 Sheridan Ave S $222.46A$222.46 $110.5629-028-24-41-0054 6612 Sheridan Ave S $110.56A$110.56 $500.8429-028-24-41-0069 6613 Thomas Ave S $500.84A$500.84 $0.0029-028-24-41-0083 6741 Thomas Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$200.12 $319.8429-028-24-41-0155 6717 Queen Ave S $319.84A$319.84 $454.8129-028-24-42-0007 6616 Thomas Ave S $454.81A$454.81 $121.2829-028-24-42-0012 6636 Thomas Ave S $121.28A$121.28 $500.8429-028-24-42-0029 6620 Upton Ave S $500.84A$500.84 $129.7229-028-24-42-0032 6632 Upton Ave S $129.72A$129.72 $597.2229-028-24-42-0034 6640 Upton Ave S $597.22A$597.22 $448.2829-028-24-42-0050 6632 Vincent Ave S $448.28A$448.28 $480.4529-028-24-42-0074 6625 Xerxes Ave S $480.45A$480.45 $290.0429-028-24-42-0079 6704 Washburn Ave S $290.04A$290.04 $275.1329-028-24-42-0082 6716 Washburn Ave S $275.13A$275.13 $416.5729-028-24-42-0088 6740 Washburn Ave S $416.57A$416.57 $140.1529-028-24-42-0101 3015 67th St W $140.15A$140.15 $226.3929-028-24-42-0103 6704 Vincent Ave S $226.39A$226.39 $0.0029-028-24-42-0104 6708 Vincent Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$548.73 Report Name: SA_Master Printed: 10/1/2024 Page: 9Special Assessment Master Report S/A Number: 25078 City of Richfield Street Name Closed DescTotal Assessment Payoff AmtProperty ID House UnitSt Orig Assessment $503.7529-028-24-42-0121 6709 Washburn Ave S $503.75A$503.75 $0.0029-028-24-42-0148 6701 Washburn Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$226.68 $435.0129-028-24-43-0007 6824 Thomas Ave S $435.01A$435.01 $416.5729-028-24-43-0061 6845 Washburn Ave S $416.57A$416.57 $0.0029-028-24-43-0063 6837 Washburn Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$237.24 $211.4429-028-24-44-0005 6845 Queen Ave S $211.44A$211.44 $548.7329-028-24-44-0058 6825 Sheridan Ave S $548.73A$548.73 $416.5729-028-24-44-0065 6800 Sheridan Ave S $416.57A$416.57 $371.6129-028-24-44-0127 6933 Sheridan Ave S $371.61A$371.61 $319.1829-028-24-44-0129 6925 Sheridan Ave S $319.18A$319.18 $429.6229-028-24-44-0131 6917 Sheridan Ave S $429.62A$429.62 $184.7329-028-24-44-0141 6924 Queen Ave S $184.73A$184.73 $211.4429-028-24-44-0165 6928 Penn Ave S $211.44A$211.44 $202.5632-028-24-11-0011 2312 70 1/2 St W $202.56A$202.56 $202.8332-028-24-11-0040 2604 70 1/2 St W $202.83A$202.83 $0.0032-028-24-12-0011 7014 Upton Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$269.56 $0.0032-028-24-12-0026 7001 Xerxes Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$109.74 $498.7632-028-24-12-0113 2808 71st St W $498.76A$498.76 $0.0032-028-24-13-0070 3020 74th St W $0.00 ClosedA$192.25 $631.5732-028-24-14-0006 7200 Penn Ave S $631.57A$631.57 $401.5832-028-24-14-0079 7308 Queen Ave S $401.58A$401.58 $640.7932-028-24-42-0032 7501 Upton Ave S $640.79A$640.79 $737.5232-028-24-42-0044 7427 Vincent Ave S $737.52A$737.52 $207.8832-028-24-42-0055 7438 Vincent Ave S $207.88A$207.88 $851.7132-028-24-43-0044 2956 Washburn Cir $851.71A$851.71 $110.6032-028-24-43-0082 2945 Washburn Cir $110.60A$110.60 $488.3832-028-24-43-0095 7738 Upton Ave S $488.38A$488.38 $195.9632-028-24-43-0111 7726 Thomas Ave S $195.96A$195.96 $252.8833-028-24-13-0020 7220 Girard Ave S $252.88A$252.88 $106.4233-028-24-14-0007 7344 Lyndale Ave S $106.42A$106.42 $100.4633-028-24-14-0038 7301 Bryant Ave S $100.46A$100.46 $261.5033-028-24-14-0081 7228 Lyndale Ave S $261.50A$261.50 $725.6233-028-24-21-0032 7000 James Ave S $725.62A$725.62 $208.1933-028-24-21-0104 7144 Knox Ave S $208.19A$208.19 $0.0033-028-24-21-0106 7005 Logan Ave S $0.00 ClosedA$270.37 $202.4733-028-24-22-0048 7027 Oliver Ave S $202.47A$202.47 $331.8433-028-24-22-0053 7000 Oliver Ave S $331.84A$331.84 $751.0333-028-24-22-0056 7020 Oliver Ave S $751.03A$751.03 $227.5633-028-24-22-0126 7109 Penn Ave S $227.56A$227.56 $660.0033-028-24-23-0089 7309 Morgan Ave S $660.00A$660.00 Report Name: SA_Master Printed: 10/1/2024 Page: 10Special Assessment Master Report S/A Number: 25078 City of Richfield Street Name Closed DescTotal Assessment Payoff AmtProperty ID House UnitSt Orig Assessment $299.0633-028-24-23-0091 7324 Oliver Ave S $299.06A$299.06 $719.8233-028-24-23-0098 7335 Penn Ave S $719.82A$719.82 $201.4133-028-24-24-0020 7239 James Ave S $201.41A$201.41 $111.3533-028-24-24-0031 7226 Knox Ave S $111.35A$111.35 $796.5433-028-24-32-0009 7509 Morgan Ave S $796.54A$796.54 $303.1933-028-24-32-0016 2018 76th St W $303.19A$303.19 $239.0933-028-24-32-0044 7500 Morgan Ave S $239.09A$239.09 $122.2533-028-24-41-0052 7433 Colfax Ave S $122.25A$122.25 $802.7833-028-24-41-0165 7521 Aldrich Ave S $802.78A$802.78 $507.5433-028-24-42-0064 7413 Humboldt Ave S $507.54A$507.54 $172.0833-028-24-42-0100 7500 Emerson Ave S $172.08A$172.08 $339.8633-028-24-42-0111 7529 Fremont Ave S $339.86A$339.86 $721.3334-028-24-11-0039 7114 4th Ave S $721.33A$721.33 $548.8834-028-24-11-0044 7144 4th Ave S $548.88A$548.88 $674.7534-028-24-11-0045 7145 Clinton Ave S $674.75A$674.75 $871.3234-028-24-11-0073 7016 Portland Ave $871.32A$871.32 $0.0034-028-24-12-0023 7021 Nicollet Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$201.30 $185.5334-028-24-12-0124 7133 2nd Ave S $185.53A$185.53 $106.0934-028-24-13-0001 7300 3rd Ave S $106.09A$106.09 $763.3334-028-24-13-0014 7315 Nicollet Ave S $763.33A$763.33 $0.0034-028-24-13-0046 7337 Nicollet Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$460.80 $278.1134-028-24-13-0088 7315 1st Ave S $278.11A$278.11 $706.3934-028-24-13-0107 7221 1st Ave S $706.39A$706.39 $693.1534-028-24-13-0138 7204 3rd Ave S $693.15A$693.15 $0.0034-028-24-13-0149 7245 2nd Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$309.93 $114.2334-028-24-14-0022 7328 Portland Ave $114.23A$244.23 $862.2834-028-24-14-0032 7321 5th Ave S $862.28A$862.28 $323.4834-028-24-14-0037 7304 5th Ave S $323.48A$323.48 $616.3834-028-24-14-0041 7320 5th Ave S $616.38A$616.38 $1,401.9034-028-24-14-0045 7336 5th Ave S $1,401.90A$1,401.90 $410.9434-028-24-14-0069 7336 4th Ave S $410.94A$410.94 $289.6534-028-24-14-0101 7305 3rd Ave S $289.65A$489.65 $168.9834-028-24-14-0130 7244 Clinton Ave S $168.98A$168.98 $706.3934-028-24-22-0080 7105 Garfield Ave S $706.39A$706.39 $192.1934-028-24-23-0003 7327 Grand Ave $192.19A$592.19 $706.3934-028-24-23-0055 7237 Harriet Ave $706.39A$706.39 $871.3234-028-24-23-0066 7212 Harriet Ave $871.32A$871.32 $319.0334-028-24-23-0076 7237 Garfield Ave S $319.03A$319.03 $220.7934-028-24-23-0088 7208 Garfield Ave S $220.79A$520.79 $1,562.2934-028-24-23-0106 7205 Lyndale Ave S $1,562.29A$1,562.29 Report Name: SA_Master Printed: 10/1/2024 Page: 11Special Assessment Master Report S/A Number: 25078 City of Richfield Street Name Closed DescTotal Assessment Payoff AmtProperty ID House UnitSt Orig Assessment $706.3934-028-24-23-0137 7309 Harriet Ave $706.39A$706.39 $946.0434-028-24-23-0153 7326 Pleasant Ave $946.04A$946.04 $110.1334-028-24-24-0051 215 72nd St W $110.13A$110.13 $281.5634-028-24-24-0106 7308 Nicollet Ave S $281.56A$281.56 $820.7734-028-24-24-0108 7320 Nicollet Ave S $820.77A$820.77 $202.5534-028-24-31-0030 7415 Wentworth Ave $202.55A$202.55 $553.7134-028-24-31-0052 7424 Pillsbury Ave $553.71A$553.71 $706.3934-028-24-31-0119 7545 Blaisdell Ave S $706.39A$706.39 $320.6134-028-24-32-0005 401 74th St W $320.61A$320.61 $250.1334-028-24-32-0013 521 74th St W $250.13A$250.13 $897.9634-028-24-32-0036 7538 Grand Ave $897.96A$897.96 $192.2534-028-24-33-0050 7608 Harriet Ave $192.25A$192.25 $706.3934-028-24-34-0020 7626 Blaisdell Ave S $706.39A$706.39 $237.1234-028-24-34-0029 7615 Wentworth Ave $237.12A$407.96 $259.9234-028-24-34-0068 7614 Pillsbury Ave $259.92A$259.92 $631.5734-028-24-41-0018 7508 Portland Ave $631.57A$631.57 $323.0034-028-24-41-0116 7544 4th Ave S $323.00A$323.00 $871.3234-028-24-41-0137 7412 4th Ave S $871.32A$871.32 $455.2434-028-24-42-0060 7425 Nicollet Ave S $455.24A$455.24 $0.0034-028-24-42-0082 7508 Stevens Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$213.36 $620.7734-028-24-42-0083 7514 Stevens Ave S $620.77A$620.77 $298.8034-028-24-42-0108 7527 Stevens Ave S $298.80A$298.80 $706.3934-028-24-43-0015 7639 2nd Ave S $706.39A$706.39 $685.1034-028-24-43-0018 7621 2nd Ave S $685.10A$685.10 $211.9334-028-24-43-0035 7615 Stevens Ave S $211.93A$361.93 $0.0034-028-24-43-0057 7620 1st Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$213.27 $211.1434-028-24-43-0071 7643 Nicollet Ave S $211.14A$211.14 $309.6935-028-24-11-0023 7039 18th Ave S $309.69A$323.33 $706.3935-028-24-11-0027 7025 18th Ave S $706.39A$706.39 $493.4235-028-24-11-0029 7034 18th Ave S $493.42A$493.42 $495.0835-028-24-11-0037 7120 18th Ave S $495.08A$495.08 $695.7735-028-24-11-0046 7008 17th Ave S $695.77A$695.77 $849.2035-028-24-11-0049 7026 17th Ave S $849.20A$849.20 $676.7935-028-24-12-0012 7027 12th Ave S $676.79A$676.79 $609.2835-028-24-12-0076 7121 14th Ave S $609.28A$609.28 $746.6935-028-24-12-0087 7028 Bloomington Ave S $746.69A$746.69 $359.5235-028-24-12-0095 7120 Bloomington Ave S $359.52A$541.11 $605.4635-028-24-12-0107 7039 15th Ave S $605.46A$605.46 $627.9735-028-24-12-0111 7010 15th Ave S $627.97A$627.97 $706.3935-028-24-12-0115 7028 15th Ave S $706.39A$706.39 Report Name: SA_Master Printed: 10/1/2024 Page: 12Special Assessment Master Report S/A Number: 25078 City of Richfield Street Name Closed DescTotal Assessment Payoff AmtProperty ID House UnitSt Orig Assessment $132.3335-028-24-12-0117 7038 15th Ave S $132.33A$132.33 $146.3135-028-24-13-0006 7224 Bloomington Ave S $146.31A$146.31 $615.7235-028-24-13-0019 7334 Bloomington Ave S $615.72A$615.72 $789.4335-028-24-13-0041 7238 15th Ave S $789.43A$789.43 $270.8435-028-24-13-0057 1416 72nd St E $270.84A$270.84 $747.8635-028-24-13-0086 7345 13th Ave S $747.86A$747.86 $477.5135-028-24-13-0090 7321 13th Ave S $477.51A$477.51 $0.0035-028-24-13-0102 7344 13th Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$102.46 $180.4335-028-24-14-0002 7301 18th Ave S $180.43A$275.43 $0.0035-028-24-14-0024 7228 17th Ave S $0.00 ClosedA$250.31 $848.3835-028-24-14-0027 7244 17th Ave S $848.38A$848.38 $166.7535-028-24-14-0062 7235 18th Ave S $166.75A$166.75 $666.3935-028-24-14-0063 7243 18th Ave S $666.39A$666.39 $1,027.7035-028-24-14-0069 7224 18th Ave S $1,027.70A$1,027.70 $158.7635-028-24-14-0070 7228 18th Ave S $158.76A$158.76 $470.7535-028-24-14-0083 7325 17th Ave S $470.75A$470.75 $797.9035-028-24-14-0092 7320 17th Ave S $797.90A$797.90 $448.4735-028-24-14-0100 7320 18th Ave S $448.47A$448.47 $266.9135-028-24-22-0080 7117 Portland Ave $266.91A$466.91 $452.2835-028-24-22-0106 7100 Columbus Ave S $452.28A$452.28 $439.7835-028-24-23-0038 7315 Park Ave $439.78A$767.08 $871.3235-028-24-23-0073 7200 Columbus Ave S $871.32A$871.32 $487.8135-028-24-23-0098 7239 Oakland Ave S $487.81A$487.81 $0.0035-028-24-23-0107 7238 Oakland Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$239.25 $0.0035-028-24-23-0112 7227 Portland Ave $0.00 PrepaidA$421.86 $199.4935-028-24-24-0011 7233 11th Ave S $199.49A$249.49 $706.3935-028-24-24-0060 7227 10th Ave S $706.39A$706.39 $672.6635-028-24-24-0098 7308 Elliot Ave S $672.66A$672.66 $301.3835-028-24-24-0127 7209 Chicago Ave S $301.38A$301.38 $106.9335-028-24-31-0018 7508 12th Ave S $106.93A$106.93 $0.0035-028-24-31-0050 7508 10th Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$118.62 $957.5435-028-24-31-0082 7408 11th Ave S $957.54A$957.54 $348.5635-028-24-31-0097 7400 10th Ave S $348.56A$348.56 $899.1535-028-24-31-0112 7401 Elliot Ave S $899.15A$899.15 $336.5535-028-24-31-0119 7438 Elliot Ave S $336.55A$336.55 $609.2835-028-24-32-0004 7431 Portland Ave $609.28A$609.28 $206.0335-028-24-32-0057 7539 Oakland Ave S $206.03A$206.03 $1,305.3735-028-24-32-0062 7509 Oakland Ave S $1,305.37A$1,305.37 $983.3635-028-24-32-0072 7533 Portland Ave $983.36A$983.36 $696.7635-028-24-32-0112 7426 Park Ave $696.76A$696.76 Report Name: SA_Master Printed: 10/1/2024 Page: 13Special Assessment Master Report S/A Number: 25078 City of Richfield Street Name Closed DescTotal Assessment Payoff AmtProperty ID House UnitSt Orig Assessment $376.7935-028-24-33-0030 7629 Oakland Ave S $376.79A$526.79 $556.8035-028-24-33-0040 7620 Oakland Ave S $556.80A$556.80 $869.4235-028-24-33-0046 7627 Portland Ave $869.42A$869.42 $147.8635-028-24-33-0057 7638 Chicago Ave S $147.86A$448.91 $184.3035-028-24-33-0078 7639 Park Ave $184.30A$184.30 $151.1435-028-24-34-0039 7600 10th Ave S $151.14A$151.14 $531.2535-028-24-41-0031 7411 17th Ave S $531.25A$531.25 $0.0035-028-24-41-0038 7420 17th Ave S $0.00 PrepaidA$231.40 $304.4135-028-24-41-0062 7525 18th Ave S $304.41A$304.41 $148.3835-028-24-41-0066 7520 16th Ave S $148.38A$148.38 $181.9435-028-24-41-0095 7425 16th Ave S $181.94A$181.94 $0.0035-028-24-41-0117 7438 18th Ave S $0.00 ClosedA$215.03 $536.6535-028-24-42-0027 7500 13th Ave S $536.65A$536.65 $183.5435-028-24-42-0049 7438 13th Ave S $183.54A$183.54 $573.3035-028-24-42-0060 7408 Bloomington Ave S $573.30A$573.30 $108.0535-028-24-42-0069 7433 15th Ave S $108.05A$108.05 $477.7635-028-24-42-0075 7500 Bloomington Ave S $477.76A$477.76 $545.4035-028-24-42-0088 7515 15th Ave S $545.40A$545.40 $772.2935-028-24-42-0098 7544 15th Ave S $772.29A$772.29 $217.3135-028-24-44-0026 7627 Bloomington Ave S $217.31A$217.31 $603.0035-028-24-44-0027 7633 Bloomington Ave S $603.00A$603.00 A Total: $162,892.52487A Count: $162,892.52$192,315.46 Grand Total:$162,892.52487Total Count:$162,892.52$192,315.46 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR UNPAID GARBAGE COLLECTION SERVICE FROM JULY 1, 2023 TO JUNE 31, 2024 WHEREAS, unpaid charges have been determined for garbage collection services from private property within the residential organized collection system in the City of Richfield and the unpaid charges incurred for such work ordered during the period of July 1, 2023, to June 31, 2024 amount to $162,892.52. WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the council has met and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for garbage collection services from private property within the residential organized collection system in the City of Richfield and the unpaid charges incurred for such work ordered during the period of July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024. Address NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1.Such proposed assessment roll, in the amount of $162,892.52, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed current services in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2.Such assessment shall be payable in no more than one annual installment and shall bear interest at the rate of five (5%) percent from the date of adoption of this assessment resolution. 3.The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the residential organized collection business serving their property, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid by November 15, 2024. A property owner may, at any time prior to November 15, pay to the residential organized collection hauler serving their property the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. 4.The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of October, 2024. ______________________________ Mary Supple, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION:PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM #6. STAFF REPORT NO. 144 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/8/2024 REPORT PREPARED BY:Scott Kulzer, Senior Analyst DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Kristin Asher, Public Works Director 10/1/2024 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:Chris Link, Deputy Public Works Director CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 10/3/2024 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Adopt a resolution for special assessments for removal of diseased trees from private property for work ordered from January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The health of trees within municipal limits is threatened by shade tree diseases and it is the City’s responsibility to control and prevent the spread of these diseases. If the City deems it necessary to remove a diseased tree on private property, the property owners have three options available: 1.Remove the tree themselves; 2.Hire and pay for their own contractor to remove the tree; or 3.Hire their own contractor and request the cost of the tree removal be assessed against their property tax. In addition to the above scenario, a number of properties included in this years assessment are residents who voluntarily used the City's EAB Removal Assistance Program. The owners of these properties either: 1.Asked the City to assess their 25% cost share for their Ash removal(s) to their property taxes; or 2.Failed or chose not to pay the city their 25% cost share after three (3) statements were sent and they were made aware the charge would be placed onto their property taxes. In the period from January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023, forty-four (44) property owners chose to assess or were designated for assessment, and four (4) property owners have since paid off their entire balance. The total amount to be assessed is currently $89,915.47 across forty (40) properties. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct and close the public hearing and adopt a resolution for special assessments for removal of diseased trees from private property for work ordered from January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT In the early 1970’s, the City of Richfield began a shade tree disease program to assist homeowners in the removal of diseased trees on private property. The following process is how the City ensures property owners are aware of their diseased tree(s). Notification to Property Owners At time of marking for removal, paperwork is left at the property which includes: Removal deadline; Reason the tree was marked for removal; Assessment information; Information regarding private contractors; A card postmarked to the City informing the City of owner's removal plans; and City staff contacts for more information. If the tree becomes hazardous or is past the removal deadline the City sends an additional deadline letter to the property owner. The letter is sent to the last known owner as obtained from Hennepin County Property Records and verified by our utility billing records. Occupied Properties On confirmed occupied properties, property owners with diseased private trees have three options available for tree removal: 1.Remove the tree themselves; 2.Hire and pay their own contractor; or 3.Hire their own contractor and request the cost of the tree removal be assessed against their property tax. Vacant Properties In cases where the property is vacant and no owner can be found, removals must be ordered when trees have passed the removal deadline or become hazardous. A contractor then performs the removal and the cost is assessed to the property. In 2023, no vacant properties had trees removed in this manner. EAB Tree Removal Assistance Program In 2023, the City rolled out the EAB Tree Removal Assistance Program which aimed to financially assist residents who met certain income requirements with the removal of their diseased Ash trees. As part of the program, the City paid 75% of the cost of diseased Ash removal and the property owner was responsible for the remaining 25%. Residents who chose to assess their balance or who failed to pay the City their outstanding balance for work completed in calendar year 2023 are also included in this assessment roll. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Strategic Outcome: By adopting this assessment resolution the City is leveraging its "financial capacity to deliver essential services" by assisting residents with removal of hazardous trees and spreading the cost burden over a five-year period. Equity: The City is leveraging its financial resources to help residents who would otherwise be financially burdened by paying for the removal of their diseased or hazardous trees. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): The work has been completed with prior approval from the affected residents; except in cases of vacant properties. Minnesota State Statute requires the County be notified of all special assessments. The proposed assessment was properly filed with the City Clerk. Notices of the assessment hearing were mailed to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll on September 7, 2024. The public hearing notice was published in the official newspaper on September 12, 2024 in advance of the October 8, 2024 public hearing. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The unpaid charges for the removal of the diseased trees must be certified for special assessment to the County Auditor along with current taxes as stated in City Code 910.23. The assessment roll is submitted to the County Auditor and must be reported to Hennepin County by the end of November annually. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: The costs to be assessed for the removal of diseased trees on private property for work ordered during the period January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023, have been determined to be $89,915.47. The property owner may pay the original principal amount without interest before November 8. Payments received on or after November 8 but before November 15 will be charged interest at the rate of five percent (5%) through the date of payment. The unpaid balance will be spread over five (5) years with a five percent (5%) interest rate. The original source of funding to have the work done is through the City’s Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City Attorney will be available to answer any questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): None PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: Property owners on the assessment roll. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Tree Assessment Resolution Resolution Letter Tree Assess Roll Backup Material RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR WORK ORDERED FROM JANUARY 1, 2023 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2023 WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the removal of diseased trees from private properties in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred for such work ordered during the period of January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023 amount to $89,915.47. WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the council has met and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for current services related to the removal of diseased trees from private properties in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred for such work ordered during the period of January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023. Address NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1.Such proposed assessment roll, in the amount of $89,915.47, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed current services in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2.Such assessment shall be payable in no more than five annual installments and shall bear interest at the rate of five (5%) percent from the date of adoption of this assessment resolution. 3.The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City’s Finance Division, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid before November 8, 2024. A property owner may, at any time prior to November 15, pay to the City’s Finance Division the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. 4.The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of October, 2024. ______________________________ Mary Supple, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk Report Name: SA_MasterPrinted: 9/30/2024Page: 1Special Assessment Master ReportS/A Number: 25077City of RichfieldPayment Number: 0 Of: 5S/A Number:25077Assessment Total: $101,484.16 Interest Rate: 5.00001st Yr. Int. Months: 141st Yr. Payable: 2025Description: 2024 TREESOpened Date: 1st Hearing: 10/08/20242nd Hearing: Levied: Amortization Type: SCounty Admin Fee: $0.00Status: PendingProject Nbr: Fund: Contract Nbr: Fin Acct Nbr: Resolution Number: Continue Calculating Deferred: YesInt Acct Nbr: Sub Status: Street NameClosed DescTotal AssessmentPayoff AmtProperty IDHouseUnitStOrig Assessment$732.5826-028-24-11-0011 6221 Bloomington Ave S $732.58A$732.58$2,688.2526-028-24-13-0007 6438 13th Ave S $2,688.25A$2,688.25$1,131.7026-028-24-14-0099 6508 16th Ave S $1,131.70A$1,131.70$725.8326-028-24-21-0019 6320 12th Ave S$725.83A$725.83$0.0026-028-24-24-0010 6401 11th Ave S$0.00 Paid at CityA$2,688.13$5,268.7326-028-24-24-0030 6414 12th Ave S $5,268.73A$5,268.73$738.9026-028-24-32-0077 6639 Columbus Ave S $738.90A$738.90$2,016.1026-028-24-42-0033 6632 13th Ave S $2,016.10A$2,016.10$3,870.9027-028-24-34-0082 6832 Pillsbury Ave $3,870.90A$3,870.90$3,225.7527-028-24-44-0012 6839 5th Ave S$3,225.75A$3,225.75$0.0028-028-24-34-0137 6934 Irving Ave S$0.00 Paid at CityA$3,887.03$12,773.3928-028-24-34-0138 6940 Irving Ave S $12,773.39A$12,773.39$1,606.8829-028-24-42-0072 6633 Xerxes Ave S $1,606.88A$1,606.88$672.0332-028-24-41-0039 7527 Thomas Ave S $672.03A$672.03$1,158.3432-028-24-42-0029 7521 Upton Ave S $1,158.34A$1,158.34$3,038.7033-028-24-22-0121 7145 Penn Ave S $3,038.70A$3,038.70$2,333.2933-028-24-42-0084 7512 Fremont Ave S $2,333.29A$2,333.29$2,365.5533-028-24-44-0003 7615 Colfax Ave S $2,365.55A$2,365.55$1,075.2534-028-24-11-0002 7114 Portland Ave $1,075.25A$1,075.25$0.0034-028-24-14-0015 7300 Portland Ave$0.00 PrepaidA$4,558.05$510.7434-028-24-22-0024 7016 Garfield Ave S $510.74A$510.74$6,559.0334-028-24-24-0006 7232 Nicollet Ave S $6,559.03A$6,559.03$2,607.4834-028-24-34-0004 7614 Nicollet Ave S $2,607.48A$2,607.48$812.5034-028-24-41-0051 7400 4th Ave S$812.50A$812.50$2,741.8934-028-24-42-0083 7514 Stevens Ave S $2,741.89A$2,741.89$2,150.5035-028-24-11-0027 7025 18th Ave S $2,150.50A$2,150.50 Report Name: SA_MasterPrinted: 9/30/2024Page: 2Special Assessment Master ReportS/A Number: 25077City of RichfieldStreet NameClosed DescTotal AssessmentPayoff AmtProperty IDHouseUnitStOrig Assessment$752.6835-028-24-11-0046 7008 17th Ave S$752.68A$752.68$3,290.2735-028-24-11-0049 7026 17th Ave S $3,290.27A$3,290.27$1,075.3035-028-24-11-0062 7020 16th Ave S $1,075.30A$1,075.30$940.8535-028-24-14-0030 7211 Bloomington Ave S $940.85A$940.85$1,075.2535-028-24-14-0070 7228 18th Ave S $1,075.25A$1,075.25$349.4635-028-24-14-0071 7234 18th Ave S$349.46A$349.46$483.8635-028-24-22-0079 7127 Portland Ave $483.86A$483.86$982.5135-028-24-22-0105 7145 Columbus Ave S $982.51A$982.51$763.4335-028-24-23-0074 7208 Columbus Ave S $763.43A$763.43$564.5135-028-24-23-0099 7233 Oakland Ave S $564.51A$564.51$3,689.8535-028-24-23-0108 7244 Oakland Ave S $3,689.85A$3,689.85$678.2835-028-24-33-0035 7605 Oakland Ave S $678.28A$678.28$0.0035-028-24-33-0069 7604 Columbus Ave S $0.00 Paid at CityA$435.48$4,123.9535-028-24-34-0010 7620 12th Ave S $4,123.95A$4,123.95$2,795.6535-028-24-41-0008 7414 18th Ave S $2,795.65A$2,795.65$2,150.5035-028-24-41-0130 7509 18th Ave S $2,150.50A$2,150.50$4,838.6235-028-24-42-0052 7439 12th Ave S $4,838.62A$4,838.62$556.1935-028-24-43-0070 7615 14th Ave S$556.19A$556.19A Total: $89,915.4744A Count: $89,915.47$101,484.16Grand Total:$89,915.4744Total Count:$89,915.47$101,484.16 AGENDA SECTION:PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM #7. STAFF REPORT NO. 145 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/8/2024 REPORT PREPARED BY:Scott Kulzer, Administrative Aide/Analyst DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Kristin Asher, Public Works Director 10/1/2024 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:Chris Link, Deputy Public Works Director CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 10/2/2024 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Hold a public hearing and consider: 1. A resolution adopting the assessment on the ILN Project Area for $81,615.59 in costs incurred to maintain the area for 2023. 2. A resolution ordering the undertaking of the current service project within the ILN Project Area for 2025. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The ILN Project Area assessment was established to recover special maintenance expenses in the 77th Street area in 1988. The current services include: Maintenance and operation of irrigation systems Weed control Mowing Fertilization Trash and litter removal Re-plantings Noise wall maintenance These current services are provided on both sides of the 77th Street noise wall. The maintenance functions are funded through a maintenance assessment on 77th Street commercial properties. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: 1. Adopt a resolution adopting the assessment on the ILN Project Area for $81,615.59 in costs incurred to maintain the area for 2023. 2. Adopt a resolution ordering the undertaking of the current service project within the ILN Project Area for 2025. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT City staff has determined the actual assessment costs of current services for 2023 for this area to be $85,954.46. $81,615.59 in ILN Project Area costs remain outstanding as of this public hearing because four (4) properties have already paid their assessments. The estimate for 2025 maintenance is $80,000. Fluctuations in expenditures for maintenance of the 77th Street Project Area are caused by a number of factors: Changes in water use and irrigation costs; Concrete repair variations; Demand for aging infrastructure updates Noise wall maintenance and repair; and Need for re-plantings. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Strategic Outcome: Adoption of the ILN Project Area Assessment resolutions will ensure we "maintain Richfield as an affordable place to live" by recovering costs for the unique services commercial properties are provided in the ILN Project Area. Equity: The ILN Project Area Assessment allows the City to maintain the 77th Street corridor to a higher standard than would otherwise be possible which serves to benefit the single- and multi-family properties that exist adjacent to and amongst the many commercial properties doing business in the area. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): Section 825 of the City Code indicates “current services” mean one or more of the following: (a) snow, ice, or rubbish removal from sidewalks; (b) weed elimination from streets or private property; (c) removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding any structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, sections 463.15 to 463.26; (d) installation or repair of water service lines; (e) street sprinkling, sweeping, or other dust treatment of streets; (f) the trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees from any street; (g) the treatment and removal of insect-infested or diseased trees on private property; (h) the repair of sidewalks and alleys; (i) the operation of a street lighting system; (j) the maintenance of landscaped areas, decorative parks and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right-of-way; and, (k) snow removal and other maintenance of streets in commercial redevelopment areas. Council ordered the work and the work was completed for 2023. Resolution No. 7405, adopted in 1988, established a policy for assessing the costs. Commercial properties are assessed based on their proportion of the total acreage included in the project area; however, all single- and multi-family residential properties, plus the two churches in the area, are exempt from the special assessment levy. The proposed assessment was properly filed with the City Clerk. Notice of the public hearing was mailed to all owners described on the assessment roll on September 7, 2024. The public hearing notice was published in the official newspaper on September 12, 2024. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: Each year the City shall list the total unpaid charges for current services against each separate lot or parcel to which they are attributable under Section 825 of the City Code. This list is available at the offices of the City Clerk and Public Works. The assessment roll is submitted to the County Auditor and is due to Hennepin County by the end of November annually. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: All costs to the City will be recovered through this assessment. Estimated and actual costs for the ILN Project Area maintenance services from 2003-2023 are: Year Estimate Actual 2003 $80,000 $59,831.07 2004 $80,000 $63,842.79 2005 $80,000 $64,841.54 2006 $80,000 $69,606.52 2007 $80,000 $77,441.46 2008 $80,000 $77,000.01 2009 $80,000 $62,894.55 2010 $80,000 $64,124.81 2011 $80,000 $72,427.48 2012 $80,000 $78,286.46 2013 $80,000 $59,779.82 2014 $80,000 $71,499.01 2015 $80,000 $59,557.56 2016 $80,000 $71,489.33 2017 $80,000 $77,790.83 2018 $80,000 $71,528.09 2019 $80,000 $54,621.75 2020 $80,000 $45,890.78 2021 $80,000 $51,161.92 2022 $80,000 $43,952.08 2023 $80,000 $85,954.46 F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City Attorney has reviewed the resolutions and will be available to answer any questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): None PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: Property owners on the assessment roll. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type ILN Assessment Map Backup Material ILN Assessment Roll Backup Material ILN Resolution Assessing 2023 Costs Resolution Letter ILN Resolution Ordering 2025 Work Resolution Letter 12th Ave SBloomington Ave S14th Ave S15th Ave S13th Ave SElliot Ave S11th Ave S10th Ave S77th St E 76th St E Frontage Rd 77thStEFrontageRd 78th St E 78th St E 494 WASHINGTON 7744 1200 1401 1620 1600 1525 MENARDS 78th St W 77th St W Frontage Rd 77th St W 2nd Ave SChicago Ave S4th Ave SWentworth Ave SOaklandAveSPark Ave S1st Ave S3rd Ave SStevens Ave SBlaisdell Ave SColumbus Ave SElliot Ave S76th St E Frontage Rd77th St E Frontage Rd 78thStE 77th St E 5th Ave S78th St E494 494 52 35 ROOSEVELT 7701 7740 308 84 7700 7720 7745 7708 7714 415 7715 7744 345 7701 7733 SHOPS AT LYNDALEUS BANCORP 76th St W 76th St W Lyndale Ave SM e ridia n CrossingsGirard Ave S77th St WEmerson Ave SDupont Ave SColfax Ave SBryant Ave SAldrich Ave SGarfield Ave SHarriet Ave SGrand Ave SPleasant Ave SPillsbury Ave SWentworth Ave SBlaisdell Ave S78th St W 77th St W Frontage Rd77th St W Frontage Rd Market Dr 78th St W 35W 494 7700 7701 200700980 1000 7700 1401 2 1 7644 501 7745 7701 351 84 7700 7720 100 7721 7715 7717 7709 7700 7720 7630 7600 710 301 7645 7610 52 31 32 53 35 INSET MAP #0 250 500 Feet 1 inch = 500 feet The City of Richfield makes no representation or warranties, express or implied, with respect to the reuse of the data provided herewith,regardless of its format or the means of its transmission. There is noguarantee or representation to the user as to the accuracy, currency,suitability, or reliability of this data for any purpose. The user accepts the data “as is”, and assumes all risks associated with its use. Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN) Assessment District Richfield, Minnesota I:\GIS\Projects\PublicWorks\Streets\ILNAssessment\ILNAssessment_ALL\ILNAssessment_ALL.aprx/ILN Assessment Map | Scale: 1:6,000 | Revision Date: 8/28/2024 | Author: AEglinton2023 Assessed Parcel AssessmentDistrict Report Name: SA_MasterPrinted: 10/1/2024Page: 1Special Assessment Master ReportS/A Number: 25076City of RichfieldPayment Number: 0 Of: 1S/A Number:25076Assessment Total: $85,954.46 Interest Rate: 5.00001st Yr. Int. Months: 141st Yr. Payable: 2025Description: 2023 77TH ST MTCEOpened Date: 1st Hearing: 10/08/20242nd Hearing: Levied: Amortization Type: SCounty Admin Fee: $0.00Status: PendingProject Nbr: Fund: Contract Nbr: Fin Acct Nbr: Resolution Number: Continue Calculating Deferred: YesInt Acct Nbr: Sub Status: Street NameClosed DescTotal AssessmentPayoff AmtProperty IDHouseUnitStOrig Assessment$2,767.4433-028-24-43-0019 1401 76th St W$2,767.44A$2,767.44$4,735.6033-028-24-43-0049 2 Meridian Crossings $4,735.60A$4,735.60$5,192.8333-028-24-43-0050 1 Meridian Crossings $5,192.83A$5,192.83$0.0033-028-24-43-0051FREAST77th St W$0.00 ClosedA$272.49$2,223.7033-028-24-44-0110 7610 Lyndale Ave S 200 $2,223.70A$2,223.70$295.0333-028-24-44-0113 7630 Lyndale Ave S $295.03A$295.03$234.2933-028-24-44-0115 7644 Lyndale Ave S $234.29A$234.29$8,982.5533-028-24-44-0231 1000 78th St W$8,982.55A$8,982.55$7,732.1933-028-24-44-0232 710 78th St W$7,732.19A$7,732.19$564.9033-028-24-44-0233 7700 Lyndale Ave S $564.90A$564.90$407.2833-028-24-44-0234 704 78th St W$407.28A$407.28$286.3433-028-24-44-0235 980 78th St W$286.34A$286.34$560.7533-028-24-44-0236$560.75A$560.75$1,741.0434-028-24-33-0081 7745 Lyndale Ave S $1,741.04A$1,741.04$158.8734-028-24-33-0082 7701 Lyndale Ave S $158.87A$158.87$1,170.3534-028-24-33-0087 301 77th St W$1,170.35A$1,170.35$2,506.1434-028-24-33-0088 351 77th St W$2,506.14A$2,506.14$604.4334-028-24-33-0150 7645 Lyndale Ave S $604.43A$604.43$604.4334-028-24-33-0151 7645 Lyndale Ave S $604.43A$604.43$604.4334-028-24-33-0152 7645 Lyndale Ave S $604.43A$604.43$604.4334-028-24-33-0153 7645 Lyndale Ave S $604.43A$604.43$604.4334-028-24-33-0154 7645 Lyndale Ave S $604.43A$604.43$604.4334-028-24-33-0155 7645 Lyndale Ave S $604.43A$604.43$7,172.3234-028-24-33-0156 401 77th St W$7,172.32A$7,172.32$343.9234-028-24-34-0001 84 78th St W$343.92A$343.92$2,238.2834-028-24-34-0053 200 78th St W$2,238.28A$2,238.28 Report Name: SA_MasterPrinted: 10/1/2024Page: 2Special Assessment Master ReportS/A Number: 25076City of RichfieldStreet NameClosed DescTotal AssessmentPayoff AmtProperty IDHouseUnitStOrig Assessment$483.1334-028-24-34-0054 7700 Wentworth Ave $483.13A$483.13$482.3434-028-24-34-0055 7720 Wentworth Ave $482.34A$482.34$554.8634-028-24-34-0056 100 78th St W$554.86A$554.86$806.4534-028-24-34-0057 7721 Pillsbury Ave $806.45A$806.45$128.6334-028-24-34-0058 7715 Pillsbury Ave $128.63A$128.63$112.5634-028-24-34-0059 7717 Pillsbury Ave $112.56A$112.56$241.5634-028-24-34-0060 7709 Pillsbury Ave $241.56A$241.56$241.6034-028-24-34-0061 7701 Pillsbury Ave $241.60A$241.60$446.9434-028-24-34-0065 7700 Nicollet Ave S $446.94A$446.94$421.9634-028-24-34-0066 7720 Nicollet Ave S $421.96A$421.96$0.0034-028-24-34-0073 7700 Pillsbury Ave$0.00 ClosedA$979.88$965.4034-028-24-43-0005 7740 2nd Ave S$965.40A$965.40$557.4634-028-24-43-0077 7745 2nd Ave S$557.46A$557.46$9,789.6634-028-24-43-0078 7701 Nicollet Ave S $9,789.66A$9,789.66$245.2134-028-24-44-0024 7708 5th Ave S$245.21A$245.21$244.4034-028-24-44-0025 7714 5th Ave S$244.40A$244.40$246.4434-028-24-44-0028 415 77th St E$246.44A$246.44$382.3034-028-24-44-0030 7715 4th Ave S$382.30A$382.30$696.7734-028-24-44-0031 7744 5th Ave S$696.77A$696.77$879.5234-028-24-44-0032 345 77th St E$879.52A$879.52$746.4934-028-24-44-0037 308 78th St E$746.49A$746.49$534.7735-028-24-33-0006 7701 Portland Ave $534.77A$534.77$496.0735-028-24-33-0008 7733 Portland Ave $496.07A$496.07$582.2335-028-24-34-0002 7744 12th Ave S$582.23A$582.23$1,119.7835-028-24-43-0008 1200 78th St E$1,119.78A$1,119.78$3,923.4435-028-24-43-0077 1401 77th St E$3,923.44A$3,923.44$3,345.2235-028-24-44-0010 1525 77th St E$3,345.22A$3,345.22$0.0035-028-24-44-0033 1620 78th St E$0.00 ClosedA$2,241.76$0.0035-028-24-44-0034 1600 78th St E 1 $0.00 ClosedA$844.74A Total: $81,615.5955A Count: $81,615.59$85,954.46Grand Total:$81,615.5955Total Count:$81,615.59$85,954.46 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET (ILN) PROJECT AREA MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2023 TO DECEMBER 31, 2023 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the council has met and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for current services related to maintenance of the ILN Project Area, which is approximately bounded by I-35W, 77th Street, I-494 and Cedar Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Such proposed assessment roll in the total amount of $81,615.59 is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed current services in the amount of assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable before or during 2025 and shall bear interest at the rate of five percent (5%) from the date of adoption of this assessment resolution. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City’s Finance Division, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid before November 8, 2024. A property owner may, at any time prior to November 15, pay to the City’s Finance Division the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which payment is made. 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County and such assessment shall be collected and paid over in the same manner in other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of October, 2024. _______________________________ Mary Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT WITHIN THE INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET (ILN) PROJECT AREA FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2025 TO DECEMBER 31, 2025 WHEREAS, pursuant to ordinance, the City Council of the City of Richfield did establish a special assessment district and did propose that certain current services be undertaken by the City in the ILN Project Area, approximately bounded by I-35W, 77th Street, I-494 and Cedar Avenue and that the cost of such services be specially assessed against benefited property; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield did also by such resolution set the date of the public hearing on the undertaking of such current service project and the levying of special assessment to bear the cost thereof; and WHEREAS, following due notice, such public hearing was held on October 8, 2024, at which time all interested parties desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the following examples of current services of the City shall be undertaken by the City within the ILN Project Area, which area constitutes the special assessment district with the exception of residential properties and the two churches in the area, with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against the benefited property within the district: a. Snow, ice or rubbish removal; b. Weed elimination; c. Elimination or removal of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding any structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 to 463.26; d. Installation and repair of water service lines; e. Street sprinkling or other dust treatment of streets; f. The treatment and removal of insect-infested or diseased trees on private property; g. Trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees; h. Repair of sidewalks, crosswalks and other pedestrian walkways; i. Operation of the street lighting system; j. Maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right-of-way; and k. Snow removal and other maintenance of streets. 2. The work to be performed may be by day labor, by City force, by contract, or by any combination thereof. 3. The designated period of the project shall be from January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025. Costs of the project shall be in the manner provided in the Richfield Code of Ordinances. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of October, 2024. ____________________________ Mary Supple, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION:PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM #8. STAFF REPORT NO. 146 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/8/2024 REPORT PREPARED BY:Kumud Verma, Finance Director DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Kumud Verma, Finance Director 10/3/2024 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 10/3/2024 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and consider a resolution adopting the proposed assessments of delinquent utility accounts, false alarm charges, public health or safety hazards charges, weed eradication charges, and vacant property registration fees to be certified to property taxes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Minnesota State Statutes 444.075, 429.101, and 429.061 provide that certain unpaid charges may be assessed against the benefiting property. Chapter VII of the Richfield Code of Ordinances provide that unpaid water, sanitary sewer, storm water, and street light charges may be certified to the county auditor to be included in a property owner’s annual property tax bill. Section 925.02 Subd. 5, Section 915.07 Sub. 3 and chapter 8.02 of the City Charter provide that the City is allowed to specially assess delinquent fees. The City Code also authorizes a certification fee to be charged against each delinquent account. By certifying the delinquent charges to the property taxes, the City is assured of collection of the charges. The delinquent accounts must be certified to the County Auditor in order for the City to collect the charges through the property tax payment process. Property owners have been notified that any unpaid charges or fees may be assessed against the property. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing certification of unpaid water, sanitary sewer, storm water, and street light charges, false alarm charges, public health or safety hazard charges, weed eradication charges and vacant property registration fees to the county auditor to be collected with other taxes on said properties. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT Staff expects that, as in years past, many of the now delinquent accounts will be paid before final certification to the County. Utility Billing: The pending delinquent 2024 Utility billing charges are $516,723.01, compared to $558,816.82 at the same time last year. In 2023, the City ultimately certified $461,035.85 due to some property owners paying their delinquent bill prior to the deadline. False Alarms: The pending delinquent 2024 charges are $2,800.00 compared to prior year’s amount of $1,100.00 at the same time last year. Public Health or Safety Hazards: The pending delinquent 2024 charges are $3,100.00, compared to $1,158.66 at the same time last year. Weed Eradication: The pending delinquent 2024 charges are $0, compared to $1,500.00 at the same time last year. Vacant Property: The pending delinquent 2024 fees are $2,700.00, compared to $2,900.00 at the same time last year. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): Minnesota State Statutes 444.075 and 429.101 and Chapter VII of the Richfield Code of Ordinances provide that unpaid water, sanitary sewer, storm water, street light charges may be certified to the county auditor to be included in a property owner’s annual property tax bill. Notice of Certification to Property Taxes was mailed to the Richfield property owners on August 23, 2024 and September 9, 2024 for delinquent false alarm, public health / safety hazards, weed eradication and vacant property accounts. The notice of a public hearing regarding the proposed assessment of delinquent utility bills was published in the Sun Current on September 19, 2024. Additionally, the public hearing notice regarding proposed assessment of vacant properties, weed eradication, false alarms, and public health / safety hazards was published on September 12, 2024. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: To pay the delinquent amount and avoid certification, the entire past due amount must be paid by November 12, 2024. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: Utility Billing: The pending delinquent 2024 utility charges total $516,723.01 for 858 accounts. A $50.00 certification fee will be added to each account. False Alarms: The pending delinquent 2024 charges are $2,800.00. Unpaid alarm charges are subject to a 10% penalty charge if not paid within 30 days and is included in the amount listed above. Public Health or Safety Hazards: The pending delinquent 2024 charges are $3,100.00. A $25.00 administrative fee is charged to all properties. Weed Eradication: The pending delinquent 2024 amount for weed eradication from private property is $0. A $25.00 administrative fee is charged to all properties. Vacant Property: The pending delinquent 2024 amount for vacant property registration fees is $2,700.00. A $25.00 administrative fee is charged to all properties. Unpaid Charges: The affected property owner may pay the original principal amount without interest or penalties within 30 days from the date the Council adopts the assessment. If the original charge remains unpaid beyond the 30 days, the charges will be assessed to the property and will include additional charges for penalties as noted above as well as bear an interest rate of 5% from the date of adoption of the assessment resolution. The certified amount is spread over a period of one year. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: There are no legal issues apparent at this time. The City Attorney will be available to answer questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): None PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Resolution Certifying Unpaid Bills Resolution Letter Utility Billing Assessment Roll Backup Material False Alarm, Public Health Hazard and Vacant Property Assessment Roll Backup Material RESOLUTION NO. _______ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CERTIFICATION OF UNPAID WATER, SANITARY SEWER, STORM WATER, AND STREET LIGHT CHARGES, FALSE ALARM CHARGES, WEED ERADICATION CHARGES, PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY HAZARD CHARGES, AND VACANT PROPERTY REGISTRATION FEES TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR TO BE COLLECTED WITH OTHER TAXES ON SAID PROPERTIES WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for current services from private properties in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, all sums delinquent become assessable against the property serviced under Ordinance Code 705, 715, 720 as adopted by the City of Richfield and guided under Minnesota Statutes 444.075, 429,101 and 429.061; and WHEREAS, the certification list has been prepared specifying the amount that shall be certified against each property that remains unpaid after November 12, 2024. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. Such proposed assessment roll as indicated on the October 8th list provided to Council is hereby accepted and each property is found to be benefited by the proposed current services in the amount of the assessment. 2. The total amount listed on the assessment list that remain unpaid will be assessed against each particular property. 3. A $50 certification fee shall be levied against each utility billing delinquent account certified. 4. A $25 administrative fee shall be levied against each certified public health or safety hazard unpaid charge, weed eradication unpaid charge, and vacant property unpaid charge. 5. The above-described certification list will be spread over a period of one year at the rate of 5% per annum. 6. The total unpaid amount will be certified to the County Auditor for collection with other taxes on said properties. 7. A copy of the resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 8th day of October, 2024. Mary B. Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk Account #Service Address Town/City Certification Balance 0317763400 6301 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $87.27 0116629061 2906 66TH ST W RICHFIELD $227.78 0312065170 6517 14TH AVE S RICHFIELD $82.39 0121168090 6809 WASHBURN AVE S RICHFIELD $382.95 0111463200 6320 THOMAS AVE S RICHFIELD $471.54 0331471440 7144 CHICAGO AVE S RICHFIELD $412.40 0211863450 6345 LYNDALE AVE S RICHFIELD $3,223.12 0131766200 6620 QUEEN AVE S RICHFIELD $8,578.18 0131766450 6645 QUEEN AVE S RICHFIELD $9,823.25 0331772380 7238 11TH AVE S RICHFIELD $938.67 0321967450 6745 13TH AVE S RICHFIELD $1,114.57 0121568090 6809 SHERIDAN AVE S RICHFIELD $578.02 0142071090 7109 NEWTON AVE S RICHFIELD $81.86 0141973000 7300 OLIVER AVE S RICHFIELD $554.82 0141773270 7327 QUEEN AVE S RICHFIELD $373.29 0212476150 7615 WENTWORTH AVE S RICHFIELD $890.25 0216609100 910 66TH ST W RICHFIELD $36.63 0231175250 7525 GIRARD AVE S RICHFIELD $884.84 0312165210 6521 15TH AVE S RICHFIELD $655.67 0222368210 6821 PILLSBURY AVE S RICHFIELD $14.45 0212362290 6229 PILLSBURY AVE S RICHFIELD $534.02 0223364010 6401 5TH AVE S RICHFIELD $586.41 0242375060 7506 PILLSBURY AVE S RICHFIELD $540.20 0326706190 619 67TH ST E RICHFIELD $935.41 0331373200 7320 COLUMBUS AVE S RICHFIELD $3,054.69 0332472210 7221 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD $355.90 0332571200 7120 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $1,271.38 0331673270 7327 10TH AVE S RICHFIELD $431.20 0311065010 6501 PORTLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $14,662.18 0233375200 7520 5TH AVE S RICHFIELD $807.19 0341874090 7409 12TH AVE S RICHFIELD $158.19 0341975320 7532 13TH AVE S RICHFIELD $559.27 0321066300 6630 PORTLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $729.78 0233970520 7052 OAK GROVE BLVD RICHFIELD $234.03 0322469270 6927 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD $571.72 0121667380 6738 RUSSELL AVE S RICHFIELD $25.36 0121466250 6625 THOMAS AVE S RICHFIELD $73.25 0232073380 7338 HARRIET AVE S RICHFIELD $748.23 0216404120 412 64TH ST W RICHFIELD $399.81 0316401001 6401 RICHFIELD PKWY RICHFIELD $2,550.10 0242374120 7412 PILLSBURY AVE S RICHFIELD $456.36 0141873250 7325 PENN AVE S RICHFIELD $929.76 0121669280 6928 RUSSELL AVE S RICHFIELD $662.87 0111964010 6401 OLIVER AVE S RICHFIELD $70.36 0342274450 7445 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $106.93 0311865050 6505 12TH AVE S RICHFIELD $26.02 0231373290 7329 EMERSON AVE S RICHFIELD $500.00 0121168290 6829 WASHBURN AVE S RICHFIELD $431.04 0241874010 7401 LYNDALE AVE S RICHFIELD $1,341.98 0233373200 7320 5TH AVE S RICHFIELD $758.91 0111665280 6528 RUSSELL AVE S RICHFIELD $241.62 0321366010 6601 COLUMBUS AVE S RICHFIELD $139.97 0243073000 7300 3RD AVE S RICHFIELD $569.41 0132069200 6920 NEWTON AVE S RICHFIELD $124.19 0111362100 6210 UPTON AVE S RICHFIELD $814.77 0212674140 7414 NICOLLET AVE S RICHFIELD $1,261.44 0332473250 7325 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD $950.63 0341276210 7621 PARK AVE S RICHFIELD $650.00 0316615060 1504 66TH ST E RICHFIELD $1,257.27 0332172380 7238 15TH AVE S RICHFIELD $1,227.57 0222269440 6944 PLEASANT AVE S RICHFIELD $455.86 0310064230 6423 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $356.78 0112263400 6340 LOGAN AVE S RICHFIELD $508.93 0321166390 6639 OAKLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $76.15 0332571000 7100 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $199.22 0218403520 352 APPLE LA RICHFIELD $299.00 0138326040 2604 70 1/2 ST W RICHFIELD $256.07 0138326040 2604 70 1/2 ST W RICHFIELD $223.95 0222168010 6801 GRAND AVE S RICHFIELD $413.23 0126614060 1406 66TH ST W RICHFIELD $500.02 0222767260 6726 1ST AVE S RICHFIELD $1,466.61 0242873200 7320 STEVENS AVE S RICHFIELD $772.70 0138428370 2837 71 1/2 ST W RICHFIELD $297.02 0242375450 7545 PILLSBURY AVE S RICHFIELD $914.64 0341075380 7538 PORTLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $545.09 0222369260 6926 PILLSBURY AVE S RICHFIELD $1,052.11 0222966170 6617 2ND AVE S RICHFIELD $519.41 0321666330 6633 10TH AVE S RICHFIELD $902.15 0231574440 7444 COLFAX AVE S RICHFIELD $546.45 0142272080 7208 LOGAN AVE S RICHFIELD $1,757.06 0132569290 6929 IRVING AVE S RICHFIELD $1,039.77 0141074270 7427 XERXES AVE S RICHFIELD $136.45 0237309180 918 73RD ST W RICHFIELD $677.51 0332573000 7300 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $850.18 0141970200 7020 OLIVER AVE S RICHFIELD $814.81 0232073210 7321 HARRIET AVE S RICHFIELD $563.59 0243070210 7021 3RD AVE S RICHFIELD $372.35 0332472450 7245 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD $137.32 0321768040 6804 11TH AVE S RICHFIELD $788.12 0222767370 6737 1ST AVE S RICHFIELD $99.78 0322468260 6826 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD $722.44 0312365080 6508 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $1,744.12 0136922010 2201 69TH ST W RICHFIELD $111.77 0123063330 6333 GIRARD AVE S RICHFIELD $139.92 0231376170 7617 EMERSON AVE S RICHFIELD $287.86 0142471060 7106 JAMES AVE S RICHFIELD $331.78 0321367360 6736 COLUMBUS AVE S RICHFIELD $832.46 0212464010 6401 WENTWORTH AVE S RICHFIELD $1,123.40 0212462250 6225 WENTWORTH AVE S RICHFIELD $54.47 0212462270 6227 WENTWORTH AVE S RICHFIELD $122.70 0137128160 2816 71ST ST W RICHFIELD $436.35 0312163240 6324 15TH AVE S RICHFIELD $412.43 0233370450 7045 5TH AVE S RICHFIELD $455.77 0322166120 6612 15TH AVE S RICHFIELD $93.26 0322469330 6933 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD $128.89 0311862140 6214 12TH AVE S RICHFIELD $236.05 0121068210 6821 XERXES AVE S RICHFIELD $475.47 0310063410 6341 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $287.70 0341075210 7521 PORTLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $93.08 0231175120 7512 GIRARD AVE S RICHFIELD $33.31 0231475440 7544 DUPONT AVE S RICHFIELD $362.63 0342276320 7632 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $535.08 0141472010 7201 THOMAS AVE S RICHFIELD $371.15 0312263450 6345 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $595.64 0316215050 1505 62ND ST E RICHFIELD $92.41 0243171000 7100 CLINTON AVE S RICHFIELD $150.49 0131868130 6813 PENN AVE S RICHFIELD $643.88 0141377380 7738 UPTON AVE S RICHFIELD $1,507.48 0242374000 7400 PILLSBURY AVE S RICHFIELD $234.49 0332072250 7225 14TH AVE S RICHFIELD $501.19 0138428240 2824 71 1/2 ST W RICHFIELD $1,027.00 0122663410 6341 HUMBOLDT AVE S RICHFIELD $1,261.84 0332272240 7224 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $1,605.77 0312064080 6408 14TH AVE S RICHFIELD $5.31 0331873450 7345 12TH AVE S RICHFIELD $942.86 0316613050 1305 66TH ST E RICHFIELD $905.99 0141772200 7220 QUEEN AVE S RICHFIELD $1,003.61 0121477260 7726 THOMAS AVE S RICHFIELD $295.71 0121468240 6824 THOMAS AVE S RICHFIELD $589.99 0342374240 7424 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $265.12 0223266250 6625 4TH AVE S RICHFIELD $1,148.92 0132569240 6924 IRVING AVE S RICHFIELD $736.46 0243273360 7336 4TH AVE S RICHFIELD $880.75 0126625090 2509 66TH ST W RICHFIELD $217.45 0342474110 7411 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD $102.60 0312062200 6220 14TH AVE S RICHFIELD $556.06 0141970000 7000 OLIVER AVE S RICHFIELD $574.53 0321068120 6812 PORTLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $225.84 0332271200 7120 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $730.75 0222776150 7615 1ST AVE S RICHFIELD $298.45 0312265360 6536 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $43.78 0242076080 7608 HARRIET AVE S RICHFIELD $1,138.65 0332371250 7125 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $521.04 0331870090 7009 12TH AVE S RICHFIELD $172.79 0341174140 7414 OAKLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $884.79 0121167160 6716 WASHBURN AVE S RICHFIELD $932.39 0222767180 6718 1ST AVE S RICHFIELD $326.12 0322068120 6812 14TH AVE S RICHFIELD $1,916.64 0132569400 6940 IRVING AVE S RICHFIELD $1,284.61 0212477270 7727 WENTWORTH AVE S RICHFIELD $1,750.73 0222268240 6824 PLEASANT AVE S RICHFIELD $352.26 0322569380 6938 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $255.83 0223365200 6520 5TH AVE S RICHFIELD $224.97 0312365240 6524 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $477.72 0322066510 6651 14TH AVE S RICHFIELD $206.05 0242474090 7409 WENTWORTH AVE S RICHFIELD $38.93 0242172450 7245 GRAND AVE S RICHFIELD $179.98 0321966390 6639 13TH AVE S RICHFIELD $141.66 0112465310 6531 JAMES AVE S RICHFIELD $621.00 0121469370 6937 THOMAS AVE S RICHFIELD $129.34 0141871090 7109 PENN AVE S RICHFIELD $380.30 0222966090 6609 2ND AVE S RICHFIELD $625.89 0341875140 7514 12TH AVE S RICHFIELD $920.62 0212362250 6225 PILLSBURY AVE S RICHFIELD $116.61 0131968150 6815 OLIVER AVE S RICHFIELD $129.34 0142372080 7208 KNOX AVE S RICHFIELD $756.98 0141872380 7238 PENN AVE S RICHFIELD $178.64 0211365360 6536 EMERSON AVE S RICHFIELD $811.90 0123063380 6338 GIRARD AVE S RICHFIELD $245.88 0141274090 7409 VINCENT AVE S RICHFIELD $965.87 0212575200 7520 BLAISDELL AVE S RICHFIELD $511.89 0141372320 7232 UPTON AVE S RICHFIELD $303.38 0242573010 7301 BLAISDELL AVE S RICHFIELD $451.75 0141873480 7348 PENN AVE S RICHFIELD $157.42 0242973440 7344 2ND AVE S RICHFIELD $143.67 0332273140 7314 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $1,452.41 0222867140 6714 STEVENS AVE S RICHFIELD $116.61 0332572040 7204 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $261.76 0233370390 7039 5TH AVE S RICHFIELD $785.49 0311864210 6421 12TH AVE S RICHFIELD $458.34 0341576090 7609 ELLIOT AVE S RICHFIELD $87.57 0331372440 7244 COLUMBUS AVE S RICHFIELD $75.14 0132369170 6917 KNOX AVE S RICHFIELD $1,525.11 0218403550 355 APPLE LA RICHFIELD $276.23 0121468090 6809 THOMAS AVE S RICHFIELD $129.02 0332571140 7114 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $578.73 0243273130 7313 4TH AVE S RICHFIELD $87.20 0316613100 1310 66TH ST E RICHFIELD $926.26 0332573200 7320 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $51.78 0312165240 6524 15TH AVE S RICHFIELD $59.91 0341075160 7516 PORTLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $315.75 0212362340 6234 PILLSBURY AVE S RICHFIELD $684.00 0242972440 7244 2ND AVE S RICHFIELD $223.54 0326806260 626 68TH ST E RICHFIELD $1,454.30 0111963370 6337 OLIVER AVE S RICHFIELD $435.75 0321568380 6838 ELLIOT AVE S RICHFIELD $82.75 0231375000 7500 EMERSON AVE S RICHFIELD $65.13 0141872140 7214 PENN AVE S RICHFIELD $208.95 0121668090 6809 RUSSELL AVE S RICHFIELD $594.28 0121569290 6929 SHERIDAN AVE S RICHFIELD $55.07 0341774080 7408 11TH AVE S RICHFIELD $787.82 0332472040 7204 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD $641.39 0331073280 7328 PORTLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $1,162.87 0132175000 7500 MORGAN AVE S RICHFIELD $923.47 0321166280 6628 OAKLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $456.35 0132867180 6718 LAKEVIEW AVE RICHFIELD $90.01 0223069260 6926 3RD AVE S RICHFIELD $159.62 0312164320 6432 15TH AVE S RICHFIELD $128.16 0243272240 7224 4TH AVE S RICHFIELD $121.45 0321567200 6720 ELLIOT AVE S RICHFIELD $25.90 0342174330 7433 15TH AVE S RICHFIELD $121.45 0321568290 6829 ELLIOT AVE S RICHFIELD $772.04 0321669150 6915 10TH AVE S RICHFIELD $307.58 0322268270 6827 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $141.18 0141276010 7601 VINCENT AVE S RICHFIELD $646.85 0212965320 6532 2ND AVE S RICHFIELD $661.04 0132066200 6620 NEWTON AVE S RICHFIELD $547.80 0321868450 6845 12TH AVE S RICHFIELD $124.85 0332572280 7228 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $757.15 0212963210 6321 2ND AVE S RICHFIELD $209.47 0243073240 7324 3RD AVE S RICHFIELD $398.59 0212477200 7720 WENTWORTH AVE S RICHFIELD $1,873.65 0321967380 6738 13TH AVE S RICHFIELD $181.40 0331870390 7039 12TH AVE S RICHFIELD $445.83 0212676450 7645 NICOLLET AVE S RICHFIELD $52.20 0332173350 7335 15TH AVE S RICHFIELD $160.92 0222169260 6926 GRAND AVE S RICHFIELD $242.90 0242275150 7515 PLEASANT AVE S RICHFIELD $358.62 0332271140 7114 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $453.37 0122664230 6423 HUMBOLDT AVE S RICHFIELD $132.09 0242172410 7241 GRAND AVE S RICHFIELD $892.85 0223363390 6339 5TH AVE S RICHFIELD $131.13 0121476200 7620 THOMAS AVE S RICHFIELD $999.46 0112063010 6301 NEWTON AVE S RICHFIELD $460.50 0242673080 7308 NICOLLET AVE S RICHFIELD $1,092.95 0111964210 6421 OLIVER AVE S RICHFIELD $939.78 0212863330 6333 STEVENS AVE S RICHFIELD $322.54 0332573010 7301 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $517.60 0341276150 7615 PARK AVE S RICHFIELD $154.78 0341274260 7426 PARK AVE S RICHFIELD $897.43 0322470260 7026 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD $685.11 0231673450 7345 BRYANT AVE S RICHFIELD $823.90 0141277010 7701 VINCENT AVE S RICHFIELD $116.61 0121166410 6641 WASHBURN AVE S RICHFIELD $176.39 0311763150 6315 11TH AVE S RICHFIELD $522.73 0141873350 7335 PENN AVE S RICHFIELD $531.43 0342574010 7401 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $1,754.62 0112162380 6238 MORGAN AVE S RICHFIELD $333.39 0231972280 7228 GARFIELD AVE S RICHFIELD $702.26 0243271380 7138 4TH AVE S RICHFIELD $200.00 0332173110 7311 15TH AVE S RICHFIELD $148.51 0312264250 6425 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $188.11 0242670050 7005 NICOLLET AVE S RICHFIELD $884.89 0341774330 7433 11TH AVE S RICHFIELD $119.82 0112064050 6405 NEWTON AVE S RICHFIELD $446.50 0332472340 7234 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD $631.94 0142372090 7209 KNOX AVE S RICHFIELD $384.01 0223366200 6620 5TH AVE S RICHFIELD $464.24 0231972000 7200 GARFIELD AVE S RICHFIELD $159.62 0218403560 356 APPLE LA RICHFIELD $842.59 0231473090 7309 DUPONT AVE S RICHFIELD $259.28 0341774210 7421 11TH AVE S RICHFIELD $539.82 0331971080 7108 13TH AVE S RICHFIELD $96.17 0312265120 6512 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $965.20 0211763130 6313 ALDRICH AVE S RICHFIELD $430.65 0316214210 1421 62ND ST E RICHFIELD $575.54 0232072000 7200 HARRIET AVE S RICHFIELD $613.95 0111163140 6314 WASHBURN AVE S RICHFIELD $523.56 0222069260 6926 HARRIET AVE S RICHFIELD $402.64 0321268520 6852 PARK AVE S RICHFIELD $132.13 0212575300 7530 BLAISDELL AVE S RICHFIELD $500.26 0121368120 6812 UPTON AVE S RICHFIELD $205.79 0147429170 2917 74TH ST W RICHFIELD $1,201.83 0222168080 6808 GRAND AVE S RICHFIELD $640.68 0213062380 6238 3RD AVE S RICHFIELD $555.76 0242175380 7538 GRAND AVE S RICHFIELD $667.46 0332170100 7010 15TH AVE S RICHFIELD $923.84 0116629020 2910 66TH ST W RICHFIELD $1,790.85 0141872000 7200 PENN AVE S RICHFIELD $464.12 0322069010 6901 14TH AVE S RICHFIELD $481.15 0123062260 6226 GIRARD AVE S RICHFIELD $739.18 0222875270 7527 STEVENS AVE S RICHFIELD $1,299.07 0213065390 6539 3RD AVE S RICHFIELD $1,406.98 0121267080 6708 VINCENT AVE S RICHFIELD $47.40 0222776200 7620 1ST AVE S RICHFIELD $293.74 0233075390 7539 3RD AVE S RICHFIELD $61.86 0141375270 7527 UPTON AVE S RICHFIELD $233.22 0237308000 800 73RD ST W RICHFIELD $852.03 0212574260 7426 BLAISDELL AVE S RICHFIELD $59.56 0341376330 7633 COLUMBUS AVE S RICHFIELD $588.43 0321768250 6825 11TH AVE S RICHFIELD $149.96 0331872080 7208 12TH AVE S RICHFIELD $793.98 0242972400 7240 2ND AVE S RICHFIELD $804.37 0322468270 6827 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD $633.42 0322467150 6715 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD $446.29 0312165200 6520 15TH AVE S RICHFIELD $188.66 0132269370 6937 LOGAN AVE S RICHFIELD $227.76 0233714080 1408 LAKE SHORE DR RICHFIELD $430.68 0111463150 6315 THOMAS AVE S RICHFIELD $1,257.42 0322366210 6621 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $506.18 0222569080 6908 BLAISDELL AVE S RICHFIELD $1,247.34 0216609250 925 66TH ST W RICHFIELD $674.42 0132666300 6630 HUMBOLDT AVE S RICHFIELD $382.73 0332471210 7121 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD $1,018.86 0341876320 7632 12TH AVE S RICHFIELD $321.43 0243071200 7120 3RD AVE S RICHFIELD $287.86 0321269010 6901 PARK AVE S RICHFIELD $11.07 0311065000 6500 PORTLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $466.30 0131768240 6824 QUEEN AVE S RICHFIELD $25.23 0212862270 6227 STEVENS AVE S RICHFIELD $27.34 0341775200 7520 11TH AVE S RICHFIELD $576.42 0231574390 7439 COLFAX AVE S RICHFIELD $724.98 0321966350 6635 13TH AVE S RICHFIELD $309.97 0237405210 521 74TH ST W RICHFIELD $474.35 0237405230 523 74TH ST W RICHFIELD $388.18 0311064120 6412 PORTLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $1,611.40 0211663150 6315 BRYANT AVE S RICHFIELD $1,290.93 0331872390 7239 12TH AVE S RICHFIELD $256.57 0132468160 6816 JAMES AVE S RICHFIELD $391.23 0243271140 7114 4TH AVE S RICHFIELD $408.08 0331573080 7308 ELLIOT AVE S RICHFIELD $456.16 0243073050 7305 3RD AVE S RICHFIELD $529.87 0231473210 7321 DUPONT AVE S RICHFIELD $830.40 0142273000 7300 LOGAN AVE S RICHFIELD $165.89 0223166210 6621 CLINTON AVE S RICHFIELD $314.40 0331771320 7132 11TH AVE S RICHFIELD $302.99 0212476320 7632 WENTWORTH AVE S RICHFIELD $1,074.00 0223066450 6645 3RD AVE S RICHFIELD $346.59 0141274260 7426 VINCENT AVE S RICHFIELD $102.09 0321667330 6733 10TH AVE S RICHFIELD $616.89 0222666330 6633 NICOLLET AVE S RICHFIELD $925.85 0232072120 7212 HARRIET AVE S RICHFIELD $1,982.29 0243173330 7333 CLINTON AVE S RICHFIELD $643.62 0111963240 6324 OLIVER AVE S RICHFIELD $608.48 0212963380 6338 2ND AVE S RICHFIELD $330.50 0231573150 7315 COLFAX AVE S RICHFIELD $672.82 0321068290 6829 PORTLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $33.44 0222167160 6716 GRAND AVE S RICHFIELD $199.33 0121368440 6844 UPTON AVE S RICHFIELD $48.08 0331872450 7245 12TH AVE S RICHFIELD $797.49 0131070090 7009 XERXES AVE S RICHFIELD $752.73 0341075140 7514 PORTLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $1,265.77 0241875450 7545 LYNDALE AVE S RICHFIELD $661.06 0121568250 6825 SHERIDAN AVE S RICHFIELD $426.13 0112162350 6235 MORGAN AVE S RICHFIELD $1,867.17 0132568150 6815 IRVING AVE S RICHFIELD $571.89 0341075080 7508 PORTLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $427.09 0213064380 6438 3RD AVE S RICHFIELD $564.00 0132566380 6638 IRVING AVE S RICHFIELD $93.26 0141375450 7545 UPTON AVE S RICHFIELD $2.84 0212162370 6237 GRAND AVE S RICHFIELD $407.92 0242573000 7300 BLAISDELL AVE S RICHFIELD $470.39 0121466120 6612 THOMAS AVE S RICHFIELD $471.78 0243071150 7115 3RD AVE S RICHFIELD $1,150.18 0331372000 7200 COLUMBUS AVE S RICHFIELD $377.79 0211962360 6236 GARFIELD AVE S RICHFIELD $190.14 0322470200 7020 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD $62.11 0141174030 7403 WASHBURN AVE S RICHFIELD $267.97 0237312200 1220 73RD ST W RICHFIELD $1,267.99 0111064350 6435 XERXES AVE S RICHFIELD $477.11 0231275080 7508 FREMONT AVE S RICHFIELD $1,284.62 0342375200 7520 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $75.14 0212962390 6239 2ND AVE S RICHFIELD $1,287.15 0212763390 6339 1ST AVE S RICHFIELD $249.02 0321268000 6800 PARK AVE S RICHFIELD $737.27 0332472440 7244 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD $583.93 0111062390 6239 XERXES AVE S RICHFIELD $27.88 0342668140 6814 CEDAR AVE S RICHFIELD $785.09 0121366320 6632 UPTON AVE S RICHFIELD $455.83 0331772320 7232 11TH AVE S RICHFIELD $210.33 0322066310 6631 14TH AVE S RICHFIELD $200.46 0322368440 6844 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $506.91 0137619200 1920 76TH ST W RICHFIELD $366.78 0322370280 7028 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $276.73 0212464210 6421 WENTWORTH AVE S RICHFIELD $25.90 0312164250 6425 15TH AVE S RICHFIELD $1,011.78 0312364120 6412 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $483.61 0232072370 7237 HARRIET AVE S RICHFIELD $464.58 0342276150 7615 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $799.77 0342375260 7526 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $31.25 0341175390 7539 OAKLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $922.43 0121268090 6809 VINCENT AVE S RICHFIELD $56.13 0142470110 7011 JAMES AVE S RICHFIELD $220.94 0142173090 7309 MORGAN AVE S RICHFIELD $939.59 0243270320 7032 4TH AVE S RICHFIELD $601.52 0121167010 6701 WASHBURN AVE S RICHFIELD $710.56 0233375320 7532 5TH AVE S RICHFIELD $970.67 0132169130 6913 MORGAN AVE S RICHFIELD $835.67 0111163040 6304 WASHBURN AVE S RICHFIELD $431.04 0337915280 1528 FERN DR RICHFIELD $302.59 0331470220 7022 CHICAGO AVE S RICHFIELD $214.40 0332271040 7104 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $203.60 0142470000 7000 JAMES AVE S RICHFIELD $942.10 0222268320 6832 PLEASANT AVE S RICHFIELD $813.51 0112263160 6316 LOGAN AVE S RICHFIELD $305.08 0331273150 7315 PARK AVE S RICHFIELD $334.51 0121568040 6804 SHERIDAN AVE S RICHFIELD $207.14 0233368150 6815 5TH AVE S RICHFIELD $488.83 0233075090 7509 3RD AVE S RICHFIELD $106.93 0331672150 7215 10TH AVE S RICHFIELD $489.35 0222367250 6725 PILLSBURY AVE S RICHFIELD $778.42 0213063390 6339 3RD AVE S RICHFIELD $1,094.90 0141971330 7133 OLIVER AVE S RICHFIELD $468.55 0312363140 6314 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $485.41 0211863000 6300 LYNDALE AVE S RICHFIELD $1,622.82 0332372440 7244 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $444.14 0332571150 7115 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $736.20 0243271000 7100 4TH AVE S RICHFIELD $989.21 0233370310 7031 5TH AVE S RICHFIELD $869.00 0132269450 6945 LOGAN AVE S RICHFIELD $321.54 0341876270 7627 12TH AVE S RICHFIELD $968.31 0223067130 6713 3RD AVE S RICHFIELD $497.49 0342375390 7539 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $381.57 0312662440 6244 CEDAR AVE S RICHFIELD $1,971.68 0112464050 6405 JAMES AVE S RICHFIELD $64.23 0232976200 7620 2ND AVE S RICHFIELD $733.93 0112163160 6316 MORGAN AVE S RICHFIELD $665.59 0123064490 6449 GIRARD AVE S RICHFIELD $183.88 0121567210 6721 SHERIDAN AVE S RICHFIELD $86.17 0331371080 7108 COLUMBUS AVE S RICHFIELD $126.29 0132369210 6921 KNOX AVE S RICHFIELD $259.66 0132668390 6839 HUMBOLDT AVE S RICHFIELD $756.39 0112065380 6538 NEWTON AVE S RICHFIELD $182.96 0242871330 7133 STEVENS AVE S RICHFIELD $111.77 0342276080 7608 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $986.86 0231074130 7413 HUMBOLDT AVE S RICHFIELD $181.92 0121569170 6917 SHERIDAN AVE S RICHFIELD $456.08 0223169440 6944 CLINTON AVE S RICHFIELD $408.22 0321369330 6933 COLUMBUS AVE S RICHFIELD $595.32 0141372380 7238 UPTON AVE S RICHFIELD $552.79 0131969450 6945 OLIVER AVE S RICHFIELD $547.27 0321769100 6910 11TH AVE S RICHFIELD $506.18 0243072040 7204 3RD AVE S RICHFIELD $725.55 0141375210 7521 UPTON AVE S RICHFIELD $1,190.99 0311763010 6301 11TH AVE S RICHFIELD $402.37 0331973210 7321 13TH AVE S RICHFIELD $299.37 0121368440 6844 UPTON AVE S RICHFIELD $335.73 0121567090 6709 SHERIDAN AVE S RICHFIELD $578.32 0121368200 6820 UPTON AVE S RICHFIELD $554.11 0132767330 6733 OAKLAND TER RICHFIELD $1,853.46 0122562440 6244 IRVING AVE S RICHFIELD $153.53 0321769350 6935 11TH AVE S RICHFIELD $119.04 0213063200 6320 3RD AVE S RICHFIELD $1,251.61 0121066330 6633 XERXES AVE S RICHFIELD $507.13 0231673010 7301 BRYANT AVE S RICHFIELD $132.56 0312264150 6415 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $85.03 0311963140 6314 13TH AVE S RICHFIELD $494.63 0341176210 7621 OAKLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $574.37 0132169000 6900 MORGAN AVE S RICHFIELD $535.18 0131170140 7014 WASHBURN AVE S RICHFIELD $327.78 0131967260 6726 OLIVER AVE S RICHFIELD $153.01 0321567210 6721 ELLIOT AVE S RICHFIELD $297.52 0233373040 7304 5TH AVE S RICHFIELD $1,274.32 0332572450 7245 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $695.26 0331071450 7145 PORTLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $427.16 0311762390 6239 11TH AVE S RICHFIELD $100.00 0242872050 7205 STEVENS AVE S RICHFIELD $358.84 0342175270 7527 15TH AVE S RICHFIELD $579.21 0132469260 6926 JAMES AVE S RICHFIELD $428.51 0341176200 7620 OAKLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $386.06 0342176090 7609 15TH AVE S RICHFIELD $802.09 0212564290 6429 BLAISDELL AVE S RICHFIELD $843.56 0121466160 6616 THOMAS AVE S RICHFIELD $540.27 0138323120 2312 70 1/2 ST W RICHFIELD $571.03 0132468040 6804 JAMES AVE S RICHFIELD $889.21 0218403600 360 APPLE LA RICHFIELD $234.49 0332372350 7235 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $624.36 0341776000 7600 11TH AVE S RICHFIELD $142.77 0231475400 7540 DUPONT AVE S RICHFIELD $189.09 0332473150 7315 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD $210.63 0233369200 6920 5TH AVE S RICHFIELD $121.45 0332371340 7134 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $834.19 0331473270 7327 CHICAGO AVE S RICHFIELD $99.78 0222267040 6704 PLEASANT AVE S RICHFIELD $530.96 0341074070 7407 PORTLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $734.83 0111462370 6237 THOMAS AVE S RICHFIELD $1,022.76 0111563010 6301 SHERIDAN AVE S RICHFIELD $857.10 0332471010 7101 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD $457.08 0223162330 6233 CLINTON AVE S RICHFIELD $480.08 0212676270 7627 NICOLLET AVE S RICHFIELD $1,221.46 0233970530 7053 OAK GROVE BLVD RICHFIELD $199.22 0312263180 6318 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $57.51 0231074270 7427 HUMBOLDT AVE S RICHFIELD $430.36 0122565100 6510 IRVING AVE S RICHFIELD $9.28 0341875010 7501 12TH AVE S RICHFIELD $614.27 0331871260 7126 12TH AVE S RICHFIELD $776.60 0331471220 7122 CHICAGO AVE S RICHFIELD $115.29 0141970270 7027 OLIVER AVE S RICHFIELD $1,644.54 0121066250 6625 XERXES AVE S RICHFIELD $478.91 0111262390 6239 VINCENT AVE S RICHFIELD $365.74 0316615360 1536 66TH ST E RICHFIELD $484.92 0132376400 7640 KNOX AVE S RICHFIELD $194.96 0121368320 6832 UPTON AVE S RICHFIELD $525.75 0321969200 6920 13TH AVE S RICHFIELD $675.03 0223267060 6706 4TH AVE S RICHFIELD $431.33 0223068380 6838 3RD AVE S RICHFIELD $632.28 0211763000 6300 ALDRICH AVE S RICHFIELD $881.22 0121466130 6613 THOMAS AVE S RICHFIELD $813.10 0222876150 7615 STEVENS AVE S RICHFIELD $483.32 0111563200 6320 SHERIDAN AVE S RICHFIELD $445.52 0211364160 6416 EMERSON AVE S RICHFIELD $246.57 0211663000 6300 BRYANT AVE S RICHFIELD $359.39 0141375010 7501 UPTON AVE S RICHFIELD $841.87 0111965110 6511 OLIVER AVE S RICHFIELD $119.04 0121569330 6933 SHERIDAN AVE S RICHFIELD $541.74 0231973120 7312 GARFIELD AVE S RICHFIELD $8.30 0147423140 2314 74TH ST W RICHFIELD $539.29 0231274050 7405 FREMONT AVE S RICHFIELD $474.57 0341174200 7420 OAKLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $1,233.34 0138329110 2911 70 1/2 ST W RICHFIELD $219.33 0211864400 6440 LYNDALE AVE S RICHFIELD $766.80 0131866000 6600 PENN AVE S RICHFIELD $2,931.81 0121168370 6837 WASHBURN AVE S RICHFIELD $1,082.13 0141673000 7300 RUSSELL AVE S RICHFIELD $1,153.16 0322569270 6927 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $399.04 0341274380 7438 PARK AVE S RICHFIELD $106.93 0112063070 6307 NEWTON AVE S RICHFIELD $25.82 0121167360 6736 WASHBURN AVE S RICHFIELD $318.15 0233373210 7321 5TH AVE S RICHFIELD $1,008.68 0223262320 6232 4TH AVE S RICHFIELD $767.24 0231871470 7147 LYNDALE AVE S RICHFIELD $514.38 0322369200 6920 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $821.65 0121268320 6832 VINCENT AVE S RICHFIELD $653.62 0141772270 7227 QUEEN AVE S RICHFIELD $414.28 0341675080 7508 10TH AVE S RICHFIELD $731.78 0212865010 6501 STEVENS AVE S RICHFIELD $99.00 0315163090 6309 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $182.66 0315163150 6315 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $164.23 0312163280 6328 15TH AVE S RICHFIELD $58.44 0223168010 6801 CLINTON AVE S RICHFIELD $45.28 0321168140 6814 OAKLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $317.40 0222875140 7514 STEVENS AVE S RICHFIELD $702.62 0311962140 6214 13TH AVE S RICHFIELD $692.13 0233373360 7336 5TH AVE S RICHFIELD $918.58 0216403010 301 64TH ST W RICHFIELD $121.45 0111262140 6214 VINCENT AVE S RICHFIELD $891.33 0216405000 500 64TH ST W RICHFIELD $735.58 0321167210 6721 OAKLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $93.26 0138329150 2915 70 1/2 ST W RICHFIELD $377.01 0226801270 127 68TH ST W RICHFIELD $420.66 0337915380 1538 FERN DR RICHFIELD $490.43 0242871000 7100 STEVENS AVE S RICHFIELD $917.21 0332472380 7238 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD $433.34 0231275450 7545 FREMONT AVE S RICHFIELD $760.86 0111462140 6214 THOMAS AVE S RICHFIELD $65.44 0242871210 7121 STEVENS AVE S RICHFIELD $473.33 0232769550 6955 1ST AVE S RICHFIELD $1,181.55 0332473050 7305 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD $594.09 0223164010 6401 CLINTON AVE S RICHFIELD $806.02 0341674000 7400 10TH AVE S RICHFIELD $687.26 0237712050 1 MERIDIAN CROSSINGS RICHFIELD $4,234.08 0237713050 2 MERIDIAN CROSSINGS RICHFIELD $5,402.82 0311765350 6535 11TH AVE S RICHFIELD $724.97 0243171450 7145 CLINTON AVE S RICHFIELD $760.12 0341575440 7544 ELLIOT AVE S RICHFIELD $584.51 0331270240 7024 PARK AVE S RICHFIELD $959.56 0231573290 7329 COLFAX AVE S RICHFIELD $143.67 0321768380 6838 11TH AVE S RICHFIELD $236.65 0243072160 7216 3RD AVE S RICHFIELD $165.89 0121568000 6800 SHERIDAN AVE S RICHFIELD $725.15 0111264080 6408 VINCENT AVE S RICHFIELD $440.61 0212062290 6229 HARRIET AVE S RICHFIELD $651.83 0332573450 7345 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $562.19 0332170390 7039 15TH AVE S RICHFIELD $106.93 0142071330 7133 NEWTON AVE S RICHFIELD $48.92 0341975000 7500 13TH AVE S RICHFIELD $30.00 0231375130 7513 EMERSON AVE S RICHFIELD $44.34 0216609170 917 66TH ST W RICHFIELD $605.02 0322166360 6636 15TH AVE S RICHFIELD $144.70 0342274140 7414 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $985.10 0331071000 7100 PORTLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $761.47 0332570340 7034 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $1,248.72 0127828000 2800 78TH ST W RICHFIELD $844.18 0222968120 6812 2ND AVE S RICHFIELD $317.44 0111062450 6245 XERXES AVE S RICHFIELD $90.67 0121475270 7527 THOMAS AVE S RICHFIELD $496.82 0312264340 6434 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $708.67 0341775390 7539 11TH AVE S RICHFIELD $304.72 0126626010 2601 66TH ST W RICHFIELD $1,221.41 0126627300 2730 66TH ST W RICHFIELD $1,186.13 0126627400 2740 66TH ST W RICHFIELD $897.27 0216403160 318 64TH ST W RICHFIELD $1,241.68 0226604070 407 66TH ST W RICHFIELD $2,185.24 0311962210 6221 13TH AVE S RICHFIELD $199.22 0312262310 6231 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $339.34 0311762320 6232 11TH AVE S RICHFIELD $1,475.01 0212562350 6235 BLAISDELL AVE S RICHFIELD $1,358.90 0112163010 6301 MORGAN AVE S RICHFIELD $93.26 0111063160 6316 XERXES AVE S EDINA $114.79 0315163210 6321 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $100.00 0315163230 6323 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $60.90 0315163290 6329 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $82.54 0312264290 6429 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $679.33 0132166160 6616 MORGAN AVE S RICHFIELD $224.86 0131866290 6629 PENN AVE S RICHFIELD $303.82 0223166410 6641 CLINTON AVE S RICHFIELD $613.22 0222966450 6645 2ND AVE S RICHFIELD $369.98 0321566450 6645 ELLIOT AVE S RICHFIELD $380.90 0322067040 6704 14TH AVE S RICHFIELD $625.41 0131767170 6717 QUEEN AVE S RICHFIELD $490.25 0211367260 6726 EMERSON AVE S RICHFIELD $0.04 0221867370 6737 LYNDALE AVE S RICHFIELD $282.50 0222668100 6810 NICOLLET AVE S RICHFIELD $1,407.62 0321868150 6815 12TH AVE S RICHFIELD $377.40 0121568400 6840 SHERIDAN AVE S RICHFIELD $397.64 0121168410 6841 WASHBURN AVE S RICHFIELD $1,285.34 0321469000 6900 CHICAGO AVE S RICHFIELD $262.60 0132069140 6914 NEWTON AVE S RICHFIELD $58.16 0232769150 6915 1ST AVE S RICHFIELD $577.58 0121669290 6929 RUSSELL AVE S RICHFIELD $506.64 0322469330 6933 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD $9.57 0132169390 6939 MORGAN AVE S RICHFIELD $624.88 0331870270 7027 12TH AVE S RICHFIELD $569.68 0242670330 7033 NICOLLET AVE S RICHFIELD $200.00 0332170380 7038 15TH AVE S RICHFIELD $220.02 0131070450 7045 XERXES AVE S RICHFIELD $801.21 0131070470 7047 XERXES AVE S RICHFIELD $623.70 0242771040 7104 1ST AVE S RICHFIELD $463.10 0331571120 7112 ELLIOT AVE S RICHFIELD $387.17 0331571140 7114 ELLIOT AVE S RICHFIELD $220.23 0242971330 7133 2ND AVE S RICHFIELD $782.25 0242372090 7209 PILLSBURY AVE S RICHFIELD $437.63 0242772210 7221 1ST AVE S RICHFIELD $1,069.04 0331172270 7227 OAKLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $471.58 0231872300 7230 LYNDALE AVE S RICHFIELD $735.31 0332572350 7235 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $122.47 0231972370 7237 GARFIELD AVE S RICHFIELD $424.92 0242673010 7301 NICOLLET AVE S RICHFIELD $104.59 0242673030 7303 NICOLLET AVE S RICHFIELD $153.87 0332473200 7320 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD $940.85 0332273340 7334 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $259.00 0332273380 7338 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $451.78 0231373400 7340 EMERSON AVE S RICHFIELD $984.58 0331973440 7344 13TH AVE S RICHFIELD $470.45 0242173450 7345 GRAND AVE S RICHFIELD $261.60 0342274080 7408 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $47.86 0231674090 7409 BRYANT AVE S RICHFIELD $540.36 0342374110 7411 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $73.67 0342574150 7415 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $358.85 0342574250 7427 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $63.12 0341274270 7427 PARK AVE S RICHFIELD $477.15 0341074310 7431 PORTLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $397.57 0141074390 7439 XERXES AVE S RICHFIELD $228.38 0222875010 7501 STEVENS AVE S RICHFIELD $63.37 0341175090 7509 OAKLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $761.43 0222875200 7520 STEVENS AVE S RICHFIELD $643.91 0242075270 7527 HARRIET AVE S RICHFIELD $236.59 0342175440 7544 15TH AVE S RICHFIELD $222.57 0233275440 7544 4TH AVE S RICHFIELD $823.07 0242176000 7600 GRAND AVE S RICHFIELD $630.00 0341476140 7614 CHICAGO AVE S RICHFIELD $208.62 0222876150 7615 STEVENS AVE S RICHFIELD $43.17 0341676200 7620 10TH AVE S RICHFIELD $87.57 0242076200 7620 HARRIET AVE S RICHFIELD $239.78 0342276330 7633 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $499.20 0342276350 7635 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $938.58 0342176380 7638 15TH AVE S RICHFIELD $424.34 0337108010 801 71ST ST E RICHFIELD $1,086.41 0337108050 805 71ST ST E RICHFIELD $766.98 0315163110 6311 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $34.20 0311965330 6533 13TH AVE S RICHFIELD $145.32 0131968370 6837 OLIVER AVE S RICHFIELD $188.51 0141973240 7324 OLIVER AVE S RICHFIELD $54.34 0233075330 7533 3RD AVE S RICHFIELD $409.26 0242671010 7101 NICOLLET AVE S RICHFIELD $3,259.03 0310063670 6367 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $102.25 0321768390 6839 11TH AVE S RICHFIELD $742.73 0321368240 6824 COLUMBUS AVE S RICHFIELD $534.26 0142270010 7001 LOGAN AVE S RICHFIELD $170.73 0142071000 7100 NEWTON AVE S RICHFIELD $284.57 0321566380 6638 ELLIOT AVE S RICHFIELD $33.29 0231475000 7500 DUPONT AVE S RICHFIELD $419.74 0341976380 7638 13TH AVE S RICHFIELD $310.80 0332571100 7110 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $228.41 0341075330 7533 PORTLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $1,820.14 0218403200 320 APPLE LA RICHFIELD $771.08 0341874390 7439 12TH AVE S RICHFIELD $778.01 0132066500 6650 NEWTON AVE S RICHFIELD $198.63 0231672440 7244 BRYANT AVE S RICHFIELD $370.06 0321668150 6815 10TH AVE S RICHFIELD $1,357.72 0141074000 7400 XERXES AVE S EDINA $116.82 0141076200 7620 XERXES AVE S EDINA $512.26 0312062080 6208 14TH AVE S RICHFIELD $929.48 0212962200 6220 2ND AVE S RICHFIELD $978.77 0332071380 7138 14TH AVE S RICHFIELD $672.54 0211463050 6305 DUPONT AVE S RICHFIELD $858.15 0242872130 7213 STEVENS AVE S RICHFIELD $1,589.54 0111462260 6226 THOMAS AVE S RICHFIELD $314.23 0223162320 6232 CLINTON AVE S RICHFIELD $469.02 0321368150 6815 COLUMBUS AVE S RICHFIELD $612.63 0121168450 6845 WASHBURN AVE S RICHFIELD $672.09 0332070080 7008 14TH AVE S RICHFIELD $653.46 0332570380 7038 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $482.09 0322467260 6726 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD $927.01 0331172390 7239 OAKLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $1,469.34 0222876210 7621 STEVENS AVE S RICHFIELD $672.89 0121667290 6729 RUSSELL AVE S RICHFIELD $9.93 0332270450 7045 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $200.00 0218004090 409 64 1/2 ST W RICHFIELD $294.89 0321969100 6910 13TH AVE S RICHFIELD $328.91 0321869350 6935 12TH AVE S RICHFIELD $1,949.58 0116618200 1820 66TH ST W RICHFIELD $555.49 0126615000 1500 66TH ST W RICHFIELD $653.64 0331872380 7238 12TH AVE S RICHFIELD $1,618.22 0321468080 6808 CHICAGO AVE S RICHFIELD $481.39 0131371390 7139 UPTON AVE S RICHFIELD $524.33 0322470080 7008 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD $540.93 0311764150 6415 11TH AVE S RICHFIELD $1,398.66 0341474000 7400 CHICAGO AVE S RICHFIELD $435.24 0316214130 1413 62ND ST E RICHFIELD $881.28 0111062490 6249 XERXES AVE S RICHFIELD $268.37 0342669000 6900 CEDAR AVE S RICHFIELD $496.78 0321668250 6825 10TH AVE S RICHFIELD $187.60 0341476200 7620 CHICAGO AVE S RICHFIELD $405.35 0223263140 6314 4TH AVE S RICHFIELD $439.56 0142270440 7044 LOGAN AVE S RICHFIELD $154.78 0121666450 6645 RUSSELL AVE S RICHFIELD $450.68 0315163270 6327 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $266.70 0212463430 6343 WENTWORTH AVE S RICHFIELD $547.25 0131767370 6737 QUEEN AVE S RICHFIELD $59.48 0242273320 7332 PLEASANT AVE S RICHFIELD $503.26 0231475010 7501 DUPONT AVE S RICHFIELD $710.17 0233370320 7032 5TH AVE S RICHFIELD $612.09 0121068010 6801 XERXES AVE S RICHFIELD $612.01 0121167400 6740 WASHBURN AVE S RICHFIELD $662.29 0312264070 6407 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $1,349.33 0138428770 2877 71 1/2 ST W RICHFIELD $158.37 0231675410 7541 BRYANT AVE S RICHFIELD $102.09 0222876390 7639 STEVENS AVE S RICHFIELD $1,465.05 0131769240 6924 QUEEN AVE S RICHFIELD $170.83 0232073040 7304 HARRIET AVE S RICHFIELD $1,271.73 0237614010 1401 76TH ST W RICHFIELD $96.68 0231373200 7320 EMERSON AVE S RICHFIELD $416.24 0111562280 6228 SHERIDAN AVE S RICHFIELD $670.02 0131768450 6845 QUEEN AVE S RICHFIELD $124.19 0132569460 6946 IRVING AVE S RICHFIELD $1,041.99 0131769335 6933 QUEEN AVE S RICHFIELD $524.14 0332572090 7209 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $1,431.01 0111462110 6211 THOMAS AVE S RICHFIELD $786.14 0342275270 7527 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $363.46 0142073080 7308 NEWTON AVE S RICHFIELD $520.16 0311863200 6320 12TH AVE S RICHFIELD $176.68 0142570000 7000 IRVING AVE S RICHFIELD $422.10 0312163250 6325 15TH AVE S RICHFIELD $462.15 0341974450 7445 13TH AVE S RICHFIELD $10.00 0121166370 6637 WASHBURN AVE S RICHFIELD $378.41 0222774270 7427 1ST AVE S RICHFIELD $794.53 0141870080 7008 PENN AVE S RICHFIELD $153.25 0212862440 6244 STEVENS AVE S RICHFIELD $132.32 0121566130 6613 SHERIDAN AVE S RICHFIELD $664.56 0322266440 6644 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $379.91 0112463010 6301 JAMES AVE S RICHFIELD $339.31 0142371440 7144 KNOX AVE S RICHFIELD $455.02 0111965040 6504 OLIVER AVE S RICHFIELD $71.33 0212575450 7545 BLAISDELL AVE S RICHFIELD $900.78 0311862450 6245 12TH AVE S RICHFIELD $588.73 0242871040 7104 STEVENS AVE S RICHFIELD $542.16 0332570390 7039 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $424.49 0341374140 7414 COLUMBUS AVE S RICHFIELD $382.59 0321868010 6801 12TH AVE S RICHFIELD $980.23 0142372260 7226 KNOX AVE S RICHFIELD $822.64 0222669210 6921 NICOLLET AVE S RICHFIELD $902.77 0111663000 6300 RUSSELL AVE S RICHFIELD $455.58 0132066540 6654 NEWTON AVE S RICHFIELD $124.19 0321966320 6632 13TH AVE S RICHFIELD $948.28 0311965150 6515 13TH AVE S RICHFIELD $386.12 0341074150 7415 PORTLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $63.55 0332570290 7029 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $18.23 0311064000 6400 PORTLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $210.33 0132175090 7509 MORGAN AVE S RICHFIELD $323.33 0233276000 7600 4TH AVE S RICHFIELD $1,973.41 0111663290 6329 RUSSELL AVE S RICHFIELD $264.42 0131767290 6729 QUEEN AVE S RICHFIELD $150.49 0322568000 6800 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $418.29 0332071010 7101 14TH AVE S RICHFIELD $121.11 0342575030 7503 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $51.15 0234071250 7125 AUGSBURG AVE S RICHFIELD $959.48 0112264200 6420 LOGAN AVE S RICHFIELD $171.66 0322569260 6926 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $362.09 0211366260 6626 EMERSON AVE S RICHFIELD $1,635.31 0331572010 7201 ELLIOT AVE S RICHFIELD $683.49 0111062270 6227 XERXES AVE S RICHFIELD $442.41 0321568450 6845 ELLIOT AVE S RICHFIELD $418.81 0331370000 7000 COLUMBUS AVE S RICHFIELD $116.61 0222368150 6815 PILLSBURY AVE S RICHFIELD $106.93 0141772450 7245 QUEEN AVE S RICHFIELD $143.67 0131966450 6645 OLIVER AVE S RICHFIELD $336.62 0231674290 7429 BRYANT AVE S RICHFIELD $1,225.03 0332270280 7028 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $531.09 0312262210 6221 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $1,158.81 0212576090 7609 BLAISDELL AVE S RICHFIELD $471.11 0211962260 6226 GARFIELD AVE S RICHFIELD $2,007.08 0223267300 6730 4TH AVE S RICHFIELD $331.76 0223168440 6844 CLINTON AVE S RICHFIELD $432.85 0116617060 1706 66TH ST W RICHFIELD $1,258.20 0332170040 7004 15TH AVE S RICHFIELD $1,218.02 0337915440 1544 FERN DR RICHFIELD $899.96 0238901000 100 69TH ST E RICHFIELD $61.01 0138430140 3014 71 1/2 ST W RICHFIELD $861.78 0341176250 7625 OAKLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $664.88 0332070380 7038 14TH AVE S RICHFIELD $228.18 0132669180 6918 HUMBOLDT AVE S RICHFIELD $121.94 0132669120 6912 HUMBOLDT AVE S RICHFIELD $760.08 0243271440 7144 4TH AVE S RICHFIELD $611.34 0212362350 6235 PILLSBURY AVE S RICHFIELD $640.01 0211365400 6540 EMERSON AVE S RICHFIELD $242.90 0111463250 6325 THOMAS AVE S RICHFIELD $174.54 0211863360 6336 LYNDALE AVE S RICHFIELD $6,492.96 0331273390 7339 PARK AVE S RICHFIELD $383.15 0331173200 7320 OAKLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $126.29 0232976210 7621 2ND AVE S RICHFIELD $800.19 0137128080 2808 71ST ST W RICHFIELD $761.05 0211763140 6314 ALDRICH AVE S RICHFIELD $588.52 0242474150 7415 WENTWORTH AVE S RICHFIELD $204.18 0137228520 2852 72ND ST W RICHFIELD $207.14 0231674010 7401 BRYANT AVE S RICHFIELD $343.42 0231473370 7337 DUPONT AVE S RICHFIELD $858.71 0222669150 6915 NICOLLET AVE S RICHFIELD $963.61 0331071170 7117 PORTLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $1,326.99 0312263120 6312 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $135.97 0233274200 7420 4TH AVE S RICHFIELD $528.18 0242673200 7320 NICOLLET AVE S RICHFIELD $523.01 0111462150 6215 THOMAS AVE S RICHFIELD $154.95 0228800210 21 68TH ST E RICHFIELD $691.25 0331371450 7145 COLUMBUS AVE S RICHFIELD $487.19 0342375450 7545 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $450.83 0341976330 7633 13TH AVE S RICHFIELD $439.33 0222369390 6939 PILLSBURY AVE S RICHFIELD $670.95 0232073090 7309 HARRIET AVE S RICHFIELD $400.73 0331871450 7145 12TH AVE S RICHFIELD $339.99 0312264450 6445 BLOOMINGTON AVE S RICHFIELD $927.33 0131767160 6716 QUEEN AVE S RICHFIELD $113.88 0112164390 6439 MORGAN AVE S RICHFIELD $471.29 0132668450 6845 HUMBOLDT AVE S RICHFIELD $124.19 0332071210 7121 14TH AVE S RICHFIELD $706.96 0321268330 6833 PARK AVE S RICHFIELD $496.36 0142071440 7144 NEWTON AVE S RICHFIELD $777.16 0131370200 7020 UPTON AVE S RICHFIELD $555.27 0341574380 7438 ELLIOT AVE S RICHFIELD $698.33 0341276390 7639 PARK AVE S RICHFIELD $233.94 0242377170 7717 PILLSBURY AVE S RICHFIELD $891.93 0226903200 320 69TH ST W RICHFIELD $345.02 0321469320 6932 CHICAGO AVE S RICHFIELD $592.03 0243273410 7341 4TH AVE S RICHFIELD $603.66 0231676320 7632 BRYANT AVE S RICHFIELD $589.19 0112064280 6428 NEWTON AVE S RICHFIELD $385.87 0231972320 7232 GARFIELD AVE S RICHFIELD $883.51 0231275090 7509 FREMONT AVE S RICHFIELD $48.68 0243173050 7305 CLINTON AVE S RICHFIELD $302.15 0331070160 7016 PORTLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $829.16 0311762100 6210 11TH AVE S RICHFIELD $732.96 0331672010 7201 10TH AVE S RICHFIELD $365.32 0332570250 7025 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD $488.89 0331173080 7308 OAKLAND AVE S RICHFIELD $498.46 0332473240 7324 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD $51.60 0242670210 7021 NICOLLET AVE S RICHFIELD $1,542.24 0322369320 6932 16TH AVE S RICHFIELD $323.82 0141871230 7123 PENN AVE S RICHFIELD $499.60 TOTAL $516,723.01 Report Name: SA_MasterPrinted: 10/3/2024Page: 1Special Assessment Master ReportS/A Number: 25072City of RichfieldPayment Number: 0 Of: 1S/A Number:25072Assessment Total: $2,725.00 Interest Rate: 5.00001st Yr. Int. Months: 141st Yr. Payable: 2025Description: 24 VACANTOpened Date: 1st Hearing: 2nd Hearing: Levied: Amortization Type: SCounty Admin Fee: $0.00Status: PendingProject Nbr: Fund: Contract Nbr: Fin Acct Nbr: Resolution Number: Continue Calculating Deferred: YesInt Acct Nbr: Sub Status: Street NameClosed DescTotal AssessmentPayoff AmtProperty IDHouseUnitStOrig Assessment$0.0026-028-24-13-0061 6438 15th Ave S$0.00 Paid at CityA$575.00$625.0026-028-24-42-0057 1305 66th St E$625.00A$625.00$525.0027-028-24-12-0058 6333 Stevens Ave S $525.00A$525.00$500.0032-028-24-14-0080 7314 Queen Ave S $500.00A$525.00$525.0033-028-24-14-0075 7309 Dupont Ave S $525.00A$525.00$525.0034-028-24-23-0137 7309 Harriet Ave$525.00A$525.00A Total: $2,700.006A Count: $2,700.00$3,300.00Grand Total:$2,700.006Total Count:$2,700.00$3,300.00 Report Name: SA_MasterPrinted: 10/3/2024Page: 1Special Assessment Master ReportS/A Number: 25073City of RichfieldPayment Number: 0 Of: 1S/A Number:25073Assessment Total: $7,500.00 Interest Rate: 5.00001st Yr. Int. Months: 141st Yr. Payable: 2025Description: 2024 FALSE ALARMSOpened Date: 1st Hearing: 2nd Hearing: Levied: Amortization Type: SCounty Admin Fee: $0.00Status: PendingProject Nbr: Fund: Contract Nbr: Fin Acct Nbr: Resolution Number: Continue Calculating Deferred: YesInt Acct Nbr: Sub Status: Street NameClosed DescTotal AssessmentPayoff AmtProperty IDHouseUnitStOrig Assessment$0.0026-028-24-14-0130 1700 66th St E$0.00 Paid at CityA$300.00$100.0026-028-24-14-0133 6501 Richfield Pkwy $100.00A$100.00$100.0026-028-24-14-0136 6401 Richfield Pkwy $100.00A$100.00$300.0026-028-24-31-0002 1115 66th St E$300.00A$300.00$500.0026-028-24-31-0045 811 66th St E$500.00A$500.00$0.0026-028-24-41-0063 6636 Cedar Ave S$0.00 Paid at CityA$2,800.00$0.0026-028-24-43-0100 6824 13th Ave S$0.00 Paid at CityA$100.00$100.0027-028-24-13-0001 6445 Nicollet Ave S $100.00A$100.00$300.0027-028-24-13-0116 6501 Nicollet Ave S $300.00A$700.00$100.0027-028-24-23-0090 6500 Lyndale Ave S $100.00A$100.00$0.0027-028-24-24-0060 6500 Nicollet Ave S $0.00 Paid at CityA$200.00$0.0027-028-24-24-0061 199 65th St W$0.00 Paid at CityA$1,200.00$400.0027-028-24-32-0139 6715 Lake Shore Dr $400.00A$400.00$0.0028-028-24-12-0052 6300 Dupont Ave S$0.00 Paid at CityA$100.00$0.0028-028-24-22-0004 6237 Penn Ave S$0.00 PrepaidA$100.00$500.0029-028-24-13-0031 2800 66th St W$500.00A$500.00$0.0029-028-24-13-0081 2900 66th St W$0.00 Paid at CityA$100.00$0.0029-028-24-13-0082 3016 66th St W$0.00 PrepaidA$600.00$100.0029-028-24-14-0064 2400 66th St W$100.00A$100.00$0.0033-028-24-34-0012 1700 78th St W$0.00 PrepaidA$400.00$0.0033-028-24-44-0231 1000 78th St W$0.00 PrepaidA$3,000.00$0.0033-028-24-44-0232 710 78th St W$0.00 Paid at CityA$800.00$0.0033-028-24-44-0235 980 78th St W$0.00 Paid at CityA$100.00$0.0034-028-24-22-0001 7145 Harriet Ave$0.00 Paid at CityA$600.00$200.0034-028-24-34-0053 200 78th St W$200.00A$200.00$0.0034-028-24-44-0032 345 77th St E$0.00 Paid at CityA$100.00 Report Name: SA_MasterPrinted: 10/3/2024Page: 2Special Assessment Master ReportS/A Number: 25073City of RichfieldStreet NameClosed DescTotal AssessmentPayoff AmtProperty IDHouseUnitStOrig Assessment$100.0035-028-24-43-0077 1401 77th St E$100.00A$100.00A Total: $2,800.0027A Count: $2,800.00$13,700.00Grand Total:$2,800.0027Total Count:$2,800.00$13,700.00 Report Name: SA_MasterPrinted: 10/3/2024Page: 1Special Assessment Master ReportS/A Number: 25074City of RichfieldPayment Number: 0 Of: 1S/A Number:25074Assessment Total: $3,780.00 Interest Rate: 5.00001st Yr. Int. Months: 141st Yr. Payable: 2025Description: 2024 NUISANCEOpened Date: 1st Hearing: 2nd Hearing: Levied: Amortization Type: SCounty Admin Fee: $0.00Status: PendingProject Nbr: Fund: Contract Nbr: Fin Acct Nbr: Resolution Number: Continue Calculating Deferred: YesInt Acct Nbr: Sub Status: Street NameClosed DescTotal AssessmentPayoff AmtProperty IDHouseUnitStOrig Assessment$125.0026-028-24-42-0057 1305 66th St E$125.00A$125.00$300.0027-028-24-21-0030 6235 Pillsbury Ave $300.00A$300.00$350.0027-028-24-22-0030 6316 Grand Ave$350.00A$350.00$125.0027-028-24-42-0134 101 66th St E$125.00A$125.00$0.0028-028-24-23-0022 6525 Penn Ave S$0.00 ClosedA$680.00$250.0028-028-24-42-0050 6601 Emerson Ave S $250.00A$250.00$125.0029-028-24-11-0043 6320 Sheridan Ave S $125.00A$125.00$125.0029-028-24-13-0017 6428 Washburn Ave S $125.00A$125.00$350.0029-028-24-41-0049 2601 66th St W$350.00A$350.00$125.0032-028-24-12-0124 2800 71 1/2 St W$125.00A$125.00$0.0032-028-24-42-0064 7405 Washburn Ave S $0.00 Paid at CityA$125.00$125.0033-028-24-14-0027 7344 Aldrich Ave S $125.00A$125.00$475.0033-028-24-41-0039 7401 Bryant Ave S $475.00A$475.00$125.0034-028-24-23-0031 7245 Grand Ave$125.00A$125.00$125.0034-028-24-23-0103 7221 Lyndale Ave S $125.00A$125.00$125.0034-028-24-23-0137 7309 Harriet Ave$125.00A$125.00$125.0035-028-24-12-0012 7027 12th Ave S$125.00A$125.00$125.0035-028-24-41-0031 7411 17th Ave S$125.00A$125.00A Total: $3,100.0018A Count: $3,100.00$3,905.00Grand Total:$3,100.0018Total Count:$3,100.00$3,905.00 AGENDA SECTION:RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM #9. STAFF REPORT NO. 147 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/8/2024 REPORT PREPARED BY:Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Kristin Asher, Public Works Director 9/30/2024 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 10/2/2024 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider adoption of a resolution supporting the County State Aid Highway 52 (Nicollet Avenue) Preferred Concept from 77th Street to 66th Street, as recommended by the Transportation Commission. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Hennepin County has planned a full reconstruction of County State Aid Highway 52 (Nicollet Avenue) for 2026. Public engagement and outreach began in August of 2023 and consisted of four phases of engagement following Richfield's Public Engagement Policy for Public Works projects. The project team also presented to the Transportation Commission five times over that period for feedback and direction. The Transportation Commission voted unanimously at their September 4th meeting to recommend the Preferred Concept presented for City Council consideration. Staff presented on the Preferred Concept and the current cost estimate, including the City's anticipated cost share, at a work session on September 24th. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt a resolution supporting the County State Aid Highway 52 (Nicollet Avenue) Preferred Concept from 77th Street to 66th Street, as recommended by the Transportation Commission. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT Project Background Hennepin County has planned a full reconstruction of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 52 (Nicollet Avenue) from 77th Street to CSAH 53 (66th Street) in their Capital Improvement Plan for 2026 construction. The roadway and City-owned utilities have not been fully replaced since their original construction in the 1960s, when it was constructed as a four-lane roadway. The road has been milled and overlaid several times, most recently in 2014 when the road was also re-striped to a three lane configuration. The northbound lane of Nicollet Avenue was impacted by a gas transmission line project in 2018 and repaved by the private utility owner. Median refuges were added to 71st, 72nd, and 73rd Streets in 2020. Process Hennepin County has followed Richfield’s Public Engagement Policy to develop the preliminary design for this project. The County and their consultant team divided the project engagement into four phases. Phase 1 began with an open house at the Augsburg Park Library on August 22, 2023. During this phase, residents were asked about their concerns with the existing roadway in order to develop the project’s problem statement and goals for the subsequent phases. This phase included an in-person open house, an online survey, tabling events at both Richfield Penn Fest and the Richfield Farmers’ Market, and initial contacts with more than 10 community organizations. The project team interacted with approximately 350 people through the in-person events, with 58 online questionnaire responses. The key themes of comments received during Phase 1 were walking and biking safety, safety at intersections, vehicle speeds, vehicle operations, green infrastructure, and roundabouts. These results were then shared with the Richfield Transportation Commission to develop the project’s problem statement and goals. The identified problem statement for the project is: There is a need to improve safety and comfort for people who travel along and across Nicollet Avenue, including people walking, rolling, riding bicycles, taking the bus, and driving a personal vehicle. The dated corridor doesn’t address all modes equitably and needs modernization to serve the needs of the community for the next 50+ years. The corridor is uninviting, lacking in aesthetics, environmental sustainability, green space, vegetation, and street lighting. Finally, the pavement quality and ADA facilities do not meet Hennepin County or City of Richfield standards. The project goals are: Provide safer facilities and crossing opportunities for people walking, rolling, and biking Improve bus travel by creating comfortable stops and reliable travel experiences Create safe, secure, and comfortable places for everyone to travel, regardless of their age or ability Improve the look and feel of the corridor and foster environmental sustainability The problem statement and goals were presented for public feedback during Phase 2, along with general tools to address the items identified in Phase 1. Attendees were asked for their opinions about potential lane configurations (2 lane vs 3 lane), as well as bicycle trail locations, intersection pedestrian safety features, and intersection traffic control (signals vs roundabouts). Phase 2 included an in person open house at the Richfield Community Center on October 17, 2023, a virtual survey, contacts with more than 10 community organizations, and a pop-up table event at Richfield High School conferences. This phase reached approximately 35 people at the in person open house, 84 respondents online, and 10 families at the High School. Feedback from Phase 2 was again shared with the Transportation Commission to determine a preferred typical section for the roadway based on technical analysis and public input, resulting in a 3 lane section with 2 thru lanes and a center left-turn lane and off-street pedestrian bicycle facilities. Phase 3 asked residents for feedback on bikeway configuration (one-way vs two-way) and possible safety features at intersections along the road. The in-person open house at the Richfield Community Center on February 29, 2024 for this phase had approximately 100 attendees with 85 online respondents. There were also meetings with community organizations and stakeholder groups, but no pop-up table events for this phase. After Phase 3, the Transportation Commission and project team went intersection by intersection to determine a preferred intersection design for all locations along the corridor, again based on technical analysis and public input. The Commission also determined a preferred bikeway design: single direction separated bike paths on each side of the roadway (also known as cycle tracks and similar to the design on 66th Street). After discussing each intersection, the project team developed a full layout for the project area, which was presented to the Transportation Commission again prior to Phase 4. This layout review resulted in changes to add more pedestrian refuges and pedestrian flashing lights (RRFBs). The full layout was then presented to the public during Phase 4 for feedback. The in-person open house was held on Wednesday, July 10, 2024 at the Richfield Community Center with approximately 75 people in attendance. 38 questionnaires were received online, with over 300 comments added to the project map either in person or online. Engagement summaries from all 4 phases, including all comments received through the process, are included as an attachment to this staff report. The Transportation Commission considered the feedback received during Phase 4 at their September 4, 2024 meeting, at which the Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the layout. Common Concerns Throughout the process, staff heard feedback about the project that contained mixed opinions about certain aspects of the project. Roundabouts Staff received split feedback about roundabouts at all phases of engagement. The most common comments received were about perceived safety issues for both vehicles and pedestrians, as well as traffic flow. The County’s consultant modeled traffic flow for both a signalized corridor and a corridor with roundabouts, and found that single-lane compact roundabouts at 76th, 73rd, 70th, and 67th Streets resulted in a lower travel time on average than a signalized road, even at peak hours and during event releases at the Academy of Holy Angels. Concerns about safety are frequently heard whenever roundabouts are considered, as drivers are more familiar with traditional traffic signals and stop signs. National research consistently verifies that roundabouts create positive safety outcomes by significantly reducing and nearly eliminating fatal and serious injury crashes at intersections. County consultant staff did a before/after comparison on several single lane roundabouts around the metro area near schools, and found an increase in safety conditions after the construction of the roundabout, even with a high number of younger drivers. While City staff receive occasional calls and emails about close call events at roundabouts, signals, and stop signs where either pedestrians or drivers feel a crash was narrowly averted, reported crash data shows that of the 33 reported crashes involving a pedestrian since 2019, 1 occurred at a roundabout and 0 occurred at a single-lane roundabout. There have been 41 reported crashes involving a cyclist in the same time period, 5 occurring at multi-lane roundabouts and 1 occurring at a single-lane roundabout. A recent study by the Local Road Research Board and MnDOT found that roundabouts can lower speeds by around 7 miles per hour on average near the intersection, as opposed to a stop or signal controlled intersection Right-in, right-out intersections Staff also heard concerns about neighborhood access due to proposed raised medians through the intersections with 74th, 71st, and 69th Streets, which would remove left-turn and thru access at these intersections. City Engineering staff met with City Emergency Services staff (Fire and Police), as well as Public Works Operations, and the group concluded that these medians would not negatively affect emergency response time or plow operations. Raised medians would directly affect a small number of trips which begin or end within 1 block east or west of Nicollet Avenue, while all other trips would be able to access Nicollet Avenue one block north or south of these streets. None of the streets that are proposed to have thru movements removed are through streets that cross the railroad tracks at Pleasant Avenue. Staff Recommendation The Preferred Concept design to be considered by the City Council is the result of over a year of public engagement and Transportation Commission discussions. The resulting layout achieves the project goals by incorporating safety features for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers, such as roundabouts, flashing pedestrian crosswalk lights, and curb bumpouts with raised crosswalks across local street intersections. The proposed changes should create a safer and greener corridor for all users, without negatively impacting travel time for vehicles. Staff recommend that the City Council approve the Preferred Concept for Nicollet Avenue. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Strategic Considerations: As proposed, the Preferred Concept for Nicollet Avenue is an example of infrastructure that meets the service needs of the community. Equity Considerations: The project will create a safer, more comfortable corridor for all users of Nicollet Avenue, whether they are walking, biking, rolling, driving a personal vehicle, or taking public transit. The proposed design emphasizes the safety of the roadway's most vulnerable users to reduce or eliminate vehicle crashes with pedestrians and bicyclists, and reduce the severity of vehicle crashes on the road. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): Bicycle Master Plan (2012) This project aims to achieve all 3 Key Objectives of the plan Link Destinations Improve Safety Community Awareness Nicollet Avenue is identified as a primary bikeway corridor Pedestrian Master Plan (2018) The proposed design incorporates nearly all of the best practices for pedestrian safety identified in the 2018 plan Active Transportation Action Plan (2024) Proposed design achieves goal of "Centering active transportation users in the Nicollet Avenue redesign, prioritizing people walking, rolling, biking, and using transit, followed by other vehicles in design decisions." D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: For the project to be constructed in 2026, County staff needs to have final design plans completed by late 2025. A recommendation is needed at this time to either progress to final design or continue engagement and preliminary design activities. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: The estimated cost breakdown for the project, per Hennepin County's Cost Participation Policy is: Roadway and storm sewer construction: $18 Million Hennepin County: $12.9 Million Richfield: $5.1 Million City of Richfield utility construction: $5.9 Million Sanitary Sewer: $2.9 Million Watermain: $3 Million Right of way acquisition: $1.95 Million Hennepin County: $975,000 Richfield: $975,000 All items listed above include a 25% contingency, as this is a preliminary estimate that will change as the design of the project progresses. Per the County's cost participation policy, Richfield is also responsible for 22% of the City's total construction subtotal for design engineering and construction administration costs. This is currently estimated at $2.4 Million with all work included. The current estimated total project cost for the Preferred Concept is approximately $28 million, with a total estimated City cost of approximately $14.4 million. The City's proposed 2026-2029 Capital Improvement Plan, in the 2025 proposed budget, includes an estimate of $10 million in cost contributions for the project ($5 million for roadway design and construction, and $5 million for utility design and construction). This estimate was based on the County's 2024 CIP, which included cost estimates that had been created prior to the project progressing far enough in the design phase for an estimate of the Preferred Concept. Staff will continue to look for possible project savings on the roadway improvements, but options for significant savings are limited. Staff are also exploring additional revenue options, including franchise fees. Initial estimates are a $150,000 increase in the debt levy for a $7.2M debt issue in 2026 compared to the original estimated debt issue of $5M. However, the increase is projected to be $50,000 higher than the average debt levy for the past several years due to lower interest rate assumptions and the timing of maturing debt. Staff are additionally investigating possible project savings for the City utility portions of the project. Finally, staff plan to recommend that the City continue to request funding for the project in the City's 2025 Legislative platform. State funding could significantly reduce the financial impact on the debt levy and utility funds. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City Attorney will be available for any questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): None. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: Matt Huggins, PE - Project Manager, Hennepin County Tyler McLeete, PE - Project Manager, Stantec Dan Edgerton, AICP - Engagement Lead, Zan Associates ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Nicollet Avenue Preferred Concept Resolution Resolution Letter Nicollet Avenue Preferred Concept Exhibit Nicollet Avenue Engagement Summaries Backup Material RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY’S PREFERRED CONCEPT FOR THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 52 (NICOLLET AVENUE) HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT NO. 2120800 WHEREAS, Hennepin County has programmed a reconstruction project along County State Aid Highway 52 (Nicollet Avenue) from 77th Street to 66th Street in 2026; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County and the City of Richfield have sought public input on the design elements of the roadway since August 2023, utilizing Richfield’s Public Engagement Process; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County and their consultant staff have met with the Richfield Transportation Commission five times to seek direction and recommendation from the Commission on design elements; and WHEREAS, the Preferred Concept includes a three-lane roadway section, a buffered single direction separated bike path on both sides of the roadway, widened sidewalks; and WHEREAS, at 76th Street, 73rd Street, 70th Street, and 67th Street, the Preferred Concept includes compact roundabouts for traffic control and safety of all intersection users by reducing conflict points; and WHEREAS, at 75th Street, 72nd Street, and 68th Street, the Preferred Concept includes left turn lanes with median refuges to facilitate vehicle access and increase pedestrian safety; and WHEREAS, at 74th Street, 71st Street, and 69th Street, the Preferred Concept includes a full median to reduce vehicle conflict points and increase safety for all users of the roadway; and WHEREAS, at 76th Street, 72nd Street, and 70th Street, the Preferred Concept includes rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) to improve visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists for drivers; and WHEREAS, at 75th Street, 74th Street, 72nd Street, 71st Street, 69th Street, and 68th Street, the Preferred Concept includes curb extensions and raised crosswalks to shorten crossing distances and increase visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists; and WHEREAS, the Preferred Concept emphasizes the Transportation Commission’s Guiding Principles; and WHEREAS, the Preferred Concept fulfills goals laid out in the city’s Bicycle Master Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, and Active Transportation Action Plan; and WHEREAS, the Transportation Commission has unanimously recommended the Preferred Concept at their September 4, 2024 regular meeting; 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, Minnesota, supports Hennepin County’s Preferred Concept for County State Aid Highway 52 (Nicollet Avenue). Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of October, 2024. Mary Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle Friedrich, City Clerk 2' CONC WALL MAILROCKROCKROCKMAILMAILMENARDS 7701 NICOLLET AVENUE GAS STATION SUPERAMERICA AVENUE 7720 NICOLLET ANDALE TAQUERIA & MERCADO 7700 NICOLLET AVENUE 760076087614 7620 76267638 76017609761376197623 76277633 76437645 75007508751475207526753275387544 750175077513 7519 7525 7531 75377543 74007408 741474207426743274387444 74017407 7413 741974257433 7437 7445 7344 7338 7332 7345 - 7343 7339 - 7337 7333 - 7331 7326 7327 - 7325 7320 7319 7311 - 7315 7309 7301 - 7303 7314 7308 7300 7244 7238 7232 7226 7220 7214 7208 7200 7245 7241 7237 7233 7229 7225 7221 7217 7213 7209 7201-7201 HENNEPIN COUNTY LIBRARY 7100 NICOLLET AVENUE 7145 7141 7137 7133 7129 CHURCH INTERNATIONAL RESURRECTION POWER 7101 NICOLLET AVENUE 7045 AUGSBURG PARK CENTER COMMUNITY RICHFIELD 7000 NICOLLET AVE 7033 7029 7025 7021 7019 7015 7009 7005 7001 CHIROPRACTIC & MASSAGE BACK TO HEALTH 6944 NICOLLET AVENUE EARLY LEARNING CENTER SPANISH IMMERSION 6949 NICOLLET AVENUE & HOME LOANS REAL ESTATE SALES CORNERSTONE 6945 NICOLLET AVE 6936 6941 6920 6914 6908 6900 6937 6935 - 6933 6927 6921 6915 6909 6901 6844 6838 6832 6826 6802 - 6800 6810 - 6808 6816 - 6814 6822 - 6820 6829 6825 6819 6815 6811 6805 6803 CATHOLIC SCHOOL ST. PETER'S 6720 NICOLLET AVENUE 6744 6740 6745 6739 6733 6727 6721 6715 6711 6705 6701 HOLY ANGELS ACADEMY OF 6600 NICOLLET AVENUE 6641 6635 6633 6629 6625 BEST BUY MOBILE U.S. ARMY CAREER CENTER HOT COMICS & COLLECTABLES 6601 NICOLLET AVENUE 67TH E. 10 & 12 AUGSBURG PARK RICHFIELD 7000 NICOLLET AVE AUGSBURG PARK RICHFIELD 7000 NICOLLET AVE CHURCH INTERNATIONAL RESURRECTION POWER 7101 NICOLLET AVENUE CHURCH INTERNATIONAL RESURRECTION POWER 7101 NICOLLET AVENUE 7205 MENARDS MENARDSMENARDS7701 NICOLLET AVENUEHENNEPIN COUNTY 2.6 Penn Lake 4.4Oxboro Lake 2.5 Lake Meadow2.01.6 Long 1.0 Wood Lake1.71.1FORT SNELLING NATIONAL CEMETERY 2.5MINNEAPOLIS- ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 1.0 0.20.40.10.30.10.9 POP. Rich-fieldLake 1.21.1 Grass Lake 0.6 Mother L. 2.3 MINNEHAHA DEPOT HISTORIC SITE SOLDIERS HOME Lake Harriet 5.2Lake Hiawatha 4.8 RIVERT 27 NEAGAN T A RIVERT 28 NRARailInc.NOKOMIS- HIAWATHA PARK FORT SNELLING STATE Lake 24"20"16"NGN. N. G. CO.16"DiamondNG NG16"N. N. G. CO.16"NG31 29 25 REGIONAL LAKES REGIONAL PARK 1 35 9 11 13 7 15 17 23 27 29 33 35 9 11 13 15 17 1921 23 W.ST. E. Lake Snelling0.417 32 32 1 52 35 5 1 52 35 5 62 121 35W 62 31 17 22 21 21 53 44°50' 55' 77 42 5 6 7A 12B 34A 4B 5 52 46 48 152 32 31 53 2C 494 77 2A 46 35W 46 Lake Nokomis 204 205 WOLD-CHAMBERLAIN FIELD L.R.T.L.R.T. PKWY. 76TH 35,228 MINNESOTA VALLEY NWR PARK HISTORICALAVE.S.28THAVE.AVE.CEDARMINNEHAHA ST.46TH E.S.ST.LYNDALE50THS.W.AVE.XERXESW.54TH ST.S.DIAMOND S.LK.RD.S.E.60TH ST. E.34TH54TH ST.POS TRD.AVE.34THRD.SHAKOPEE12THPORTLAND90TH ST.AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.ST.AVE.80TH 84TH ST. ST.PENN82ND LYNDALENICOLLETE. O LD ST. W. ST.90TH ST. SHAKOPEE W. W. ST.RD.94TH ST. STATEMINNEHAHA REGIO NAL PARK RICHFIELD 555 62 494 HENNEPIN COUNTY 52 0' SCALE 40''20 SIDEWALK 6' BIKE LANE 6' DRIVING LANE 10' CENTER TURN LANE 11'BIKE LANE 6' SIDEWALK 6' DRIVING LANE 10'BLVD 8' BLVD 8' GUTTER 2' GUTTER 2' PRELIMINARY - SUBJECT TO CHANGE CSAH 52 - Nicollet Avenue LOCATION PROJECT MINNESOTACURB & GUTTER BOULEVARD / BUFFER / LANDSCAPING SIDEWALK ROADWAY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY BIKE LANE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 9/10/2024 Hennepin County Project No. 2120800 RICHFIELD, MN LEGEND TYPICAL SECTION A-A METRO TRANSIT LOCAL ROUTE 18* TRAFFIC FLOW ARROW PARCEL LINE UNDER REVIEW FUTURE BIKE FACILITY CONNECTION EXISTING OR PLANNED BIKE FACILITY RETAINING WALL SYSTEM RAPID RECTANGULAR FLASHING BEACON UNDER REVIEW *FINAL BUS STOP LOCATIONS ARE CONCRETE MEDIANS / ISLANDS MnDOT 494 PROJECT. BE COORDINATED WITH 77TH ST CONNECTION TO EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL SIDEWALK BIKE LANE BOULEVARD THRU/RT TURN LANE TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE THRU/RT TURN LANE BOULEVARD BIKE LANE SIDEWALK SIDEWALK BIKE LANE BOULEVARD THRU/RT TURN LANE TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE THRU/RT TURN LANE BOULEVARD BIKE LANE SIDEWALK SIDEWALK BIKE LANE BOULEVARD THRU/RT TURN LANE TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE THRU/RT TURN LANE BOULEVARD BIKE LANE SIDEWALK SIDEWALK BIKE LANE BOULEVARD THRU/RT TURN LANE TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE THRU/RT TURN LANE BOULEVARD BIKE LANE SIDEWALK SIDEWALK BIKE LANE BOULEVARD THRU/RT TURN LANE TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE THRU/RT TURN LANE BOULEVARD BIKE LANE SIDEWALK SIDEWALK BIKE LANE BOULEVARD THRU/RT TURN LANE TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE THRU/RT TURN LANE BOULEVARD BIKE LANE SIDEWALK SIDEWALK BIKE LANE BOULEVARD THRU LANE BOULEVARD BIKE LANE SIDEWALK THRU LANE SIDEWALK BIKE LANE BOULEVARD THRU/RT TURN LANE TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE THRU/RT TURN LANE BOULEVARD BIKE LANE SIDEWALK SIDEWALK BIKE LANE BOULEVARD THRU/RT TURN LANE TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE THRU/RT TURN LANE BOULEVARD BIKE LANE SIDEWALK SIDEWALK BIKE LANE BOULEVARD THRU/RT TURN LANE TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE THRU/RT TURN LANE BOULEVARD BIKE LANE SIDEWALK SIDEWALK BIKE LANE THRU LANE BIKE LANE SIDEWALK THRU LANE BOULEVARDW 77TH ST100'83'83'83'66'83'66'67'83'100'83'73'100'100'E 77TH STW 76TH STE 76TH STW 75TH STE 75TH STW 74TH STE 74TH STW 73RD STE 73RD STW 72ND STE 72ND STE 71ST STW 70TH STE 70TH STW 69TH STE 69TH STW 68TH STE 68TH STE 67TH STW 67TH STE 66TH STW 66TH STNICOLLET AVE NICOLLET AVE ADJACENT MNDOT PROJECT PROJECT LIMITS PROJECT LIMITS A A Nicollet Avenue reconstruction County Road 52 in Richfield Phase 1: Experiences | Engagement summary Project overview Hennepin County is planning to reconstruct CSAH 52 (Nicollet Avenue) between 66th Street and 77th Street in 2026-2027. As part of the design process for this project, the county is doing community and stakeholder engagement to inform project design in 2023 and 2024. Engagement for this phase included: • Open house and companion virtual open house • Pop-up event at Richfield Penn Fest • Pop-up event at Richfield Farmer’s Market • Initial contacts with 10+ community organizations The following is a summary of each of the community engagement activities included in phase 1. Open house On the afternoon of Tuesday, August 22, members of the project team hosted an open house to gather input from people who use the Nicollet Avenue corridor, which was attended by approximately 70 people. Public input was collected through a variety of methods: questionnaire handed out at the meeting, comments on a map via post-it notes, and direct conversations with project staff. In addition, input was collected virtually via an online survey and interactive project map. The following is a summary of the meeting, including key findings. A full listing of the comments received, as well as a tabulation of questionnaire results, are included as attachments to this document. Meeting purpose • Provide a project overview and establish project constraints • Share existing conditions data and mapping • Collect input on existing community experiences • Discuss next steps Date/time • August 22, 2023 from 4 – 7 p.m. • Augsburg Park Library, Meeting Room, 7100 Nicollet Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423 Meeting promotions • Postcard mailing to all of the physical addresses within one quarter mile of the corridor • Email invitation to those on the city and county project lists Open house participants completing the mapping activity NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 1 Summary Page2 • Social media posts on city and county channels • Direct invitations via Richfield Transportation Commission members • Flyers hand delivered to retail businesses in the area • Flyers affixed to bicycles parked at the bicycle racks at the HUB shopping center • Yard signs and sidewalk decals placed outside in high activity areas Written comments received • Questionnaires submitted at meeting: 42 • Questionnaires submitted electronically: 58 • In-person map comments: 44 • Electronic map comments: 55 (plus 86 up votes and 24 down votes) Participant demographics Meeting participants were asked to self-select demographic characteristics via an interactive exercise at the meeting and a series of questions on the questionnaire form (both in person and online). The activity and questions were voluntary and not all respondents participated. Table 1 shows the results of that activity. The following are key findings: • 58% were age 55 and over • 85% identified as white and 3% identified as Black/African American or Hispanic/Latino, respectively • 58% used she/her pronouns • 7% had a disability • 94% spoke English and 6% spoke Spanish Key themes The following are key themes from the input collected at the meeting, including written comments on the map, comments submitted via the meeting questionnaire, and comments from conversations with project staff. Walking and biking safety: Many commented that walking and biking in the area feels unsafe and uncomfortable. People raised issues with traveling both along and across Nicollet Avenue. Common themes include poor sidewalks, no dedicated bicycle infrastructure, and difficulty crossing Nicollet Avenue. Safety for people walking across Nicollet Avenue was a specific concern with locations like the intersections near Augsburg Park, 66th Street, 73rd Street, 76th Street, and 77th Street being mentioned frequently. Safety at intersections: Several people commented that intersections along the corridor are unsafe. It can be difficult to cross or turn in a vehicle, particularly during peak periods. The most common locations mentioned were 73rd Street, 76th Street, and 66th Street. Some people also expressed concern over the existing pedestrian crossing medians with driver visibility of people walking across the street, and the Table 1: Participant demographics, open house and virtual open house Age 66+ 31% 55 - 64 27% 35 - 44 17% 25 - 34 9% 45 - 54 9% 18 - 24 4% Under 18 2% Race/Ethnicity White 85% Black or African American 3% Hispanic or Latino 3% Asian or Asian American 1% No response 9% Gender Woman 58% Man 36% Non-binary 1% Other 6% Do you have a disability? No 93% Yes 7% Languages English 94% Spanish 6% NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 1 Summary Page3 ability of drivers to navigate around the medians as the most common issues. Others felt the existing three-lane section along Nicollet Avenue is not safe because the center turn lane allows vehicles to pass buses and other vehicles in an unsafe manner. Vehicle speeds: Some people felt that excessive vehicle speeds and reckless driving on Nicollet Avenue are a safety problem. Vehicle operations: There were a number of comments calling for traffic signals throughout the corridor and some comments saying there should not be any new traffic signals. Common locations mentioned include 73rd Street, 72nd Street, and 70th Street. Some people felt that traffic congestion at the 66th Street intersection is problematic, particularly during school arrival and dismal and other peak periods. Trees, plantings, and green infrastructure: Several people expressed support for increasing the amount of trees and greenspace along the corridor. The sentiment was that plantings improve aesthetics, can increase safety for people walking and biking, and are good for the environment. Roundabouts: People shared many opinions on roundabouts, both for and against. Some feel that they improve safety and efficiency and others don’t like them because they are hard to navigate. Some expressed a preference for single lane roundabouts over multilane. There were a number of comments about increasing education efforts around roundabout use and some comments about increasing education around traffic safety in general. Richfield Penn Fest On the afternoon of Sunday, September 17, members of the project team attended Richfield’s Penn Fest. Penn Fest is an “open streets” event, where Penn Avenue is closed from 62nd to 76th Street to motorized traffic and replaced with foot traffic, bicyclists and skateboarders. The project team collected input via one-on-one conversations and comments on a map using post- it notes, interacting with about 200 people in total. The team also used a spinwheel activity with Nicollet Avenue trivia to engage with both kids and adults. Project staff also directed participants to the website to participate in the virtual open house (i.e., survey and interactive map). Below is a summary of the event and key findings. A full listing of the comments received are included as attachments to this document. Event purpose • Provide a project overview and establish project constraints • Collect input on existing community experiences • Discuss next steps • Meet people where they are at Penn Fest participants talking with project staff NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 1 Summary Page4 Date/time • September 17, 2023 from 1 – 5 p.m. • Penn Avenue in Richfield, close to the intersection of 69th Street West Meeting promotions • Penn Fest itself was promoted via a variety of methods, including an event website and Facebook page • Penn Fest was added to the project website and interactive site Written comments received • In-person map comments: 67 Participant demographics Meeting participants were asked to self-select demographic characteristics via an interactive exercise at the event. The activity and questions were voluntary and not all respondents participated. Table 2 shows the results of that activity. The following are key findings: • 42% were under 18 – The project team interacted with many families at this event. • Asian or Asian Americans (29%), multiracial (29%) and Hispanic/Latino (21%) were most represented • 61% used she/her pronouns • 20% had a disability • 50% spoke English and 27% spoke Spanish and 19% spoke Mandarin/Cantonese Key themes The following are key themes from the input collected at the event, including written comments on the map and comments from conversations with project staff. Walking and biking safety: Pedestrians mentioned they avoid walking on Nicollet Ave due to its infrastructure, how busy and unsafe the road is, and the lack of appeal. Bikers want at least one designated bike lane throughout Nicollet Ave. Many bikers mentioned wanting Nicollet Ave to replicate Portland Ave. Safety at intersections: The intersection of 71st Street and Nicollet Ave (between the Richfield Community Center and the Hennepin County Library) was mentioned often as a difficult place to cross. Some residents recommended a marked or signal-controlled crosswalk to increase safety and visibility of pedestrians and bikers. Traffic congestion: The main reason why some residents avoid Nicollet Ave is due to traffic congestion and difficulty of entering/exiting mall strips off 66th St and Nicollet Ave. Table 2: Demographics activity results, Penn Fest Age Under 18 42% 35 - 50 27% 50 - 65 15% 18 - 34 11% 66+ 4% Race/Ethnicity Asian or Asian American 29% More than one race 29% Hispanic or Latino 21% White 14% Black or African American 7% Pronouns She/Her 61% He/Him 28% They/Them 6% Other 6% Do you have a disability? No 80% Yes 20% Languages English 50% Spanish 27% Mandarin/Cantonese 19% Other 4% NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 1 Summary Page5 Vehicle speeds: The speed of vehicles was a big concern for residents that live, bike or walk near or along the corridor, with a few suggesting speed traps to calm traffic. Trees, plantings, and green infrastructure: Some participants suggested adding greenery along the corridor, specifically native plants. Roundabouts: Some residents said they didn't mind the roundabout off of 66th St and Nicollet Ave but wished there was some consistency of having two-way lanes going north and southbound to match its east and westbound counterparts to alleviate congestion. Richfield Farmers Market The morning of Saturday, October 7, the project team attended the Richfield Farmers Market during “Active Aging Week.” The project team collected input via one-on-one conversations and comments on a map using post-it notes, interacting with about 80 people in total. The team also used a spinwheel activity with Nicollet Avenue trivia to engage with both kids and adults. Project staff also directed participants to the website to participate in the virtual open house (i.e., survey and interactive map). The following is a summary of the event and key findings. A full listing of the comments received are included as attachments to this document. Event purpose • Provide a project overview and establish project constraints • Collect input on existing community experiences • Discuss next steps • Meet people where they are at Date/time • October 7, 2023 from 8 a.m. – noon • Veterans Park in Richfield, just off Portland Avenue and 64th Street Meeting promotions • The farmers market itself was promoted via a variety of methods, including on the City’s website and Richfield Farmers Market Facebook page • The farmers market was added to the project website and interactive site Written comments received • In-person map comments: 35 NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 1 Summary Page6 Participant demographics Meeting participants were asked to self-select demographic characteristics via an interactive exercise at the event. The activity and questions were voluntary and not all respondents participated. Table 3 shows the results of that activity. The following are key findings: • 75% were age 50 - 65 • White (50%) and Hispanic/Latino (50%) people were most represented • English (60%) Spanish (40%) were the most common languages Key themes The following are key themes from the input collected at the event, including written comments on the map and comments from conversations with project staff. Walking and biking safety: Bike lanes need to be wider and more protected from traffic. Safety at intersections: Menards parking lot and intersection is problematic due to congestion and needing a left turn light. Traffic congestion: Multiple people avoid 66th because it is too congested because of the roundabout. Roundabouts: People stated they avoid roundabouts because no one knows how to properly drive through them. People requested information on how to properly drive through a roundabout. Others stated they like roundabouts; they do what they are supposed to by slowing down traffic and helping with congestion. Inconsistent types of roundabouts (single lane vs. two lane) causes confusion. General: People stated they don’t want to see the same construction changes as they did to Portland Avenue. Questionnaire results The following is a summary of the questionnaire results, including those submitted both online and in- person. A complete tabulation of survey results is included as an attachment. • When asked how do you currently travel and how you would prefer to travel, people showed a desire to bike and take transit more and drive or use a rideshare less. Table 3: Demographic activity results, Farmers Market Age 50 – 65 75% 18 – 34 25% Race/Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 50% White 50% Pronouns She/Her 50% He/Him 50% Do you have a disability? No 100% Yes 0% Languages English 60% Spanish 40% NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 1 Summary Page7 • The most cited barriers to traveling along and across Nicollet Avenue were vehicle traffic delays when turning on and off of the corridor, traffic congestion when traveling along the corridor, and inadequate places to walk, roll, or bike. • When asked what should be improved on Nicollet Avenue, the most common responses were improve traffic flow, improve pedestrian crossings, and green infrastructure (trees and plantings). Next steps The next steps in the process for the project team are to consider the results of phase one engagement to develop a problem statement and a range of potential tools to address the problems identified. This information will be shared with community members during the second phase of community engagement, tentatively planned for October 2023. List of attachments Attachment 1: Transcript of open house comments Attachment 2: Transcript of Penn Fest comments Attachment 3: Transcript of Farmers Market Attachment 4: Questionnaire results People at the open house Attachment 1: Transcript of open house comments Locational comments from map activity: Location Comment 66th St Add elevated walking and biking paths on sidewalks similar to 66th St 66th St I feel safe at roundabouts on 66th St as a pedestrian using the flashing lights to cross 70th St Left turn signals NB and SB 73rd St Do not make 73rd a through street 73rd St Stop light on 73rd 73rd St Flashing lights to cross at 73rd, raise curb on sidewalk to improve pedestrian safety 76th St Left turn signals NB and SB 77th St Left turn signals NB and SB Augsburg Park Improve bike connections from Nicollet Ave to Augsburg Park Corridor- 69th St and 77th St We walk between 69th St and 77th St using the side streets, why not use alternative routes a block or two over for walking, rolling or biking? Corridor- NB Nicollet Ave from 76th St to 77th St Please be careful of how you reconfigure Nicollet between 77th and 76th St, as a driver I got honked at for not using the bike lane to turn Corridor- Nicollet Ave, Portland Ave, Lyndale Ave S Will not bike on Portland, Nicollet or Lyndale. Bike lane should be off the street as speeding and distracted drivers are scary! I use side streets instead Corridor- W 76th St to E 66th St One continuous bike lane connecting two streets Intersection- 72nd St and Nicollet Ave Need safety lights at the pedestrian crosswalks Intersection- 73rd St and Nicollet Ave Need safety lights at the pedestrian crosswalks Intersection- E 69th St and Portland Ave EB left turn from 69th St to Portland Ave doesn’t work Intersection- E 73rd St and Nicollet Ave Traffic lights Intersection- E 73rd St and Portland Ave Traffic lights Intersection- Nicollet Ave and 66th St The traffic usually moves pretty well, only bottleneck is rush hour at 66th roundabout on Nicollet Intersection- Nicollet Ave and 70th St I’d like a roundabout at Nicollet and 70th St, they help traffic flow, however please not at every intersection Intersection- Nicollet Ave and 73rd St Had a car accident at 73rd and Nicollet. Need roundabout at that intersection, we always go down to 74th and Nicollet to turn because there’s too much traffic at that intersection Intersection- Nicollet Ave and 76th St We live near this intersection and do NOT want a roundabout here NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 1 Summary Page9 Intersection- Nicollet Ave and 77th St Need left turn lane or roundabout going SB on Nicollet Ave at 77th St Intersection- Nicollet Ave and 77th St NB and SB turn lanes at 77th to Nicollet, why only one way? Three lanes Intersection- Nicollet Ave and 77th St As a car, intersection on Nicollet by Menards does not offer safe left turns from all four directions; add a green arrow or a roundabout Intersection- Nicollet Ave and E 77th St Left turn lane onto 77th on left turn arrow by Menards Lyndale Ave S I currently bike Lyndale, 66th St or 75th St instead of biking Nicollet Ave Nicollet Ave Needs a right turn lane into the Academy of Holy Angels/St. Peters parking lot Nicollet Ave When turning onto Nicollet Ave from side streets, medians get in the way Nicollet Ave Will street parking on Nicollet on Sundays remain? It spills onto cross streets Nicollet Ave I don’t bike on Nicollet because the bike lane doesn’t feel safe Nicollet Ave Congestion on Nicollet due to garbage, buses, delivery vehicles Nicollet Ave Difficult to cross Nicollet as a pedestrian or cyclist, except at 70th, 66th and 76th Nicollet Ave I drive down Nicollet because other modes of transportation are not safe; biking isn’t safe and the sidewalks are slanted Nicollet Ave Current crosswalks on Nicollet Ave don’t feel safe to cross, cars fly by Nicollet Ave I’m happy with Nicollet as it is, I use it many times per week Nicollet Ave Please don’t add any more roundabouts Nicollet Ave Nicollet Ave needs an area for parking; garbage trucks and buses don’t have enough room for cars to get by, they have to wait and cause congestion Nicollet Ave bridge Would like a nice safe crossing over Nicollet Ave bridge Portland Ave Left turns onto Portland Ave are very tight. Could pedestrian refuge be moved a few feet closer to mid-block? Portland Ave Concerned it will be the same, passing on right observed on bike lane, bike ped facilities, too short left turn lane Richfield Community Center Add street parking for community center W 66th St Likes the bikeway, positive W 66th St Improve bike-safe options for bicyclists to turn right onto Nicollet General comments from map activity: Keyword Comment Add lane(s) There are three driveways on this block, why does it need a center turn lane? Add lane(s) Left turn lanes need to be long enough for two cars to wait to turn, there’s only room for one Add lane(s) Why so much money to redo these main roads to accommodate bikes when there are so few bikes using it? I miss two lanes of traffic, even having no left turn lane if NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 1 Summary Page10 using the second lane to drive in. Any future weather emergencies, etc. would cause a total backup on all these one lane roads Add lane(s) Add dedicated left turn lanes at lights going NB and SB Add lane(s), traffic With 1 lane traffic in one direction, all traffic must stop and wait for all buses. With 2 lanes that didn’t happen. Also, people trying to go around stopped buses. I’ve noticed going into the oncoming traffic L turn lane- a recipe for an accident Biking Bikeway off street would support Biking Protected bike lanes are always nice Biking If bike lane is at sidewalk level (elevated), cars won’t park on the street Biking, add lane(s) Raise bike lanes separate from the streets Biking, add lane(s) Bike lane on each side of the street Biking, add lane(s) More bike lanes Biking, add lane(s) Put in bike lane, raised with sidewalk for safety; keep two lanes Biking, crossing Better transition from on-street bike lane to crossing at sidewalks Biking, ped Some people prefer to travel on quiet roads when walking and biking, but there is also a need to have direct routes on busier roads to reach destinations via walking and biking Biking, ped, safety Educational component for bikers, ped lights, stop signs Biking, roundabouts Bike lanes are positive, double lane roundabouts confusing Biking, safety Protect bike lane from street, elevating it to sidewalk levels Biking, safety Elevated bike lanes with on/off ramps to stay in the current footprint Bus I like the good bus stop access Crossing Raise all crosswalks to sidewalk level Crossing Safer crossing locations Crossing, ped Metered crossing for pedestrians with flashing lights Crossing, roundabouts Include raised crossing at roundabouts Crossing, safety Can crossings be moved south to improve safety and visibility? Crossing, safety Speed bumps for crosswalks, please Drive I usually drive on Nicollet, I don’t walk or bike it NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 1 Summary Page11 Drive If most use autos, why make it more difficult for autos? Green Please don’t add trees to boulevards, the city and county have enough difficulty with simple maintenance of their roads, adding plantings like on 66th create more work and look unkept Green, visibility Blvd, trees, landscaping and lighting Median Do you want center median forcing right turn? Median Not a fan of median refuges Median, biking, ped, safety The medians are very important as many cyclists and walkers can’t get across two lanes without stopping Median, ped Continue to have median to help with pedestrian crossing Median, ped, crossing Keep median to aid pedestrian crossing Misc Please use design plans that are practical and not trendy or what Edina, Minneapolis or Bloomington are doing Misc Keep taxes down Misc How is this project being paid for? What are the City of Richfield’s responsibilities? Misc Trouble backing out of driveways Misc The room used for the open house was too small, there was bad sound, it was hard to hear and there was an echo Misc Will 494 construction affect anything? Misc Please try to coordinate projects so that taxes don’t keep going up and the streets aren’t always under construction Ped Better walking for kids to get to school Ped, crossing Please don’t use bump-outs or those very ugly white poles, find something more pleasant looking. What about yellow pedestrian crossing lights? Ped, medians Pedestrian design medians, too tight Ped, repair Expand the sidewalks Ped, safety Ped crossings are dangerous along the corridor Ped, safety Safer walking path Ramps, roundabouts, biking We need ramps on north side of roundabout for bicyclists NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 1 Summary Page12 Repair Redo sidewalks Repair The sidewalks are terrible Repair Use of impervious material, especially on sidewalks and bike paths Repair Fix the sidewalks throughout wider/level accessible on both sides Repair Sidewalks are most necessary to improve Repair Would like more non-car mobility. Wider and flatter sidewalks that 2-4 people can use comfortably Repair, ped Widen sidewalks for pedestrians Roundabouts More roundabouts, save our tax dollars Roundabouts More roundabouts Roundabouts Love roundabouts Roundabouts Please no more roundabouts, and don’t paint the middle of existing roundabouts Roundabouts No more roundabouts Roundabouts No more roundabouts Roundabouts NO more roundabouts at all Roundabouts More roundabouts Roundabouts Roundabouts! Roundabouts NO more roundabouts, at all Roundabouts More roundabouts Roundabouts No more roundabouts, do not further narrow the car lanes Roundabouts Roundabouts are a must! Roundabouts Forget the roundabouts, like on Lyndale Roundabouts School buses now come down avenue, instead of roundabouts on Nicollet Roundabouts Roundabouts are good, but I don’t like double lane ones Roundabouts Roundabouts are largely positive Roundabouts No more roundabouts Roundabouts Roundabouts in moderation are effective NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 1 Summary Page13 Roundabouts No more roundabouts. They destroyed Lyndale Roundabouts Educational classes and campaigns for roundabouts Roundabouts We love how roundabouts keep the traffic moving Roundabouts, green, biking Roundabouts, green blvd, bike lanes Roundabouts, safety, biking, ped Roundabouts- maintenance, not safe for bicyclists and pedestrians Roundabouts, traffic, green No more roundabouts, single lanes are causing long backups with cars idling and causing pollution Safety Focus on safety at high-crash intersections Safety Three lane center lane is used illegally for passing cars Safety Heated bus shelter for 6 to 8 blocks Safety, crossing Even the great crosswalks are dangerous when drivers ignore traffic safety laws Safety, ped Improve safety for pedestrians Speed Current speed limit is posted illegally (35 mph). Use bike lane speed exception to set speed at 25 mph Speed Develop method of reducing excessive speed passing for drivers Speed Institute street diet to slow down car speeds Speed Speed limits do not work Speed, roundabouts Slow down speeding cars, somehow add more stops and roundabouts Speed, traffic Want to see slower traffic Traffic Traffic during drop-off and pick-up Traffic We recognize that the more car traffic there is, we divert to other modalities like biking Traffic Need a stop light Traffic, safety Two lane roads of the past created fast traffic and unsafe routes for all other road users. Traffic calming is important for residents, and all road users to improve safety Visibility Lighting post Visibility Need more and better lighting, better than Portland Ave NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 1 Summary Page14 Visibility Quality lighting at the pedestrian level Visibility Red bright flashing lights for roundabout Visibility Sight lines for future BRT electrical boxes Attachment 2: Transcript of Penn Fest comments Locational comments from map activity: Location Comment 66th St Does not like 66th St 66th St Separate bike lanes from walking lines on 66th St 71th St We had asked for those crossings for years and we finally have them! Please keep them and add crossing lights! 77th St Need a better signal at 77th St, no turn lane Corridor- Nicollet Ave from 67th St to 68th St, eastside Maintenance Corridor- Nicollet Ave to 67th St and Stevens Ave People are zipping through Nicollet to 67th St and Stevens in order to avoid the roundabout Hennepin County Library Yes! Keep the safe crossing at 71st St and 72nd St to get to the library! But no roundabouts! They are unsafe Hennepin County Library Keep safe crosswalks by library and park! Intersection- 60th St and 66th St Less friendly to ride BRT on Portland at 60th and 66th; bus rides, takes away bus stops, inconvenient, expensive to put in shelters, can’t trust the Met Council Intersection- 66th St and Nicollet Ave Speed has been kind of an issue off on 66th and Nicollet Intersection- 66th St and Nicollet Ave Add two lanes all the way through roundabout (X3) Intersection- 66th St and Nicollet Ave BMP maintenance, too many weeds Intersection- 66th St and Nicollet Ave Concerned about cut through traffic with new development at 1st and Stevens Intersection- 68th St and Nicollet Walk/driveway panel NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 1 Summary Page16 Intersection- 70th St and Nicollet Ave Move bike lane to just one lane on 70th and Nicollet Intersection- 72nd St and Nicollet Ave Nice crosswalk options on 72nd and Nicollet Ave; add safety features like flashing lights Intersection- 72nd St and Nicollet Ave Add crosswalk with flashing lights! Intersection- 72nd St and Nicollet Ave Mailbox drop-off access/coordination with postal service Intersection- 73rd St and Nicollet Ave 73rd and Nicollet needs traffic control, but if it’s a roundabout do NOT make it like the Target one! Intersection- 73rd St and Nicollet Ave NOT Portland Ave! Intersection- 73rd St and Nicollet Ave Pedestrian crosswalk with lights at 73rd Intersection- 73rd St and Nicollet Ave Add roundabout with flashing lights for pedestrians at 73rd and Nicollet Intersection- 74th St and Nicollet Ave Improve sidewalks/add boulevards to make it safer and more comfortable for pedestrians Intersection- 75th St and Nicollet Ave Bad sidewalks Intersection- 76th St and Nicollet Ave Speeding is an issue Intersection- 76th St and Nicollet Ave Put parking bays where you have extra right-of-way, like this block Lyndale Ave Does not love the sidewalks and bike lanes on Lyndale; doesn’t like the roundabout Lyndale Ave Add more greenery Nicollet Ave Avoids Nicollet Ave Nicollet Ave Side roads are less busy than taking Nicollet Ave Nicollet Ave Add more designated bike lanes Nicollet Ave Safety issues walking on Nicollet; add biking lanes on both sides, add a crosswalk for 71st St Nicollet Ave Speed has been an issue overall; add speed traps NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 1 Summary Page17 Nicollet Ave Like on-street no medians Nicollet Ave Striped buffer, no concrete Nicollet Ave More pedestrian crossings! Nicollet Ave Replace four-way stoplights with roundabouts! They are safer! And keep educating folks on how to use them Nicollet Ave Please build the Nicollet streetcar project! Even adding bus lanes would be great! Nicollet Ave If adding a roundabout, set lane designation signs back further so drivers have more time to react and get in the correct lane Nicollet Ave I don’t think Nicollet needs bikeway Nicollet Ave Don’t like single lane with median if emergency vehicles can’t get through. Does traffic calming work? Nicollet Ave I live on 1st Ave S. I used to live on Portland Ave S. I dislike Portland Ave and do not want it on Nicollet Ave. I prefer 4 lanes so cars and walkers can cross; maybe a crosswalk at the library where the light would flash so people would stop for walkers and bikers. PS the bright signs don’t work! Portland Ave Love the sidewalks and bike lanes on Portland Portland Ave Add more greenery Walgreens, by 66th St Congestion when coming in and out of Walgreens; having safety boundaries for bikers on roundabout would be helpful General comments from map activity: Keyword Comment Accessibility There have got to be more ways to get downtown Biking Likes on-street bike facility Biking Like on-street bike facility, no concrete Biking, add lane(s) More biking lanes would be nice to get to the library Biking, add lane(s) Add more biking lanes like on Portland Ave Green Add greenery Positive Loves all the turning lanes! NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 1 Summary Page18 Repair Sidewalks between the community center and library could use some work Roundabout No roundabout needed Roundabout Add educational materials for roundabouts if considered Roundabout, biking, safety Bikes exiting the roundabout are in danger Roundabout, ped Pedestrian crossing in roundabouts Roundabout, ped Must have pedestrian lights at all roundabouts Safety People don’t take turns when merging Safety Two lanes of traffic is harder to cross Traffic, transit Give space for the buses to get off the road to keep traffic flowing please Traffic, transit Cars can wait for four buses an hour Transit Need more transit options Transit Don’t like the spaced out stops of the BRT lines Transit, accessibility BRT and local services need accessibility Visibility Visibility of other drivers Visibility Improve visibility for RDBT (beacons) NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 1 Summary Page19 Attachment 3: Transcript of Penn Fest comments Locational comments from map activity: Location Comment 66th St Like the cross walk blinking lights 66th St Too congested, especially when school is out 66th St Buses can’t make the turns 66th St Don’t take 66th because of bus transit and roundabouts 66th St Snow storage, be mindful for pedestrians. Watch for bus needs at hub 67th St Roundabout, 2 lanes 67th St No roundabout 67th St Improvement of traffic 70th St Roundabout is good 70th St Visible cross walks 71st St Highly visible cross walks to the library 73rd St More stop lights 73rd St Level sidewalks, difficult for wheelchairs 77th St Menards parking lot is problematic, causes uncertainty and congestion 77th St Need turn light at left turn into Menards Portland exit by freeway Need stop sign for bike riders Diamond Lake & Nicollet Needs a turn signal south (left) General comments from map activity: Keyword Comment Biking Wide, protected bike lanes, it’s too dangerous for bicyclists Biking Don’t feel safe riding bikes Biking Cars drive in bike lane, need rules around what can ride in bike lane NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 1 Summary Page20 Green No tall plants in roundabouts, hard to see over Positive Don’t change it, like it how it is Repair Improved sidewalks with separation from the street Repair, construction Construction should happen in consecutive phases along corridor Roundabout Too many and in unnecessary places Roundabout Too small Roundabout Prefer single lane, good with roundabouts if big enough Roundabout Need information available on how to use roundabout Roundabout Inconsistent roundabouts (1 lane vs. 2 lanes) causes confusion Safety Speed reduction Safety, roundabout Avoid roundabouts, people go too fast, worried about accidents Transit Bus stops easier/out of way of traffic Transit 10-foot lane is too narrow Transit Pull out lanes for public transit Transit Bump outs on curb where crossings are NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 1 Summary Page21 Attachment 4: Questionnaire results Q1 - What is your relationship with the corridor? Check all that apply. Live within one block 39 Own a residential property 58 Own, manage or work at a business 9 Live in Richfield 78 Visit 18 Travel through 52 None of the above 0 Q2 - What is the zip code of your residence? 55420, 55423, 55424, 55431, 55434, 55105 Q3 - How often do you travel along/across Nicollet Avenue? Daily 74 Every few days 20 About once a week 5 Once a month or so 1 Less than once a month 0 Q4 - How do you travel along/across Nicollet Avenue? Please select your top 3. Walk/roll 54 Bike 33 Transit 15 Rideshare/taxi 10 Drive personal vehicle 91 Q5 - How would you like to travel along/across Nicollet Avenue? Please select your top 3. Walk/roll 54 Bike 44 Transit 22 Rideshare/taxi 5 Drive personal vehicle 81 Q6 - What barriers do you experience when traveling along/across Nicollet Avenue? Check all that apply. Inadequate places to walk, roll or bike 34 Lack of safe places to cross when walking/biking 32 Lack of bus stop waiting areas 16 Traffic congestion and delays 48 NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 1 Summary Page22 Traffic delays when turning on to or off of Nicollet Avenue 55 Other 17 Q6 - What barriers do you experience when traveling along/across Nicollet Avenue? Other People driving too close behind me when I need to turn off of Nicollet Better cross walks, very lit up, very obvious to drivers. Lane restrictions due to the change to 3 lanes. Traffic congestion due to pedestrians jaywalking and cyclists disregarding traffic laws. All Lyndale traffic comes to Nicollet because of their roundabouts Sidewalks: Help. Congestion at 77th & 66th Walkers need a longer walk period on lights Sidewalks are uneven for walking All of these are only during rush hour, not a large issue, just minor annoyance When we walk from 69th to 77th, we use side streets-- very little traffic, no exhaust fumes, etc. Delays when garbage trucks, buses, delivery vans are stopped on Nicollet-- not enough room to get around. No. 2: safe spaces provided are great, however, many drivers ignore crosswalks. Nicollet and 77th is a poor design for Southbound turns from Nicollet onto Eastbound 77th St Traffic congestion at roundabouts during peak times due to peds crossing to change busses Parked vehicles on all sides blocking view. I get nervous walking with my kids because the sidewalk is so close to the road. Q7 - What would you like improved on Nicollet Avenue? Please select your top 3. Wider sidewalks 35 Improved bike options 29 Improved pedestrian crossings 48 Improved transit facilities 12 Improved traffic flow 52 Green infrastructure (plantings, trees, stormwater management) 42 Other(s) 30 Q7 - What would you like improved on Nicollet Avenue? Other Traffic light at 73rd - 73rd is a busy cross-street but it is hard to turn onto (especially a left turn) or cross Nicollet since it was changed from a 4-lane (2 in each direction) to a 3-lane road because there are fewer breaks on Nicollet Improved sidewalks (don’t think they need to be wider) that are not cracked or falling apart The roundabout at 66th and Nicollet is ridiculous. I appreciate the safety aspect but after 3:00 pm every day (I work at 6605 Nicollet), traffic is backed up for blocks. Richfield is ripping up every available roadway for the very few bike riders and walkers that come through. Let us have a couple of roads with 2 lanes in each direction. and i do not want nicollet to be like portland ave. NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 1 Summary Page23 Add roundabouts at 70th/Nicollet and 73rd/Nicollet. If both aren't possible, 73rd should be the priority. Return of Two lanes north and south! Prioritize vehicle traffic and remove the incompetently implemented "pedestrian islands" that constrict the roadway and cause unsafe conditions. Traffic lights!! I bike on side streets due to traffic and lack of appropriate bike lanes. I walk on side streets due to traffic and poor sidewalks. Improved traffic flow, Green infrastructure Green infrastructure Avoid area across from library due to transportation safety concerns Avoid Nicollet and 77-76 due to transportation safety concerns more shaded areas right hand turn lane onto 67th when heading south (into Holy Angels lot) Green infrastructure Improved transit facilities - covered bus stops? None of these-- it's fine the way it is. 73rd St flashing lights. Green infrastructure: Noooo! Current ones are not adequately cared for :( Others: Curbs & sidewalks could be raised. Left turn signals both north and south on 70th, 76th, and 77th. More car lanes Less traffic congestion Also Improved Traffic Flow Need to allow space for 2 cars in left turn lanes. Flashing lights on 72nd/Nicollet or stop sign! Also Improved Traffic Flow and Green Infrastructure Also Improved Traffic Flow and Green Infrastructure Also Improved Traffic Flow and Green Infrastructure Improved Traffic Flow: Not sure how you intend to do this! You've messed it up already! Limit the amount of cars parked right near the intersection. a left turn arrow for southbound traffic to help the flow and safety of drivers heading east / to Menards on 77th Street. Q9 - What other ideas do you have for improving Nicollet Avenue? Do not add another roundabout. Improve traffic flow at pick-up and drop-off at AHA. Connect sidewalk on Nicollet Avenue to sidewalk at AHA, so kids have to walk on road. Improve traffic flow in/out of Menards on 77th Street. Improve traffic flow in/out of Andale, which gets busy too. As I bicyclist, I would never use a street that is a heavily used traffic corridor. I do not want to share the road with cars, even with protected bike lanes - I don't want to breathe exhaust fumes, and these types of streets do not have the shade that less busy streets provide, making biking more comfortable in the summer months. I support having bike lanes on adjacent, parallel streets, where I feel safer. I would never bike down Nicollet even if there were new bike lanes. Allow for future expansion of tram or LRT light crossing by library so cars will stop so walkers and bikers can cross NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 1 Summary Page24 More traffic circles More roundabouts slow traffic. more green. Don't do more roundabouts. Add roundabouts at 70th/Nicollet and 73rd/Nicollet. One at 73rd should be the priority. That intersection is dangerous and deadly. Consideration of passing emergency vehicles. Often times single lane roads create a hazard for emergency vehicles when vehicles/metro transit don’t have space to move out of the way Stop adding bike lanes to major arteries in the city. I very much approve of the rebuild that was done to Portland from about 66th to about 76th streets a couple years back. Only negative is that the double-long buses don't "fit" in the bus stops, they hang out into the street and stop the flow of traffic. Please consider this when doing the Nicollet Av redesign. left turn lanes need to be at each intersection since there is no place to drive around them. causes back-ups. people that have driveways on Nicollet have long waits to get on Nicollet The roundabout on 66th and Nicollet can be problematic during rush hour and when Holy Angels lets out school. Traffic is jammed. I also go to streets with a stoplight to get on Nicollet now as it’s dangerous and hard to get on to Nicollet from side streets because of heavy traffic with the single lane for cars. Really nothing more than stated. Heated bus stops and lots of them would improve the lives of a lot of people. More flowers, public art, and a fund for people to do landscaping to their yards I live right on Nicollet and I’m curious the impact of all these changes. Traffic signal priority for buses, add lots of street trees that will grow large and cover the street with shade, Make the drive lanes narrow (9-10 feet wide lanes help slow traffic and make the street safer.), create protected bike lanes, and create continuous sidewalks (Raising the sidewalk to cross side streets so that cars must go over the sidewalk, therefore becoming more aware of pedestrians). Avoid adding roundabouts. I don't actually think it's terrible now. I would hope to see increased focus on bikes, peds, plantings. Sidewalk improvements must be included. Roundabouts are a must! More round-abouts! They are safer and faster. As long as those who don't understand them stay away :) more shade GOOD/SAFE BIKE Lanes! - 76th & Nicollet - not safe left turns all 4 directions as vehicle - Crossing not at lights or roundabout as ped feels unsafe Avoid biking in busy roundabout at 66th. I get off and walk. I don't trust cars there. Nicollet Ave is great! 66th area approaching roundabout on bike is unsafe. Make it BRT-ready, make it designed for 25 mph. Protected bike lane. Parking for community center. It's hard to cross when walking at times. I avoid areas on Nicollet because of transportation related safety concerns. I'm fine with the way it is now. In future open houses, please have reps. available who know about the data collected and financial ramifications, including taxes. NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 1 Summary Page25 Please coordinate projects so that the streets in the city aren't under a constant state of construction. There are already backups at the major street roundabouts. Please-- no more! Consider that there will likely be more traffic on Nicollet after the 494 access closure. There are some areas on Nicollet Ave I avoid because of transportation related safety concerns. Elevate bike path to run along with walking/sidewalk-- see 66th Street! I avoid 66th and Nicollet because of Roundabout. Change it back to 4 lanes. No more roundabouts. Left turn arrow on lane by Menards. Mexican restaurant on 76th needs better in & out access. No more roundabouts! No more narrowing car lanes! Keep freeway ramps open from Nicollet to 494! I avoid crossing while walking when possible. I avoid biking north toward 66th, lose the bike lane. 72nd and Nicollet is unsafe-- need flashing lights! I need to cross here with my grandchildren-- park, library. Cars won't stop! Or almost hit us! More room on the sides for snow. It gets pushed up in my yard and gardens by snowplows. Green space on sides of season. I avoid the roundabouts Easier walking for wheelchairs and the elderly. I avoid Nicollet due to transportation safety related concerns when trying to cross while walking. I avoid 73rd and Nicollet due to transportation related safety concerns I will not bike or walk along Nicollet due to traffic safety. I walk and bike across Nicollet, but would like to be able to walk and bike along Nicollet. Traffic light at 73rd St I travel along Nicollet daily, multiple times. Since you took out two lanes, waiting to get on to Nicollet can be painful!! Bike lanes are RARELY used! You have made changes & more changes to Nicollet over the past 10 years! Why? This seems like a gigantic waste of taxpayer money. You don't want input-- you want acceptance of another water and more interruption of traffic. Why don't you just say that this project will be like Portland Ave? We DO NOT need more bike lanes! We do not need more fancy sidewalks & lighting Don't make it harder on cars Do not construct Nicollet Ave in the same manner as Portland Ave. Pedestrian lights for 73th, 72nd and 70th. These make it safe for pedestrians wanting to access the library and Augsburg. If having one at 73rd and 72nd is too close it may be a good idea to have one at 74th, so there is a place to cross for pedestrians near that area for those walking to the high school. Add crosswalks. Limit the number of people who can on the street to limit visibility restrictions. A dedicated left-turn arrow for Southbound traffic heading East on 77th Street would greatly improve the safety for cars attempting to turn left as well as for on-coming Northbound traffic. This intersection has been neglected for several years and has needed a left-turn signal added to the traffic light due to the high volume of traffic created by Menards, Assumption, My Credit Union, Apartment buildings and other various businesses on 77th Street from Nicollet to Cedar. Southbound Nicollet Ave needs to have a left turn light at 77th Street for traffic to better access Menards and other businesses. Sidewalks along Nicollet Avenue need to be redone as in the winter months they are full of ice as well NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 1 Summary Page26 as deep puddles when the ice and snow melt. Improved transit stops with lights/heat/shelter along Nicollet Ave. If the city wanted to build a brewery within walking distance of my house, maybe at 70th and Nicollet, it would be of great personal benefit to me. Nicollet Avenue reconstruction County Road 52 in Richfield Phase 2: Vision and tools | Engagement summary Project overview Hennepin County is planning to reconstruct CSAH 52 (Nicollet Avenue) between 66th Street and 77th Street in 2026-2027. As part of the design process for this project, the county is doing stakeholder engagement to inform project design. Engagement began in 2023 and will conclude in 2024. Engagement for phase 2 included the activities listed below. The following is a summary of each of the community engagement activities included in phase 2. • In-person open house and companion virtual open house • Contacts with 10+ community organizations • Pop-up at Richfield High School conferences Open house On the afternoon of Tuesday, October 17, the project team hosted an in-person open house to gather input from people who use the Nicollet Avenue corridor, which was attended by approximately 35 people. Input was collected through a variety of methods: a questionnaire handed out at the meeting, dot stickers on boards detailing potential design elements, a “build your own road” activity and direct conversations with project staff. Input was also collected via an online version of the meeting questionnaire as part of a virtual open house. The following is a summary of the meeting, including a summary of frequent comments. A full transcript of the comments received is included an attachment to this document. Meeting purpose • Share phase 1 results: present feedback to-date • Problem statement/goals: confirm the problem statement and project goals • Tools: solicit information on community preferences and priorities for tools • Next steps: share next steps Date/time • October 17, 2023, from 4:30 – 6:30 p.m. (virtual open house available Oct. 17 – Nov. 30) • Richfield Community Center, 7000 Nicollet Avenue, Richfield Figure 1: Project staff help an open house participant with the "build your own road" activity NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 2 Summary Page2 Meeting promotions • Postcard mailing to all of the physical addresses within one quarter mile of the corridor • Email invitation to those on the city and county email lists • Social media posts on city and county channels • Direct invitations via Richfield Transportation Commission members • Flyers hand delivered to retail businesses in the area • Yard signs and sidewalk decals placed outside in high activity areas along and adjacent/proximate to the corridor Written comments received • Questionnaires submitted at meeting: 20 • Questionnaire responses submitted electronically: 84 • In-person tools activity responses: 70+ responses across attendees • In-person project cross-section activity responses: 20 Participant demographics Meeting participants were asked to self-select demographic characteristics via an interactive exercise at the meeting and a series of questions on the questionnaire form (both in person and online). The activity and questions were voluntary and not all respondents participated. Table 1 shows the combined results of those activities, in aggregate. The following are key findings: • 81% were age 55 and over • 89% identified as white and 5% identified as Black/African American or Hispanic/Latino, respectively • 69% used she/her pronouns • 20% had a disability • All participants were English speakers Frequent themes and considerations The following is a summary of frequent themes and considerations from the input collected at the meeting, including results from the sticker activities, the meeting questionnaire and direct conversations between participants and project staff at the meeting. See Attachment 1 for the full data breakdown. Problem statement and goals: The majority of open house participants (75%) agreed that the problem statement and goals captured the overall concerns of the community, according to questionnaire results. Most participants (64%) also agreed that the themes from phase 1 engagement were accurately captured. Street layout configurations: The three-lane roadway (two-way with center turn lane) was the most popular street configuration for open house attendees with both the questionnaire (54%) and sticker activity (75%). Table 1: Demographic activity responses, open house and virtual open house Age 66+ 52% 50 – 65 29% 18 – 34 19% Under 18 0% 35 – 50 0% Race/Ethnicity White 89% Black or African American 5% Hispanic or Latino 5% Alaskan Native or American Indian 0% Asian 0% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% More than one race 0% Pronouns She/Her 69% He/Him 31% They/Them 0% Other 0% Do you have a disability? No 80% Yes 20% Languages English 100% Spanish 0% Somali/Oromo 0% Russian 0% Karen 0% Thai 0% Hmong 0% Mandarin/Cantonese 0% Other 0% NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 2 Summary Page3 Some attendees said that this configuration allows residents to safely pull in and out of their properties and further allows delivery vehicles to make quick stops without interfering with traffic. Conversationally, multiple participants told staff that they avoid 73rd Street because of the existing pedestrian crossing median and therefore did not like the 2-lane divided (median) option. Some did express support for the 2-lane divided option citing the potential for aesthetic improvements and plantings. Pedestrian, bicycle and boulevard configurations: With the sticker activity at the open house, the cycle track was the most popular option (50%). Questionnaire respondents favored the sidewalks, both with the trail and boulevards (40%) and on-street bike lanes (32%). Some participants questioned why bike facilities are being considered given that there are barely any cyclists on the road today. A primary concern with incorporating bicycle and pedestrian facilities for some of them was related to potential loss of private property to accommodate these additional facilities. Intersection treatments: Pedestrian activated lights were the most popular option with the sticker activity (30%). A participant noted that they would like a flashing beacon near Augsburg Park Library on Nicollet Avenue at 71st Street. Others noted that it is important for flashing beacons to also have an audio component for folks with low vision. Compact roundabout was the most favored tool in the questionnaire (27%). Boulevard improvements: Based on the sticker activity, participants much preferred the enhanced improvements over the standard improvements. Some attendees noted that they would like to see more native plantings in the medians and boulevard. Richfield High School conferences pop-up The afternoon of Thursday, December 7, the project team attended Richfield High School conferences. The project team collected input via one-on-one conversations and comments on a map using post-it notes, interacting with about 10 families. The following is a summary of the event and key findings. A full listing of the comments received are included as attachments to this document. Event purpose • Connect with high school families • Provide a project overview and update on engagement • Collect input on existing community experiences • Discuss next steps • Meet people where they are at Date/time • December 7, 2023 from 4 – 6:30 p.m. • Richfield High School, 7001 Harriet Avenue Meeting promotions • Conferences were promoted via the high school’s channels Written comments received • In-person map comments: 12 Table 2: Sticker activity results, conferences pop-up How do you usually travel along or across Nicollet Avenue? I drive 3 I bike 1 I take the bus 1 I walk 1 I roll 0 Other 0 NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 2 Summary Page4 Participant demographics Demographic information was not collected at this event. Key themes The following are key themes from the input collected at the event, including written comments on the map and comments from conversations with project staff. Safety at intersections: The intersection of Nicollet Avenue and 71st, 72nd and 73rd streets are dangerous to cross, especially for pedestrians. Pedestrian treatments are desired, particularly flashing lights. Traffic congestion: Participants noted congestion at the roundabout on Nicollet Avenue and 66th Street. Roundabouts: Participants who mentioned roundabouts were in favor of more of them being added to Nicollet Avenue. Some concerns about roundabouts included pedestrian safety and loss of private land. Questionnaire results The following is a summary of the questionnaire results, including those submitted both online and in-person. A complete tabulation of survey results is included as an attachment. • Most (51%) respondents felt the common themes from phase 1 community engagement had been accurately captured. o Most of the additional comments pertained to people’s thoughts about roundabouts, both for and against. Many who do not like roundabouts cited Lyndale Avenue as an example. • Most (62%) respondents felt the problem statement captures the overall concerns of the community. o Of those who provided additional comments, many pertained to prioritizing motorists, prioritizing bicyclists and pedestrians or improving accessibility. • Most (76%) respondents favored the 3-lane roadway (two-way center turn lane). • The most popular pedestrian, bicycle and boulevard configurations were a two-way cycle track (47%), cycle track (47%) and sidewalk one side with trail on the other with boulevards (42%). • The most popular intersection treatments were pedestrian activated lights (78%) and traffic signal improvements (62%). Next steps The next steps in the process for the project team are to consider the results of phase two engagement to work toward preliminary concept alternatives to address the problem statement and goals identified. This information will be shared with community members during the third phase of community engagement, tentatively planned for February 2024. List of attachments Attachment 1: Transcript of open house comments Attachment 2: Transcript of conferences pop-up comments Attachment 3: Questionnaire results Attachment 1: Transcript of open house comments Problem statement and goals: Questionnaire: Do you agree that the problem statement captures the overall concerns of the community? Answer Count Percentage Yes 18 75% Not sure 6 25% No 0 0% Questionnaire: Have the common themes from phase 1 community engagement been accurately captured? Answer Count Percentage Yes 16 64% Not sure 6 24% No 3 12% Notes from attendees on post-it activity: Problem Statement: Nicollet is a major corridor for vehicles, walkers, rollers. It doesn’t need to be “environmentally sustainable” or have greenspace/vegetation. Street layout configurations: Sticker activity: Street layout configurations Count Percentage Notes 3-lane roadway (two-way center turn lane) 12 75% 3-lane roadway is the way to go! (Raised medians are dangerous) 2-lane undivided (no median) 3 19% 2-lane divided roadway (with raised median) 1 6% Questionnaire: Street layout configurations Yes - Count Yes - Percentage No - Count No - Percentage 3-lane roadway (two-way center turn lane) 15 54% 3 18% NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 2 Summary Page6 2-lane divided roadway (with raised median) 8 29% 7 41% 2-lane undivided (no median) 5 18% 7 41% Pedestrian, bicycle and boulevard configurations: Sticker activity: Pedestrian, bicycle and boulevard configurations Count Percentage Notes Cycle track 11 50% Sidewalk and trail with boulevards 5 23% Consider aesthetics of big asphalt path - Portland homeowner says it looks bad in front of house; Crash reduction signs on Nicollet before these intersections Two-way cycle track 5 23% Sidewalk and trail with boulevards plus on-street bike lanes 1 4% On-street buffered bike lanes 0 0% Questionnaire: Pedestrian, bicycle and boulevard configurations Yes - Count Yes - Percentage No - Count No - Percentage Sidewalk and trail with boulevards 15 40% 2 6% Sidewalk and trail with boulevards plus on-street bike lanes 12 32% 2 6% Cycle track 5 13% 9 25% Two-way cycle track 3 8% 11 31% On-street buffered bike lanes 2 5% 12 33% Intersection treatments: Sticker activity: Intersection treatments Count Percentage Notes Pedestrian activated lights 10 30% Compact roundabout 6 18% NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 2 Summary Page7 Traffic signal improvements 6 18% Pedestrian medians (open crossing) 6 18% Raised crossings/tabled intersections 4 12% Closed medians (right-in/right-out) 1 3% Bumpouts/curb-extensions 0 0% Do this on side streets where they meet Nicollet Questionnaire: Intersection treatments Yes – Count Yes – Percentage No – Count No - Percentage Compact roundabout 17 27% 2 4% Traffic signal improvements 10 16% 5 11% Closed medians (right-in/right-out) 10 16% 5 11% Pedestrian medians (open crossing) 10 16% 7 16% Raised crossings/tabled intersections 8 12% 6 14% Pedestrian activated lights 5 8% 9 20% Bumpouts/curb-extensions 4 6% 10 23% Boulevard improvements: Boulevard improvements Green dots – Count Green dots – Percentage Red dots – Count Red dots - Percentage Enhanced improvements 31 100% 0 0% Standard improvements 11 69% 5 31% Notes from attendees: • Sometimes trees block the view of bus riders and walkers because they are too tall • Green Space (boulevards): Blvds with flowers are wonderful as long as they are maintained. Most of what I see are filled with weeds and garbage and dead trees. NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 2 Summary Page8 Attachment 2: Transcript of conferences pop-up comments Locational comments: • Nicollet Avenue and 66th Street: Weekend mornings there is traffic backed up in all directions at the roundabout. • Nicollet Avenue and 66th Street: Likes the pedestrian lights at the roundabout. • Nicollet Avenue, between 66th and 67th Streets: Often traffic backups here. • 70th Street: People tend to speed on this road, would like to see signs noting the school crossing (+1). • Nicollet Avenue and 71st Street: Would like to see blinking lights where the crosswalks are. Often waits up to 15 minutes for a break in traffic to cross the road. Many kids also cross here to get to the skate park. • Nicollet Avenue and 71st/72nd Street: Would like to see better pedestrian accommodations for those crossing Nicollet to get to the library, such as a raised crossing or flashing pedestrian lights. Often see children darting between cars on Nicollet. • Nicollet Avenue and 73rd Street: It is hard to get across this intersection, both as a driver and as a pedestrian, as there is heavy traffic coming from both directions. • Nicollet Avenue and 73rd Street: Don’t like crossing here as a pedestrian. Visibility is limited for drivers with the hill. • Nicollet Avenue and 76th Street: Would like to see a roundabout here, but don’t want private property taken away. General comments: • People use existing bike lanes as right turn lanes. • Would like to see consistency of all roundabouts or all stop lights with the reconstruction, preferably roundabouts. • It is scary to cross roundabouts as a pedestrian. Questions: • How do the changes to 4-94 impact Nicollet Avenue? • How is this construction different than what was just done on Nicollet? Attachment 3: Questionnaire results Q1 – Have the common themes from phase 1 community engagement been accurately captured? Answer Count Percentage Yes 39 51% Not sure 21 28% No 16 21% NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 2 Summary Page10 Q2 - Is there anything else you would like to share about the key themes from community engagement? • Over emphasis on feeling unsafe due to speed & amount of traffic. Work on Lyndale & Portland avenues temporary pushed more traffic on to Nicollet. Not every north / south street needs to have bike lanes. • Roundabouts are NOT the answer to everything. Bus Stops need a wider area so they don’t completely halt following traffic. • Make sure roundabouts have something in the circle, flowers, etc. as a distraction. Lyndale roundabouts are dangerous. • "stop lights are more effective than roundabouts. There is no ambiguity RE: meaning of RED light and GREEN light. There is excessive ambiguity when maneuvering a roundabout. • I object to any yard sizes being reduced. No house yards should be reduced for this project. • I disagree with the statement ""no dedicated bike paths"". Bicycle lanes exist on Nicollet Av. If the current bicycle lanes are not adequate, I recommend that the sidewalks be available for pedestrians and for bicyclists." • Wide, straight roadways send an unconscious signal to drivers that it's safe for them to drive at higher speeds. This puts all other travelers that are not in cars at greater risk of injury and death. To change people's driving behavior, we need drastic traffic calming measures that increase the complexity of the road by narrowing it with chicanes, pedestrian islands, street trees that are planted close to the road to help drivers understand their traveling speed, and we need convenient, accessible alternatives to operating a private vehicle to get around. • My understanding is that roundabouts can be improvements for cars/drivers/traffic, but they are often tougher to navigate for pedestrians and bikes. At 76th and Nicollet there are two bus stops, a bike trail, and sidewalks on all four corners. Please do not put a roundabout at this intersection (compact or otherwise). Left-turn arrows would mitigate some existing traffic issues. • "Richfield residents do not want another road of all roundabouts. Trucks, buses, etc cannot access the roundabouts on Lyndale - creating the same issue on Nicolett will be an issue. We need to have space for emergency vehicles, vehicles transporting goods to retail stores, buses, etc. There is too tight of space between each roundabout on Lyndale - don't create the same issue on Nicollet. • Additionally, there was just construction adding medians on Nicollet, why tear it up just a few years later. Nicolett just tore up the intersection at 70th this summer. Its a waste of tax dollars to redo work that was just done, especially in a time where we are all stretched thin, the city/county need to better plan their projects to not be duplicating efforts. It gives the perception that the city/county doesn't care about its residents and their ability to live - they just want our tax dollars to waste them. " • Roundabouts are great at reducing traffic speeds and accidents. We need highly visible pedestrian crossings at areas like the library, park, and bus stops. • More roundabouts and protected bike lanes please! • Ensuring strong bus lines continue and are able to integrate into this plan. • No round abouts on Nicollet !!!! • Too many stoplights on Nicollet. Add more roundabouts • "I like roundabouts!! Stop signs and lights are annoying and inefficient. • My only complaint is the compact roundabout is a little tough to navigate, and having 3+ in a row is a little tedious, but is good " • The path and roundabouts on Lyndale make walking/running along the street feel a lot safer. I'd love to see that on Nicollet. NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 2 Summary Page11 • Excessive speed is not a problem. It is the Excessive SPEEDERS who are the problem. Roundabouts won't solve this personnel problem. Some of these roundabouts are too small to be anything more than a nuisance. Hire more cops for the City and don't build these stupid roundabouts which are dangerous (especially when ice covered in winter.) • Does anyone consider winter months when coming up with these plans? It’s already hard enough to get around when they changed the road the first time. • We don't need anymore roundabouts in Richfield. They don't make anything better and are a hazard for emergency vehicles. Leave the roads as they are. Don't waste anymore tax dollars on fixing non- issues. • not at this time • I like to take this route currently when I drive through the neighborhood because I do not like the roundabouts on Lyndale. When reconstruction is done, I would like to see the four way intersections done traditionally with lights regulating traffic. As someone who navigates primarily by car and bicycle, I find these intersections easier to navigate and maintain driving speed. • "I love roundabouts, they are safer for pedestrians and vehicles! The intersection for 73rd would be a good spot for one, lots of students walking and driving down 73rd to and from the high school. Bike lanes are great! • People just like to be mad about roundabouts, but they dont have the data to back up why a stoplight is better and safer on a road with a speed limit of 35! Its residential, expect to just take your time. " • Put in as many round about as possible. My kids are getting pretty good at navigating them on bikes and drivers seem to keep a better eye out for pedestrians and bikes. • No you make the round abt to small for larger vehicles....by the 3rd exot u r riding on the center circle......and people don't know how to use em • Leave the center turn lanes alone. The turn lanes on Portland are too short and only one car can get in while the cars behind have to wait until it turns because there isn't enough room to go by. Also, going North on Nicollet to the roundabout is too small too. All the other roads allow two cars to be in the same lane with one going straight while the other turns right. • I feel that round-a-bouts only tie u the flow of traffic. I have spent more time waiting to go at the one on 66th and Lyndale and the one on 66th and Nicollet than I ever spent with the lights. So I think ped crossing lights and bike lanes would be a better way to go. • I beg of you, please do not do the roundabout madness like Lyndale. I love roundabouts, but I do not love 4 roundabouts right together. The Portland revamp has been wonderful. Let's do that again! • Leave the roads alone! Cyclists and pedestrians are not the primary users the roads are intended for, motorists are. Quit botching up all of our roads. I drive Nicollet daily and rarely see either pedestrians or cyclists. I do however routinely have issues turning onto Nicollet due to continuous traffic going both directions. This is because the city has messed with all of the other major routes North/South, funneling traffic down Nicollet. • I don't think Richfield, particularly Nicolette Ave, need any more round about. The ones on Lyndale are ridiculous. • Need round-a-bouts at 70th. • More roundabouts are not desired. Pedestrian medians and raised crossings are a good idea. • there are too many roundabouts on lyndale between 66th and 77. please don’t make the same mistake on nicollet!!! • "The left turn lanes with concrete curbs like at 73rd street need to be longer. • The short lanes cause slow down for traffic following a car merging into this left turn lane because of how short it is." NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 2 Summary Page12 • Why is this street being torn up AGAIN and disrupting all who live and drive on Nicollet avenue? We have paid taxes at least twice for all of the latest turn lanes. I feel this is a waste of our tax money and should be left as is. This millions of dollars (probably) should be used for other things to make the city better. Roads don't always make the city. 66th st is the worst for traffic. Wait times to enter onto are horrendous. • I agree the sidewalks and curbs are in poor condition (at best), just like the ones on Lyndale before replacement. I also want to say I HATE roundabouts. I tolerate the not busy ones, buy do everything possible to avoid the busy ones, like Portland and 66th. • No roundabouts on Nicolle!!!!!!! • Don't do to Nicollet what was done to Portland. On Portland it is rare that cars go over 30 MPH. At some of the bus stops (northbound 73rd) when the bus is stopped cars can't get past. • Do not make Nicollet Avenue the same as Portland! Horrible idea! • Roundabouts have been so helpful on Lyndale (we live on Lyndale) and I think they would help with the speed and flow of traffic on Nicollet also. The smooth walking path and sidewalks on Lyndale are also a blessing. Nicollet sidewalks could use updating to make them friendlier for handicappeded users: my electric mobility scooter is challenged by the uneven sidewalks and driveway connections between 77th and 66th! And I haven't tried to go north of 66th with the scooter. Please install pedestrian activated crossing lights at crosswalk intersections! • Just please make sure that the lanes are wide enough for two vehicles each way. I have seen a car break down on 66th, which then precluded a bus from going around it and it backed up every car after that. I don’t know how long people were stuck for, but I avoid driving on 66th because I don’t want to get stuck behind a stranded vehicle until it is towed without the ability to drive around it. • Please leave the roundabout thoughts out of the reconstruction of Nicolett Ave. The ones on Lyndale and only served to force many more vehicles onto this street causing more congestion and safety issues for cross traffic and pedestrians. What is really needed (and I have been here for 30 years so know what I have seen) is a traffic light to allow the local people who use the street the ability to get across at 73rd. The neighbors have advocated for this for the whole time that I have lived here, however out county and city have not listened to the stake holders just the money angles. A light would not only increase safety in the 6 blocks but also slow down the drivers who have consistently increased their sped substantially above the marked 35 mph limit. • I wish you would leave Nic. Ave alone. Stop all this upheavel in the city. And I hate the round abouts. Especially on Lyndale. The one that stops access to Woodlake is not safe, a waste of taxpayer money. Richfield seems to be bent on spending money and fixing things that do not need fixing. Cynthia Wagar • it feels very unsafe to cross as a pedestrian • I drive a car. When I use the roundabouts, I have noticed that when there is a pedestrian crossing, only that area lights up (or indicator lights come on) but the other intersections do not (because there's nobody crossing). For the safety of drivers and pedestrians, I would like to see ALL intersections lighted (or yielded) when a pedestrian crosses no matter where they are crossing. I have watch way too many vehicles coming to a screeching halt. • Turn lanes are great but excessive roundabouts like Lyndale are ridiculous and a detriment to pedestrians • Find a way to incorporate safety elements without butchering the hollistic road design like Lyndale Avenue was from 64th to 72nd • Traffic on 66th Eastbound & Westbound bound flows faster. Some people may not be comfortable with roundabouts, but they will learn • I like the bicycle protected lane with striped buffer. NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 2 Summary Page13 • No more roundabout. No bump outs. Plowing is hard enough in this wintry state keeping streets clean is even harder when they're obstructed with nonstraightened roads. Keep it simple. • Left turn signals needed but speed is fine. Keeping road straight so to make plowing simpler and safer for all types of road use. No bump outs, no round abouts and no mediums. This city is small and not that busy except at rush hour so only pedestrian buttons and flat ramps are necessary. Keep it simple. Q3 – Do you agree that the problem statement captures the overall concerns of the community? Answer Count Percentage Yes 31 62% No 11 22% Not sure 8 16% Q4 – Is there anything else you would like to share about the problem statement? • No • I disagree with the statement "There is a need to improve safety and comfort for people who travel along and across Nicollet Avenue, including people walking, rolling, riding bicycles, taking the bus, and driving a personal vehicle. " I do not believe that Nicollet Ave is unsafe nor uncomfortable. Safe pedestrian crossings can be addressed with stop lights. Stop lights are more definitive than roundabouts. Roundabouts allow for interpretation of when to proceed. Stop lights are not ambiguous. • The statements that the street improvements should provide an "acceptable level of traffic delay and queuing" and attempts to provide "reliable travel times for all vehicles" concerns me that we are still focused too much on prioritizing private motor vehicle travel when we should be sharply reducing the need for it. We should have dedicated bus lanes so that transit users do not get stuck in traffic, but folks who choose to drive a private car should be discouraged by the multiple other options that are made safer and more convenient than driving. We've already spent decades creating car-dependent infrastructure, and it's destroying the environment, creating unsustainable sprawl, and placing a monetary burden on the city to keep all that infrastructure maintained. Make biking and public transit the most appealing options so that we don't need parking everywhere, so that people feel safer exploring their city on foot, so that the air is cleaner and the car noise is only on the outskirts of the city. • "While I agree on enhancing pedestrian access, safety, and public transportation, I struggle with the metro area's fascination with bike travel. I live near the added bike lanes on 66th and drive regularly during rush hour. In my years of traveling the road (every work day) the number of bikes I've seen can be counted on one hand, and this is during the summer months. So on a good day we're not biking, but for 5-6 months a year, winter hits and the reasons we want to drive just compound. Comparing us to other bike-friendly countries usually ends up being a discussion about how people don't want to bike in the cold, but reality is far more complex. This country (and city) won't accept winter biking because frankly a) our century of car-culture and b) our government doesn't maintain infrastructure at the level Nordic bike-friendly countries do. Unless you're willing to spend enormous additional annual costs in maintaining the bike paths at a degree which encourages bike use (plowing at 1 inch, grooming the trails regularly, and getting out there before the roads are cleared), we will never get over our innate desire to ""just drive"". • Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of adding in roundabouts, making access to the bus lines easier and increasing the respectability in our walking spaces, but continuing to eat away road/property space which could be otherwise used for beautification for a service we not only don't use, but we also don't support on a governmental level is asinine." NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 2 Summary Page14 • Hire more law enforcement to catch and prosecute SPEEDERS. • I would like the city council to prioritize ensuring that automobile traffic is able to move as quick as possible through the corridor, even if it means making sacrifices on safety. • I agree with some of it but not all. People walking and biking need to take some responsibility for their actions also. Not always put blame on drivers • There is no need to change the road for the above reasons. That is other than the some foolish need to spend money making changes nobody really wants. • No • No. It’s fine now. Why fix it? • I don’t think necessarily adding roundabouts will solve the lack of safety. It can add on simply because too much reckless driving on the roundabouts and adds. Maybe lights with arrows. • I didn't realize the survey continued and listed these things in the previous box: Nicollet needs greater handicapped accessibility on sidewalks and crossings with activated crossing lights and crosswalks. • Didn’t the road get an upgrade a few years ago? Not in favor of anymore roundabouts.. I am avoiding the streets with all the roundabouts. I think the drivers are more of the problem than the roads. • Specially near park areas, this would be nice • I think of the best ways to be eco-friendly is to improve bike ability. This may mean wider bike lanes at the expense of greenery. The more comfortable people are biking places instead of driving the less car accidents, carbon emissions, and with people spending more time outside hopefully that makes them more open to green initiatives • Emphasize biking and walking safety. Pro roundabouts • Flat ADA ramping and pedestrian signal lighting is all that's necessary at corners. Planting sustainability as seen from prior projects is not stable due to salt use on the road from cars splashing and such. Keep it simple. • No roundabouts, no raised medians, no bump outs, no green median raised, no plantings. Just flat pedestrian crossings with pedestrian buttons. No bike lanes just sidewalks. Richfield is small and not needing all these specific lanes since traffic isn't an issue. Plowing is the issue and needs to be front and center and clearly easy to do. Salt usually kills all plants, greenery in boulevard's and mediums, so Stop plantings. Q5 – Considering the benefits and trade-offs, please indicate which of the following tools you support as an improvement on Nicollet Avenue Street layout configurations Yes - Count Yes - Percentage No - Count No - Percentage 3-lane roadway (two-way center turn lane) 44 76% 9 16% 2-lane divided roadway (with raised median) 27 47% 20 34% 2-lane undivided (no median) 12 21% 30 52% Q6 – Considering the benefits and trade-offs, please indicate which of the following tools you support as an improvement on Nicollet Avenue NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 2 Summary Page15 Pedestrian, bicycle and boulevard configurations Yes - Count Yes - Percentage No - Count No - Percentage Two-way cycle track 28 47% 22 37% Cycle track 28 47% 17 29% Sidewalk on one side and trail on the other, with boulevards 25 42% 23 39% Sidewalk and trail with boulevards plus on-street bike lanes 18 31% 30 51% On-street buffered bike lanes 15 25% 31 53% Q7 – Considering the benefits and trade-offs, please indicate which of the following tools you support as an improvement on Nicollet Avenue Intersection treatments Yes - Count Yes - Percentage No - Count No - Percentage Pedestrian activated lights 39 78% 7 14% Traffic signal improvements 31 62% 11 22% Pedestrian medians (open crossing, doesn’t limit vehicle turning) 25 50% 16 32% Raised crossings/tabled intersections 24 48% 18 36% Compact roundabout 23 46% 22 44% Bumpouts/curb-extensions 16 32% 23 46% Closed medians (limits vehicle turning to right-in/right-out only) 12 24% 29 58% Q8 – Are there any other comments you wish to share? • Follow the KISS rule: “Keep It Simple, Stupid!” The more inconsistent elements of design decrease the ability to quickly comprehend the proper actions to take. • I do not like Two lane roundabouts because, you can turn right from the right lane or right from the left lane or go left from the right lane or go left from the left lane, fix the roundabouts so you haft to turn right from the right lane and left from the left lane. Rich Schrupp • It would be helpful to be able to rate these. Some of these would be improvements but not to the same level of others, while some would be improvements only if paired with others. • How are these plans affected by the closing of the ramps on to 494 at Nicollet? Won’t traffic naturally decrease on that road once you no longer can use it to get on 494? Will you waste all this improving for the traffics to reduce and then turn around and have to redo Portland? I live between both Portland and Nicollet and don’t really want to deal with two crazy high traffic roads. • intersection treatments: parking bay • "I'm honestly okay with most of the options. I think whatever is safest is best. • I really like the idea of better sidewalks & bike lanes. NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Open House 2 Summary Page16 • I'm less interested in more roundabouts. • Thanks so much for putting these open houses together!" • No yard space should be taken by the city for this project. No yard space should be taken for roundabouts. Bicycle and pedestrian traffic is minimal and should not dictate the project. Stop lights and pedestrian controlled signals are more effective than roundabouts. • I think any of these tools could be appropriate and useful for improving safety on Nicollet. Every possibility should be looked at so we can get a street that works for everyone. When evaluating the alternatives, please consider the impact on drainage and snowplowing operations for the street, sidewalk, and bike paths. • There are already enough bike lanes in Richfield. • Not at this time • I think it is a mistake to change so many north-south corridors to 2 or 3 lanes instead of 4. There is a high volume of traffic and forcing it down to 1 lane in each direction means very few breaks in traffic for people trying to go East-West or make turns from or onto the North-South roads. • Im a fan of roundabouts and the improved safety aspects they provide. However, they can be overused, as in the case of Lyndale south of 66th St. I think they should only be used at major intersections where necessary. To have 4 in a row within 4 blocks is total overkill, in my opinion. Please don’t repeat that on Nicollet. • Please don’t let this become a Bryant Avenue fiasco like in Minneapolis. Plan on lanes narrowing during the winter due to snow pile up. Also take into consideration that both Lyndale and Portland have dedicated bike lanes. Also recognize the impact of the houses on Nicollet and that you can’t take any more yard away from them, without it becoming intrusive. • Thank you for involving the community and not just "experts" who don't live here! • Please No More Roundabouts In Richfield!!!! We can prioritize safety with so many other alternatives, roundabouts may be the least convenient alternative for the pedestrian traffic that is said to be prioritized, take both Nicollet & Portland @ 66th. • This area is fine the way it is. Don't waste money fixing something that isn't broken. The only thing, and I mean the only thing, that could be helpful is the pedestrian activated crosswalk lights. Something like the one on Xerxes and ~64th St. Don't take away car lanes, don't narrow lanes, don't put in things that will make it impossible to plow. And add on street parking! At least on one side of the street! • It would be cool if nicollet road and Portland could coordinate so that one road prioritizes cycling, and the other for walking or other modes of traffic. The two roads are fairly close together to a point were advanced cyclists would choose the road that is better for them without much inconvenience. The other road could then be more general use or pedestrian specific. Otherwise it may be very challenging to satisfy everyone when the two roads both try to hit the "sweet spot" • Eliminate round abouts, bump outs, medians that are raised! We are in Minnesota which has plowing necessity and needs it easy and quick and safe to be cleaned off properly. Flat ramp crossings, pedestrian crossing buttons, no mediums in road raised or otherwise. Keep it simple and less difficult for plows! • Lots of trees on Nicollet would make the street better for everyone. The shade makes it better for walkers and bikers, they make drivers slow down, and they help out the planet. Nicollet Avenue reconstruction County Road 52 in Richfield Phase 3: Concept Alternatives | Engagement summary Project overview Hennepin County is planning to reconstruct CSAH 52 (Nicollet Avenue) between 66th Street and 77th Street in 2026-2027. As part of the design process for this project, the county is doing stakeholder engagement to inform project design. Engagement began in 2023 and will conclude in 2024. Engagement for phase 2 included the activities listed below. The following is a summary of each of the community engagement activities included in phase 3. • In-person open house • Contacts with 10+ community organizations • Ongoing meeting with stakeholder groups to discuss engagement opportunities Open house On the afternoon of Thursday, February 29, the project team hosted an in-person open house to gather input from people who use the Nicollet Avenue corridor which was attended by approximately 100 people. A total of 72 people signed in to the open house and approximately 30 did not sign in. Input was collected through a variety of methods: a questionnaire handed out at the meeting, dot stickers on display posters to prioritize potential design elements, and direct conversations with project staff. Input was also collected via an online version of the meeting questionnaire as part of a virtual open house. The following is a summary of the meeting, including a summary of frequent comments. A full transcript of the comments received is included as an attachment to this document. Meeting purpose • Share phase 2 results: present feedback to-date • Pedestrian and bikeway alternatives: present the three design options and solicit preferences • Intersection design concepts: present intersection design concepts and solicit preferences • Corridor design (layout) alternatives: present options and solicit feedback • Next steps: share next steps Figure 1: Project staff walk open house participants through the informational boards NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 3 Summary Page2 Date/time • February 29, 2024, from 4:30 – 6:30 p.m. (virtual open house available Feb. 27 – Mar. 21) • Richfield Community Center, 7000 Nicollet Avenue, Richfield Meeting promotions • Postcard mailing to all of the physical addresses within one quarter mile of the corridor • Email invitation to those on the city and county email lists • Social media posts on city and county channels • Direct invitations via Richfield Transportation Commission members • Flyers hand delivered to retail businesses in the area Written comments received • Questionnaires submitted at meeting: 20 • Questionnaire responses submitted electronically: 85 • Demographic activity, dots placed: 88 • Ped. and bike activity, dots placed: 52 • Intersection activity, dots placed: 391 • Map comments: 42 Participant demographics Meeting participants were asked to self-select demographic characteristics via an interactive exercise at the meeting and a series of questions on the questionnaire form (both in person and online). The activity and questions were voluntary and not all respondents participated. Table 1 shows the combined results of those activities, in aggregate. The following are key findings: • 33% were age 50 and over • 87% identified as white and 5% identified as Hispanic/Latino • 63% identified as a man or using he/him pronouns • 14% had a disability • 92% spoke English and 5% spoke Spanish Frequent themes and considerations Sidewalk and bikeway options: The one-way cycle track ranked the highest at both the open house and in the questionnaire, followed by the two-way cycle track and sidewalk and sidepath. Roadway configuration: Most questionnaire respondents (82%) supported the 3-lane roadway configuration for Nicollet Avenue. Table 1: Demographic activity responses, open house and virtual open house Age 18 – 34 43% 35 – 50 24% 66+ 17% 50 – 65 16% Under 18 0% Race/Ethnicity White 87% Hispanic or Latino 5% More than one race 3% Black or African American 2% Asian 1% Other 1% Alaskan Native or American Indian 0% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% Pronouns He/Him 63% She/Her 37% They/Them 0% Other 0% Do you have a disability? No 86% Yes 14% Languages English 92% Spanish 5% Other 3% Somali/Oromo 0% Russian 0% Karen 0% Thai 0% Hmong 0% Mandarin/Cantonese 0% NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 3 Summary Page3 Intersection design options: Open house activities and questionnaire results largely corresponded for individual intersection treatments. These preferences are included in the table below: Table 2: Overall intersection design preferences Intersection Preference Notes 76th Street Roundabout 75th Street Bumpouts/curb extensions 74th Street Bumpouts/curb extensions 73rd Street Roundabout 72nd Street Median crossing (pedestrian refuge median) 71st Street 2-lane section with bumpouts/curb extensions 70th Street Roundabout Fairly close split at the open house, but clear preference in the questionnaire 69th Street Bumpouts/curb extensions 68th Street Bumpouts/curb extensions 67th Street Roundabout Fairly close split at the open house, but clear preference in the questionnaire Other key themes: • Some participants support roundabouts and medians for their safety and traffic flow benefits, others raise concerns about their impact on pedestrian crossings. • Mixed opinions exist regarding features like bumpouts and right-in/right-out medians, with some seeing them as beneficial for traffic calming while others question their effectiveness. • There was a focus on the need to prioritize safety for cyclists and pedestrians, with suggestions for improvements such as adding pedestrian lights and ensuring adequate space. NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 3 Summary Page4 Open house activity results summary At the open house, questions from the questionnaire were reflected in interactive activities to collect feedback. This included an optional demographic dot activity which received 88 answers; a dot activity asking about bike and pedestrian configurations, which received 52 answers; and a dot activity asking about intersection treatment priorities, which received 391 answers across all intersections. People could also leave sticky notes on the intersection activity map; 42 comments were placed in that format. The following is a summary of the open house activity results. A complete tabulation of survey results is included as an attachment. • When asked to place a sticker on their preferred options, the one-way cycle track received the most dots (62%). The two-way cycle track came in second (27%), and the sidewalk and sidepath option came in third (12%). o Overall, participants expressed preferences for one-way cycle tracks, while others prefer two-way tracks or side paths to minimize disruptions and prioritize safety. • For the 76th Street intersection, roundabouts were preferred (71%). • For the 75th Street intersection, bumpouts/curb extensions without the closed median were preferred (72%). • For the 74th Street intersection, bumpouts/curb extensions without the closed median were preferred (74%). • For the 73rd Street intersection, roundabouts received about half of the dots (51%). The rest of the answers were split between the median crossing (25%) and bumpouts/curb extensions (24%). • For the 72nd Street intersection, a median crossing (pedestrian refuge median) was preferred (79%). • For the 71st Street intersection, a 2-lane section with bumpouts/curb extensions was preferred (66%). • For the 70th Street intersection, roundabouts received slightly more dots (58%) than a traffic signal (42%). • For the 69th Street intersection, bumpouts/curb extensions without the closed median were preferred (66%). • For the 68th Street intersection, bumpouts/curb extensions without the closed median were preferred (65%). • For the 67th Street intersection, roundabouts (51%) and a traffic signal (49%) were almost evenly split. • Some common themes from written comments regarding intersection treatments include: o Some participants were supportive of roundabouts, finding them efficient and safe for reducing traffic, while others expressed concerns about traffic flow and pedestrian safety. o There were mixed opinions on bumpouts, with some participants okay with them if accompanied by flashing pedestrian crossing buttons, while others opposed them, particularly when combined with right-in-right-out configurations. o Concerns were raised about the design and functionality of median crossings, particularly regarding turning difficulty and lack of storage space for vehicles. o Suggestions included adding pedestrian lights at certain intersections and ensuring adequate space for cyclists and pedestrians. NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 3 Summary Page5 Questionnaire results summary The questionnaire was open from February 28 to March 21, 2024 and received about 85 responses, roughly 20 of which were from a printed version of the questionnaire at the in-person open house. The following is a summary of the questionnaire results, including those submitted both online and in-person. A complete tabulation of survey results is included as an attachment. • Most (82%) respondents supported the 3-lane roadway configuration for Nicollet Avenue. Some common themes from the written comments include: o Concerns about speeding and the need for traffic calming measures, such as narrower lanes, speed bumps, and curb extensions. o Emphasis on pedestrian safety, including safe crosswalks, protected bike lanes, and adequate infrastructure for walking and biking. o Suggestions for reducing the number of lanes, with preferences for two-lane configurations or boulevards to introduce green space. o Support for roundabouts with clear lines of sight and opposition to features like concrete medians and bump outs that may impede traffic flow or create safety hazards. o Advocacy for prioritizing alternative modes of transportation over single-occupancy vehicles, including one-way or two-way cycle tracks and lower speed limits. o Calls for considering the needs of all residents, including those who rely on vehicles for transportation, and ensuring continuity with existing infrastructure. • When ranking the options in order of preference from one to three, the one-way cycle track ranked highest on average (1.4), followed by the two-way cycle track (1.8). The sidewalk and sidepath option ranked lowest overall (2.7). o Those who supported the one-way cycle track cited its safety benefits, integration with existing infrastructure, and alignment with the direction of traffic flow on nearby streets like 66th Street. o Those who supported the two-way cycle track cited its social aspects, integration with existing trails like the Nine Mile Creek Trail, and potential to make biking more appealing in the community. o Those who opposed the sidepath expressed worries about safety, particularly at intersections. They argue that separated bike lanes are more conducive to smooth traffic flow. o A few commenters question the need for dedicated bike lanes, citing perceived low usage of existing paths and suggesting that people will use whichever side of the street is most convenient, regardless of designated lanes. o There were some general safety comments, noting that sidewalks, safe crossings, and adequate snow removal are also important to keeping pedestrians and cyclists safe. • For the 76th Street intersection, the roundabout ranked higher on average (1.2) than the traffic signal (1.6). • For the 75th Street intersection, bumpouts/curb extensions ranked slightly higher on average (1.3) than the option with a closed median (1.5). • For the 74th Street intersection, bumpouts/curb extensions ranked slightly higher on average (1.3) than the option with a closed median (1.5). • For the 73rd Street intersection, the roundabout ranked highest on average (1.4) followed by the median crossing (1.8). • For the 72nd Street intersection, the median crossing received more number one rankings (71%), but ranked only slightly higher (1.3) than bumpouts/curb extensions (1.4) on average. NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 3 Summary Page6 • For the 71st Street intersection, the 2-lane section with bumpouts/curb extensions ranked slightly higher on average (1.3) than the 3-lane section with closed medians (1.5). • For the 70th Street intersection, the roundabout ranked higher on average (1.2) than the traffic signal (1.7). • For the 69th Street intersection, bumpouts/curb extensions received more number one rankings (65%), but only ranked slightly higher on average (1.4) than the option with the closed median (1.5). • For the 68th Street intersection, bumpouts/curb extensions received more number one rankings (63%), but only ranked slightly higher on average (1.4) than the option with the closed median (1.5). • For the 67th Street intersection, the roundabout ranked higher on average (1.2) than the traffic signal (1.6). • Some common themes from written comments regarding intersection treatments include: o Some expressed support for roundabouts and medians, citing safety benefits and traffic flow improvements. However, concerns are raised about their impact on pedestrian crossings and accessibility. o There were mixed opinions about features like bumpouts, stoplights, and right-in/right-out medians. Some view them as beneficial for traffic calming and safety, while others express concerns about their effectiveness and impact on traffic flow. o There were many comments expressing the need to make intersections safer for bicyclists and pedestrians, and to incorporate traffic calming into the design. o Some additional suggestions included incorporating greenery, benches, and rest areas into the road design to enhance aesthetics and user experience. Next steps The next steps in the process for the project team are to consider the results of phase three engagement to work toward developing a recommended roadway design concept reflecting all of the community input received to-date and the related technical analysis. The recommended concept will be shared with community members during the forth phase of community engagement, tentatively planned for May 2024. List of attachments Attachment 1: Transcript of open house comments Attachment 2: Questionnaire results Attachment 1: Transcript of open house comments What we’ve learned: Have the common themes from phase 2 community engagement been accurately captured? Answer Count Percentage Yes 13 68% Not sure 6 32% No 0 0% Sidewalk and bikeway options: Answer Count Percentage One-way cycle track 32 62% Two-way cycle track 14 27% Sidewalk + side path 6 12% Intersection design options: 76th Street Intersection Answer Count Percentage Roundabout 35 71% Traffic signal 14 29% 75th Street Intersection Answer Count Percentage Bumpouts/curb extensions 26 72% Bumpouts/curb extensions and right-in/right-out (closed median) 10 28% 74th Street Intersection Answer Count Percentage Bumpouts/curb extensions 28 74% Bumpouts/curb extensions and right-in/right-out (closed median) 10 26% 73rd Street Intersection Answer Count Percentage Roundabout 26 51% Median crossing (pedestrian refuge median) 13 25% NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 3 Summary Page8 Bumpouts/curb extensions 12 24% 72nd Street Intersection Answer Count Percentage Median crossing (pedestrian refuge median) 27 79% Bumpouts/curb extensions 7 21% 71st Street Intersection Answer Count Percentage 2-lane section with bumpouts/curb extensions 21 66% 3-lane section with right-in/right-out (closed median) 11 34% 70th Street Intersection Answer Count Percentage Roundabout 25 58% Traffic signal 18 42% 69th Street Intersection Answer Count Percentage Bumpouts/curb extensions 21 66% Bumpouts/curb extensions and right-in/right-out (closed median) 11 34% 68th Street Intersection Answer Count Percentage Bumpouts/curb extensions 24 65% Median crossing (pedestrian refuge median) 13 35% 67th Street Intersection Answer Count Percentage Roundabout 20 51% Traffic signal 19 49% Map comments: • [W 67th St] Sensors to automate RRFB’s? • [W 67th St roundabout] Roundabouts are the BEST! :) • [W 67th St roundabout] Concern over not enough car storage when peoples crossing. NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 3 Summary Page9 • [W 67th St roundabout] Roundabout 67th positive • [W 67th St signal] Keep semaphore! This esfexe [sp?] • [W 67th St signal] Like this • [W 68th St] As is [2 dots in agreement] • [W 68th St] I’m okay with bumpouts if there is a flashing pedestrian crossing button for the school & church. If there isn’t one, I would prefer a median crossing over bumpouts w/o flashing lights • [W 68th St bumpouts w/ right-in-right-out] No! • [W 69th St bumpouts w/ right-in-right out] No! • [W 69th St bumpouts w/ right-in-right out] No Do Not Like • [W 69th St bumpouts] OK • Roundabouts positive throughout corridor • [W 70th St] No more roundabouts closer than 3 blks apart • [W 70th St roundabout] Roundabouts are the best :) • [W 70th St roundabout] Roundabouts are cost effective and safe while reducing traffic • [W 70th St roundabout] No! • [W 70th St roundabout] No! • Mistake to have circle at 70th. Need traffic control. • [W 72nd St] Please move the postal box away from this intersection • [W 72nd St median crossings] Awkward for turning – medians • [W 72nd St median crossings] Design noses 3 signs don’t get hit; account for vehicles • [W 72nd St bumpouts] Add pedestrian lights at 72nd x2 • [W 73rd St] SB right turn, cars pass on the left • [W 73rd St roundabout] needs lights for peds! :) • [W 73rd St bumpouts] OK • Not a fan of median turn lanes at 72nd & 73rd makes hard to turn not enough storage. Not a fan of Right in Right out anywhere • Worse than today – 72nd (A), 73rd (A) • No need for a circle a 73rd • Remove Left turn islands @ 72 & 73 very awkward!! Too small! • [W 74th St bumpouts] OK • [W 75th St bumpouts] OK • [W 76th St roundabout] Roundabouts are a safe and efficient intersection treatment :) • [W 76th St roundabout] Roundabouts ALL DAY LONG • [W 76th St roundabout] NO!! • [One-way cycle track + sidewalks] OK • [One-way cycle track + sidewalks] Bike facilities positive – all. Preference one-way • [Two-way cycle track + sidewalks] KEEP BIKE TRACKS ON SIDEWALKS • [Two-way cycle track + sidewalks] 2-way is preference • [Side path + sidewalk] OK • [Side path + sidewalk] Choose the Side Path & Sidewalk option to minimize the need to minimize the need to take more yard space from existing residents & to lessen the numerous options distractions when driving other options would create. • No roundabout, must have Bus Pullout, No Stupid concrete Medians at a bus stop, Flashing lights for Crossing • Intersection Sight Lines (Bus Shelters) • The poster boards mention safer facilities for walking, rolling, and biking. Does running need to be called out also? Seems they would need a wide bearth to bob & weave around non-runners. I’m personally not a runner, so I may be making assumptions. NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 3 Summary Page10 • No bicycle track Demographic sticker activity Pronouns Answer Count Percentage She/Her 6 40% He/Him 9 60% They/Them 0 0% Other 0 0% Age Answer Count Percentage Under 18 0 0% 18-34 8 42% 35-50 3 16% 50-65 2 11% 66+ 6 32% Do you have a disability? Answer Count Percentage No 14 88% Yes 2 13% Race/Ethnicity Answer Count Percentage White and/or European descent 12 71% Hispanic or Latino 2 12% More than one race 1 6% Black or African American 1 6% Asian 1 6% Alaskan Native or American Indian 0 0% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0 0% Languages Answer Count Percentage English 18 86% Spanish 2 10% Other 1 5% Somali/Oromo 0 0% Russian 0 0% Karen 0 0% Thai 0 0% Hmong 0 0% Mandarin/Cantonese 0 0% NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 3 Summary Page11 Attachment 2: Questionnaire results Q1 – Do you support the 3-lane roadway configuration for Nicollet Avenue? Answer Count Percentage Yes 68 82% No 15 18% Q2 - Is there anything else you would like to share about the recommended roadway configuration? • It should be far less open center turn lane. If it must be three-lane, the lane widths should be at the state minimum to control speeding. • I’d like to see us visit a two lane roadway or two lanes with a boulevard to introduce more green space. • Need safe crosswalks. Current crosswalks don't feel safe. Want protected bike lane. • Two lanes with left turn lanes only where needed. Three lanes is too wide and will encourage speeding. Design it like Lyndale Ave between 31st and Minnehaha Pkwy instead. • Priorities for me are pedestrian safety and public transportation. I live a half a block off of Nicollet and my child crosses it twice a day to get to school. • 3 lane is only necessary at intersections. Consider narrowing to 2 between intersections or even across lower-volume intersections with forced RIRO. Create a chicaning effect to calm traffic, similar to Lyndale through South Minneapolis. • Increasing traffic calming measures to reduce vehicles from driving over speed limit. • Traffic calming slow speed • need to go back to a 4 lane road • Would like to see more traffic calming measures put in place to reduce vehicle speed • Would be great to see two way multiple use trails added and/or two way cycle paths. • Bike infrastructure is critical - I would not support any plan that did not include safety for both bicyclists and pedestrians. As someone who involved in a ped (someone else) and bike (me) when the ped stepped directly in front of me, I was the most seriously injured due to speed/velocity, • Reduce vehicle speeds with traffic calming measures • Looks good • Having the driving lanes, and especially the center turning lane, be as narrow as possible (10' lane width, 8' center) would be great! • I'm not sure if I have seen a street that has a turn lane running the entire length of the street. I am wondering if it could increase the potential for accidents if people use it to pass slower drivers. • My support for this option hinges on providing adequate infrastructure for biking and walking. • "IF you have to put in round abouts, MAKE SURE they have clear lines of sight. The roundabout at Target in Richfield is a prime example of what NOT to do. Lines of sight are obstructed." • I definitely agree with the 3-lane roadway, it is commonly used throughout the metro area and doesn't require reeducating the user. NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 3 Summary Page12 • I would love to have separated bike lanes that are in both heading North and South alongside wider sidewalks and shade trees separating bike/ped with cars. I would be very disappointed to see paint that is considered a bike path. I would challenge project planners who are working on this and the folks who decide on the final design "If you have a kid would you let them bike on the path?". Thank you for asking for recommendations. • Median with turn lanes only at intersections (see 66th St). • I always will want less space for cars and more safe space for people to travel by bike, on foot, and by transit. We've given cars too much space in our city. • If there is to be no on-road provision for cyclists then the speed limits should be reduced. • Nope. Happy with the option! • Needs more traffic calming design. 2 lane with turns, fine, but full, unobstructed, 3 lane designs will do nothing to support traveling at the posted speeds. • Please make as many roundabouts with as many different traffic patterns as you can. We'd like to set the Guinness record. • I don’t see enough speed calming devices. Three lane roads are known to speed traffic compared to two lanes, increasing pedestrians injury and death. Therefore, more speed calming such as speed bumps and small curves to slow traffic are necessary. • I would like there to be 2-lane configuration as much as possible • Medians whenever possible. Discourage passing especially near PED crossings • No boulevards though, Portland's are too small and impossible to safely slow down and get into the turn lane. Roundabout needed at 73rd and Nicollet with crosswalks + lighted walk signals" • Medians where people crossing the street can pause in the middle. Example is 72 and Nicollet • I travel Nicollet Avenue often. My mode is typically by bicycle. My preference is to prioritize all modes except single occupancy vehicles. It will be MANY years until we have a chance to redo this road. Please strongly consider: - A one-way bikeway as the first choice and the safest option for pedestrians and cyclists; a two-way as the second choice. - Lower the targeted speed limit to 25 mph. - Narrow the lanes to help support traffic calming (currently shown wider than the minimum required). Narrowing lanes would also bring Option 1 more in line with Options 2 and 3 in terms of row width. - Ensure a high-quality bike/pedestrian crossing at every block. - Reduce the open left turn lane in locations where it is impossible to turn left anyway (e.g., add a median or other raised barrier adjacent to Augsburg Park). - Do everything you can to allow for street trees/shade. Thanks! • +1 for One Way Cycle track option. A vehicle driver turning at an intersection or driveway has best opportunity to see cyclists, as traveling in same direction as vehicle traffic. Avoids cyclists switching sides of street at ends of path. Design already proven on 66th St. • Please make sure parking is impacted in such a way to ensure clear vision for all users. • Will there be on street parking? I think that should be a priority. • Strongly prefer this configuration over choices that require U-turns • In order to make this a true 3-lane roadway, the concrete medians will need to be removed and no new roundabouts built. If this indeed is the preferred option, as stated, then make it so. If other "features" are involved, then don't call it a 3-lane roadway. Marked pedestrian crossings with flashing lights can be installed without additional "features". • -like the pedestrian activated lights! NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 3 Summary Page13 -take away the Sunday parking on street -The traffic by Holy Angels with the roundabout gets really backed up. I think a double roundabout would be too much -larger/bigger curbs/sidewalks for strollers" • Follow Portland Avenue as a model where possible. • Looking forward to the time after the 494/Nicollet exists; entrances are closed so there will be less traffic! • Nicollet Avenue Open House Open House February 29, 2024 Please consider safety of bikes on Nicollet Avenue with one lane traffic each way. During certain times of day, morning, afternoon and evening there is considerable congestion and back up with the number of round-a-bouts already on Nicollet. A consideration might be to mirror the 66th Street design, where the bike lanes are located above the street, adjacent to the walking paths. If you drive around the non-major streets of Richfield, you would notice the number of cars per household has increased. Where it was 1 or 2, you now find 3 or 4, probably due to family households coming together to afford the purchase of a home in Richfield. Or, because the adult son or daughter cannot afford an apartment or house on their own. On our block alone, we have several households with 2 or more adult children living in the home with 1 or 2 parents. Additionally, we have 14 homes with 24 vehicles, all used on a daily basis for work or errands. I believe you will find this common in many areas. While the idea of encouraging people to walk or ride bikes or take public transportation is enticing, the reality is that most people will drive to stores, work, recreation areas such as the library, the community center and now playground, and parks, especially in the cold, winter months that take up a good part of the year. Whether older or younger adults, cars are still the most used vehicle in Richfield. People with walking issues, other disabilities, more than 1 child, grocery shopping, going to their faith community find using vehicles the best way to get around Richfield. Please consider the needs of the many, not what is trendy or looks good in newsprint or magazine articles, or is of use to only a small percentage of residents or people passing through the city. Last, please consider the expense to completely restructure an area that is not very old and whether the reconstructing best serves the needs at this time. Respectfully, thank you for this opportunity. • Nicollet Ave Open House Thursday, Feb 29 4:30-6:30 Bike lanes were already put in, and driving lanes were reduced. Being a frequent user of Nicollet, I rarely see a bike on this (or any) route. Please keep in mind those of us who use motor vehicles as a primary mode of transporting ourselves, children, groceries, and elderly - for near, medium, and far distances. Consider your constituency and the climate in which we live. There are reasons why the bike lanes are used so little in comparison with the motor vehicle lanes. Follow the numbers. A left-turn arrow on SB Nicollet at 77th St. has still not been installed. Such an easy way to make the intersection safer - which is the city's/county's declared goal. This is puzzling. • Safe cycling/ped on turns are key. I also like the 25 mph option to increase safety. • Yes without Bumpouts NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 3 Summary Page14 Please remove the concrete from the roadway. If you must have it paint the Total end with retroreflective paint. I see all the tire marks from cars bouncing over them sometimes blowing low profile tires and damaging rims. Keep lanes straight for snow removal! • Not sure One way cycle tracks are safest option for cyclist. The other option create situations going against traffic. Drivers never look. I'm tired of coming close to being a hood ornament because drivers are unaware of the designs limitation and pull up to the intersection without looking both ways. • Please make whatever is decided bike & walk friendly and consider continuity with Nicollet North & South of this section • Keep speed limit at 35, or lower. Add medians like on Portland. • Bump outs make turns too sharp No Bump outs No extensions any semifores have L turn arrows Bike safety with No lane on Road • I'd like to see a focus on cycling, pedestrian, and traffic calming infrastructure. • No Roundabouts No medians • -Prefer Sidewalk & side path. -Prefer light at 67th -Agree that 73rd and 70th could benefit from a round-about. They need to be big enough to allow buses and semis to traverse. -76th should still be a traffic light -Bumpout intersections at 74th & 75th seem appropriate -Perhaps a flasher at 72nd pedestrian crossing? • Pedestrian crossings please! I hope the county considers more & better marked (w/ flashing lights) ped crossings. This crossing provides access to a park, the library, highschool, community center, day car center, AHA, etc. etc. Let's give the community (and our kids!) safe crossings. Love the bike paths too!! • I would like some traffic calming measures as well. The three-lane configuration without traffic calming will not meaningfully encourage drivers to use caution and makes crossing intersections more difficult for pedestrians and cyclists. Curb extensions and other traffic calming measures would be essential to making sure the road works for all modes of transport. • I would like more traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle speed Q3 – Considering the benefits and trade-offs, please rank the sidewalk and bikeway options in order of your preference One-way cycle track Average rank: 1.4 Rank Count Percentage 1 42 74% 2 10 18% 3 5 9% Two-way cycle track NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 3 Summary Page15 Average rank: 1.8 Rank Count Percentage 1 10 19% 2 43 80% 3 1 2% Sidewalk and sidepath Average rank: 2.7 Rank Count Percentage 1 9 16% 2 1 2% 3 45 82% Q4 – Is there anything else you would like to share about the sidewalk and bikeway options? • I prefer 1-way both sides! • Why do bike lanes have to be on highest vehicle routes? Many streets & Ave's would be better suited! • If a bikeway is installed that goes against traffic such as the two way cycle path or sidewalk/sidepath and a car pulls in front of me causing a crash, can I sue the planners and gov't for selecting a bad design? Also, how many miles do designers ride every year? They need to ride. • Sidewalks maintained for safe walking. Very hazardous at night. Coordinate snow removal on sidewalks with street snow removal. Winter walking has forced pedestrians to walk in the street. Give bike lanes additional width. • My answers for this were in general, since they don't correspond with the options presented today. • I know it will take more right-of-way, but would it be safer to have a sidewalk on each side, & a bike lane on each side following the vehicle traffic direction? • 1 pedestrian walk on one side, 2-way biking on other & pedestrian? • The sidepath is not a bikeway option and should not have even been presented. This has been designated as a bike route for over a decade. • Either if the cycle tracks is fine for me. I bike and see that as important but there are other nearby options. Pedestrian ease and safety is most important. • I don't bike here now, but I will if you build the one-way cycle track. This is the best solution. We live in a climate crisis, and we have to make biking so much more appealing than it is now if we want our communities to reach our climate goals for the next decades. Safe and easy to understand bikeways, like this one-way design are critically important. • Sidewalk and side path would be a severe downgrade. • do a survey on how many bikes you see using this road and in the wintertime there are almost none using it you seem to favor bikes and pedestrians • Would be great to see two way multiple use trails added and/or two way cycle paths. This becomes an easy decision IMO when considering equal ROW and tree impacts of single lane. Removing opportunities to be killed by cars, through design change, is the best option. • Drop the side path option • I understand the one way cycle track may have the biggest ROW impact, but it provides the best, safest alternative for all road users. If something unexpected prevents using that option, the two NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 3 Summary Page16 way cycle track would have the least (but still non-zero!) adverse impact. The multi-use path should not be considered as it represents the worst of these options. • I really like the one-way cycle track because it keeps cyclists on the correct side of the street and gives both pedestrians and cyclists the most dedicated space to minimize interference. • I'd love to see if there's a budget for a bike repair station somewhere along the route • I overlook the 66th & Lyndale roundabout and one-way cycle track on 66th street. This is the best option for both riders and walkers. Riders currently use the designated bike area to ride both ways (East and West) ... directional arrows do not influence people from using the bike path their chosen way. • Normally I am a fan of the Two-way, but the One-way pairs well with the rest of Richfield's bike network. • I live on Clinton Ave / 69th and use Nicollet as my main cycling North/South route. I am a relatively fast cyclist and the off-street paths add significant time to any trip and are far more dangerous. I've been hit by motorists twice within Richfield. Both times have been on dedicated cycle paths at intersections (additionally, I've had to slam on the brakes when I have the right of way to avoid a collision more times than I can count). Because they're set back from the street people don't look and/or don't see a faster moving cyclist. With Nicollet eventually becoming a bridge over 494 without exit ramps I was hoping we'd have on-street bike lane to be able to connect Bloomington and Minneapolis bike lanes through Richfield. Presumably the issue here is that Nicollet must be narrower than Portland or Lyndale - but those setups with a dedicated lane are ideal for anyone who rides faster than 10mph. • I don't think we need to go all out with the one-way option. I really like the idea of sidewalks on both sides, so as a walker, I won't need to cross the street to get out of the bike lane. • Majority of traffic is not Richfield traffic, most pedestrians are Richfield residents and good chunks of the road are residential or non-commercial. The road should serve and respect those who live here first and not simply be a thoroughfare. • Cycling is an inherently social form of transportation, and for that reason I really like the two way bike way. The nine mile creek trail that runs through richfield is a really nice feature and I would love to see more of that. That being said, the one way cycle track would likely integrate better with the existing one way design along 66th. • I really like using the one-way bikeways on 66th and how the sidewalk is separated. I like how if I need or want to merge into the thru-lane such as when snow removal hasn't been completed yet on parts of it, I can do so much easier than a two-way configuration or sidepath unless the sidepaths are on both sides of the street. • Multi use path is too confusing. Most assume striped path is for bicycles, inline skates, etc. One way bike paths plus sidewalk makes most sense and probably better for snow clearance • Consider moving bike path one block over. No bike path on Nicollet • I am an avid cyclist. I strongly prefer the two way cycle path option. • Love the path options! Will also spruce up the very poor sidewalks there... • I'd rather see on street bike lanes but if it has to be off street then please make sure all the curbs to ride up and down every intersection are smooth. 9 miles creek bike trail along 76th is ROUGH to ride because of all the abrupt up and down curb transitions • One way track already proven along 66th St. Best opportunity for vehicle drivers to see cyclists, as traveling in same direction and side as vehicle traffic. • As a confident cyclist, I'd have no issues just taking the road if I need it with a two way. Please also ensure that the start of this infrastructure is safe and easy to access. (Unlike Bryant and 31st.) NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 3 Summary Page17 Finally, please make sure there is a true separation between bike and sidewalk to avoid pedestrians wandering into the bikelane. It creates safety issues and tension thst doesn't need to be there. • I think anytime you put all the traffic-separated bike lanes on one side of the road, you invite cyclists to be IN the road if they're going the opposite direction -- so I think the one-way cycle track is by far the safest for cyclists, and the least likely to increase conflicts between bikes and cars. This model also matches with what's in place on 66th St, so there is precedent in the community and people know how it works. The sidewalk & sidepath model is currently in place on 76th St and it is fine, but I think there is also FAR less traffic on 76th at Nicollet than in the corridor being planned. • I truly do not think that any of these is realistic. People will walk and ride on whichever side of the street is more convenient for them - not necessarily follow ""the plan"". There are very few bikers on Nicollet at any time of the year, so making premiere paths for that use should not necessarily be a priority. It would be good for the county and city planners of this project to take some lawn chairs and sit on the boulevard of Nicollet for a couple of hours to see just what happens on this major artery. I think that we all know that dedicated paths/sidewalks are, in reality, not used as such. Everyone will use whatever path or sidewalk there is however they wish. And with so little ""rolling"" on Nicollet, it works fine. Also - Nicollet Ave in Richfield is nothing like what is shown in the depictions. It is a mix of commercial/churches and schools, and older residential, along with one block of park. It would be nice if the developers of this project would have an accurate idea of how it would look. In addition, Richfield has had the tendency to plant trees along major roadways and then not care for them as needed, thereby having to remove them and replant others a few years later - at great expense. Why not just make the sidewalks/paths new, renewing the current curb-and-boulevard footprint? • I have found the two-way cycle path configuration to be very effective on nearby 66th Ave. Keeping pedestrians and cyclists on separate paths would be safest for both modes. It also makes bike travel more predictable for cars on the road. Q5 –Considering the benefits and trade-offs, please rank the improvement options in order of your preference. 76th Street intersection – Traffic signal Average rank: 1.6 Rank Count Percentage 1 21 38% 2 35 63% 76th Street intersection – Roundabout Average rank: 1.2 Rank Count Percentage 1 50 78% 2 14 22% 75th Street intersection – Bumpouts/curb extensions Average rank: 1.3 Rank Count Percentage 1 38 67% 2 19 33% NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 3 Summary Page18 75th Street intersection – Bumpouts/curb extension and right-in/right-out (closed median) Average rank: 1.5 Rank Count Percentage 1 29 53% 2 26 47% 74th Street intersection – Bumpouts/curb extensions Average rank: 1.3 Rank Count Percentage 1 39 70% 2 17 30% 74th Street intersection – Bumpouts/curb extension and right-in/right-out (closed median) Average rank: 1.5 Rank Count Percentage 1 26 48% 2 28 52% 73rd Street intersection – Bumpouts/curb extensions Average rank: 2.5 Rank Count Percentage 1 5 10% 2 17 33% 3 29 57% 73rd Street intersection – Median crossing (pedestrian refuge median) Average rank: 1.8 Rank Count Percentage 1 15 30% 2 29 58% 3 6 12% 73rd Street intersection – Roundabout Average rank: 1.4 Rank Count Percentage 1 47 78% 2 3 5% -3 10 17% 72nd Street intersection – Bumpouts/curb extensions Average rank: 1.4 Rank Count Percentage 1 26 46% 2 31 54% NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 3 Summary Page19 72nd Street intersection – Median crossing (pedestrian refuge median) Average rank: 1.3 Rank Count Percentage 1 42 71% 2 17 29% 71st Street intersection – 2-lane section with bumpouts/curb extensions Average rank: 1.3 Rank Count Percentage 1 41 69% 2 18 31% 72nd Street intersection – 3-lane section with closed medians (right-in/right-out) Average rank: 1.5 Rank Count Percentage 1 25 49% 2 26 51% 70th Street intersection – Traffic signal Average rank: 1.7 Rank Count Percentage 1 16 31% 2 35 69% 70th Street intersection – Roundabout Average rank: 1.2 Rank Count Percentage 1 53 80% 2 13 20% 69th Street intersection – Bumpouts/curb extensions Average rank: 1.4 Rank Count Percentage 1 39 65% 2 21 35% 69th Street intersection – Bumpouts/curb extension and right-in/right-out (closed median) Average rank: 1.5 Rank Count Percentage 1 26 52% 2 24 48% 68th Street intersection – Bumpouts/curb extensions Average rank: 1.4 Rank Count Percentage 1 35 63% NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 3 Summary Page20 2 21 38% 68th Street intersection – Bumpouts/curb extension and right-in/right-out (closed median) Average rank: 1.5 Rank Count Percentage 1 27 54% 2 23 46% 67th Street intersection – Traffic signal Average rank: 1.6 Rank Count Percentage 1 18 36% 2 32 64% 67th Street intersection – Roundabout Average rank: 1.2 Rank Count Percentage 1 51 78% 2 14 22% Q6 –Is there anything else you would like to share about the intersection design options? • It would be nice to eliminate signals as much as possible. But please don't cheat the bikeway design to make a roundabout fit, as we did on Lyndale. We need adequate space to maintain a full bikeway design. I also love the idea of bumpouts but I am concerned about how pedestrians will get to the Nicollet sidewalks safely from the side streets. Could sidewalk stubs on both sides of side streets be added to connect to the wider part of the roadway? (ie, pedestrians and vehicles share the road, but as you get within 50 or 100' of Nicollet, you separate the two — providing sidewalks for peds and a narrower road space exclusively for vehicles) I am also unclear about the design shown for 71st & Nicollet. It makes sense to have it be two-lane there, but why can't the lanes shift around a median at 71st? Wouldn't it help speeding to make cars not go in a totally straight line. I want a two-lane design by Augsburg and a crossing median at 71st, please. • Every intersection should put high priority on protected bike lanes. Intersections are the most dangerous spot for bicyclists unless they are designed properly. • It’s great to see pedestrian safety being a priority for road design. Anything that can reduce vehicle travel and better manage “car brain” is a net positive. Hope at least some of these roadway design changes are implemented! • Looks good • Roundabouts and medians are great! Crossing multiple lanes without medians is unpleasant. Avoid using traffic lights. • I don't think I understand what a bump out is. I don't like closed medians because I think people should be able to turn in the direction they want to go. I am also not a fan of stoplights because they cause unnecessary delays and traffic backups. • Would love to see benches and places to rest if possible • My POV ... Due to the increase in vehicle chases and speeding, the safest option is the roundabout. It deters offenders from endangering the public by putting built in roadblocks into our streets that lead from city to city. NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 3 Summary Page21 • In my experience, drivers DO NOT drive slower and more carefully around the right-in, right-out pedestrian refuges. They fly through the area as if there's no traffic calming whatsoever. It is for this reason that I favor the roundabout bc at least the complexity of a roundabout and the fact that drivers have to try and pay attention to when they can enter the roundabout slows them down more. I still don't think it's great for pedestrians crossing near a roundabout bc drivers are paying more attention to other cars, not human bodies that they might slam into. • If medians are to be added/replaced, low lying greenery like native prairie plants should be placed instead of concrete. • None of these address cyclists on the road • I'm all for roundabouts and prefer them BUT the Lyndale design is SO clunky. Please please please don't go that route. It looks like so much concrete. There's no green. No pause moment to breath. I'd love to see a design that incorporates roundabouts but doesn't rely solely on them for long stretches of the road. Overall, I'm happy with the proposals. I LOVE the Portland update from a few years ago. The trees, the walking and biking spaces. It's great. Even a mix of Lyndale roundabouts and the Portland design would work! • At intersections with bumpouts, median pedestrian refuges, or right in right out, I would love to see the addition of raised crosswalks. • Consider the traffic speed goals. If it’s 25-30mph, you are not doing enough to slow traffic here. If it’s 30-40, you may be. If it’s more than 40mph, WHY?!? • Richfield did a great job with 66th and adding many of those features to nicollet would be a vast improvement • Def roundabout at 73rd. 67th keep as a light because of the current backups experienced going north on Nicollet to 66th roundabout. 2 roundabouts that close will be nearly impossible and people will be stuck in the 67th roundabout • Pedestrian / cyclist crossing lights at busy intersections • I really love the roundabout options at the noted intersections especially with the nearby playground (very popular), park, community center, library, and school. Although some drivers have trouble navigating them, the safety data is very compelling. Plus, when traffic is light, you can keep moving rather than stopping at a stop sign or light. Safety features like flashing lights are simple to use and make it feel safer to cross on foot or by bike. • I live near Nicollet and 76th and cross Nicollet regularly (by car, on foot, and by bike). I would FAR prefer a standard light (as the expectations are clear for everyone) at this intersection over a roundabout (a choice I deliberately didn't rank for this location because I so deeply DO NOT WANT IT). Similarly, I think it's silly to add a roundabout at 67th when one already exists at 66th. Pedestrian refuge medians are important in this corridor, but right-in/right-out medians create a situation where people have to make a u-turn or go around the block (sending traffic onto more residential streets). • Oh, for heaven's sake - STOP! Stop with the bump-outs, roundabouts, medians, plantings, etc. etc. These are roadways. Let them be roadways, and let us access them for whatever purpose - driving, walking, or ""rolling"" - as we know how to do. Traffic signals with left-turn arrows would be a great improvement. Roundabouts only complicate and make more dangerous a pedestrian's crossing of roadways - not to mention increased possibilities for crashes, as drivers must be alert for not only pedestrians, but also for traffic flow from the left and being aware of which vehicle(s) might dart in front of them as the circle is navigated. NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 3 Summary Page22 Bump-outs and medians will take away from the ""most popular"" proposed choice of a 3-lane road. Again - traffic signals with left-turn arrows, painted pedestrian crosswalks with flashing lights to turn on when needed are sufficient. Give people credit for knowing when to cross a street on foot. If something different has to be done, perhaps at 73rd Street, why not put in low speed-bumps near the intersection to call drivers' attention to the major crosswalk? And please NO to the concrete blockages from the side streets - the ""right in , right out"" option. Which would be yet another take-away from the 3-lane road. Get out your lawn chairs and see what Nicollet Ave is all about! • For 68th Street near the church & school, I am preferring no mention if there are flashing pedestrian lights (safer for kids). If there are no pedestrian lights, I prefer the median. • I generally prefer roundabouts when driving but find that they feel pretty unfriendly when on a bike. It should at least be easier to activate crossing signals when on a bike to increase safety but I would be interested in other options for improvement for biking and walking. Q7 – Which best describes your gender identity? Answer Count Percentage Man 44 60% Woman 25 34% I prefer not to respond 4 5% Nonbinary 0 0% Transgender 0 0% Other 0 0% Q8 – What is your age? Answer Count Percentage Under 18 0 0% 18-34 31 42% 35-50 19 26% 50-65 12 16% 66+ 9 12% I prefer not to respond 2 3% Q9 – Do you identify as someone with a disability? Answer Count Percentage No 57 80% Yes 10 14% I prefer not to respond 4 6% Q10 – How do you describe your race/ethnicity? Answer Count Percentage White and/or European descent 67 87% Hispanic, Latino/a/x, and/or indigenous to Central or South America 3 4% NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 3 Summary Page23 I prefer not to respond 3 4% More than one race 2 3% Black or African American 1 1% Other 1 1% Asian/Pacific American, Asian/Pacific Islander (API), and/or of API descent 0 0% American Indian, Native American, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian, and/or indigenous to North America 0 0% Q10 – What language(s) do you speak at home? Answer Count Percentage English 73 94% Spanish 3 4% Other language 2 3% Somali/Oromo 0 0% Russian 0 0% Karen 0 0% Thai 0 0% Hmong 0 0% Mandarin/Cantonese 0 0% Nicollet Avenue reconstruction County Road 52 in Richfield Phase 4: Recommendations | Engagement summary Project overview Hennepin County is planning to reconstruct CSAH 52 (Nicollet Avenue) between 66th Street and 77th Street in 2026-2027. As part of the design process for this project, the county is doing stakeholder engagement to inform project design. Engagement began in 2023 and concludes in 2024. Engagement for phase 4 included the activities listed below. The following is a summary of each of the community engagement activities included in phase 4. • In-person open house • Contacts with 10+ community organizations • Ongoing meeting with stakeholder groups to discuss engagement opportunities Open house On the afternoon of Wednesday, July 10, the project team hosted an in-person open house to gather input from people who use the Nicollet Avenue corridor, attended by about 75 people. A total of 39 people signed up for the open house and approximately 35 did not sign in. Input was collected through a variety of methods: a questionnaire handed out at the meeting, sticky notes on the initial design concept, and direct conversations with project staff. Input was also collected via an online version of the meeting questionnaire as part of a virtual open house. The following is a summary of the meeting, including a summary of frequent comments. A full transcript of the comments received is included in an attachment to this document. Meeting purpose • Present feedback to-date • Share the initial concept design • Solicit community input Figure 1: Project staff talk with open house participants NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page2 Date/time • July 10, 2024, from 4:30 – 6:30 p.m. (virtual open house available June 28 – July 31) • Richfield Community Center, 7000 Nicollet Avenue, Richfield Meeting promotions • Postcard mailing to all the physical addresses within one quarter mile of the corridor • Email invitation to those on the city and county email lists • Social media posts on city and county channels • Direct invitations via Richfield Transportation Commission members • Flyers hand delivered to retail businesses in the area Written comments received • Questionnaires submitted at meeting: 15 • Questionnaire responses submitted electronically: 38 • Demographic activity, dots placed: 149 • Map comments submitted at meeting: 76 • Map comments submitted electronically: 242 comments, 1304 reactions Participant demographics Meeting participants were asked to self-select demographic characteristics via an interactive exercise at the meeting and a series of questions on the questionnaire form (both in person and online). The activity and questions were voluntary and not all respondents participated. Table 1 shows the combined results of those activities, in aggregate. The following are key findings: • 50% were age 50 and over • 87% identified as white and 6% identified as Asian • Gender was nearly evenly split between men (49%) and women (47%) • 15% had a disability • 98% spoke English and 2% spoke Spanish Frequent themes and considerations Engagement participants had mixed opinions on the initial concept design. There was notable opposition to roundabouts due to perceived safety concerns. Concerns about medians include restricted access and potential maintenance issues. There was general support for pedestrian crossings, bike lanes, and green spaces, including native plants. Overall, some appreciate the safety and environmental benefits of the changes, while others are worried about traffic flow and access. Table 1: Demographic activity responses, open house and virtual open house Age 18 – 34 36% 66+ 29% 50 – 65 21% 35 – 50 13% Under 18 2% Race/Ethnicity White 87% Asian 6% Other 4% Black or African American 2% More than one race 2% Hispanic or Latino 0% Alaskan Native or American Indian 0% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% Pronouns He/Him 49% She/Her 47% They/Them 4% Other 6% Do you have a disability? No 85% Yes 15% Languages English 98% Spanish 2% Mandarin/Cantonese 0% Somali/Oromo 0% Russian 0% Karen 0% Thai 0% Hmong 0% Other 0% NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page3 Open house activity results summary At the open house, some of the questions from the questionnaire were reflected in interactive activities to collect feedback. This included an optional demographic dot activity which received 149 answers; and a map of the initial concept design which received 76 post-it note comments. The following is a summary of the open house activity results. A complete tabulation of survey results is included as an attachment. Open house feedback highlights the need for balancing traffic flow improvements with pedestrian and cyclist safety, maintaining accessibility, and incorporating community-preferred landscaping and art. Roundabouts: • Opposition: Some residents find roundabouts unsafe, especially for pedestrians, and prefer stoplights. Concerns include issues with ice removal, visibility, and potential cyclist crashes. • Support: Some appreciate roundabouts for improving traffic flow and safety. Crossings: • Safety improvements: Strong demand for enhanced pedestrian crossings, including Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs). • Accessibility: Need for better accessibility for all users, including children and library visitors. Boulevards: • Preference for native plants: Many residents favor native and drought-resistant plants over sod. • Maintenance support: Requests for homeowner education and support on maintaining native plant boulevards. Bike lanes: • Mixed opinions: Some support two-way bike lanes on both sides of the street, while others disagree. • Safety and layout: General appreciation for the bike lane and sidewalk layout that separates cyclists from vehicles. Medians: • Access issues: Medians are controversial, with concerns about restricted access to neighborhood streets and difficulties for handicap vehicles. • Pedestrian safety: Some see medians as beneficial for pedestrian safety. Other infrastructure concerns: • Visibility and access: Issues with push button accessibility for cyclists, electric boxes obstructing views, and blocked emergency vehicle routes. • Community enhancements: Suggestions for incorporating community art, better ADA access, and preserving trees. NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page4 Richfield Hub Pop Up On the afternoon of Tuesday, June 25, members of the project team held a pop-up event near the Richfield Hub shopping center, northwest of the Nicollet Avenue and 66th Street intersection. The project team collected input via one-on-one conversations and comments on a map using post-it notes, interacting with about 12 people in total. The team also used a Nicollet Avenue trivia board to engage with people. Project staff directed participants to the website to participate in the virtual open house (i.e., survey and interactive map). Below is a summary of the event and key findings. A full listing of the comments received are included as attachments to this document. Event purpose • Present feedback to-date • Share the initial concept design • Solicit community input • Meet people where they are at, particularly Hub shoppers, transit riders, and pedestrians and bicyclists at the busy intersection Date/time • June 25, 2024 from 3:30 – 5:30 p.m. • Richfield Hub, Nicollet Avenue and 66th Street Meeting promotions • Posted on the project webpage, URL was included on postcard mailer Written comments received • Participants mostly talked to project staff, who took their comments down on post-it notes • A full listing of the comments received are included as attachments to this document Participant demographics • Participants were asked to self-select demographic characteristics via an interactive exercise at the event, however no attendees disclosed their information. • Most participants were transit riders, bicyclists and pedestrians. • Based on appearance, most participants were diverse in terms of age and race. Key themes The following are key themes from the input collected at the event, based on conversations with project staff. • General support for the initial concept design • Support for bike improvements o Concern about bike lane/bus stop interactions Figure 2: Project staff engage with a pop up participant NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page5 Augsburg Park Library Pop Up On the afternoon of Tuesday, July 9, members of the project team held a pop up event at the Augsburg Park Library on Nicollet Avenue. The project team collected input via one-on-one conversations and comments on a map using post-it notes, interacting with about 12 people in total. Due to weather, the project team moved indoors with limited space, so the trivia board was not used. Project staff directed participants to the website to participate in the virtual open house (i.e., survey and interactive map) and encouraged people to come to the in person open house the following day. Below is a summary of the event and key findings. A full listing of the comments received are included as attachments to this document. Event purpose • Present feedback to-date • Share the initial concept design • Solicit community input • Meet people where they are at Date/time • July 9, 2024 from 3:30 – 5:30 p.m. • Augsburg Park Library, 7100 Nicollet Ave, Richfield, MN 55423 Meeting promotions • Posted on the project webpage, URL was included on postcard mailer Written comments received • Participants mostly talked to project staff, who took their comments down on post-it notes • A full listing of the comments received are included as attachments to this document Participant demographics • Participants were asked to self-select demographic characteristics via an interactive exercise at the event, however no attendees disclosed their information. • Most participants were drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists. • Based on appearance, most were white, mostly women, most of whom were older (60+) Key themes The following are key themes from the input collected at the event, based on conversations with project staff. • Mixed feelings about roundabouts o Biggest concern was pedestrian safety while crossing • A few requests for a pedestrian light by the library crosswalk • Support for raised crossings • Support for bike lanes, separated bicycle and pedestrian facilities • Concerns about right in/right out medians Figure 3: Pop up participants check out the initial concept design for Nicollet Avenue NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page6 Questionnaire results summary The questionnaire was open from June 28 to July 31, 2024 and received about 38 responses, roughly 15 of which were from a printed version of the questionnaire at the in-person open house. The following is a summary of the questionnaire results, including those submitted both online and in-person. A complete tabulation of survey results is included as an attachment. Most (52%) respondents felt the common themes from phase 3 had been accurately captured. 45% of respondents felt that the initial concept design will address the project goals and problem statement. When asked what they liked about the initial concept design, respondents largely answered improved safety for pedestrians and cyclists and the added green space. When asked what they’d change, respondents primarily cited the roundabouts and medians. Most (65%) of respondents thought that the initial concept design provides enough enhanced crossing locations. Most of those who provided additional context to their answer cited roundabouts not being safe for pedestrians. Most (55%) of respondents reported that the project communications and engagement strategies had been effective. Some of those who provided additional context to their answer noted Mailings and social media as helpful engagement tools. A few respondents stated that they do not feel their voices are being heard. Additional comments reflected mixed opinions on the initial design concept, particularly regarding roundabouts and bike lanes. Key points include: • Opposition to roundabouts: Concerns about increased risks and traffic complications. Calls for better enforcement of inattentive driving instead. • Support for safety improvements: Positive feedback on bike lanes, lower speed limits, and measures to enhance safety for cyclists and pedestrians. o Mixed reactions to bike lanes: Preference other kinds of bike lanes and questions about the connectivity of new paths. • Maintenance concerns: Need for better upkeep of new plantings and infrastructure. • General feedback: Appreciation for feedback opportunities but criticisms about costs and changes. Some residents feel ignored or frustrated. Comment map responses: The engagement site also included a comment map where participants could place icons on a map of the initial concept design, noting likes, dislikes and general comments. Participants placed 242 comments, 78 of which were noted as likes, 82 of which were noted as dislikes, and 82 of which were general comments. Across all comments, there were 813 upvotes and 491 downvotes. Below is a summary of the key themes. A complete tabulation of comments is included as an attachment. Overall, the map comment feedback highlights a need for balanced solutions prioritizing safety, environmental sustainability, efficient traffic management, and minimal disruption to the community. Safety concerns: • Emphasis on pedestrian safety with suggestions for marked crosswalks, flashing lights, and raised crosswalks. NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page7 • Concerns about the safety of children and pedestrians in roundabouts, with some preferring traffic lights for better control. Environmental considerations: • Advocacy for more green spaces, native plants, trees, and landscaping for aesthetic and environmental benefits. • Suggestions for incorporating art in roundabouts. Traffic flow and congestion: • Mixed opinions on the effectiveness of roundabouts; some believe they improve traffic flow, while others fear increased congestion, especially during peak times or near schools. • Suggestions for keeping north/south lanes as two-lane roads to manage traffic better. Medians and access: • Some oppose green medians due to maintenance concerns and potential access restrictions from side streets. • Concerns about limited driveway access and the impact on emergency response times. Bicycle infrastructure: • General support for dedicated bike lanes with protective measures and additional safety features for cyclists. Roundabouts vs. traffic lights: • Some appreciate roundabouts for their efficiency, while others worry about pedestrian risks and prefer traffic lights for safer crossings. Community considerations: • Comments on the project's impact on local businesses and the overall community, with some opposing further changes to existing intersections. General feedback: • Calls for better planning and consideration of local traffic patterns and safety. • Mixed reactions to the overall project, with some praising the improvements and others strongly opposing specific elements like roundabouts and medians. • Emphasis on the need for more studies and observations to ensure proposed changes address real issues and effectively improve the community's infrastructure. Next steps The next steps in the process for the project team are to present the initial concept and feedback-to-date to the Richfield Transportation Commission and City Council. If approved, the concept will move forward to final design with anticipated construction in 2026. NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page8 List of attachments Attachment 1: Transcript of open house comments Attachment 2: Transcript of Richfield Hub Pop Up comments Attachment 3: Transcript of Augsburg Park Library Pop Up comments Attachment 4: Questionnaire results Attachment 1: Transcript of open house comments Map comments: Location Theme Comment 66th Street intersection Roundabout Unsafe for pedestrians to cross! 66th Street intersection Roundabout Remove Roundabout. Bring Back Stop Light 66th Street intersection Crossings RFB's @ all ped x-ing plz 66th Street intersection Roundabout Remove roundabout 66th Street intersection Crossings These ramps are a great touch, thanks! 67th Street intersection Roundabout No Roundabout. 67th Street intersection Pedestrian lights Push buttons hard to access for cyclists (extend buttons) 67th Street intersection Roundabout I hate this light! The roundabout will be awesome! 67th Street intersection Boulevard Native plants on boulevard not sod 67th Street intersection Roundabout NO! more roundabouts 67th Street intersection Roundabout Drought resistant plants on boulevard and in round abouts 67th Street intersection Other Drainage issue / Garage widening 67th Street intersection Roundabout RFBs here please 67th Street intersection Roundabout Native plants in round about not cement 67th Street intersection Roundabout LOVE more roundabouts 68th Street intersection Bike lanes Make the bike lanes 2-way on both sides 68th Street intersection Bike lanes Disagree with 2-way bike lanes on same side see other note 68th Street intersection Bike lanes Like bike lanes/sidewalk layout 69th Street intersection Median Want access to neighborhood street -- dislike median NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page10 69th Street intersection Crossings Please put crossawlk on streets at all corners | People don't stop for pedestrians 69th Street intersection Median No closed medians which limit access 69th Street intersection Boulevard Native plants on boulevard not sod 70th Street intersection Roundabout Keep stop light No roundabout 70th Street intersection Roundabout We cross this intersection daily. I can't wait for the roundabout here! It will improve safety for everyone. 70th Street intersection Other Richfield High School and community ed 70th Street intersection Roundabout Keep stoplight, Remove roundabout 70th Street intersection Other Large crabapple tree saveable? 70th Street intersection Roundabout Native plants in round about not cement 70th Street intersection Other Trees block view for buss riders 71st Street intersection Crossings Would love crossing lights at this inersection. Not a fan of the proposed medians as a user of this intersection 71st Street intersection Crossings Kids + bus. - Need enhanced crossing (crosswalk) + Lights (71st St) 71st Street intersection Crossings Residents visiting the library will need to access via 72nd -- 72nd will need an updated crossing control 71st Street intersection Median Like the right in right out 71st Street intersection Other Skate park (expanded 2024) 71st Street intersection Crossings Why remove existing crosswalk marking? 71st Street intersection Crossings Don't like breaking intersections Between 71st St and 72nd St Other Incorporate community art along the corridor. Sidewalk art--decorative elect panels 72nd Street Intersection Median Make sure cars from 72nd can turn left around median nose 72nd Street Intersection Boulevard Native plans on boulevard Not sod 72nd Street Intersection Other Educate and support homeowners with maitenance of native plant boulevards 73rd Street intersection Roundabout Love the roundabout and can't wait to cross it in car and walking and biking. NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page11 73rd Street intersection Roundabout No Roundabout 73rd Street intersection Roundabout Please. Stop. Roundabouts. 73rd Street intersection Other Electric boxes obstructing view while turning (ex. 73rd & Portland - avoid) going East 73rd Street intersection Roundabout Native plants in round about NOT cement 73rd Street intersection Roundabout Remove Roundabout (+1) 73rd Street intersection Roundabout Round about will help to see oncoming traffic at the bus stop. 73rd Street intersection Roundabout Ice removal. Could we have heated roundabout? Between 73rd St and 74th St Other What happens with all the bus stops and a car parade backinh up behind bus? Have to follow all the way down the avenue. Then…uh-oh…a fire truck needs to get by. Think practically. Common sense! 74th Street intersection Boulevard Love the boulevards blocking the turns. Will make it safer! 74th Street intersection Transit stop How will an emergency vehicle get through when a bus is stopped here? 74th Street intersection Median No needed blockage needed here for cars. 74th Street intersection Median This median seems nice! Great for walkers 74th Street intersection Median Very hard (impossible) to cross on 74th and Nic, Several handicap vehicles need to cross here 74th Street intersection Median Love right in right out 74th Street intersection Median Handicap vehicles can't get across here. This is crossed minimum many time a day. Only ped transfer can cross. 74th & Nic. 74th Street intersection Median This median looks great! Safe for pedestrians 75th Street intersection Median These concrete divisions are not good for our local traffic. Stop This NOW 75th Street intersection Boulevard Native plants on boulevard not sod 75th Street intersection Median Stop with the restrictions and concrete barriers that cause injuries 76th Street intersection Roundabout Love the roundabout for cars, walking, and biking!!! 76th Street intersection Roundabout Only roundabout that makes sense or put turn lanes NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page12 76th Street intersection Roundabout Research shows roundabouts can increase incidence of cycle crashes of a stoplight. Really concerned about safety here, given the multi use trail and this road's prominance in RPS Safe Routes to School 76th Street intersection Roundabout Like roundabouts 76th Street intersection Roundabout The only roundabout acceptible 76th Street intersection Roundabout Native plants in round about NOT cement 76th Street intersection Roundabout Agree! 76th Street intersection Roundabout Can a bike make this turn? Make sure there's a reasonable radius Between 76th St and 77th St Other Better ADA access to houses on Nicollet particularly on Sundays Between 76th St and 77th St Boulevards As a cyclist, I realy appreciate of the divisions between the bike and walk lanes and the driving lanes. I am also glad the gutter is not in the bike lane. Between 76th St and 77th St Boulevards LOVE the boulevards so the sidewalk isn't right next to all the cars! Between 76th St and 77th St Other Why are you building illegal turnarounds in row? 77th Street Intersection Other Where is the left turn signal going southbound? Past the 77th St intersection Other I think its good that the bike lanes are moved off the main pavement Past the 77th St intersection Other 2nd Ave Ped--could we get a rail to roll a bike up the stairs Past the 77th St intersection Curb This curb line looks silly? Notes from conversations: • Discussions were primarily focused on property issues, not necessarily comments on the project layout itself. • One comment, with accompanying research, vehemently against a roundabout at 76th Street due to a concern with pedestrian and bicycle safety (young children in particular). The same person did like the RRFBs proposed at 72nd Street in front of the library. • Chiropractor business owner had the following concerns: o Concerned that the roundabouts are going to back up and block his driveway entrances and think traffic signals are more efficient. o Concerned about traffic control and access to his property during construction. o Asked if any driveway access or parking stalls were permanently impacted. I communicated that the initial concept doesn’t show permanent impacts to parking nor driveway access. NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page13 o Wanted to know what is going to happen with his sign and where it will be relocated. o Otherwise, no apparent opposition or support for the project. • Resident at 6701 Nicollet Avenue: o Concerned about compensation and proceedings to acquire their property. o They weren’t happy about the placement of the existing 67th Street traffic signal cabinet. o No opposition to the roundabout but were concerned about available parking along 67th Street. o Resident requested the construction of a two-stall wide driveway apron, but it was constructed in the wrong spot along 67th Street. o They mentioned that they experience flooding issues in 67th Street since the existing catch basin is within the gutter pan of their driveway. • Business owner at 6941 Nicollet Avenue: o Concerns with his decorative wall being impacted by the project. It’s something he paid for and has been maintaining. o Concerns with loss of parking with neighboring business owner. I communicated that the initial concept doesn’t impact existing parking for their business other than the elimination of Sunday parking. o Business owner doesn’t hold Sunday business hours and doesn’t experience a lot of customer traffic. Comments sent to Commissioner Goettel’s office: Q: “Will there be more roundabouts put in?” • A: Roundabouts are proposed at 76th, 73rd, 70th, and 67th Streets in the initial concept. Roundabouts are being considered because they control traffic in a safe and efficient manner, were the preferred alternative by the public over traffic signals during the previous phase of public engagement and were the recommended alternative by the Richfield Transportation Commission. Q: “Also, the initial concept is 78' wide, are they gonna be eating up people's lawns to accomplish this?” • A: The existing public right-of-way along Nicollet Avenue is 83’ wide but varies between 66’ and 100’ at several locations. Temporary or permanent acquisition of private property is anticipated with the initial concept but the extent of impact varies by parcel. Comments sent to Mayor Supple’s office: Mayor Supple, My name is Karen Fairbairn and I live in Richfield just off of 70th and Stevens Avenue. We met at the farmers market Saturday and briefly discussed the dangers of a roundabout at 70th St. So I write this letter to you with the request that you please share this with our council members and those involved in making the decisions on the redesign of Nicolett Avenue. I am concerned about the safety of having a roundabout in this location for drivers (inexperienced and elderly) as well as pedestrians and bikers. Most young people enjoy having roundabouts around town around because they don’t have to stop and wait for anything. And I will admit that at times it is very convenient. Although, there is a warning sign for reduced speed going through the roundabout, most young drivers see it as more of a challenge to not have to stop. NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page14 We have a high school just blocks from 70th and Nicolett meaning that more inexperienced drivers will be driving through an intersection. Also, many elderly people do not enjoy trying to navigate a roundabout. Yet, our community center where many elderly people gather, is at the corner of 70th and Nicolett. As we age, our eyesight and reactions are not as keen and quick as they once were even when going slow. Through my conversations with elderly residents of Richfield, they do not enjoy trying to drive roundabouts and do their best to avoid those routes that have roundabouts. Yet! Now we are considering adding a roundabout to intersection leading to the community center library and park which will deter many from enjoying those amenities or it will force them into using the roundabout where they don’t feel comfortable driving. Although roundabouts decrease severe car accidents, there are more fender benders. Entering roundabout at an angle, puts the post holding the front windshield and driver door in line with the crosswalks and oncoming traffic. Often a car or pedestrian can be hidden by that post if entering at a similar speed to another making it dangerous. Although studies claim they roundabouts are safer, it is important to note it isn’t safer for everyone. It actually creates more risk for certain people such as elderly, bicyclists, pedestrians. A problem is that when a pedestrian is using the crosswalk someone within the roundabout may have to stop suddenly making it very dangerous. Getting rear ended from within the roundabout, can send a car into the pedestrian crossing. Add ice and snow to the roadway and more issues arise. Sun is another factor. Early mornings in the fall on the way to school the sun can be downright blinding. Using the pedestrian lights to cross a roundabout is only partially helpful. Often in the early mornings, the sunlight overpowers the flashing crosswalk lights, causing them not to be seen. I have myself experienced cars, not seeing the blinking cross walk light and not stopping. Crossing at the 66 street pool entrance is one of those areas. Cars do not always stop for the blinking pedestrian lights. While driving in a roundabout, I noticed it is difficult to spot a pedestrian with all the other activity going on in the roundabout. With 70th St. being a main biking and walking route for children to get to school, the park and Universal playground, the community center, and the library, it does not make sense to add the constant flow of traffic with roundabout at 70th street. Also, have you ever noticed how difficult it is to cross a street when traffic is never stopped by traffic lights? The cars just keep coming at a constant speed. I have experienced that it is difficult to turn left from 67th St. onto Portland Avenue and also difficult to turn left out of City Hall parking lot. Increasing constant flow of traffic is not helpful to navigating the streets of Richfield. I ask that you please share these statements with the city Council members, planners with the county, as well as with those planning the Nicollet Avenue reconstruction. I have lived in this vicinity for 25 years and have thought considerably on this reconstruction. I hope that the planners for this project can see that this intersection is not one that should have a roundabout. Thank you making sure we have safe passage to our schools, park and playground, community center and library. NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page15 Push pin activity: Demographic sticker activity: Pronouns Answer Count Percentage He/Him 14 50% She/Her 13 46% They/Them 1 4% Other 0 0% Age Answer Count Percentage Under 18 1 3% 18-34 8 26% 35-50 5 16% 50-65 7 23% 66+ 10 32% Do you have a disability? Answer Count Percentage No 26 81% Yes 6 19% Race/Ethnicity NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page16 Answer Count Percentage White and/or European descent 26 90% Asian 1 3% More than one race 1 6% Black or African American 1 6% Hispanic or Latino 0 0% Alaskan Native or American Indian 0 0% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0 0% Languages Answer Count Percentage English 29 100% Spanish 0 0% Other 0 0% Somali/Oromo 0 0% Russian 0 0% Karen 0 0% Thai 0 0% Hmong 0 0% Mandarin/Cantonese 0 0% NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page17 Attachment 2: Transcript of Richfield Hub Pop Up comments How do you usually travel along or across Nicollet Avenue? I take the bus 3 I walk 1 I bike 1 I drive 1 Other 0 Notes from conversations: Theme Comment Roundabouts Like roundabouts to keep traffic moving Bike lanes Like bike lanes Hard for bus riders to get off bus into bike lane Bike safety improvements are needed Delineator posts Dislike delineator posts Don’t provide enough protection Always being damaged by vehicles Misc. It’s nice to know what’s going on! NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page18 Attachment 3: Transcript of Augsburg Park Library Pop Up comments How do you usually travel along or across Nicollet Avenue? I drive 3 I walk 2 I bike 1 I take the bus 0 Other 0 Notes from conversations: Theme Comment 66th Street The county purchased a home on 66th for some kind of stormwater infrastructure and it is now overtaken by weeds The new apartment building on 66th and Stevens is going to ruin the neighborhood It used to be too scary to walk down 66th but is better now after the improvements The pedestrian lights at the Nicollet and 66th roundabout are too high up, makes it difficult for drivers to see them 67th Street People will turn off of Nicollet to Stevens Avenue to avoid congestion on Nicollet and 67th Back ups are made worse by school events The light at 67th helps with school congestion 71st Street Need for a flashing pedestrian sign near the library Concern about cars stopping for pedestrians at 71st, need pedestrian lights 73rd Street Concern about high schoolers using roundabout at 73rd, a pedestrian was killed there 76th Street Concern about roundabout at 76th and impact it will have on the trail, safety of kids walking, route included in Safe Routes to School plan 77th Street There needs to be a left turn arrow on Nicollet and 77th Roundabouts It’s unsafe as a pedestrian or bicyclist to cross roundabouts Dislike roundabouts Love the roundabouts Feel safer having my daughter cross at a roundabout since the cars are slower and she’s more separated from traffic Need education for pedestrians and everyone about roundabouts Roundabouts are a safety issue, at least with a stoplight you get your turn to cross “Prioritizing traffic flow does nothing to help our community” Medians Like pedestrian medians, but not right in/right out medians Often take lefts at 69th, does not like median Raised crossings Like raised crossings Like raised crossings NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page19 Bike lanes Like that the sidewalk and bike lane are separated Love the bike lanes Likes separated bike and pedestrian lanes Transit Concern about transit being delayed if traffic is slowed on Nicollet Misc. West Richfield has more and better green spaces Inattentive driving is the issue People take Nicollet instead of Lyndale because it has a higher speed limit (35 mph) Like some but not all safety improvements, what is proposed is overkill Questions about expense Why do you all keep digging up Nicollet? Trees need to be trimmed so you can see the traffic lights Augsburg Park is the busiest park in Richfield NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page20 Attachment 4: Questionnaire results Q1 Have the common themes from phase 3 community engagement been accurately captured? Answer Count Percentage Yes 15 52% No 7 24% Not sure 7 24% Q2 Do you feel that the initial concept design will address the project goals and problem statement? Answer Count Percentage Yes 17 45% No 13 34% Partially 8 21% Q3 What do you like about the initial concept? • adsfadsf • I have lived on 73rd and Blaisdell for thirty years and can attest to the over-indexing of accidents on 73rd and Nicollet. Taking a left turn onto Nicollet when heading East on 73rd is really awkward with the new median. Crossing 73rd in either direction is treacherous during busy hours. I 100% agree with the decision to put a roundabout there and I'm frankly surprised the median was even built rather than just proceeding with the logical step. • Nothing • Love the safety (for all modalities)and walkable aspects of the design. • It keeps the same amount of lanes. • I love the grassy median boulevards. They create a sense of safety for bikers and pedestrians and add more green space. I also support the added roundabouts. I think they will help the traffic flow. • Nothing. Waste of time and money. • The clearly marked crosswalks are good, with the possible addition of flashing lights for the busier intersections. Having a bike/pedestrian path separated from the street. • roundabouts, one way bikeways, raised crossings, right in right out medians, protected median crossings, rapid flashing beacons • Hopefully the roundabouts will address some of the current issues with left turns because there are fewer breaks in traffic since Nicollet went down to one lane in each direction. • Roundabouts • Addition of dedicated bike lanes. Addition of green space. • Separated bike lanes and roundabouts are great improvements. Keep doing them! • Having the bike and pedestrian paths separated from the street. • I love the green medians (let’s plant trees) and the protected bike lanes and the roundabouts vs lights! • I like the boulevards so there is protected bike/pedestrian. I like the roundabouts. • Bikeway is awesome! Love the roundabouts and crossing medians. • I love the additional green space, protected bike lane and pedestrian lanes, and medians which close off some turns but not all. • Limited access to Nicollet NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page21 • Dedicated bike lanes, pedestrian crossings, added roundabouts • I really like the boulevard green spaces, so the sidewalks aren't RIGHT next to the cars. • looks good. all of it • Looks good design-wise • Nothing. I've lived in my home 44 years and always accepted the changes the city made. You are pushing your good tax paying residents to move. The expensive new condos will be passed over for other "more convenient" "old fashioned" suburbs. Good luck collecting the taxes to pay for your innovative ideas • Bike lanes! • This design feels very safe and human friendly. I would enjoy walking and biking on this street. I think this street will be much safer for drivers as well. • Not much - streets are for driving! Walking & biking have more lineal space then the cars/drivers • new curbs & sidewalks • I like that the bikes & pedestrians have a dedicated path away from traffic. • LOVE that more roundabouts are being added. I know a lot of folks hate roundabouts, but that's only because they don't know how to use them/drive too fast. Every change being made is going to make me feel safer biking & walking on Nicollet. Love the added space for trees/green space along the road. • Bike lane, sidewalk, some roundabouts • Too many roundabouts! Bike lanes Both ways?? Too many concrete dividers narrowing lanes and do cause backups and block traffic when emergency vehicles are coming. • The boulevard is LONG OVERDUE! The fact that the roadway wasn't narrowed when the 4-3 conversion happened still made walking along Niccolet so terrible • Wide Sidewalk and bike paths up at curb level with boulevard possibly. Q4 What would you change about the initial concept? • asdfads • I can't see everything, I just want to make sure there is a roundabout on 73rd. • Put it back the way it was before the last changes. • Nothing • We do not need a to switch to traffic circles at every intersection. Use the lights they are more effective. People are dumb when it comes to using the circles. • Stop the round abouts. The pedestrian lights are a joke they are in operatable as often on other round abouts they are flashing and there are no pedestrians anywhere. Don't put so many round abouts in. Traffic signals work... • Nothing. • Cancel it • Instead of roundabouts, which are more dangerous for pedestrians and bikers, just put stoplights with left-turn signals and "Walk" mode, so that everyone is clear on when they have right-of-way. The intersection at 77th Street is notorious for not having the left-turn signal for southbound traffic. Take out all the medians which impede access to Nicollet Avenue from the side streets. Do not have green medians! Richfield has neither the financial resources nor the manpower to maintain them. • Please do not change anything • There should NOT be intersections that are blocked from one or both directions of cross traffic/left turns (74th, 71st, 69th). NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page22 • For a biker to have to go up on the path and then down to the street at the intersections does not work well. 76th street has this. I generally use the bike lane on the street as it is easier to move and not have to go up and down at each intersection. Why does it only go to 66th and not to Crosstown? • More green spaces and native plant landscaping. Stormwater features such as rain gardens. There are a lot of residential homes and yards that could be incorporated into “greening” up the space. • Nothing • 1. No more roundabouts. 2. No medians which prohibit left turns from side streets. 3. Make sure that semaphores have left-turn arrows on all sides. 4. Have pedestrian crossings plainly marked and at main crossing points, have flashing lights. 5. While the raised bike and pedestrian paths across each intersection are interesting, they will add money to the project and likely cause challenges for street maintenance - just as the needless medians would. I think that walkers and rollers are capable and accustomed to crossing the intersections as they were just recently re-done to be. • I’d prefer removing even more of the center turn lane and placing green medians instead • I'm not sure how I feel about the right turn only sections. I'd like to know more (statistics on if it went thru are better). I'm not against it, but I don't feel like I have the background to fully support them. • I think where possible, more medians and on street parking should be added. The long continuous left turn lane is ugly and makes the road wider than necessary. Parking will help calm traffic and make the street feel more interactive and engaging. With the wide road profile and no parking, it just feels like a place to speed through. Also, at minor side streets, sidewalks ramps should be added so pedestrians walking in the street perpendicular to Nicollet have a safe way to get to the sidewalk. This is especially important since there are now bump outs (good!) that will force pedestrians to walk in traffic lanes when they arrive to Nicollet. • There has to be a balance between roundabouts & pedestrians traffic. These don’t really align well all the time and while I do prefer roundabouts they are not perfect. I’m a little concerned there might be too many roundabouts and that some are too close to each other. You tell me I’m not a city planner. But you MUST have native plantings, and better rainwater gardens along the street. Pheonix did some great plans for water and shade retention with rain gardens near gutters. Also I like raised crosswalks and raised bike/pedestrian paths, they slow speeding cars and make me feel safer biking close to traffic. • I don't love the raised center medians making it impossible to cross Nicollet (or limiting turns) at 69th, 71st, 74th • like it as it exists today • no roundabouts! • Everything. Apparently the problem is with the structure of Nicollet so instead of the cost effective trial fix, the city decided to make it prettier also. Waste of our taxpayers money • Should have native plantings instead of concrete and sod wherever possible. The goals of green space and sustainability fall short with this. • Add small sidewalks for peds that want to transition off Nicollet onto east-west streets like 71st St. • 5 roundabouts on Nicollet in one mile Ridiculous • to many roundabouts • No more roundabouts. Painted lines on streets for ped crossings. Flashing lights for intersections w/ heavy ped. crossing. No closed medians - they cut off neighborhoods from access and make NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page23 people drive further, creating more emissions. Closed medians are also a negative for emergency vehicles and snow plows. • I would love to see native & pollinator plants included in the planned green spaces if possible to help benefit our local ecosystem. • Don't block intersections it takes to long to go 2 blocks to come around if you live close • Remove Roundabouts. Initial proposal gave a European visiting theme. This proposal isn't changing the current street much. • Stop with all these restrictions to those that matter - the locals. You do not need all of these sill Round Abouts & concrete barriers such as 74th 75th & Nic. The dividers do exactly that - they divide communities, and long time neighbors. • I ride the 18 very frequently, in fact I am on it right now as I type this, and it desperately needs aBRT treatments. (I have been on many 18 busses coming out of downtown in rush hour packed like sardines, and very often 15+ minute delays) and we should be preparing for aBRT platforms right now, so that we don't have to tear the street up again in 5 years when it gets aBRT. This is incredibly important to me! • There needs to be space for the buses to pull over and get off the road. A turn lane needs to be more than one or two car lengths. Portland Avenue has this problem and it causes back ups or possible being rear-ended. A roundabout Or right turn only intersection at 70th St. is not helpful and can be dangerous For elderly and for children and parents trying to get over to the park and community center and library Q5 The initial concept includes enhanced crossings to make it easier to cross the street at locations with a high amount of crossing activity expected. This includes the Nicollet Avenue intersections with 67th Street, 70th Street, 72nd Street (north leg only), 73rd Street, and 76th Street. Do you think that the initial concept provides enough enhanced crossing locations? Answer Count Percentage Yes 24 65% No 13 35% Q6 If you answered "no" to the previous question, which additional locations do you think should be considered for enhanced crossings? • None. Leave them alone. • None • The path would be better to be continuous on the street. • I find the entrance/exit at the Augsburg library difficult to navigate. I encourage you to consider improvements for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. • If by "enhanced", you mean stripes on the road and flashing lights, then yes - this is sufficient. If "enhanced" means roundabouts, in my opinion as a walker and driver, I believe these make pedestrian crossings more dangerous. • I’m not familiar enough with the level of detail on this street, but always want to see more pedestrian safety features! • Not sure - I think so...? Those are probably the busiest. Glad it includes 72nd b/c of all the kids walking to the high school. • none • People don't care about crossings; they will dash across where they are and not walk to the next crossing • 4 roundabouts! & 1 without NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page24 • Will there be a city council meeting we can attend and voice our opinion to the city because these Hennipin cty people don't care what we citizens of Richfield want • (without roundabouts - they make ped. crossing risky.) • With crossing lights flashing wherever possible for added safety • Creating dangerous crossings you mean?? Too many roundabouts. And blocking cross-traffic with concrete barriers. • too many • 72nd is inadequate for us pedestrians • Entering roundabout at an angle, puts the post holding the front windshield and driver door in line with the crosswalks and oncoming traffic. Often a car or pedestrian can be hidden by that post if entering at a similar speed to another making it dangerous. Although studies claim they roundabouts are safer, it is important to note it isn’t safer for everyone. It actually creates more risk for certain people such as elderly, bicyclists, pedestrians. A problem is that when a pedestrian is using the crosswalk someone within the roundabout may have to stop suddenly making it very dangerous. Getting rear ended from within the roundabout, can send a car into the pedestrian crossing. Add ice and snow to the roadway and more issues arise. Sun is another factor. Early mornings in the fall on the way to school the sun can be downright blinding. Using the pedestrian lights to cross a roundabout is only partially helpful. Often in the early mornings, the sunlight overpowers the flashing crosswalk lights, causing them not to be seen. Q7 Have the project communications and engagement strategies throughout this project been effective? Answer Count Percentage Yes 21 55% No 8 21% Sort of 9 24% Q8 Please provide additional context about your answer to question 6. • dsf • I get things in the mail which is a good heads up. That said, I wish the mailing had a map of the proposal, I had to dig up the map. • Roundabouts are terrible. Pedestrian crossings at roundabouts are almost suicidal. • Again. We do not need traffic circles, are you trying to set a damn record for the largest amount in the state???? • Recieved multiple notices. Signs have been up for years it seems like. • Waste of time and money • The events have been very informative and outreach publicizing them had been good. • I don't understand what you are asking here. Perhaps, making left hand turns out of the Augsburg parking lot enterence onto Nicollet is difficult. • If by "enhanced", you mean stripes on the road and flashing lights, then yes - the locations are sufficient. If "enhanced" means roundabouts, in my opinion as a walker and driver, I believe these make pedestrian crossings more dangerous. • If like more background on the pros and cons of the different street configurations. For example, in phase 3, we were asked what we liked best, but to inform my decision I would have liked to hear pros/cons from transportation engineers NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page25 • I've seen opportunities to provide feedback & learn more on multiple occasions & have still felt engaged & compelled to return to these events throughout the planning phase. • The announcements on social media are helpful, and I do appreciate this session as well! • I feel I have been kept up to date • project not necessary. use the funds for school lunches • Unless I missed it, I didn't see any city forums explaining it. Your walk around was clear but you don't really want to hear us; you've already started your remodel and we, your residents, have no say • I feel like I accurately understand the project, where its headed and how decisions are made. I have been given clear direction on when and where the open houses are. • I feel that you are going to do what you want to do! Nothing we drivers say will make a difference. You seem to not care about the 10's of thousands of vehicles travelling daily versus the 100's of pedestrians/bikers • I see you have included bike lanes and roundabouts. Where are the people that live on Nicollet suppose to park the cars on Sunday's when the have picnics & grad parties in there yards • I have seen notices in the mail & FaceBook. We have had opportunities at Open Houses & on-line to give opinions. The only doubt is: are they really heard? • I only heard about this open house through my husband who is on the transportation commission. I have seen the signs along Nicollet, but maybe more signage about the open houses on Nicollet itself would be helpful so the people who use it are also the ones being most informed about open houses/other public meetings. • Like bike lane, sidewalk, blvd, roundabouts • Majority of feedback notes on board are No roundabouts. People keep saying no to them. Yet that's all I see here. • The traffic in your greatly restricted narrows WILL slow and endanger the area mostly durring high traffic times. • I found out about this survey by a sign along the route. • I sent an email and never got any response to my concerns Q9 Please provide any additional comments in the space below. • NO MORE ROUNDABOUTS. • Thank you so much! • Nicollet, along with other thoroughfares in the city, were made to allow motor vehicles to move easily from Point A to Point B. Side streets, just one block over, can be used for safer walking and rolling. There's really no need to continually change up how the streets work by reducing lanes and speed limits and adding roundabouts. I dare say that inattentive driving is the main reason behind the perceived need to change the main streets in the city - not speed. If more enforcement of inattentive drivers occurred, things would work much more smoothly. For pedestrians, the marked crosswalks with possible flashing lights are of benefit, and are easily and economically added to the main streets. • This is a true vision zero road design. This design will save lives and serve as an example for future projects in the region and nationally. • What other path is this connecting to? It appears to be isolated from other paths. What is the purpose of adding this? • I am in favor of round-about, and partial (directional) round abouts. I am in favor of a 35mph speed limit - or keeping the speed the same as Portland Ave. NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page26 The design of the Bryant Ave bike path works well for me, much better than the design of the 66th street bike path. I can't tell you why, but the Bryant ave bike path seems safer, faster and easier to navigate. • I really appreciate all the ways you are allowing for feedback. Your goals and problem statements are excellent. As a daily bike commuter this will improve my safety and of my family who are regular bikers. Please ensure that this section connects effectively with the bike lanes planned for Nicollet and 494 crossing. • Please keep adding more protected bike lanes. These projects are lifechanging for the cycling/bike community! • 1. One of the project's goals is stated to be to "provide safer vehicle movements". However, roundabouts create more risk for vehicles, bikers, and pedestrians alike. There is too much for drivers to be watching for. Inattentive driving needs to be addressed - not completely re-doing a main thoroughfare. 2. It is recognized in the project overview that the Metro Transit Route 18 busses make a high number of stops on Nicollet. This is very true. So how is having a 3-lane thoroughfare with medians so that the busses cannot be passed going to make for safe and efficient vehicle movement? It seems that there will be many long lines of frustrated drivers queued up behind the busses, some of them then taking the risk of trying to pass the busses in the turn lanes once the procession begins to move again. 3. Another stated goal is to provide a "quality experience" for driving. That ship sailed when Nicollet was made into a 3-lane road; and will diminish even further with more roundabouts and medians. 4. It is stated that there is "consistent support for making it safer and easier for people to walk across the street." And yet, several roundabouts are depicted in the plan, which make it more dangerous and difficult for pedestrians to cross. 5. Also noted is that people have said that they "do not want to see significant right-of-way impacts if they can be avoided". Why the roundabouts then? They take up more property. And bike-pedestrian paths on both sides will surely impact the neighborhood's right-of-ways, also. • Why isn't the intersection of 77th included? Will that be revised with the MnDot project? That intersection is an issue for safety for cats, peds, bikes. • Street should be designed and signed for 25 MPH traffic! • Thanks for trying to improve how we live and operate about town safely. • I like the idea of limiting the turning on and off of Nicollet AVE more busy streets should, Have limited turning on and off. • Bike lanes are a real plus. Boulevards & other green spaces should have native plantings to improve habitat - there are species that are low maintenance & short-growing. Those would really beautify this corridor. • Thank you for sharing all this info! The changes will ultimately be good, although hard to get used to. • -Who's paying for this debacle? -Already paid high taxes for previous pavement/design -This will encourage me to move -47 year Richfield resident - reliable taxpayer - modernization/change is not always an improvement -Closing 494/Nicollet ramps? Lyndale/Portland already congested. -We need a ""sit down"" meeting with the city council • Listen to your residents before you lose us. No residents, no traffic problems, no tax revenue NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page27 • Native plants :) Make it happen! Educate & support property owners with maintenance of native plants in boulevards. Sod is an ecological dead zone, and ugly! • Thank you for this wonderful design! You will save lives and enrich this community! • going east on 73rd to cross portland is so dangerous as the view is blocked and can't see if cars are coming south on portland. • A neighbor who wasn't able to come today asked that I express her concern about the right-turn only with the closed medians. (I agree with her!) Please keep in mind that people DO know how to cross streets. We don't have to have over-kill with so many "strategies" and "measures" for safety. Basic safety measures are good to have, no doubt. Inattentive driving should be addressed. That's the major cause of crashes. • Love pretty much everything about it! It will not only make me feel more comfortable to start biking on Nicollet (I tend to avoid it right now) but makes me at ease for my future children also using it to walk, bike, catch the bus, etc. Overall an extremely welcome & drastic improvement for everyone who uses AND lives on it. • trees block sight while waiting for a buss and walking • Our opinions are being ignored. Remove Roundabouts... people Still turn against traffic. (Happened last week). They are more dangerous for driving - especially for those obeying & same runs up - when peds are crossing • Poease don't leave us transit users behind! Route 18 is the most overcrowded route in the metro (I have done the math) • With 70th St. being a main biking and walking route for children to get to school, the park and Universal playground, the community center, and the library, it does not make sense to add the constant flow of traffic with roundabout at 70th street. Also, have you ever noticed how difficult it is to cross a street when traffic is never stopped by traffic lights? The cars just keep coming at a constant speed. I have experienced that it is difficult to turn left from 67th St. onto Portland Avenue and also difficult to turn left out of City Hall parking lot. Increasing constant flow of traffic is not helpful to navigating the streets of Richfield. And it is very frustrating that we can no longer turn left to go to Woodlake nature Center, but have to go further down and use a roundabout to get back to where we wanted to go. Please do not put that kind of blockage in front of 70th and Nicolette Smarter traffic lights and better pedestrian crossing lights are what we need with only two lanes to cross rather than four. • Round abouts can be very dangerous, especially for pedestrians. Cars do not see them and have to stop suddenly in the round about when they realize there is someone crossing. The abrupt stop can lead to collisions and potential of pushing the stopped car into the pedestrian. Please consider avoiding putting a round about in areas such as 70th street where children are crossing for school. (High school and stem and dual language schools are all along that route). Richfield public schools does not offer bussing to high schoolers that live under 2 miles and other students that live under a mile—that creates an expectation that many students will be walking that corridor. Secondly, if public bus transit is used on Nicollet, don’t make the mistake of not providing complete pullout areas (66th street and Portland—the buses block traffic and cause frustration for drivers). Third, if planting grass and plants along the street have a plan for caring for the said plants. Many property owners really don’t maintain the boulevards and leave them weedy and really unattractive (for something that the goal is to create attractive driving lanes through Richfield). Perhaps the city needs to mow and maintain those spaces along the boulevard or ticket property owners more frequently for tall WEEDS. And unmown grass. NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page28 Q10 Which best describes your gender identity? Answer Count Percentage Man 11 42% Woman 11 42% I prefer not to respond 3 12% Nonbinary 1 4% Transgender 0 0% Other 0 0% Q11 What is your age? Answer Count Percentage Under 18 0 0% 18-34 12 46% 35-50 2 8% 50-65 5 19% 66+ 6 23% I prefer not to respond 1 4% Q12 Do you identify as someone with a disability? Answer Count Percentage No 21 75% Yes 2 7% I prefer not to respond 5 18% Q13 How do you describe your race/ethnicity? Answer Count Percentage White and/or European descent 21 84% Asian/Pacific American, Asian/Pacific Islander (API), and/or of API descent 2 8% I prefer not to respond 2 8% More than one race 0 0% Black or African American 0 0% Hispanic, Latino/a/x, and/or indigenous to Central or South America 0 0% American Indian, Native American, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian, and/or indigenous to North America 0 0% Other 0 0% Q14 What language(s) do you speak at home? Answer Count Percentage English 27 96% Spanish 1 4% NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page29 Somali/Oromo 0 0% Russian 0 0% Karen 0 0% Thai 0 0% Hmong 0 0% Mandarin/Cantonese 0 0% Other 0 0% Screenshot of comment map: Comments from comment map: Type Comment Up Votes Down Votes Comment Where is the simple left-turn signal here for SB traffic on Nicollet? It would make this intersection so much safer. 12 0 Comment I'm not opposed to a roundabout here BUT is there anyway we can make it not a large, lump of cement? Lyndale is a great example of too much gray. I understand concerns with visibility, but anything to help not have so many mounds of cement would be great! 11 0 Comment Green medians should not be a part of this project, especially when they cut off access from the side streets. In addition, they require a maintenance budget and someone to keep them looking good - which doesn't happen in Richfield. 8 9 NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page30 Comment I like having a median here, but why not a grass or planted one? 8 0 Comment Why isn't this crossing marked on the pavement as well. Seems like a cheap way to improve pedestrian safety! 8 0 Comment Could these pedestrian crossings be marked on the street too? Unclear from this image if they are. 7 0 Comment Do we need a roundabout here? It's never felt congested or dangerous. I'd feel less safe as a pedestrian not having the dedicated light to walk here. 7 6 Comment I think the north/south bound lanes should remain two-lanes here. with carpool in/out of Holy Angels, I could see this intersection clogging up quickly. The narrowing of northbound Nicollet into the 66th street roundabout already creates congestion through the light. 7 0 Comment The dedicated bike lane looks beautiful here. I ride this street with my kids both ways and don't always feel 100% safe. 7 0 Comment This intersection feels dangerous for pedestrians due to the speed of traffic and width of the road, is there a way to add additional pedestrian crossing stripes or indicators? 7 0 Comment YEESSS!!! One of my least favorite stop lights still existing in Richfield. Love the roundabout here. 7 3 Comment Are the businesses on these corners going to have to pay for those cement poles to protect their businesses? Same with the Richfield community center. Even with a lowered speed limit, I think that having both a healthcare, childcare, and community center at risk for people going too fast around a roundabout is too high. 6 9 Comment I LOVE the idea of a roundabout here. It's always felt unnecessary to sit stopped at the light, much quicker and more efficient. Also, new drivers will learn how to use the roundabouts, it's almost like a beginner course right out of the HS parking lot. 6 3 Comment I understand roundabouts have great safety records, but I can't help but get nervous with pedestrians. And I know this area usually has folks hanging at benches or crossing at the light (myself included). I don't trust other drivers. With a stoplight, I can see cars stopped and waiting for me to cross. With a roundabout, I don't see that. I just hope they see me enough to slow down. I'm worried with a roundabout at this intersection. Will you add flashing lights for pedestrians? 6 2 Comment If this is the safest option for kids to be walking around I am for it. I get nervous people don't pay attention to kids in bike lanes around roundabouts. I would almost like to see a tunnel for peds and cyclists. 6 0 Comment with the 66th roundabout today, traffic already backs all the way up to the stop light, how is this roundabout not going to cause a lot of issues when school starts and ends. 6 0 Comment Can we close some of these medians? It seems unnecessary to have so many cross streets on a street being designed with bike infrastructure. 5 2 NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page31 Comment I agree with protecting the bike lanes. I would add that bikers and pedestrians have been shown in studies to feel much safer from cars (making them much more likely to continue to walk or bike and decrease car usage) when trees are planted between them and the street. Please choose native varieties and use native sedges/grasses/forbes to increase their chances of survival - they all help sequester water much deeper into the ground than turf and need less maintance. 5 0 Comment I'm not sure about having a roundabout here because it'd feel less safe for the kids walking to school. The combination of cars zipping through a roundabout and kids potentially not paying attention seems too risky. Better to keep our kids safe by having a dedicated light. 5 8 Comment It is currently so difficult and scary to continue east or west on 73rd street at this stop sign. A roundabout would make it MUCH easier for east/west traffic to get safely through the intersection!! (I use this route almost daily to get from my home on the west side of Lyndale to my kids school, RDLS.) 5 2 Comment There are so many people that cross as pedestrians & cyclists at this intersection. I know all the experts say that these are so safe, but I really don’t think it’s true. Even going slow & paying attention at our plethora of existing round about in high pedestrian traffic areas, I have seen many near misses of both pedestrians & vehicles. Someone also recommended adding this flashing lights to alert drivers, but the ones over on Portland are consistently broken, so people just ignore them. 5 0 Comment We need more trees, grasses, and native plants on sidewalk areas. 5 1 Comment Could we make these roundabouts more visually appealing with unique art pieces or statues? 4 0 Comment I concur with adding every bit of native greenery as possible into the design. 4 1 Comment I disagree. I feel like roundabouts help move traffic along better than lights. 4 0 Comment Maybe include some ways to increase pedestrian safety (walkway markers) so that neighbors coming from the south or east have a clear pathway? 4 0 Comment Pedestrian crossing should always be marked. 4 0 Comment Why do we need roundabouts at every intersection. It clogs up traffic more than anything. Stick with the lights. 4 13 Comment Am I missing something here? Doesn’t this also only allow access to the driveways from one direction? Won’t homeowners have to turn around somewhere to get access to their driveway? Couldn’t this also delay emergency response to these homes? 3 0 Comment Please plant a large canopy tree in the middle of the roundabout and plant native sedge/grasses/forbes here as well. They will do significantly bettet than the various kinds of plants on 66th. Attached is a restoration site in Bloomington. 3 0 NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page32 Comment Please! Include an abundance of native plants instead of sod along into the project, and landscaping for stormwater pollution management. Edina Promenade is a good example 3 0 Comment This cross walk should be painted so drivers are more aware that there is a cross walk here. A raised crosswalk would be even better for kids and families trying to access the park. 3 0 Comment A huge native planting on this hill would be incredible. More Oaks would help shade pedestrians and the sledding would be more interesting. 2 0 Comment Can we please add additional greenspace to our bus stops? Trees like Oak, native pollinator plants, or food forest items like raspberry, blackberry, blueberry or juneberry. Maybe even micro - community gardens for riders. 2 0 Comment I agree! I’m nervous about this one as it is such a popular crossing for families. Can you share research on cross walk safety at roundabouts. Also, data from current Richfield roundabouts? 2 0 Comment I think it would be nice to keep car passage to 71st 2 2 Comment I would love to see curb bumpouts or something to make cars take these corners more slowly, as well as very clearly marked crosswalks. 2 0 Comment why isn't this a roundabout? 2 1 Comment With there being a transit stop here, the cross walks should be marked at a minimum. Raised crosswalks would make for safer pedestrian access. 2 0 Comment Would really appreciate seeing some pedestrian signs and lights like is shown 76th Ave. 2 0 Comment Yes, totally agree! 2 0 Comment 100% agree 1 1 Comment Add RFBs to all ped crossings, especially near schools. 1 0 Comment Agreed! I don't want Nicollet to turn into another cement field like Lyndale is. :) 1 0 Comment Big trees, like Oak trees, planted in the middle of the roundabouts, surrounded by native sedges/grasses/forbes 1 0 Comment Can these houses only access their driveways from one direction? How is this not a public safety concern? 1 0 Comment Could we have more green median here? It seems sort of unsafe to allow conflicting left turns into church and library driveways anyway. Since library can also be accessed from 72nd, please continue median all the way to 72nd. 1 1 Comment Ever consider adding a public track for people and kids to run around? 1 0 Comment Great to see a green boulevard. Use all current forestry/soil knowledge to create as much space as possible for shade trees. Trees will make the space cooler in the hot summer and be more visually appealing. This comment applies to the entire corridor. 1 0 Comment Greenscaping is a great idea but please, no sod - plant trees & native grasses & perennials AND assign a regular maintenance and watering crew to maintain these plantings. 66th st & Lyndale Ave plantings are in desperate need of water & mulching. Richfield isn't maintaining what is 1 0 NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page33 already! And eliminating car access to Nicollet is a bad idea! SO MUCH of our money was wasted on the cement turnlanes installed recently. Rethink this plan and make it right the 1st time!!! Comment I agree that there should be greenery here. I wouod take it a step further and ask that it be native plants. It would be far less maintance as well. 1 0 Comment If you add a median here, make it green with native plants. 1 0 Comment It is unclear if there is a curb here or not, but I would ask that if possible, look into how to engineer green stormwater through bioswales and raingardens. Having the boulevard designed to capture runoff will drastically reduce pollution! (See attatched, use native plants to do this!) 1 0 Comment No left turn from nic to 74th? Not good. 1 0 Comment Now this is the one intersection that needs the most improvement and not one thing is even proposed? So, please add turn lanes in the north and south directions so cars can safely make turns east and west. Horrible intersection. Not being able to see if a car is coming from opposing lane is so bad and turning cars sit there in a lane waiting to turn causing a backup in an already busy intersection. Add turn lanes at the light to turn east and west please! 1 0 Comment Please plant a native tree that will get gigantic here and surround it with native grasses/sedges/forbes. Use the dirt you'll be moving around to create some berms to protect the tree from accidents. 1 0 Comment We cross here with our dog every day. While I support traffic flow for cars in a round-a-bout, it is worse for pedestrians because drivers don't see them soon enough. It makes me nervous! 1 0 Comment Wherever possible, please separate pedestrians/bikers from cars. A tunnel underneath crossings would be preferred in all cases. Even a T interesection here would.be preferred. 1 0 Comment Yes, definitely need a left turn signal southbound. 1 0 Comment Agree. The ones on Lyndale it appears people drive upon the round about in the middle. If they more definitive it may help. 0 0 Comment As long as the pedestrian lights are working.... 0 0 Comment Besides being out of the scope of the project, totally uncalled for. The market/restaurant is probably the most interesting and active destination in the area too. 0 0 Comment Given how this intersection is going to have peaks of traffic it's going to be a mess when games using holy angels end 0 0 Comment Good point. Add one here and lose the one at 67th and/or 70th. 0 0 Comment I agree with the flashing lights. It grabs attention. 0 0 Comment I agree with the idea of pedestrian tunnels here. 0 0 Comment I do worry about traffic from the 66th street intersection pushing down into this. Multiple times, I've noticed 10+ cars waiting in line to get through 66th street. Are there concerns waiting cars might clog up the roundabout at 67th? 0 0 NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page34 Comment I like the idea, but a large tree here will be someone’s location of death. 0 0 Comment I moved to Richfield from Uptown MPLS. The roundabouts took a little getting used to, but I really like them now. Unless I am mistaken, the flashing lights for pedestrians only flash are ineffective for controlling speed and driver awareness unless ALL THE LIGHTS flash any time a pedestrian crosses. I've seen cars almost rear-end the car in front of them because not all lights were flashing. 0 0 Comment I prefer no trees in the middle of roundabouts. I like to be able to see the road ahead, trees feel like they obstruct the field of vision. 0 0 Comment I think this could be a roundabout too. I'm a little worried about backups into the 76th Street roundabout with this busy traffic light so close. 0 2 Comment I’m concerned about snow removal with the added boulevard. It seems like we’d end up needing to shovel two loads of snow at the end of the driveway after plows come through. How would they get in between the bike lane and street? 0 2 Comment I'm fine with roundabouts, provided they are no larger than necessary 0 0 Comment No roundabout here, will back up traffic 0 0 Comment Or better yet, no RRFB--instead educate the Holy Angels campus (and the entire city) to respect crossings and who has priority. In fact, work with appropriate agencies to encourage walk/bike/transit for campus staff and students--then fewer cars! 0 0 Comment Tear down the dangerous and ghetto gas station and Mexican market. Those two stores are the main reason that intersection has so many problems. 0 4 Comment That doesn't make any sense, people have to be able to access the library and the church. Its safe now, it'll still be safe. 0 0 Comment This already gets really backed up here, and another series of roundabouts will only add to the problem. 0 2 Comment What does maintenance look like in the winter months? It seems like snow clearing will be more complicated and expensive. 0 0 Comment What does this mean for the property owners on Nicollet. Is the city reimbursing the owners for any loss of land? Are they reimbursing for any damage to existing driveways, sidewalks, etc ? 0 0 Comment Why don't the kids ride the bus? Then this intersection would not be an issue. 0 0 Comment Work closely with Bloomington and other partners to ensure clear, safe connections to the south for bike/walk in the future. Make sure phased opportunities are a possibility. 0 0 Dislike Don't block access to streets with medians, we have to be able to get around our community! 8 11 Dislike Absolutely no need for a median. Waste of money. 7 5 Dislike Absolutely pointless center median. Waste of money and space. 7 8 Dislike Don't block intersections with medians, we need to be able to get around our community. 7 11 NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page35 Dislike For all the people who clamor about safe pedestrian crossings, it seems like roundabouts are the most dangerous of all due to the continual flow of traffic. When I walk, I ACTIVELY avoid crossing at roundabouts because I don't want to cause/BE an accident. Lyndale and 66th are already loaded with roundabouts. Leave Nicollet alone with traditional light intersections! 6 8 Dislike NOT ANOTHER ROUNDABOUT 6 12 Dislike stop blocking off access to our community. 6 5 Dislike stop putting in medians that block access to getting around in our community. it requires people to go out of their way requiring more carbon emissions and encourages people to not go around Richfield and instead take the easy route out of community to shop and visit. 6 13 Dislike 🙄🙄 roundabouts 6 18 Dislike Absolutely no need for a median. Waste of money. 5 5 Dislike No more roundabouts! 5 17 Dislike NO MORE ROUNDABOUTS! 5 10 Dislike No need for a median. Don't force traffic to drive further than they have to to get to this street. 5 7 Dislike No need for a roundabout here... 5 5 Dislike Stop blocking left turns. There is no issue with left turns at this intersection. Don't force traffic to go to the next street. 5 7 Dislike The radius on these corners will encourage drivers to take them fast. The radius should be minimized to encourage slower right turns. 5 0 Dislike We don't need more roundabouts! 5 7 Dislike NO MORE ROUNDABOUTS! 4 5 Dislike These two roundabouts so close together are going to cause incredible backups. Roundabout at 66th already backs up past this light. Taking this down to one lane this far back is going to back traffic up too far. 4 2 Dislike This should be a roundabout with another huge native tree guild in the middle of it. There most of all would be the best location for any alternative way to have pedestrians go over or under the road crossings. Shaded and protected by more native plants. Pollution controlled and filtered by raingardens and bioswales. 4 1 Dislike What!! no passage to or from 69th Street? Only need one turn lane from Southbound Nicollet to East 69th and an open section to enter Southbound Nicollet from 69th. 4 5 Dislike Why so many medians? Totally cutting off traffic flow for this main thoroughfare. 4 6 Dislike Would appreciate some flashing lights for pedestrians. Cars rarely stop here to allow people to cross. 4 0 Dislike Keep the stop light but have a sensor when there are cars waiting. 3 7 Dislike Medians blocking turns creates more opportunity for unsafe deiving 3 7 NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page36 Dislike NO MORE ROUNDABOUTS! PLEASE JUST STOP! 3 6 Dislike No this needs a light. 3 5 Dislike Seriously, stop with all the unnecessary roundabouts... 3 9 Dislike These just reroute more traffic to smaller streets. Allow for easy access to main roads. Why direct more traffic to side streets with no sidewalks? 3 5 Dislike Too many roundabouts. People don't know how to drive in them. Just a nightmare. 3 9 Dislike What in the world is the purpose here? Seems like a waste. Again, rerouting more traffic to side streets with no sidewalks makes no sense. 3 5 Dislike What!! no passage to or from 74th Street? Only need one turn lane from Southbound Nicollet to East 74th and an open section to enter Southbound Nicollet from 74th. Do Firetruck's jump the median? 3 6 Dislike While I can see some degree of safety advantage for having a median to contain bike lanes, how is such a narrow strip going to get plowed? Is this now an additional type of plow needed? Are bikers going to also start paying some tax/registration fees that they are benefiting from so many road accommodations or are we just continuing to burden car drivers?... esp in MN when we're covered in snow and ice for the majority of the year? 3 6 Dislike Absolutely not. This intersection is a cluster as it is. Leave the light. 2 5 Dislike Bus stops on both sides. Priority should be to those not in a car--keep the cross walks (educate their use to ensure the walks are effective) 2 0 Dislike Don't cut off side streets from being able to access Nicollet. Medians have no benefit for those who use the avenue. Besides frustrating traffic, they will be a long-term cost to maintain. And if like others in the city, the medians will be weed-filled, and create more challenges for street maintenance as well. 2 7 Dislike I would be in favor of removing more of the center turn lane in this plan in favor of more green medians 2 1 Dislike Is the goal to divert traffic to Portland Ave in order to be able to go south? 2 10 Dislike Keep the stop light but have a sensor when there are cars waiting. 2 5 Dislike Please leave the light. 2 2 Dislike Restricting traffic flow for a largely unused bus stop is not the right choice. I like the safety and functionality for the bus and pedestrians, but it is not needed for this specific stop. 2 4 Dislike Stop medians 2 3 Dislike Stop with median. Looks like you can’t get around in the neighborhood and reroutes to side streets 2 6 Dislike There is no reason to block access, with the roundabouts, left turn lanes should be safe all along Nic. Keep the safe crosswalk, but don't block street access. 2 3 Dislike These medians that prevent left turns are a real jerk move that hinders our ability to get around our neighborhood. 2 1 NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page37 Dislike What in the world???! Please don't cut off neighborhood access to Nicollet. 2 5 Dislike What!! no passage to or from 71th Street? Only need one turn lane from Southbound Nicollet to East 71st and an open section to enter Southbound Nicollet from 71st. 2 7 Dislike Bikes do not weigh several tons and damage the road, which is what the majority of that money goes to. 1 0 Dislike Frustrating traffic is the idea, buckaroo 1 0 Dislike I hope you are fixing the roundabout a 66th street. Northbound from the South. There isn't a right turn lane if there to go East if a car is waiting to enter to go North or West. Also, don't make it like Portland where there isn't enough room to pass a car waiting to turn left in the little turn area. If they are sticking out or if there is more than one car turning, all traffic must wait. As Joe says " Come on man, you can do better" 1 1 Dislike I like green space however Richfield does not keep up with maintenance of the green areas 66th corridor was beautiful now it needs weeding, plant replacement, tree trimming etc. 1 0 Dislike I thought it was illegal to build turnarounds in the right-of-way? Why would you rebuild / build new turnarounds in the boulevard here? If the space is not needed for the street / sidewalks, it should be green space. People can build turnarounds on their own property. 1 0 Dislike Is Richfield trying to become a small town with the most roundabouts? Stop the madness. 1 1 Dislike Is Richfield trying to become a small town with the most roundabouts? Stop the madness. 1 3 Dislike No left turn into a neighborhood? Not good I use this all the time. 1 0 Dislike Roundabout dumb 1 16 Dislike The hub area needs to be completely raised and redeveloped. Ghetto, dangerous, and such an eye sore. 1 7 Dislike The protected crossing on the north side of 68th is sufficient. No need to have medians on both sides of the intersection. 1 4 Dislike These are very tight 90 degree turns for bicyclists trying to continue on Nicollet. Especially those with trailers or on cargo bikes. Attached is an example of a roundabout where bicyclists aren't forced to make 90 degree turns to continue going straight. 1 2 Dislike this is so true, we keep hearing about carbon emissions expect for when the city wants us to have to drive our car even further because they keep cutting off access to our local streets, it doesn't make sense. this also keeps people from access local businesses as it creates a burden to get there. 1 0 Dislike Too close to the other roundabouts. 1 3 Dislike We don't need all these roundabouts. But city leaders will do exactly what they want, not whatthe residents want. 1 1 NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page38 Dislike We walk our dog across this street everyday and I like having vehicles stopped so as to safely get across with a stoplight. Many elderly and kids through this intersection. 1 0 Dislike Why a full median? Why don’t we mimic Portland and still have a way to turn in both directions. This is not a busy bus stop so it is not a safety concern. 1 6 Dislike Bikes reduce taxes, Richfield already has the equipment to plow and uses it on 66th. We are all burdened by cars, not the other way round. It's fine. You're fine. Deep breaths. Oh wait, we can't because we're breathing in exhaust and getting killed by cars. Nevermind. 0 0 Dislike Car accident or emergency vehicle here = 2 blocks of stuck traffic 0 0 Dislike Changing speed limit to 25 was a terrible waste of tax payer money. 0 1 Dislike Greenscaping is a great idea but please, no sod - plant trees & native grasses & perennials AND assign a regular maintenance and watering crew to maintain these plantings. 66th st & Lyndale Ave plantings are in desperate need of water & mulching. Richfield isn't maintaining what is already! And eliminating car access to Nicollet is a bad idea! SO MUCH of our money was wasted on the cement turnlanes installed recently. Rethink this plan and make it right the 1st time!!! 0 0 Dislike I actually think the opposite is true, less opportunity for head on collisions as opposing cars attempt to turn left onto Nicollet 0 0 Dislike I don't think you realize how badly congested this area is in the morning during the school year. Do more studies. This is so backed up with it has to have traffic lights to control this. If you put in a roundabout no one will move at all, I guarantee it. Someone needs to observe what it is like trying to get on Nicollet anytime between 7am and 7:15 during the school year. Impossible without lights. 0 1 Dislike I turn left here all the time. It looks like I won't be able to. 0 0 Dislike If maintenance is lacking, don't avoid good solutions--figure out how to better mainbtain. Volunteers, once a quarter get together to spruce things up, scouts,... 0 0 Dislike Is Richfield trying to become a small town with the most roundabouts? Stop the madness. 0 0 Dislike Keep the roundabouts as small as possible--no double lanes (plan for future need if necessary--but not now) 0 0 Dislike Reduced access to 71st is not optimal. 0 0 Dislike Round abouts Don’t work for small streets. Please don’t. 0 3 Dislike These raised concrete medians at bus stops back up traffic since there is no room for the bus to stop and vehicles to get around it. There have been major back ups on Lyndale and Portland already because of this and it looks like you're trying to ruin Nicollet too. 0 1 Dislike This intersection needs a light. Just like on Lyndale . It is a dangerous intersection where there is a lot of accidents including fatal one. My self 0 3 NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page39 and family were almost taken out I was seriously injured. Also the number of kids crossing to go to the high school is high and they need a safe crossing with stop lights. Dislike Too many roundabouts 0 0 Dislike Unnecessary roundabout one block away from the 66th roundabout. It’s excessive. 0 1 Dislike Where is the bus pullout? 0 0 Dislike with the addition of roundabouts on 70th and 76th, this feels unnecessary. As someone who lives very close to this intersection, there doesn't feel like there's as much east/west traffic here, either, compared with 76th and 70th (which I think both make a lot of sense). 0 0 Like Good to have clearly marked crosswalks, with the busier intersections having flashing lights. 25 0 Like Roundabouts are a great way to keep traffic flowing! I think the more we can add the better. Saves on expensive technology of traffic lights as well. 24 1 Like In favor of the roundabouts. 19 3 Like It's great to see the pedestrian-crossing medians added here too. They make it much easier at 73rd and 72nd today. Every intersection should be safe to cross. 15 0 Like I really like the grassy medians that separate bike lanes from car traffic 14 0 Like This looks fantastic! Thank you for making nicollet a safe route for all modalities 13 0 Like In favor of roundabout 12 5 Like In favor of the roundabout. 12 2 Like In favor of the roundabouts. 12 4 Like Love the bike lanes - much better for getting to the library so I don't have to cut through the park! 12 0 Like Really appreciate having a curb-separated bike lane throughout the project area. 12 0 Like This would be great! To the maintenance concerns in othercomments: we should do better about our plantings, but I've never seen a planted median as ugly as plain old asphalt. Avoiding the median simply to avoid having to water some plants is ridiculous. 12 1 Like This would be so nice by the park! 71st is not a busy street at all, it seems like no problem to cut off the left turns here. This would be a safe, attractive crossing. 12 5 Like I LOVE this plan! I have often ridden my bike from home at 76th and Nicollet up to the paths around the lakes and this is always the hardest stretch. Thanks for making our community more user friendly! 11 0 Like LOVE to see separate bike and walking lanes! Great for family's and people trying to exercise!!! 11 0 Like Roundabouts make sense as long as the 77th intersection is timed better. The lights are so long now that it could cause backups 11 1 NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page40 Like I live on 76th and I see very few people using the bike lanes instead of the path, likely due to the increased danger of being next to cars. I like this split approach for an efficient and safe use of space 10 0 Like I will just add on to this comment here although it is applicable everywhere on this design: my daughter is very wary about biking anywhere without some protection from traffic. The protected green median is perfect to assure a sense of safety for our youngest bikers, or those that are less confident riding with traffic. 8 0 Like In favor of the roundabout. 8 3 Like Another closed median, and this one full of green space! What a great opportunity to slow traffic, plant some trees, and make this noisy street into a pleasant boulevard! 7 2 Like Thank you for adding these little ramps to get to the bike lane. Right now bikers have to use the pedestrian ramps and it confuses drivers. These should have been included with 66th Street. When will this section of Nicollet Ave north of 66th be rebuilt? 7 0 Like Every time I see a closed median, my opinion of this project goes up. Love to see this one closed, and I hope more are closed as this project develops! 6 3 Like In favor of roundabout 6 1 Like Love love love the idea of more green around our parks 6 1 Like Greatly in favor of these blocked medians, seems like a great way to streamline traffic and avoid opposing cars from dangerous left hand turns onto Nicollet 5 1 Like In favor of a roundabout here, no need to stop at a light, when traffic is usually minimal beyond school activities 5 0 Like Love a new roundabout! 5 1 Like So happy to see the median being closed here. I wish this design closed more medians to improve safety and comfort even more. 5 2 Like Thank God no roundabout. 5 5 Like This intersection is where a roundabout is needed most. So many accidents. 5 1 Like 74th is not a busy street so adding this median here will improve safety while not impacting many drivers. 4 2 Like A roundabout will make going East and West feel much safer here! 4 1 Like I agree that we need way more native foilage. I don't think we should use any sod at all. 4 0 Like I love that idea of creating some boulevards with trees to block peoples unkempt yards off a busy street 4 1 Like I would be nice to have city lights that light up ped areas but look pretty and market city events 4 0 Like In favor of roundabouts 4 2 Like Love the hardened center medians! Green space and slows down traffic! 4 2 NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page41 Like No roundabout! Yay! 4 4 Like Roundabouts are safer! Pedestrians need to use the crossing signals and cars need to follow the speed limit in roundabouts in order for them to be effective. They are not safe when people cruise through at 30 mph 4 0 Like This is great for improving pedestrian safety here. 4 0 Like I love all the medians on intersections with not much traffic. It will make the intersections so much safer for pedestrians and bicyclists not to have to worry about left turning cars. 3 2 Like In favor of a roundabout here to keep traffic moving, especially after school for students coming east down 72nd 3 0 Like Love roundabouts 3 2 Like MORE ROUNDABOUTS 😁😁😁😁😁😁 3 0 Like Roundabouts slow down traffic and add pedestrian refuges. Love it! 3 2 Like THANK YOU for these protected bike lanes! I usually avoid biking on Nicollet because the bike lanes are so exposed and drivers speed, but this redesign helps with both of those problems, and definitely makes me want to bike here a lot more often. 3 0 Like 73rd and Nicollet needs a roundabout - too hard to get across and it's been very dangerous 2 0 Like Appreciate the protected bike and pedestrian path 2 0 Like Appreciate the roundabout, which calms traffic and provides safe passage for the regional trail. 2 2 Like I'm a little worried about the efficiency of this roundabout, since Nicollet has so much more car traffic than 73rd. I feel like it might be unbalanced and lead to backups. 2 0 Like It is unclear if there is a curb here or not, but I would ask that if possible, look into how to engineer green stormwater through bioswales and raingardens. Having the boulevard designed to capture runoff will drastically reduce pollution! In addition, as others here have said, the boulevard makes pedestrians feel safe. Studies show that both trees planted between them and cars makes them safer, and whenever possible - the safest option is to have bikes/pedestrians go over or under it. 2 0 Like Love the roundabout! 2 2 Like Love these green medians! Let’s add some trees! 2 1 Like Roundabout good! 2 0 Like I like how the pedestrian crossings are further removed from the roundabout. 1 0 Like I like the bike lane/boulevard along the length of the street - I am a newer bike owner and get nervous on higher speed streets, and this would make me feel more comfortable on Nicollet. We also have a toddler, and I don't even love having the wagon/stroller on Nicollet because the cars feel 1 0 NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page42 really close. So I think this layout helps with the sidewalk not feeling so close as well. Like In favor of this roundabout. 1 1 Like Roundabout with a bit canopy tree. Lots of native plants. Bioswale/rain garden stormwater collection. Pedestrian crossing under or over the road here, not on it. Greener bus stops. 1 0 Like Yes! That's one of my concerns. At Nicollet and 66th, there's times with 10+ cars backed-up to go north into the roundabout. My worry with the traffic light at 77th is the timing. Will cars turning onto Nicollet get stuck waiting? 1 0 Like Agreed! I was thinking the same thing. We might actually bike to the library now if we don't have to worry about biking up Nicollet. 0 0 Like Attentive driving is the key. 0 0 Like But there are no traffic lights here to save money on? 0 0 Like Glad to see the bus pull out is still here 0 0 Like Good idea, this intersection is tricky. 0 1 Like How will this be maintained? Mowing in summer and snow in the winter? 0 0 Like I assume this will improve pedestrian safety and not a busy street 0 0 Like I mean 73rd… 0 0 Like I think a roundabout here makes a lot of sense, I would just be curious about signage/lights for pedestrians as that feels like it can be an issue sometimes at other roundabouts. 0 0 Like I think this roundabout makes a lot of sense for the amount of traffic coming from all directions. I also think it makes sense with the bike lane running east/west. 0 1 Like I would support a roundabout at 70th and Nicollet Ave. 0 0 Like I'm a fan of roundabouts, but I'm glad this isn't one. After seeing how people struggle with single lane roundabouts here, I don't think one would work here. 0 0 Like Love the median here adding safety by preventing left turns!! 0 1 Like Love the median here adding safety by preventing left turns!! 0 0 Like Love the roundabout here as someone who walks through this intersection daily with my children. This will dramatically improve our safety. 0 1 Like Love the roundabout! This intersection is terrible right now for cars, bikes, and walkers. This will be a huge improvement. 0 1 Like Love the roundabout!! This intersection is a huge waste of time today for everyone going through it. 0 0 Like Love this roundabout! This will improve safety for walkers, bikers, and drivers. There was a fatal crash at this intersection, and this roundabout will save lives. 0 0 NICOLLET AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION / Phase 4 Summary Page43 Like We do not need another round about. I already avoid Nicollet during the rush time of morning and afternoon. It is quite a backup now. 0 0